I'm really waiting for the scale/seas answer to this....
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
payne
Striker
quantum.....................do one IBM
IBM claims advance in quantum computing
The company unveils an advanced "quantum" processor that's part of an effort to build super-fast computers.
www.bbc.co.uk
Nukehasslefan
Winger
That's not to scale. I've given you two sketches. Simple sketches.
If you want to make them out to be of a size you think then you go for it. If you want to say the sea is 1800 miles deep, you go with that.
Boris Bear
Striker
I think it’s good to question the veracity of the received wisdom so I commend you. However, making up your own narrative with a lack of evidence or facts somewhat undermines your credibility.
I appreciate that you don’t care what I think…just felt the need to share an opinion.
tarfer
Full Back
Although it's not to actual scale it's visibly proportionate. This means you can apply an arbitrary scale to it for modeling purposes. Therefore assume a diameter based upon known values and work from there to extrapolate further indicative measurements.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
I have zero credibility in terms of what I'm arguing. I know this so I can't exactly lose any.
This is more of an exercise in thinking for anyone that decides the global narrative requires further questioning.
I don't think anyone has any credibility for arguing for a spinning globe but I understand why they would.
To be fair, it's not a case of not caring what you think. You have your ideas and ideals which do not conform to any of mine, most likely, so on that score I'm hardly likely going to take anything to heart about what you say. It doesn't mean I shrug anything off as I don't give a sheet what you say.
I take onboard what anyone says if its worth taking onboard, whether I accept it or believe it, or not.
If I didn't I wouldn't be answering back.
Boris Bear
Striker
As I said I commend you for questioning as I think we’re fed a lot of lies. I just disagree with you on this subject matter.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
I could but to actually put it on a scale would be to offer it as what's been said. Flat. But my argument is, it's not flat. It's how I've said and bringing it in to smaller diagram like is being done has sent people into a mindset of " no it's not to scale" argument and " you don;t know what scale is"....etc.
I could say to someone " ok look out to sea and draw me your Earth as you perceive it from the views you have. Put it to scale."
Are they going to draw a small sphere or are they going to draw a circle or a flatness or what?
Now offer it the other way around.
If I'm shown an Earth as a globe as we get shown and I asked to show what it's like on a scale of what we see in real time from a plane height, I'll get flat.
For me to scale mine down would be to draw a line with very little to see. What's the point?
If I did that I'd get "ohh here he goes, he's drawn a line."
It's like this.
If people don't want to view it as I view it then that's absolutely fine. I would not expect anyone to do so.
If people want to say the waters would be 1800 feet deep based on what they think about my sketch, then fine, no issue here.
No problem. I honestly would not expect you to. I'd be surprised if you did and that's not a dig it's just a case of why would anyone think on my lines when official lines are there on a platter with stuff that's told to be accurate and accepted en masse as being just that.
So honestly I do understand your stance..
Last edited:
fyl2u
Striker
You don't take anything onboard. And you do shrug everything off that doesn't agree with your own narrative.
You made your mind up before you started experimenting that the globe narrative is wrong, and so every "experiment" you've conceived ignores the possibility of a globe completely. The consequence of this is that your results are skewed towards proving only that they might work to explain the cellworld, as oppose to proving that the cellworld works better than the globe to explain the findings.
I.e. you're not doing science experiments at all, you're doing confirmation bias experiments.
So you admit if it was actually proportionate it would be a flat earth.
Pleased we cleared that up
Might as well have drew an elephant
DaveH
Striker
In a nutshell. The bath experiment is the perfect example of that. We were all expecting after the first bit of the test ensured that the water was level, to then say it could not be level on a globe, it would curve conforming to the earth. But where did this experiment go? He looked at the bath, claimed baths could not exist on a globe and certainly could not hold water.
No basis for this claim, just rubbed his chin, made up some bullshit, assumed it to be true and claimed job well done.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Not true.
Nope.
I've had 35 years of life going with a global narrative and 15 questioning it and everything connected to what that narrative was.
How long have you had with the global narrative?
Skewed?
I wouldn't say that.
No. I'm doing experiments that prove we don;t live on a spinning globe. As for my own Earth musing. It is what it is; a thought process with no factual back up.
That's the difference.
Nope.So you admit if it was actually proportionate it would be a flat earth.
Pleased we cleared that up
Might as well have drew an elephant
It's what I said it was.
It's like an orange squeezer with a mound in the centre and a bowl coming off it until it curves right up and back over itself into a dome.
That's not flat6.
And yet you claim a ball holds oceans.
Last edited:
So the seas are way deeper than 10 miles like on your drawing?
It can't be both? The seas on yours look about 2000 miles deep.
If they were 10 miles deep (way deeper than the deepest sea) how would your drawing look then?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Nope.
Then you go with that.
That's my finish with offering drawings.
Take it for what you think it is. I know what I'm saying and you don't accept it. I wouldn't expect you to.
Seeing how you want to tell me this isn't possible, how about you draw what you think would have to be the case. Let's see it and we'll go from there as to why I've been telling you it's not a feasible drawing to show anything.
Last edited:
I'm just saying if it's roughly to scale your seas are as deep as some countries are wide.
If the seas are as we know them then on your drawing they would be a blue line appx 0.1mm deep do you not agree?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Then you draw what you think it should be then have a look at it and ask yourself a question. Why didn't I draw it like that....and your answer should be pretty clear to you. It's because for the sheer size of what we're talking about to the size of a diagram, it would show nothing to discern as anything.
If you can't grasp that I'm trying to show you the set up to visualise and want to go on about oceans being 1800 miles deep then I suggest you stick to that and be done with it.
No way am I going to argue this all the time because you'll get the exact same responses.
As I say and you obviously agree, to scale it would look flat with no discernible mound at all.
Scale means you can draw things at different sizes but showing the same proportions you know?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
It's not about what it would look like to scale, it's about showing what the premise of it is if it was to be a gradual gradient towards the centre and a gradual gradient towards the outer; eventually turning up into a dome.
If I was to show you a flat line on a piece of paper and told you this is my analogy, orange squeezer Earth, what would you say?
You'd simply say, it's just a line.
So here's the script.
If you want to go with the gradual gradient to the centre and the same to the outer as it being totally flat then you go with that if it makes it easier for you.
I know what scale is but this scale would offer you nothing If I was to scale it right down.
I offered you a sketch and then did another. This is what you answer with, so how about you offer it to your scale and let's have a look.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
I forget if this one was posted way back in the thread, but those who would question the narrative might enjoy, or at least recognise some of the thinking.
