Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

So you missed that little bag of "willingness to learn something"?

Learn what?

Learn to use the camera and the star map and the equatorial sun dial and all the proof will be in your hands.

Proof of what?

If it was possible for me to explain it to you it would be doubly pointless as you'd reject it out of hand and it would be your own appeal to authority.

Just explain it from your own points as to how you arrive at a spinning globe and light-year stars and the sun and sundial.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Learn what?

How to use the contents of the box first, then why you're so wrong about the Earth

Proof of what?

Earth's real shape

Just explain it from your own points as to how you arrive at a spinning globe and light-year stars and the sun and sundial.

I use the things in the box and the power of rational thought.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How to use the contents of the box first, then why you're so wrong about the Earth
Earth's real shape

Using the contents does not offer any proof for what Earth is and especially a spinning globe.

I use the things in the box and the power of rational thought.

The power of rational though on what you think the contents offer is fine for you. It doesn't mean it's rational for all.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Using the contents does not offer any proof for what Earth is and especially a spinning globe.

It would if you used them

The power of rational though on what you think the contents offer is fine for you. It doesn't mean it's rational for all.

Well given your insistance on no appeal to authority that's OK then right?
You would need to use those things yourself and muse on the results.

 

[legend7]

Using the contents does not offer any proof for what Earth is and especially a spinning globe.

Putting a spirit level in a bath doesn't prove the earth is flat, it's far too small.
What experiments have you done across large bodies of water to prove the world is flat?

 

[DaveH]

Add in trees as I said and you create your own vanishing point. Fictional angles are vertically and horizontally to your sight limit for that view at that particular time based on whatever light reflects back from whatever is in that vicinity to distance.

Their own resistance to whatever is above and beside.

Why is the resistance to a low stack oxygen molecule different to a high stack molecule?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It would if you used them

It doesn't prove a spinning globe.

Well given your insistance on no appeal to authority that's OK then right?

Not my insistence. Appeal all you want to but all I say is don't offer it as your own facts and expect me to go with it.

You would need to use those things yourself and muse on the results.

Absolutely I could muse on results and I wouldn't be thinking of a spinning globe that's for certain.

Why is the resistance to a low stack oxygen molecule different to a high stack molecule?

The push against layered and stacked mass.

 

[DaveH]

We are heading down a whole new path of made up drivel here. I wonder what he thinks a molecule is.

I'm keeping open minded about it. I want to understand how it works.

Currently we have a model where we have higher pressure stacks further down and lower pressure stacks further up. If you place an object unsupported in a layer of lower pressure, then this low pressure squeezes it down towards the higher pressure.

The higher pressure layers have more compressed molecules pushed closer together, so the next step is understanding what force compresses these molecules.

It doesn't prove a spinning globe.

Not my insistence. Appeal all you want to but all I say is don't offer it as your own facts and expect me to go with it.

Absolutely I could muse on results and I wouldn't be thinking of a spinning globe that's for certain.

The push against layered and stacked mass.

This is where it sounds circular to me. See what I said above. It almost sounds like you are saying that stacks make things fall and stacks create themselves.

If an oxygen molecule is the same molecule at sea level as one on a mountain top, then there must be some force making the lower layers more dense. That force can not be stacked layers, because how would they form in the first place? A stacked layer can't form a stacked layer, we are into chicken and egg scenario here.

 

[fyl2u]

You must be logged on to see external links

If this link works we've got a diagram to help us understand atmospheric stacking

LOL

"Aaaaaaah sceppys back!"
"Denpressure time."

What does uniformly dense mean in terms of what I'm putting forward?

If you mean do I feel the need to question it, then no, it's not something that needs to be high on my list.

There's less of everything the higher you go. The pyramid should tell you that.
Layers to a dome top would naturally decrease in horizontal layers if you observe the pyramid diagram.

Molecules at sea level are much more densely packed and compressed.

As I said. It's a dome and what you see on Earth under it will vary depending on where each person is standing.
It's not like you can look in the sky and immediately see a mirror image of what's in the sky much farther than you.
But you are aware the points of light do get seen in a different orientation as you go farther afield into what you think is a southern hemisphere, just as the moon reflection is shown upside down...and so on.

And atmosphere.

As in, how?

Whatever's reflected is in the realms of what we see. In my opinion.
You're simply thinking they're millions and billions of miles away and light years away and are trying to gauge stuff based on those thoughts.
The stuff these people fill us with is sci-fi fantastical but it really does beggar belief and makes me do this on a regular basis.

The horizon is simply the vanishing point to your eyes. It becomes a theoretical line or an imaginary line.

Points of light maps are fine. They help navigation around the circle under the dome.


Why should they be inaccurate?


Very possible in this Earth and even on other similar Earths outside of this one.

Maybe. If it is somehow possible.
I can think of the potential.

Not quite as primitive but you could well be on the right lines, even though it was tongue in cheek with you.

There's lots of stuff on this topic. Go through it and you'll get a better idea of what's what from my side.

No.

I've been told I'm all kinds of things from jobs to living in a basement waiting for my giro and a whole host of other stuff, some of which could be true or all of it may not be true as I know it but to those offering it, it can be their truth based on how they vision me. Add this one in as an extra in this category and decide for yourself if it's true.

The thing is if I denied being in a basement in a string vest and gravy-stained underpants on, or denied being a painter and decorator or any other job bandied about or wasting giro money on coke and pizzas, then some will call me a liar.
However, if I say I am living in a basement and do spend my giro on coke and pizza then some will accept that as me being truthful, yet some will wonder if I'm just teasing and so on.

So what I'm saying is, there's no need for me to answer this extra question, just do your own investigations if it interests you and then decide for yourself.

If one way or the other changes anything for you for the better then, use that thought.

You seem to have decided the name is me so why don't you scrutinise what the name says and expose me to whatever it is you think needs exposing?

It's all up to you to decide for yourself. Go with whatever your time allows you to do or your interest.
I'm just a nutcase remember so are you trying to expose me to being a fruit and nutcase or what?

Life is a web. Life is a maze.
The conundrum is in being trapped in the web and think it's fine or evaluating it and being careful. The maze is another where your entry and path to the end product takes many alternate ways and until anyone gets to the end, only they can offer their route as provable if they take the sceptics to that end, otherwise, it becomes a truth knowable only to that person and comes down to acceptance of honesty if only the story of it gets told.

This is where we're all at.

I think you missed the point.

I've offered my thoughts and they've been discarded as I expected. I wouldn't expect anything less.
My thoughts can be food for some and poison to others.
This is what I offer.

Now, where's your personal evidence,
The highlight is key.

Curved water. Kills the flat earth argument stone dead.

 

[What A Waster]

I'm keeping open minded about it. I want to understand how it works.

Currently we have a model where we have higher pressure stacks further down and lower pressure stacks further up. If you place an object unsupported in a layer of lower pressure, then this low pressure squeezes it down towards the higher pressure.

The higher pressure layers have more compressed molecules pushed closer together, so the next step is understanding what force compresses these molecules.

This is where it sounds circular to me. See what I said above. It almost sounds like you are saying that stacks make things fall and stacks create themselves.

If an oxygen molecule is the same molecule at sea level as one on a mountain top, then there must be some force making the lower layers more dense. That force can not be stacked layers, because how would they form in the first place? A stacked layer can't form a stacked layer, we are into chicken and egg scenario here.

Something else that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. He'll realise this but brainwashed blind faith kicks in and more rubbish will be invented to explain it

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It doesn't prove a spinning globe.

You don't know that until you learn to use them and see for yourself.

Not my insistence. Appeal all you want to but all I say is don't offer it as your own facts and expect me to go with it.

I see no one else making a song and dance about appeals to authority.

Absolutely I could muse on results and I wouldn't be thinking of a spinning globe that's for certain.

So you know the results of the experiment's before doing them? No need to bother doing them then.

Deliberate ignorance.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'm keeping open minded about it. I want to understand how it works.

Currently we have a model where we have higher pressure stacks further down and lower pressure stacks further up. If you place an object unsupported in a layer of lower pressure, then this low pressure squeezes it down towards the higher pressure.

The higher pressure layers have more compressed molecules pushed closer together, so the next step is understanding what force compresses these molecules.

This is where it sounds circular to me. See what I said above. It almost sounds like you are saying that stacks make things fall and stacks create themselves.

If an oxygen molecule is the same molecule at sea level as one on a mountain top, then there must be some force making the lower layers more dense. That force can not be stacked layers, because how would they form in the first place? A stacked layer can't form a stacked layer, we are into chicken and egg scenario here.

And this is where vibration and frequencies come in., Basically applied energy to actually create it all in the first place.

A push-up and a resistance to that push.

You don't know that until you learn to use them and see for yourself.

I see no one else making a song and dance about appeals to authority.

So you know the results of the experiment's before doing them? No need to bother doing them then.

Deliberate ignorance.

No, I wouldn't know the results. I'm saying my natural senses would not offer a spinning globe just like they do not for anyone other than what's brainwashed into us all to basically coerce us into seeing something that just isn't there.

 

[Pancho]

And this is where vibration and frequencies come in., Basically applied energy to actually create it all in the first place.

A push-up and a resistance to that push.

Yet more utter gibberish from a scientific illiterate.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

No, I wouldn't know the results. I'm saying my natural senses would not offer a spinning globe just like they do not for anyone other than what's brainwashed into us all to basically coerce us into seeing something that just isn't there.

Yeah, you did clearly say and just repeated that you know what the results would or would not show. Not very scientific and definitely not an open minded search for truth.

 

[DaveH]

And this is where vibration and frequencies come in., Basically applied energy to actually create it all in the first place.

A push-up and a resistance to that push.

No, I wouldn't know the results. I'm saying my natural senses would not offer a spinning globe just like they do not for anyone other than what's brainwashed into us all to basically coerce us into seeing something that just isn't there.

And where does this energy come from?

 

[payne]

And where does this energy come from?

It's down the hall from projection central

 

[Nobby]

And where does this energy come from?

Dunno but I bet they are relieved that's it's going to be capped at £2500, those projectors, vortex generates and atmosphere pushers must be expensive to run

 

[Pancho]

If any of you sensible types haven't seen anything by Professor Dave then you're missing a treat.

This is his take down of the conspiracy theory underpinning all flat earth proponents.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[BigPete]

If any of you sensible types haven't seen anything by Professor Dave then you're missing a treat.

This is his take down of the conspiracy theory underpinning all flat earth proponents.

You must be logged on to see media items

Will take a look after work cheers

 

[Nobby]

If any of you sensible types haven't seen anything by Professor Dave then you're missing a treat.

This is his take down of the conspiracy theory underpinning all flat earth proponents.

You must be logged on to see media items

Sci Man Dan does a good YouTube channel debunking the flat earthers too