Put a flat earthier into space


This is another argument.
It's not an argument it's just an interesting genuine question.
We launch a new satellite or something like starlink, we, including you can then see it regularly in the night sky after the scheduled "launch"
2 things really, if you insist we don't launch things into space, what are we seeing.
If its a projection like all of the other things in the night sky how does the projector know we have pretended to launch something and the predicted schedule of when they will be observable?
 
It's not an argument it's just an interesting genuine question.
We launch a new satellite or something like starlink, we, including you can then see it regularly in the night sky after the scheduled "launch"

I'm not arguing against man-made things in the sky. I argue against man-made things in the space they tell us about. Massively different arguments.
2 things really, if you insist we don't launch things into space, what are we seeing.
I honestly do not know for sure.
It could be a number of things launched into the upper vortex like dirigibles/blimps or all kinds of craft put into the sky way beyond ordinary aircraft.

My argument is none of any man-made objects are in a space vacuum as they tell us.


If its a projection like all of the other things in the night sky how does the projector know we have pretended to launch something and the predicted schedule of when the will be observable?
Two entirely separate arguments.
 
I'm not arguing against man-made things in the sky. I argue against man-made things in the space they tell us about. Massively different arguments.

I honestly do not know for sure.
It could be a number of things launched into the upper vortex like dirigibles/blimps or all kinds of craft put into the sky way beyond ordinary aircraft.

My argument is none of any man-made objects are in a space vacuum as they tell us.



Two entirely separate arguments.
The upper vortex must be extremely predictable for us to be able to know exactly where and when they will appear to pass each time, there are even apps to help you spot them?
Earlier in the thread you said all things will be pulled to the centre of a vortex, why do these things we see not follow your rule, they keep following the same path year after year after year without being sucked into your vortex?
You do know it's only about 50-60 miles until you start to leave earth's atmosphere (someone cleverer than me will clarify) this has been observed and proven many times, so if they were craft they would be a lot clearer than how we observe ISS for instance.
Explain?
 
The upper vortex must be extremely predictable for us to be able to know exactly where and when they will appear to pass each time, there are even apps to help you spot them?
And you're reliant on being told where and when.
Earlier in the thread you said all things will be pulled to the centre of a vortex, why do these things we see not follow your rule, they keep following the same path year after year after year without being sucked into your vortex?
As I explained with the sink and plug hole reasoning. Anything closer to the centre will naturally follow a faster path to that centre as opposed to farther outward.
To keep something from being pushed into that centre it just requires a motor boost to hold flight as and when required.

There could regularly be craft sent up.

You do know it's only about 50-60 miles until you start to leave earth's atmosphere (someone cleverer than me will clarify) this has been observed and proven many times, so if they were craft they would be a lot clearer than how we observe ISS for instance.
Explain?
Only if you know the true size of something.

Can you spot a passenger aircraft at 35,000 feet?
What does it look like to your vision?
 
And you're reliant on being told where and when.
Yes but if its a reflection from a natural projector how does it know where to put it and when?
How does it know when certain comets will appear regularly, you know comets that are pieces of ice wall falling off, if they are that how do we know when to look for them?
An explanation of tidal locking for those who, like me, needed one.

Speaking of tides I was reading this earlier.

 
Last edited:
Yes but if its a reflection from a natural projector how does it know where to put it and when?
I never ever said it was.
How does it know when certain comets will appear regularly, you know comets that are pieces of ice wall falling off, if they are that how do we know when to look for them?
Regular movement of the reflective energy over the dome creating regular icicle drops.


Speaking of tides I was reading this earlier.

Not sure what this is proving.
 
He mentions alternate thinkers or flat Earthers have no model for the seasons. There are models but they're denied because they're deemed not to fit the global mindset.
No, they're denied because they do not and cannot work
He then mentions nobody has made a map or model. Again there are a few out there that seem to have done just that.
and again, they do not and cannot work.
It seems he spends a little bit of time trying to ridicule, which is all fine but really offers nothing.
Given the way you dismissively reject the many hours of work, study and learning people have done I'd say a little ridicule is fair enough
He's offering no real argument for facts.
All just his musings huh?
He asks if there's any way they can make the moon work on a flat Earth. He says no, I say, Yes, a projection. A holographic image/reflection.
Without any hint of a workable mechanism for this.
He spends far too much time attempting ridicule more than he makes any rational point, in my opinion.
as if you ever made one yourself...
There's a good reason why this debate rumbles on.
yes, you could be force fed with globe-supporting evidence all week and you'd still ignore it or dismiss it with a little made up nonsense and say no evidence had been offered.
There are many experiments for and against and no side wants to give, so it comes back to the debate table.
There are many which prove you're wrong about the shape of the Earth, there is not one single piece to suggest you are right.
 
Likely fairly easy when you have the equipment to observe build-up and break off as the energy regularly passes.
But who observes this?

Then passes the info to others to tell lies about it being comets etc?
If some people can see the break offs of chunks why can't others.
In your world with all of these detailed observations what was the appx height/distance to the dome? Bearing in mind our atmosphere starts to end at appx 60 miles?
 
So with this equipment are you saying we can observe the dome?
Icicles falling from it and reflections off of it, yes.
As for actually seeing the dome as a dome, not likely because it basically offers blackness itself. It's what comes from it.
But who observes this?

Then passes the info to others to tell lies about it being comets etc?
This comes down to what people want to accept or believe in terms of who at the top delivers it and to who and to what intents there is to cover up reality for what they may be told is the greater good...and so on.
If some people can see the break offs of chunks why can't others.
It may depend on strategically placed telescopes.
Who owns them?
In your world with all of these detailed observations what was the appx height/distance to the dome?
I don't know.
Bearing in mind our atmosphere starts to end at appx 60 miles?
How do you know this?
 
Last edited:
From what I gather from most flat earth theories, is that Antarctica is an "ice wall" or something to that affect, which runs around the circumference/perimeter of the flat earth/dome.

So if this is the case, how come when the sailors that compete in that race around Antarctica, they don't notice they have to steer "away" from Antarctica if it were indeed an ice wall? Instead they navigate towards the continent to sail around it?

Surely if it was a wall that would be all the evidence needed to prove a flat earth?

(Apologies if this has been posted previously, and if my explanation is not especially accurate, I don't claim to be an expert)
 
From what I gather from most flat earth theories, is that Antarctica is an "ice wall" or something to that affect, which runs around the circumference/perimeter of the flat earth/dome.

So if this is the case, how come when the sailors that compete in that race around Antarctica, they don't notice they have to steer "away" from Antarctica if it were indeed an ice wall? Instead they navigate towards the continent to sail around it?

Surely if it was a wall that would be all the evidence needed to prove a flat earth?

(Apologies if this has been posted previously, and if my explanation is not especially accurate, I don't claim to be an expert)
No, that's fine.

All newcomers, both expert and non-expert are welcome to this thread.
 
From what I gather from most flat earth theories, is that Antarctica is an "ice wall" or something to that affect, which runs around the circumference/perimeter of the flat earth/dome.

So if this is the case, how come when the sailors that compete in that race around Antarctica, they don't notice they have to steer "away" from Antarctica if it were indeed an ice wall? Instead they navigate towards the continent to sail around it?

Surely if it was a wall that would be all the evidence needed to prove a flat earth?

(Apologies if this has been posted previously, and if my explanation is not especially accurate, I don't claim to be an expert)
I know it will take some time but it's really worth starting from the beginning if you fancy an enlightening and often surreal read, "Fear and loathing in Hartlepool" maybe, some bizarre stuff but some really interesting stuff from others, I've learned loads.
Great to have you involved though 👍
 

Back
Top