Northern Boarders
Goalkeeper
But remember everyone you have to provide evidence in what you believe otherwise you're just like everyone else believing the storytellers.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
But remember everyone you have to provide evidence in what you believe otherwise you're just like everyone else believing the storytellers.
Roman maroni
Midfield
My good god man, reflective dome angle, what the fuck are you rambling on about.
DaveH
Striker
Perspective and magic bending light
I spent time trying to ‘debate’ this with him ages ago on another thread and the only realisation was mine when I realised he was on a massive wind up. So now, I’m not going to try to engage other than provide irrefutable proof when he posts gibberish rather than ask him to explain himself.
SYB_DC
Striker
Somehow I missed this gem, which is rather amusing in its simplicity. It's not a wobble, you wibble. It's that the Earth is tilted: north on the Earth is 23.5 degrees away from vertical relative to its orbit. That lean is consistent and explains the seasons.
When the north side is leaned towards the sun, northern summer. When it's leaned away, winter. If you can't comprehend how this works, draw a pen mark on a football, tilt it 20% out of true, and then move it in a circle. The pen mark will sometimes face the center of the circle and sometimes away. That pen mark is the North Pole and the center of the circle is the sun.
DaveH
Striker
That is the thing that I find, and it is fascinating. You can't seem to get any explanation, diagram or anything out of them. When you do, you end up with some really fantastic complicated things.
Nukeastlefan, I know what you will say to this so don't bother replying to this one. I've heard it before and I'm trying to have a discussion with someone a little more advanced.
Take the reality model and the basic questions you ask. Why do you have night and day? A globe which spins. Explaining why it spins is harder, same as orbits and gravity while simple in some ways is complicated in others and scientists don't really fully understand it, but can measure the effects with amazing predictability with equations. So lets get one of those big inflatable gym balls, stick a GoPro camera to it to simulate us and spin it around in a dark room with a single lamp. Do we get night and day - yes. Then ask why does the sun always rise in the east and set in the west? Well, we have already answered that and have video evidence to show how it works. Doing well. It also explains why it is light here and dark elsewhere. It all fits nicely.
Then we look at why the night sky changes from night to night. Why do we have summer constellations and winter ones, that repeat exactly year on year. If you have a big enough room you can still do the same. Stick pictures of star clusters on the walls, put your lamp in the middle and walk around it while spinning your ball. Great, we have demonstrated that effect works too. So we started with a globe, expanded that by spinning it then expanded again by it being in orbit. 3 things, all making it work. But the way we observe the stars don't quite work when you consider the view points from other parts of the earth. So our model is falling down a bit.
Then look at the seasons. That doesn't work either, but tilt the earth 23 degrees, you have the north pole further away in winter, closer in the summer (summer for us, winter for the southern hemisphere). That works, and also explains what you described of the permanent day light followed by permanent darkness at the polls. And we have just fixed our observational oddity I said above. Why does the sun, at midday appear in a different position day to day, but in the same place at the same time year on year, and if you record that makes a figure 8 (a bit of a squashed one) in the sky? Oh look, that is also explained.
Now consider the moon. What if that was a ball in orbit of us with a gravitational pull of its own. What effect would it have on large bodies of water and how would it look from night to night. All of a sudden we have just cracked tides and phases of the moon, along with solving both lunar and solar eclipses.
Now you consider the planets. Make them all behave the same as us, put us as the third one out, make them spin too and give them their own moons. By using the same concepts we have just explained the phases of the inner planets, the retrograde motion of the outer planets why they brighten and dim, why you can observe them rotate and why with a £150 telescope you can see moons orbit the likes of Jupiter and Saturn. Observing the shadows of the moons pass over Jupiter is a common thing.
Basically a handful of concepts repeated makes something that exactly matches observations and at the amateur level is predictable by mathematics. The majority of the maths is really just down to simple geometry. I think there is a certain beauty in the simplicity of it all. My tool of choice is a computer simulation to check out some of this, but there are some amazingly beautiful orrerys made of brass and/or wood, some amazing craftsmanship that are stunning to look at, but that also accurately model and predict what we observe.
Then you have the "alternate shaped" earth ideas. I've yet to see anything that can explain the first step of night and day. Even when they do, it doesn't explain why it is dark in Australia and light here. One thing I saw was demonstrated as the sun being like a disk on a tilted table and it slid back and forth on this table which made it disappear from view. It leads to the questions, what is the table, why can't we see it and what drives the sun to move back and forwards along it. You don't believe in gravity and have replaced it with a sun on a table on some sort of spring?! Then you consider that even if this did work, it doesn't explain why it is getting dark in Norway an hour or two before it gets dark for us. Each country has it's own sun and old sliding table? Start to add tides and seasons to it all and those that have been inventive enough to create cosmic contraptions end up with this model of the flat earth that is like the setup of Mouse Trap, all these crazy things to keep bodging in something else.
You start to get some hilarious conflicts too. They like to talk about the Bedford Levels experiment of which nobody has been able to produce the same results, because light always travels in a straight line. But then explain ships disappearing over the horizon and that is because light bends after a while. So light acts one way when disproving the globe but bends for unknown reasons when proving the flat. They get very confused with that one.
The idea of a dome and a projection gets even sillier. If it was cloudy at projection central, the sun and stars would go out. Try to make a projector of Jupiter with the shadows across it's surface or just the shadows of mountains on the moon and it gets even more complicated. Because it behaves consistently like globes and orbits you end up in a situation where such things could only happen if this had been deliberately designed and maintained, just to trick you. That takes on a whole new level. You then have to consider what is driving the projector and the images we see and you get into something else really special and more complicated by gravity, the thing they were trying to get rid of.
It is one reason why these nutters fascinate me. Basically take something relatively simple, throw it out as conspiracy and replace it with something incredibly complicated that doesn't work.
Roman maroni
Midfield
I think this should shut him up, but I won't hold my breath.
The Krankie Returns
Central Defender
It won’t. He’s an attention seeker. To imitate the bard, the wum doth protest too much, methinks.
DaveH
Striker
Nah, if he bothers replying it will be to say that is all rubbish, but not be able to say why, then say I'm a sheep for following what I've been told and that I don't work out anything for myself, then look for bites and basically waste a long time replaying to me. But for this post it was most for a discussion point with intelligent people and I asked him not to reply. Probably to be a post to skip past in the morning.
For my conversation with him, I'm still trying to work out how you can tell the earth is flat (sorry, not flat but just not a globe, some other unknown shape but not a globe), just by running a bath. Probably the same way you can cure world poverty by hooting like an owl.
Roman maroni
Midfield
He's like all flat earthers, he'll say exactly what you've said and say it's rubbish without offering an logical explanation why he thinks it's rubbish... Absolute weapon.
SYB_DC
Striker
It is simply that there are a lot of people who can't seem to believe anything they haven't personally experienced and aren't willing to conceive of the fact that there are people smarter and/or more educated than they are.
I have university-level astronomy (not a lot, and it was a while ago), but I'd much rather try explaining that to my toddler than to people who will just make up some bollocks about bathtubs as if the hydrodynamics of a bathtub are the same as those of oceans.
gabbiadini1
Winger
This is still going on?! Jesus wept. Absolute f***ing cockwomble 
taipeisafc
Striker
You said i was lying, i said i knew (not believed) you can pull gas from a vessel and you stated it was impossible (as you are a moron) ergo you say i am lying. You on the other hand are just a plank
Nukehasslefan
Winger
It hasn't been proven, at all. Not one iota.
Plenty of stories and a model that matches the story. That's about it.
No proof of reality to it.
You're saying this but it's never happened on the globe you believe in.
And, surely on your globe with your compass you could never fly south and end up back at the start because your compass would spin to north halfway through....right?
The story is good and the model is all good. That's all it is.
We all believed and believe it because we dobn't have the tools to prove it wrong. It comes down to a person's own logic to figure it out, which is easy when you look at the basics.
You believe the sun is 93 million miles away and manages to bathe the Earth, through an empty space vacuum due to it being nearly 1 million miles in diameter.
Your inverse square law would be pointless with that big sun we're told to believe in.
It's fine with reality of your eyes acting as lenses just like a telescope magnifies. So does the atmosphere.
And nobody's said the sun is dozens of miles away in the sky.
No. Simply water level.
A convex curve does not and can not offer water level.
The real laws of physics have to be badly twisted in order to ush a global Earth....and they are badly twisted which includes the simple one, which is unhindered water level.
I believe I do but your mindset on th globe is to go with the flow of what you believe you know. I'm telling it from my side.
Merely using this as an argument, is pointless and gets you nowhere.
When people throw things out as factual they need to back it up with real evidence.
But remember everyone you have to provide evidence in what you believe otherwise you're just like everyone else believing the storytellers.
I would need to do the same if I was trying to pass anything off as factual.
This is why my musings are just that but the global Earth story people are arguing for, requires proof because people are claiming it to be factual.
You must be logged on to see external links
Nothing that interests you. I don't expect you or anyone to get what I'm saying. It takes a lot to go from one set up to another.
Easiest way out and I agree with you. If it irritates you then it's best not to engage.
Last edited:
Roman maroni
Midfield
You are thick as pig shit you condescending twat, you waffle on about us believing in a sun that's 93 million miles away while believing in a world that's encircled by an ice wall and covered by a dome, you really are special.
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Of course.
Tilted 23.5 degrees as we're told.
All rather perfect for explanation. This is what the globe model requires. It requires total effort to twist one way or another to try to fit in what we actually observe.
The issue is all about this 23.5 degree tilt going around a big fiery ball.
This is what I'm on about with the wobble as it goes around when in fact if looked at in a more realistic fashion by using proper means with a model, you'd notice that the so called ball Earth would not shift positions as it spun around, meaning the sun would hit the bottom and middle and never see the top, or vice versa, whichever way you want to orientate the angle.
We are just fooled into a belief that the Earth so called ball can just flip orientation as it spins around in a circle or a supposed elliptical orbit.
It's all worked out to fit what we see so we simply accept the nonsense, In my opinion.
Yep, I'm well aware of how it supposedly works but there's no ral mechanism for why it would work. It has to wobble or if you don;t like the word, wobble we can call it tilted shift.
If you're moving around a big ball at angle then your angle will never shift as you move around that big ball.
Basically if your north pole is facing away from the big ball then that's it all the way around it. It has to be fixed unless there's some force that alters that. Is there a force?
You believe you can pull gas out of a container. I'm asking you how you manage this. What are you using to do this?
Let's make this easier.
Go and get a plastic bottle. Open the lid and you have a plastic bottle full of air that is the same pressure as the normal atmospheric conditions you are standing in.
You want to evacuate this bottle of some pressure.
There's two ways you can do this. You can place your mouth over it and create a low pressure in your own mouth to allow the atmosphere to crush the bottle and push out the air into your mouth and out through your nose, or you can crush it yourself and push out the air in the bottle.
However, when it comes to a bell jar or a solid container we have something a bit different because we are evacuating the jar of some of the pressure but also stopping the external pressure breaching the jar or crushing it.
First of all we have to get the air out of the jar.
For this we need a pump and that pump is the creator of low pressure by pushing against external higher pressure.
It does not suck anything out of the jar, it pushes against the atmosphere and creates that lower pressure where the air in the jar can expand out by it's very own decompression, molecules against molecules.
As an analogy:
As if you filled a jar full of soft air balls and crammed them into the jar and opened that jar against lesser pressure. The balls would be pushed out by the rest of the compressed balls so your air balls closest to the opening would be pushed out.
This will keep happening as long as the pressure at the opening is less than the pressure created by the decompression of the air balls inside the jar.
If externally those air balls were the same as in the jar then the air balls in that jar would remain in that jar because the pressure is equalised.
Add a pump and this pump can push away (compress) the external balls away, enough to allow decompression of the air balls in that jar.
The same with gases.
Maybe some people will understand what I'm saying......but.
Don't take anything personal. You're getting angry over a debate.
I'm calling the global story, nonsense.
You believe it all. That's it.
Last edited:
Empty vessel.
