Put a flat earthier into space


I think it is reasonable to have other ideas, but you have to admit you go a bit further than that by being patronising and belittling people.
Have a little think about patronising and belittling. You're actually projecting, in my honest opinion.
After a lot of evidence is presented “that is a very nice story”, “I used to believe like you and I can see how you have been led to that by the mass narrative “, “That is just magical maths and you don’t really understand it”, are all very dismissive and come across as if you are patting someone on the head saying well done, there there.
Again, it's more projection from your side.
My suggestion is that you try to debate the points. It acts as a nice deflection and means you don’t have to go into details.
I do exactly that. I debate points but never forget that you and many others are armed with a ready-made silver platter to dine from without having to reason it out against what I reply with.
The mainstream ball is 100% in your favour.
If you want to call that patronising or whatever then I can't help that, but as I said, projection seems to be on offer from how I see this.

This is why this should be in parsnip because it's inevitable someone will come back in and call the usual troll or WUM when I won't back down.
I’ve never been upset over anything you have ever said mate

Ok, good.
Your “musings” are interesting, your demeanour is somewhat questionable.
Then take the musings for just that.
But no hard feelings matey, it’s all good fun 👌
I don't have any ill will. I just argue my corner however which way it's thought to be.
 
Last edited:
It's back to the thing where you can't believe something unless you discover it yourself.

Why is that not alllowed? Something happens and is documented. People can then perform the same tests themselves to verify it. Everything is tested and repeated and questioned. That's how science works. That's why medicine isn't the same as it was in the 1600s.

Just because somebody uses the work of somebody else as a reference doesn't invalidate the argument. It just means the evidence is there and still stands up. Because it's right. Like a few hundred pages back where we had the tangent and normal making a right angle. It was disputed by "somebody" on here that it would always be a right angle. Something you could immediately verify with a pencil, ruler, compasses and some paper. Nobody on here discovered that, but it is correct and eaaily checkable and applicable to that discussion at the time.

Mental that there's distrust of any information not discovered yourself.
I don't understand the paranoia.
 
Have a little think about patronising and belittling. You're actually projecting, in my honest opinion.

Again, it's more projection from your side.

I do exactly that. I debate points but never forget that you and many others are armed with a ready-made silver platter to dine from without having to reason it out against what I reply with.
The mainstream ball is 100% in your favour.
If you want to call that patronising or whatever then I can't help that, but as I said, projection seems to be on offer from how I see this.

This is why this should be in parsnip because it's inevitable someone will come back in and call the usual troll or WUM when I won't back down.


Ok, good.

Then take the musings for just that.

I don't have any ill will. I just argue my corner however which way it's thought to be.
You don't debate points, you flat out deny.

Take for example Polaris and the southern cross. If you start at the north pole and walk away from it to the equator, it gets lower in the sky until you can't see it, at that point you just start to see the southern cross appearing over the opposite horizon and it gets higher in the sky as you go south.

You flat out deny that this could happen on a globe then say that we only believe it because it has been drummed into us and we can't question "authority" as we are not free thinkers. But this effect can easily be tested and simulated. Get a big ball and a camera and try it for yourself. Draw it out with pen and paper and you will see that is what happens, or get a bit more sophisticated and model it with a computer. In fact about a year ago in this "debate" that is exactly what I did:

Drag observer A and B around and you will see how their angle to polaris changes as they approach the equator. You can even change the size of the planet to see what effect this has.

Now the question here is not directly, does this prove the world is a globe. The question is, "Does what is being observed in the simulation of a globe exactly match that which is observed on earth?". The answer is yes. Do you accept that this simulation matches observed evidence?

For clarity, I will state that the simulation is all my own work, that I have produced maths from first principals (and can explain how I did that) to calculate the angle of Polaris to the horizon) and using a calibrated telescope mount I have measured the angle to polaris from a number of locations. So no appeal to authority and I have been gathering my own evidence exactly as you promote.
 
It's back to the thing where you can't believe something unless you discover it yourself.
I can accept many many things like I've said time and time again.
I do not have to believe anything in its entirety.

Why is that not alllowed?
It is allowed. I do not ask nor tell anyone to not believe. I simply offer questions and offer a person alternative thought processes which they're obviously entitled to accept or reject or even ridicule.
Something happens and is documented. People can then perform the same tests themselves to verify it.
Ok, then that's fine but give me an example.
Everything is tested and repeated and questioned. That's how science works.
I agree that's how scientists work.
That's why medicine isn't the same as it was in the 1600s.
Which is exactly the reasoning as to why I can accept but not ne4cessarily believe.
In those times how many would argue for the correctness?
Same as today but we know things change, so if they change then that correctness is not entirely the whole truth, right?
Just because somebody uses the work of somebody else as a reference doesn't invalidate the argument.
I agree. But it also does not validate the argument and this is why debate continues.
It just means the evidence is there and still stands up.
That depends on what is being argued as standing up.
Because it's right.
Or is it?
Like a few hundred pages back where we had the tangent and normal making a right angle. It was disputed by "somebody" on here that it would always be a right angle. Something you could immediately verify with a pencil, ruler, compasses and some paper. Nobody on here discovered that, but it is correct and eaaily checkable and applicable to that discussion at the time.
I think the argument was a bit more than just that.
Mental that there's distrust of any information not discovered yourself.
I don't understand the paranoia.
We're all paranoid, it just depends on what it is that is put on offer. It may not be scientific for some. It may be other things, so I'll agree I'm paranoid but I do it on the basis that we all are.
 
You don't debate points, you flat out deny.
And for good reason, just as you flat-out deny anything that goes against a spinning globe and whatnot.
The argument goes round in circles.
Take for example Polaris and the southern cross. If you start at the north pole and walk away from it to the equator, it gets lower in the sky until you can't see it, at that point you just start to see the southern cross appearing over the opposite horizon and it gets higher in the sky as you go south.

You flat out deny that this could happen on a globe then say that we only believe it because it has been drummed into us and we can't question "authority" as we are not free thinkers. But this effect can easily be tested and simulated. Get a big ball and a camera and try it for yourself. Draw it out with pen and paper and you will see that is what happens, or get a bit more sophisticated and model it with a computer. In fact about a year ago in this "debate" that is exactly what I did:

Drag observer A and B around and you will see how their angle to polaris changes as they approach the equator. You can even change the size of the planet to see what effect this has.

Now the question here is not directly, does this prove the world is a globe. The question is, "Does what is being observed in the simulation of a globe exactly match that which is observed on earth?". The answer is yes. Do you accept that this simulation matches observed evidence?

For clarity, I will state that the simulation is all my own work, that I have produced maths from first principals (and can explain how I did that) to calculate the angle of Polaris to the horizon) and using a calibrated telescope mount I have measured the angle to polaris from a number of locations. So no appeal to authority and I have been gathering my own evidence exactly as you promote.
Do you not find it odd that this Polaris (so-called) star just happens to stay directly above what you term as the north pole, at all times even though we're told it's 323 light years away and yet it just happens to keep perfectly aligned with a spinning and wobbling Earth.
You say you're doing all your own work but based on what?
Have you heard of that flat earth dave before?

He had a lot of similar views
There are many I've heard of just as I've heard of many names that offer arguments for a spinning globe when all the info they need to argue is on a silver platter for them.

Anyway, do you have any point to hit me with what you mention?
 
Last edited:
And for good reason, just as you flat-out deny anything that goes against a spinning globe and whatnot.
The argument goes round in circles.
Ok so lets have an in depth discussion about how it could work making a working model for both the globe (done) and dome, then lets compare.
Do you not find it odd that this Polaris (so-called) star just happens to stay directly above what you term as the north pole, at all times even though we're told it's 323 light years away and yet it just happens to keep perfectly aligned with a spinning and wobbling Earth.
You say you're doing all your own work but based on what?
A nice example of avoiding the questions and debate, while also doing the classic of asking again what has literally just been said. It is exactly the point we have been making. You do not debate. You deflect then somewhere down the line just dismiss as a nice story in a patronising way. Lets put that behind us and debate.

My own work was the maths and observation using a telescope mount (actually two different ones). The maths was based on first principals of trigonometry and circular geometry.

No I don't find it strange that Polaris just happens to sit above the axis of rotation. It actually doesn't. It appears to, to the naked eye but when you use a telescope it actually rotates in a very small circle around an empty point in the sky. Astronomers need to use a polar alignment clock, which is a small dial where the centre sits above the axis of rotation and to be considered aligned, Polaris sits somewhere on that dial depending on the time of day and the location of the observer. But that is a little side track and we are talking small differences. In the south, there is no star above the axis of rotation.

If you put an observer or a camera on any spinning object, say a record player or someone on a roundabout, then whatever is above the axis of rotation will appear to spin on a point while everything else rotates around it. Polaris just happens to sit on this point and is convenient. In the two other examples I just give, this could be a random spot on the ceiling or a bit of an overhanging tree.

The axis of rotation does not wobble about as the seasons progress as you claim. We have been through this, but you are getting ahead of yourself here, spinning and orbits are not the debate, this is about the basic shape.

For now, lets forget about spinning, lets forget about the earth being in orbit around the sun. Lets just concentrate on one spot on the sky, regardless of what it is. Lets accept that for whatever reason and whatever the shape of the earth this one spot which we call Polaris, always appears in the same position in the sky when nothing else does. Lets throw away assumptions and go with that one thing as a fact. Always there, always exactly the same position and for convenience we have given it a name Polaris. Do you accept this?

Now lets explore what could explain the observable evidence that as you go further away from due north (which for convenience of convention we will call due south), it appears lower down in the sky.

Do you accept that the simulation I have produce exactly replicates what we can observe?
 
And that's fine from your side but it does not offer you any direct proof yourself. It offers you what you deem as proof.
Asking me to provide scientific proof for my musings is like me asking you to personally prove proof for what I'm arguing against. You can't do it and the debate rolls on.

Wrong.

Then you should deal with me accordingly and accept my musings as being just that and don't expect me to provide proof. If I could provide proof then the Earth debate would be over with.

There is no debate. The Earth is an oblate spheroid. That's the status quo. If you have evidence that the status quo is incorrect, then provide it. Then there might be a debate.

It only takes one card to topple the built-up stack.
I can hold the simplest form of argument by water level and it's not only observable, testable, and repeatable, it's absolutely logical.

Except it's wrong, and you've been told why it's wrong many times. You choose to ignore that every time you mention it.

But we are told to discard what we observe and can test in favour of something that cannot be explained rationally.

No we're not at all. Observations are perfectly fine, as long as they're performed scientifically. We've told you many times why your supposed observations are actually unscientific, but you refuse to acknowledge us when we do.

So this is where I'm at with trust and belief in a story of a supposed spinning globe.

In the meantime try and accept what I say and you can ridicule it or ignore it or do whatever. I feel I have an answer and if it's not to your liking for whatever reason then don't get upset.

You have an answer you can't prove, whereas we have countless reasons why your answer doesn't work, but no matter how many of them we show you, you still cling to the exact same musings, even though they're provably, observably, testably, repeatably wrong.
 
For now, lets forget about spinning, lets forget about the earth being in orbit around the sun. Lets just concentrate on one spot on the sky, regardless of what it is. Lets accept that for whatever reason and whatever the shape of the earth this one spot which we call Polaris, always appears in the same position in the sky when nothing else does. Lets throw away assumptions and go with that one thing as a fact. Always there, always exactly the same position and for convenience we have given it a name Polaris. Do you accept this?
No, because it's never in the same position in the sky to us.

Or are you arguing as if you're standing at your north pole and arguing it from that point?
Now lets explore what could explain the observable evidence that as you go further away from due north (which for convenience of convention we will call due south), it appears lower down in the sky.

It's called perspective. No different on a tiny scale of backing away from a straight row of street lights. The farther lights get lower and lower from your vision.

Do you accept that the simulation I have produce exactly replicates what we can observe?
No I don't, at all.
 
No, because it's never in the same position in the sky to us.

Or are you arguing as if you're standing at your north pole and arguing it from that point?


It's called perspective. No different on a tiny scale of backing away from a straight row of street lights. The farther lights get lower and lower from your vision.


No I don't, at all.
Ok, so this is a different argument than I was expecting, but we are going down to basics, no reason not to go further.

You claim that Polaris never appears in the same position in the sky to us. Can I clarify what you mean by that?

If we both went out in our gardens tonight and pointed a telescope at Polaris, would it still be in view after an hour? Would it still be in view after a day, a week, a month, 6 months or in exactly a years time?
 
Do you not find it odd that this Polaris (so-called) star just happens to stay directly above what you term as the north pole, at all times even though we're told it's 323 light years away and yet it just happens to keep perfectly aligned with a spinning and wobbling Earth.

It doesn't. It's just the closest star to the place in the northern sky that the rest of the northern sky apparently revolves around.
We've told you this many times.
 
Ok, so this is a different argument than I was expecting, but we are going down to basics, no reason not to go further.

You claim that Polaris never appears in the same position in the sky to us. Can I clarify what you mean by that?
The point of light told to us as Polaris star appears to move over the sky from our moving position wherever we are on Earth.

If we both went out in our gardens tonight and pointed a telescope at Polaris, would it still be in view after an hour?
Yes if the view allows.
Would it still be in view after a day, a week, a month, 6 months or in exactly a years time?
At night, yes from our position.
 
The point of light told to us as Polaris star appears to move over the sky from our moving position wherever we are on Earth.


Yes if the view allows.

At night, yes from our position.
Ok sorry I misunderstood. So we seem to be in agreement that to an individual in the same location Polaris always appears in the same place and as we move further south it appears lower in the sky and higher the further north we go. Are we in agreement?

Now does my working diagram that I posted exactly replicate what we observe, considering only the height of polaris (i.e. the angle to a level horizon)?
 
Ok sorry I misunderstood. So we seem to be in agreement that to an individual in the same location Polaris always appears in the same place and as we move further south it appears lower in the sky and higher the further north we go. Are we in agreement?
Yes I'll go with that.
Now does my working diagram that I posted exactly replicate what we observe, considering only the height of polaris (i.e. the angle to a level horizon)?
Not to me, it doesn't.
I absolutely refuse to obey a globe so how can I go with that?
Your diagram offers nothing in terms of reality, in my opinion. I'm just being honest.

It only offers it to you because you're going by a global mindset so to you it makes sense.
To me, it's perspective, simple as that.
 
Not to me, it doesn't.
I absolutely refuse to obey a globe so how can I go with that?
Your diagram offers nothing in terms of reality, in my opinion. I'm just being honest.

It only offers it to you because you're going by a global mindset so to you it makes sense.
To me, it's perspective, simple as that.
That's not considering only the height of Polaris though, is it?
 
Yes I'll go with that.

Not to me, it doesn't.
I absolutely refuse to obey a globe so how can I go with that?
Your diagram offers nothing in terms of reality, in my opinion. I'm just being honest.

It only offers it to you because you're going by a global mindset so to you it makes sense.
To me, it's perspective, simple as that.

One of the best examples of utter ignorance i have seen on here. The message board equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing la,la,la to avoid hearing stuff
 
Yes I'll go with that.

Not to me, it doesn't.
I absolutely refuse to obey a globe so how can I go with that?
Your diagram offers nothing in terms of reality, in my opinion. I'm just being honest.

It only offers it to you because you're going by a global mindset so to you it makes sense.
To me, it's perspective, simple as that.
And that is the flat out denial that I said about and why you refuse to entertain a debate.

You openly state that you see a globe and instantly reject it without further analysis. You will later look to this discussion and claim that I have failed to offer any proof and that I'm following a "nice story I have been schooled in".

But it is right there in front of you. I admit that it does not mean we live on a globe, this is one simple question, does the angles in the simulation match those observed in real life observations. It just does, regardless of the actual shape of the earth.

You may have noticed that there are two observers on that diagram and the distance across the surface between them is marked. If I set the angle for A to Polaris to be 54.9 degrees (the angle I regularly set if I'm doing astronomy from my mam's house in the north east), and set the angle of observer B to be 51.3 degrees (the angle I have measured at home), the distance between is 398.6 km or 247 miles. According to maps, if I draw a line due south from my mam's house for 247 miles, I get a location due west of my house. Why would this simulation exactly match my observations teamed up with a map?
 

Back
Top