Put a flat earthier into space


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.
I can see ISS how many miles in your world Is that away?
Plus if they were icicles they would look different from different parts of the world.
They don't.
Explain.
Explain the vortex too
 
I don't believe there is one in how they tell us.
Whatever man-made object is up there and what it projects is another argument as far as I'm concerned.
Distance?
I can only guess. A few miles maybe.

Not sure what you mean by this.
A few miles?
How many is a few?
Why hasn't one of your fellow flattards flew up to disprove it's existence
 
A few miles. Brilliant. I assumed the dome was meant to be at least 100 miles up. Try drawing the projector lighting the dome that covers all of earth just a few miles up. Absolutely comical.
We're talking about the so-called ISS effigy, not the so-called stars.
 
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.
No set narrative, firm evidence. From continued observations, the motion of planets and comets can be determined. Using circular motion equations for planets or plotting a parabolic curve around the sun for comets, their precise position at any given time can be calculated in advance. These equations hold true and the results tested with observations. It works, there is no argument.

But it also goes beyond their position. When you consider where they are in relation to the earth and the sun, you can determine how bright they should appear. Comets are brighter nearer the sun, naturally.

Why would these above equations describing circles or elipses just happen to work perfectly for a projection or melted bits of ice that just hang there?

Lets turn it around. I challenge you to use your floaty gas bollocks to predict exactly where a comet will be on the 31st October. Pick anyone you like. My suggestion would be C/2017 K2 PANSTARRS, which is the brightest at the moment.
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.
Hold on a moment, are you saying these melty bits of ice are too far away to see?


In terms of planets, if they are really big you can see them. If they are not they can’t. This is simple stuff. Take some small binoculars and you might be able to see a real cow 2 miles away. You will not see a small toy cow that is 2 miles away.
 
Last edited:
No set narrative, firm evidence. From continued observations, the motion of planets and comets can be determined. Using circular motion equations for planets or plotting a parabolic curve around the sun for comets, their precise position at any given time can be calculated in advance. These equations hold true and the results tested with observations. It works, there is no argument.
But it also goes beyond their position. When you consider where they are in relation to the earth and the sun, you can determine how bright they should appear. Comets are brighter nearer the sun, naturally.
It may well work but it does not offer those workings from a global point of view nor does it offer them as space rocks.
All kinds of equations can be used for all manners of things for Earth but the argument stands as in, none prove a spinning globe.
Just as points of light navigation does not offer a spinning globe reality and nor does it offer light years stars as a reality.

And so on.
Why would these above equations describing circles or elipses just happen to work perfectly for a projection or melted bits of ice that just hang there?
They don't just hang there.
They're not offered as comets as they hang, only when they break off.
Hold on a moment, are you saying these melty bits of ice are too far away to see?
No. I'm saying most won't be seen unless they reflect light as the sun moves around.
In terms of planets, if they are really big you can see them. If they are not they can’t.
It depends on what's termed as big.
We're offered light-year stars that apparently dwarf a near 1 million-mile diameter Earth sun.
It's utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned but this is the narrative set out and people buy into it because it's impossible to prove.
It just comes down to alternatives to what is offered. This is where I am.
This is simple stuff. Take some small binoculars and you might be able to see a real cow 2 miles away. You will not see a small toy cow that is 2 miles away.
If I Offered you a 3-foot diameter tennis ball identical to a normal tennis ball except for the size difference and placed it 10 miles away in a desert and a normal tennis ball 1 mile away in the opposite direction I told you both balls were of equal size, How would you determine they weren't?
 
Last edited:
It may well work but it does not offer those workings from a global point of view nor does it offer them as space rocks.
All kinds of equations can be used for all manners of things for Earth but the argument stands as in, none prove a spinning globe.
Just as points of light navigation does not offer a spinning globe reality and nor does it offer light years stars as a reality.
You are absolutely correct predicting where a planet or comet will be with an equation does not show the earth is a spinning globe. This is back to you either getting distracted or wanting one single simple rule to explain everything. The fact that we have equations describing the three dimensional orbits of these elements and can demonstrate they work strongly suggests that they have three dimensional orbits. If something else is going on, asking why these equations work perfectly and consistently is a reasonable question.

Predicting where they will be, does not also pop out "PS; A rock" at the end of the equation. The make up of such objects is something different again.

I notice you glossed over the challenge to predict where a comet will appear in your floaty ice gas magic. Is that perhaps because it doesn't work and it is not real?
If I Offered you a 3-foot diameter tennis ball identical to a normal tennis ball except for the size difference and placed it 10 miles away in a desert and a normal tennis ball 1 mile away in the opposite direction I told you both balls were of equal size, How would you determine they weren't?
You would not see the 3-foot tennis ball because of the curve of the earth.
 
But you can go a few miles up in a plane or even a balloon, why has nobody flew close to the fake ISS to prove its not real?
If you’re in a plane or balloon a few miles up, if you look up you can see points of light that are projected onto the dome from the projector. So if you fly between a point of light and it’s source and look down you would be looking directly into the projector and be able to determine exactly where it’s located.
Nukey?
 
Flat Earthers seem, according to what I’ve read on here, to have watched a lot of YouTube videos and memorised a lot of stuff that is repeated by all of them. It’s not imo really presented as evidence of what they believe reality is - it appears to be simply a challenge of what others present as reality. And it appears to based on faulty premise and conjecture and the statement that ‘it just doesn’t make sense‘ is valid as counter argument

On the other hand the scientific community plus all those educated about these things to a level above mine, present information and evidence that, with the best will in the world, I often find difficult to follow. Thats not because it’s faulty or badly communicated. It’s because I’m relatively thick

So we are left with: can I meaningfully engage with either viewpoint and would there be any point? Probably not.

But.

The flat earther raison detre, and approach to promulgating their perspective is a similar approach that’s used by advocates of more dangerous philosophies. I include fundamentalists, political extremists, Qanon, Trump, covid deniers … there’ll be more along shortly. So I’m grateful to those who have the energy, the willingness and the brain capacity to engage in these conversations and to challenge with logic, reason, common sense and intellect. Please continue. I’m one of the many who appreciate your efforts in this little niche of absurdity. Just don’t forget to challenge the big stuff too please.
 
Flat Earthers seem, according to what I’ve read on here, to have watched a lot of YouTube videos and memorised a lot of stuff that is repeated by all of them. It’s not imo really presented as evidence of what they believe reality is - it appears to be simply a challenge of what others present as reality. And it appears to based on faulty premise and conjecture and the statement that ‘it just doesn’t make sense‘ is valid as counter argument
What I find strange is they then need to replace it with an alternate reality which can't explain all the things we see, just as soon as you scratch the surface just a little. So you get hand wavey bollocks, like any visual effect is just reflection or refraction. No further explanation. Lets not forget that the refractive index as you go through one density to another is well understood and demonstrable in a lab. It would also change massively with air density which changes due to heat, pressure and humidity, but this refraction that say perhaps explains why Polaris gets lower as you go further south, never changes. They can't explain that either.

So they take something that doesn't make sense to them, claim conspiracy and then replace it with something that doesn't make sense to them, but sit in the blissful ignorance that it might be a load of bullshit but at least it is their bullshit. There is no deity or global cabal out to trick them, they are fooling themselves so at least they are in control.
 
I think by now we all know where you are.

Somewhere where the nurses only let you use the computers at certain times of day.


It doesn't get much bigger than the universe, marra. ;)
Aye. But which particular cheese was strained through the sock of oblivion when the great she goat spat out the first globules of space-time doesn’t really affect my day to day existence or challenge my perspective on whether im comfortable sharing my existence with people who disagree with how pungent it was.
 

Back
Top