• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


DaveH said:
I think this argument that is going, the ‘drop’ over the curve has to be squared is a reasonable example of what you say about limited academic knowledge. It is basic geometry, what is being pressed as fact is wrong, but the fool persists. When asked to explain, as you say, “do your own research”. He can’t explain it, because it is not right.

Any geometry text book always has everything drawn out. A diagram is the most useful tool in maths, but from past experience, I know he can’t understand or follow basic diagrams and so fails to understand the basic maths. What answer do you get “You have just been schooled to think that”. If any branch of maths can be proven to be absolutely correct, it is pi and trig.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember you patiently trying to explain fields of vision and the horizon etc being different when viewed from greater heights and his response was along the lines of as if he was viewing from inside a letter box without the ability to look down!
Like I said I admire your patience but I’m reminded of Flicky’s signature - “never argue with idiots - they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience” along with Ricky Gervaise “Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid!”
 
I like the explanation for gravity the best. How else could you explain weightlessness in space. There's no air up therefore no pressure so you float.

Apart from the fact that there is pressure in the space vehicle otherwise you'd die.

Plus back here on earth if you take all the air out of a glass jar anything solid inside would float, except it doesn't.

Finally, if you agree that 1 atmosphere is equivalent to about 30 feet of water then a 1 kg weight would weigh 2kg 30 feet down, 3 at 60 etcetera etcetera.

There's dumb, dumber and doylem dumb.
 
Tex said:
I seem to remember you patiently trying to explain fields of vision and the horizon etc being different when viewed from greater heights and his response was along the lines of as if he was viewing from inside a letter box without the ability to look down!
Like I said I admire your patience but I’m reminded of Flicky’s signature - “never argue with idiots - they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience” along with Ricky Gervaise “Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid!”
Click to expand...
Yes. I thought I'd take it a step at a time, go slowly and simply. Here is a circle to represent the earth and here is a tower on it, ok? Yes ok. Phew, past the first hurdle. Now I'm going to draw a line from the top of the tower to the earth, it will just touch the earth, not missing it but not going through it either, that will be the point where you see a horizon right?
No - there is no horizon.
Ok, look one direction and you can see sky yes?
Yes
Look down and you see ground?
Yes
And the bit in between where you can see both ground and sky?
Impossible
What - oh I give up.

So fundamentally stupid.
 
DaveH said:
Yes. I thought I'd take it a step at a time, go slowly and simply. Here is a circle to represent the earth and here is a tower on it, ok? Yes ok. Phew, past the first hurdle. Now I'm going to draw a line from the top of the tower to the earth, it will just touch the earth, not missing it but not going through it either, that will be the point where you see a horizon right?
No - there is no horizon.
Ok, look one direction and you can see sky yes?
Yes
Look down and you see ground?
Yes
And the bit in between where you can see both ground and sky?
Impossible
What - oh I give up.

So fundamentally stupid.
Click to expand...
If we added all the time you spent arguing with the flat earther it would be in the days considering you have been arguing with him for years now about it. Your tenacity is outstanding my friend its a thumbs up from me 👍
 
how many people must be in on this pointless fiction. questions must be asked of the fish eye lens industry
 
payne said:
how many people must be in on this pointless fiction. questions must be asked of the fish eye lens industry
Click to expand...
It would need to be probably 20-30% of the global population so you are talking anywhere between 1.5 and 2.3 billion people. Also, to make it work, you would need every single world government cooperating and agreeing to keep this big secret for perhaps the last 3,000 years. Along the way you have had to interoperate private business. Bezos and Branson are the two big headline hitters, but UK Universities have been developing hardware on space probes for decades and we have a very well established satellite business in the UK (world leaders in fact). Why would a private business spring up to not really do anything?

Given the scale and levels of cooperation, if it is all a big secret, it is a remarkable human achievement that not one person, even on their death bed turned round and said "ok, time to come clean".

Or it could be bollocks.
 
DaveH said:
It would need to be probably 20-30% of the global population so you are talking anywhere between 1.5 and 2.3 billion people. Also, to make it work, you would need every single world government cooperating and agreeing to keep this big secret for perhaps the last 3,000 years. Along the way you have had to interoperate private business. Bezos and Branson are the two big headline hitters, but UK Universities have been developing hardware on space probes for decades and we have a very well established satellite business in the UK (world leaders in fact). Why would a private business spring up to not really do anything?

Given the scale and levels of cooperation, if it is all a big secret, it is a remarkable human achievement that not one person, even on their death bed turned round and said "ok, time to come clean".

Or it could be bollocks.
Click to expand...

I thought about that before. Democracies, republics, communist regimes, dictatorships etc etc all working in union. so nice to see
 
The Krankie Returns said:
Digitally manipulated mate. Plenty of ways you could alter an image to look like that.
Click to expand...
Images like that one are in a way digitally manipulated. Each 'dash' of stars is about 18 degrees long, which means a 72 minute exposure. With UK skies, that would be a really washed out picture if taken as one. But if you take lots of 2-3 minute exposures then load them into a stacking program, then it merges them together and gives those results. If you look closely at the outer trails then you can see a couple of small gaps where there was a small delay in the camera between one frame and the next.

It is a legitimate photographic technique and you are not inventing any data. It is much the same as just turning up the brightness or a mobile phone automatically stitching photos together to make a panorama. But the nutters look at stuff like that and say "processed means it is invalid, processed means drawn freehand in MS paint". I pity them.

If anyone has a DSLR and a tripod and fancies doing some star trails, it is quite a fun project to do. Let me know and I'll stick something in the photography section.
payne said:
I thought about that before. Democracies, republics, communist regimes, dictatorships etc etc all working in union. so nice to see
Click to expand...
Even people like Hitler, who was considered to be not very nice and didn't really play by international rules, still toed the party line on this one.
 
DaveH said:
Images like that one are in a way digitally manipulated. Each 'dash' of stars is about 18 degrees long, which means a 72 minute exposure. With UK skies, that would be a really washed out picture if taken as one. But if you take lots of 2-3 minute exposures then load them into a stacking program, then it merges them together and gives those results. If you look closely at the outer trails then you can see a couple of small gaps where there was a small delay in the camera between one frame and the next.

It is a legitimate photographic technique and you are not inventing any data. It is much the same as just turning up the brightness or a mobile phone automatically stitching photos together to make a panorama. But the nutters look at stuff like that and say "processed means it is invalid, processed means drawn freehand in MS paint". I pity them.

If anyone has a DSLR and a tripod and fancies doing some star trails, it is quite a fun project to do. Let me know and I'll stick something in the photography section.
Click to expand...

I love the digitally manipulated argument. What about everything before 20 years ago?
DaveH said:
Images like that one are in a way digitally manipulated. Each 'dash' of stars is about 18 degrees long, which means a 72 minute exposure. With UK skies, that would be a really washed out picture if taken as one. But if you take lots of 2-3 minute exposures then load them into a stacking program, then it merges them together and gives those results. If you look closely at the outer trails then you can see a couple of small gaps where there was a small delay in the camera between one frame and the next.

It is a legitimate photographic technique and you are not inventing any data. It is much the same as just turning up the brightness or a mobile phone automatically stitching photos together to make a panorama. But the nutters look at stuff like that and say "processed means it is invalid, processed means drawn freehand in MS paint". I pity them.

If anyone has a DSLR and a tripod and fancies doing some star trails, it is quite a fun project to do. Let me know and I'll stick something in the photography section.

Even people like Hitler, who was considered to be not very nice and didn't really play by international rules, still toed the party line on this one.
Click to expand...

so he really was a nice guy. he must have knew the real physics to get them V2s working
 
DaveH said:
Yes. I thought I'd take it a step at a time, go slowly and simply. Here is a circle to represent the earth and here is a tower on it, ok? Yes ok. Phew, past the first hurdle. Now I'm going to draw a line from the top of the tower to the earth, it will just touch the earth, not missing it but not going through it either, that will be the point where you see a horizon right?
No - there is no horizon.
Ok, look one direction and you can see sky yes?
Yes
Look down and you see ground?
Yes
And the bit in between where you can see both ground and sky?
Impossible
What - oh I give up.

So fundamentally stupid.
Click to expand...
I would love to know how the flat-tards explain a tall ship coming towards you - first you see the flag at the top of the mast then gradually the ship reveals itself from the top down. How does that work if we’re on a flat earth?
 
Tex said:
I would love to know how the flat-tards explain a tall ship coming towards you - first you see the flag at the top of the mast then gradually the ship reveals itself from the top down. How does that work if we’re on a flat earth?
Click to expand...
They would say its done with mirrors and that you just don't understand because you are one of the easily fooled, or any amount of the other mad shite they come out with when faced with such trivialities as proof and evidence.
 
RobShep said:
They would say its done with mirrors and that you just don't understand because you are one of the easily fooled, or any amount of the other mad shite they come out with when faced with such trivialities as proof and evidence.
Click to expand...
Magic bending light. The bottom bit disappears because of the density of the air, in the same way you can’t alwqys see the far end of a swimming pool. But you can see the top through the same light because, wibble.

Same as going up a cliff. Now the light has further to travel, but more of the ship can be seen because “research it yourself”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top