Put a flat earthier into space

[mux]

Some pretty abusive and condescending people on this thread, it's not nice to read, I don't care what you believe or think you believe, going on like that makes a lot of you look embarrassing.

I agree with @Nukehasslefan on one thing for sure. That we are inside a cell, or an organism or something of that nature. If you get a microscope and look down at every layer of this universe with higher and higher magnification, the structures you see change and what is within them changes too and you could possibly, with unlimited technology, magnify infinitely.

The same applies, in my opinion, for looking up. Why wouldn't our 'layer' if you will, not just be a tiny part of something much bigger. We might be part of a cell of a hair on an organisms toe for all we know. Who in turn might live in a world that is a small part of a piece of rock in a much larger universe or layer.

It's all a question of scale. So yep, he has my agreement on that. If that makes me a bellend/moron/child/idiot then you need to have a long hard look at yourselves and grow up a bit.

I also believe the Earth is an ellipsoid, as per current science. I believe personally there is enough evidence to support that. I take @Nukehasslefan's argument to the contrary and respect his belief and understanding, I just don't agree with it. I don't hate him for that because I'm intelligent enough to understand that differing opinions often are the biggest drivers of advancement. Cheers.

 

[DPTT]

Some pretty abusive and condescending people on this thread, it's not nice to read, I don't care what you believe or think you believe, going on like that makes a lot of you look embarrassing.

I agree with @Nukehasslefan on one thing for sure. That we are inside a cell, or an organism or something of that nature. If you get a microscope and look down at every layer of this universe with higher and higher magnification, the structures you see change and what is within them changes too and you could possibly, with unlimited technology, magnify infinitely.

The same applies, in my opinion, for looking up. Why wouldn't our 'layer' if you will, not just be a tiny part of something much bigger. We might be part of a cell of a hair on an organisms toe for all we know. Who in turn might live in a world that is a small part of a piece of rock in a much larger universe or layer.

It's all a question of scale. So yep, he has my agreement on that. If that makes me a bellend/moron/child/idiot then you need to have a long hard look at yourselves and grow up a bit.

I also believe the Earth is an ellipsoid, as per current science. I believe personally there is enough evidence to support that. I take @Nukehasslefan's argument to the contrary and respect his belief and understanding, I just don't agree with it. I don't hate him for that because I'm intelligent enough to understand that differing opinions often are the biggest drivers of advancement. Cheers.

People would respect him more if he backed up a lot what he’s says through any research rather it’s “my opinion”

he refutes a lot which has been backed up with scientific data.

Nobody really knows how everything works in the grand scheme of things but what we do know can be proven quite easily.

 

[mux]

People would respect him more if he backed up a lot what he’s says through any research rather it’s “my opinion”

he refutes a lot which has been backed up with scientific data.

Nobody really knows how everything works in the grand scheme of things but what we do know can be proven quite easily.

I take your point and that's reasonable.

What isn't is being abusive to him. I give credit to him for not retaliating and trying his level best to respond to everybody.

I may well be going against the collective grain here but he's coming off a lot better to me than most on this thread, even though I don't think he's correct.

 

[DPTT]

I take your point and that's reasonable.

What isn't is being abusive to him. I give credit to him for not retaliating and trying his level best to respond to everybody.

I may well be going against the collective grain here but he's coming off a lot better to me than most on this thread, even though I don't think he's correct.

I agree in part but his demeanour attracts the responses he receives.

 

[mux]

I agree in part but his demeanour attracts the responses he receives.

What is it about his demeanour that warrants abusive responses?

 

[DPTT]

What is it about his demeanour that warrants abusive responses?

Don’t agree with the abusive responses he receives matey

 

[mux]

Don’t agree with the abusive responses he receives matey

Fair enough mate, that makes two of us.

 

[Northern Boarders]

I take your point and that's reasonable.

What isn't is being abusive to him. I give credit to him for not retaliating and trying his level best to respond to everybody.

I may well be going against the collective grain here but he's coming off a lot better to me than most on this thread, even though I don't think he's correct.

He's dismissed revered scientists e.g. Isaac Newton as storytellers while providing no credible evidence to the contrary - isn't that deeply disrespectful?

He's repeatedly ignored and dismissed the patient and thorough explanations of people on this & other threads as their 'opinion' while completing ignoring proven facts and thousands of years of accepted scientific theory. Why engage with others and then claim science is just their 'opinion' - isn't that an extremely arrogant position to take?

Personally, I think some people on this thread have the patience of saint. He's deliberately winding people up to get a reaction and feel significant, I wouldnt blame anyone for being a bit short with an obvious wum.

 

[mux]

He's dismissed revered scientists e.g. Isaac Newton as storytellers while providing no credible evidence to the contrary - isn't that deeply disrespectful?

He's repeatedly ignored and dismissed the patient and thorough explanations of people on this & other threads as their 'opinion' while completing ignoring proven facts and thousands of years of accepted scientific theory. Why engage with others and then claim science is just their 'opinion' - isn't that an extremely arrogant position to take?

Personally, I think some people on this thread have the patience of saint. He's deliberately winding people up to get a reaction and feel significant, I wouldnt blame anyone for being a bit short with an obvious wum.

Your last paragraph is something that has been repeated over and over on this thread and you obviously believe it to be true. I don't. Why would you think he was on a wind up? Because he doesn't agree with you?

He's provided his own reasons for believing what he does. He has explained his perspective of current science. He has provided loads of explanations on this thread, more than any other single poster actually. If he is on a wind up this is colossal in size and quite frankly deserves credit for tenacity alone.

People just want to gather round and bully people who they don't agree with. It's childish and dilutes every other thing they have to say. Remember, I agree with most people that he is incorrect in most of what he believes. I've read his responses and I'm not immediately compelled to behave like a child who can't control his own emotions.

Every one of you who has been abusive, patronising and condescending is far more of a problem than someone who believes something different to the norm. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Norton]

I take your point and that's reasonable.

What isn't is being abusive to him. I give credit to him for not retaliating and trying his level best to respond to everybody.

I may well be going against the collective grain here but he's coming off a lot better to me than most on this thread, even though I don't think he's correct.

All well and good but we have people calling for doctors and nurses to be hung for giving covid injections based on complete bullshit. If bullshiters are allowed to say anything goodness knows where we will end up.
We have already had a Monty Python quote. Here is another paraphrased "it's every man right to have babies, even if they can't "

Every one of you who has been abusive, patronising and condescending is far more of a problem than someone who believes something different to the norm. In my opinion, of course.

That, my friend is not true, imho.

 

[DaveH]

If they have then there's no definitive facts to it. It's a guess as to it happening because of a supposed globe spinning faster than another one.
Either way it still makes little sense....but, it's not an argument to be had.
Changes in motion of lights can easily be catered for with optical illusions on a dome. In my opinion.


Absolutely.
Even the match is under it which creates it's friction burn.

Put towards a flammable liquid and that liquid is already under friction before the struck match hits it. It then goes into a much bigger friction from the agitation of the lit match.
Energy/pressure = friction/vibration and frequency.

It is amazing how someone can look at almost everything and not only fail to understand, but to think that physics, astronomy, chemistry etc are all a lie.

 

[Norton]

It is amazing how someone can look at almost everything and not only fail to understand, but to think that physics, astronomy, chemistry etc are all a lie.

But please don't be abusive to him. He is being true to himself.

 

[Northern Boarders]

Your last paragraph is something that has been repeated over and over on this thread and you obviously believe it to be true. I don't. Why would you think he was on a wind up? Because he doesn't agree with you?

He's provided his own reasons for believing what he does. He has explained his perspective of current science. He has provided loads of explanations on this thread, more than any other single poster actually. If he is on a wind up this is colossal in size and quite frankly deserves credit for tenacity alone.

People just want to gather round and bully people who they don't agree with. It's childish and dilutes every other thing they have to say. Remember, I agree with most people that he is incorrect in most of what he believes. I've read his responses and I'm not immediately compelled to behave like a child who can't control his own emotions.

Every one of you who has been abusive, patronising and condescending is far more of a problem than someone who believes something different to the norm. In my opinion, of course.

Each to their own, I disagree.

Of course I don't think he's on a wind up just because he doesn't agree with me. He's on a wind up because he claims Newton, Einstein, Hawking etc are storytellers while providing zero evidence to the contrary.

He hasn't provided his own reasons at all, he just repeats its your opinion - he has been asked time & time again to explain his reasoning and he can't - when he does offer some waffle it doesn't make any sense and is plain wrong - not in my opinion but wrong in scientific fact.

No one has bullied anyone imo, his arrogance and attention seeking has been dismissed as rubbish - nothing wrong with that when it's the truth.

 

[mux]

All well and good but we have people calling for doctors and nurses to be hung for giving covid injections based on complete bullshit. If bullshiters are allowed to say anything goodness knows where we will end up.
We have already had a Monty Python quote. Here is another paraphrased "it's every man right to have babies, even if they can't "

That, my friend is not true, imho.

Fair enough. We should hear what other views people have though and debate them appropriately. Not just be a dick to them. It's not going to change their mind whatsoever, which surely is the whole point of a debate.

Read back through some of the replies to him, it's clearly abusive. He is being called all sorts. Its like being at school again watching everyone pick on the one who doesn't fit it.

But please don't be abusive to him. He is being true to himself.

Hilarious mate. You starting it with me now? First step right there. Well done for proving my point.

Be an adult and debate with me like an intelligent person.

Each to their own, I disagree.

Of course I don't think he's on a wind up just because he doesn't agree with me. He's on a wind up because he claims Newton, Einstein, Hawking etc are storytellers while providing zero evidence to the contrary.

He hasn't provided his own reasons at all, he just repeats its your opinion - he has been asked time & time again to explain his reasoning and he can't - when he does offer some waffle it doesn't make any sense and is plain wrong - not in my opinion but wrong in scientific fact.

No one has bullied anyone imo, his arrogance and attention seeking has been dismissed as rubbish - nothing wrong with that when it's the truth.

You're contradicting yourself when you say that he hasn't provided his own reasons at all, then two lines later you say that what he does offer is some waffle that doesn't make sense.

So what that is, right there, is someone who differs with your opinion, has explained themselves, and you've dismissed it as waffle.

Read some of the replies to him on this thread. There is personal abuse. Therefore it is bullying in my view.

 

[Northern Boarders]

Fair enough. We should hear what other views people have though and debate them appropriately. Not just be a dick to them. It's not going to change their mind whatsoever, which surely is the whole point of a debate.

Read back through some of the replies to him, it's clearly abusive. He is being called all sorts. Its like being at school again watching everyone pick on the one who doesn't fit it.

Hilarious mate. You starting it with me now? First step right there. Well done for proving my point.

Be an adult and debate with me like an intelligent person.

You're contradicting yourself when you say that he hasn't provided his own reasons at all, then two lines later you say that what he does offer is some waffle that doesn't make sense.

So what that is, right there, is someone who differs with your opinion, has explained themselves, and you've dismissed it as waffle.

Read some of the replies to him on this thread. There is personal abuse. Therefore it is bullying in my view.

No I didn't contradict myself, perhaps you need to read it again. You have jumped to the conclusion that the waffle he posts is his attempted reasoning - it's not, it's often completely unrelated to the original point.

To prove my point, we disagree on the fact you think he is being bullied on this thread and I don't and yet here we are, having a civilized discussion. Proof indeed of sensible and rational conversation between 2 people with different opinions.

 

[fyl2u]

You're looking up at the sky and you see lights moving in that sky. You do not feel any motion to say it's you moving on a sphere but you are simply told, you are.
We've had this drummed into us from being a kid, so I have no issue with anyone going with that flow. I simply used to but absolutely do not for reasons I've given which you have every right to argue.

That doesn't address the issue I described to you, of the specific paths the "lights" take across the sky while you're observing them.

I.E if you're near the middle of your disc model in the UK, Europe, Asia or the US, the lights APPEAR to be rotating ANTI-CLOCKWISE around a polar point in the sky.

Whereas if you're further away from the middle of your disc model in Australia, South Africa, or Argentina, you see a completely different set of lights rotating CLOCKWISE instead, again around a polar point in the sky.

And if you're halfway in between the middle and the outer rim, the lights instead make a STRAIGHT path across the sky.

If you travel from one of these "near the middle" countries to one of the "halfway" countries and on down to one of the "further away" countries, you can watch the transition from one pattern to the next to the next.

When you do this, it is clearly seamless, with no distortions like you might expect if there was a change in curvature of a lens or dome, and no moments where you can see one light turn into two as if reflected against something funnily shaped.

Curved mirrors / lenses / bowls-seen-from-the-inside cannot achieve this effect without the use of magic to deceive the observer.

However if the planet is a sphere then the lights are doing EXACTLY what you would expect them to do.

----

With regard to "not feeling the motion":

If you're sitting on a train travelling at a constant 150mph with the windows closed, and you throw a tennis ball directly up in the air, it will fall directly back down again in exactly the same way as if the train were not moving at all.

If you walk from the back of the train to the front of the train while it is travelling at constant speed, it takes no more effort than walking from the front of that same train to the back, and no more or less effort to walking in either direction when the train is stationary.

You cannot feel "constant motion" in a closed system.

Now, you can feel acceleration and deceleration, and either of those will affect the path of the tennis ball or your ability to walk from one end of the train to the other. But if the train is moving at a constant speed in a straight path then neither you or the tennis ball would be affected at all.

Water conforming to the container it is in and absolutely not conforming to a convex curve/ball is just one nailed on realistic proof. But like I say, those who are adamant the Earth is a supposed oblate spheroid, who are in the majority, are going to discard all of the evidence in favour of the magical mysteries that show a spinning ball in a so called vacuum of supposed space with nice pictures and video etc to just push it all home.

I can't compete with that but I can certainly not believe any of it.
I just leave it up to people to decide to question it, or not. It's not my call.

Water, like everything else, is subject to gravitational force and unless it is also acted upon by an additional net external force, it will fall towards the largest nearby mass, in our case, the planet itself.

If you take a glass of water and turn it upside down, the water will no longer conform to the shape of the glass, it will fall out onto the floor for the exact same reason that water will fail to conform to a small convex curve/ball when you conduct that experiment this close to the planet Earth.

Regardless of the shape of the container, the water always falls towards the centre of the large mass whose gravitational force is acting upon it. In the case of these two containers in our experiment, (the glass and the ball), the large mass towards which the water falls is the centre of the planet itself, and therefore obviously we observe the water conforming to the upright glass but falling off the ball towards the centre of the planet.

Now, if the curved container were suitably huge (say, a few hundred miles across, and curved in such a way that its curvature matched that of the planet) you would be able to see that the water would conform to that shape, just like it does to the small glass or beaker in your home experiment.

Equally, if your flat container were suitably huge (say, the same width as the curved one in my example above) then the water would no longer have the same depth all across the container, it would bulge in the middle, as if it were a gently-sloping perfectly curved hill of water, shallower at the edges, deeper in the middle.

Now, the container doesn't actually have to be that big for this experiment to work, as long as the curvature of the curved container matched the curvature of the planet. Because of the sheer size of the planet though, with the naked eye, a container small enough to hold in your hand that matched the earth's curvature would be barely distinguishable from a completely flat container, if at all.

So, while you are clearly correct that if you try the experiment at home, water will not conform to a small ball but will conform to a small flat container such as a glass or beaker, in actual fact this is only true if the curved container/ball has a curvature that doesn't match the curvature around the nearest source of gravity, which in our case is the planet itself.

Therefore for a fair test of "flat container versus curved container" for this experiment, you need to use a curved container whose curvature matches the curvature of the Earth, otherwise the experiment is flawed and the conclusion we are led to will be erroneous.

 

[mux]

No I didn't contradict myself, perhaps you need to read it again. You have jumped to the conclusion that the waffle he posts is his attempted reasoning - it's not, it's often completely unrelated to the original point.

To prove my point, we disagree on the fact you think he is being bullied on this thread and I don't and yet here we are, having a civilized discussion. Proof indeed of sensible and rational conversation between 2 people with different opinions.

Yeah, you appear to be a very reasonable person mate.

I haven't checked back but I'm assuming it wasn't you personally who was being abusive to him.

And I take your first point, I had misunderstood what you meant by your previous post.

That doesn't address the issue I described to you, of the specific paths the "lights" take across the sky while you're observing them.

I.E if you're near the middle of your disc model in the UK, Europe, Asia or the US, the lights APPEAR to be rotating ANTI-CLOCKWISE around a polar point in the sky.

Whereas if you're further away from the middle of your disc model in Australia, South Africa, or Argentina, you see a completely different set of lights rotating CLOCKWISE instead, again around a polar point in the sky.

And if you're halfway in between the middle and the outer rim, the lights instead make a STRAIGHT path across the sky.

If you travel from one of these "near the middle" countries to one of the "halfway" countries and on down to one of the "further away" countries, you can watch the transition from one pattern to the next to the next.

When you do this, it is clearly seamless, with no distortions like you might expect if there was a change in curvature of a lens or dome, and no moments where you can see one light turn into two as if reflected against something funnily shaped.

Curved mirrors / lenses / bowls-seen-from-the-inside cannot achieve this effect without the use of magic to deceive the observer.

However if the planet is a sphere then the lights are doing EXACTLY what you would expect them to do.

----

With regard to "not feeling the motion":

If you're sitting on a train travelling at a constant 150mph with the windows closed, and you throw a tennis ball directly up in the air, it will fall directly back down again in exactly the same way as if the train were not moving at all.

If you walk from the back of the train to the front of the train while it is travelling at constant speed, it takes no more effort than walking from the front of that same train to the back, and no more or less effort to walking in either direction when the train is stationary.

You cannot feel "constant motion" in a closed system.

Now, you can feel acceleration and deceleration, and either of those will affect the path of the tennis ball or your ability to walk from one end of the train to the other. But if the train is moving at a constant speed in a straight path then neither you or the tennis ball would be affected at all.



Water, like everything else, is subject to gravitational force and unless it is also acted upon by an additional net external force, it will fall towards the largest nearby mass, in our case, the planet itself.

If you take a glass of water and turn it upside down, the water will no longer conform to the shape of the glass, it will fall out onto the floor for the exact same reason that water will fail to conform to a small convex curve/ball when you conduct that experiment this close to the planet Earth.

Regardless of the shape of the container, the water always falls towards the centre of the large mass whose gravitational force is acting upon it. In the case of these two containers in our experiment, (the glass and the ball), the large mass towards which the water falls is the centre of the planet itself, and therefore obviously we observe the water conforming to the upright glass but falling off the ball towards the centre of the planet.

Now, if the curved container were suitably huge (say, a few hundred miles across, and curved in such a way that its curvature matched that of the planet) you would be able to see that the water would conform to that shape, just like it does to the small glass or beaker in your home experiment.

Equally, if your flat container were suitably huge (say, the same width as the curved one in my example above) then the water would no longer have the same depth all across the container, it would bulge in the middle, as if it were a gently-sloping perfectly curved hill of water, shallower at the edges, deeper in the middle.

Now, the container doesn't actually have to be that big for this experiment to work, as long as the curvature of the curved container matched the curvature of the planet. Because of the sheer size of the planet though, with the naked eye, a container small enough to hold in your hand that matched the earth's curvature would be barely distinguishable from a completely flat container, if at all.

So, while you are clearly correct that if you try the experiment at home, water will not conform to a small ball but will conform to a small flat container such as a glass or beaker, in actual fact this is only true if the curved container/ball has a curvature that doesn't match the curvature around the nearest source of gravity, which in our case is the planet itself.

Therefore for a fair test of "flat container versus curved container" for this experiment, you need to use a curved container whose curvature matches the curvature of the Earth, otherwise the experiment is flawed and the conclusion we are led to will be erroneous.

Here is an example of a superb post to contradict a view he doesn't agree with.

No snipes, insults, patronising jokes, just dealing with the issue like an intelligent adult.

The difference in quality between this and the others is massive.

 

[taipeisafc]

Your last paragraph is something that has been repeated over and over on this thread and you obviously believe it to be true. I don't. Why would you think he was on a wind up? Because he doesn't agree with you?

He's provided his own reasons for believing what he does. He has explained his perspective of current science. He has provided loads of explanations on this thread, more than any other single poster actually. If he is on a wind up this is colossal in size and quite frankly deserves credit for tenacity alone.

People just want to gather round and bully people who they don't agree with. It's childish and dilutes every other thing they have to say. Remember, I agree with most people that he is incorrect in most of what he believes. I've read his responses and I'm not immediately compelled to behave like a child who can't control his own emotions.

Every one of you who has been abusive, patronising and condescending is far more of a problem than someone who believes something different to the norm. In my opinion, of course.

There is another massive thread of the same ilk where he posts his usual refutation of all science without any evidence - then slopes off with "just my opinion....but you are all wrong". He refuses to or doesn't answer questions which he can't come up with a poor explanation for, invents his own mathematics to prove wrong points. Many people (myself included) spent a long time giving sensible posts which he ignored or sniped at so now I just call him out for what he is - an ignorant idiot (though in fact I believe he is a WUM so will be loving the abuse anyway)

 

[DaveH]

Fair enough. We should hear what other views people have though and debate them appropriately. Not just be a dick to them. It's not going to change their mind whatsoever, which surely is the whole point of a debate.

Read back through some of the replies to him, it's clearly abusive. He is being called all sorts. Its like being at school again watching everyone pick on the one who doesn't fit it.

Hilarious mate. You starting it with me now? First step right there. Well done for proving my point.

Be an adult and debate with me like an intelligent person.

You're contradicting yourself when you say that he hasn't provided his own reasons at all, then two lines later you say that what he does offer is some waffle that doesn't make sense.

So what that is, right there, is someone who differs with your opinion, has explained themselves, and you've dismissed it as waffle.

Read some of the replies to him on this thread. There is personal abuse. Therefore it is bullying in my view.

There are a lot of insults coming the other way too. Calling us psudo-scientists, sheep, people who don’t understand and can only regurgitate what we have been schooled, lacking in independent thought, claiming we don’t understand basic maths and physics, along with some other very patronising comments, etc.

It works both ways.

 

[Norton]

Be an adult and debate with me like an adult

Ffs there is nothing to debate. The world is not flat. No amount of "debating" is going to change that.