Put a flat earthier into space



Tidal locking?
Can you explain it?
Yes, the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth. Why do I need to explain it? Like I said, there's plenty of info if you cared to look it up.
It makes no sense for a centralised sun and an orbiting Earth and moon and all the rest of it. It literally doesn't.
It literally does, but I know it's a concept some people find difficult to grasp.
That's what you'd get with a dome and a central projector.
Have you ever looked up those projectors that they call planetariums?

Take a look at some and it may offer you a clue. It may not, either. It just depends on what you want to think.
Not the planetarium one again, haway uncle Parallax, tell us the one about how the globe needs all kinds of nonsense added to make it work again, that ones hilarious.
If it remains facing the Earth as it travels around it it cannot rotate.
If it remains facing the Earth as it travels around it, it must rotate.
 
Last edited:

Nobby

Central Defender
Yeah, so I've been told.
However, can you answer the question, or not?

The entire cell is alive, yes.

The same answers and no explanation.
No problem.
You have gone so far from reality it's pointless offering logical explanation, nevermind scientific reasoning or mathematical proofs.

You no longer even acknowledge the explanations could have validity and dismiss them with either "nah not true" or by making meaningless phrases up "dense pressure agitation" or what ever it was.

It is like talking to a toddler adding layers of make believe to their storey, until it finally loses anything remotely resembling what they and everyone else can see happening around them
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
Nukehasslefan said:
Tidal locking?
Can you explain it?

The Snockerty Friddle said:

Yes, the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth. Why do I need to explain it? Like I said, there's plenty of info if you cared to look it up.
Nukehasslefan said: If you can't explain it then no problem.
Nukehasslefan said:
It makes no sense for a centralised sun and an orbiting Earth and moon and all the rest of it. It literally doesn't.

The Snockerty Friddle said:

It literally does, but I know it's a concept some people find difficult to grasp.
Nukehasslefan said: It makes no rational sense to be fair.
Nukehasslefan said:
That's what you'd get with a dome and a central projector.
Have you ever looked up those projectors that they call planetariums?

Take a look at some and it may offer you a clue. It may not, either. It just depends on what you want to think.

The Snockerty Friddle said:

Not the planetarium one again, haway uncle Parallax, tell us the one about how the globe needs all kinds of nonsense added to make it work again, that ones hilarious.
Nukehasslefan said: I don't need to tell you, it should be pretty obvious once a person takes the time to look into it with an unbiased mindset.
Nukehasslefan said:
If it remains facing the Earth as it travels around it it cannot rotate.

The Snockerty Friddle said:

If it remains facing the Earth as it travels around it, it must rotate.
Nukehasslefan said:

No, it shouldn't.
If it rotated you would see a different set up of it if it was a sphere.
The only way your moon could show the same face to Earth is if it was not rotating itself.
You have gone so far from reality it's pointless offering logical explanation, nevermind scientific reasoning or mathematical proofs.
You mean I've gone so far away from the fictional globe schooling that it becomes pointless trying to explain the fictional globe to me. I agree.
You no longer even acknowledge the explanations could have validity and dismiss them with either "nah not true" or by making meaningless phrases up "dense pressure agitation" or what ever it was.
Yep based on years of sifting through it and seeing it for what it is, which is fiction.
It is like talking to a toddler adding layers of make believe to their storey, until it finally loses anything remotely resembling what they and everyone else can see happening around them
The thing is, people will refuse to believe anything against a set narrative if it's the belief system of the masses.
And this is what the global system and all of the nonsense that goes with it, is. IMO of course.
 
Last edited:

The Snockerty Friddle said:

Yes, the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth. Why do I need to explain it? Like I said, there's plenty of info if you cared to look it up.
Nukehasslefan said: If you can't explain it then no problem.

The Snockerty Friddle said:

It literally does, but I know it's a concept some people find difficult to grasp.
Nukehasslefan said: It makes no rational sense to be fair.

The Snockerty Friddle said:

Not the planetarium one again, haway uncle Parallax, tell us the one about how the globe needs all kinds of nonsense added to make it work again, that ones hilarious.
Nukehasslefan said: I don't need to tell you, it should be pretty obvious once a person takes the time to look into it with an unbiased mindset.

The Snockerty Friddle said:

If it remains facing the Earth as it travels around it, it must rotate.
Nukehasslefan said:

No, it shouldn't.
If it rotated you would see a different set up of it if it was a sphere.
The only way your moon could show the same face to Earth is if it was not rotating itself.
The whole reason you want someone to explain stuff is so that you can say they appealed to authority or they were schooled into that mindset and reject their explanation. After 275 pages this much is clear, so why then would anyone do your research for you?
In the case of tidal locking, I don't know the specific details, I never needed to but could, if I cared, easily find out, so lets say my best guess, with no appeal to authority is that it always shows us the same face because it revolves around the Earths centre of gravity rather than its own. Now why not do some research for yourself and prove me wrong, that way we both learn something.

"I don't need to tell you, it should be pretty obvious once a person takes the time to look into it with an unbiased mindset."
So while I have to tell you how tidal locking works, you don't need to explain your own senseless hypocrisy? It's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks with an unbiased mindset that the globe model works while it's you who has to keep adding on extra bits of made up nonsense which then fail to explain your alternative.
You cannot fit the visible sky onto your dome. There is no further argument needed if you look at it with an unbiased mindset because it's a simple, logical fact.
 
Last edited:

DaveH

Striker
I think the purpose of all the reflections is to ensure the cell does not become stagnant. Basically to keep an energy to keep everything moving within to support the bacteria needed to keep the cell alive.
:D :D. Well done for taking it to a new level this morning. Absolute zero superfluid dome that reflects light in the way that light doesn’t in order to keep the bacteria that covers this inhospitable dome alive. :D
The whole reason you want someone to explain stuff is so that you can say they appealed to authority or they were schooled into that mindset and reject their explanation. After 275 pages this much is clear, so why then would anyone do your research for you?
In the case of tidal locking, I don't know the specific details, I never needed to but could, if I cared, easily find out, so lets say my best guess, with no appeal to authority is that it always shows us the same face because it revolves around the Earths centre of gravity rather than its own. Now why not do some research for yourself and prove me wrong, that way we both learn something.

"I don't need to tell you, it should be pretty obvious once a person takes the time to look into it with an unbiased mindset."
So while I have to tell you how tidal locking works, you don't need to explain your own senseless hypocrisy? It's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks with an unbiased mindset that the globe model works while it's you who has to keep adding on extra bits of made up nonsense which then fail to explain your alternative.
You cannot fit the visible sky onto your dome. There is no further argument needed if you look at it with an unbiased mindset because it's a simple, logical fact.
Also remember lunar libration. Where it is tidally locked but not perfectly so, which means we see about 57% of the moon and not quite the same face all the time. This does not match the sunspots we see or and solar observations but yes one is a reflection of the other.
 
Last edited:
:D :D. Well done for taking it to a new level this morning. Absolute zero superfluid dome that reflects light in the way that light doesn’t in order to keep the bacteria that covers this inhospitable dome alive. :D

Also remember lunar libration. Where it is tidally locked but not perfectly so, which means we see about 57% of the moon and not quite the same face all the time. This does not match the sunspots we see or and solar observations but yes one is a reflection of the other.
Oh yeah, I forgot all about reflections which don't have gravity, silly me.
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
The whole reason you want someone to explain stuff is so that you can say they appealed to authority or they were schooled into that mindset and reject their explanation.

Not at all. We know this is the truth anyway so it doesn't really need to be pointed out.
If you cannot prove something but believe it and argue for it being a a truth by referring to the place and people you gained that thought process from, then you're appealing to what you deem as your accepted authority.
After 275 pages this much is clear, so why then would anyone do your research for you?
I'm asked a lot of questions. I try to answer everyone but it's not so easy when there's an onslaught.
You are arguing against one person, aided by many that are doing the very same.
I'm not asking you to research, I'm asking you...I'm asking YOU.....I'm asking you to explain what's happening because apparently you know it's factual, right?
Based on you knowing it's factual I just wonder if you can explain it as that. You shouldn't need to research.
In the case of tidal locking, I don't know the specific details, I never needed to but could, if I cared, easily find out, so lets say my best guess, with no appeal to authority is that it always shows us the same face because it revolves around the Earths centre of gravity rather than its own.

So basically you have no clue.
Now why not do some research for yourself and prove me wrong, that way we both learn something.
I do look it all up and the answers just seem like utter gobbledygook. Maybe they're not explaining simple enough. Can you offer an answer in simple terms bearing in mind I'm a retard and simpleton as I've been regularly told.
The simplest and easiest answer to my questions would help.
"I don't need to tell you, it should be pretty obvious once a person takes the time to look into it with an unbiased mindset."
So while I have to tell you how tidal locking works, you don't need to explain your own senseless hypocrisy?

Not if I'm not offering it as fact as you clearly are.
It's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks with an unbiased mindset that the globe model works while it's you who has to keep adding on extra bits which then fail to explain your alternative.
It's actually not clear at all. It is clear to anyone who follows peer pressure and bias for a global Earth and spin but I don;t follow that which makes it unclear to me.
And to repeat myself, I once was biased towards a spinning globe and I thought anything other was preposterous.
Why?
Because that's what I was schooled into, just like I was schooled into believing Santa and religion and the tooth fairy, plus the devil in hell...etc....etc....etc.


You cannot fit the visible sky onto your dome.
Of course you can.
There is no further argument needed if you look at it with an unbiased mindset because it's a simple, logical fact.
You're not compelled to argue with me. You can stop right now if you want to. I'm fine with it.
 

fyl2u

Striker
Yeah, so I've been told.
However, can you answer the question, or not?

Think about your swingball again.

Ball attached to string.

Ball swings around pole while attached to string.

The part of the ball the string is attached to is always facing the pole.

Therefore the ball rotates a full 360 degrees as it makes its way around the pole.

The ball is therefore rotating at the same rate it is orbiting the pole.

If you are the pole, you see the same side of the ball regardless of how far around the orbit it is - the part of the ball the string is attached to.

Seriously, man, this is a whole new level of ignorance, logic failure and outright lack of brain cells from you.
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
Nukehasslefan said:
I think the purpose of all the reflections is to ensure the cell does not become stagnant. Basically to keep an energy to keep everything moving within to support the bacteria needed to keep the cell alive.

DaveH said:

Well done for taking it to a new level this morning. Absolute zero superfluid dome that reflects light in the way that light doesn’t in order to keep the bacteria that covers this inhospitable dome alive. :D

Nukehasslefan said:
Not really sure what you're getting at with this.


Think about your swingball again.

Ball attached to string.

Ball swings around pole while attached to string.

The part of the ball the string is attached to is always facing the pole.

Therefore the ball rotates a full 360 degrees as it makes its way around the pole.
The ball is therefore rotating at the same rate it is orbiting the pole.

If you are the pole, you see the same side of the ball regardless of how far around the orbit it is - the part of the ball the string is attached to.

Seriously, man, this is a whole new level of ignorance, logic failure and outright lack of brain cells from you.
No. The ball stays in the same place.
It may go all around the pole but the ball itself does not rotate.
We are told the moon rotates at around 10 mph and in the opposite direction to Earth's rotation.
The swing ball analogy does not work for this.
 
Last edited:

legend7

Midfield
That's what you'd get with a dome and a central projector.
Have you ever looked up those projectors that they call planetariums?
So how does the energy source manage to just project little dots of stars at night time but then bright sunlight during the day.
A planetarium is specifically rigged up just to show stars, same as a movie projector projects films, it's hardly the same as a natural phenomenon blasting out of the earth.
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
So how does the energy source manage to just project little dots of stars at night time but then bright sunlight during the day.
It doesn't. It projects them all of the time but they're washed out by the larger reflective sun as it comes around and towards you in terms of your day.
A planetarium is specifically rigged up just to show stars, same as a movie projector projects films, it's hardly the same as a natural phenomenon blasting out of the earth.
Yes it is but it could be rigged up to show other stuff.
However to show the sun it would wash out the other points of light and render it useless in a small area like a building.
 

legend7

Midfield
Not at all. We know this is the truth anyway so it doesn't really need to be pointed out.
If you cannot prove something but believe it and argue for it being a a truth by referring to the place and people you gained that thought process from, then you're appealing to what you deem as your accepted authority.

I'm asked a lot of questions. I try to answer everyone but it's not so easy when there's an onslaught.
You are arguing against one person, aided by many that are doing the very same.
I'm not asking you to research, I'm asking you...I'm asking YOU.....I'm asking you to explain what's happening because apparently you know it's factual, right?
Based on you knowing it's factual I just wonder if you can explain it as that. You shouldn't need to research.


So basically you have no clue.

I do look it all up and the answers just seem like utter gobbledygook. Maybe they're not explaining simple enough. Can you offer an answer in simple terms bearing in mind I'm a retard and simpleton as I've been regularly told.
The simplest and easiest answer to my questions would help.


Not if I'm not offering it as fact as you clearly are.

It's actually not clear at all. It is clear to anyone who follows peer pressure and bias for a global Earth and spin but I don;t follow that which makes it unclear to me.
And to repeat myself, I once was biased towards a spinning globe and I thought anything other was preposterous.
Why?
Because that's what I was schooled into, just like I was schooled into believing Santa and religion and the tooth fairy, plus the devil in hell...etc....etc....etc.



Of course you can.

You're not compelled to argue with me. You can stop right now if you want to. I'm fine with it.
What do your friends think of your ideas, do you have a wife?
Have you thought of being a fiction author.
Genuine questions, not having a dig.
It doesn't. It projects them all of the time but they're washed out by the larger reflective sun as it comes around and towards you in terms of your day.

Yes it is but it could be rigged up to show other stuff.
However to show the sun it would wash out the other points of light and render it useless in a small area like a building.
So if the sun is such a huge energy source that it heats the whole planet and the pressure wave affects the tides why can't I see it in the distance in your flat world, we know why it vanishes on our globe?
Especially if we lived in one of the countries nearer the central area.
 
Last edited:

fyl2u

Striker
No. The ball stays in the same place.

No, it doesn't.

The side that's facing the pole when the ball is at the "12 o'clock" position is the same side of the ball that's facing the pole when the ball is at the "6 o'clock" position, but the ball itself is now facing the complete opposite direction. From one of those positions to the other the ball has rotated 180 degrees.

This is exactly the same as the motion of the moon.

It may go all around the pole but the ball itself does not rotate.

If that's how you're describing the motion of the ball, then using the same (incorrect) language it would be said that the moon doesn't rotate either.

The motion of each is the same - one side of the ball faces the pole all the way around its orbit, and one side of the moon faces the earth all the way around its orbit.

We are told the moon rotates at around 10 mph and in the opposite direction to Earth's rotation.
The swing ball analogy does not work for this.

The swingball analogy works perfectly for this, you're just failing to understand how rotation works around a central point.
 

Top