Put a flat earthier into space



Nukehasslefan said:
Lighthouse?
what is 20m then. Is it metres?
What are you getting at?
Click to expand...
I asked why they put lighthouses higher and make them tall with the light at the top if the seas and earth are flat, you waffled on about denser air pressure at different heights or some other nonsense.
So I was questioning whether a 20m or so difference in height would really make that much difference in pressure.
Also if that's the case how come we can see the same distance on high pressure weather days compared to low pressure days 🤔🤔
 
BigPete said:
Aye

Religion was invented when the first con man met the first idiot
Click to expand...
Does this mean every religious person is an idiot?
And how many con men/women are they that push this, today. Many or few?
legend7 said:
I asked why they put lighthouses higher and make them tall with the light at the top if the seas and earth are flat, you waffled on about denser air pressure at different heights or some other nonsense.
So I was questioning whether a 20m or so difference in height would really make that much difference in pressure.
Click to expand...
Of course it makes a difference. Every millimetre of height makes a difference in pressure.
Does a bottom sheet stay the same pressure on it's own as opposed to having many sheets stacked on it?
Atmosphere is layered and stacked.
Can you see clearly through a sheet of clear glass?
Can you see as clearly through two and three and 20 and 1000?

legend7 said:
Also if that's the case how come we can see the same distance on high pressure weather days compared to low pressure days 🤔🤔
Click to expand...
You can't.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Of course it makes a difference. Every millimetre of height makes a difference in pressure.
Does a bottom sheet stay the same pressure on it's own as opposed to having many sheets stacked on it?
Atmosphere is layered and stacked.
Can you see clearly through a sheet of clear glass?
Can you see as clearly through two and three and 20 and 1000?


You can't.
Click to expand...
Absolute codswallop.
So by your logic if I look into my street and look as far as I can at something at ground level from upstairs then take a picture.
Then take the same picture from downstairs it will be clearer.
Or the same goes if I went out into the open with something I can see from both levels?
What does your wife think of your thoughts? Does she believe in space?
 
legend7 said:
Absolute codswallop.
So by your logic if I look into my street and look as far as I can at something at ground level from upstairs then take a picture.
Then take the same picture from downstairs it will be clearer.
Click to expand...
Yes into distance.
legend7 said:
Or the same goes if I went out into the open with something I can see from both levels?
Click to expand...
You will see more clearly over distance above than below in the same conditions you stand in.
legend7 said:
What does your wife think of your thoughts? Does she believe in space?
Click to expand...
My wife thinks I'm a nutter.
 
payne said:
Has he provided any evidence in that time? i.e. expanded on any of his musings in a reasonable and thought out way?

Did you even listen to the the explanation? oh wait we already know.

Utter tosh is all you ever speak.
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge. He did tell a bloke who works on actual Nuclear submarines that he was wrong about Nuclear power though. No evidence to back it up, just that he "knows 100%" it's bollocks.
 
I'm afraid I've had another globe proof this morning on a flight at sunrise. A dark line on the western horizon where the sun hadn't yet risen. So that can only mean one of 2 things, either:

1 - The Earth is flat and the light (which doesn't travel) decided to give up travelling (somehow) when it reached that point.

Or

2 - The Earth is a globe that spins and it hadn't yet illuminated that part of the horizon due to the sun being so low in the eastern sky.
 
It's the "I'm not saying it's a fact, it's just what I believe." swiftly followed by "But I know it's true, 100%".

Essentially he believes that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. And because he can't (or won't) conduct easy experiments, he won't believe any counter-argument.

It's an interesting thought experiment, for a while. But honestly, he's spent at least 10 years of his life, arguing that the world is some kind of uniquely improbable object. That he, and he alone, knows the Truth!

An impossible, easily disproved, fundamentally flawed 'Truth'.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Lighthouse?
what is 20m then. Is it metres?
What are you getting at?

Well I still want to know how they're spinning globes. Show me some pictures/video of them being spinning globes.
I don't mean NASA/Hollywood type, I mean the observable one's that's said to be the case.


I have answered it and I said it makes no sense.


There's one law of motion.
For every action there's and equal and opposite reaction. That's basically it. It applies to everything.
You only get out of something what you put in.

You asked a question and I answered it.
Make it more specific if that didn't suit you.

As for understanding possibility and probability. In essence both can explain something that may or may not happen.
An instance.
Will that man punch you in the face? Probably, because I called his family.
Will that stranger punch you in the face. Probably not because I haven't upset him but it is possible.

Millions and millions of people believe in it. Are they being lied to or are they all in on the lie?
Could you stand alone and argue they're wrong and walk away knowing you are right?


Only because that's what you are shown.



Of course it's not possible by looking around a room. You can't look around Earth that way so using one room as an entirety would not offer any realistic view of the potential of what we are living on/in.

Sheer size and following a circle will offer you two different light point set ups. One set for Each side with some of those set ups actually being see from each side, only sort of mirrored.

Correct I haven't studied the points of light in depth. I don't need to.


It's a map showing movement around a north and south hemisphere mindset.
The spinning globe from so called space shows the map of the world to people's minds.
Global maps on paper.
Google Earth zoom in.

You may think you're offering me proof but you're doing so because you simply accept what you're told is your reality. I don't follow that.
Navigating a circle by points of light is easy to see in how it's done by simply picking out certain points of light to follow.

On a spinning globe it's absolutely not feasible except in the fictional story books.

You basically are saying it is.


But you clearly know a man made projector can offer you a visual on points of light upon a dome....right?
But you don't think it's possible we could have a naturally centred one.


I've given you the basics. It's clear as to what you think so adding extras won;t change anything. I try to answer to those who ask but as an overall Earth cell to give you an accurate rebuttal to your belief system. It's just not going to work unless you put in the effort to figure some of it out.

That doesn't seem to be the case as your posts clearly show and I'm fine with it.

I've seen enough of it to understand it's moving round a dome.
You believe they're stationary and the Earth spins to make them appear to move. That's your prerogative but you know what I think about that.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question you just spouted a lot of waffle. How simple do you want me to make the question. Give me a tangible (look the word up) measurable change or benefit that would result if the world was as you say. In other words what could possibly be the motivation for this great conspiracy. Possibility: your theory. Probability (to any rational person): its utter bullshit.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
No need to research. I know what the supposed laws are but there is only one.

I'll go through the supposed laws and explain why there's only one and the rest are the same or not feasible.

Third law.
Newton's Third Law of Motion states that any time a force acts from one object to another, there is an equal force acting back on the original object. ... Basically for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Bang on.

Newton's Second Law of Motion defines the relationship between acceleration, force, and mass.
The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
Or to be blunt, it means every action has an equal and opposite reaction. As above.


This is the nonsense piece, below... and isn't a law of any kind because it simply cannot work. Reason?.....Take a look at the other two which are basically just an extension of one simple law.

Newton's First Law of Motion states that in order for the motion of an object to change, a force must act upon it. This is a concept generally called inertia.
An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Ok, first of all an object is never at rest, it's always moving, however small, due to expansion and contraction of it and what is under and around it.
Secondly an object cannot remain in motion at a constant speed because it is always acted upon by an unbalanced force.

This law insinuates an object will never encounter resistance. It implies a fictional vacuum where one push force upon the object would offer it a motion, constantly, never speeding up nor slowing down. It's impossible so isn't a law at all. It'/s a fantasy. A fiction.

I know people will argue it but the reality is clear to us all. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
A fictional vacuum offers no action and no reaction if we want to go down the nit pick hole.
Basically everything requires a medium in order to operate in. Everything with absolutely no exceptions.

It's easy to be offered a mind picture about pushing a space ship and it never stopping until it hits some kind of force. It so easy to just go with that story because there's no way for anyone to physically disprove it. It comes down to simple logic which means a person has to sidestep the fantasy in order to see the reality of what is, not what is told, is.

Not in the way we are told, I won't be....ever.

In the space they tell us about....it's not possible.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :oops::oops::oops::oops::oops::oops::oops::oops::oops:
 

Back
Top