Put a flat earthier into space

[tunstall birdman]

It is about time this thread was concluded with fact. The Earth is as flat as Dolly Parton's tits.

End of thread!!

 

[bobster999]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[0verlord44]

You must be logged on to see media items

Now come on the ancient Greeks couldn’t do that.

they obviously had a propaganda industry that knew in around 2000 years a that there would be a small group of highly intellectual, uneducated rebels who would keep fighting for the truth that the world is in fact a minstrel, populated by a gullible species who are so thick they actually believe when things are proven scientifically. Imagine the Da Vinci code plot but with more fantasy, less science, and Minstrels

 

[bobster999]

Now come on the ancient Greeks couldn’t do that.

they obviously had a propaganda industry that knew in around 2000 years a that there would be a small group of highly intellectual, uneducated rebels who would keep fighting for the truth that the world is in fact a minstrel, populated by a gullible species who are so thick they actually believe when things are proven scientifically. Imagine the Da Vinci code plot but with more fantasy, less science, and Minstrels

It's a video, for some reason it's not showing as that so you have to click on r/damnthatsinteresting

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They measured the distance to the moon by going there

So they measured the distance by supposedly going there?
And how did they manage to get the distance to actually get there in the first place?

, same with Venus, Jupiter Mars and everywhere voyager went.

So they sent craft to these so called planets to measure the size and distance of something they had no clue about?

They can also manage distance to the moon by using the laser reflectors placed there on the Apollo missions.

And this comes right back to what they used to actually get the first so called craft onto the moon to place this supposed laser reflector.
Any idea?

none of this is made up, and can be proven

Do you have that proof?

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.

Like I said. Massively guessed or maybe massively something else.

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

Got what wrong?
Show me something that maths proves correct in what we're arguing.

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.

Or you don't have the ability to back up what you believe in terms of what we're arguing.

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.

Which is why I said the so called polaris star would have to tilt with the Earth and all the rest would have to follow the pattern.
It's clear nonsense.

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.

And it's the different place which is the massive issue.

But you can't provide an alternate model either?

I can but I can't back it up by using facts, just as you can't back yup the globe model by using facts, yet it's put out as factual.
A big big difference.

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.

It's pretty simple to see that this model clearly does not make sense and does not work.
You say polaris is always centralised to the north pole even though the Earth supposedly spins on a 23.5 degree tilt. The tilt manages to alter course around a so called centralised sun in terms of the north pole, as we're shown but somehow manages to hold central point to polaris at all times.
If that's the case then all the stars are following that route with earth as if the Earth had a big light on a big pole as it wobbled and spun around a sun and yet these light years stars just follow the pole.

It's not a case of me not understanding it it's a case of it being utter utter gobbledygook for anyone to understand, rationally.
Of course people understand it as told. Why? Because it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to fit supposed observations.

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.

I've repeatedly told you I don't pass anything I have as fact. You try to use this as an argument for your side and it doesn't work.
Usng to the old "evidence you don't understand" is not evidence of anything and not a proof of you having any except to simply say you have, based on what's in front of you in words and pictures...etc, that are not down to you.

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

It depends on what you want to argue for.
Let's use one thing and see where it takes us.

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.

Lights in the sky can be predicted. People navigate by them. This isn't in question.
What is in question is in what they are and how big and what distance.

This is my argument.
The distances and sizes cannot be proven, at all.

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.

Of course I expect things in the night sky would change in certain circumstances over many years.
Again it's about what is changing and what is accurate about that change.

So yeah, true to form, a summary of your post is huh, what, I don't understand, that is bollocks.

In a way, yes.
It's definitely huh, is there any proof because it all appears to be utter baloney and makes no sense when looked at logically.

But you can't actually give any reasons why it is wrong, only "It makes no sense to me".

Tell me how a tilted Earth can not only shift poles around a centralised ball of fire but also keep one pole pointing at one star without change.
We get the time lapse of so called stars rotating around Earth. We see a central so called star and the rest of them just circling around this central point which is what you describe as having your torch in your hand and just spinning the torch bulb and reflector in omne circular position.
If this is the case then the Earth could not be independently spinning against those so called stars. They would have to be following exactly as that Earth tilts around the so called centralised sun. It's absolute utter nuts.

None of the global stuff makes any sense when looked at. I'm just giving a few examples.

 

[Kevj]

Some excellent shots in this article. I thought this is the obvious place to share.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Hend79]

So they measured the distance by supposedly going there?
And how did they manage to get the distance to actually get there in the first place?


So they sent craft to these so called planets to measure the size and distance of something they had no clue about?

And this comes right back to what they used to actually get the first so called craft onto the moon to place this supposed laser reflector.
Any idea?

Do you have that proof?

Like I said. Massively guessed or maybe massively something else.


Got what wrong?
Show me something that maths proves correct in what we're arguing.

Or you don't have the ability to back up what you believe in terms of what we're arguing.



Which is why I said the so called polaris star would have to tilt with the Earth and all the rest would have to follow the pattern.
It's clear nonsense.

And it's the different place which is the massive issue.


I can but I can't back it up by using facts, just as you can't back yup the globe model by using facts, yet it's put out as factual.
A big big difference.


It's pretty simple to see that this model clearly does not make sense and does not work.
You say polaris is always centralised to the north pole even though the Earth supposedly spins on a 23.5 degree tilt. The tilt manages to alter course around a so called centralised sun in terms of the north pole, as we're shown but somehow manages to hold central point to polaris at all times.
If that's the case then all the stars are following that route with earth as if the Earth had a big light on a big pole as it wobbled and spun around a sun and yet these light years stars just follow the pole.

It's not a case of me not understanding it it's a case of it being utter utter gobbledygook for anyone to understand, rationally.
Of course people understand it as told. Why? Because it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to fit supposed observations.


I've repeatedly told you I don't pass anything I have as fact. You try to use this as an argument for your side and it doesn't work.
Usng to the old "evidence you don't understand" is not evidence of anything and not a proof of you having any except to simply say you have, based on what's in front of you in words and pictures...etc, that are not down to you.


It depends on what you want to argue for.
Let's use one thing and see where it takes us.



Lights in the sky can be predicted. People navigate by them. This isn't in question.
What is in question is in what they are and how big and what distance.

This is my argument.
The distances and sizes cannot be proven, at all.

Of course I expect things in the night sky would change in certain circumstances over many years.
Again it's about what is changing and what is accurate about that change.


In a way, yes.
It's definitely huh, is there any proof because it all appears to be utter baloney and makes no sense when looked at logically.

Tell me how a tilted Earth can not only shift poles around a centralised ball of fire but also keep one pole pointing at one star without change.
We get the time lapse of so called stars rotating around Earth. We see a central so called star and the rest of them just circling around this central point which is what you describe as having your torch in your hand and just spinning the torch bulb and reflector in omne circular position.
If this is the case then the Earth could not be independently spinning against those so called stars. They would have to be following exactly as that Earth tilts around the so called centralised sun. It's absolute utter nuts.

None of the global stuff makes any sense when looked at. I'm just giving a few examples.

You really are an absolute cretin. The way you are going on is an absolute embarrassment and also an absolute insult to all of the people who have studied this for years. You have no evidence at all for what you are claiming and you cannot back any of your own nonsense up with any credible proof. Yet there are countless people on this thread and the scientific community who have shown you evidence and proof that the Earth is a globe but you reply with the equivalent of "Not listening! Not listening!"

You absolute clown.

 

[DaveH]

It's pretty simple to see that this model clearly does not make sense and does not work.
You say polaris is always centralised to the north pole even though the Earth supposedly spins on a 23.5 degree tilt. The tilt manages to alter course around a so called centralised sun in terms of the north pole, as we're shown but somehow manages to hold central point to polaris at all times.
If that's the case then all the stars are following that route with earth as if the Earth had a big light on a big pole as it wobbled and spun around a sun and yet these light years stars just follow the pole.

Ah, I see the problem here, you think on a 24 hour period, the global model is doing this:

Logon or register to see this image

If that were the case, then you are absolutely right, you would never have a central star that the others seem to rotate around, called Polaris.

However that is not the global model, the global model is the earth spins like this:

Logon or register to see this image

No wonder you don't think the global model makes sense, because you don't know what it is.

But actually that is complicating the problem, the question we are now looking at is "Can you prove the earth is a spinning globe on a 23 degrees axial tilt?", which is actually three questions, "Can you prove it is a globe?", "Can you prove it is spinning?" and "Can you prove it has an axial tilt of 23 degrees".

Good scientific technique is to make observation, gather data, make an assumption (or series of assumptions) then try to prove or disprove them. So lets go with what you said, because we can greatly simplify this issue but just concentrating on the first question. "Can you prove the earth is a globe?", or perhaps "What shape is the earth?". So lets assume there is no tilt to the axis and lets assume the earth is not spinning. For the example I chose, it doesn't matter. In fact as we are only looking at one star, Polaris, lets ignore all other stars and assume there are no other stars. This vastly simplifies our theoretical model. We are left with just a few basic components:
- A earth of unknown shape which doesn't move
- Two observers a known distance apart
- A single star (or dot of some unknown type) in the sky, which also does not appear to move to the observer.

Now we know and have agreed on that Polaris appears higher/overhead as you approach the north pole and appears lower in the sky as we get further south. So all we need to do if find a shape we can put our observers on where we can calculate how low Polaris will appear as they go south. We know this can be calculated as you said yourself in your last post, this repeatable calculation has been used for navigation for hundreds of years.

Now lets assume a shape for the earth, we can try any shape and see if it fits observations and then try other shapes to see if they fit. If we can only find one shape that matches observations then it is reasonable to assume that is the shape. If we find more than one then we have to investigate further. If we find a shape where it doesn't match at all, then we know it is not what we are looking for. For example if the earth was flat that might work but if the earth was shaped like the back of a dolphin then that might not, so we can prove the earth is not shaped like a dolphin.

So, I propose that the earth is a globe and I'm assuming no axial tilt and not spinning. Do you agree that this shape matches observations exactly?

You must be logged on to see external links

A yes or no is all that is required.

 

[Northern Boarders]

You really are an absolute cretin. The way you are going on is an absolute embarrassment and also an absolute insult to all of the people who have studied this for years. You have no evidence at all for what you are claiming and you cannot back any of your own nonsense up with any credible proof. Yet there are countless people on this thread and the scientific community who have shown you evidence and proof that the Earth is a globe but you reply with the equivalent of "Not listening! Not listening!"

You absolute clown.

He's just winding everyone up, he doesn't actually believe any of this crap. He's taking the mick and loving the attention knowing people have spent months replying to him trying to prove something he already knows but wont admit to because he knows how hard it it is to prove science, maths & theory on an internet message board.
I mean really, he doesnt believe in the sun, moon, gravity etc but does believe in a giant ice wall & dome that no one has ever seen. And people think he isnt taking the pi$$

 

[The Krankie Returns]

He's just winding everyone up, he doesn't actually believe any of this crap. He's taking the mick and loving the attention knowing people have spent months replying to him trying to prove something he already knows but wont admit to because he knows how hard it it is to prove science, maths & theory on an internet message board.
I mean really, he doesnt believe in the sun, moon, gravity etc but does believe in a giant ice wall & dome that no one has ever seen. And people think he isnt taking the pi$$

Been saying it for a while now that this is the case. Yet people still engage with him. It’s what he wants.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ah, I see the problem here, you think on a 24 hour period, the global model is doing this:

Logon or register to see this image

If that were the case, then you are absolutely right, you would never have a central star that the others seem to rotate around, called Polaris.

But this is the model handed to us.
We get shown it to do this around a centralised sun and this is why we supposedly get the seasons.

However that is not the global model, the global model is the earth spins like this:

Logon or register to see this image

No wonder you don't think the global model makes sense, because you don't know what it is.

I don't think anyone does because it doesn't make any sense.
This next effigy is showing it as though this is what is happening when it comes to he so called stars but anyone can clearly see this is not the case when its supposedly orbiting a central sun.

You see you have it spinning on it's 23.5 degree axis like we're told but there's nothing to reference it against.
Try putting the sun there and lets see it go around the sun like we're shown.

So, I propose that the earth is a globe and I'm assuming no axial tilt and not spinning. Do you agree that this shape matches observations exactly?

You must be logged on to see external links

A yes or no is all that is required.

No.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

But this is the model handed to us.
We get shown it to do this around a centralised sun and this is why we supposedly get the seasons.

Only if you're not paying attention.
Or on a wind up.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Only if you're not paying attention.
Or on a wind up.

Paying attention to what?

The wind up and troll stuff gets a bit boring to be fair but obviously feel free to carry on using it if it helps you.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Paying attention to what?

The wind up and troll stuff gets a bit boring to be fair but obviously feel free to carry on using it if it helps you.

To the very post you repled to. That is NOT the model "handed to us"
As for the wind up part, I was being polite.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

To the very post you repled to. That is NOT the model "handed to us"
As for the wind up part, I was being polite.

That is the model handed to us.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

That is the model handed to us.

It migth be the one YOU imagine is handed to us, but it most definitely is not. If your dismissal of all that's taught is based on that level of understanding then you need to do a lot more musing.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It migth be the one YOU imagine is handed to us, but it most definitely is not. If your dismissal of all that's taught is based on that level of understanding then you need to do a lot more musing.

It's nothing t do with what I imagine. It is what is handed to us.

We get shown a spinning globe on a tilted 23.5 degree axis spinning round centralised sun.

This is what we're shown.

You must be logged on to see media items

And this is what Dave said does not happen, which is exactly what we're told is happening.

You must be logged on to see external links

But instead it gets replaced with this with absolutely no reference point which makes it look like the pole stays in one position.

You must be logged on to see external links

You can't have it both ways.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It's nothing t do with what I imagine. It is what is handed to us.

We get shown a spinning globe on a tilted 23.5 degree axis spinning round centralised sun.

This is what we're shown.

You must be logged on to see media items

And this is what Dave said does not happen, which is exactly what we're told is happening.

You must be logged on to see external links

But instead it gets replaced with this with absolutely no reference point which makes it look like the pole stays in one position.

You must be logged on to see external links

You can't have it both ways.

Actually you can, as is explained in the very clip you posted.
1 year vs 26,000 years.
If you think Daves 1st diagram is what is taught then you have not watched your own clip which shows the full year with the axis pointing in the same direction all the way around the sun. The direction of the axis will only change by one degree in about 72 years and makes a full circle, or wobble in almost 26,000 years.

 

[DaveH]

But this is the model handed to us.
We get shown it to do this around a centralised sun and this is why we supposedly get the seasons.



I don't think anyone does because it doesn't make any sense.
This next effigy is showing it as though this is what is happening when it comes to he so called stars but anyone can clearly see this is not the case when its supposedly orbiting a central sun.

You see you have it spinning on it's 23.5 degree axis like we're told but there's nothing to reference it against.
Try putting the sun there and lets see it go around the sun like we're shown.




No.

Thank you. In the past I have accused you of avoiding direct answers and you have give in. So you say that model does not match observations of the height of polaris. I have made observations myself and I can say that they match that model.

What is wrong with it? You could say the maths behind it is wrong, but print it out, use a protractor and you will find it is right. Are the observations wrong?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Actually you can, as is explained in the very clip you posted.
1 year vs 26,000 years.

It's got nothing to do with 26,000 years. It's supposedly one revolution around a central sun with the tilted axis moving in and out. If this was really the case then it kills off the polaris being on point with the north pole as we're told or if it gets told to be on point then it cannot change direction around a central sun, so it cannot be offered both ways.

I mean its all baloney but this type of stuff just shows it up for what it is.

Thank you. In the past I have accused you of avoiding direct answers and you have give in. So you say that model does not match observations of the height of polaris. I have made observations myself and I can say that they match that model.

What is wrong with it? You could say the maths behind it is wrong, but print it out, use a protractor and you will find it is right. Are the observations wrong?

So you think you can watch a point of light overhead and then watch it move down and that tells you you're on a tilted spinning ball? Seriously?

It tells you nothing of the sort other than to follow the diagrams set up for you to believe it marries up for you.