DPTT
Winger
Well they are but you think whatever way you like with zero evidence to back up your statementNot at all but I'm not going to be forced to go about my responses on eggshells.
The calculations are not based on any globe in reality.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well they are but you think whatever way you like with zero evidence to back up your statementNot at all but I'm not going to be forced to go about my responses on eggshells.
The calculations are not based on any globe in reality.
More deflective bollocks.Not at all but I'm not going to be forced to go about my responses on eggshells.
Ok so we're at a bit of a stalemate with this.No, I've not been able to take an image of it. It is on a list of things I want to be able to do. It moves fast so it is really difficult.
Of course but then again at Christmas, they offered a tracker to see where Santa Claus was, so forgive me if I don't buy into this.There are various trackers that can calculate where it is and where it should be.This is based on equations of orbits so it is calculated rather than real time. Using a tracker is easier than calculating yourself but it is possible. I don't see what the issue is with needing a tracker. The various trackers have been independently verified by thousands who are using them.
I have no idea what it is. All I know is what it is not.Saying effigy, which has not particular meaning means "I have no idea what it is and I want a better word than magic shit".
But the distances are laid out on a 2d map.That is exactly what we are proving in one of many ways. The distances between cities are well understood and tested. You can not lay those accepted distances out on a 2D map. From this statement only three possible conclusions can be drawn:
I can't provide it any more than you can for your globe, except to accept what you're told it is.1) The distances are wrong. Provide any single case where distances have been fixed to support the idea of a globe
A 2d map is regularly used. A globe map is not.2) You can lay out these distances on a flat 2D map and I'm wrong. Please demonstrate
Only because that's the narrative set out. there's no reality to it.3) We live on a globe and the only way those well measured distances work are with a globe.
The same can apply to you.3 is the correct answer, please feel free to provide evidence otherwise.
I'll answer exactly how I've always done.And you can stop with the persecuted minority bollocks.
No one is trying to shut you down.
In fact the majority of posters on this thread would actually like you to contribute more, by simply answering their polite and straightforward questions without deflection.
I know it's difficult when your whole premise is utter bollocks, but all we ask is that you try your best.
You have zero evidence to back up what you're saying.Well they are but you think whatever way you like with zero evidence to back up your statement![]()
Provided it earlier @Nukehasslefan, actually physically doing something and it matched what science said it would.Ok so we're at a bit of a stalemate with this.
Of course but then again at Christmas, they offered a tracker to see where Santa Claus was, so forgive me if I don't buy into this.
I have no idea what it is. All I know is what it is not.
But the distances are laid out on a 2d map.
You don't navigate roads by using a globe.
I can't provide it any more than you can for your globe, except to accept what you're told it is.
A 2d map is regularly used. A globe map is not.
Only because that's the narrative set out. there's no reality to it.
The same can apply to you.
You can provide nothing more than what you're told happens on a globe but you can offer no reality to it.
I'll answer exactly how I've always done.
You have zero evidence to back up what you're saying.
If I refuse to look at Newcastle does it cease to exist?You have zero evidence to back up what you're saying.
You can't go out and see Santa Claus you muppet.Ok so we're at a bit of a stalemate with this.
Of course but then again at Christmas, they offered a tracker to see where Santa Claus was, so forgive me if I don't buy into this.
I have no idea what it is. All I know is what it is not.
But the distances are laid out on a 2d map.
You don't navigate roads by using a globe.
I can't provide it any more than you can for your globe, except to accept what you're told it is.
A 2d map is regularly used. A globe map is not.
Only because that's the narrative set out. there's no reality to it.
The same can apply to you.
You can provide nothing more than what you're told happens on a globe but you can offer no reality to it.
I'll answer exactly how I've always done.
You have zero evidence to back up what you're saying.
You've offered nothing that backs up any globe.Provided it earlier @Nukehasslefan, actually physically doing something and it matched what science said it would.
Now your turn to debunk it![]()
No, but you would need to prove it does, which means you would have to know what you're arguing for.If I refuse to look at Newcastle does it cease to exist?
Nobody's arguing about adding numbers together.A lot of these sciencey "proofs" involve mathematics, whatever that is. Are we really expected to believe and trust that if we add two numbers together then they magically become another number that looks nothing like the original numbers? Seven plus one is supposed to be eight? Mental.
So why track him and his sleigh?You can't go out and see Santa Claus you muppet.
Do they have a model of a star wars speeder bike?You can't go out and see a Star Wars style speeder bike but you can see a Ford Fiesta. That doesn't mean a Ford Fiesta doesn't exist.
Is a globe projected onto a 2d map or is the 2d map actually the closer-to-home reality?I see the problem, you don't understand how a globe is projected on a 2d map. Read up on Mercator projections and then you might get it.
So with sleight of hand, disingenious deflection?I'll answer exactly how I've always done.
No @Nukehasslefan, using science it showed that it should be x amount of miles which when I physically done it they matchedYou've offered nothing that backs up any globe.
You offered a drive in your car and the mileometer reading. That offers nothing for a globe and you know this.
No, but you would need to prove it does, which means you would have to know what you're arguing for.
Nobody's arguing about adding numbers together.
The argument is offering numbers to fit a globe reality and there are none.
So why track him and his sleigh?
For kids, right?
How many people are tracking the so-called ISS just like kids do with Santa?
Do they have a model of a star wars speeder bike?
Is a globe projected onto a 2d map or is the 2d map actually the closer-to-home reality?
Just get it over with for crying out loud.So with sleight of hand, disingenious deflection?
Yes we know that already because that is the MO of literally every ten-a-penny internet conspiracy theorist.
You all think Occam's Razor is something found in a Turkish barbers.
Just get it over with for crying out loud.
In exactly the same way that you have to understand what you're arguing against. You don't understand the apparent motion of the stars, equinoxes or obits yet you happily dismiss them as nonsense.You've offered nothing that backs up any globe.
You offered a drive in your car and the mileometer reading. That offers nothing for a globe and you know this.
No, but you would need to prove it does, which means you would have to know what you're arguing for.
You offered a mileometer on your car as proof of distance only. Not proof of distance on a globe.No @Nukehasslefan, using science it showed that it should be x amount of miles which when I physically done it they matched
Are we back to the tactic of deliberately missing the point again?You offered a mileometer on your car as proof of distance only. Not proof of distance on a globe.
You don't, except what's put on a platter for you.In exactly the same way that you have to understand what you're arguing against. You don't understand the apparent motion of the stars, equinoxes or obits yet you happily dismiss them as nonsense.
No tactics, just answering what's put before me.Are we back to the tactic of deliberately missing the point again?
When you have worked out what the distance should be between 2 places, both on a globe and on the Flerth "model", you can use a mileometer to verify which one is correct. The video I linked to earlier shows how to work it out, and we're fortunate enough to have someone on this thread who has done the journey used in the example.You offered a mileometer on your car as proof of distance only. Not proof of distance on a globe.
And how can I do that without using what's been offered?When you have worked out what the distance should be between 2 places, both on a globe and on the Flerth "model", you can use a mileometer to verify which one is correct.
What video?The video I linked to earlier shows how to work it out, and we're fortunate enough to have someone on this thread who has done the journey used in the example.
You don’t know thatYou don't, except what's put on a platter for you.
I don’t need toYou have no clue whether stars are suns or millions, billions, trillions or 300 or 400 or a million light years away. You just follow the narrative set ot.
Nah, you would still need to understand some stuff you still dont.I could argue all of it from your side because everything's at your fingertips.
It seemed more polite to assume it's tactical rather than stupidityNo tactics, just answering what's put before me.