• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Pancho said:
You have repeatedly demonstrated by your posts in this thread that, in common with every flat earther, you are mathematically illiterate, have zero comprehension of scale and are incapable of logical thought.
Click to expand...
Of course. Why would you need to offer anything else?

Pancho said:
This why you uncritically repeat stupid tropes that you've slavishly copied from flat earth sites, such as 8 inches per mile squared and 1000mph spin.
Click to expand...
It's not down to me to offer that. It's been offered by global believers.


Pancho said:
Anyone with just a basic grasp of maths, such as me, wouldn't be seen dead quoting that sort of bollocks.

You have fallen for the dumbest hoax on the internet.
Click to expand...
Or maybe you have.
 

Nukehasslefan said:
You see this does not come down to stupidity or anything like it, generally. It comes down to each person's ability to take in and believe whatever suits them or merely following a trait or following mass opinion and so on.
Click to expand...
It comes down to your inability to tell fact from fiction. It's nothing like Santa or the tooth fairy. Just because they were made up doesn't automatically mean everything or anything else was too. I thought you had nothing but if that's your level you have even less than I thought.
 
Last edited:
legend7 said:
No you said the lemon squeezer and our 2d maps were representative of where your landmasses are, to fly in a straight line from Buenos Aires to australia you go past London near half way?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I have no clue where you got that from.
legend7 said:
I'll tell you what mark on my drawing where you think the UK is in relation to South america and Australia that you placed?
Click to expand...
I'll do it tomorrow.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
So why do you refuse to look at the evidence I gave you? Why just discount it without trying if you really want to question? Why choose to be so ignorant?
Click to expand...
What are you offering?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
People struggle today to try and show a globe so offering 2500-year-old supposed knowledge of one is hardly a compelling argument, don't you think?

A 5-year-old can also prove Santa exists.

Hmmm, are you projecting?
Click to expand...
No they dont, several people on this thread have shown you evidence of us living on a globe, its just that you choose to say its all fake despite all of the proof and evidence against your own crazy theory (which you have no proof or evidence for)

No they cant.

No im not, im putting you in your place you arrogant condescending clown.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Have you ever seen this as you show it?
Click to expand...
I have, regularly and can verify that at different times of the year Jupiter and (and other planets) can look bigger and brighter.
This is one I have handy from my archives:
Logon or register to see this image


An interesting point there is that you can barely see the big red spot, you will notice it is just on the top right of the image, rather than being mid-lower left as it is in traditional images. There are two reasons for this. The first is that my telescope imaging rig flips the image upside down (due to the way optics work and is not worth going into). The second is that this storm gives the exact appearance of rotating around the planet.

So if you are going down the route of dismiss everything unless you have seen it yourself, I have seen this myself and observed in detail. If this is being projected then there must be some kind of animated source in the middle of the planet with an identical image that is being projected up and somehow remains in a pretty good focus. Bearing in mind this was a £300 scope and £100 camera so very low budget imaging. It raises the question of what is this thing in the earth that looks exactly like what the rest of us know as Jupiter and how does it project it upwards?
Nukehasslefan said:
How about you show me a home telescope vision of jupiter?
Click to expand...
Done
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It's not down to me to offer that. It's been offered by global believers.
Click to expand...
It never has and this has been pointed out to you multiple times before, so stop being deceitful.

The first mention of this mathematical expression was in the completely debunked pamphlet entitled Zetetic Astronomy by Samuel Rowbotham, unsurprisingly the flat earthers' bible.

You really need to up your game.
DaveH said:
I have, regularly and can verify that at different times of the year Jupiter and (and other planets) can look bigger and brighter.
This is one I have handy from my archives:
Logon or register to see this image


An interesting point there is that you can barely see the big red spot, you will notice it is just on the top right of the image, rather than being mid-lower left as it is in traditional images. There are two reasons for this. The first is that my telescope imaging rig flips the image upside down (due to the way optics work and is not worth going into). The second is that this storm gives the exact appearance of rotating around the planet.

So if you are going down the route of dismiss everything unless you have seen it yourself, I have seen this myself and observed in detail. If this is being projected then there must be some kind of animated source in the middle of the planet with an identical image that is being projected up and somehow remains in a pretty good focus. Bearing in mind this was a £300 scope and £100 camera so very low budget imaging. It raises the question of what is this thing in the earth that looks exactly like what the rest of us know as Jupiter and how does it project it upwards?

Done
Click to expand...
Superb, Dave.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
What are you offering?
Click to expand...
What have I offered all along? I asked where you had replied to something and was told to go and look. Do the same.
If you're too far gone to look at it after this long I'm not typing it again now. You know what I've offered, you're too scared to look into it because it proves you and your flat/not quite flat but essentially flat Earth bollocks is just that, bollocks.
You're happy to keep saying no evidence has been shown but it's been offered several times and you refuse to acknowledge it. Everyone can see it's there so every time you deny it just makes you look a bit more of a teet.
 
Last edited:
DaveH said:
So you are not saying specifically what doesn't work. I think it is your lack of understanding of what scale actually is.
Click to expand...
I have no issue with scale.

DaveH said:
Lets say that every 100km is represented by 1mm on a globe. On that globe Great Britain would be 9.6mm long or just under 1cm.
The earth has a diameter of 12,742km so our model globe is 127.42mm (just under 13 cm) in diameter. Ok this is a fairly small model globe, but it makes convenient calculations.
For every single distance on this model globe, we can take the distance in km, divide that by 100 and that is the distance in mm that we would expect to see. And it works perfectly.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of how scale works.
DaveH said:
Now ever 2D flat earth map I have seen is like what I said earlier about peeling out an orange. Things in the southern hemisphere massively increase in distance between them, so Rio and Sydney is massive. At a reported 13,513km apart, if we ran a bit of string around our globe between where the two cities are marked then it would be 135mm long.
Click to expand...
And this is where you're not getting what I'm saying.
It's not just about peeling the orange and adding pieces to make the circle so it skews off from your landmass scale.
Of course, to you, it is exactly that because you're championing a global model offered to you with that scale to supposedly match reality.

So I'll make this plain.
Flatten your globe and bring the landmass in after you put in the oceans and such and it's just a case of positioning them to fit. No skewing of the landmass so it's stretched out of your proportion or scale, just added ocean to fill in the peel.
DaveH said:
It works and is testable. Just repeatedly saying "Nah bollocks" is not a valid answer. Every single distance you measure on a model globe can be scaled up by exactly the same factor to the reality of the earth and all measurements work.
Click to expand...
The measurements supposedly work for a globe but equally, they can work for the circle.
The basic argument is, do they work around a ball with landmass atop and also under and oceans at the top and also under, or landmass all around a circle, including oceans?
DaveH said:
Not taking the piss here, but do you know what 'to scale' means? Can you describe it in your own words? You seem to be dismissing anything to scale as invalid, which I find puzzling.

Can you tell us what those easy experiments are?
Click to expand...
Yeah I'll describe it and let's see if it's used later one as me not knowing. And take the pee as much as you feel you're doing because I'll just smile and come right back. It's not an issue for me and You're welcome to do as you please.

And you already explained scale so I have no need to repeat it.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I have no issue with scale.


I'm well aware of how scale works.

And this is where you're not getting what I'm saying.
It's not just about peeling the orange and adding pieces to make the circle so it skews off from your landmass scale.
Of course, to you, it is exactly that because you're championing a global model offered to you with that scale to supposedly match reality.

So I'll make this plain.
Flatten your globe and bring the landmass in after you put in the oceans and such and it's just a case of positioning them to fit. No skewing of the landmass so it's stretched out of your proportion or scale, just added ocean to fill in the peel.

The measurements supposedly work for a globe but equally, they can work for the circle.
The basic argument is, do they work around a ball with landmass atop and also under and oceans at the top and also under, or landmass all around a circle, including oceans?

Yeah I'll describe it and let's see if it's used later one as me not knowing. And take the pee as much as you feel you're doing because I'll just smile and come right back. It's not an issue for me and You're welcome to do as you please.

And you already explained scale so I have no need to repeat it.
Click to expand...
I'm not getting what you mean about your 2D world of flattening out the orange and bringing in the oceans. I think you need to provide a map / image.

But in terms of the globe, take a scaled globe and the distances do work.

And yes, please do describe your experiment that anyone can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top