Put a flat earthier into space

[Pancho]

I'm fairly confident some will know what's what with an alternative to the global nonsense (in my opinion) we're fed.

There's always a theoretical horizon as long as there's light back to your eyes.

Every single invention or bit of technology developed in the last few centuries is underpinned by accepted science which is 100% consistent with the heliocentric model.

You can't escape that fact.

Transport, medicine, meteorology, building design, power generation, electronics, computing, navigation, communications and literally everything bit of kit you use on a daily basis, is as a result of hundreds of years of progress in the accepted scientific model.

You don't or can't realise this of course because you are demonstrably scientifically illiterate*, but every time you communicate with the rest of us on this forum, you are actually debunking your own position.

*this is not an insult, simply a statement of fact that applies equally to all genuine flat earthers or globe deniers.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Every single invention or bit of technology developed in the last few centuries is underpinned by accepted science which is 100% consistent with the heliocentric model.

Such as?

You can't escape that fact.

I can and I will because I disagree with it being anything like a fact.

Transport, medicine, meteorology, building design, power generation, electronics, computing, navigation, communications and literally everything bit of kit you use on a daily basis, is as a result of hundreds of years of progress in the accepted scientific model.

I have no issue with transport or many medicines or building designs or electronics or navigation or communications.
None of them offer any factual evidence for a spinning globe or space.

You don't or can't realise this of course because you are demonstrably scientifically illiterate*, but every time you communicate with the rest of us on this forum, you are actually debunking your own position.

Feel free to offer up whatever you wish. It does not change my position simply because someone says so.
I can offer up the exact same thing for you on a spinning globe and space and whatnot and you cannot offer up any facts unless you offer up what you're told to be facts for which you cannot verify.

*this is not an insult, simply a statement of fact that applies equally to all genuine flat earthers or globe deniers.

I don't take it as an insult and you're welcome to come at me in any way you feel the need to. I won't be offended if you offer up something I strongly disagree with and I hope you understand my stance whether you agree or not.

 

[3.142]

Every single invention or bit of technology developed in the last few centuries is underpinned by accepted science which is 100% consistent with the heliocentric model.

You can't escape that fact.

Transport, medicine, meteorology, building design, power generation, electronics, computing, navigation, communications and literally everything bit of kit you use on a daily basis, is as a result of hundreds of years of progress in the accepted scientific model.

You don't or can't realise this of course because you are demonstrably scientifically illiterate*, but every time you communicate with the rest of us on this forum, you are actually debunking your own position.

*this is not an insult, simply a statement of fact that applies equally to all genuine flat earthers or globe deniers.

When you believe light does not travel in waves at a speed but is 'instant', it is impossible to even comprehend answering your question around technological development.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Can we at least get an explanation as to why we're not allowed to tilt our heads?

 

[payne]

Use your own mind and question it. No need to ask me for any proof as I can't offer you any proof...just theory in which you can either trigger your own senses or just cast it all off as utter nonsense from a looney. It's entirely up to you.

And that's all that should be taken from it because that's all I ever offered.
You can question the narrative or you can stick to it. The choice is entirely down to you, irrespective of what I offer.

I can't offer you facts any more than you can offer me facts for a spinning globe and all the trimmings that go with it.

It's how you wish to see things. If you think simple observations are not worthy then stick to what you originally accept and just treat me as the goon with the silly musings. I'm fine with whatever you choose.

And you're obviously welcome to that thought. I just don't share it.

I've considered all you have written and using my own sense and logic it all sounds complete and utter nonsense. Therefore, I'd like to read an actual book from your belief system with people who can explain it better and have some proofs. Can you direct me to a book, maybe the a one you have used to formulate your own viewpoint.

Thank you

When you believe light does not travel in waves at a speed but is 'instant', it is impossible to even comprehend answering your question around technological development.

This is one of the things I can't fathom that he can't even see his views are at odds with reality. How on earth can anything be made/invented etc if all know rules are false. If people didn't understand the basics how could they get anything to work?

Can we at least get an explanation as to why we're not allowed to tilt our heads?

He might have neck braces to sell

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Can you direct me to a book, maybe the a one you have used to formulate your own viewpoint.

Thank you

You must be logged on to see external links

He might have neck braces to sell

or a bog roll tube glued to his face

 

[payne]

Such as?

I can and I will because I disagree with it being anything like a fact.

I have no issue with transport or many medicines or building designs or electronics or navigation or communications.
None of them offer any factual evidence for a spinning globe or space.

Feel free to offer up whatever you wish. It does not change my position simply because someone says so.
I can offer up the exact same thing for you on a spinning globe and space and whatnot and you cannot offer up any facts unless you offer up what you're told to be facts for which you cannot verify.

I don't take it as an insult and you're welcome to come at me in any way you feel the need to. I won't be offended if you offer up something I strongly disagree with and I hope you understand my stance whether you agree or not.

You do though.

You've told @DaveH he has no clue about the data centre he works in because light doesn't exist. You dispute where planes fly and how long it takes them to navigate the massive bowl earth you propose. You say gps is a lie. You say people don't take the curvature of the earth into account when designing bridges. You disagree with everything at a fundamental level whether you admit it or not.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Can we at least get an explanation as to why we're not allowed to tilt our heads?

It's not a case of not being allowed it's a case of it not happening because the Earth is not a spinning globe.
My diagram explains it if you have a good think on it after taking a good look.

I'll make it easier.
Get a telescope and set it horizontally level.

Let it face a supposed global setting sun. You look through it until the sun disappears and yet you change nothing from level.

Now have someone in a high rise with their own telescope of a level and also pointing your scopes way and they see the sun setting again.

The problem with this is the Earth is supposed to rotate away from the sun in order for you to have this sunset as you're told but it makes zero sense to have this because it would create a natural ever-moving angle of tilt of the scope into the sky, not on any (theoretical) horizon line.
My diagram explains this if people have a good look at it.

The Earth is not a spinning globe. IMO.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It's not a case of not being allowed it's a case of it not happening because the Earth is not a spinning globe.
My diagram explains it if you have a good think on it after taking a good look.

I'll make it easier.
Get a telescope and set it horizontally level.

Let it face a supposed global setting sun. You look through it until the sun disappears and yet you change nothing from level.

Now have someone in a high rise with their own telescope of a level and also pointing your scopes way and they see the sun setting again.

The problem with this is the Earth is supposed to rotate away from the sun in order for you to have this sunset as you're told but it makes zero sense to have this because it would create a natural ever-moving angle of tilt of the scope into the sky, not on any (theoretical) horizon line.
My diagram explains this if people have a good look at it.

The Earth is not a spinning globe. IMO.

So basically, what you're saying here is that you just dont understand.
Your repeated insistance on keeping the viewpoint level is just nonsensical.
If you point a telescope at the sun, firstly you're an idiot, but more relevant here is that you would have to continually adjust the tilt to keep the sun in view, and yes, someone with a higher viewpoint will be able to see the sun set fractionally longer than you at ground level. That's not a problem with the global, it's a result of it.
Only in your own imaginary flat-ish world where the sun moves over and around and off into the distance would you be able to keep the scope pointed towards it without constant adjustment.

 

[Pancho]

Such as?

I can and I will because I disagree with it being anything like a fact.

I have no issue with transport or many medicines or building designs or electronics or navigation or communications.
None of them offer any factual evidence for a spinning globe or space.

I'm not going to waste any more of my time than is absolutely necessary so I will suggest just one topic out of literally countless other examples - flight planning. I'll let you do your own research.

Your second point once again perfectly illustrates your scientific illiteracy. You do not get to pick and choose which scientific theory or part thereof, fits in with your preposterous world view.

If you knew the first thing about the scientific model you'd know that it really is all or nothing.*

* in fairness I should point out that you are not just up against me and my 'O' level Physics grade 4. I'm getting help from a frighteningly clever retired nuclear engineer mate of mine, as required.

 

[payne]

I'm not going to waste any more of my time than is absolutely necessary so I will suggest just one topic out of literally countless other examples - flight planning. I'll let you do your own research.

Your second point once again perfectly illustrates your scientific illiteracy. You do not get to pick and choose which scientific theory or part thereof, fits in with your preposterous world view.

If you knew the first thing about the scientific model you'd know that it really is all or nothing.*

* in fairness I should point out that you are not just up against me and my 'O' level Physics grade 4. I'm getting help from a frighteningly clever retired nuclear engineer mate of mine, as required.

Nuclear doesn't exist according to him.

 

[Pancho]

Nuclear doesn't exist according to him.

He has a few other strings to his bow.

MLF anarl.

 

[nahwee]

You do though.

You've told @DaveH he has no clue about the data centre he works in because light doesn't exist. You dispute where planes fly and how long it takes them to navigate the massive bowl earth you propose. You say gps is a lie. You say people don't take the curvature of the earth into account when designing bridges. You disagree with everything at a fundamental level whether you admit it or not.

To put it another way Nukey, you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts.

 

[High Entropy]

It is to me. What you view it as is obviously your prerogative.

If you're wrong, you're wrong, there is no other way to view it pal !

 

[Kevj]

Logon or register to see this image

Image of the ISS in front of the sun taken in County Durham. Courtesy of the Chronicle.

 

[BigPete]

Logon or register to see this image

Image of the ISS in front of the sun taken in County Durham. Courtesy of the Chronicle.

Projector

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Logon or register to see this image

Image of the ISS in front of the sun taken in County Durham. Courtesy of the Chronicle.

Clearly fake, that so called space station is smaller than my banana

Logon or register to see this image

 

[payne]

Logon or register to see this image

Image of the ISS in front of the sun taken in County Durham. Courtesy of the Chronicle.

must just be one of the class slides the always remain in focus from projection central. Glad the earth decided to add it to the projector screen around the time the iss was put in orbit...........or is that just what they want us to think?

 

[Kevj]

Clearly fake, that so called space station is smaller than my banana

Logon or register to see this image

Class!

must just be one of the class slides the always remain in focus from projection central. Glad the earth decided to add it to the projector screen around the time the iss was put in orbit...........or is that just what they want us to think?

It’s remarkable how they upgrade the capability of the projector in perfect sequence to scientific developments here on flat earth.

 

[payne]

Class!


It’s remarkable how they upgrade the capability of the projector in perfect sequence to scientific developments here on flat earth.

Maybe Newcastle Fan is wrong and projection central can be reached by humans from the fake industrial complex. They may have secret tunnels under the ground where volcanic activity keeps things warm so they don't freeze and their instruments still work. As he once said people do lie, so it's possible globe earth is a lie, therefore tunnels exist so could be tunnels under the dome, beneath ice, level all the way to the projection hub interface. It's only logical to think if the projection keeps up with what lying NASA tells us then there is direct communication with outside forces (well inside forces), i.e. the ones running the projection.

Or maybe if the projection is a natural phenomenon then it can keep track of goings on on the flat surface under the dome, like watching the news and then simulates press releases from NASA projects accordingly. NASA can then just hoy the rockets into the drink. In this scenario they also listen to Russian space agencies, Bezos etc. Maybe projection central just like projecting stuff so they think space stuff will help their light show.

I wonder what was the purpose of projection central was before anyone had any idea of using the stars to navigate or pondering the shape of earth. I wonder what was there before humans? Is it mechanical? Is it biological? Will we ever come to the truth? Will we ever be able to get there if we produce better heaters to go past the hypothetical 'too cold zone'? Will be ever be able to produce cgi at the same level as projection central?

Endless questions, endless possibilities............what a time to be alive!