zwartekat
Striker
Probably been covered but do you dispute that distance can be measured?
If that is a truth then how can well-established distances be true for anything other than a globe?
-
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
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
If that is a truth then how can well-established distances be true for anything other than a globe?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
And what was the set up and at what distance?
Who were the people doing it?
More like a really large manual orange squeezer, sort of thing, except on an extremely large scale.
It's irrelevant because it's got nothing to do with what I've said.
Nope.
Well established distances pertaining to what?
Last edited:
Bear
Striker
Me mate at work has been on about this just yesterdayThe netflix documentary is brilliant, the laser they shine between 2 points is curved, they still wont have it though
Where do the dopey knackers think clouds go when moving eventually just float off into space, is the moon flat too
Last edited:
payne
Striker
Me mate at work has been on about this just yesterday
Where do the dopey knackers think clouds go when moving eventually just float off into space, is the moon flat too
it's all just a projection. there's no space in his view
Bear
Striker
zwartekat
Striker
For example, the distance from London to Sydney or Sydney to San Francisco (you can have 2 distances). The more places you add in the more it shows the shape of the Earth.
nahwee
Winger
An orange squeezer that contains the orange juice after squeezing an orange.
So you do believe the earth is a container.
It's irrelevant because it's got nothing to do with what I've said.
Not like you to give up that quick!
It’s my opinion that it’s irrelevant to you because it’s further proof that the earth is a globe.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
It shows nothing of the sort.
If you regard a cell organism as a container then, yes.
There's absolutely no proof of Earth being a spinning globe we supposedly live on. Nothing.
There's plenty of stories and pictures, movies and books on it.
But then again there's plenty on god. Does that make god real? To many, yes.....but.
Thee's plenty of movies and pictures and stories about star wars in space. Does it make it real life? Obviously not...but a great story/book/film...etc with great actors.
Last edited:
Zzzzzzz
He's just giving stock responses now to keep the wind up going hoping somebody will take the bait.
He's just giving stock responses now to keep the wind up going hoping somebody will take the bait.
Northern Boarders
Goalkeeper
He might have started off having some sort of alternate theory but he's just been on a massive wind up for a while getting people to bite and to be fair he's succeeding.
taipeisafc
Striker
I flip flop between him being on a massive windup or him being so incredibly stupid that he actually believes this stuff (his is a mag after all so has previous on this) right now I think he really is this stupid, I am amazed someone can get through life being this unbelievably dumb.
DaveH
Striker
I thought that last paragraph looked like a cut and paste.
@zwartekat asked a good question. Say you take 50 of the major capital cities and mark them on something like small polystyrene balls. Then for each major capital city find the distance to the next 3 nearest capital cities. Those distances are traveled all the time by air, road, train or sea. They are well established. Now come up with a scale, might have to be miles per mm and cut bits of wire for each capital city marking the 3 distances and poke them into the balls. So you may start with a bit of wire between London and Paris and longer one going off to New York. Fine.
You end up with some sort of mental spider web spread out onto your table. But, as you start to connect the likes of Rio to Canberra, then you need to pull your model into something 3 dimensional. You end up finding you have made a rough wireframe outline of a globe. It is a really simple way to show the shape of the planet, unless the distances are wrong, someone is lying and even the train drivers are in on it. That would be almost impossible to cover up. If someone claims the distances are wrong then the next logical question is what are the distances? We all know the answer will be waffle, waffle, not as we are told.
But we can all see where this thread is going. I've suggested a practical way to take @zwartekat's idea, so what will the response be? Complete denial in the form of about 12 words hammered into a keyboard and perhaps a challenge to prove it. If accepted, you then end up with one of us sitting at home doing a Blue Peter job, only to present it and be given some excuse as to why it was wrong, told it proves NOTHING of the sort. Meanwhile the troll sits getting attention, happy that people are essentially 'working' for him, feeding his need for attention.
taipeisafc
Striker
I vote for this
I guess both could be true
nahwee
Winger
Yes there absolutely is. There’s a great deal of proof. Some of it has well presented on this (and previous!) thread.
What happened after the Krakatoa eruption is only one example of proof.
I‘ll ask again, which part of this do you think is a story?
That Krakatoa erupted? That the eruption created a pressure wave? That this wave was mapped as it travelled across the earth? That the nature in which it reverberated around the world could only occur on a globe?
God and Star Wars! Like I said, not like you to give in so easily.
DaveH
Striker
I had not thought of the established distances above as a proof, that is a nice simple proof.
To me the easiest proof is looking at the night sky. It is a fact that in the northern hemisphere we look due north and up to see Polaris, all the stars appear to rotate around this. This could be any number of things. It works for a globe, but it also works for a flat earth spinning, the sky spinning around us or even a magic projector just rotating it's projection on 'the dome'. But as you head further south, this point of rotation gets lower in the sky, in a way that is completely predicted by simple circular geometry. That points to at least us living on a hemisphere. But once you get to the equator, the stars seem to rotate about two points. One to the far north (now very low in the sky or actually below the horizon) and another to the south. Get into the southern hemisphere and you see the same thing but reversed. The only shape that works for and can show two points of rotation with a smooth transition around, is a globe.
It can be demonstrated with a very simple diagram or even tested at home with a GoPro camera stuck to a beach ball. So far I've not seen anyone able to explain this phenomena in words that are not all handwavey "oh other reflections, distortions and density", as a diagram or as physical object that you can hold and demonstrate with a camera stuck to it like you can with a ball. If they could, I'd happily examine that data in detail and look seriously at alternatives. But nobody has ever produced that.
There have been a few but most recently a group of people who also thought the world wasn't a globe so spent a lot of time and money to prove it, only to find it didn't go as expected.
Watch behind the curve, probably right up your street tbh.
nahwee
Winger
This is what I meant by well presented proof.
This is one reason why I keep visiting this thread.
DaveH
Striker
There is no proofs from anyone, not just our local believer-in-something-not-globe. If you google 'mathematical proof of a flat earth', you get lots of proofs people have done to prove a globe and disprove a flat earth, but no mathematical proof of a flat earth.
But maths is meaningless apparently. Ok we use it in all forms of science and engineering as proofs and to build the abstract concepts on which real things are built, from cars through to huge buildings and bridges, but when you apply it to something that describes a globe, then it is bollocks and no reason to use maths at all.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
No proof of a spinning globe has been presented on this or any other thread.
Plenty of massive appeals to authority have been put forward.
Not one bit of real proof has been put forward. No facts.
A proof of what?
It's irrelevant because it proves nothing.
The thing is, this is basically what the global nonsense is all about. Making people believe in a fiction, so it's no different to star wars and such, in my opinion.
It's about honesty with this stuff.
I could easily use similar stuff to argue against it but we get right back to the same thing. Who to believe.
Your global mindset is clear on who you side with and mine is absolutely clear whao I'd side with in a genuine test.
Last edited:
