Put a flat earthier into space

[BigPete]

Do you have a single piece of maths that can predict anything and what does it model?

Mainstream maths can't be trusted

 

[DaveH]

The word horizon gives it away.

Atmospheric stacking does work. It's clear to me how and why it works in the main.

absolute gold just there.

Horizon gives it away. He said this early in the thread, horizon=horizontal. The truth is in there, hidden in plain language.

What word does he use in his very next line?

Please explain the origins of AtmoSPHERIC?

 

[BigPete]

Please explain the origins of AtmoSPHERIC?

 

[fyl2u]

Please explain the origins of AtmoSPHERIC?

We should demand he starts using the word "atmoflattardic" instead.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Dictionary has this to say about Horizon

Definition of horizon​

noun
the line or circle that forms the apparent boundary between earth and sky.
Astronomy.

1. the small circle of the celestial sphere whose plane is tangent to the earth at the position of a given observer, or the plane of such a circle (sensible horizon ).
2. Also called rational horizon . the great circle of the celestial sphere whose plane passes through the center of the earth and is parallel to the sensible horizon of a given position, or the plane of such a circle (celestial horizon ).

the limit or range of perception, knowledge, or the like.
Usually ho·ri·zons . the scope of a person's interest, education, understanding, etc.:His horizons were narrow.
Geology. a thin, distinctive stratum useful for stratigraphic correlation.
Also called soil ho·ri·zon . any of the series of distinctive layers found in a vertical cross section of any well-developed soil.

and of Horizontal...

adjective
at right angles to the vertical; parallel to level ground.
flat or level:a horizontal position.
being in a prone or supine position; recumbent:His bad back has kept him horizontal for a week.
near, on, or parallel to the horizon.
of or relating to the horizon.
SEE MORE
noun
anything horizontal, as a plane, direction, or object.

Nothing there about it meaning "not curved"

 

[Hend79]

I agree with regards to my alternative Earth but the biggest leap of faith is from your side in terms of fostering that faith as truth.
I don't offer mine as truth but I do have a lot of faith in mine.

I agree which is why you have absolutely none but you do have a backup with lots of stories and videos and pictures. But then again so does god.

So you know you can't argue for the globe as truth, right? You do know your belief in it is based on mass opinion and faith of the stories within, right?

I'm not indoctrinating anyone into my views. I say it often enough and to be fair anyone dealing with me against a mass will quickly see that I'm cast out as a total idiot and nut job so how could anyone want to champion my side and neither do I need anyone to do so.

It's up to each individual what they take from anything in this thread and I'm fine with whatever.

Aye but the real conundrum comes down to, who is being blinded by cognitive dissonance.

Clearly you.

 

[Pink Panther]

Dictionary has this to say about Horizon

Definition of horizon​

noun
the line or circle that forms the apparent boundary between earth and sky.
Astronomy.

1. the small circle of the celestial sphere whose plane is tangent to the earth at the position of a given observer, or the plane of such a circle (sensible horizon ).
2. Also called rational horizon . the great circle of the celestial sphere whose plane passes through the center of the earth and is parallel to the sensible horizon of a given position, or the plane of such a circle (celestial horizon ).

the limit or range of perception, knowledge, or the like.
Usually ho·ri·zons . the scope of a person's interest, education, understanding, etc.:His horizons were narrow.
Geology. a thin, distinctive stratum useful for stratigraphic correlation.
Also called soil ho·ri·zon . any of the series of distinctive layers found in a vertical cross section of any well-developed soil.

and of Horizontal...

adjective
at right angles to the vertical; parallel to level ground.
flat or level:a horizontal position.
being in a prone or supine position; recumbent:His bad back has kept him horizontal for a week.
near, on, or parallel to the horizon.
of or relating to the horizon.
SEE MORE
noun
anything horizontal, as a plane, direction, or object.

Nothing there about it meaning "not curved"

Facts can deceive you and can't be trusted.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I know you say gravity doesn’t exist but why does it act in the same way (as in everything falls to the centre of the earth)?

It doesn't.
The whole falls to the centre of the Earth thing is used to cater for a globe but it doesn't even do that when you actually take a good look at what's on offer.
You see, to make the globe work something magical has to be made up to cater, not just to the supposed global spinning Earth but also to space and planets and suns and so on and so on, as what we're told.

Things fall only when energy pushes them up from below. Energy applied vertically to an object that is denser than the environment it's pushed into creates a reaction of potential energy ready to be unleashed back down, only when what is holding it allows its release.
It doesn't fall to the centre of the Earth, it simply falls to the ground at whatever point.

 

[payne]

I'm not sure why it doesn't fall to the dome

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Things fall only when energy pushes them up from below. Energy applied vertically to an object that is denser than the environment it's pushed into creates a reaction of potential energy ready to be unleashed back down, only when what is holding it allows its release.
It doesn't fall to the centre of the Earth, it simply falls to the ground at whatever point.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh of course, we all feel so silly now you've explained...

For things to fall they must be pushed up from below!

 

[payne]

No pull remember. Another part of the world uprooted. Pushrouted

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If your proof was actually proof, then it would be very valuable information for us all, and we'd all be praising you for managing to succeed where every flat-earther before you has failed.

I don't have any proof of a flat Earth.
What is a flat Earth to you? Anything that goes against a globe?

You'd be in line for a Nobel Prize for changing the course of science and for proving all the physicists that came before you to be wrong.

I'm just an idiot on a forum chatting. I don't need to prove anyone wrong. Take from me whatever you wish to take, whatever that is, good bad, or ugly.

We'd carry you through the streets on our shoulders and build statues of you and vast monuments dedicated to your discovery.

Aye, in stocks.

The absolute greatest achievement in science that all scientists live their lives hoping to accomplish, is that they will be able to recognise some new truth, some new discovery that proves that existing scientific preconceptions made by the greatest minds who ever lived were actually wrong.

Very possibly they are all wrong. I believe they are if, in fact, they did what we are told. It depends on the story tellers.

Newton? Wrong.
Einstein? Wrong.
Galileo? Wrong.
Hubble? Wrong.
Heisenberg? Wrong.
Schrodinger? Wrong.
Hawking? Wrong.

Aye, if indeed what is attributed to them was actually from them.

We would all be worshipping the ground you walked upon if you had actually provided some genuine, honest, unflawed, unhindered scientific proof that the Earth isn't a globe.

Instead, I'm just an idiot having an opinion on a forum, which is how it should be to be fair.

Unfortunately you haven't, you've failed at every step.

Of course. I wouldn't expect anything different from global minds. I accept that as part and parcel of questioning and having alternate views.

There's no shame in that. Thousands have failed at it before you. There's a good reason why it's hard to make a name for yourself in physics: it's a DIFFICULT subject to learn, especially if you don't even understand basic geometry.

Aye, it can be difficult for many and it becomes more difficult when real science and real physics are replaced with pseudo explanations passed off as reality.

That is indeed what it's all about. And yet you refuse to follow your own advice, and instead you just stick to what you believe you know despite being shown exactly how your experiments are fundamentally flawed and that the conclusions you've drawn from those experiments are therefore worthless.

I have good reason to stick by what I say.

It doesn't make sense that the atmosphere would stack neatly with less dense things at one end and more dense things at the other if there's no additional mechanism that forces things to order themselves according to density (ironically, gravity could be used to explain your concept of atmospheric stacking, but you don't believe in it, so I guess you will have to invent a new magical force that does the same job).

Of course, it makes sense. You see it every day with larger dense to less dense particles. You just don't correlate them with an atmosphere so it gets thrown aside or passed off as it not working unless gravity is involved even though there's no need for anything extra.
Atmospheric pressure is a very powerful pressure but it's cast aside as being nothing.
Why?
Because people can wave their arms about and walk and run and jump and whatnot, so it's cast aside as nothing much until people actually pay attention to it when you actually try to create uneven pressure.

Why would spinning improve your ability to detect the existence or non-existence of a gap of a fraction of a nanometre between a spirit level and the surface of some unhindered water?

Not sure what you're getting at with this.

None of it is contradictory when you understand it all properly.

Explain it so I understand it, or is it far too complicated and only those that go to special universities can get it?

Unfortunately for you, you've heard the odd soundbite here and there from flat Earth YouTube videos and assumed it all to be correct without really understanding the physics or maths behind the thing those FE Youtubers were arguing against.

I've heard one hell of a lot of things from the internet, physically, and through books. You name it and I've taken snippets throughout.
Are you any different?
We're all subject to appeals to authority and we all take something from what we believe is that authority or at least offers potential.
That's life but people seem to get offended when I mention this as if they learned all their stuff themselves.

There's no shame in not knowing something or not understanding something, but there is in refusing to learn and refusing to understand because it contradicts your preconceptions.

I agree there's no shame and I will happily admit I'm wrong when the opportunity presents itself to me.
This should apply to others, including yourself.
However, if nobody can offer proof that I am wrong, then all they have is speculation based on adherence to something they trust but cannot verify.

 

[payne]

He hates educated people. It's tragic

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Exactly how big do you think this bulge is?

Zero because it's not a globe with a bulge.
However, it does not matter how big this supposed global bulge is supposed to be, the story is, it bulges due to the speed of rotation.

The speed of the spin might be undetectable to you, but once again you fail to understand scale.

This scale eh?
One minute the Earth spins so fast it bulges and the next it spins so slow and that's why water doesn't fall off or anything else. Unless something scuppers that explanation then another one comes along to rectify it. More magic.
I find it fascinating in a sort of funny way, kind of thing.

Even if you could launch your arse into space and look at the Earth, see once and for all that it is a sodding big globe, somehow stay there looking at it all week without suffocating, you would not be able to detect that bulge.

Seeing as nobody will be going to space to look back I think we can throw that one into the sci-fi bin for now.

Just like you cant detect the curve because it's tiny and spread over a huge distance, the bulge is less than 50km over a diameter of over 12,000. It's not as if great big lumps of the equator are on an out of control fairground ride clinging on for dear life and trying not to be flung off into space.

Imagine water on that. eh?
Gravity, I know.
Bulge the equator but keep your water on it barring the tides when the moon and sun start their shenanigans with gravity pull against Earth's suppoosed gravity pull.
A tug of war that Earth wins.
Well, I.....you know.

Your projector theory doesn't work with your dome, your reflections don't marry up with any mirror, your thoughts on horizons don't marry up with visible reality or even the dictionary and your claim to be an "outside of the box, free thinking truth seeker who is keen to learn" don't in any way marry up with being a globe denier who refuses to learn anything that contradicts your fantasy world.

Of course they won't marry up. How can they to someone who believes we live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum?

That's not allowed. That's argument from authority. If you haven't done the test yourself then you aren't allowed to believe either of them.

That's ok I'm not believing any of it from either side, so I'm fine.
As you say, it has to be done by you or me to actually verify any of it or we simply appeal to that and argue from that point with some doing the laser experiment and coming up with flat water and others making out it curves.

I already know the answer.
Guess what it is?
A clue: It doesn't curve.

Clearly you can't do this on a ball the size of the earth, but this would be the first way to make this test more reasonable. Scale is key.

Secondly, I suggest you repeat the experiment but pour the water onto the ball from the bottom and see what happens
A clue: It will run back over your hands and onto the ground. The curvature of the ball doesn't cause this. Gravity of another force (the earth) does. Just because you don't believe in gravity doesn't mean the earth being a globe is disproven by this test.

Does gravity pull and if so, where from?

You clearly have not looked at any of the mathematics behind astronomical predictions.

To prove what exactly?

I've been through this with him countless times on this thread. Basically he refuses to accept that an invisible attractive force he can not personally feel exists (though I suspect he has stood on his head). Yet we see a similar source in magnetism on a regular basis.

Is gravity magnetism?

You can prove that that exists by waving a magnet above a table of iron fillings and see them either move or start to jump when you get it close enough.

Of course but what is happening to make them do this?

Moving and not leaving the table is also similar to why the moon can influence water on earth but not suck it off completely.

Isn't the moon's so-called gravity 6 times less than Earth's?
Shouldn't the moon be pulled into Earth if this is the case?
It's senseless. A good story, but sci-fi.

You then follow up the experiment by placing a big scrap yard crane magnet under the table, turning it on and watch the small magnet have no influence on the iron fillings. Hey, magnets don't exist you claim.

I never said magnets don't exist. I said no one seems to know how and why they work. I believe I do and I've already offered snippets.

Mainstream maths can't be trusted

It actually depends on what they're used for.

absolute gold just there.

Horizon gives it away. He said this early in the thread, horizon=horizontal. The truth is in there, hidden in plain language.

What word does he use in his very next line?

Please explain the origins of AtmoSPHERIC?

One word.


DOME.

Just to make it clear.

Dictionary has this to say about Horizon

Definition of horizon​

noun
the line or circle that forms the apparent boundary between earth and sky.
Astronomy.

1. the small circle of the celestial sphere whose plane is tangent to the earth at the position of a given observer, or the plane of such a circle (sensible horizon ).
2. Also called rational horizon . the great circle of the celestial sphere whose plane passes through the center of the earth and is parallel to the sensible horizon of a given position, or the plane of such a circle (celestial horizon ).

the limit or range of perception, knowledge, or the like.
Usually ho·ri·zons . the scope of a person's interest, education, understanding, etc.:His horizons were narrow.
Geology. a thin, distinctive stratum useful for stratigraphic correlation.
Also called soil ho·ri·zon . any of the series of distinctive layers found in a vertical cross section of any well-developed soil.

and of Horizontal...

adjective
at right angles to the vertical; parallel to level ground.
flat or level:a horizontal position.
being in a prone or supine position; recumbent:His bad back has kept him horizontal for a week.
near, on, or parallel to the horizon.
of or relating to the horizon.
SEE MORE
noun
anything horizontal, as a plane, direction, or object.

Nothing there about it meaning "not curved"

I wouldn't expect anything else when we're told Earth is supposedly a globe.
They're not going to offer horizontal to mean what it really is, are they?

I'm not sure why it doesn't fall to the dome

All down to density being lower in the stack at a higher altitude.
Offer lesser dense mass to the ground and the dense mass at the ground will do exactly what you mention.
Helium balloons will show you this.
So will hot air balloons.
And so on.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh of course, we all feel so silly now you've explained...

For things to fall they must be pushed up from below!

Only if they're denser than the stacked layers they are in.

 

[DPTT]

It doesn't.
The whole falls to the centre of the Earth thing is used to cater for a globe but it doesn't even do that when you actually take a good look at what's on offer.
You see, to make the globe work something magical has to be made up to cater, not just to the supposed global spinning Earth but also to space and planets and suns and so on and so on, as what we're told.

Things fall only when energy pushes them up from below. Energy applied vertically to an object that is denser than the environment it's pushed into creates a reaction of potential energy ready to be unleashed back down, only when what is holding it allows its release.
It doesn't fall to the centre of the Earth, it simply falls to the ground at whatever point.

So why is up away from the earth and down towards the centre of the earth?

Why can’t down be towards the dome

 

[Hend79]

It doesn't.
The whole falls to the centre of the Earth thing is used to cater for a globe but it doesn't even do that when you actually take a good look at what's on offer.
You see, to make the globe work something magical has to be made up to cater, not just to the supposed global spinning Earth but also to space and planets and suns and so on and so on, as what we're told.

Things fall only when energy pushes them up from below. Energy applied vertically to an object that is denser than the environment it's pushed into creates a reaction of potential energy ready to be unleashed back down, only when what is holding it allows its release.
It doesn't fall to the centre of the Earth, it simply falls to the ground at whatever point.

Biggest load of shite Ive ever read on here

 

[shadowplay]

Nowt so queer as folk, as they say

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I wouldn't expect anything else when we're told Earth is supposedly a globe.
They're not going to offer horizontal to mean what it really is, are they?

Even the dictionary is a lie? That Suzie Dent sits there looking like butter wouldn't melt and she must be in on it too!
Man this thing goes so deep there's going to be nothing left to push it up from below.

 

[Epping]

Not been on this thread for months . Can't believe how much time has been wasted on it .

No wonder productivity is fucked

 

[payne]

Not been on this thread for months . Can't believe how much time has been wasted on it .

No wonder productivity is fucked

We need to understand about the carbon arc. It's vital we learn to say fuck you the the lizard oppressors