Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Well then the diagram fails you in that respect too.

It proves my point as far as I'm concerned.

 

[payne]

The pinpoint of the crosshair is massively pertinent and it still hasn't been addressed.

Bananas

It proves my point as far as I'm concerned.

The crux of it all.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Doesn't understand field of view. Laser eyes, that is what it is all about.

Pinpoint is not a field of view which is why it hasn't been addressed.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It proves my point as far as I'm concerned.

All you are proving is that if you point your scope at an object when either the object or the scope itself are in motion, then the object will not remain on the crosshair. Hardly Earth-shaking.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

All you are proving is that if you point your scope at an object when either the object or the scope itself are in motion, then the object will not remain on the crosshair. Hardly Earth-shaking.

It proves (to me) the Earth cannot be spinning and it proves (to me) the sun is the one thing that's moving. The diagram shows this if people want to go over it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It proves (to me) the Earth cannot be spinning and it proves (to me) the sun is the one thing that's moving. The diagram shows this if people want to go over it.

Here's some cheese

Logon or register to see this image

it proves (to me) that bananas get smaller if you look at them on a bright day.

 

[Pink Panther]

The letters that make the words THE EARTH IS FLAT surprisingly aren't an anagram of LOOK AT ME.

 

[Roman maroni]

People asking why the dome doesn't just melt.
I'm offering up a mountain top as a lower atmospheric yardstick.
We know it does melt but it's slow and it replenishes.

The dome is no different, only higher and within an even less dense atmosphere.

Listen to yourself mate, a dome for Christs sake.

 

[legend7]

Listen to yourself mate, a dome for Christs sake.

Let's not get into Christ as well

 

[Churchlanelad]

Logon or register to see this image

I know that our resident Flat Earther will write off this image from James Webb as CGI or a complex hoax, but what an image!

 

[BigPete]

Logon or register to see this image

I know that our resident Flat Earther will write off this image from James Webb as CGI or a complex hoax, but what an image!

I can see the dome on the edge tbf

 

[Ghfd]

Don’t tell them that if the Chinese all jump at once, it will tip the flat earth over and we will all fall off

good job the Chinese are all canny lads

 

[TheDataGuy]

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.


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.

Again, you are missing the scale of the globe. It's like putting a flea on a football. To the flea the ball is flat but we know it isn't.

 

[DaveH]

Logon or register to see this image

I know that our resident Flat Earther will write off this image from James Webb as CGI or a complex hoax, but what an image!

That is fantastic, along with the other Webb images released this morning.

Already I suspect the various conspiracy nuts are saying things like "wrong colour" without reading how it was produced.

As for the dome/projector thing then it is easy. Anyone can point a telescope to the sky and see Jupiter. The bigger the telescope the bigger and brighter it appears. Just this has been done with a massive projector. We can go to a planetarium and see the same thing. This argument has been used before on this thread.

Where it falls down with Jupiter specifically is see the swirling storm edges around the different colour bands? Get a room full of smoke and blow through it, it clears some, while the edges of this path swirl back on themselves. The key thing is, it keeps moving and the band edges on Jupiter do the same. With different wind speeds and density of gasses, it is pretty much the same effect.

To project an image of Jupiter onto a dome through a magic crystal would mean you need to have an embedded picture of Jupiter in your crystal and have that focused on the dome. But as we can see those storm edges swirling, this must be a photo of a moving image embedded in a crystal and perfectly focused. Not really likely is it?

 

[Tex]

Again, you are missing the scale of the globe. It's like putting a flea on a football. To the flea the ball is flat but we know it isn't.

Remember this is the dribbler who thinks if the earth is a globe then an aeroplane pilot must have to constantly point the nose of the plane downwards in order to maintain stable altitude.

Which of course would be true if the radius of the earth was 4 miles. Not quite so necessary when it’s 4000 miles!

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Listen to yourself mate, a dome for Christs sake.

And to think we're coaxed into thinking we can have an atmosphere enveloping a spinning ball.
The dome makes so much more sense.

Again, you are missing the scale of the globe. It's like putting a flea on a football. To the flea the ball is flat but we know it isn't.

Nope, I'm not missing a scale.
We're told to look over a few miles of sea to see a curvature so that being the case then what I'm saying is massively pertinent.

That is fantastic, along with the other Webb images released this morning.

Already I suspect the various conspiracy nuts are saying things like "wrong colour" without reading how it was produced.

As for the dome/projector thing then it is easy. Anyone can point a telescope to the sky and see Jupiter. The bigger the telescope the bigger and brighter it appears. Just this has been done with a massive projector. We can go to a planetarium and see the same thing. This argument has been used before on this thread.

Where it falls down with Jupiter specifically is see the swirling storm edges around the different colour bands? Get a room full of smoke and blow through it, it clears some, while the edges of this path swirl back on themselves. The key thing is, it keeps moving and the band edges on Jupiter do the same. With different wind speeds and density of gasses, it is pretty much the same effect.

To project an image of Jupiter onto a dome through a magic crystal would mean you need to have an embedded picture of Jupiter in your crystal and have that focused on the dome. But as we can see those storm edges swirling, this must be a photo of a moving image embedded in a crystal and perfectly focused. Not really likely is it?

Nothing has to be embedded into any crystal. It just needs to be projected through one.
Just as your planetarium offering has to have the image projected. This is just on a much bigger setup inside Earth. IMO.

Remember this is the dribbler who thinks if the earth is a globe then an aeroplane pilot must have to constantly point the nose of the plane downwards in order to maintain stable altitude.

Which of course would be true if the radius of the earth was 4 miles. Not quite so necessary when it’s 4000 miles!

Why is it not necessary?
If the Earth curves then any flying object going over it would have to follow that curve.
This clearly doesn't happen for obvious reasons. Because Earth is not a spinning globe. IMO.

 

[DaveH]

And to think we're coaxed into thinking we can have an atmosphere enveloping a spinning ball.
The dome makes so much more sense.

Nope, I'm not missing a scale.
We're told to look over a few miles of sea to see a curvature so that being the case then what I'm saying is massively pertinent.

Nothing has to be embedded into any crystal. It just needs to be projected through one.
Just as your planetarium offering has to have the image projected. This is just on a much bigger setup inside Earth. IMO.

Why is it not necessary?
If the Earth curves then any flying object going over it would have to follow that curve.
This clearly doesn't happen for obvious reasons. Because Earth is not a spinning globe. IMO.

So how does it work then? Somewhere there must be something that looks like Jupiter to be projected onto the dome. This raises questions:
1) What is it?
2) Where is it?
3) How is it projected on the dome in such a tight focus through a crystal rather than a lens?
4) How does it achieve such focus over a massive distance?
5) Does this mean the dome is a perfect hemisphere or does the lens morph?

For question 5, the same applies to stars, other planets and nebula. With telescopes we can see this in crisp detail, which means if projected then the thing they are projected on is in a tight crisp focus. Lets let the coincidence vs maintained design bit slip for now and assume this is the case. As with any projector, we know that if you change the distance it projects then you need to change the focus. We also know the light gets scattered and less well defined based upon distance. So this projection is an intense and very bright but almost laser like beam. Actually given the size Jupiter and even more so, stars appear on the dome, you are talking about a narrower beam than industrial lasers.

But I'm getting side tracked here, stars, planets and other cosmic features move around the sky yet remain in focus. So either the distance to where is being projected is always the same or we have a serial of different crystals and lenses which all morph to maintain focus for our convenience. The second one is highly unlikely. Remember that planets, asteroids and other things all move independently from the stars so each must have it's own crystal lens. Just think about that for a moment, it is not just one crystal, but at best one crystal for all the stars, nebula and other distant objects and one each for every planet, moon of the planet, dwarf planet, comet and asteroid we see, otherwise how would they move independently. All as they arc through the sky adjust their focus as the distance to the dome changes depending on where it is projected. That is just nuts, so the only conclusion is the dome has to be a perfect hemisphere. Nothing wrong with that, it helps put some specifics on the model. We know how light bounces off perfect hemispheres so we can actually start to do some calculation, prediction and simulate it in a lab.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So how does it work then? Somewhere there must be something that looks like Jupiter to be projected onto the dome. This raises questions:
1) What is it?

Something projected from Earth's centre just like the moon image and whatnot.

2) Where is it?

Considering the energy comes from the centre (in my view) then everything in the sky that is not man-made is also being projected.
Think back to the planetarium setup you see in many places.

3) How is it projected on the dome in such a tight focus through a crystal rather than a lens?

In a similar way to how the projector works on a planetarium setup.

4) How does it achieve such focus over a massive distance?

That depends on what you deem as a massive distance.
This is Earth and we're talking about projection from the centre to the sky dome.

5) Does this mean the dome is a perfect hemisphere or does the lens morph?

Likely nowhere near a perfect hemisphere and also dome changes as I explained before in terms of how it breathes or appears to as the energy passes over and around it.

For question 5, the same applies to stars, other planets and nebula. With telescopes we can see this in crisp detail, which means if projected then the thing they are projected on is in a tight crisp focus.

You're seeing points of light.
To think you can see lightyear stars with a telescope should be massively questioned.

Lets let the coincidence vs maintained design bit slip for now and assume this is the case. As with any projector, we know that if you change the distance it projects then you need to change the focus. We also know the light gets scattered and less well defined based upon distance. So this projection is an intense and very bright but almost laser like beam. Actually given the size Jupiter and even more so, stars appear on the dome, you are talking about a narrower beam than industrial lasers.

But I'm getting side tracked here, stars, planets and other cosmic features move around the sky yet remain in focus. So either the distance to where is being projected is always the same or we have a serial of different crystals and lenses which all morph to maintain focus for our convenience.

Of course. There will be many many many crystals and variations of large gemstones as we know them.

The second one is highly unlikely. Remember that planets, asteroids and other things all move independently from the stars so each must have it's own crystal lens.

Stars are points of light. If you want you can liken them to the points of fibre optics in terms of laser-like and also, as I said about the centre, whatever is moving about in it and projected. A whole variation.

Just think about that for a moment, it is not just one crystal, but at best one crystal for all the stars, nebula and other distant objects and one each for every planet, moon of the planet, dwarf planet, comet and asteroid we see, otherwise how would they move independently. All as they arc through the sky adjust their focus as the distance to the dome changes depending on where it is projected.

What happens in movement is coming from the centre.
The projection onto the done reflects that movement and your vision of it between atmospheric changes.

That is just nuts, so the only conclusion is the dome has to be a perfect hemisphere. Nothing wrong with that, it helps put some specifics on the model. We know how light bounces off perfect hemispheres so we can actually start to do some calculation, prediction and simulate it in a lab.

No, it doesn't have to be a perfect hemisphere.
A dome covering a concave circle with the central mound as I explained before.

 

[BigPete]

Groundhog day again

 

[DaveH]

Something projected from Earth's centre just like the moon image and whatnot.


Considering the energy comes from the centre (in my view) then everything in the sky that is not man-made is also being projected.
Think back to the planetarium setup you see in many places.

In a similar way to how the projector works on a planetarium setup.

That depends on what you deem as a massive distance.
This is Earth and we're talking about projection from the centre to the sky dome.


Likely nowhere near a perfect hemisphere and also dome changes as I explained before in terms of how it breathes or appears to as the energy passes over and around it.

You're seeing points of light.
To think you can see lightyear stars with a telescope should be massively questioned.


Of course. There will be many many many crystals and variations of large gemstones as we know them.


Stars are points of light. If you want you can liken them to the points of fibre optics in terms of laser-like and also, as I said about the centre, whatever is moving about in it and projected. A whole variation.

What happens in movement is coming from the centre.
The projection onto the done reflects that movement and your vision of it between atmospheric changes.

No, it doesn't have to be a perfect hemisphere.
A dome covering a concave circle with the central mound as I explained before.

Ok, so thinking of how a projector in a planetarium works, that is exactly what I was doing. Older ones had slides that showed fixed images of the heavens. These were put in front of a source of light, shone through a lens and that lens adjusted until it achieved focus on a screen - in this case a curved planetarium roof.

Modern planetariums are more advanced and display moving images. This works like any other video projector. You have a light source, a LCD screen and then a lens. The image is changed on the LCD screen and focused on the planetarium dome roof.

So what you are suggesting here is that somewhere in the core of the earth there is a tiny image of Jupiter with it's swirling storms, transiting moons etc that is constantly changing. This must be clear for the light to shine through and project, so this is held suspended in some sort of glass cell and some force within drives the ever changing surface we see. There are similar ones for the other planets. Light shines from the inner earth core through these, through a crystal lens and because the dome is not a perfect hemisphere, this lens constantly adjusts it's shape as well as the direction it is facing to absolutely make sure that Jupiter is always in focus. We don't have a time of the day or year where known as blurred Jupiter time where this focus mechanism fails, it just moves around independently projecting on the dome, supporting this image in it's glass cell and adjusting focus perfectly as it goes.

If that is wrong, can you explain exactly how this could possibly work?