Put a flat earthier into space

[Kevj]

No problem. I'm not.
Your globe is at the dinner table ready to eat. An off the peg suits you sir.
I think arguing for proof based on that is not really offering proof but it is offering what you accept as proof based on the story.

I'll accept it's not. This is the beauty. It's a reality that I accept.

What is point one?

You’re not even any good at deflecting a reasonable question. If you have any self respect in the slightest, you’d defend your position.

 

[Nobby]

You’re not even any good at deflecting a reasonable question. If you have any self respect in the slightest, you’d defend your position.

You can't defend the indefensible and he knows now any "argument" he puts up gets systematically dismantled.

That why all he has left is deflection/refusal to engage or the unsupported rejection of "no it's not"

 

[DPTT]

You can't defend the indefensible and he knows now any "argument" he puts up gets systematically dismantled.

That why all he has left is deflection/refusal to engage or the unsupported rejection of "no it's not"

Noticed he’s gone quiet regarding that video just posted

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Ok debunk Point 1 then

That's gonna involve scale.... I see a problem

 

[RollingStone]

Noticed he’s gone quiet regarding that video just posted

All this is of course pointless. Like all conspiracy types rational argument doesn't apply. He lives in a parallel place where the Earth really is flat and science has less validity than stuff you make up in your head.

 

[Nobby]

That's gonna involve scale.... I see a problem

It also involves producing an accurate map, another thing he has failed to do.

Looks like he can't get past point 1

 

[DaveH]

The big difference is you want to argue for facts, so offer them from yourself.
The stuff you offer is all on a plate which you absolutely do not know to be factual yet accept as fact and push pout as fact. This is why I ask for explanations rather than throwing up a script or video with nothing else.

Why do you think we absolutely do not know things for a fact? We are not all clueless morons you know?

What is wrong for being "offered on a plate"? This is one of your favorite phrases, but it is just things that are common knowledge. You have even argued that about some of the basic mathematics I have provided. Is there really something bad in using trigonometry when it has been proven for thousands of years?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It also involves producing an accurate map, another thing he has failed to do.

Looks like he can't get past point 1

Cant get past? He's not even going to watch and get to point one.

 

[Nobby]

Cant get past? He's not even going to watch and get to point one.

Well we've asked for an accurate map with scale previously and he can't provide one

 

[DaveH]

Step 6....Go to a large swimming pool and perform many accurate level experiments of water conforming to that container.
Nice and level

Can you tell us one experiment you have performed over a body of water the size of a swimming pool and determined it was flat?

How do you do it? How did you measure it? What amount of curve would you expect on a planet 6371km radius if the water was going to conform to a ball?

 

[fyl2u]

But yet a bridge span between two towers shows a supposed angle away from each other. Hmmmm.

Ok, no problem. Good answer.

Take a look at the moon from our vantage point. Lit up like a beacon, right?
A bid circle in that sky as bright as anything.
One face we see and never another.
Earth apparently 4 times the size of it and yet we get a photo like that.

Makes absolutely no sense. It is utter nonsense.
If men apparently landed on that moon or even orbited it like we're told in this picture, then the Earth would be massive to look at not looking like that if it was supposedly 4 times bigger.

Not to mention those so called astronauts would be lit up like beacons.....but anyway.

Aye, every photo ever taken in the history of humanity always has the subject matter take up the entire frame of the photo. Nobody ever zooms out to take a photo. Ever. It has never happened.

Not faked, just said to be things they're not.
The lights in the sky are real enough but not as planetary bodies, in my opinion.
Mother natures holographic images and points of light from the centre under a dome. Yep, I'd go along with that because it makes the most sense.
And also the natural things we do shows exactly what's capable on a big scale.

It's all about engaging the mind to the deeper thought and stepping outside of that big box a little.

"Mother nature's holographic images make the most sense".

Priceless.

Aye, I must admit, I do enjoy a wander around in the countryside, amongst all the holographic trees, watching the holographic bees buzzing from holographic flower to holographic flower, with holographic butterflies fluttering about, and holographic squirrels scurrying around.

 

[RollingStone]

Lots of stuff, one of them being water level.
Another being the ridiculous moon landing garbage.
Another being space vacuums.
The list goes on and on.


It doesn't matter how beyond it's taken.
You question one thing means you're unsure of the legitimacy. If one thing can be questioned, so can two. And if two can, so can 4. And so on.
If one person lies to you do you think that's it and no more lies come from that person or anyone else? Of course not.

Expensive as in, how?

What benefits do we have under this current set up that we couldn't have under another?

They are what they are and they're there to be ridiculed or thought about by those who are interested in this stuff.

You are in reality the least questioning person on here. You can't even except the tiniest possibility that you could be wrong but that the entire scientific community plus everyone posting here is. Try questioning the plausibility of that (how, who, why). Yes I know I'm wasting my time!

 

[fyl2u]

You honestly believe the earth is flat?

Yes he does. He just hates being called a flat earther. He can't even get his head around the concept that "flat earth" means the lands and sea are scattered across a flat plane. He seems to think that it actually means that no hills, mountains or valleys exist to a "flat earther".

This is the level of intellect we're working with here.

He also makes statements like "not all right-angles are equal", showing exactly how well he understands subjects like basic mathematics.

He's not on a wind-up, he's genuinely this thick.

I've not read this thread before, but there surely can't be people who genuinely believe the earth is flat, right?

See above.

It's well worth reading the thread though. Not for his bullshittery, but for all the scientific explanations, experiments, images and videos that the non-flat-earth folks have produced.

This is actually the thread of the year.

Nope. I asked where the reference is for accuracy.

You spent fifty pages refusing to accept the concepts of a tangent and normal of a circle, that they were at a right angle to each other, and tried to claim that a tangent could overlap the circle if the line was thick enough, showing that you don't even understand the concept of a line in mathematics and the fact that it is a one-dimensional object that has zero thickness.

Unlike yourself, whose thickness seems almost infinite and would certainly overlap any circle it found itself a tangent of.

Yeah and we all told you.
A tangent and a normal make 90°.
It just does. In the same way 2+2=4.

I suggested you get a compass a ruler and protractor and draw it out several times for yourself and you'd see that it is 90°. But you started going on about the thickness of the lines and the circle and all sorts of other obfuscation and deflection.

Not to mention "oh you never said anything about needing a protractor at the start of this explanation; You're moving the goalposts now; I'm out".

A compass and ruler to do what?

First of all, it's a "rule" not a "ruler", and a "pair of compasses" not a "compass".

Here you go, once again because I'm feeling generous:


Draw a circle with the pair of compasses.

Draw a straight line with the rule that goes all the way through the circle, passing perfectly through the middle of the circle where you should still have a hole in the paper from your compasses.

Get a protractor and use it to draw another line at a perfect right-angle to the first line, exactly where that first line meets the edge of the circle.

You will now have drawn a Normal and a Tangent, congratulations.

OK start again but do it differently...

Draw a circle with the pair of compasses.

Take your rule and draw a line that only just skims the edge of the circle without intersecting it. You can draw this line at any angle you like: completely flat on the top or bottom of the circle, completely upright on the left or right of the circle, or indeed at any diagonal angle at all, it makes no difference.

Once you have this line, take your rule again and draw another line that goes through the centre of the circle and then through the line you already drew, so that it passes through your first line at exactly the point it met the edge of the circle. If you then measure the angle between these two lines using a protractor, you'll find that they are at a perfect right angle to each other.

Congratulations, you will now have drawn a Tangent and a Normal.

To be accurate you need to merge the two lines. One from the centre and the other hitting a perfect point on the outer circle.

Now he's getting it.

It's your globe that does not marry up.
If the bridge had 4 towers and the two centre towers have to lean back, however small then the next towers left and right of those first two would also have to lean back which means you have two towers each side both leaning in one direction. Two to the left and two to the right.

No, all four towers would be leaning away from each other. Not "two left and two right" at all.

Makes zero sense.

Not surprising considering you're not describing it correctly.

Yep.
The perfectly plumb 12 with a leaning 11 to the left and a leaning 1 to the right.
But then another leaning 10 to the left of the leaning 11 and another leaning 2 to the right of the leaning 1, with a plumb 12.
Keep that going and you have one Earth full of circular bridge and it all makes perfect sense in the narrative....right?

But how come?
Shouldn't the 12 lean?
Shouldn't every marker lean the same?

None should ever be plumb on your global Earth.

Jesus wept.

OK, take your clock with your perfectly plumb 12 at the top, then rotate it so that the 11 is at the top instead. You'll see that suddenly the 11 is perfectly plumb.

MAGIC.

Do it again - rotate it further so that the 10 is at the top, and OH MY GOD it's perfectly plumb again!

BUT HOW, WHEN AT FIRST THE 11 AND 10 WERE LEANING LEFT?!

IT'S A MIRACLE!

Or what looks like a very accurate right angle. But is it?

There's no hope. He really is this thick.

If you pour water over a balloon it cascades off that balloon, assuming it's inflated.

Almost as if some magical force, let's call it "grovuty", were pulling the water off the baloon and towards a huge mass nearby. A huge mass like the planet itself perhaps.

Step 2 look at bath......then place a floating flat board on the surface.
Step 3 simply place a spirit level on the flat board and watch how the spirit level reads perfectly level.

OK, tell us how the results would be different in two scenarios:

1. If the water were indeed flat.
2. If the water were indeed curved at your quoted rate of 8 inches per mile squared.

Before you answer, think about your clock face again when we turned 11 to the top, then 10 to the top.

Step 5..... Go to a pond and repeat for same result.

Again, explain how this would be different in the two scenarios above.

Step 6....Go to a large swimming pool and perform many accurate level experiments of water conforming to that container.
Nice and level.

Not level. Curving at a rate of 8 inches per mile squared. Barely enough to measure, but possible with accurate enough equipment.

Nope.

What do you mean "nope". You're arguing that on OUR globe model, the towers should lean, and we're telling you "No, on OUR globe model, the towers would all be plumb from their own position".


If you're going to argue against OUR globe model, you need to understand how OUR globe model works. If you don't, then you're arguing against some wacky globe model that you yourself has invented but doesn't bear any resemblance to the one everyone else is saying is the true model.

You can never have water level on a globe unless you have a fixed up point and indentations within that up point to fill the container to the point where it cannot leave the brim.

You're partially correct. Water is never truly level. It always curves, but on a small handheld container the curve is so slight that it's imperceptible if you're only using the human eye. Let's have a think about the sizes that would need to be involved... if the supposed curve of the Earth can be described as 8 inches per mile squared (a decent approximation up to a certain point) then the curve across a handheld container would be...

The answer you're looking for is "so small it would be imperceptible to the human eye".

That's plenty good enough to show logically what the Earth is not. It's not a spinning globe.

That's plenty good enough to show logically that you don't understand anything at all about maths or science.

You argued a clock face. The 12 is not angled.

It is if you turn the clock face so that the 11 is at the top. Or any other number than 12 for that matter.

What does a plumb line point to?
The 12....right?
The 6....right?

Wrong and wrong.

The plumb line would only ever point to "12" at the south pole or "6" at the north pole.

A plumb line in Britain points to about half past four.

 

[Deleted member 49400]

This berk has never ever watched Star Trek.

So, Saturn doesn't have rings it's an arc?

And how come every planet perfectly faces us from its face? Or are we the only disc in the Milky Way?

Is the sun flat?

Are we a spinning disc?

Does the moon orbit us and do we orbit the sun?

Strange how a bloke on a football forum knows more than NASA scientists.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And yet you apparently are unwilling to accept the existence of a line in the distance beyond which you can't see, despite it existing in front of your face every second of every day.

What line in the distance?
Are you talking about the horizon?
It isn't a real line.

 

[fyl2u]

This berk has never ever watched Star Trek.

So, Saturn doesn't have rings it's an arc?

And how come every planet perfectly faces us from its face? Or are we the only disc in the Milky Way?

Is the sun flat?

Are we a spinning disc?

Does the moon orbit us and do we orbit the sun?

Strange how a bloke on a football forum knows more than NASA scientists.

In his world, the "planets" and "stars" are just points of light being reflected back off the dome, projected by a "super carbon arc light" through a big bunch of crystals at the part of the world you or I would call the north pole.

"The space vacuum doesn't exist".

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

"How many mystical magical projectors are there?"
One.

So whatever crystal lens this single projector is shining through is revolving at at least two different speeds simultaneously right? That only accounts for Sun and stars, you also need to account for each planet individually, and all of their moons.
Also, in order for a circular sun to appear circular for everyone, everywhere at the same time, it's constantly distorting to allow for how reflections actually work, and doing it differently for everyone, all at the same time.
While all this happens it also has to magically create a reflection of part of the projection which looks nothing like the original apart from the circular shape, which somehow varies in shape throughout the course of a month, every month. All while not reflecting any of the other "points of light."
That's all before taking into account the heat/extreme cold contradictions that melt the dome ???miles away while not melting the crystal lens of the projector.
Once you've explained all of those you still need to correctly explain how day and night works around the world in the way it is known to.
You cant give a real answer to any of these, yet the global model explains all of it perfectly well.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There is lots of stuff we don't understand, but that doesn't mean that none of us understand anything.

Nobody's said that.

Nor does it mean that just because you don't understand, neither do we.

Well, we're at loggerheads on this one with many things, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing it.

Nothing makes sense until you understand.

Yep...and this is what the debate is all about.

Talking of stuff flying off the surface is another example of how you clearly demonstrate that you don't understand.

No.
I clearly understand the reality.
You're the one that believes massive bodies of water manage to act like it does on your spinning globe....etc, when you know in your mind it does not represent reality.

I didn't argue a clock face. I used a clock face as an example, a diagram if you like.... oh wait, you don't understand diagrams either.

It doesn't matter. You used a clock face as your argument so I argued from it.

The 12 is every bit as angled as any of the other numbers. They are all leaning away from each other.

Nope.

Plumb line points to the centre of the mass which is providing you with gravity. Known locally as the Earth.

Nope, not at all.

In the clock analogy the plumb line points to the centre of the clock face.

Absolutely not, unless you want to use 12 to 6 as your argument which I'd accept. But then it leaves you with many issues.

It's all perfectly logical and it all makes sense.

No it doesn't. It makes absolutely no sense at all for a spinning globe. None.

You choose to see otherwise for your own reasons. It is your reasons which don't make sense.

I choose to use my own senses and also simple experiments that anyone can do. Those who have a mindset to want to.

You’re not even any good at deflecting a reasonable question. If you have any self respect in the slightest, you’d defend your position.

Offer the points one by one and let's deal with them.
It's not me deflecting.

You can't defend the indefensible and he knows now any "argument" he puts up gets systematically dismantled.

I've yet to see any argument dismantled.
I've seen plenty of digs and what not and plenty of appeals to authority...but zero proof.
That's not dismantling.
Water level in two words is dismantling it all.
The rest is just extra debate.

That why all he has left is deflection/refusal to engage or the unsupported rejection of "no it's not"

No refusal here.

 

[Kevj]

Offer the points one by one and let's deal with them.
It's not me deflecting.

No. You have zero credibility on here. In fact, the more you post without providing any substance removed any residual credibility you had left.
I don’t need to provide you with facts and neither does anyone else. You have been provided with credible evidence for months now and you dismiss it in a way which makes you look quite frankly stupid and ignorant. I’m unsure why you continue to post.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Noticed he’s gone quiet regarding that video just posted

I'm waiting for you to offer up the questions, one by one. Let's deal with them and see what happens.

It also involves producing an accurate map, another thing he has failed to do.

Looks like he can't get past point 1

Your global map was made for you.
Unless you can show me how you would produce one without the plated up ready one you have at your table.