Put a flat earthier into space


We're told the Earth is a spinning globe with planets strewn about a space vacuum and also big fiery balls are strewn all over at a distance that is just inconceivable to measure in miles so have to be measured in light years and so on and so on.
Why would anyone want to offer icicles hanging from a dome when the stories told are based on all of that and much more??
Forget about our story I'm asking you why can't we observe them with a telescope, if they can be predicted by what you said earlier who is viewing them to predict them falling off?
 
Molecules below are broken down and are pushed up or squeezed up due to them becoming less dense.

How do they know which way is "up"? Surely they would be squeezed/pushed in all directions, not just "up"?

I wanted some verification of a parabolic curve because a parabolic curve would make no sense on a spinning globe.

Wrong.
There is a reason telescopes are on mountains and such.

Wait, what? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Last edited:
Give me an example.

Seeing the actual clear dome, no, but seeing icicles form from it over time then falling would be seen and predicted.
I mean this is just one site but there are loads.
How do they know.

You said they would see them building up and getting ready to break off from memory?
How do " they" see them if we can't

What about my question about the varying directions of shooting stars
 
I mean this is just one site but there are loads.
How do they know.

You said they would see them building up and getting ready to break off from memory?
How do " they" see them if we can't

What about my question about the varying directions of shooting stars
It appears that shooting stars and comets are the same thing, but some flash and burn up quite quickly where as others just hang around for months, have a clear core and a tail. If observed they give the impression of a parabolic orbit around the sun, where they brighten as they get closer and the tail gets stronger as well as pointing away as it gets there. So these mysterious helium clouds that just knock about doing something different altogether from the shooting stars (which are sometimes seen at the same time) just happen to behave EXACTLY (again that word exactly) as a comet would do in a 3D universe.

Isn't that a staggering coincidence?

This whole sham fantasy universe gets more farcical by the day.
 
It appears that shooting stars and comets are the same thing, but some flash and burn up quite quickly where as others just hang around for months, have a clear core and a tail. If observed they give the impression of a parabolic orbit around the sun, where they brighten as they get closer and the tail gets stronger as well as pointing away as it gets there. So these mysterious helium clouds that just knock about doing something different altogether from the shooting stars (which are sometimes seen at the same time) just happen to behave EXACTLY (again that word exactly) as a comet would do in a 3D universe.

Isn't that a staggering coincidence?

This whole sham fantasy universe gets more farcical by the day.

Yeah really surprising coincidence.

But the Dome AntiGod who doesn't exist but they all believe in clearly moves in mysterious ways
 
This is the second out of four episodes in Professor Dave's Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science series.

This one is about stars.

Looking at the icon, that is what I’ve tried to get an answer out of our resident before. Demonstrate how the southern cross can be seen in different directions at the same time. He has either ignored or said refraction dense layering turbulates the incandescent latency. Other times he just says “south?” to go for the dumb deflection technique
 
Looking at the icon, that is what I’ve tried to get an answer out of our resident before. Demonstrate how the southern cross can be seen in different directions at the same time. He has either ignored or said refraction dense layering turbulates the incandescent latency. Other times he just says “south?” to go for the dumb deflection technique
Yeah, you're very patient with him.

If you haven't seen it before I think it'll be just up your street.
 
What's going in here? Is this, like all other earthly phenomena, as a result of the Magical Central Projector as some on here have asserted?

Because if that's the case then how are the met office able to predict in advance the probability of increased aurora activity this weekend, apparently just by simply observing our sun?

Both explanations can't be correct, so the logical conclusion is that one of the stories must be a complete load of bollocks.

 
Forget about our story I'm asking you why can't we observe them with a telescope, if they can be predicted by what you said earlier who is viewing them to predict them falling off?
Whoever has the best scopes and viewpoints. As I said, up mountains where pollution is minimal.
Make of that what you will.
Oh, and aircraft fitted with scopes.
Also @Nukehasslefan when I asked why meteors/shooting stars/icicles didn't just drop straight down you said they get swept along in the upper vortex that circles the world.
How come on more than one occasion on the same night I've seen some shooting stars go to my left but some to my right?
That may depend on the density of the icicle and the angle of fall.
It appears that shooting stars and comets are the same thing, but some flash and burn up quite quickly where as others just hang around for months, have a clear core and a tail. If observed they give the impression of a parabolic orbit around the sun, where they brighten as they get closer and the tail gets stronger as well as pointing away as it gets there. So these mysterious helium clouds that just knock about doing something different altogether from the shooting stars (which are sometimes seen at the same time) just happen to behave EXACTLY (again that word exactly) as a comet would do in a 3D universe.

Isn't that a staggering coincidence?

This whole sham fantasy universe gets more farcical by the day.
It doesn't need to be any stagging coincidence if the story told is one of the comets around a spinning globe through a space vacuum when the reality may just well be something entirely different but the narrative has been set.
 
Last edited:
Whoever has the best scopes and viewpoints. As I said, up mountains where pollution is minimal.
Make of that what you will.
Oh, and aircraft fitted with scopes.

That may depend on the density of the icicle and the angle of fall.

It doesn't need to be any stagging coincidence if the story told is one of the comets around a spinning globe through a space vacuum when the reality may just well be something entirely different but the narrative has been set.
You still haven't answered how a normal person like me can look through a telescope and see what we call stars and planets in some detail but we can't see any icicles about to break off?
How do you explain shooting stars and meteors going in different directions when according to you they are carried along in the upper vortex.
Remember earlier on here you said everything goes one way in a vortex?

Unless you're now redefining vortex as well as up, down, south,density, light, sound etc etc
 
You still haven't answered how a normal person like me can look through a telescope and see what we call stars and planets in some detail but we can't see any icicles about to break off?
The crudest and roughest answer I can offer is if you looked up at a glass ceiling under a dark sky offering no light, could you see icicles hanging from it?
The answer would be no, right, because you need something to offer reflection back to your eyes.

If some light was offered in motion over that ceiling you would see glints from the hanging icicles. But this is close up.
Now imagine much higher.
You see your telescopes offer you a magnification of something at a distance, it does not offer you farther sight into the distance, so it all becomes a case of the best scope for the best magnification.

Do you think your scope is anything remotely on par with those at the top?



How do you explain shooting stars and meteors going in different directions when according to you they are carried along in the upper vortex.
Remember earlier on here you said everything goes one way in a vortex?
No, I didn't say everything goes one way. I said icicles can be carried in that direction but more dense drops can offer a route through a mild vortex.
I'll refer you back to the sink analogy.
You can have all kinds of angled drops and you can also have ejections against any mild vortex.

Remember there are central ejections to consider, not just dome icicle falls from above the foundation and towards the centre.
Unless you're now redefining vortex as well as up, down, south,density, light, sound etc etc
Vortex can offer many changes.
 
The crudest and roughest answer I can offer is if you looked up at a glass ceiling under a dark sky offering no light, could you see icicles hanging from it?
The answer would be no, right, because you need something to offer reflection back to your eyes.

If some light was offered in motion over that ceiling you would see glints from the hanging icicles. But this is close up.
Now imagine much higher.
You see your telescopes offer you a magnification of something at a distance, it does not offer you farther sight into the distance, so it all becomes a case of the best scope for the best magnification.

Do you think your scope is anything remotely on par with those at the top?




No, I didn't say everything goes one way. I said icicles can be carried in that direction but more dense drops can offer a route through a mild vortex.
I'll refer you back to the sink analogy.
You can have all kinds of angled drops and you can also have ejections against any mild vortex.

Remember there are central ejections to consider, not just dome icicle falls from above the foundation and towards the centre.

Vortex can offer many changes.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
The crudest and roughest answer I can offer is if you looked up at a glass ceiling under a dark sky offering no light, could you see icicles hanging from it?
The answer would be no, right, because you need something to offer reflection back to your eyes.

If some light was offered in motion over that ceiling you would see glints from the hanging icicles. But this is close up.
Now imagine much higher.
You see your telescopes offer you a magnification of something at a distance, it does not offer you farther sight into the distance, so it all becomes a case of the best scope for the best magnification.

Do you think your scope is anything remotely on par with those at the top?




No, I didn't say everything goes one way. I said icicles can be carried in that direction but more dense drops can offer a route through a mild vortex.
I'll refer you back to the sink analogy.
You can have all kinds of angled drops and you can also have ejections against any mild vortex.

Remember there are central ejections to consider, not just dome icicle falls from above the foundation and towards the centre.

Vortex can offer many changes.
Yes I would definitely see icicles and there is always light, have you ever seen a totally black sky with no light at all, it doesn't exist.

What is a central ejection, can you show us?
Can you also show us objects travelling in the opposite direction to others in a vortex, should be easy if it's common, I've looked and can't find any.
Do it in your sink if that's what you offer, easy to prove obviously?
 
Yes I would definitely see icicles and there is always light, have you ever seen a totally black sky with no light at all, it doesn't exist.
And this is where the distance to object reflection comes into play.
You believe you have a telescope that can see planets millions and millions or even billions of miles into a space vacuum.
You fully understand how limited your scope is when looking over Earth, over a low number of miles.


 

Back
Top