Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

A phrase stolen from elsewhere.

“dense enough to bend light”

That is a gravity joke, no room for that sort of humour on this thread.

Light does not bend at all, except when trying to explain various observational evidence that would not work on a flat/dome earth (like the sun always being visible), in which case it absolutely does. Also when you have to explain the stars at different heights, then the light from them bends in a way that exactly matches the curve of the so called globe earth.* The bottom of ships disappearing over the horizon is bendy light, same as sunlight does for a mirage on really hot days over heat reflexive surfaces. Could be a reasonable explanation until you consider that the same thing happens consistently day after day, night after night, no matter what the temperatures are.

I'm talking flat earthers in general and the many explanations out there, not specifically the regular on this thread.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[0verlord44]

I’m curious, I’m currently sitting in a place where the time zone is 5 hours behind that of Blighty, the sun has literally just set. If the earth is not round/spherical/globe-like, why is this?

 

[Deleted member 49400]

I’m curious, I’m currently sitting in a place where the time zone is 5 hours behind that of Blighty, the sun has literally just set. If the earth is not round/spherical/globe-like, why is this?

Flipped disc

 

[Nobby]

I’m curious, I’m currently sitting in a place where the time zone is 5 hours behind that of Blighty, the sun has literally just set. If the earth is not round/spherical/globe-like, why is this?

Distortion of the superfluid focal pressure wave. Do keep up

 

[bernardbresslaw]

When I look at google Earth I see a CGI globe and when I put in a place that I want to see it moves the CGI globe to the area I want and goes CGI until it gets to plane height. Only then do the images come through that depict an accepted reality of terrain.
The thing is the pictures we see are generally many many months previous and never real time.

Does it never make you wonder why satellites always seem to work and never malfunction and why would anyone send a signal to a satellite in so called space only to have it bounce right back to stations dotted all over when those stations are already catered for by massive antennas all over the place, including many on hill tops....etc.
The rest are thousands of feet high.

Why?
Why have then if satellites can do what we're told?
What keeps them in orbit?

We're told the so called ISS has to be boosted to stay in orbit, so why not satellites?

The story of them is great. It's genus workings of the sci-fi buffs. But that's all they are in terms of in space. In my opinion of course.

Ahhh right so it's a telescope. Yep, those things that make things look bigger but do not see into the distance. A larger microscope.

Anyway did you manage to use that telescope to figure the star distances or the moon or sun?

Trigonometry, right?
Any idea how it's done and can you do it yourself or are you reliant on help?

My son used to ask questions like yours all the time when he was a toddler.

 

[DaveH]

I’m curious, I’m currently sitting in a place where the time zone is 5 hours behind that of Blighty, the sun has literally just set. If the earth is not round/spherical/globe-like, why is this?

The usual explanation is that the atmosphere is so dense that light literally just stops. It can't penetrate the atmosphere any more and you get blackness. Why that follows the sunset and why the stars appear is where they start to struggle. Especially when you consider the two other proposals. The earth is a disc floating in space so the sun can't penetrate the atmosphere as it moved around in a circle like a spotlight above the disc, and leaves half the earth black. But then we can see the light from stars which are much further away from the sun so then you have only certain photons of light travel a set distance then can't be arsed. Why can light travel one long distance but not a short when convenient to "explain" the flat earth?

Or we are on a flat earth under a dome. The sun is projected onto the other side of the dome to what we are so we can't see it and again the light just gets tired and stops. But then we can see stars all around, which if they were projections on the dome, how would that work? You end up with the same problem.

This is the fundamental reason why no flat earther or dome believer has ever produced a map or working diagram of how it works. Ok, say the sun is over the -5 time zone on the American east coast, the UK is 5 hours ahead so it gets darker 5 hours sooner here, but then you have 5 hours ahead of us too, which I think is Moscow time, they were dark even sooner. In the depth of winter, sun is rising in Florida while setting in Moscow. That gives us distances we can measure to find out how far light can actually travel in this model. Also with triangulation we can start to estimate the distance to the sun (actually triangulation doesn't work because the measured angles from multiple locations don't line up and show the flat shape can't work, but lets gloss over that). Once we have details like maps, a scale for the dome etc, you can literally do what they say and work things out for ourselves, but that would start to show the distance light stops or the amount light has to bend for sunsets to work becomes both measurable and inconsistent with all the other things we observe. It all breaks down quite quickly as nonsense.

Lines such as "you are brainwashed into only seeing a globe" or "following like a religion" are thrown about, but get one of them to actually argue the details and they stop, run, hide or bluster (a bit like Boris).

I think of it like this. There is a squirrel. You look and there is either a squirrel there or not. But consider "There is an animal you can't see". What animal? How big? Why can't we see it? You can waffle around answers all day, brain playing tricks, too quick for the eye, invisible, light refracting around superfluid dense molecules because of quartz compression, meaning the sound waves can't hit our eyes. Waffle but no details (or sense). Of course if you walk up and stamp on this invisible unknown animal then "oh it moved". If you play their game it ends up being like a cat trying to catch a laser dot and they like it, because they are the one with the laser.

The fundamental starting point of examining a globe earth vs a alternate shape with our without a dome is a map and some sort of diagram or explanation of the dome shape and height. Until one is ever produced there is nowt concrete to argue against and the questions bluffed away get them attention. It all falls down otherwise quite quickly, argument done, they lost move on.....oh no more attention.

 

[0verlord44]

I’ve had some great replies to this,

Distortion of the superfluid focal pressure wave. Do keep up

Flipped disc

And above, but there seems to be somebody who hasn’t answered…………

a bit like I never got an answer about if every other planet/moon was a globe/spherical (they are we can see it) why arnt we?

I saw a fella say recently:
“Conspiracy theorists come up with a conclusion first, and then try to prove how they got there”

 

[Deleted member 49400]

I’ve had some great replies to this,


And above, but there seems to be somebody who hasn’t answered…………

a bit like I never got an answer about if every other planet/moon was a globe/spherical (they are we can see it) why arnt we?

I saw a fella say recently:
“Conspiracy theorists come up with a conclusion first, and then try to prove how they got there”

Mine was a joke btw.

 

[0verlord44]

Mine was a joke btw.

Oh yes the tongue she is thoroughly buried in cheek on this thread, thankfully

 

[Deleted member 49400]

Oh yes the tongue she is thoroughly buried in cheek on this thread, thankfully

I don't want to upset the flat earth society as they have members all over the globe

 

[0verlord44]

I don't want to upset the flat earth society as they have members all over the globe

Around the globe wasn’t it?

Either way it’s a perfect metaphor for the entire argument

 

[Deleted member 49400]

Around the globe wasn’t it?

Either way it’s a perfect metaphor for the entire argument

Damn, I had a chance to edit to that to make you look as stupid as them but was at the bar and now I'm the stupid one for mentioning it.

 

[taipeisafc]

You must be logged on to see external links

That is a fascinating article, i am always amazed by stuff like this

 

[0verlord44]

Damn, I had a chance to edit to that to make you look as stupid as them but was at the bar and now I'm the stupid one for mentioning it.

you can’t make me look THAT stupid unless you force me to tell people that regardless of scientific, geology and knowledge of physics, the earth is actually flat because everybody is entitled to their opinion. There’s a rung reserved on the bottom of the evolutional ladder for these people. People who blindly disregard scientific fact. And that’s fine, let them stay there, but the rest of us shouldn’t have to humour them.

Now thats an opinion

 

[Deleted member 49400]

you can’t make me look THAT stupid unless you force me to tell people that regardless of scientific, geology and knowledge of physics, the earth is actually flat because everybody is entitled to their opinion. There’s a rung reserved on the bottom of the evolutional ladder for these people. People who blindly disregard scientific fact. And that’s fine, let them stay there, but the rest of us shouldn’t have to humour them.

Now thats an opinion

Well, I believe gravity is a sentient being and is vindictive, the bastard keeps increasing the scales measures every time I step on them.
Now, there's a theory.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Sort of yes, but you need to consider it as an isosceles triangle with the two longest sides reaching out to a star and you setting the shortest side by how much you move. If that is only tiny then the angle between the two observations is tiny. You can’t look at a star, say you have no idea of the distance then take a step to the left and say “oh now I can”. You need the base of that triangle to be as big as possible. The diameter of the earths orbit is the biggest distance we can achieve without space travel. See the link I provided, it goes into more details than I have just now.

So basically it's massively guessed and any distance can be made up for any point of light in the sky.

If we could ever travel to Alpha Centauri, chances are we would change what we know of the scale of our galaxy. Likely not by a massive amount but by a few percent. Measuring that bigger change in angle would give greater accuracy.

That's ok to think that but it's a massive if with no genuine reality behind the concept. You must admit that much.

You need another event and multiple observations, such as a transit of venus to accurately measure the scale of the solar system. You can work out some details with lower accuracy during a lunar eclipse. I think I provided a link to it last week.

You can't really measure anything with a so called transit of venus.

No. What is in it for me trying and failing again to explain something to you? Why not google it and try it for yourself.

I have and it still doesn't show any reality.

Or how about two other challenges? As I went to the effort last week of providing an interactive model of a globe where the angle to polaris matches that of observations as you move further south, how about you tell me if that model matches observations and if not, why not?

Farther south would be down your globe. If polaris was centralised to your north pole then, with your global Earth spinning on its axis at 23.5 degrees and keeping the north pole still pointing at polaris, makes no sense at all and would mean your star system would have to move in unison with your tilted spinning Earth.

It makes absolute sense for the Earth to be stationary and sort of circular with the points of light moving over and around under a dome.
You see, it only matches the observations of people because it's been made to match them by using the tilt and spin.

Honestly it's utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

The second challenge is, why don’t you tell us how you have calculated your distance to your dome? I’ve repeatedly provided explanations and working models, your turn.

I don't have any calculations for any distance to a dome. I at least openly admit this stuff. I don't offer any old numbers to back something up that has no reference point to back up.
I'm not offering anything about my hypothesis as factual.
You are offering a globe model with all the trimmings as factual, which is fine if you can personally back them up to be that or offer them up as merely a belief or acceptance that they're factual, based on following the narrative set out.

A single observation in a telescope will give you what you say, a single 2d image of something, same as looking briefly at a ship on a horizon through a telescope. What I have said a few times this morning is that astronomy is not just taking a quick glance at something once and producing all this data. It is about accurate observations recorded and correlated over time.

But they're not accurate observations.

E.g. my example of how Giuseppe Piazzi spotted an unrecorded object, determining over a short time frame that it was moving relative to other stars then over a longer period finding that could only be in a circular planetary orbit.
He didn’t just nip out for a fag, glance in a telescope and say “Arrrh, that be an asteroid or may be per’aps a minor planet”. Astronomy does not work like that, it is not that simple and he was not from the west country. He couldn’t have a quick musing and invent what it was then pass it off as fact.

He just decided it was a little planet and that was that....right?
A faint light that was moving in a circular motion and it was called an orbit of a globe.

Hmmmm.

When investigated back further, Charles Messier had previously recorded it in another section of the sky 6 years earlier but dismissed it as he was only looking at comets, but his observational data helped prove what it was.

This reliance on history to prove something. Why?
In this day and age we should be treated to reality but we keep getting treated to CGI and composites and a massive hark back into the history books. Why?

Back to the ship on the horizon, watch it for a bit and you will see it move, from that you will determine speed and direction. Continuation of observation is the key.

Fine for stuff we have a reference for.
We have none for the sky lights.

Offering fictional triangles to marry up points and angles is nothing more than massive speculation wqhen pertaining to lights in the sky.


I mean, imagine being told the point of light you see is the light from millions of years ago and you're seeing it as it was in the past.
Why do people believe this stuff?.

 

[0verlord44]

So basically it's massively guessed and any distance can be made up for any point of light in the sky.




That's ok to think that but it's a massive if with no genuine reality behind the concept. You must admit that much.

You can't really measure anything with a so called transit of venus.


I have and it still doesn't show any reality.

Farther south would be down your globe. If polaris was centralised to your north pole then, with your global Earth spinning on its axis at 23.5 degrees and keeping the north pole still pointing at polaris, makes no sense at all and would mean your star system would have to move in unison with your tilted spinning Earth.

It makes absolute sense for the Earth to be stationary and sort of circular with the points of light moving over and around under a dome.
You see, it only matches the observations of people because it's been made to match them by using the tilt and spin.

Honestly it's utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.


I don't have any calculations for any distance to a dome. I at least openly admit this stuff. I don't offer any old numbers to back something up that has no reference point to back up.
I'm not offering anything about my hypothesis as factual.
You are offering a globe model with all the trimmings as factual, which is fine if you can personally back them up to be that or offer them up as merely a belief or acceptance that they're factual, based on following the narrative set out.



But they're not accurate observations.



He just decided it was a little planet and that was that....right?
A faint light that was moving in a circular motion and it was called an orbit of a globe.

Hmmmm.



This reliance on history to prove something. Why?
In this day and age we should be treated to reality but we keep getting treated to CGI and composites and a massive hark back into the history books. Why?


Fine for stuff we have a reference for.
We have none for the sky lights.

Offering fictional triangles to marry up points and angles is nothing more than massive speculation wqhen pertaining to lights in the sky.


I mean, imagine being told the point of light you see is the light from millions of years ago and you're seeing it as it was in the past.
Why do people believe this stuff?.

They measured the distance to the moon by going there, same with Venus, Jupiter Mars and everywhere voyager went. They can also manage distance to the moon by using the laser reflectors placed there on the Apollo missions.

none of this is made up, and can be proven

 

[DaveH]

So basically it's massively guessed and any distance can be made up for any point of light in the sky.

No, calculated with a margin of error. Even mountains on earth are heights with a known margin of error, which is why different books will record different heights over time and there is often arguments about which are higher than others, because they are close. Massively guessed sounds like making up anything at random. I don't know the exact parameters, but it might be something like a star is estimated at 200 lightyears +- 5 lightyears for example.

You can't really measure anything with a so called transit of venus.

Yes you can, care to explain why maths and science got it wrong?

I have and it still doesn't show any reality.

So me trying to explain to you is not going to help, given my failure to explain anything else to you. Like I have said before, I don't think I have that ability to talk on a level you can understand.

Farther south would be down your globe. If polaris was centralised to your north pole then, with your global Earth spinning on its axis at 23.5 degrees and keeping the north pole still pointing at polaris, makes no sense at all and would mean your star system would have to move in unison with your tilted spinning Earth.

It makes absolute sense for the Earth to be stationary and sort of circular with the points of light moving over and around under a dome.
You see, it only matches the observations of people because it's been made to match them by using the tilt and spin.

Honestly it's utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Err what? Spin anything about a point and directly up from that point will appear stationary. If you tilt something 23 degrees, then the point it appear to spin about also tilts by 23 degrees. Is this really what you can't understand? Take a torch into a dark room, and rotate it along the length in your hand, pointing straight up, the dot of light stays in the same place. Tilt it 23 degrees and it would still point to the same spot, only in a different place.

But you can't provide an alternate model either?

Would it help if I rotated the diagram for you, or if you view it on a tablet you can just turn that a bit.

This seems like a really strange concept to reject the idea of a spinning globe. After all, it is only rotated 23 degrees relative to the plain of the solar system, so this 23 degrees is only really relevant to the position of the sun and other planets, not to itself.

I don't have any calculations for any distance to a dome. I at least openly admit this stuff. I don't offer any old numbers to back something up that has no reference point to back up.
I'm not offering anything about my hypothesis as factual.
You are offering a globe model with all the trimmings as factual, which is fine if you can personally back them up to be that or offer them up as merely a belief or acceptance that they're factual, based on following the narrative set out.

So you can't do what you are asking us all to do. Fair enough, but that does put it as zero evidence vs something with evidence you don't understand.

But they're not accurate observations.

What, hundreds of years of professional astronomers have been making mistakes. Care to point out how.

He just decided it was a little planet and that was that....right?
A faint light that was moving in a circular motion and it was called an orbit of a globe.

No, he observed it closely over a period of time, recording it's positions to the background stars and found it was moving in a particular way. He said nothing about it being a globe. Calculations showed that if you assumed it to be in a circular orbit of the sun at a particular distance (between Mars and Jupiter) you could accurately predict it's position night after night, year after year and still can. A circular orbit at that distance is the only mathematical model ever provided that can predict it at that accuracy. If something else is causing the effect we observe, then you have to ask why these basic equations of planetary motion fit exactly?

HIs reliance on history was going back to Messier. Basically he took the equations of planetary motion and said "ok, where will it be at certain points in the future and where will it have been in the past". When he traced it back he found another astronomer had also detected this but noted it as an odditity but not a comet, without investigating further.

I personally was not pointing to history as a proof, but using this story of the discovery of Ceres as an example of how the sky changes constantly.


So yeah, true to form, a summary of your post is huh, what, I don't understand, that is bollocks. But you can't actually give any reasons why it is wrong, only "It makes no sense to me".

 

[What A Waster]

So basically it's massively guessed and any distance can be made up for any point of light in the sky.




That's ok to think that but it's a massive if with no genuine reality behind the concept. You must admit that much.

You can't really measure anything with a so called transit of venus.


I have and it still doesn't show any reality.

Farther south would be down your globe. If polaris was centralised to your north pole then, with your global Earth spinning on its axis at 23.5 degrees and keeping the north pole still pointing at polaris, makes no sense at all and would mean your star system would have to move in unison with your tilted spinning Earth.

It makes absolute sense for the Earth to be stationary and sort of circular with the points of light moving over and around under a dome.
You see, it only matches the observations of people because it's been made to match them by using the tilt and spin.

Honestly it's utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.


I don't have any calculations for any distance to a dome. I at least openly admit this stuff. I don't offer any old numbers to back something up that has no reference point to back up.
I'm not offering anything about my hypothesis as factual.
You are offering a globe model with all the trimmings as factual, which is fine if you can personally back them up to be that or offer them up as merely a belief or acceptance that they're factual, based on following the narrative set out.



But they're not accurate observations.



He just decided it was a little planet and that was that....right?
A faint light that was moving in a circular motion and it was called an orbit of a globe.

Hmmmm.



This reliance on history to prove something. Why?
In this day and age we should be treated to reality but we keep getting treated to CGI and composites and a massive hark back into the history books. Why?


Fine for stuff we have a reference for.
We have none for the sky lights.

Offering fictional triangles to marry up points and angles is nothing more than massive speculation wqhen pertaining to lights in the sky.


I mean, imagine being told the point of light you see is the light from millions of years ago and you're seeing it as it was in the past.
Why do people believe this stuff?.

How do you know about superfluid? Did you discover it yourself or are you relying on the stories from others?