Put a flat earthier into space



DaveH said:
Wow, a whole lot more of stupid. But, you confirm you have no single working experiment to prove the world is not a globe, so we can agree finally that there is zero evidence against the world being a spinning globe. I'm glad we finally agree on that.
Click to expand...
Water level.
DaveH said:
The video did see him climb a sand dune to take the photos.
Click to expand...
Plenty more from the shore and even on the water. But I'm sure you know this.
DaveH said:
Post and watch the video again or perhaps provide evidence where this happens in more than just this one place on earth.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter about just one place on Earth. It'll happen with tall buildings, anywhere. It'll also happen with smaller buildings, depending on the weather.
It's pretty clear as all hell the Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon and certainly not a spinning one.
DaveH said:
If the earth was not a globe, it would happen all over right?
Click to expand...
Of course, depending on the weather.
DaveH said:
But elevation. Are you really asking that question? Imagine standing on the ground with a small hill in front of you and a mountain behind. Can you see the other side of the hill? No. Now climb the mountain, can you see the other side of the hill now? Yes. Or, stick you eye close to a large ball, how much of it can you see? Now move the ball further away and you see more of it. I'm amazed anyone has even asked. It is basic straight line of sight.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to get at.
Are you saying standing behind a small hill blocks your sight to a mountain behind that hill?
If you are you might as well have said standing outside your house wall at the back stops you seeing your neighbours over the road at the front.
Unless you want to clarify what you're getting at.
DaveH said:
If it was all down to atmospheric density then the view would change so much when the atmospheric density changed due to weather.
Click to expand...
It does.
DaveH said:
Like I said on crisp winter days the atmosphere has less moisture and is of lower density.
Click to expand...
On a cold crisp clear day the atmosphere isn't agitating anywhere near as much and is more dense. It can actually massively magnify objects in your view.
And it's got nothing to do with less moisture,.
DaveH said:
Visibility through it is far better and is one reason why astronomers prefer cold winter nights.
Click to expand...
Yep, as I said above.
DaveH said:
If the earth was not a globe, if there were any conditions where you could see further than any other condition, then it would be clear winter days (Also observed in places like Dover where you can just see Calais from the heights of the cliffs and this is clearer on cool winter days). From Roker, you can't see Norway. From the Northumberland coast, places where you can see the top of the Lindisfarne lighthouse but not the bottom, you don't see the bottom appear in clearer less dense conditions. Why is this? Because we live on a globe moron.
Click to expand...
When you're raised above sea level your view is through much less denser atmosphere than if you were stood at the shore.
This happens whether it's hot or cold.
fyl2u said:
Ah OK, so inadmissible to the debate? Got it.


Wow.

Here's a quick sketch to show how wrong you are AGAIN.

Logon or register to see this image
Click to expand...
Your little people are looking down, not horizontally level.
Have them looking horizontally level and see what happens.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Water level.
Click to expand...

Who's on first?

Nukehasslefan said:
It's pretty clear as all hell the Earth is absolutely not a globe we walk upon and certainly not a spinning one.
Click to expand...

What's on second?

Nukehasslefan said:
Your little people are looking down, not horizontally level.
Have them looking horizontally level and see what happens.
Click to expand...

They're looking at the "tall building" as low as they can on that building.

The sketch shows that the higher the elevation of the observer, the more of the tall building they'll be able to see.

If the guy was lying down on the floor, he'd see even less than when standing on the ground.
 
fyl2u said:
They're looking at the "tall building" as low as they can on that building.
Click to expand...
They're looking down, not level.
fyl2u said:
The sketch shows that the higher the elevation of the observer, the more of the tall building they'll be able to see.
Click to expand...
Yep, because you have them looking down.
fyl2u said:
If the guy was lying down on the floor, he'd see even less than when standing on the ground.
Click to expand...
Nope.
The tilt kills it off in an instant. It shows the globe up for what it is. Fiction.
 
fyl2u said:
It's seriously f***ing bizarre. He's incapable of understanding even simple concepts like "field of view". :oops::oops::oops:
Click to expand...
he's so far gone he can't concede anything now. he cannot be reason with by anyone not parroting flat earth/dome theory. I mean the whole right angle thing was mental to the extreme.

there's people like yourself and others who obviously have a grasp of some maths/science and he's outright calling you stupid whilst coming out with super carbon arcs and ice domes. he's a mental case
 
payne said:
he's so far gone he can't concede anything now. he cannot be reason with by anyone not parroting flat earth/dome theory. I mean the whole right angle thing was mental to the extreme.

there's people like yourself and others who obviously have a grasp of some maths/science and he's outright calling you stupid whilst coming out with super carbon arcs and ice domes. he's a mental case
Click to expand...
Musings only unfortunately.
Not a single experiment shared out of the "many" he has done.
Including rocket fuel or similar in a vaccum 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️😂
 

Back
Top