Put a flat earthier into space

[Pink Panther]

No, stacking would not keep water on a globe.
It would certainly keep it evened out with indentations on Earth with a dome covering.
The spinning globe offers absolutely nothing to keep anything on it other than the magical fantasy story that comes with it.

Your theory doesn’t stack up.

 

[Hend79]

It comes back to the simplest of things. One is water level. It's boring but it kills the globe in an instant.
The rest of the argument is trying to reason as to why water can stay on a globe and this is where fictional gravity and lots of other fictional stuff come in.

It has to go back to basics when people argue about one not understanding something.
The trouble is no one wants to argue this for long because it does get to be impossible to argue for in terms of trying to offer logical reasoning instead of magical fantasies as facts.
But this isn't a problem for those who argue on the back of that story. They, including yourself, are following a set narrative so it's to be expected and I certainly do not think any less of a person because of that.

Stop claiming that you know everything is a lie. You have been given an experiment that you can do yourself and you are disregarding it in favour of your own musings, you have no proof of what you are saying (your words) so stop saying everything other than your musings are fictional as they clearly arent. You are just too ignorant and arrogant to admit defeat.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Your theory doesn’t stack up.

Your global one certainly wouldn't.

 

[Pink Panther]

Your global one certainly wouldn't.

Zzzzzzzzzzz

I suppose you've got proof that you won't be pressured into sharing?

Your stacking theory is what you use to replace gravity. That's because it behaves exactly the same. Therefore stacking, if it existed, would keep water on a globe. So you can take your spirit level out of the bathroom as it won't wash.

 

[DaveH]

More to the point, can you make them work on a globe?

I can offer that back to you and it once again becomes teet for tat.

Yes I can confirm they work on a globe. We have scaled working 3d maps for that sort of thing and conveniently call them globes. They are a common thing, from high quality instruments to cheap key rings.

So there is my half of the argument:
Can present something: Yes
Distances check out in every direction: Yes

Both are currently No for you, because what you propose doesn't work without vastly changing distances in the southern hemisphere. I challenge you again, can you provide a working 2D map of your fantasy world?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes I can confirm they work on a globe. We have scaled working 3d maps for that sort of thing and conveniently call them globes. They are a common thing, from high quality instruments to cheap key rings.

So there is my half of the argument:
Can present something: Yes
Distances check out in every direction: Yes

Both are currently No for you, because what you propose doesn't work without vastly changing distances in the southern hemisphere. I challenge you again, can you provide a working 2D map of your fantasy world?

You have absolutely no clue as to the reality of a globe map.

 

[Pink Panther]

More to the point, can you make them work on a globe?

Try Google Earth, all the places are slotted together exactly as you'd expect. To test it out you can even zoom in to photos of places where you've been to confirm it's accuracy.

You have absolutely no clue as to the reality of a globe map.

Says the man too scared to show his own idea of a map.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Try Google Earth, all the places are slotted together exactly as you'd expect. To test it out you can even zoom in to photos of places where you've been to confirm it's accuracy.

Of course, they're slotted together.
It's easy to zoom in on a cartoon globe and then zoom in to hit a real landmass at plane height and a further zoom from there to specific locations.

 

[Pink Panther]

Of course, they're slotted together.
It's easy to zoom in on a cartoon globe and then zoom in to hit a real landmass at plane height and a further zoom from there to specific locations.

It's harder photos walk house on should think.

Collections of words that don't make sense are quite amusing.
I suppose the photos on street view are fakes too?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It's harder photos walk house on should think.

Collections of words that don't make sense is quite amusing.
I suppose the photos on street view are fakes too?

Forget street view.
You do know google never used to use a globe to zoom in, right?

 

[Pink Panther]

Forget street view.
You do know google never used to use a globe to zoom in, right?

Forget things that are real and testable. It's the only way.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Forget things that are real and testable. It's the only way.

I tend not to forget those things.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

The easiest and plainest logical way to start and end the globe but the rest of the argument can be interesting for many who may or may not decide to see past the mass indoctrination.

Also the easiest way to prove a globe. Is it time to repeat something about ships disappearing bottom first or shall we just accept that you'regoing to ignore that and carry on?

Absolutely. I'm debating by using my own and other people's arguments against the side you're on.
It's only naturally we are going to disagree and give no ground.

So it's fine to make stuff up to fit the theory so long as it's you doing it? No one else is btw

Each to their own thoughts. It changed mine not one iota.
I will definitely alter my mindset when I come across something that offers a fact. None so far but plenty of majority backslapping..

So take up the challenge and explain in detail how and why your carbon arc probjector can possibly reproduce the effect of being on a spinning globe with tilted axis in orbit around the sun.

Then you can carry on enjoying the comedy value for as long as it lasts. I'm fine with whatever happens.

Nice

I took in your explanations and I offered mine. Of course, mine is worthless to you because only global will do for you.

No you didn't, you might have skim-read ghe post at best but you don't understand it and definitely have not given a viable alternative explanation.

Intelligence is one thing and being duped is another.
Even the most intelligent can be duped so it's never a hit on anyone's intelligence.

Simple facts are simple facts. Go ahead and ignore them but you're only duping yourself.

 

[Pink Panther]

I tend not to forget those things.

You forgot that stacking keeps water on the world.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Also the easiest way to prove a globe. Is it time to repeat something about ships disappearing bottom first or shall we just accept that you'regoing to ignore that and carry on?

Ships disappearing bottom first would certainly not offer a global argument.
Ships disappearing bottom first would offer a horizon (theoretical) line perspective that will slowly lose the reflected light from the ship back to your eyes and leave everything above with more reflected light until distance scuppers that too.
This is why you lose a ship over distance and is why you can bring it back with a telescope because it offers you a magnified vision that your naked eyes lost.

If that ship were on a globe, for one there would be no water for a ship to sail on. However, we will go with the magical mystery of water on a ball.
So that being that you can look at a ship going over a convex curvature and every angled tilted down movement forward of that ship offers yourself an angle downward tilt backward with your standing vision of it.
This means you would get to see none of what you actually do see in reality.

You must be logged on to see external links

So it's fine to make stuff up to fit the theory so long as it's you doing it? No one else is btw

I know you aren't making stuff up, it's all done for you but I accept that and I'm obviously fine with it.

So take up the challenge and explain in detail how and why your carbon arc probjector can possibly reproduce the effect of being on a spinning globe with tilted axis in orbit around the sun.

It doesn't reproduce any effect of being on a spinning globe. It produces the effect you see in the sky.
The spinning globe is just a story hiding what's really going on.

You forgot that stacking keeps water on the world.

Water is part of the stacking so I haven't forgotten that.

 

[DaveH]

You have absolutely no clue as to the reality of a globe map.

Ah, so you resort to the insult deflection and insinuate that I'm an idiot.

I can measure distances on a globe, check them against the scale and find they are consistent with the accepted distances between places. I've done a fair bit of travel in the southern hemisphere and find the distances believable.

If you would like to get away from the petty insult response technique and say what doesn't work about the distances on a globe map, show exactly where is wrong then please do so. As it stands I have put forward evidence that works with observed reality and accepted travel distances.

You on the other hand have failed to provide a working map or a reason why a globe map doesn't work, except that you absolutely refuse to believe it is true. While I appreciate your stand point, your refusal to believe does not change reality.

So I ask you again, can you provide a 2d disc map where the distances work?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ah, so you resort to the insult deflection and insinuate that I'm an idiot.

Try not to project, it doesn't help your cause.

I can measure distances on a globe, check them against the scale and find they are consistent with the accepted distances between places. I've done a fair bit of travel in the southern hemisphere and find the distances believable.

You can travel as much as you want but you're traveling over land sea or air and are not doing it over a globe but told you are and you are going on that and those distances as though they're based on that, which they are not.

If you would like to get away from the petty insult response technique and say what doesn't work about the distances on a globe map, show exactly where is wrong then please do so. As it stands I have put forward evidence that works with observed reality and accepted travel distances.

I've never said distances were wrong. As for insults, don't make me laugh, you try it every time so don't use this as some kind of point-making.

You on the other hand have failed to provide a working map or a reason why a globe map doesn't work, except that you absolutely refuse to believe it is true. While I appreciate your stand point, your refusal to believe does not change reality.

Your map is handed to you on a silver platter with everything at your fingertips and many many years of schooling so arguing this point is basically pointless.

So I ask you again, can you provide a 2d disc map where the distances work?

The map is already provided it's just been turned into a global one.

 

[Pink Panther]

Ships disappearing bottom first would certainly not offer a global argument.
Ships disappearing bottom first would offer a horizon (theoretical) line perspective that will slowly lose the reflected light from the ship back to your eyes and leave everything above with more reflected light until distance scuppers that too.
This is why you lose a ship over distance and is why you can bring it back with a telescope because it offers you a magnified vision that your naked eyes lost.

If that ship were on a globe, for one there would be no water for a ship to sail on. However, we will go with the magical mystery of water on a ball.
So that being that you can look at a ship going over a convex curvature and every angled tilted down movement forward of that ship offers yourself an angle downward tilt backward with your standing vision of it.
This means you would get to see none of what you actually do see in reality.

You must be logged on to see external links

The old "I don't understand scale" approach.

 

[taipeisafc]

It comes back to the simplest of things. One is water level. It's boring but it kills the globe in an instant.
The rest of the argument is trying to reason as to why water can stay on a globe and this is where fictional gravity and lots of other fictional stuff come in.

It has to go back to basics when people argue about one not understanding something.
The trouble is no one wants to argue this for long because it does get to be impossible to argue for in terms of trying to offer logical reasoning instead of magical fantasies as facts.
But this isn't a problem for those who argue on the back of that story. They, including yourself, are following a set narrative so it's to be expected and I certainly do not think any less of a person because of that.

Prove gravity is fictional then. You are stating it is fictional so you can prove it doesnt exist.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The old "I don't understand scale" approach.

Not at all.

Prove gravity is fictional then. You are stating it is fictional so you can prove it doesnt exist.

I can't prove something that does not exist.
Can you prove it does because you offer it as factual?