Put a flat earthier into space

[What A Waster]

Out of interest @Nukehasslefan have you watched the Behind the Curve documentary?

 

[Nobby]

You follow the pattern set out and I don't, so I obviously understand where I am in this debate, which still is a debate for as long as you keep coming into it to argue against me.

As others have pointed out it's not a debate unless both sides engage in reasoned arguments they can back up.
In this case you aren't able to, or choose not to, provide anything meaningful to support your argument beyond stating water is level.
If this was a debate the other side would say "we don't think that is true for reason xyz and this is why we think those reasons have merit"

You would then respond " I disagree for theses reasons (state reasons). In addition here is the evidence it is flat(present evidence).

Unfortunately none of that happens. All that happens is you say " I don't accept your proofs as they are made up. I know the world isn't a globe, water level nails it. I haven't checked to see if that is true but it is, and I won't give any credence to counter arguments despite asking for them. I will just dismiss them out of hand without being able to ( or choosing not to) explain why I think those arguements or flawed."

For those reasons it isn't a debate, people try and make it a debate but your failure to provide counter arguments mean it is just you making claims that can't be validated or are simply ludicrous ( not all right angles are equal, jet engines don't sick air into them) and people pointing out the flaws in your arguments

 

[What A Waster]

As others have pointed out it's not a debate unless both sides engage in reasoned arguments they can back up.
In this case you aren't able to, or choose not to, provide anything meaningful to support your argument beyond stating water is level.
If this was a debate the other side would say "we don't think that is true for reason xyz and this is why we think those reasons have merit"

You would then respond " I disagree for theses reasons (state reasons). In addition here is the evidence it is flat(present evidence).

Unfortunately none of that happens. All that happens is you say " I don't accept your proofs as they are made up. I know the world isn't a globe, water level nails it. I haven't checked to see if that is true but it is, and I won't give any credence to counter arguments despite asking for them. I will just dismiss them out of hand without being able to ( or choosing not to) explain why I think those arguements or flawed."

For those reasons it isn't a debate, people try and make it a debate but your failure to provide counter arguments mean it is just you making claims that can't be validated or are simply ludicrous ( not all right angles are equal, jet engines don't sick air into them) and people pointing out the flaws in your arguments

 

[DPTT]

@Nukehasslefan
Why if the earth is indeed flat do your overlords produce science and maths to pretend the earth is a globe
Why pretend their are stars, the sun, moon in an orbit when they know they aren’t

 

[DaveH]

As others have pointed out it's not a debate unless both sides engage in reasoned arguments they can back up.
In this case you aren't able to, or choose not to, provide anything meaningful to support your argument beyond stating water is level.
If this was a debate the other side would say "we don't think that is true for reason xyz and this is why we think those reasons have merit"

You would then respond " I disagree for theses reasons (state reasons). In addition here is the evidence it is flat(present evidence).

Unfortunately none of that happens. All that happens is you say " I don't accept your proofs as they are made up. I know the world isn't a globe, water level nails it. I haven't checked to see if that is true but it is, and I won't give any credence to counter arguments despite asking for them. I will just dismiss them out of hand without being able to ( or choosing not to) explain why I think those arguements or flawed."

For those reasons it isn't a debate, people try and make it a debate but your failure to provide counter arguments mean it is just you making claims that can't be validated or are simply ludicrous ( not all right angles are equal, jet engines don't sick air into them) and people pointing out the flaws in your arguments

That is what I have found with every aspect of discussion. If you build up slowly you get an agreement on a few base principals then just “no, not true”. Never a “This doesn’t match this”, “Your formula is incorrect because”, it just hits a block at one stage then complete denial of everything.

 

[Kevj]

That is what I have found with every aspect of discussion. If you build up slowly you get an agreement on a few base principals then just “no, not true”. Never a “This doesn’t match this”, “Your formula is incorrect because”, it just hits a block at one stage then complete denial of everything.

There’s a famous quote by Joseph Joubert which goes like this:

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.

It is very difficult to make progress when the listener in this case is a completely closed mind. No matter how hard anyone has tried to provide help, it falls on a veil of intentional ignorance.

 

[Nobby]

The very crazy thing is he could be right, but his inability to construct an argument means he won't even get a fair hearing

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Out of interest @Nukehasslefan have you watched the Behind the Curve documentary?

No.

As others have pointed out it's not a debate unless both sides engage in reasoned arguments they can back up.

That depends on the reasoned arguments and who deems them to be reasonable and who can actually back them up.
If arguments could be backed up then what does that mean?
Does it mean more than one nods to someone's offering of a supposed reasoned argument or is it two or 10 or 50...etc?
What about 1 person offering what they believe to be reasoned arguments against 2 that think not. Or 3 or 10 or 50...etc?

In this case you aren't able to, or choose not to, provide anything meaningful to support your argument beyond stating water is level.

I think enough is done to provide that and anyone can observe it. It's basically down to whether a person wants to think a square is a circle or black is white or left is right, because it's tantamount to that when people can offer water curving and being level against water being flat and level.

If this was a debate the other side would say "we don't think that is true for reason xyz and this is why we think those reasons have merit"

Yep but they don't have merit and can't be shown to have merit.

You would then respond " I disagree for theses reasons (state reasons). In addition here is the evidence it is flat(present evidence).

Which I have. Which is why I don;t believe they have merit.

Unfortunately none of that happens. All that happens is you say " I don't accept your proofs as they are made up.

Essentially, yes but I give reasons or ask for proof and get none.

I know the world isn't a globe, water level nails it.

It does.

I haven't checked to see if that is true but it is, and I won't give any credence to counter arguments despite asking for them.

I have checked. It's level. It's flat. It's definitely not curved. It definitely does not, by large body of oceans, stay on a spinning globe.

I will just dismiss them out of hand without being able to ( or choosing not to) explain why I think those arguements or flawed."

Dismissed for good reason.

For those reasons it isn't a debate

It is to me. What it is to you, is your affair.

people try and make it a debate but your failure to provide counter arguments mean it is just you making claims that can't be validated or are simply ludicrous ( not all right angles are equal

I never said that. You and others saying that is entirely up to you but it gains you no credence with me.

, jet engines don't sick air into them)

They don't. It's pushed into them due to low pressure being created by the burn.

and people pointing out the flaws in your arguments

Nobody has.
What flaw?
Explain it from your point of view.

@Nukehasslefan
Why if the earth is indeed flat do your overlords produce science and maths to pretend the earth is a globe
Why pretend their are stars, the sun, moon in an orbit when they know they aren’t

To hide the true Earth, for starters, maybe?

The very crazy thing is he could be right, but his inability to construct an argument means he won't even get a fair hearing

That depends on what's construed and constructing an argument against what is being argued.
I find the globe argument as not being constructive but know it to be massively biased and mass controlled to be known as a true reality argument based on nothing but historical ideals, to present day story lines based on them.

It takes one simple argument to bring down a tower of bricks of fiction that build it.
Water level is that one argument that collapses that tower of fiction.

The rest of it is sifting through the rubble to pick out the fiction and argue what it's supposed to represent.
As much as global arguments are presented to me, they're easily argued against because nobody can offer any reality to the argument but can offer massive appeals to authority.
It may not sit well with people but it is what it is.

 

[DaveH]

Another liar?

How I became a space telescope scientist

The James Webb Space Telescope is expected to be 100 times more powerful than the Hubble.

www.bbc.co.uk

One of thousands who worked on the JWST. Seems a really elaborate hoax making this new space telescope, only to have to fake a lunch and fake data coming back from it. If they had not bothered nobody would be any the wiser. It almost invites opportunities for the whole conspiracy to blow apart.

Or is it actually just easier to send stuff into space, and it time to stop being so paranoid?

 

[fyl2u]

I think enough is done to provide that and anyone can observe it. It's basically down to whether a person wants to think a square is a circle or black is white or left is right, because it's tantamount to that when people can offer water curving and being level against water being flat and level.

No it's not, it's like you finding a plank of wood and saying "that's exactly 6 feet long",
...and the rest of us saying, "well, hang on, let's use a tape measure and find out exactly how long it is",
...and you saying "no, it's definitely 6 feet long, you can tell by looking at it, you don't need a tape measure, tape measures are tools for brainwashed people that have been schooled into believing tape measures measure real things, distances are fiction, not all tape measures are equal, you can't believe what tape measures tell you because its just an argument from authority, I don't need your tape measure to tell me it's 6 feet long, and that nails it, the plank is 6 feet long therefore the globe model is nonsense."

Until you realise that's what you're doing with this ridiculous "water level is flat and I don't need to measure it to know that" nonsense, your experiment will be flawed, your conclusion will be wrong, and you'll continue to look like an idiot to everyone else here.

 

[taipeisafc]

They don't. It's pushed into them due to low pressure being created by the burn.

Transfer occurs from the higher to lower energy state - hot objects cool down, objects in the air fall down, gas flows from high pressure to low pressure. The burn creates a high pressure due to the expansion of the hot gases not a low pressure, for an atmospheric jet engine air is normally pulled in through a low pressure intake fan or, at high speeds, the velocity of the unit through the air is enough to push air in (I think this is for ram jet types as they only work above a certain speed). In space the Oxygen is injected from a high pressure liquid source so it is driven in by the higher pressure not by anything created by the burn.

 

[fyl2u]

How Do Space Rockets Work Without Air?

 

[ned_werby]

No it's not, it's like you finding a plank of wood and saying "that's exactly 6 feet long",
...and the rest of us saying, "well, hang on, let's use a tape measure and find out exactly how long it is",
...and you saying "no, it's definitely 6 feet long, you can tell by looking at it, you don't need a tape measure, tape measures are tools for brainwashed people that have been schooled into believing tape measures measure real things, distances are fiction, not all tape measures are equal, you can't believe what tape measures tell you because its just an argument from authority, I don't need your tape measure to tell me it's 6 feet long, and that nails it, the plank is 6 feet long therefore the globe model is nonsense."

Until you realise that's what you're doing with this ridiculous "water level is flat and I don't need to measure it to know that" nonsense, your experiment will be flawed, your conclusion will be wrong, and you'll continue to look like an idiot to everyone else here.

You've got to remember you're talking to a bloke who doesn't believe in time.

 

[What A Waster]

No.

It's right up your street. Globe deniers all meeting up talking about the globe hoax. Some pretty prominent people in the movement.
They do a water level experiment. The results aren't great for them. They fire lasers at a fixed height across a long body of water. Their experiment shows a curve.
They also buy a $20,000 gyroscope to prove that the earth doesn't rotate. But it shows rotation. They just decide to keep quiet on that one at their meetings.

Now maybe Bob Knodel is a glober in on the lie and has been working a deep cover operation to become a prominent flat earther to only then go on a documentary and lie about rotation being true, or maybe the guy has found out that it actually does rotate and decides to stay quiet because it doesn't fit the narrative and doesn't want to be seen as a heretic.


Here is the dialogue;

"What we found is, when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking up a drift," Knodel explains. "A 15-degree per hour drift.

"Now, obviously we were taken aback by that - 'Wow, that's kind of a problem.'

"We obviously were not willing to accept that, and so we started looking for easy to disprove it was actually registering the motion of the Earth."

"We don't want to blow this, you know?" Knodel then says to another Flat Earther. "When you've got $20,000 in this freaking gyro.

"If we dumped what we found right now, it would be bad? It would be bad.

"What I just told you was confidential."

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nukehasslefan said:
I think enough is done to provide that and anyone can observe it. It's basically down to whether a person wants to think a square is a circle or black is white or left is right, because it's tantamount to that when people can offer water curving and being level against water being flat and level.

No it's not, it's like you finding a plank of wood and saying "that's exactly 6 feet long",
...and the rest of us saying, "well, hang on, let's use a tape measure and find out exactly how long it is",
...and you saying "no, it's definitely 6 feet long, you can tell by looking at it, you don't need a tape measure, tape measures are tools for brainwashed people that have been schooled into believing tape measures measure real things, distances are fiction, not all tape measures are equal, you can't believe what tape measures tell you because its just an argument from authority, I don't need your tape measure to tell me it's 6 feet long, and that nails it, the plank is 6 feet long therefore the globe model is nonsense."

Actually you're describing your own mindset on how you think it operates.
That's like you offering the plank of wood being 6 feet long and me asking you to prove it but then get told it's already been proved by some historical name who apparently measured it on a little walk.

Until you realise that's what you're doing with this ridiculous "water level is flat and I don't need to measure it to know that" nonsense, your experiment will be flawed, your conclusion will be wrong, and you'll continue to look like an idiot to everyone else here.

Until you realise water is flat and finds it's own level and does not curve around a spinning ball to then find a level then you'll be arguing the above.

Transfer occurs from the higher to lower energy state - hot objects cool down, objects in the air fall down, gas flows from high pressure to low pressure. The burn creates a high pressure due to the expansion of the hot gases not a low pressure

The burn creates a low pressure which causes a high pressure crashing of atmosphere external to it. It works as action and equal and opposite reaction.

, for an atmospheric jet engine air is normally pulled in through a low pressure intake fan or, at high speeds

No. Air is pushed into the intake fan due to low pressure being created within, by the burn.
It creates a massive crush towards the intake.

the velocity of the unit through the air is enough to push air in (I think this is for ram jet types as they only work above a certain speed).

It's for all jets.

In space the Oxygen is injected from a high pressure liquid source so it is driven in by the higher pressure not by anything created by the burn.

No.
It couldn't happen in supposed space for starters...but....we'll deal with that later.
First of all the fuel and oxygen inside the rocket is for thrust only. To create a big enough burn at pressure to massively expand into the atmosphere which then does all the reactionary work to equal what is thrown into it.

Take away that reactionary atmospheric push back and your rocket is a dead stick, no matter what it throws out.
All a rocket is doing is burning its fuel, nothing more.

It's right up your street. Globe deniers all meeting up talking about the globe hoax. Some pretty prominent people in the movement.
They do a water level experiment. The results aren't great for them. They fire lasers at a fixed height across a long body of water. Their experiment shows a curve.
They also buy a $20,000 gyroscope to prove that the earth doesn't rotate. But it shows rotation. They just decide to keep quiet on that one at their meetings.

Now maybe Bob Knodel is a glober in on the lie and has been working a deep cover operation to become a prominent flat earther to only then go on a documentary and lie about rotation being true, or maybe the guy has found out that it actually does rotate and decides to stay quiet because it doesn't fit the narrative and doesn't want to be seen as a heretic.


Here is the dialogue;

"What we found is, when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking up a drift," Knodel explains. "A 15-degree per hour drift.

"Now, obviously we were taken aback by that - 'Wow, that's kind of a problem.'

"We obviously were not willing to accept that, and so we started looking for easy to disprove it was actually registering the motion of the Earth."

"We don't want to blow this, you know?" Knodel then says to another Flat Earther. "When you've got $20,000 in this freaking gyro.

"If we dumped what we found right now, it would be bad? It would be bad.

"What I just told you was confidential."

I've seen plenty of stuff that pretends to show a globe. Weirdly there's lots of stuff about rockets going to moons and telescopes floating about in space and probes looking back at a supposed ball Earth...and so on and so on and so on.

I've seen plenty of experiments that go against it.
You believe one side and I don't. It's that simple.

If I'm ever made to believe in a spinning globe like we're told, again, then proof needs to be offered...not pretence.

You've got to remember you're talking to a bloke who doesn't believe in time.

What is time?

 

[taipeisafc]

Nukehasslefan said:
I think enough is done to provide that and anyone can observe it. It's basically down to whether a person wants to think a square is a circle or black is white or left is right, because it's tantamount to that when people can offer water curving and being level against water being flat and level.



Actually you're describing your own mindset on how you think it operates.
That's like you offering the plank of wood being 6 feet long and me asking you to prove it but then get told it's already been proved by some historical name who apparently measured it on a little walk.

Until you realise water is flat and finds it's own level and does not curve around a spinning ball to then find a level then you'll be arguing the above.


The burn creates a low pressure which causes a high pressure crashing of atmosphere external to it. It works as action and equal and opposite reaction.


No. Air is pushed into the intake fan due to low pressure being created within, by the burn.
It creates a massive crush towards the intake.


It's for all jets.

No.
It couldn't happen in supposed space for starters...but....we'll deal with that later.
First of all the fuel and oxygen inside the rocket is for thrust only. To create a big enough burn at pressure to massively expand into the atmosphere which then does all the reactionary work to equal what is thrown into it.

Take away that reactionary atmospheric push back and your rocket is a dead stick, no matter what it throws out.
All a rocket is doing is burning its fuel, nothing more.

I've seen plenty of stuff that pretends to show a globe. Weirdly there's lots of stuff about rockets going to moons and telescopes floating about in space and probes looking back at a supposed ball Earth...and so on and so on and so on.

I've seen plenty of experiments that go against it.
You believe one side and I don't. It's that simple.

If I'm ever made to believe in a spinning globe like we're told, again, then proof needs to be offered...not pretence.

What is time?

Utter drivel

 

[fyl2u]

Actually you're describing your own mindset on how you think it operates.
That's like you offering the plank of wood being 6 feet long and me asking you to prove it but then get told it's already been proved by some historical name who apparently measured it on a little walk.

Until you realise water is flat and finds it's own level and does not curve around a spinning ball to then find a level then you'll be arguing the above.

No, you're wrong. When it comes to the "water finding it's own level" statement, we're all saying "then let's measure it" and you're saying "no, let's not, let's go on instinct and blind prejudice and make the assumption that it's flat".

We're saying "let's do the experiment".

You're saying "no, let's not".

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No, you're wrong. When it comes to the "water finding it's own level" statement, we're all saying "then let's measure it" and you're saying "no, let's not, let's go on instinct and blind prejudice and make the assumption that it's flat".

We're saying "let's do the experiment".

You're saying "no, let's not".

Here's the simple thing about this.
The experiments you can all do for yourselves.
You absolutely do not need me or my input.
All you need is your own unbiased mind, free from peer pressure.
Once you actually look deeper into the alternate to the spinning globe you just may ask yourself what's really what.
However, you may decide you're never going to go down that route and will always stay with what you've been told and I say, fair enough.

 

[What A Waster]

I've seen plenty of stuff that pretends to show a globe. Weirdly there's lots of stuff about rockets going to moons and telescopes floating about in space and probes looking back at a supposed ball Earth...and so on and so on and so on.

I've seen plenty of experiments that go against it.
You believe one side and I don't. It's that simple.

If I'm ever made to believe in a spinning globe like we're told, again, then proof needs to be offered...not pretence.

So you think flat earthers are part of the lie as well?

 

[Nobby]

Here's the simple thing about this.
The experiments you can all do for yourselves.
You absolutely do not need me or my input.
All you need is your own unbiased mind, free from peer pressure.
Once you actually look deeper into the alternate to the spinning globe you just may ask yourself what's really what.
However, you may decide you're never going to go down that route and will always stay with what you've been told and I say, fair enough.

It's quite amazing how many ways he can deflect the fact he has built his whole fantasy world on a single piece of "evidence" he hasn't checked