• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

chelt_mackem said:
How does it prove a vortex?
Why would a globe not show these results?
Click to expand...
he uses 'proves' time after time whilst simultaneously arguing that he's not offering it as proof and it's all just his musings
fyl2u said:
Does it worry you, how much of our brains we've wasted, storing all this gibberish he's been spouting on this thread?

It's scary how well you can represent his views. If someone didn't realise you were relaying them from earlier in the thread, they would absolutely believe these were your actual opinions.
Click to expand...
Not at all, there's plenty of space for rubbish in my head. I still remember fondly hitting a double hundred on the back field in a two vs two game of cricket when 9.
 
Last edited:

chelt_mackem said:
How does it prove a vortex?
Why would a globe not show these results?
Click to expand...
It proves it to me, not to you. You see it differently and it comes down to what you see as your own acceptance.

I'll make this simpler.
Get a ball and rotate it and imagine a pendulum on it. It makes no sense for it to act like it does unless you were directly at your north or south pole of your globe.
Anywhere else is impossible.

But it would work in a vortex inside a slightly concave bowl.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It proves it to me, not to you. You see it differently and it comes down to what you see as your own acceptance.

I'll make this simpler.
Get a ball and rotate it and imagine a pendulum on it. It makes no sense for it to act like it does unless you were directly at your north or south pole of your globe.
Anywhere else is impossible.

But it would work in a vortex inside a slightly concave bowl.
Click to expand...
He means make stuff up
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It proves a vortex for me.
A spinning globe would not offer a moving pendulum...but here's the clever little ploy.
They say it's not the pendulum that rotates but the floor/table in a building.

A spinning globe would not offer anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

"Ground positioning stations work very well for triangulation. No need for so-called space satuff"

Got it you are fishing. Excellent bait btw 600+ pages of bites.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Imagine standing on a large ball, right on top looking directly at a glowing circle with your eyes looking directly at it, horizontally fixed, and your head straight.

Imagine this as you looking at a sun about to set.
Ok, so in order for your sun to start setting, you have to remain in the same position as your ball starts to rotate back over.

In order for you to keep that glowing ball in your sight, you would need to bend your neck forward to keep your eyeballs horizontal as you are tipped back by the moving ball.

This clearly does not happen in real time as we watch the sun disappear because we are stationary and it's the sun that's moving away from our vision and we don't have to alter any stance or eye movement.
Click to expand...
But we can bend our neck and move our eyeballs and it clearly does happen in real time.
Nukehasslefan said:
It's the same thing when people argue about seeing a sunset at ground level and then climbing a tower to see it set again. It's impossible on a spinning globe but perfectly logical on a stationary Earth with a moving sun in the distance.
Click to expand...
Not the same at all. The first is you failing to grasp scale while the second is you getting logic as wrong as it's possible to be.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
But we can bend our neck and move our eyeballs and it clearly does happen in real time.
Click to expand...
But we don't need to, which is the point.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Not the same at all. The first is you failing to grasp scale while the second is you getting logic as wrong as it's possible to be.
Click to expand...
The scale has nothing to do with it. You still angle away regardless on a ball and we clearly do not see that in real life so it shows we are not on a spinning ball.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
The scale has nothing to do with it. You still angle away regardless on a ball and we clearly do not see that in real life so it shows we are not on a spinning ball.
Click to expand...
But we DO see exactly that, you do angle away, but you do compensate by moving your eyes, by an incredibly small amount, which is where the scale does come into it.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
After 600+ pages the actual point is that we dont need to bend our necks?
Click to expand...
Just one of many many many points.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
If you want to keep your eyes fixed on an object, either in motion or relative motion, then yes you do need to move either your eyes or head.
Click to expand...
But the belief is in the ground being in motion, not the object the eye is fixed upon.

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It proves it to me, not to you. You see it differently and it comes down to what you see as your own acceptance.

I'll make this simpler.
Get a ball and rotate it and imagine a pendulum on it. It makes no sense for it to act like it does unless you were directly at your north or south pole of your globe.
Anywhere else is impossible.

But it would work in a vortex inside a slightly concave bowl.
Click to expand...
It actually makes perfect sense, as long as you have the ball complete one rotation every 23 hours, 56 minutes and a pendulum to scale.

Granted, the pendulum is easier to understand at the north or south pole where it completes a rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes.

I'm not sure you understand what a vortex is though.
 
chelt_mackem said:
It actually makes perfect sense, as long as you have the ball complete one rotation every 23 hours, 56 minutes and a pendulum to scale.

Granted, the pendulum is easier to understand at the north or south pole where it completes a rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes.

I'm not sure you understand what a vortex is though.
Click to expand...
Something that resembles a whirlpool.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
But the belief is in the ground being in motion, not the object the eye is fixed upon.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
You're arguing about what happens when you have your eye fixed on an object by using a poor diagram of a scope fixed in place.

We are heading back towards those bananas and bog roll tubes at speed.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
I said they do when localised atmospheric conditions offer it to the eye.

I also said the distance also magnifies and demagnifies meaning it keeps a near consistent size.

Two different scenarios not just one.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that different parts of the earth have different distances to the zone, but no matter where you are and no matter where the sun or moon reflection of the dome is, the pure force of distance always makes them appear to be the same size?
 
DaveH said:
So what you are saying is that different parts of the earth have different distances to the zone, but no matter where you are and no matter where the sun or moon reflection of the dome is, the pure force of distance always makes them appear to be the same size?
Click to expand...
Unless localised atmospheric variations offer up magnification or demagnification to the eye.
But essentially in what you say. Basically, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top