Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Earth is not walking or running.
It's a spinning globe.

It's actually not.
The thing is it's all about analogies and whether people want to view them like that in their mindset, or not.

WTF? No I'm talking about shadows, daylight shadows as you absolutely know.

Oh, ok, then show me the arcs in daylight shadows.

You're just avoiding the matter and hoping it gets lost in dozens of posts, but you know you cant explain how your dome and reflection-sun can produce the same effects.

No need. Explain to all and let's see.

Actually it isn't, you're arguing against something that doesn't happen.
Your analogy would have the knight facing in different directions as it moved around.

No.
My knight as I said with the person would be to go around on the left, like a walk around the light in the living room. The left side of the shoulder will always be closest to the light all the way around it if walked in a circle.
It would not suddenly start to rotate to the right shoulder being closest.

 

[payne]

It's actually not.
The thing is it's all about analogies and whether people want to view them like that in their mindset, or not.

Oh, ok, then show me the arcs in daylight shadows.

No need. Explain to all and let's see.

No.
My knight as I said with the person would be to go around on the left, like a walk around the light in the living room. The left side of the shoulder will always be closest to the light all the way around it if walked in a circle.
It would not suddenly start to rotate to the right shoulder being closest.

Proper literary critic now. Analogies this, analogies that

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It's actually not.
The thing is it's all about analogies and whether people want to view them like that in their mindset, or not.

Actually, it is. The only mindset in need of change on this is yours. You don't believe there's a globe but think you're an expert on how one would move.

Oh, ok, then show me the arcs in daylight shadows.

No need. Explain to all and let's see.

I already explained what to do. Find a shadow, mark its position throughout the day. The markers will show an arc.
Do it on the equinox and the markers are in a straight line.
It's easily tested by anyone with access to shadows.
What you need to explain is how your reflecting dome can do that.

No.
My knight as I said with the person would be to go around on the left, like a walk around the light in the living room. The left side of the shoulder will always be closest to the light all the way around it if walked in a circle.
It would not suddenly start to rotate to the right shoulder being closest.

I don't give a toss what your knight would do, the Earth is not walking around in circles. I've shown you what happens.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Congratulations, you've finally got it, you've proved your own argument is wrong. The runner doesn't do what the knight is doing because the runner is changing the way he facing when he runs around a track.

No, the runner isn't. The runner faces the track line and follows it. the runner's left side will always show to the middle of the track all the way around it. The runner wouldn't suddenly off the right side to the centre of the track at any point on that entire circumference of that track.
Your globe offers it for some strange reason.

He's altering his orientation.

Not to the centre.

The earth doesn't do that, because there's no magical force making the earth change the way it's facing.

Exactly but the model offers it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

No, the runner isn't. The runner faces the track line and follows it. the runner's left side will always show to the middle of the track all the way around it. The runner wouldn't suddenly off the right side to the centre of the track at any point on that entire circumference of that track.
Your globe offers it for some strange reason.

Because it's not a runner on a track maybe?

Exactly but the model offers it.

No, it doesn't. Except for in your mind.

 

[payne]

Because it's not a runner on a track maybe?

No, it doesn't. Except for in your mind.

He must be on a wind up for this one. He's repeatedly told that's not what the model shows and then he just repeats it again.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

He must be on a wind up for this one. He's repeatedly told that's not what the model shows and then he just repeats it again.

Looks that way, but....

 

[payne]

Looks that way, but....

I think he needs to picture a crab walking sideways with its back towards the javelin field

 

[TheDataGuy]

It does change. That's the point. It's made out it doesn't but it clearly does. It's a nice little con job they offered but that's all it is.
It's not about me thinking it goes around as a human being would. I'm asking how it does what you show, in a vacuum around a central sun.

The white bit or your north pole faces into and then away from your sun.
The only way this can happen is for it to alter its angle.

It doesn't alter its angle. Just look at the gif I shared it clearly doesn't rotate around.

If you are asking how does an object an orbit another then that is simple. Gravity pulls an object down. So now the sun is pulling the earth towards it but as the earth has horizontal speed it will constantly fall but never get any closer. Now if the earth was slower we would start to get closer to the sun, If it was faster it would spiral outwards. As we are going the right speed we stay in orbit. Essentially the object falls constantly but falls over the horizon so falls again but is beyond the horizon so falls again etc. This is orbiting. This is a bit more complex but this is a simplified look at it. I do not expect you to understand this at all but worth saying it.

No, the runner isn't. The runner faces the track line and follows it. the runner's left side will always show to the middle of the track all the way around it. The runner wouldn't suddenly off the right side to the centre of the track at any point on that entire circumference of that track.
Your globe offers it for some strange reason.

This is a swing ball issue again. The orientation is to the whole universe not a central point

Simple diagram warning

/ | The forward slash is angled towards the pipe

\ | the forward slash has now altered its orientation to whole page and has now become a backslash (This is not what happens)

| / The forward slash has not changed the orientation to the whole page (universe) but the top is now away from the pipe.

I understand you struggle with scale but hopefully you can see that this is what we are trying to say happens with the gif.

It conforms to the gradient via other gradients as in a concave bowl. It levels up to any landmass within that bowl.
Pretty simple to be fair.

Why does water level work on a gradient but not on the gradient of the globe? Is there a reason why you aren't answering this?

I have more questions, Which way is the centre of the cell, North or South? How do we know? Why is the South not centre?

 

[BigPete]

No, the runner isn't. The runner faces the track line and follows it. the runner's left side will always show to the middle of the track all the way around it

What if there was no runner..

Logon or register to see this image

 

[fyl2u]

No, the runner isn't. The runner faces the track line and follows it. the runner's left side will always show to the middle of the track all the way around it. The runner wouldn't suddenly off the right side to the centre of the track at any point on that entire circumference of that track.

You must think we're all stupid if you're trying to pull that crap.

Clearly the runner has to turn to go around the track otherwise the first time he came to a corner he'd run straight across it and into the crowd.

Your globe offers it for some strange reason.

Stop talking shit man, there's no way you honestly believe this bollocks.

Not to the centre.

The centre is irrelevant. As you know fine well.

Exactly but the model offers it.

The only person offering it is you with your weird swingball Earth.

Just admit you're wrong and earn yourself a bit of respect for once you daft knacker.

Lying like this all the time just makes you look like an absolute child.

 

[DaveH]

The best part of this is that he asks for things like diagrams and pictures and then can't/won't understand even when they're provided.

It has been that way for ages. Just today he said again that the changing angle to Polaris is utter garbage on a globe. Never gives a break down why, just his usual “nah bollocks, globe mindset”. I was saying a couple of days ago how ancient navigators would measure this angle and use equations of circular geometry to find how far south they were. He accepts this is the technique they used but denies that the equations work - which is a bit strange.

I put together an interactive tool where you pull a observer around a circle and the angle to Polaris adjusts. It matches observations, so it could not really be any more in your face than that. But he happily claimed bollocks and brainwashing.

Basically he is so entrenched in his dome earth they all lie to us, that he just refuses to acknowledge anything that he didn’t invent. No matter what your mindset, if someone says here is observational data and here is the data derived by maths and they match, you have to admit they match. You could argue coincidence or that the conclusion of shape based on the maths is wrong, but he goes for safety of complete denial of everything. It is almost to the level of saying 2=2 and he says no. Only it was a different number.

Madness.

 

[legend7]

Lying like this all the time just makes you look like an absolute child.

I know many a child with better intelligence and a better grasp of life than this clown.

 

[payne]

It has been that way for ages. Just today he said again that the changing angle to Polaris is utter garbage on a globe. Never gives a break down why, just his usual “nah bollocks, globe mindset”. I was saying a couple of days ago how ancient navigators would measure this angle and use equations of circular geometry to find how far south they were. He accepts this is the technique they used but denies that the equations work - which is a bit strange.

I put together an interactive tool where you pull a observer around a circle and the angle to Polaris adjusts. It matches observations, so it could not really be any more in your face than that. But he happily claimed bollocks and brainwashing.

Basically he is so entrenched in his dome earth they all lie to us, that he just refuses to acknowledge anything that he didn’t invent. No matter what your mindset, if someone says here is observational data and here is the data derived by maths and they match, you have to admit they match. You could argue coincidence or that the conclusion of shape based on the maths is wrong, but he goes for safety of complete denial of everything. It is almost to the level of saying 2=2 and he says no. Only it was a different number.

Madness.

1 + 1 is 3. I told you that hundreds of pages ago

Out-of-control SpaceX rocket on collision course with moon

• Update: New information suggests rocket built by China, not SpaceX - see footnote

www.theguardian.com

 

[BigPete]

1 + 1 is 3. I told you that hundreds of pages ago

In your opinion and that's fine.

I used to think like that as well.

 

[payne]

In your opinion and that's fine.

I used to think like that as well.

1 + 1 = 2 is utter garbage. It's obvious if you haven't been schooled.

 

[BigPete]

1 + 1 = 2 is utter garbage. It's obvious if you haven't been schooled.

1+1 = water level

 

[3.142]

So today we moved from a swingball to a running track. Yet again misunderstanding how something works in an area he doesn't believe in and then concluding it makes no sense and can't be real.

He did acknowledge he has never changed his mind on something he used to believe was not real. Says a lot about a stubborness in his views, yet we are all the ones that have been schooled.

It's also just over 400 years since humans observed Ganymede's orbit, which I think is something to celebrate. I also enjoyed 'the fundamentals of reality' on the infinite monkey cage podcast in the last few days. Worth a listen.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It is not easy to understand. You can't project sound through a crystal onto a helium ice dome above an almost flat earth in order to get points of light where the views of such change the way they do in reality. Especially when you expect this crystal to give multiple distinct points of light. There is not even the slightest hint that any of this is possible.

It's not possible to you because you believe wholeheartedly in a spinning globe in a vacuum of space going around a massive ball of fire over 2 million miles in circumference.
When you believe this stuff it's obvious you're not going to simplify it.

The best part of this is that he asks for things like diagrams and pictures and then can't/won't understand even when they're provided.

What is there to understand about it?
It's a diagram that offers fiction.
I can see what happens in the diagram and I'm disputing it for obvious reasons.

TBF he can't accept that as it explains, day/night, time zones, seasons, different constellations in different hemispheres in one simple elegant model that blows his increasingly complex and bizarre model out of the (unhindered) water.

As well as actually being what has been observed looking back at earth from the moon

Anyone can explain anything if magical mysteries are added.

I think my favourite learning today is that on his earth that has a slight gradient and the water confirms to the shape of the earth but it wouldn't on a globe!!

The globe cannot offer a container for it.

@Nukehasslefan still has not answered the question why this behaviour for water can be true for his world but is not on a globe.

This was the answer to the question,


This is a change in tune to the usual argument suggesting that water level proves there is no gradient

There's no change. I've offered the point and you simply didn't understand it.

It's been told before so it doesn't really matter.

Hahahaha. He still can't get his head around it.

I love the whole no vacuum exists then proceeds to explain how things would work in a vacuum environment. Classic Newcastle Lad

But I'm not explaining anything of the sort.

Proper literary critic now. Analogies this, analogies that

Aye, they help people who want to understand what's being said.
You and many others on here have no wish to and I'm fine with that. It doesn't just include you.

Actually, it is. The only mindset in need of change on this is yours. You don't believe there's a globe but think you're an expert on how one would move.

Nope. I'd just love to know how it supposedly does what it does whilst being argued that it doesn't do what the model clearly shows.

I already explained what to do. Find a shadow, mark its position throughout the day. The markers will show an arc.

Tell me where you saw these arcs.

Do it on the equinox and the markers are in a straight line.

I see straight-line shadows through sticks or poles or whatever all the time.
Unless you can offer me something that you've done to show the difference.

It's easily tested by anyone with access to shadows.

Access to shadows?

What you need to explain is how your reflecting dome can do that.

I'd like to know what you're doing in real-time forst.

I don't give a toss what your knight would do, the Earth is not walking around in circles. I've shown you what happens.

Neither is your knight.

Because it's not a runner on a track maybe?

Analogies and not quite it, right?

He must be on a wind up for this one. He's repeatedly told that's not what the model shows and then he just repeats it again.

The model is there, offered to me.
I've just explained why it doesn't offer what's told.

It doesn't alter its angle. Just look at the gif I shared it clearly doesn't rotate around.

It clearly alters its angle of rotation towards the sun in that model.

If you are asking how does an object an orbit another then that is simple. Gravity pulls an object down. So now the sun is pulling the earth towards it but as the earth has horizontal speed it will constantly fall but never get any closer.

This makes no sense at all.
It really makes no sense.

Now if the earth was slower we would start to get closer to the sun, If it was faster it would spiral outwards.

It would be fine if you were throwing a ball bearing around a roulette wheel at an ever-decreasing speed because the roulette bowl offers an angle and offers the ball bearing a slow deviation towards the numbers.
It doesn't fly off for obvious reasons.

Your space vacuum offers a ball against nothing around a sun and we are told to believe that the sun pulls the ball in but the speed of the ball is at a constant speed around it that it's being pulled away somehow but this gravity of a burning sun is pulling it in.

The nonsense of it is off can only be seen when it can be seen for what it is.

As we are going the right speed we stay in orbit.

No such thing as constant speed, so I can throw that mindset out.

Essentially the object falls constantly but falls over the horizon so falls again but is beyond the horizon so falls again etc. This is orbiting. This is a bit more complex but this is a simplified look at it. I do not expect you to understand this at all but worth saying it.

I know what#'s told but it makes no sense. You can argue as just as you want that it does but you know it doesn't.

This is a swing ball issue again. The orientation is to the whole universe not a central point

It doesn't matter what's used. The model clearly shows changed orientation towards your sun of the north pole angle as we can see in the diagram.
I see no mechanism that can offer that even in this fantasy model.

Simple diagram warning

/ | The forward slash is angled towards the pipe

\ | the forward slash has now altered its orientation to whole page and has now become a backslash (This is not what happens)

| / The forward slash has not changed the orientation to the whole page (universe) but the top is now away from the pipe.

I understand you struggle with scale but hopefully you can see that this is what we are trying to say happens with the gif.

No issue with scale but by all means keep saying it.
What you're offering is exactly why orientation changes.

Why does water level work on a gradient but not on the gradient of the globe?

It works against the gradient, meaning it levels in a bowl against any gradient it hits as I said. Your friends will help you out.

Is there a reason why you aren't answering this?

I have. Is there a reason why you're not understanding it?

I have more questions, Which way is the centre of the cell, North or South? How do we know? Why is the South not centre?

South could well be if you change the compass to the south being the north and north being the south if you wanted.

You must think we're all stupid if you're trying to pull that crap.

Clearly the runner has to turn to go around the track otherwise the first time he came to a corner he'd run straight across it and into the crowd.

Yep, and it comes down to tieing that piece of rope to him from the centre so he simply follows the track and doesn't veer off.
Your so-called space and sun is apparently acting like that but offers the earth north pole moving towards and away from the sun as it spins around it, somehow.
It's like having the runner twirling as he runs around the track.

Stop talking shit man, there's no way you honestly believe this bollocks.

You're right I don't. The globe is utter utter nonsense and I keep saying it so you should know I don't believe it.

 

[fyl2u]

Yep, and it comes down to tieing that piece of rope to him from the centre so he simply follows the track and doesn't veer off.

FYI there's no rope holding the Earth to the sun.

If the runner had a rope tied to him then the rope is exerting the turning force to him instead of his legs, so you're still adding a "magical force" to make him turn.

Your so-called space and sun is apparently acting like that

No it very much isn't.

but offers the earth north pole moving towards and away from the sun as it spins around it, somehow.

No it doesn't. Tilt stays towards "galactic north" throughout he orbit. Whether or not the Earth happens to have another object nearby (like the sun in this case) has absolute zero bearing on which way it is tilting.

It's like having the runner twirling as he runs around the track.

Nope. Wrong again.

You're right I don't. The globe is utter utter nonsense and I keep saying it so you should know I don't believe it.

Well at least you admit you don't believe the bollocks you spout.