Put a flat earthier into space

[Deleted member 6694]

In your second diagram, the person walking around in the circle is turning themselves at the same rate as they turn in the circle.

It's beyone belief how much he is putting into this

The bottom half of the diagram is also how the moon spins/moves in relation to the earth and why we see the same side of the moon all the time.

 

[The King of Um]

Yes, but that minuscule wobble has nothing to do with the phenomenon he cites it for. It's not remotely close to the necessary magnitude. You're talking about past preterite tenses with someone who is at "what is a verb?"

Agree totally - if anything it supports a spherical earth - I was just letting my inner pedant out

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So 3 things if something flew between the energy projector and the ice wall would the projected lights vanish as they would be in shadow so to speak?

No, because it wouldn't happen. We are talking inhospitable terrain to go anywhere near to the centre.

Why has nobody found or gone to this centre that is beaming all of these lights out?

As above.

You didn't really explain the poles, if they aren't on the globe where do they sit on your "map" I can walk north and hit a pole, go right across it to more water then eventually I'll hit a different pole, cross that then end up where I started. I could do that from here or Turkey or China so how do you explain that in your cell.

Looking at a model globe, yes you can.
Have you tried it,physically?
It's what you believe you can do because you've been offered that model.

Do you believe in aliens @Nukehasslefan ?

Potentially, yes....but not outer space aliens. Aliens to us but on this Earth.

 

[fyl2u]

It's beyone belief how much he is putting into this

It's a fascinating insight into utter delusion.

 

[Roman maroni]

It's a fascinating insight into utter delusion.

I wonder if he's actually David Icke.

 

[fyl2u]

I wonder if he's actually David Icke.

I'm not convinced about David Icke anymore. I used to think he was a delusional crazy person, but now I think he's a very intelligent guy who doesn't believe a word of what he's peddling, he's just making a shitload of money exploiting all the intellectually deficient conspiracy theorists.

 

[Roman maroni]

I'm not convinced about David Icke anymore. I used to think he was a delusional crazy person, but now I think he's a very intelligent guy who doesn't believe a word of what he's peddling, he's just making a shitload of money exploiting all the intellectually deficient conspiracy theorists.

I think you're right, the so called spokespersons for flat earth and creationism that appear on television spouting their shite seem to be making a lot of money, selling dvds, memorabilia and holding conversations in the US and the gullible conspiracy theorists lap it up.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It makes absolute sense to anyone with a brain.
It makes no sense to you because you're absolutely determined to do everything you can to make it not make sense to you at every single step of the explanations we give you. You're not trying to understand how it works, you're trying to stop yourself from understanding how it works.

I tried so many times. I once believed it all. Don't forget that bit.

It makes no sense because it looks like nonsense and simple water level experiments prove it to be nonsense, not because I refuse to understand it.

Presumably you do this so that you can continue spouting this bizarre fruitloop theory of cells that nobody has any evidence of, ice walls that nobody has ever seen or has evidence of, energy projections that nobody has any evidence of, and big central energy vortices that nobody has ever seen or has any evidence of.

No. Nobody has to mention anything to do with my thought process on what I think Earth is.
This is about the nonsense of a spinning globe, from my side but I try to answer questions from those who are interested in alternate theories.

You tell us you've done experiments that prove science to be wrong, but you won't tell us what those experiments are, and for some reason you won't publish these groundbreaking, world-shattering results that would undoubtedly earn you a Nobel prize and elevate your name above the likes of Einstein, Newton and Hawking.

No. I do my own experiments that prove a lot more to me than what we're being told. I cannot directly prove to anyone that my experiments show science to be wrong, only that some of my experiments show....to me......the globe and space are not what we're told...but then again I don't accept a spinning globe and the space we're told about, as any genuine science.

No, you haven't. You've shown how it works in the fantasy world of your brain and refuse to accept that it is YOU that is introducing additional forces to turn the tilt of the planet 360 degrees as you go around the sun, while our explanation of the system requires no such force because the tilt stays in the same direction all the way around.

The global model has been tweaked and tweaked over time to cater for what we supposedly observe.
The title alone is added in nonsense, just as a spin in elliptical orbits are nonsense...but that's just my thought process.
You can believe what you want to and follow what you want, obviously.
My issue isn't with people like you. It's with the nonsense global storlines pushed out by those who invented it all up.

Our explanation is realistic.

To you and those who think on the same lines as you, yes.

Yours is swingball and fairground rides. And you don't even accept the basic concepts that make swingball and fairground rides work anyway, so how you can use them in your explanations is anybody's guess.

Yes. It brings a reality to weed out the fantasy global storylines....etc..

Well at least you believe that friction exists. That's a start.

Yep and I believe that because we have a medium that it acts in.

It isn't. If you can go and find me a 4-dimensional latex membrane I'll do the experiment for you and film it for you.

What will a latex membrane show to you?

There is no wobbling change in orientation in the model we have shown you.

Of course there is.

The only model on this thread with a wobbling change in orientation is the model you showed us where one pole stays on the outside all the way around.

There's no wobbling in that one. The pole stays pointed in one direction only.
Your poles change direction from pointing away from your sun to pointing at it.
This should be a massive clue.

You can literally see elliptical orbits happening with your own eyes on that video using the latex membrane. Are you trying to tell us now that you believe elliptical orbits are impossible?

I'm not arguing any latex membrane. It does not show any reality of orbits except to put a pretence on them being a reality in a so called vacuum being supposedly pulled by a massive sun that apparently spews out radiation in that vacuum...somehow and yet it doesn't push anything away it still apparently somehow pulls Earth in and warps the space in this vacuum that is devoid of any matter.

It's utter utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

You know what's a great story but that's all it is? The story about cells that nobody has any evidence of, ice walls that nobody has ever seen or has evidence of, energy projections that nobody has any evidence of, and big central energy vortices that nobody has ever seen or has any evidence of.

Yep, I believe so as well.
I'd love to be able to show it as a reality but I do not have the means to do so, so it remains a story. A thought process and a possibility (to me).

No mate, you're getting confused again. Superman is a work of fiction written by someone that either didn't understand physics or didn't care that his story had scientific flaws because it was intended for young kids.

Logon or register to see this image

Yep. Just like space satellites were thought up by a fictional story writer called Arthur C Clarke, as the storyline goes.
It's all about what people want to believe in all age brackets and how each story is told and sold.

Actually, special relativity came first. General relativity came 10 years later. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know this. It would absolutely surprise me if you could explain what either of them were supposed to be describing in your own words without consulting the internet first to find out.

It doesn't matter which is which, they're both gobbledygook as far as I'm concerned.

And then look at the rest of the people in this conversation who have heard the actual real science behind it all and are not baffled by it.

I bet they're baffled to all hell about lot's of it all but they have no need to say why.
All the info is there to peruse.
People can read about superman and not even argue as to why he can do so much with his powers but ask them questions on him and many would offer answers or go back and reference for those answers, like is done on here with the global model. Both fiction but easily argued for, without knowing the reality.

It's so weird. How can so many of us be so wrong and claim to use this incorrect science in our everyday lives,

How many people believe in a god ?
How many sections of people, each in their millions believe in their own religion and god?
Can any of them be wrong?

from GPS to mobile phone communication to the electronics in the computer you're using right now. We're obviously all just liars or deluded, and unaware that we're sitting here in the presence of the greatest free-thinking mind that has ever lived!

Plenty of communication towers dotted all over the place, plus high buildings housing them.
Stations placed all over and relays...etc.
There's absolutely no need for any fictional space stuff to be added in to the set up.

No it is not. Do you mind me asking how far you went through the UK education system and what your highest qualification is or where your experience of the highest levels of education comes from?

I went right through like most did.
My qualifications are irrelevant.
There's some genius people out there that struggled through school, just as there are some genius people out there who aced their schooling.
Pieces of paper are a great way to make people proud and a great way to make a person feel qualified in their field after their hard work in memorising and following procedures in their apprenticeships, etc.

I admire anyone who qualifies in their chosen field just as I admire anyone who can be self taught or be innovative whether they have zero qualifications or even went to school.

Someone with 100 certificates has no more credence to me than someone who has none.
Each person has their own level of capabilities and each one adds to the ongoing push of nature.
It just depends on how it's looked at and by who.

 

[taipeisafc]

"No. I do my own experiments that prove a lot more to me than what we're being told. I cannot directly prove to anyone that my experiments show science to be wrong, only that some of my experiments show....to me......the globe and space are not what we're told...but then again I don't accept a spinning globe and the space we're told about, as any genuine science."

I think that part of his "post" speaks volumes.

And then there is this :-

"Yep. Just like space satellites were thought up by a fictional story writer called Arthur C Clarke, as the storyline goes.
It's all about what people want to believe in all age brackets and how each story is told and sold."

No they weren't, Arthur C Clarke postulated the geo stationary orbit for communication satellites :-

Clarke contributed to the popularity of the idea that

You must be logged on to see external links

would be ideal telecommunications relays. He first described this in a letter to the editor of

You must be logged on to see external links

in February 1945

You must be logged on to see external links

and elaborated on the concept in a paper titled Extra-Terrestrial Relays – Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?, published in Wireless World in October 1945. The is now sometimes known as the Clarke Orbit or the Clarke Belt in his honour.

He didn't think up satellites you utter tool and also :-

"After the war, he attained a in mathematics and physics from . After this, he worked as assistant editor at . Clarke then served as president of the from 1946 to 1947 and again from 1951 to 1953"

He was a SCIENTIST you complete plank......

 

[Kevj]

@Nukehasslefan :

A quick calculation shows that Keilder (9.09km in length) should have a curvature of around 6.5m.
This both ends are not in a straight line of sight, but an equivalent curvature could be calculated between to positions that are.

This is a very simple experiment you could do yourself with two people and two torches at water level.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

"No. I do my own experiments that prove a lot more to me than what we're being told. I cannot directly prove to anyone that my experiments show science to be wrong, only that some of my experiments show....to me......the globe and space are not what we're told...but then again I don't accept a spinning globe and the space we're told about, as any genuine science."

I think that part of his "post" speaks volumes.

And then there is this :-

"Yep. Just like space satellites were thought up by a fictional story writer called Arthur C Clarke, as the storyline goes.
It's all about what people want to believe in all age brackets and how each story is told and sold."

No they weren't, Arthur C Clarke postulated the geo stationary orbit for communication satellites :-

Clarke contributed to the popularity of the idea that

You must be logged on to see external links

would be ideal telecommunications relays. He first described this in a letter to the editor of

You must be logged on to see external links

in February 1945

You must be logged on to see external links

and elaborated on the concept in a paper titled Extra-Terrestrial Relays – Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?, published in Wireless World in October 1945. The is now sometimes known as the Clarke Orbit or the Clarke Belt in his honour.

He didn't think up satellites you utter tool and also :-

"After the war, he attained a in mathematics and physics from . After this, he worked as assistant editor at . Clarke then served as president of the from 1946 to 1947 and again from 1951 to 1953"

He was a SCIENTIST you complete plank......

Of course he's a scientist. We're all scientists because we're all part of this Earth and are life's testers of it and curious about it. It makes everyone a scientist.
And then you get those that write sci-fi and talk it and think it.

Arthur C Clarke's thinking managed to produce the very thing he was thinking in that age.
A scientist he may be but also a purveyor of fantasies.

@Nukehasslefan :

A quick calculation shows that Keilder (9.09km in length) should have a curvature of around 6.5m.
This both ends are not in a straight line of sight, but an equivalent curvature could be calculated between to positions that are.

This is a very simple experiment you could do yourself with two people and two torches at water level.

There's been plenty of experiments done over water that show land where land should be not be there if the Earth was a globe.
8 inches per mile, squared is the gauge and many objects can be seen which should be over this imaginary curve, yet stand up, plumb and rigid for all to see.

We're just asked to take leave of our senses and accept that this stuff is just mirages and what not when the distance should obliterate even the tallest buildings if the Earth was a globe.

But rather than people accepting that water is flat and level on any unhindered day or even if water ripples or is a big choppy, people still want to believe the water curves over a globe and yet due to the 8 inches per mile squared that was given by those who support a globe, a distance over water of say, 50 miles or so, you can see the Chicago buildings. Tall and smaller.

The problem with this is, at 50 miles there should be over 1,600 feet of drop from your sight.
The tallest building in Chicago is the Willis tower which is, apparently 1,451 feet in height.

In your face stuff that tells you the waters are flat or flattish if weather hindered but cast off as nonsense in favour of convexly curved water that hides big buildings but decides to show them to us from distance because they're mirages.

You see, it doesn't matter about observing and testing reality. It's scuppered by nonsense like this and we're simply asked or even ridiculed into accepting that anything seen over a supposed globe is just a mirage and all the rest of the gunk.

If nobody wants to question this stuff then that's fair enough. People can go with the flow or accept whatever.

Let's face it, if a person thought water was flat and not curved they would be a flat Earth nut...right?
Imagine having to believe water can curve around a ball and be nice and level.

 

[payne]

Surely if there's some massive power source on earth we'd be able to detect it. If this source was so powerful you would detect the influence. Just like a fire, yes you can't enter the burning building safety but you could stand a safe distance away a feel some of the heat. Couldn't we get to some safe limit of the massive power source before it would kill us?

I mean I'm no scientist but that seems a reasonable estimation to me. I could even test the theory myself so would have done my own experiment if I knew where it was.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Surely if there's some massive power source on earth we'd be able to detect it. If this source was so powerful you would detect the influence. Just like a fire, yes you can't enter the burning building safety but you could stand a safe distance away a feel some of the heat. Couldn't we get to some safe limit of the massive power source before it would kill us?

We already are at a safe limit.

 

[payne]

We already are at a safe limit.

Can I be pointed to where the unsafe limit is? I would like to know. Is it in a country?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Can I be pointed to where the unsafe limit is? I would like to know? Is it in a country?

Just follow north on your compass and see where it takes you before you start to feel the effects of the cold and then severe cold until you have to turn back.
You could follow south on the compass until you experience the same cold.

 

[taipeisafc]

Of course he's a scientist. We're all scientists because we're all part of this Earth and are life's testers of it and curious about it. It makes everyone a scientist.
And then you get those that write sci-fi and talk it and think it.

Arthur C Clarke's thinking managed to produce the very thing he was thinking in that age.
A scientist he may be but also a purveyor of fantasies.

There's been plenty of experiments done over water that show land where land should be not be there if the Earth was a globe.
8 inches per mile, squared is the gauge and many objects can be seen which should be over this imaginary curve, yet stand up, plumb and rigid for all to see.

We're just asked to take leave of our senses and accept that this stuff is just mirages and what not when the distance should obliterate even the tallest buildings if the Earth was a globe.

But rather than people accepting that water is flat and level on any unhindered day or even if water ripples or is a big choppy, people still want to believe the water curves over a globe and yet due to the 8 inches per mile squared that was given by those who support a globe, a distance over water of say, 50 miles or so, you can see the Chicago buildings. Tall and smaller.

The problem with this is, at 50 miles there should be over 1,600 feet of drop from your sight.
The tallest building in Chicago is the Willis tower which is, apparently 1,451 feet in height.

In your face stuff that tells you the waters are flat or flattish if weather hindered but cast off as nonsense in favour of convexly curved water that hides big buildings but decides to show them to us from distance because they're mirages.

You see, it doesn't matter about observing and testing reality. It's scuppered by nonsense like this and we're simply asked or even ridiculed into accepting that anything seen over a supposed globe is just a mirage and all the rest of the gunk.

If nobody wants to question this stuff then that's fair enough. People can go with the flow or accept whatever.

Let's face it, if a person thought water was flat and not curved they would be a flat Earth nut...right?
Imagine having to believe water can curve around a ball and be nice and level.

It is not 8 inches per mile squared you utter twonk - you have no clue whatsoever about anything you utter moron. The "fall" over 50 miles is 400 inches.......or 33 feet NOT 1600 feet. You keep adding a squared term as you have no clue what you are doing with anything and are utterly wrong.

Curvature of Earth per mile​

How large is the curvature of Earth, then? As we don't notice it in our everyday lives, it has to be quite small. Most sources consider 8 inches per mile as the most accurate estimate. This means that for every

You must be logged on to see external links

between you and an object, the curvature will obstruct 8 inches of the object's height

 

[payne]

Just follow north on your compass and see where it takes you before you start to feel the effects of the cold and then severe cold until you have to turn back.
You could follow south on the compass until you experience the same cold.

Haven't people been to both poles?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It is not 8 inches per mile squared you utter twonk - you have no clue whatsoever about anything you utter moron. The "fall" over 50 miles is 400 inches.......or 33 feet NOT 1600 feet. You keep adding a squared term as you have no clue what you are doing with anything and are utterly wrong.

Maybe pay more attention.

Curvature of Earth per mile​

How large is the curvature of Earth, then? As we don't notice it in our everyday lives, it has to be quite small. Most sources consider 8 inches per mile as the most accurate estimate. This means that for every

You must be logged on to see external links

between you and an object, the curvature will obstruct 8 inches of the object's height

There is no curvature of Earth.
We are told it's just over 24,000 miles in circumference.

8 inches per mile squared is the calculations to be used for it.
Or basicaly a smidgeon under but to round it off....8 inches per mile squared.

That's 1x8x1 = 8 or 2 x 8 x 2 =32....and so on.
50 miles would be 50 x 8 x 50 = 20,000 inches, or to put it into feet, it's 1,666 feet.

Haven't people been to both poles?

People have set foot on land with cold climates that they call the poles, yes.
Do I believe they've set foot on any pole. Obviously not as I do not believe in a globe.

 

[taipeisafc]

Maybe pay more attention.

There is no curvature of Earth.
We are told it's just over 24,000 miles in circumference.

8 inches per mile squared is the calculations to be used for it.
Or basicaly a smidgeon under but to round it off....8 inches per mile squared.

That's 1x8x1 = 8 or 2 x 8 x 2 =32....and so on.
50 miles would be 50 x 8 x 50 = 20,000 inches, or to put it into feet, it's 1,666 feet.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A LINEAR DISTANCE MEASURED IN MILES SQUARED YOU MORON......SQUARED IS FOR AREA.

The first thing you can find with our Earth curvature calculator is the exact distance between you and the horizon. You only need to know two values: your eyesight level (in other words, the distance between your eyes and mean sea level – assuming you are looking out to sea) and the radius of the Earth. Input these numbers into the following equation:

a = √[(r + h)² - r²]
where:

• a – Distance to the horizon;
• h – Eyesight level above mean sea level, and
• r – Earth's radius, equal to 3959 miles or 6371 km.

This equation can be derived using the

You must be logged on to see external links

. You can try to derive it yourself – it is not that hard!

Distance is in metres / miles / km etc. You really have no clue yet are so arrogant about it.

 

[legend7]

It is not 8 inches per mile squared you utter twonk - you have no clue whatsoever about anything you utter moron. The "fall" over 50 miles is 400 inches.......or 33 feet NOT 1600 feet. You keep adding a squared term as you have no clue what you are doing with anything and are utterly wrong.

Curvature of Earth per mile​

How large is the curvature of Earth, then? As we don't notice it in our everyday lives, it has to be quite small. Most sources consider 8 inches per mile as the most accurate estimate. This means that for every

You must be logged on to see external links

between you and an object, the curvature will obstruct 8 inches of the object's height

Saved me typing that, 8 inches per mile is exactly that, 8 inches per mile.
And that's what he is trying to disprove, God knows why he is squaring it too