Put a flat earthier into space

Nukehasslefan said:
The biggest and best proof is water level. Nothing else actually needs to be argued. Anyone can test this out as long as they can push aside the indoctrination of being told of a fictional spinning globe.
There is absolutely no proof of it being a spinning globe. None whatsoever.

There is plenty but it actually takes a person to cast aside the fiction of a spinning globe.

Water level and calmness of water in many instances.
Jumping up and down. Simple yet logically sound.
Hovering helicopter. Logical and simple.
Planes taking off with the so called spin would render the spin, not a spin as it reached the same speed of rotation, meaning to a pilot you would be hovering.
Obviously the list is endless but these are simple things for food for thought with any person willing to question.

There's so much contradiction with it.
The story is saturated with idiocy, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
You've proved nothing there. Show me proof.
 


Nukehasslefan said:
Absolutely not the same, at all.
The train cabin is pressurised and outside of that train is atmosphere which the train is pushing into.
Your spinning globe would be like standing on top of that train as it moved along and then jumping up.

The argument of using the inner carriage is clever but useless as an argument when seen from a proper perspective.
Click to expand...
Standing outside the carriage is also not correct because the air above the train is absolutely not moving with the train so the air resistance would be massive. The air on earth is also moving with the spin or the earth.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The biggest and best proof is water level.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

FAIL

Tell us how water level proves the world isn't a globe.
Nukehasslefan said: To be fair it's pretty clear and in your face. The clue is water/globe/level? Doesn't work for obvious reasons.

fyl2u said:​

Your bath/spirit level and lake/raft/spirit level experiments have both been shown to be failures of logic that don't prove your case, so I presume you have a third water level experiment now, otherwise you wouldn't still be bleating "water level, water level, water level" as if the previous conversations hadn't happened?
Nukehasslefan said:And level will show water to be anything other than convex within a container. Nothing will show a large body of water clinging to a globe and also managing to have tides, ripples and so on.
Nukehasslefan said:
Nothing else actually needs to be argued.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

If you'd given us a single experiment that actually proved the world wasn't a globe, that may well be true, but you haven't, you've given us failures of logic and lies.
Nukehasslefan said:I have no need to offer you anything. You can stick to whatever you choose. I have nothing to prove to you. You either take the time to question and prove to yourself or you don't. That goes for everyone.
You choose a spinning globe and all of what goes with it, unquestionably it seems. Fair enough, I have no issue with that, I just don't follow it and think it's utter nonsense.

Nukehasslefan said:
There is absolutely no proof of it being a spinning globe. None whatsoever.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

Admit it, you've got this statement bound to an F-key now haven't you?
Nukehasslefan said: Whatever you think is best for your thoughts.

fyl2u said:​

There is absolutely no proof of it NOT being a spinning globe. None whatsoever.
Nukehasslefan said:Water level is one absolute proof.
Nukehasslefan said:
Water level and calmness of water in many instances.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

You're trying to suggest water couldn't be calm on a spinning globe? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nukehasslefan said: And you think it can be for whatever reasons. Gravity isn't it?
Any idea what it is?
Nukehasslefan said:
Jumping up and down. Simple yet logically sound.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

Relativity of inertial reference frames, my dear.
Nukehasslefan said:Reference frames? Jumping up and down physically above a solid is not offering any reference frames, so what are you trying to say?
Nukehasslefan said:
Hovering helicopter. Logical and simple.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

Relativity of inertial reference frames, my dear.
Nukehasslefan said: Same as above.

Nukehasslefan said:
Planes taking off with the so called spin would render the spin, not a spin as it reached the same speed of rotation, meaning to a pilot you would be hovering.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

Relativity of inertial reference frames, my dear.
Nukehasslefan said: Once again, same as above.
Nukehasslefan said:
Obviously the list is endless but these are simple things for food for thought with any person willing to question.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

The list of examples of relativity of inertial reference frames is pretty long. In the context of this conversation however it is just a list of things you don't understand. Aww, bless.
Nukehasslefan said: Bless me all you want but you're not explaining anything.

fyl2u said:​

For the rest of us, these are things that have been questioned for a great deal of time by not only ourselves but by millions of others.
Nukehasslefan said: Really?

fyl2u said:​

It's a shame your indoctrination from the flat earth society / conspiracy theorist loons doesn't allow you to see this or question the logic they've handed to you in youtube videos and on their forum.
Nukehasslefan said:Where did you learn all your stuff?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The motion of the stars?
I thought your stars were still and it was your Earth ball that was spinning?
Have you changed your mind?
Click to expand...
I said the apparent motion of the stars. But you knew that didn't you?
You still never bothered to even try to understand the "apparent" motion of the stars for the simple reason that it would prove you stand on a spinning globe.

Nukehasslefan said:
I see things moving in the sky. That's what you see but you are told you see them moving because you're on a spinning ball.
Click to expand...
You're not the best qualified to tell me what I see.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:

fyl2u said:​

FAIL

Tell us how water level proves the world isn't a globe.
Nukehasslefan said: To be fair it's pretty clear and in your face. The clue is water/globe/level? Doesn't work for obvious reasons.

fyl2u said:​

Your bath/spirit level and lake/raft/spirit level experiments have both been shown to be failures of logic that don't prove your case, so I presume you have a third water level experiment now, otherwise you wouldn't still be bleating "water level, water level, water level" as if the previous conversations hadn't happened?
Nukehasslefan said:And level will show water to be anything other than convex within a container. Nothing will show a large body of water clinging to a globe and also managing to have tides, ripples and so on.

fyl2u said:​

If you'd given us a single experiment that actually proved the world wasn't a globe, that may well be true, but you haven't, you've given us failures of logic and lies.
Nukehasslefan said:I have no need to offer you anything. You can stick to whatever you choose. I have nothing to prove to you. You either take the time to question and prove to yourself or you don't. That goes for everyone.
You choose a spinning globe and all of what goes with it, unquestionably it seems. Fair enough, I have no issue with that, I just don't follow it and think it's utter nonsense.


fyl2u said:​

Admit it, you've got this statement bound to an F-key now haven't you?
Nukehasslefan said: Whatever you think is best for your thoughts.

fyl2u said:​

There is absolutely no proof of it NOT being a spinning globe. None whatsoever.
Nukehasslefan said:Water level is one absolute proof.

fyl2u said:​

You're trying to suggest water couldn't be calm on a spinning globe? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nukehasslefan said: And you think it can be for whatever reasons. Gravity isn't it?
Any idea what it is?

fyl2u said:​

Relativity of inertial reference frames, my dear.
Nukehasslefan said:Reference frames? Jumping up and down physically above a solid is not offering any reference frames, so what are you trying to say?

fyl2u said:​

Relativity of inertial reference frames, my dear.
Nukehasslefan said: Same as above.


fyl2u said:​

Relativity of inertial reference frames, my dear.
Nukehasslefan said: Once again, same as above.

fyl2u said:​

The list of examples of relativity of inertial reference frames is pretty long. In the context of this conversation however it is just a list of things you don't understand. Aww, bless.
Nukehasslefan said: Bless me all you want but you're not explaining anything.

fyl2u said:​

For the rest of us, these are things that have been questioned for a great deal of time by not only ourselves but by millions of others.
Nukehasslefan said: Really?

fyl2u said:​

It's a shame your indoctrination from the flat earth society / conspiracy theorist loons doesn't allow you to see this or question the logic they've handed to you in youtube videos and on their forum.
Nukehasslefan said:Where did you learn all your stuff?
Click to expand...
Brainwashed and proud if it
 

fyl2u said:​

It's a shame you're so closed-minded. The world is a truly remarkable place if you allow yourself to take off your blinkers and see it.
Nukehasslefan said: I agree the world is truly a remarkable place. Most likely more remarkable than we're told....but....well, this is where we're at.

fyl2u said:​

You say you're so keen to question things and yet you will never ever seem willing to question your own conclusions even when dozens of people are explaining how your logic is flawed.
Nukehasslefan said: This comes up so many times.
Let me try and clear this up once more.
I used to believe in a spinning globe.
I then questioned it and believed it may be a stationary globe with everything moving around us.
Heliocentric at first like most and then geocentric.
I then looked at all kinds of possibilities but by this time I did small experiments against what I was told.
This is where I'm at based on them.
I'd say I'm absolutely questioning my own stuff and certainly not closed minded.
I'd offer that to you, to be fair.

Nukehasslefan said:
There's so much contradiction with it.
The story is saturated with idiocy, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

You're a contradiction that is saturated with idiocy.

Not an opinion. This one's a fact.

Nukehasslefan said: It's an opinion and you're welcome to it.


Nukehasslefan said:
The Earth is supposedly spinning at over 1000 mph.
If you were to jump up for just one second and then land, theoretically the Earth would spin from under you would land over 1000 feet away from your jump.
If you hovered in a helicopter for 1 minute you would be around 16 miles away from your initial hover point. We know this doesn't happen, obviously and for good reason. The Earth is not a spinning globe.

Any idea why it shouldn't?
Click to expand...

fyl2u said:​

All together now, "Relativity of inertial reference frames, my dear."
Nukehasslefan said: I'm sure you can explain them....right?
Maybe not.

fyl2u said:​

Here's an experiment anyone can try: the next time you're on a moving train, or a moving Metro, or a moving bus, try jumping straight up into the air and see where you land. Oh, how weird, you land in the same place you took off from! How could this be?
Nukehasslefan said: How long are you jumping up for?
In that time you're simply under internal pressure and cannot offer much in movement against that in that split second.

fyl2u said:​

Maybe the train/Metro/bus isn't really moving? No, it's to do with..... "Relativity of inertial reference frames, my dear."
Nukehasslefan said: Try jumping up when the train accelerates and see what happens.
 
zwartekat said:
Your frame of reference is all wrong. You have to understand that you're spinning with the earth in the same way as you would be travelling at the same rate in an aeroplane. There is so much information out there explaining this. Take a look.

You regularly mention your simple experiments that prove the earth is not a spinning globe - do you not wonder why no-one here has been converted by these experiments?
Click to expand...
I know the con of it. It's nothing like what's been said.
We are told to believe atmosphere spins with Earth solid and water against a space vacuum.
If people believe atmosphere can stay in unison with a so called spinning globe and yet still have winds going in all directions and also pushing aircraft along at the same rate, then fine.
As for it acting like you are inside a plane or train. No it isn't like that.
External to a plane or train is not a so called space vacuum, so the issue still stands.
DaveH said:
Standing outside the carriage is also not correct because the air above the train is absolutely not moving with the train so the air resistance would be massive. The air on earth is also moving with the spin or the earth.
Click to expand...
How?
The Snockerty Friddle said:
I said the apparent motion of the stars. But you knew that didn't you?
You still never bothered to even try to understand the "apparent" motion of the stars for the simple reason that it would prove you stand on a spinning globe.


You're not the best qualified to tell me what I see.
Click to expand...
The fact you say, apparent should tell you a lot.
fyl2u said:
Nobody is trying to tell you that the Earth's spin is accelerating, so what does your experiment prove?
Click to expand...
If you go on about a train moving and a person jumping up lands down then it shouldn't matter if the train accelerates but it clearly does.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
If you go on about a train moving and a person jumping up lands down then it shouldn't matter if the train accelerates but it clearly does.
Click to expand...

Adding acceleration of the train is introducing a net external force to the reference frame, thus the effect seen on objects within the train compared with when the train is moving at a constant speed proves the respective teachings of Newtonian and Relativistic laws of motion.

Congratulations, you just tucked yourself again.
 
Last edited:
fyl2u said:
Adding acceleration of the train is introducing a net external force to the reference frame, thus the effect seen on on objects within the train compared with when the train is moving at a constant speed proves the respective teachings of Newtonian and Relativistic laws of motion.

Congratulations, you just tucked yourself again.
Click to expand...
If you're arguing for a train or plane not having any effect on people inside against outside then it has to be the same case no matter what, Even acceleration.
It's not me that's got it wrong.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The fact you say, apparent should tell you a lot.
Click to expand...
Well it should tell you something but apparently not.
It's "apparent" motion because they are not moving. They may look like they are moving at first, but once you understand what you're seeing you cannot help but conclude that it is us on our globe which move.

What did you think it was telling me?
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Well it should tell you something but apparently not.
It's "apparent" motion because they are not moving. They may look like they are moving at first, but once you understand what you're seeing you cannot help but conclude that it is us on our globe which move. What did you think it was telling me?
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of it. Once you understand. You see, you know in your own mind the points of light are moving. You know in your own mind that the Earth is not moving under your feet.
Your logic tells you everything about what Earth is not but you are told to throw your logic in the bin.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
That's the beauty of it. Once you understand. You see, you know in your own mind the points of light are moving. You know in your own mind that the Earth is not moving under your feet.
Your logic tells you everything about what Earth is not but you are told to throw your logic in the bin.
Click to expand...
No ffs NO! The beauty of it man? You cant see the beauty of it.
It's not what I'm told. What I'm told does not tell me to abandon logic, and logic is NOT just telling me what the Earth is not.
When you can be arsed to look at enough of the sky for long enough to know, you will know that what you see is absolutely impossible other than from a rotating globe.
It really is simple and in your face but as said before, you are too tied to your own fuckwittery to dare to look and see this simple truth.
You cant produce anywhere near an explanation for the "apparent" motion of the stars that works and you know it.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
No ffs NO! The beauty of it man? You cant see the beauty of it.
Click to expand...
The only beauty of it is the fictional story of a supposed spinning Earth.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
It's not what I'm told. What I'm told does not tell me to abandon logic, and logic is NOT just telling me what the Earth is not.
Click to expand...
Your logic tells you otherwise than what you're arguing. IMO
The Snockerty Friddle said:
When you can be arsed to look at enough of the sky for long enough to know, you will know that what you see is absolutely impossible other than from a rotating globe.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.
When you look at it without being coaxed you may just realise it's not what we've been schooled into. IMO.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
It really is simple and in your face but as said before, you are too tied to your own fuckwittery to dare to look and see this simple truth.
Click to expand...
It's only in our faces because it's basically schooled into our mindset.

The Snockerty Friddle said:
You cant produce anywhere near an explanation for the "apparent" motion of the stars that works and you know it.
Click to expand...
I don't need to produce anything. You're answering it yourself by saying motion of the stars.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
There are no laws relating to what's been put forward for a spinning globe.
Click to expand...

If you stand still anywhere with no forces acting on you, you don't move and remain standing still.

If someone comes up to you and pushes you hard, you move and may even fall over.

How is this possible? Surely the laws that govern you standing still should be true regardless of whether someone pushes you hard or not?

That's the same logic you're applying to the train acceleration analogy. Can you see how ridiculous that is?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The only beauty of it is the fictional story of a supposed spinning Earth.

Your logic tells you otherwise than what you're arguing. IMO

Absolutely not.
When you look at it without being coaxed you may just realise it's not what we've been schooled into. IMO.

It's only in our faces because it's basically schooled into our mindset.


I don't need to produce anything. You're answering it yourself by saying motion of the stars.
Click to expand...
Again, you leave out the word "apparent" for your own purpose. I suspect you don't quite know what that means either.
You not only feel qualified to tell me what I see but now you think you can correct me on what I see as my logic.
It's only in your face because it's right there in your face. It's been there a long time and you never bothered to see it. No coaxing required, no schooling into a mindset. It's right there in the sky and is visible to anyone who looks. You chose not to look yet still feel qualified to explain it.
 

Back
Top