Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

You mean like this.


Of course you realise this needs something to keep water in what is the northern hemisphere? A kind of gravitational force which curves the water, otherwise Australia will end up under water completely.

I love watching his explanations for this one.

Water level nails it, water will only ever be completely level, blah blah spirit level, so the world is flat. Oh but it isn’t, it is like a lemon squeezer and water needs to cling to the curved surfaces, otherwise all the water of the earth would be in a trough. No problem, what we are not getting is that the world is bit and the curve is very gentle. Fine, so water doesn’t have to be flat as long as it is over a very gentle curve. But get him on the gentle curve of the real earth and he claims it is so great that skyscrapers should be leaning away from each other at comedy angles and ships would disappear over the horizon mast first.

Once you get over all that confusion, there is the inconvenience of up, and down. Australia is on a slant and looking ip from Australia is actually looking at the sky above the centre, where you should be able to see polaris and the ther stars of the northern hemisphere. This is the opposite of reality. Certainly looking at the sky anywhere south of the equator makes less sense on a lemon squeezer earth than it does on a flat one.

Either way, all of the arguments used against the globe proving the world is flat, suddenly make his lemon squeezer fail and you get an amusing long post of confused waffle, basically claiming special magic.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

None of the flat maps work for known distances to scale man, that's what we're all saying jeez.

Not without tweaking them.

You said known distances can work on flat maps yet you can't produce one.

I can but what am I producing? My very own based on, what?
Or do I simply bring up a Gleason or Mercator and whatnot and tweak those?

Your argument is based on not being able to exactly match a globe model, as in tearing the globe down and offering a scale to match, based on that.
It's a cheap way to argue for a globe to be fair and this is why you're not having it easy.

So why don't you offer up your reasons as to how the globe was mapped to come to the end product of a global model that apparently shows exact distances all over it?
Of course you don't have to answer and have sidestepped it to turn the argument back to me for flat and this is where it'll stay it seems.

You can't even put 5 f*cking dots on a circle that work to scale.

I could easily do that.
Put up your circle and offer up the places and distances and I'll dot them to scale.

Whereas you buy any scaled globe, measure them and they work no matter what 2 points you pick anywhere on it, all to one scale.

Of course, they work. The globe has been fine-tuned to fit from a level perspective and then formed into a globe that is easily skewed by taking away the southern hemisphere landmass and leaving a big central ice point, as in Antarctica, with just a few snippets of landmass sneaking into the southern hemisphere, based on that globe.

So because the globe was skewed into place it becomes impossible to actually level it out into a circle, unless the oceans are tweaked with a bit of raising centre and towards the dome foundation.

I'm not being funny here but do you understand scale, give me a brief description of what you think it is.

This is funny but I'll go with it.
If I wanted to draw you, say you were 48 inches tall... ... and I wanted to draw you to a smaller scale on paper, say a 1 to 10 ratio, for instance, then I would be drawing you at 4.8 inches onto the paper and scale your body to match.

I could also use a ruler from a short distance from you and use the rule of thumb against it and you to gauge scale to draw to that scale for your entire body.

If that's not it then you're right I don't know what scale is.

 

[legend7]

Not without tweaking them.


I can but what am I producing? My very own based on, what?
Or do I simply bring up a Gleason or Mercator and whatnot and tweak those?

Your argument is based on not being able to exactly match a globe model, as in tearing the globe down and offering a scale to match, based on that.
It's a cheap way to argue for a globe to be fair and this is why you're not having it easy.

So why don't you offer up your reasons as to how the globe was mapped to come to the end product of a global model that apparently shows exact distances all over it?
Of course you don't have to answer and have sidestepped it to turn the argument back to me for flat and this is where it'll stay it seems.

I could easily do that.
Put up your circle and offer up the places and distances and I'll dot them to scale.

Why do they need tweaking
If distances can work in a flat map to scale then why doesn't someone produce one!
Why do none of them work to scale, jeez.
OK put london, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, joburg and sydney Australia on a circle scaled apart to distance.
All the distances between are on Google

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I love watching his explanations for this one.

Water level nails it,

Correct.

water will only ever be completely level, blah blah spirit level, so the world is flat.

Not the world but the water certainly does find its level inside a container and absolutely will not outside of one, which your global Earth is said to be, which kills it stone dead.

Oh but it isn’t, it is like a lemon squeezer and water needs to cling to the curved surfaces, otherwise all the water of the earth would be in a trough.

Not at all. There's no clinging to curved surfaces.
The landmass sits within the water, raised above it, some higher than others over their landmass.
The only clinging would be water finding shore or a boundary such as rocks or ice and such.

No problem, what we are not getting is that the world is bit and the curve is very gentle.

The curve to the centre would be very very gradual but the curve to the foundation would massively start to raise into the dome, all around.

Fine, so water doesn’t have to be flat as long as it is over a very gentle curve.

Water can run over many curves but the surface will always show a level and will not show any curvature when containerised.
Lakes, ponds a bath, a sink, and so on.
Oceans are rarely calm but the water in them are always finding level, not keeping any dormant hump over a convex Earth.

But get him on the gentle curve of the real earth and he claims it is so great that skyscrapers should be leaning away from each other at comedy angles and ships would disappear over the horizon mast first.

That's what would happen.
No matter which way you try to dress it up it's unworkable for reality. It's a great story of fiction and if it's offered as sci-fi then it would be fun.

Once you get over all that confusion, there is the inconvenience of up, and down.

There's no confusion of up and down except for the global fiction of it.

Australia is on a slant and looking ip from Australia is actually looking at the sky above the centre, where you should be able to see polaris and the ther stars of the northern hemisphere.

Many landmasses are on a slant which is why they have shorelines.

Either way, all of the arguments used against the globe proving the world is flat, suddenly make his lemon squeezer fail and you get an amusing long post of confused waffle, basically claiming special magic.

It doesn't fail but it certainly doesn't offer absolute proof of what Earth actually is.
There is only absolute proof of what Earth is not and it is absolutely not a spinning globe we supposedly live upon.

Why do they need tweaking
If distances can work in a flat map to scale then why doesn't someone produce one!
Why do none of them work to scale, jeez.
OK put london, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, joburg and sydney Australia on a circle scaled apart to distance.
All the distances between are on Google

Then offer them up and then offer up the circle and we can get on.

 

[legend7]

Correct.

Not the world but the water certainly does find its level inside a container and absolutely will not outside of one, which your global Earth is said to be, which kills it stone dead.

Not at all. There's no clinging to curved surfaces.
The landmass sits within the water, raised above it, some higher than others over their landmass.
The only clinging would be water finding shore or a boundary such as rocks or ice and such.

The curve to the centre would be very very gradual but the curve to the foundation would massively start to raise into the dome, all around.

So roughly what sort of gradient are we talking here, just roughly.
1 mile every 100 miles which would barely be classed as a gradient?
Or what number roughly?
I'll get those distances for you when I get on laptop, I mean you could do it yourself saying as you're the one drawing it but never mind

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So roughly what sort of gradient are we talking here, just roughly.
1 mile every 100 miles which would barely be classed as a gradient?

I've been trying to tell you for long enough about a very gradual gradient.
If a mound goes a few miles high it's still one hell of a gradient but that gradient on a massive scale to our puny selves is not going to be much when most of it is covered with water.

Or what number roughly?
I'll get those distances for you when I get on laptop, I mean you could do it yourself saying as you're the one drawing it but never mind

You sort out what you need to. After all, it is you that is pushing this so you seem extremely keen.

 

[legend7]

I've been trying to tell you for long enough about a very gradual gradient.
If a mound goes a few miles high it's still one hell of a gradient but that gradient on a massive scale to our puny selves is not going to be much when most of it is covered with water.

You sort out what you need to. After all, it is you that is pushing this so you seem extremely keen.

No but a few miles over say 10000 miles wouldn't be noticeable at all? In fact it's not even a gradient
Your pitch drops something like 3m over 100m and that's barely noticeable.
So what gradient do you think roughly?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No but a few miles over say 10000 miles wouldn't be noticeable at all? In fact it's not even a gradient
Your pitch drops something like 3m over 100m and that's barely noticeable.
So what gradient do you think roughly?

Where are you getting 10,000 miles from?

 

[legend7]

Where are you getting 10,000 miles from?

OK then sorry if your world is 50 k across hope far from say the tip of South america (bottom of bowl) to the so called North Pole (top of mound)

 

[DaveH]

I've been trying to tell you for long enough about a very gradual gradient.
If a mound goes a few miles high it's still one hell of a gradient but that gradient on a massive scale to our puny selves is not going to be much when most of it is covered with water.

You sort out what you need to. After all, it is you that is pushing this so you seem extremely keen.

Do the world is not flat but is a very slight lemon squeezer, is that what you are saying?

 

[Pink Panther]

Do the world is not flat but is a very slight lemon squeezer, is that what you are saying?

He's not sure. It depends which evidence is going to be used against him.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

OK then sorry if your world is 50 k across hope far from say the tip of South america (bottom of bowl) to the so called North Pole (top of mound)

The top of the mound would not be a peak, it would be a massive hole in it.
Well below that would be landmass/countries sitting around it, some elevated and some immersed in water but the mound still runs below which is why there are shorelines.

And then you'll have some land mass farther into that water and then it will be ringed by landmass covered in ice. Then more water, and then you'll have a shore leading to the dome foundation which will be another gradient leading to the dome.

Do the world is not flat but is a very slight lemon squeezer, is that what you are saying?

Sort of, yes.

He's not sure. It depends which evidence is going to be used against him.

Which is none at the minute.

 

[legend7]

The top of the mound would not be a peak, it would be a massive hole in it.
Well below that would be landmass/countries sitting around it, some elevated and some immersed in water but the mound still runs below which is why there are shorelines.

And then you'll have some land mass farther into that water and then it will be ringed by landmass covered in ice. Then more water, and then you'll have a shore leading to the dome foundation which will be another gradient leading to the dome.

Sort of, yes.

Yes but none of that says roughly what the gradient is.
1 in 100 which is very flat, 1 in 500 barely even classed as a gradient, your pitch at the shit tip is about 1 in 35 or something and that hardly looks like a hill.
Just a rough idea please, you seem to know a lot about it that's all so you must have a general idea?

 

[Pink Panther]

Yes but none of that says roughly what the gradient is.
1 in 100 which is very flat, 1 in 500 barely even classed as a gradient, your pitch at the shit tip is about 1 in 35 or something and that hardly looks like a hill.
Just a rough idea please, you seem to know a lot about it that's all so you must have a general idea?

 

[DaveH]

The top of the mound would not be a peak, it would be a massive hole in it.
Well below that would be landmass/countries sitting around it, some elevated and some immersed in water but the mound still runs below which is why there are shorelines.

And then you'll have some land mass farther into that water and then it will be ringed by landmass covered in ice. Then more water, and then you'll have a shore leading to the dome foundation which will be another gradient leading to the dome.

Sort of, yes.

Which is none at the minute.

So lets say that highest point being the middle (rim of the secret crystal hole) and the lowest point is (from the image you posted) half way down Africa, say around Tanzania. If you could draw a horizontal line from that highest point and another from the lowest point, how much difference in height are we talking?

12cm? 1km? 1000km?

 

[legend7]

There you go nukey get started with those ones.
Mark them nice and clear on your 50k mile wide circle so I can print off and measure with my scale ruler.

Argentina Buenos Aires
To Australia Sydney 7300 miles
To south aftica 5100 miles
To London 7100 miles
To Japan 11200 miles
Australia to
Argentina 7300 miles
London 9490 miles
Tokyo 4262 miles
South Africa 6429 miles
South Africa to
Australia 6429 miles
London 5776 miles
Tokyo 8674 miles
Argentina 5 100miles

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes but none of that says roughly what the gradient is.
1 in 100 which is very flat, 1 in 500 barely even classed as a gradient, your pitch at the shit tip is about 1 in 35 or something and that hardly looks like a hill.
Just a rough idea please, you seem to know a lot about it that's all so you must have a general idea?

If you walked from your home and ended up 300 metres above sea level over 10 miles, would you call your walk a flat walk or a gradient walked upon?

So lets say that highest point being the middle (rim of the secret crystal hole) and the lowest point is (from the image you posted) half way down Africa, say around Tanzania. If you could draw a horizontal line from that highest point and another from the lowest point, how much difference in height are we talking?

12cm? 1km? 1000km?

Thr rim of the secret crystal hole?
That wouldn't be reached so pointless offering it as a height.

 

[legend7]

If I went up 50m over 10 miles I wouldn't notice it at all, how close is this to your gradient do you think?

If you walked from your home and ended up 300 metres above sea level over 10 miles, would you call your walk a flat walk or a gradient walked upon?

Thr rim of the secret crystal hole?
That wouldn't be reached so pointless offering it as a height.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There you go nukey get started with those ones.
Mark them nice and clear on your 50k mile wide circle so I can print off and measure with my scale ruler.

Argentina Buenos Aires
To Australia Sydney 7300 miles
To south aftica 5100 miles
To London 7100 miles
To Japan 11200 miles
Australia to
Argentina 7300 miles
London 9490 miles
Tokyo 4262 miles
South Africa 6429 miles
South Africa to
Australia 6429 miles
London 5776 miles
Tokyo 8674 miles
Argentina 5 100miles

Ok I'll get on it and get back to you.

 

[Pink Panther]

Thr rim of the secret crystal hole?
That wouldn't be reached so pointless offering it as a height.

Imagine if it existed though, what then?