Put a flat earthier into space

[The Snockerty Friddle]

No. I'm on about the wobble that would have to happen if those seasons were down to a spinning globe on a tilt and going around a centralised sun, as we're shown.

Let me make this more clear.

If you were to place a stick through a swing ball at an angle so the top of the stick faces into the swing ball pole and swung it around that pole, the stick would still point to that pole from the top, all the way around it. We can assume the pole is the centralised sun.

But because this wouldn't solve the seasons argument they had to change it to a wobble but it makes no sense for something to do that.
It makes no sense for it to spin around a sun in any way but that's another argument.

The big con job is when we get told to get a globe and tilt it then walk around a table or light but few people don't realise how they are twisting the globe as they move around the light.
It appears legit until you actually take a good look at it.

It's utter nonsense.

Again, this is NOT the model we are taught. It's a planet, not a swingball nor a git big game of Battling Tops. The axis points the same way all the way around the sun.
No-one has invented a wobble to explain the seasons as no wobble is needed.
The only thing you're making clear is your lack of understanding of this.

 

[fyl2u]

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.

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.

If you were watching your own video that you posted without listening to what she's saying, then it could be a bit misleading because a couple of the clips in it aren't representations of the rotation over a year.

If you actually listen to her she explains that the "wobble" happens over a period of 26,000 years, and that over a single year there's barely any perceptible change in the angle of tilt.

The very first Earth-around-the-sun model she shows in her video is the actual 1-year model, where the axis stays facing the same direction all the way round.

When the video then changes to a model where there's "wobble" is when she's telling you in the narration that this wobble happens over a period of 26,000 years, which she then elaborates on further by explaining the difference in the seasons in the present day compared with 3000 years ago and predicted what they will be like at various dates thousands of years in the future.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring that first orbit model completely, then ignoring the narrator when she explains what is being shown in the later models and adding your own explanation that the later model must be the 1-year model, which it isn't.

 

[HebburnMackem]

One of them tried to do this fairly recently by making his own rocket and killed himself

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Again, this is NOT the model we are taught. It's a planet, not a swingball nor a git big game of Battling Tops. The axis points the same way all the way around the sun.
No-one has invented a wobble to explain the seasons as no wobble is needed.
The only thing you're making clear is your lack of understanding of this.

No. I understand it very well and it's nonsense.
I've already explained it with the diagrams.

If you were watching your own video that you posted without listening to what she's saying, then it could be a bit misleading because a couple of the clips in it aren't representations of the rotation over a year.

If you actually listen to her she explains that the "wobble" happens over a period of 26,000 years, and that over a single year there's barely any perceptible change in the angle of tilt.

The very first Earth-around-the-sun model she shows in her video is the actual 1-year model, where the axis stays facing the same direction all the way round.

When the video then changes to a model where there's "wobble" is when she's telling you in the narration that this wobble happens over a period of 26,000 years, which she then elaborates on further by explaining the difference in the seasons in the present day compared with 3000 years ago and predicted what they will be like at various dates thousands of years in the future.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring that first orbit model completely, then ignoring the narrator when she explains what is being shown in the later models and adding your own explanation that the later model must be the 1-year model, which it isn't.

I'm not ignoring anything in terms of the seasons.
The 26,000 year so called wobble is not the wobble I'm talking about so it's irrelevant.
It's the so called wobble around the so called centralised sun which is what I'm talking about.

You say the Earth doesn't change axis in the models shown. Yeah if there's no reference point which is what Dave showed, as in a spinning, tilted globe in so called space.

Once the sun comes into play on the model it's clear to see how the axis wobbles around that sun moving from the north pointing inwards towards that sun model and then wobbling as it moves around it to where the south pole shows inwards.

It's literally utter nonsense as far as I'm cocnerned.

 

[fyl2u]

No. I understand it very well and it's nonsense.
I've already explained it with the diagrams.

You explained very clearly how you got the wrong end of the stick from the models in the video you posted.

You should watch it again and actually listen to the narrator this time.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You explained very clearly how you got the wrong end of the stick from the models in the video you posted.

You should watch it again and actually listen to the narrator this time.

I haven't got it wrong.
It's a big misinfo job and anyone can see it if they choose to actually look.

 

[fyl2u]

I'm not ignoring anything in terms of the seasons.
The 26,000 year so called wobble is not the wobble I'm talking about so it's irrelevant.
It's the so called wobble around the so called centralised sun which is what I'm talking about.

You say the Earth doesn't change axis in the models shown. Yeah if there's no reference point which is what Dave showed, as in a spinning, tilted globe in so called space.

Once the sun comes into play on the model it's clear to see how the axis wobbles around that sun moving from the north pointing inwards towards that sun model and then wobbling as it moves around it to where the south pole shows inwards.

It's literally utter nonsense as far as I'm cocnerned.

There is no so called wobble around the so called centralised sun in the so called 1-year so called model.

The so called axis of the so called earth is so called facing in the so called same so called direction all the so called way around the so called sun in the so called model of the so called 1-year so called model.

It isn't so called swingball. There is no so called tether so called holding the so called earth to the so called sun as it so called orbits around it in a so called year.

It's no so called wonder your so called brain is so called thinking it's so called nonsense, because the so called version of so called events in the so called model that your so called brain so called thinks is the so called right so called model is so called not the so called right so called model.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There is no so called wobble around the so called centralised sun in the so called 1-year so called model.

The so called axis of the so called earth is so called facing in the so called same so called direction all the so called way around the so called sun in the so called model of the so called 1-year so called model.

It isn't so called swingball. There is no so called tether so called holding the so called earth to the so called sun as it so called orbits around it in a so called year.

It's no so called wonder your so called brain is so called thinking it's so called nonsense, because the so called version of so called events in the so called model that your so called brain so called thinks is the so called right so called model is so called not the so called right so called model.

There's the clear nonsense for you.
Have a look at it because this is what we're offered as a reality.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Hend79]

No. I understand it very well and it's nonsense.
I've already explained it with the diagrams.

I'm not ignoring anything in terms of the seasons.
The 26,000 year so called wobble is not the wobble I'm talking about so it's irrelevant.
It's the so called wobble around the so called centralised sun which is what I'm talking about.

You say the Earth doesn't change axis in the models shown. Yeah if there's no reference point which is what Dave showed, as in a spinning, tilted globe in so called space.

Once the sun comes into play on the model it's clear to see how the axis wobbles around that sun moving from the north pointing inwards towards that sun model and then wobbling as it moves around it to where the south pole shows inwards.

It's literally utter nonsense as far as I'm cocnerned.

You know nowt man you absolute clueless clown

I haven't got it wrong.
It's a big misinfo job and anyone can see it if they choose to actually look.

You have got it wrong. You have got everything wrong.

 

[fyl2u]

There's the clear nonsense for you.
Have a look at it because this is what we're offered as a reality.

You must be logged on to see media items

I've watched it. And now I've watched it again.

Now you watch it again, but pause the video when the timer on it reaches the 1 minute mark and try to take it in properly before you move on to the rest of the video.

Taking only that first 60 seconds of video into account, you can clearly see that the angle of tilt stays the same all the way around the sun over the course of a single year.

There are no swingball strings holding the Earth to the sun, and therefore nothing that would keep the northern hemisphere pointing at the sun all the way around the orbit. The angle of tilt is relative to the whole universe.

If you watch the video and imagine the sun isn't there at all, it might make more sense to you: when the Earth is over on the right of the screen, it's is tilted at a specific angle relative to the universe as a whole, and then later when the Earth is over on the left of the screen, it is still tilted at the same angle relative to the universe as a whole. There is no annual wobble when looking at it in the 1-year scale of time.

Once you've understood that, then by all means unpause the video to listen to her explain how that tilt changes over the course of tens of thousands of years, but don't let that confuse the explanation you were given in the first 60 seconds of the video.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I've watched it. And now I've watched it again.

Now you watch it again, but pause the video when the timer on it reaches the 1 minute mark and try to take it in properly before you move on to the rest of the video.

Taking only that first 60 seconds of video into account, you can clearly see that the angle of tilt stays the same all the way around the sun over the course of a single year.

There are no swingball strings holding the Earth to the sun, and therefore nothing that would keep the northern hemisphere pointing at the sun all the way around the orbit. The angle of tilt is relative to the whole universe.

If you watch the video and imagine the sun isn't there at all, it might make more sense to you: when the Earth is over on the right of the screen, it's is tilted at a specific angle relative to the universe as a whole, and then later when the Earth is over on the left of the screen, it is still tilted at the same angle relative to the universe as a whole. There is no annual wobble when looking at it in the 1-year scale of time.

Once you've understood that, then by all means unpause the video to listen to her explain how that tilt changes over the course of tens of thousands of years, but don't let that confuse the explanation you were given in the first 60 seconds of the video.

I understand it perfectly well and I'm seeing the so called north pole moving away from the sun model as it rotates around the sun model.
Eventually the south pole points in towards the sun model.

This is utter nonsense.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

No. I understand it very well and it's nonsense.
I've already explained it with the diagrams.

I'm not ignoring anything in terms of the seasons.
The 26,000 year so called wobble is not the wobble I'm talking about so it's irrelevant.
It's the so called wobble around the so called centralised sun which is what I'm talking about.

You say the Earth doesn't change axis in the models shown. Yeah if there's no reference point which is what Dave showed, as in a spinning, tilted globe in so called space.

Once the sun comes into play on the model it's clear to see how the axis wobbles around that sun moving from the north pointing inwards towards that sun model and then wobbling as it moves around it to where the south pole shows inwards.

It's literally utter nonsense as far as I'm cocnerned.

You may think you understand it very well but your words prove otherwise.
"It's the so called wobble around the so called centralised sun which is what I'm talking about." - This does not exist and no-one claims it does.
The axis always points the same way, whichever side of the sun it's on, whatever the season.
THIS is what we are taught, not as a made up botch to help explain something, but simply because it's correct.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[payne]

You may think you understand it very well but your words prove otherwise.
"It's the so called wobble around the so called centralised sun which is what I'm talking about." - This does not exist and no-one claims it does.
The axis always points the same way, whichever side of the sun it's on, whatever the season.
THIS is what we are taught, not as a made up botch to help explain something, but simply because it's correct.

Logon or register to see this image

aye but swing ball

 

[fyl2u]

I understand it perfectly well and I'm seeing the so called north pole moving away from the sun model as it rotates around the sun model.
Eventually the south pole points in towards the sun model.

This is utter nonsense.

You clearly don't understand it perfectly well because the angle doesn't change as it rotates around the sun, it stays pointing in the exact same direction relative to the universe as a whole.

Until you stop thinking of the sun as the focus of everything, you're never going to understand how it really works.

Ignore the sun completely. Just watch the Earth in that first 60 seconds of video. When the Earth is in the bottom right of the screen, the angle is exactly the same relative to the universe as a whole as when it is later in the top left of the screen.

 

[Hend79]

I think its time to write this clueless clown off now. He is too thick to understand anything.

 

[DaveH]

I don't think you're quite getting it.
I have no issue with navigation using those points of light.
I get it but this is absolutely not my argument and you know it.

I'm well aware of what is used with a globe model but my argument is in proving it.

Point of light navigation does not tell anyone they're on a globe. Absolutely 100% not.
You know this but my question remains the same. How do you measure the distance and size of the point of light you call a star?

It's said that polaris is 323 light years away from Earth which was apparently a revised estimate from 434 light years in the 90's, as we're told.

So here's the thing.
How do you measure something that has apparently thrown light into our faces from 323 years ago. Basically light from the past, as we're told.

So what are you measuring the angle from?
How is a size calculated and why a massive revised distance just from the 90's when hundreds and even thousands of years ago people supposedly got it close, didn't they?

Why move on to complex issues like measuring the distance to distant stars when we can’t agree on the shape of the earth, is it spinning and is it in orbit. How that is calculated depends on establishing that first. I have provided links explaining it, why do you need me?

As for my model, I still can’t see why you do not accept that my model works.
Is polaris at 90 degrees when you are at the north pole/ top of the circle? Yes
Is polaris at 0 degrees when you are at the horizon? Yes
Is polaris at 45 degrees when you are half way between the two points? Yes
Is does polaris appear 10 degrees lower when A and B are 1111km apart? Yes
Do all these angles and distances match observations and the basics used for navigation? Yes

Please feel free to correct which ones of the above you think are not correct, but you need to correct which angles are wrong and what is the right answer. I think I need more than no.

Again, this is NOT the model we are taught. It's a planet, not a swingball nor a git big game of Battling Tops. The axis points the same way all the way around the sun.
No-one has invented a wobble to explain the seasons as no wobble is needed.
The only thing you're making clear is your lack of understanding of this.

Dogs are not hairy, anyone who says they are, are brainwashed sheep fools
Yes they are
No they are not
They clearly are
Look this is what we are told a dog is supposed to look like, you can see it is not hairy, the hairy model makes no sense to me.
Erm that is a goldfish and I agree that is not hairy
No that is what we are told so called dogs look like. You can’t have it both ways.
What, this is a dog, this is what we are talking about, what is wrong with you?
So you are seriously trying to say that cows produce milk?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You may think you understand it very well but your words prove otherwise.
"It's the so called wobble around the so called centralised sun which is what I'm talking about." - This does not exist and no-one claims it does.
The axis always points the same way, whichever side of the sun it's on, whatever the season.
THIS is what we are taught, not as a made up botch to help explain something, but simply because it's correct.

Logon or register to see this image

You must be logged on to see external links

I think its time to write this clueless clown off now. He is too thick to understand anything.

Feel free, you've said it enough times.

Why move on to complex issues like measuring the distance to distant stars when we can’t agree on the shape of the earth, is it spinning and is it in orbit. How that is calculated depends on establishing that first. I have provided links explaining it, why do you need me?

As for my model, I still can’t see why you do not accept that my model works.
Is polaris at 90 degrees when you are at the north pole/ top of the circle? Yes
Is polaris at 0 degrees when you are at the horizon? Yes
Is polaris at 45 degrees when you are half way between the two points? Yes
Is does polaris appear 10 degrees lower when A and B are 1111km apart? Yes
Do all these angles and distances match observations and the basics used for navigation? Yes

Please feel free to correct which ones of the above you think are not correct, but you need to correct which angles are wrong and what is the right answer. I think I need more than no.

Why you're into navigation is beyond me. This is not an issue.
You are also not showing any globe model by saying what you're saying. You clearly know this.

Dogs are not hairy, anyone who says they are, are brainwashed sheep fools
Yes they are
No they are not
They clearly are
Look this is what we are told a dog is supposed to look like, you can see it is not hairy, the hairy model makes no sense to me.
Erm that is a goldfish and I agree that is not hairy
No that is what we are told so called dogs look like. You can’t have it both ways.
What, this is a dog, this is what we are talking about, what is wrong with you?
So you are seriously trying to say that cows produce milk?

Not all dogs are hairy.

 

[The Krankie Returns]

I think its time to write this clueless clown off now. He is too thick to understand anything.

He’s not too thick at all mate. He knows full well that the earth is a globe orbiting the sun. He’s on a massive wind up. He thinks it’s all hilarious. Everyone should stop engaging with him as all it does is encourage him to keep going.

 

[DaveH]

You must be logged on to see external links

Feel free, you've said it enough times.

Why you're into navigation is beyond me. This is not an issue.
You are also not showing any globe model by saying what you're saying. You clearly know this.



Not all dogs are hairy.

But you can not correct the questions I answered yes to because they are blatantly true and right there.

A few weeks ago you asked me to prove a global model and my first reply was to say that I don’t have the ability to prove to you. But after a bit I give in. Eventually through hard work it is at a point where basic obsrvational fact match a model I have posted, it is there to see. Now I admit what I provided is a long way from proving a globe, this is just the first step, but when you have seen the first whiff of the reported shape of the earth working and I suspect you know that if I repeated that with a flat earth it would not work, you batten down the hatches and deny all, but without giving any real reason, just denial.

It is almost to the level where I have handed you a calculator and said 2+2=4, and you throw it away sobbing, it is not, it is not.

From your posts this week, it is clear that you don’t know what the global model actually is, which is why you struggle to make any sense of it, then have invested heavily in the idea it is all a conspiracy, and then any hint of evidence against your conspiracy, you refuse to acknowledge.

The earth is a spinning globe, like the sun, moon and other planets. The mathematical models work completely and it is why astronomical events are predictable many many years in the future. Many of these things casual observers can prove for themselves, but not prove to you. Stupid, stubborn or on a windup, no idea. I suspect a combination, but it is clear you will never accept anything.

1700 posts on this thread of you arguing against something that you have wrong in the first place. I don’t know if that is sad or funny.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But you can not correct the questions I answered yes to because they are blatantly true and right there.

A few weeks ago you asked me to prove a global model and my first reply was to say that I don’t have the ability to prove to you. But after a bit I give in. Eventually through hard work it is at a point where basic obsrvational fact match a model I have posted, it is there to see.
Now I admit what I provided is a long way from proving a globe, this is just the first step, but when you have seen the first whiff of the reported shape of the earth working and I suspect you know that if I repeated that with a flat earth it would not work, you batten down the hatches and deny all, but without giving any real reason, just denial.

Of course it's denial. I see the global model for what it is, which is nonsense.
Any model can be made to work with fictional calculations.
I'm not talking about navigating part of Earth, I'm talking about how it's pushed as a spinning oblate spheroid, tilted on a 23.5 degree axis, somehow.

It is almost to the level where I have handed you a calculator and said 2+2=4, and you throw it away sobbing, it is not, it is not.

Actually it's nothing like that.
Offer me a realistic Earth as you believe it is and I'll accept it.
You have offered nothing to prove that and you admit it, so don't waste your time with hairy dogs and 2+2=4 etc....it's not adding anything to your credit except for maybe a few forum thumbs up.

From your posts this week, it is clear that you don’t know what the global model actually is, which is why you struggle to make any sense of it, then have invested heavily in the idea it is all a conspiracy, and then any hint of evidence against your conspiracy, you refuse to acknowledge.

I do know what it is. I've seen it and went with it for long enough until I started to question it.
The issue is, it's a big misinfo job and it's clear to see if people take the time to actually look at it.
Obviously you're going to stick rigid to the global model. I understand that. I understand anyone that does...but the truth is it's just following a narrative, not a reality, imo.

The earth is a spinning globe, like the sun, moon and other planets.

No, it's not.

The mathematical models work completely and it is why astronomical events are predictable many many years in the future.

What astronomical events?

Many of these things casual observers can prove for themselves, but not prove to you. Stupid, stubborn or on a windup, no idea. I suspect a combination, but it is clear you will never accept anything.

So what can a casual observer prove?

1700 posts on this thread of you arguing against something that you have wrong in the first place. I don’t know if that is sad or funny.

Think of it in any way you want to.