Put a flat earthier into space

[payne]

The bloke is a baboon. He thinks he’s being clever by thinking he’s stringing us all along. We’ve sussed him out ages ago. We know it. He knows it.

Someone would go to that much effort?

 

[The Krankie Returns]

Someone would go to that much effort?

Of course he would.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'd have thought a power source on such a scale to project onto dome large enough to encompass the planer would at least have a heat signature. But apparently it's freezing near it.

The more you move away from the reflection onto the dome from that source the more the molecules slow down in agitation/friction, meaning cold to extreme freezing.

What does that even mean? You seem to find it difficult to answer a question directly. All the way through? What made it to the end of school and perhaps got a GCSE or O-Level or two, or all the way through our education system and you are a Professor?

You claim that all our education right through to the highest levels is learn and regurgitate facts, almost a feat of memory rather than the analaysis, research and proof from first principals I claim. Why are you not willing to say what your first hand experience of this is and in what subjects? Do you have any experience of our education system beyond school to be making this claim?

It wouldn't make any difference what I claimed to be or how many qualifications or not.
You don't need to know anything about me just as I do not need to know anything about you.
You're a name on a forum and we're chatting and disagreeing, generally.

How does this explain the hotter conditions at the equator?

The reflective dom sun will hit certain spots as it moves over and around the dome. It's light and heat will cover more of a concentrated area that you call the equator, except around a circle.

 

[payne]

So the power source is outside of the dome?

Is this a human power source or extraterrestrial? Seems as though this is far beyond our level of tech at the present time?

The more you move away from the reflection onto the dome from that source the more the molecules slow down in agitation/friction, meaning cold to extreme freezing.

It wouldn't make any difference what I claimed to be or how many qualifications or not.
You don't need to know anything about me just as I do not need to know anything about you.
You're a name on a forum and we're chatting and disagreeing, generally.

The reflective dom sun will hit certain spots as it moves over and around the dome. It's light and heat will cover more of a concentrated area that you call the equator, except around a circle.

 

[DaveH]

It wouldn't make any difference what I claimed to be or how many qualifications or not.
You don't need to know anything about me just as I do not need to know anything about you.
You're a name on a forum and we're chatting and disagreeing, generally.

To be honest I think that really says a lot. Some bloke on the internet makes a claim that the entire education system is about learning and repeating facts, just the higher the level, the more to memorise and repeat. A well educated gentleman such as myself claims that maths and science especially involves proofs, experiments and research, not only to learn something but to teach people how to prove the facts. By the time you get to 3rd year undergrad and beyond, unique research is required. A lot of the reason for this is because a natural career path for a graduate with a masters degree is to become a university researcher which can lead to being a professor. If those two roles just involved repeating "stories" all day, there would be no point in such roles. We clearly disagree on what is involved in UK education.

A researcher researches and discovered new things. For example (not related to the shape of the earth) Oxford University was considered a centre of excellence for vaccine research. They had a lot of knowledge they had discovered in the bag when a bit of a health problem hit recently. They were able to help - significantly. Clearly people like such medics would be a bit pissed off if they saw the mathematicians and physicists/astronomers dossing about, photocopying an old book every now and then. It suggests these other areas of expertise have equal levels of research and discovery.

But I realise I asked for your experience in the education system without giving mine. GCSE (high grades, top 5 in my school), A-Level (top 10 in my collage), Computer Science degree joint with physics modules, where I chose to study astronomy. Work was as a researcher for BAe Systems for a year as part of my degree, mainly concentrating on 3d simulation and robotics (one reason why I can knock up a simulation these days), decided to move into research support where I have worked as a networking expert and team manager at a couple of different universities. I work supporting teaching and research, regularly getting involved in everything from undergrad projects that need unique research through to multi-million pound grant research by some well regarded academics. My interest in astronomy and the help I have given those areas particularly has given me access to raw data from the three observatories I help support. While I'm far from a world leader in any of these fields, I think I have a pretty good insight into the level of research and proof vs repeating parrot fashion and why I feel I can counter your claim with confidence as I literally work with unique research every day.

On the other hand, it sounds like you got to the end of school and perhaps have a couple of low grade GCSEs or o-levels and if I recall correctly, work as a painter and decorator. While this certainly doesn't reflect intelligence or stop independent learning and research, I feel it doesn't give you the best view of the education system and what is involved in gaining a-levels, degrees, masters etc.

 

[nahwee]

To be honest I think that really says a lot. Some bloke on the internet makes a claim that the entire education system is about learning and repeating facts, just the higher the level, the more to memorise and repeat. A well educated gentleman such as myself claims that maths and science especially involves proofs, experiments and research, not only to learn something but to teach people how to prove the facts. By the time you get to 3rd year undergrad and beyond, unique research is required. A lot of the reason for this is because a natural career path for a graduate with a masters degree is to become a university researcher which can lead to being a professor. If those two roles just involved repeating "stories" all day, there would be no point in such roles. We clearly disagree on what is involved in UK education.

A researcher researches and discovered new things. For example (not related to the shape of the earth) Oxford University was considered a centre of excellence for vaccine research. They had a lot of knowledge they had discovered in the bag when a bit of a health problem hit recently. They were able to help - significantly. Clearly people like such medics would be a bit pissed off if they saw the mathematicians and physicists/astronomers dossing about, photocopying an old book every now and then. It suggests these other areas of expertise have equal levels of research and discovery.

But I realise I asked for your experience in the education system without giving mine. GCSE (high grades, top 5 in my school), A-Level (top 10 in my collage), Computer Science degree joint with physics modules, where I chose to study astronomy. Work was as a researcher for BAe Systems for a year as part of my degree, mainly concentrating on 3d simulation and robotics (one reason why I can knock up a simulation these days), decided to move into research support where I have worked as a networking expert and team manager at a couple of different universities. I work supporting teaching and research, regularly getting involved in everything from undergrad projects that need unique research through to multi-million pound grant research by some well regarded academics. My interest in astronomy and the help I have given those areas particularly has given me access to raw data from the three observatories I help support. While I'm far from a world leader in any of these fields, I think I have a pretty good insight into the level of research and proof vs repeating parrot fashion and why I feel I can counter your claim with confidence as I literally work with unique research every day.

On the other hand, it sounds like you got to the end of school and perhaps have a couple of low grade GCSEs or o-levels and if I recall correctly, work as a painter and decorator. While this certainly doesn't reflect intelligence or stop independent learning and research, I feel it doesn't give you the best view of the education system and what is involved in gaining a-levels, degrees, masters etc.

Oof!
Over to you Nuky!

 

[Tex]

To be honest I think that really says a lot. Some bloke on the internet makes a claim that the entire education system is about learning and repeating facts, just the higher the level, the more to memorise and repeat. A well educated gentleman such as myself claims that maths and science especially involves proofs, experiments and research, not only to learn something but to teach people how to prove the facts. By the time you get to 3rd year undergrad and beyond, unique research is required. A lot of the reason for this is because a natural career path for a graduate with a masters degree is to become a university researcher which can lead to being a professor. If those two roles just involved repeating "stories" all day, there would be no point in such roles. We clearly disagree on what is involved in UK education.

A researcher researches and discovered new things. For example (not related to the shape of the earth) Oxford University was considered a centre of excellence for vaccine research. They had a lot of knowledge they had discovered in the bag when a bit of a health problem hit recently. They were able to help - significantly. Clearly people like such medics would be a bit pissed off if they saw the mathematicians and physicists/astronomers dossing about, photocopying an old book every now and then. It suggests these other areas of expertise have equal levels of research and discovery.

But I realise I asked for your experience in the education system without giving mine. GCSE (high grades, top 5 in my school), A-Level (top 10 in my collage), Computer Science degree joint with physics modules, where I chose to study astronomy. Work was as a researcher for BAe Systems for a year as part of my degree, mainly concentrating on 3d simulation and robotics (one reason why I can knock up a simulation these days), decided to move into research support where I have worked as a networking expert and team manager at a couple of different universities. I work supporting teaching and research, regularly getting involved in everything from undergrad projects that need unique research through to multi-million pound grant research by some well regarded academics. My interest in astronomy and the help I have given those areas particularly has given me access to raw data from the three observatories I help support. While I'm far from a world leader in any of these fields, I think I have a pretty good insight into the level of research and proof vs repeating parrot fashion and why I feel I can counter your claim with confidence as I literally work with unique research every day.

On the other hand, it sounds like you got to the end of school and perhaps have a couple of low grade GCSEs or o-levels and if I recall correctly, work as a painter and decorator. While this certainly doesn't reflect intelligence or stop independent learning and research, I feel it doesn't give you the best view of the education system and what is involved in gaining a-levels, degrees, masters etc.

Ooh look at me - look at me … pathetic!

Actually it raises a good point about anyone who has disdain for research. I wonder if they or their loved ones have ever had any health problems. And if so, I wonder if they took any medicine for it that perhaps made them better? Do they now believe in the research methods of medical science or do they still think that everyone studying in the medical field, like others who followed a path in education / storytelling, is just sitting round regurgitating the philosophies of Hippocrates et al from a couple of millennia ago.

I said months ago that my anecdotal observation of a small sample size of conspiracy theorists is that they didn’t do well in school, which isn’t an indictment of itself as plenty of intelligent people didn’t ‘fit in’ with the ‘one size fits all’ method of the comprehensive system, but these nutters can’t stand the fact that they didn’t achieve well so embark on these “I know more than you” flights of fancy to try and fill the void left in their psyche by not being among those who got good results.

There’s honour in all labour. If you’re a humble painter and decorator you’re plying an honest trade and providing a useful and necessary service, so be the best painter and decorator you can be. Get a good reputation. Grow your business and expand if you have that sort of ambition. Make some money so you can provide for your family and indulge your hobbies and pastimes. But take it from me, the empty chasm in your life caused by doing shit at your O levels will never be filled by spouting laughably spurious horse shit to a bunch of educated strangers on the internet. You will remain a laughing stock.

 

[fyl2u]

I'm done. This tiresome loon's ignorance and absolute contrariness to provable maths and science has gone well beyond old now.

He's determined to never learn anything ever.

In his mind, all stories he invents are plausible possibilities, while all "stories" with millennia of data, experiment and formulae to back them up are nonsense (read: "are things he can't understand so they must therefore be nonsense").

Experiments, mathematical predictions and verifications, huge numbers of people in the world for thousands of years using these to further technology, fly planes around the world, observe the universe and even travel into space? Nah, it's all bollocks to him. He alone has solved the riddle of the world's greatest conspiracy.

Now, if he was coming at it from the angle of "I think this is how it works, and I think this is how the established knowledge is incorrect, but I'm willing to learn from those who have a better grasp of it to find out what I'm doing wrong and how my understanding is flawed" that would be one thing, but just saying "no it isn't" every time someone tells him "yes it is" is just tedious and ignorant.

 

[Deleted member 6694]

Everyone waiting for this thread to die

Logon or register to see this image

 

[DaveH]

I'm done. This tiresome loon's ignorance and absolute contrariness to provable maths and science has gone well beyond old now.

He's determined to never learn anything ever.

In his mind, all stories he invents are plausible possibilities, while all "stories" with millennia of data, experiment and formulae to back them up are nonsense (read: "are things he can't understand so they must therefore be nonsense").

Experiments, mathematical predictions and verifications, huge numbers of people in the world for thousands of years using these to further technology, fly planes around the world, observe the universe and even travel into space? Nah, it's all bollocks to him. He alone has solved the riddle of the world's greatest conspiracy.

Now, if he was coming at it from the angle of "I think this is how it works, and I think this is how the established knowledge is incorrect, but I'm willing to learn from those who have a better grasp of it to find out what I'm doing wrong and how my understanding is flawed" that would be one thing, but just saying "no it isn't" every time someone tells him "yes it is" is just tedious and ignorant.

I can see the "logic" in his stance.

On one side (reality) you have things he doesn't understand. This is a very uncomfortable feeling for some. That stuff is backed up by maths, science and provable to all that know how to follow a mathematical proof or where absolute proof is not available, follow the evidence to the best possible explanation (admitedly in some areas where we really don't know the answer this can be a number of conflicting theories, but not about basic things like the shape of the planet). He doesn't understand this maths, science, or basic observational data either, which is even more uncomfortable. So if you wave your hand, dismiss all human learning, intelligence and knowledge as "just following some nice story" and say that people just repeat what they have been told, it instantly negates all knowledge. Now that is not so formidable.

The next step is to replace it with something that you invent without any particular scientific approach and compare the two. In your head you have something which feels plausible but without any proof, study or reason, up against the entire history of human knowledge that you have just dismissed as irrelevant, wrong, also lacking in proof and deliberately misleading. Knowledge wise the two are now on an equal footing. But the one in your head makes sense and the other one highlights a deep conspiracy of someone out to get you. Which sounds better?

 

[The Krankie Returns]

Everyone waiting for this thread to die

Logon or register to see this image

This thread will only die once everyone stops feeding him.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So the power source is outside of the dome?

Nope. The power source (sun) is inside the centre of Earth which is projected outside and onto the dome and back to us, including whatever is inside moving with that power source (sun).

Is this a human power source or extraterrestrial?

Seems as though this is far beyond our level of tech at the present time?

Natural for the cell we are in and the life of it.

 

[payne]

Nope. The power source (sun) is inside the centre of Earth which is projected outside and onto the dome and back to us, including whatever is inside moving with that power source (sun).

Natural for the cell we are in and the life of it.

So is the centre not a molten core? Is it maintained by humans, i.e. fixed when it breaks?

Have other cells been observed? Can I point a telescope at one and take a look? I know you value evidence that is first hand.

 

[The Krankie Returns]

So is the centre not a molten core? Is it maintained by humans, i.e. fixed when it breaks?

Have other cells been observed? Can I point a telescope at one and take a look? I know you value evidence that is first hand.

You had to go and feed him didn’t you?

 

[payne]

You had to go and feed him didn’t you?

I want to know the truth about the cell world

 

[Nukehasslefan]

To be honest I think that really says a lot. Some bloke on the internet makes a claim that the entire education system is about learning and repeating facts, just the higher the level, the more to memorise and repeat.

Not all but certainly most of it.

A well educated gentleman such as myself claims that maths and science especially involves proofs, experiments and research, not only to learn something but to teach people how to prove the facts.

And this is what it's all about. It's about proving facts in this case, in terms of what we're debating. None have come forward from your side.
Your facts are based entirely on what you learned about Earth and space. Not physically but by reading and word of mouth and even your very own observations that you think there maybe some credence to, for your own mindset, etc.
That's all we can rely on if we have no physical proof.

It would be easier for you to argue by saying you believe Earth to be a globe and space to be what you're told because it makes sense to you, even if you have no facts to back it up.

By the time you get to 3rd year undergrad and beyond, unique research is required.

That all depends on what you're allowed to do outside of that teaching.
Most of it is about following the teaching and being marked on how well you follow it.

A lot of the reason for this is because a natural career path for a graduate with a masters degree is to become a university researcher which can lead to being a professor. If those two roles just involved repeating "stories" all day, there would be no point in such roles. We clearly disagree on what is involved in UK education.

No, we don't clearly disagree. You're making out I say the entire system but I mentioned innovative people.
My argument, as above, is simple and is basically how most of it works.
A professor will still teach what that professor was taught as well as experimenting on their own.

A real scientist will be looking for new ways and new discoveries. I have no issue with that.
To become one of them through the system it's about following the teachings until you're at the stage of furthering that, independently.

A researcher researches and discovered new things. For example (not related to the shape of the earth) Oxford University was considered a centre of excellence for vaccine research. They had a lot of knowledge they had discovered in the bag when a bit of a health problem hit recently. They were able to help - significantly. Clearly people like such medics would be a bit pissed off if they saw the mathematicians and physicists/astronomers dossing about, photocopying an old book every now and then. It suggests these other areas of expertise have equal levels of research and discovery.

I have no issues with discoveries that have legitimate provable benefits.

But I realise I asked for your experience in the education system without giving mine. GCSE (high grades, top 5 in my school), A-Level (top 10 in my collage), Computer Science degree joint with physics modules, where I chose to study astronomy. Work was as a researcher for BAe Systems for a year as part of my degree, mainly concentrating on 3d simulation and robotics (one reason why I can knock up a simulation these days), decided to move into research support where I have worked as a networking expert and team manager at a couple of different universities. I work supporting teaching and research, regularly getting involved in everything from undergrad projects that need unique research through to multi-million pound grant research by some well regarded academics. My interest in astronomy and the help I have given those areas particularly has given me access to raw data from the three observatories I help support. While I'm far from a world leader in any of these fields, I think I have a pretty good insight into the level of research and proof vs repeating parrot fashion and why I feel I can counter your claim with confidence as I literally work with unique research every day.

Fantastic. I hope you've had more than enough enjoyment (and hopefully still do) with all what you've studied and taught, etc. I mean that genuinely.
None of it offers any proof about what we're arguing/debating on this so called spinning globe, or oblate spheroid, as we're told, etc.

On the other hand, it sounds like you got to the end of school and perhaps have a couple of low grade GCSEs or o-levels and if I recall correctly, work as a painter and decorator.

And to think you thought to ask me about my qualifications when you actually had all my data at your fingertips.

While this certainly doesn't reflect intelligence or stop independent learning and research, I feel it doesn't give you the best view of the education system and what is involved in gaining a-levels, degrees, masters etc.

What is the best view of an education system?

So is the centre not a molten core? Is it maintained by humans, i.e. fixed when it breaks?

Have other cells been observed? Can I point a telescope at one and take a look? I know you value evidence that is first hand.

First of all understand that I'm not offering facts. I'm offering my thoughts on what may be a possibility to me, regardless of how nuts t may sound to you or anyone else.

So, with that in mind I will answer your questions.

The centre is potentially a super carbon that is electrically arced by a feed of hydrogen and helium, plus other molecules. Basically a large scale welding like arc that is then reflected through massive crystals into the sky and reflected back from the dome to the outer Earth.

Other Earth cells would not be observed by us because they would be attached, possibly with an ice and the dome would offer us no vision except the vision to mirror what is on Earth.
This is why everything would reflect off it and seeing beyond it would be to see a nothing, or a blackness to our vision due to every colour spectrum being absorbed in that blackness but the dome itself against that blackness would be turned into a perfect mirror of clear ice of hydrogen/helium under super low pressure.

You asked the questions. I answered.

I want to know the truth about the cell world

I can't offer you a truth of a cell world,. I can only offer you my take on what I believe it could potentially be as opposed to what I absolutely believe it is not, which is a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

 

[payne]

Not all but certainly most of it.


And this is what it's all about. It's about proving facts in this case, in terms of what we're debating. None have come forward from your side.
Your facts are based entirely on what you learned about Earth and space. Not physically but by reading and word of mouth and even your very own observations that you think there maybe some credence to, for your own mindset, etc.
That's all we can rely on if we have no physical proof.

It would be easier for you to argue by saying you believe Earth to be a globe and space to be what you're told because it makes sense to you, even if you have no facts to back it up.

That all depends on what you're allowed to do outside of that teaching.
Most of it is about following the teaching and being marked on how well you follow it.

No, we don't clearly disagree. You're making out I say the entire system but I mentioned innovative people.
My argument, as above, is simple and is basically how most of it works.
A professor will still teach what that professor was taught as well as experimenting on their own.

A real scientist will be looking for new ways and new discoveries. I have no issue with that.
To become one of them through the system it's about following the teachings until you're at the stage of furthering that, independently.

I have no issues with discoveries that have legitimate provable benefits.


Fantastic. I hope you've had more than enough enjoyment (and hopefully still do) with all what you've studied and taught, etc. I mean that genuinely.
None of it offers any proof about what we're arguing/debating on this so called spinning globe, or oblate spheroid, as we're told, etc.


And to think you thought to ask me about my qualifications when you actually had all my data at your fingertips.



What is the best view of an education system?

First of all understand that I'm not offering facts. I'm offering my thoughts on what may be a possibility to me, regardless of how nuts t may sound to you or anyone else.

So, with that in mind I will answer your questions.

The centre is potentially a super carbon that is electrically arced by a feed of hydrogen and helium, plus other molecules. Basically a large scale welding like arc that is then reflected through massive crystals into the sky and reflected back from the dome to the outer Earth.

Other Earth cells would not be observed by us because they would be attached, possibly with an ice and the dome would offer us no vision except the vision to mirror what is on Earth.
This is why everything would reflect off it and seeing beyond it would be to see a nothing, or a blackness to our vision due to every colour spectrum being absorbed in that blackness but the dome itself against that blackness would be turned into a perfect mirror of clear ice of hydrogen/helium under super low pressure.

You asked the questions. I answered.

I can't offer you a truth of a cell world,. I can only offer you my take on what I believe it could potentially be as opposed to what I absolutely believe it is not, which is a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

Is there any evidence of what you believe it to be? Are there any ways I can see it? Can the dome be bumped into if one gets to the side?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Is there any evidence of what you believe it to be? Are there any ways I can see it? Can the dome be bumped into if one gets to the side?

We couldn't reach the dome. The atmosphere is far too thin in terms of breathable for us, or machine.
What evidence there is of a dome, for me comes from basic observations and senses plus container evacuation (bell jar and pump) that shows how the atmospheric pressure is broken down and how it can be broken down to show many variations with gases and liquids.

Many will argue against it and that's fair enough but it doesn't change my stance on it.

 

[The Krankie Returns]

He’s taking the piss out of you all. Read what he’s putting. It’s getting more and more outlandish the more he types. He’s playing to an audience.
This thread has turned into the Internet forum equivalent of Bethlem Royal Hospital, more commonly known as Bedlam - the place where ordinary members of the public could, upon payment, go and have a laugh at the insane.
The only difference is that he’s not insane.

 

[Deleted member 6694]

He’s taking the piss out of you all. Read what he’s putting. It’s getting more and more outlandish the more he types. He’s playing to an audience.
This thread has turned into the Internet forum equivalent of Bethlem Royal Hospital, more commonly known as Bedlam - the place where ordinary members of the public could, upon payment, go and have a laugh at the insane.
The only difference is that he’s not insane.

Logon or register to see this image