Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Early in the thread someone used the phrase word salad.

Yeah I've seen it used many many times.

If ever it needed bringing up again it is now.

Yeah and you likely won't be the last person to bring it up again.

That is literally sciency sounding words thrown together.

It comes down to who wants to bother to see them as sciency or useless or whatever. I'm not in charge of that.
I think of gravity and black holes and wormholes and stars, planets...etc....etc....etc as the same, so I do understand what you're saying from your side of the argument.

Can you demonstrate with a concave mirror and a torch how the light splits to give two clear reflections, one of which looks completely different to the other, and then angle your torch in such a way that light cancels itself out and darkness falls?

No. I need a big Earth to do that.
Just look up into the sky and take away the illusion of you being on a spinning ball and you might get a different picture.
I doubt you will because it does require a person to throw aside a global mindset and that's not easy to do and certainly not easy to admit to.

 

[DaveH]

You see the sun and moon in the sky at the same time because they are direct reflections when angles are correct.
As for the moon passing in front of the sun, it's what happens in the centre in terms of angling out the reflection from the dome that cuts out the wavelength.

No. It proves mirrored images.

On the most basic face value that could work. Just dots in the sky innit? Same as small horses can look like large dogs. Just fur and four legs innit?

But get into even the most basic details and it all falls apart. The sky can be roughly mapped out with constellation, recognisable patterns of stars. With a telescope you can see star clusters, galaxies, nebula etc. There are things in the north you can’t see from the south and vice versa. For example if the southern sky was a reflection of the north, there would be two Andromeda galaxies. There is not.

But to make matters worse, in your world the southern reflection is in a ring around what normal people call the northern hemisphere stars. In the north Taurus is high at the moment as we move into winter. There is no second Taurus in your torus.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Apologies, as I'm sure you've already explained this somewhere but why can't we detect any light as it comes out of the central projector before it hits the reflective surfaces of the dome?

What you see as the auroras is the wavelengths of the colour spectrum from the centre.
As for instant light, you only see that when reflected back through wavelengths back to your eyes.

It's like shining a light through a dark box and looking from the side. You see no light but do see it when looking from the front to the reflective back of the box that allows the point of light to be seen.
It has to be almost dustless or that reflects.

No, that would be a circle drawn to scale which would perfectly demonstrate the scale of the Earth with a one or two metre object on it. This was the point of it, all that way back amongst the distraction and deflection. You thought it would be impossible to draw something so large to scale when it's actually quite easy and very useful. You really should try it.

Let me see your drawing of it if it's so easy.

 

[DaveH]

Yeah I've seen it used many many times.

Yeah and you likely won't be the last person to bring it up again.

It comes down to who wants to bother to see them as sciency or useless or whatever. I'm not in charge of that.
I think of gravity and black holes and wormholes and stars, planets...etc....etc....etc as the same, so I do understand what you're saying from your side of the argument.

No. I need a big Earth to do that.
Just look up into the sky and take away the illusion of you being on a spinning ball and you might get a different picture.
I doubt you will because it does require a person to throw aside a global mindset and that's not easy to do and certainly not easy to admit to.

Why? Why can light cancel itself out and reflect in exactly the way light off a concave mirror doesn’t when you get to a certain size. What is the threshold, what makes it cross that barrier to become possible?

 

[zwartekat]

What you see as the auroras is the wavelengths of the colour spectrum from the centre.
As for instant light, you only see that when reflected back through wavelengths back to your eyes.

It's like shining a light through a dark box and looking from the side. You see no light but do see it when looking from the front to the reflective back of the box that allows the point of light to be seen.
It has to be almost dustless or that reflects.

Let me see your drawing of it if it's so easy.

Thanks.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Let me see your drawing of it if it's so easy.

There is nothing to show you, it was done online, I had no reason to save it and as I said at least twice now, you need to do it for yourself otherwise how would you know if I'd sneakily Photoshopped the images? It would take literally moments of your life.

 

[Kevj]

Let me see your drawing of it if it's so easy.

You are the one challenging accepted norms. It’s you who needs to replicate existing experiments, even the most basic and provide evidence to us it doesn’t work. But you won’t because the experiments won’t back up your argument. Indeed, you’ll be disproved, hence three months of deflection.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

On the most basic face value that could work. Just dots in the sky innit?

Your stars, yeah, innit.

Same as small horses can look like large dogs. Just fur and four legs innit?

From a distance, yeah, innit.

But get into even the most basic details and it all falls apart.

Not at all, innit.

The sky can be roughly mapped out with constellation, recognisable patterns of stars.

Just points of light on a dome, innit.

With a telescope you can see star clusters, galaxies, nebula etc.

You can see different points of light of what's happening in the centre, innit.

There are things in the north you can’t see from the south and vice versa.

There's things looking from one part of the circle than you won;t see on another part, innit.

For example if the southern sky was a reflection of the north, there would be two Andromeda galaxies. There is not.

But it's not wholly reflective. It's all about closeness for some and mirrored and for others it's merely movement over and around to points where the human eye can see, innit.

But to make matters worse, in your world the southern reflection is in a ring around what normal people call the northern hemisphere stars.

It's one part, innit.

In the north Taurus is high at the moment as we move into winter. There is no second Taurus in your torus.

Why would there be...it's angled, Innit.
Just like the sun and moon are angled, innit. One up and one down and vice versa, innit.
Why?
Mirrored and reflected. Innit.

 

[What A Waster]

So the sun is a reflection of the central energy crystal force.
It always appears circular.
It gives off loads of heat. (Although the energy beam which creates the reflection doesn't melt the dome with is made up of stuff that would become liquid at more than -300°c).

The moon is a reflection of the sun that changes shape daily. The reflection of the sun travels 10,000+ miles across earth providing heat, but doesn't melt the dome when providing the differing shape of the moon reflection.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why? Why can light cancel itself out and reflect in exactly the way light off a concave mirror doesn’t when you get to a certain size. What is the threshold, what makes it cross that barrier to become possible?

Wavelength. The spectrum of colours get cancelled.

There is nothing to show you, it was done online, I had no reason to save it and as I said at least twice now, you need to do it for yourself otherwise how would you know if I'd sneakily Photoshopped the images? It would take literally moments of your life.

No need to show it but want to go on about it. We'll leave it at that.

You are the one challenging accepted norms. It’s you who needs to replicate existing experiments, even the most basic and provide evidence to us it doesn’t work.

I have absolutely nothing to prove to you or anyone.
This is about those who wish to question the narrative and see that it just may not be the whole picture.
It's about prising out the bits of the jigsaw that have been shoehorned into place and hammered to fit from a distance but on closer inspection have many discrepancies.

If you see none then you see none and nothing I can say will change that nor do I care.
I know what I know and I have alternate views on a lot of stuff that's pertinent to me.
The exercise is down to whoever wants to open their own minds to alternate possibilities. Take it as nothing more.

But you won’t because the experiments won’t back up your argument.

They back up my own. They are worthless to you with that mindset and I understand that.

Indeed, you’ll be disproved, hence three months of deflection.

It hasn't happened as of yet. Maybe you can do it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

No need to show it but want to go on about it. We'll leave it at that.

Bathtub experiments?
Oh I see what you mean, yeah which part of "there is nothing to show you as it was done online and not saved" are you struggling with?
You're still not going to try to do it for yourself but will keep banging on about not having been offered proof of anything.
"Offer and I'll accept, show me and I'll rub my chin"

 

[payne]

Bathtub experiments?
Oh I see what you mean, yeah which part of "there is nothing to show you as it was done online and not saved" are you struggling with?
You're still not going to try to do it for yourself but will keep banging on about not having been offered proof of anything.
"Offer and I'll accept, show me and I'll rub my chin"

He only accepts self found evidence (his type of evidence) so can't do what you say as to him you'll then be the authority if he does an experiment you suggested.

His wonderful logic.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So the sun is a reflection of the central energy crystal force.

Central energy through crystal.

It always appears circular.

That's what our distant perception is.

It gives off loads of heat.

Wavelength.

(Although the energy beam which creates the reflection doesn't melt the dome with is made up of stuff that would become liquid at more than -300°c).

It will do in small part but it will be on a level that offers nothing like what it woould under dense conditions we are under.
Does the sun fully melt the ice on a mountain?
And this is under fairly dense pressure of agitation compared to what's up at the dome.

The moon is a reflection of the sun that changes shape daily.

Changes shape as in, how?
You think it's a ball of rock and dust and yet do not wish to argue as to why we only ever see one face.

The reflection of the sun travels 10,000+ miles across earth providing heat, but doesn't melt the dome when providing the differing shape of the moon reflection.

The operative word is travelled.
As an analogy: If you had a blow torch and walked past ice at a certain pace would you melt all the ice or just a small bit which would then refreeze as you pass it?

 

[Nobby]

No. I need a big Earth to do that.

That makes no sense in the context of your argument.
You are happy to use a tennis ball and a cup of water in your proof that water can't be retained by a globe. So surely you are happy to prove your reflection theory using the same small scale?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

He only accepts self found evidence (his type of evidence) so can't do what you say as to him you'll then be the authority if he does an experiment you suggested.

His wonderful logic.

I suspect he thinks my Sketchup suggestion involves crayons and paper.

Changes shape as in, how?
You think it's a ball of rock and dust and yet do not wish to argue as to why we only ever see one face.

as in....

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Kevj]

I have absolutely nothing to prove to you or anyone.
This is about those who wish to question the narrative and see that it just may not be the whole picture.
It's about prising out the bits of the jigsaw that have been shoehorned into place and hammered to fit from a distance but on closer inspection have many discrepancies.

I think you do have something to prove. Let’s cut through the reams of bullshit and you put your cock on the block. Pick any one of many experiments suggested in this thread and you do it and post the results on here.

 

[What A Waster]

Central energy through crystal.

That's what our distant perception is.

Wavelength.

It will do in small part but it will be on a level that offers nothing like what it woould under dense conditions we are under.
Does the sun fully melt the ice on a mountain?
And this is under fairly dense pressure of agitation compared to what's up at the dome.

Changes shape as in, how?
You think it's a ball of rock and dust and yet do not wish to argue as to why we only ever see one face.

The operative word is travelled.
As an analogy: If you had a blow torch and walked past ice at a certain pace would you melt all the ice or just a small bit which would then refreeze as you pass it?

Sun doesn't fully melt the ice on a mountain as water becomes a liquid at 1°c.. big difference in the melting point between helium and hydrogen and water.

"Dense pressure of agitation" more made up shit


"Changes shape as in how" - no moon, waxing crescent, waxing half moon, waxing gibbous, full moon, waning gibbous, waning half moon, waning crescent back to no moon. You may have observed these shapes yourself.

 

[Nobby]

dense pressure of agitation

Wtf?

 

[What A Waster]

Wtf?

Another new discovery

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Another new discovery

I think you spelled made up bullshit wrong there.