Put a flat earthier into space



Is @legend7 now the only one of us he doesn't have on ignore, or are a few of the rest of you also still not trying hard enough? ;)
He responded to a post of mine earlier. I felt overwhelmed with joy.
I think I have been before but was allowed back 😂
Proof he is struggling if everyone is on ignore.
Haway @Nukehasslefan prove us wrong.
Unhinder them 😂😂😂
bring forth and unhinder. lead us through the shallows of flat water and deliver us the perception of dense atmosphere
 
Last edited:
He responded to a post of mine earlier. I felt overwhelmed with joy.

bring forth and unhinder. lead us through the shallows of flat water and deliver us the perception of dense atmosphere

Must be weird for him if he ever reads back through the thread, where it's just his own posts one after another and nobody else saying anything.
 
Look into the sky, the stacking may be disrupted if @DaveH walked into his garden and breathed.
I'm surprised anything works in the modern world considering all science is made up. How the fuck am I even typing this on this phone whilst listening to a podcast and sitting on the bog. I now even wonder if the flush mechanism is magic.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised anything works in the modern world considering all science is made up. How the fuck am I even typing this on this phone whilst listening to a podcast and sitting on the bog. I now even wondering if the flush mechanism is magic.

I love the irony in his username too. Nuclear physics is one of the most impressive and tested sciences known to man.
 
You don't use equal strength light sources for short and long distance.
I’m sorry how the hell can you possible sit and say that I’m either completely wrong or telling lies? When you are in a position of fuck all knowledge on the matter?

You don’t have any experience of long range data communications over fibre optic networks do you?

The likes of Cisco do not make and adjust fibre transceivers of different strength for each individual distance. You buy a unit of certain wattage and wavelength and that is it. We have big boxes of them and when putting in a new connection, we just stick one in. We don’t adjust anything and tell it this is a 10km run, this is 100km and this is 1000km. Everything is exactly the same except the length of the fibre run. Longer ones have longer round trip time, exactly in line with the speed of light, because light travels. Same power light source.

I think this demonstrates perfectly the mindset of loony conspiracy theorists. Absolutely no idea what he is talking about and when someone comes up with an example of something they are an expert in (and I’m not biggin myself up here, I’m an amateur astronomer with a big interest in maths and physics and part of my degree was in that, but I am a network expert, it is what I do for a living), and the ct loon says bollocks.

If you look at this statement quoted, it pretty much says “I know more about the equipment you use and your job than you”. I suspect he has never touched fibre networking ever, but please correct me if I’m wrong and share your experiences.

The question is why? Well if someone counters him and shows he is not an expert in everything and offers proof that light does have speed, then it might be used to prove the earth is a globe. Also if he is wrong about one thing, it opens the possibility he is wrong about more. So what he does is stick to his guns, makes up some random shit, probably believes it himself and sits with pure arrogance telling everyone they are wrong, the rest of the world is wrong and lets not lose sight of the fact this is part of a big coverup conspiracy from people out to trick is all. Delusion, arrogance and paranoia along with an overinflated sense of self, all in just this one line.
 
Let's get our heads around it.

Let's look at a few scenarios relating to what we're told of a vacuum.
1. We're told a vacuum is the absence of particles, almost. But it has a few scattered one's.
And then it has gas planets and rocky planets and ice and rock asteroids and meteors...etc...etc.

2. We're told that although there's no particles, you can float forever as long as you have propulsion, which in itself is a direct contradiction of what it tries to offer.

3. We get told the vacuum of space is dark. It's the absence of light because it offers no reflective properties....unless light hits a reflective property and that light can travel through something that our own sense know as a blackness that absorbs all light in the first place.

And so on. Lots of other stuff but let's move on and look at fantasy and how we differentiate from it.

Ok.
So let's go with a true vacuum as we're told cannot every be, yet it can when it suits.


A vacuum is the absence of anything. Those simple words offer nothing.

And I mean NOTHING.

Basically a vacuum in what we're told to be a true vacuum cannot ever be because it offers nothing as a word to a reality.
It means none existence of anything because for anything to actually be something it has to be something and cannot be anything in a true vacuum.

I know I know....but.
Let's look down the fantasy route.
A vacuum being a true vacuum would offer us darkness. A true black or a deep black as we're told.
It would offer us suspended animation, sort of. In fantasy.

What does this mean?
It would mean if we put a person in it (assuming the fantasy) then that person stays put.
No arm waving of feet kicking will offer any change. I mean a person couldn't survive anyway but we're looking at the fantasy.
A Stewie and Brian (family guy) mindset.


But the space we're offered is akin to this fantasy only we're offered a few little nibbles to whet our space appetites, such as tiny scattered particles of one or another at random areas in free space or the actual true vacuum they tell us does not exist but they're offering us just that in between the scattered particles.

The silliness is off the scale.

So put a rocket in this space and somehow it can offer a burn which will offer it propulsion opposite to that burn.

Why burn anything in a vacuum? What is it burning against?

And this is where the arguments get worse but become a person's reality when the argument gets put out as (it's not the burn outside that propels the craft it's happening inside the craft/rocket."

But apart from that offering it also gets thrown out as, once you propel you go on forever because there's no resistance to to the craft but yet that resistance was found to propel it.

How?
I'm well aware of people arguing for it but it really doesn't take a lot to actually see through the nonsense of it for anyone allowing themselves the opportunity to actually sieve through the fantasy in order to leave the reality or at least to see the fantasy for what it is.
Can you explain why this happens then?


even if you argue that this is not a full vacuum and their is air particles in the box the drop would be slower than when there is air in the box but this doesn't happen.
 
Last edited:
No but his breath in a pressure sealed room prevented stacking according to you and you were banging on about the floor having to be the same as the ceiling to make it work.
Yet outside with a solid ground below and nothing above, people and vehicles disrupting it, wind, rain, various weather and pressure changes yet ships still disappear in the same fashion at distance due to stacking?
How does it stay stacked during all of these changes in such layers accurate to say 30 ft changes of height?
And the room has to be perfectly square, lets not forget that. Of fail to realise that a square is two dimensional.
 

Back
Top