• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Nukehasslefan said:
Of course if you want to argue a massive globe and a curvature then a small distance would offer a small change. It still offers that small change but offers a larger change over a bigger distance based on a size mentioned, or a radius of the globe mentioned.

You can calculate it based on that. No issue.
What you can't do is marry it up to what you're observing on Earth.

As for EM waves. Think about a wave then try and tell me how a wave can function with no medium.
Just explain it in simple terms if you kn ow.
If you don't then fair enough.



I did explain it.
The issue you lot have is looking at the picture and deciding that the picture shows absolute detail. It doesn't. It does not show raised land from water in the trough. It does not show a gradual gradient to tthe centre because to do that would require a massive map to show it.
If you can't take in what I say then naturally you're going to think water slopes up a mountain. I can't help you on that if this is your mindset.


Indentations are all over Earth from the larger to the smaller that hold oceans, seas and lakes and ponds.


I never said it was stepped. You mentioned stepped, not me.

The very same stuff you're going about without evidence to back you up.

There is no massive amount of evidence against.
Click to expand...
How much higher is Alaska than Brazil on your lemon squeezer? Even if the gradient is very slight it's still about 8000 miles so even a slight gradient over 8000 miles will rise considerably
 

The Snockerty Friddle said:
Only Day and night, the seasons, the stars, the planets, the tides, hundreds of years of collective knowledge and experiments, maths, common sense, simple observation and the fact that for all of the above to be lies is as implausible as the moon is made of cheese and would involve billions of liars without purpose.
Click to expand...

Yes, but apart from day and night, the seasons, the stars, the planets, the tides, hundreds of years of collective knowledge and experiments, maths, common sense, simple observation and the fact that for all of the above to be lies would involve billions of liars without purpose, what IS the evidence against?
 
nahwee said:
Yes, but apart from day and night, the seasons, the stars, the planets, the tides, hundreds of years of collective knowledge and experiments, maths, common sense, simple observation and the fact that for all of the above to be lies would involve billions of liars without purpose, what IS the evidence against?
Click to expand...

Just look at your bath. It's obvious.
 
For anyone with an interest in maths, I started looking at this "8 inches per mile squared" rule, as it should not work but seems to give a reasonably close result. There are a few bits that could be improved, but the match is starting in 10 minutes. This shows the square rule is wrong but does work as a rough rule of thumb:
You must be logged on to see external links

I did say earlier that the rule I had previously posted might be wrong, as the video shared yesterday had a d/2r where I had d/r. I've been through it a few times and I'm convinced they are wrong. When you graph out their formula, it does not match the square rule and it has the circular drop at over 12,000 km with a distance of 40,000 on the surface. As this is all the way round, you are looking at your own feet so the drop should be zero.
 
payne said:
The way he's going on now it seems that only if one is an expert in a field and can describe a thing from first principles they are allowed to put something forward. Then on the back of that, when someone like yourself describes something in detail he simply attributes that to only parroting what you've heard/been told.
Click to expand...

In the case of what's being argued, it's what's happening..
payne said:
The other alternative seems as though anything can be put forward as long as you just stick 'opinion' on the end. Then one can speculate flying pigs and fine it's just an opinion.
Click to expand...
This is also what's happening. It's all about opinions based on what we think or what we;'ve been led to believe is a truth.
payne said:
On the back of all this he want's incredible detail (which he won't accept) from everyone else (which they provide) and then after the long paragraph asks for the proof again, He then proceeds to put his ideas across and won't provide any detail just vague statements. Then even more bold he says for his world view he doesn't even need to do proper experiments or provide evidence outside of just trust the human eye for everything.
Click to expand...

I don't require incredible detail. I require simplicity that is hidden away because it shows the globe up for what it is, which is a fantasy of mis/disinfo.
payne said:
It all boils down to this imo. He's so paranoid with the belief that everyone is a liar than he can't trust anybody. That's why he dismisses anything from 'the other' and can only accept his world view (which isn't his alone oddly enough).
Click to expand...
That depends on how you see paranoia and what you think a person who disbelieves a portion of stuff comes under as opposed to a person who simply disbelieves some or all.
Nobby said:
So he won't accept a global earth argument unless he is provided proof, but goes on to say that there is no proof he will accept.
Click to expand...

I'll willingly accept proof. Do you have any?
Nobby said:
Incredibly closed minded for a free thinking person who questions everything.
Click to expand...
If I was closed minded I would not be arguing for an alternative to a globe, I'd be sticking to it (pardon the pun).
There's something in this that can be construed as projecting from a side. Which side?
Not mine.
What A Waster said:
How much higher is Alaska than Brazil on your lemon squeezer? Even if the gradient is very slight it's still about 8000 miles so even a slight gradient over 8000 miles will rise considerably
Click to expand...
A land gradient will rise. Water will stay level.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Only Day and night, the seasons, the stars, the planets, the tides, hundreds of years of collective knowledge and experiments, maths, common sense, simple observation and the fact that for all of the above to be lies is as implausible as the moon is made of cheese and would involve billions of liars without purpose.
Click to expand...
Do you think you're a liar?
I'd guess you don't and I would not call you a liar.
So what's left?

The common sense bit.
Think about what that means in terms of this stuff.
It's a common mindset of being told what you're living on and arguing from that stance. A common mindset and a common sense among the masses.

Common sense doesn't mean anything if there's no proof to that schooled in sense to make it common.
 
Last edited:
He would save himself a lot of time every morning if he just kept posting:

“I have made my mind up, don’t confuse me with the facts”
 
Nukehasslefan said:
So what's left?
The common sense bit.
Click to expand...
And day and night, the seasons, the stars, the planets, the tides, hundreds of years of collective knowledge and experiments, maths, simple observation
nahwee said:
He would save himself a lot of time every morning if he just kept posting:

“I have made my mind up, don’t confuse me with the facts”
Click to expand...
Too open minded for that.
Nukehasslefan said:
If I was closed minded I would not be arguing for an alternative to a globe, I'd be sticking to it (pardon the pun).
There's something in this that can be construed as projecting from a side. Which side?
Not mine.
Click to expand...
And if you were open minded we would not be nearer to 200 pages than we are to you accepting that someone other than yourself and Samuel Rowbotham might just be correct
You must be logged on to see media items
 
Last edited:
The Snockerty Friddle said:
And day and night, the seasons, the stars, the planets, the tides, hundreds of years of collective knowledge and experiments, maths, simple observation
Click to expand...
What do you actually know for sure....as a fact or facts, in terms of what we're debating?

The Snockerty Friddle said:
Too open minded for that.

And if you were open minded we would not be nearer to 200 pages than we are to you accepting that someone other than yourself and Samuel Rowbotham might just be correct
You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
I think many people believe Earth is not a spinning globe. The issue is, who dares to say it?
What A Waster said:
From Alaska in the north to Argentina in the south, they're on the same land mass.
So with that 8000 mile gradient in mind, on the lemon squeezer how much higher do you think Alaska would be?
Click to expand...
It depends how much of it is underwater and how much land is available that isn't.
This is what I've tried to explain but it's bypassed.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
What do you actually know for sure....as a fact or facts, in terms of what we're debating?


I think many people believe Earth is not a spinning globe. The issue is, who dares to say it?

It depends how much of it is underwater and how much land is available that isn't.
This is what I've tried to explain but it's bypassed.
Click to expand...

Alaska is not under water. Buenos Aires is not under water. The land that connects them is not under water.
 
What A Waster said:
Alaska is not under water. Buenos Aires is not under water. The land that connects them is not under water.
Click to expand...
All land is under water if it has a shoreline.
legend7 said:
Yip and one is in the raised centre and the other in the lower bowl.
Can't have it both ways, either water goes up the slope or south America is under water
Click to expand...
How about raised land in the lower bowl, which is what you seem to want to bypass.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top