Put a flat earthier into space

[Nobby]

But when you present a rough idea and it is argued against you claim it doesn't represent what you think.

So how about saying and illustrating exactly what you think the world looks like

 

[DaveH]

Can someone explain why water on a globe is impossible according to @Nukehasslefan
I know it’s been talked about to death but cannot be arsed to trawl through 112 pages

Because water always sits level and conforms to it's container, like a bath or a glass of water. It has to be held by something.

Unless you suddenly propose a lemon squeezer earth and then water can happily sit on a massive slope a few thousand miles long making up most of the northern hemisphere. Just say 'indentation' and it is fine. If you have a slope and intent it to essentially make steps then you can hold water. That is the basis of how they make paddy fields for growing rice. However this makes lots of reasonably shallow pools and doesn't match the topography of the oceans in any way. Now the oceanographers are in on the lie and the Mariana Trench does not and can not exist. We all know that going south in the ocean we don't suddenly hit the stepped edge of these indentations, so some other magical thing is going on here. Unless of course it is all a load of bollocks.

The other interesting thing is to look at horizons, a popular topic in our daily digest of retard time. Ignore local changes such as mountains, and consider the oceans and the like. On a flat earth the horizon is where the flat plane seems to meet the sky in the distance in every direction, that works. On a globe earth, the horizon is described by the tangent to the curve of the earth. Ignoring all the maths behind that, get a ruler and put the middle of it on the curve of a globe/circle and when the way the globe curves away from it looks equal in each direction, that is your tangent. With the earth being really big, that also works for the observed horizon and both ends of that line head off into space.

Now look at this amazing lemon squeezer. About half way down the northern curve, say the southern UK or France, looking north we have a horizon leading off into space/sky, and the same going east to west, looking good so far. But now consider south. When looking south you are now looking down the slope into the trench. That big ring of lemon juice that would gather in time and settle in one continuos loop around the planet. Look up a bit and you start to see the other side of the trench. In fact you have to look up at about 50 degrees to the horizon before you are not looking directly at and other type of ocean or land, and can see the dome/sky/space/blancmange (delete as appropriate to your musings - please don't let pesky reality get in the way of that one). We clearly see the sun, stars and planets close to the horizon so what is going on here?

On a flat earth, in order to see the sun in the observed positions (particularly low in the southern sky in winter for the UK), light would have to bend a fair bit. On this earth, it not only has to bend a lot but to a full U turn following the curve of this crinkly earth. Remember that we have learned today that this stacked atmosphere also follows this strange curve of the earth for reasons not yet explained, so during the point where the light completely turns it is going through atmosphere of the same or similar density, meaning any refraction effect will be a minimum. In this new and improved earth, light and the direction it travels takes on entirely new properties.

112 pages ago this thread started with the suggestion that nothing could be stupider than a flat earth. Now we find it can be. Angles to anything observed in the sky just don't work on a flat earth, so their great philosophers seem to have recognised this problem and said "in for a penny, in for a pound" and come up with this. "If we are going to propose something stupid and unworkable, lets propose something really stupid and unworkable. After all the flat earth idea is getting old and people are tired of giving us attention on this one. Lets go all in for this one and see how many we can catch".

Why?
For simply having my own thoughts or for going against the mainstream grain?

I think the earth is ruled by a small rubber plant that likes to be known as Uncle Cyril the Fourteenth. He communicates his wishes to world leaders by dripping morse code rubber sap messages on the back of small Dachshund puppies which are then carried by osprays to each leader.

Ticks the boxes for being my own thoughts and going against the mainstream grain. Does anyone really consider this sane and normal?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But when you present a rough idea and it is argued against you claim it doesn't represent what you think. So how about saying and illustrating exactly what you think the world looks like

I was asked the shape of my Earth thought process. I have it as being similar to the one I showed. Similar in the way it's set out as in, like the orange squeezer look.
The countries in that and the waters are not necessarily in the way I would have them but it's close enough for the explanation so accept it as that and nothing more.

 

[ned_werby]

Anyway, on a lemon squeezer earth all the water would just run down to the container bit below and we'd all die of thirst. So there.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Because water always sits level and conforms to it's container, like a bath or a glass of water. It has to be held by something.

Correct.

Unless you suddenly propose a lemon squeezer earth and then water can happily sit on a massive slope a few thousand miles long making up most of the northern hemisphere. Just say 'indentation' and it is fine.

You need indentations to hold water.

If you have a slope and intent it to essentially make steps then you can hold water. That is the basis of how they make paddy fields for growing rice. However this makes lots of reasonably shallow pools and doesn't match the topography of the oceans in any way.

Shallow pools on a small scale, yes. Not on a massive scale such as Earth.

Now the oceanographers are in on the lie and the Mariana Trench does not and can not exist.

A trench might exist but no trench has been explored at that depth we are told about. In my honest opinion, of course.
Of course it does take a film maker to achieve it.

We all know that going south in the ocean we don't suddenly hit the stepped edge of these indentations, so some other magical thing is going on here.

There is no south unless you want to move outwards to any part of the circle/cell that can be reachable but will likely be stopped by ice and snow before becoming too cold and dark to trek any further.

Unless of course it is all a load of bollocks.

The global south is exactly that, in my opinion.

The other interesting thing is to look at horizons, a popular topic in our daily digest of retard time. Ignore local changes such as mountains, and consider the oceans and the like. On a flat earth the horizon is where the flat plane seems to meet the sky in the distance in every direction, that works.

The atmosphere sees to it that the bottom and top come together. Lighter to darker over distance due to atmospheric horizontal density build.

On a globe earth, the horizon is described by the tangent to the curve of the earth. Ignoring all the maths behind that, get a ruler and put the middle of it on the curve of a globe/circle and when the way the globe curves away from it looks equal in each direction, that is your tangent. With the earth being really big, that also works for the observed horizon and both ends of that line head off into space.

Your globe offers no horizon over distance as I mentioned before.
You would be looking over the globe as the globe curved downwards from your standing point into distance. All you would see would be sky or space if it were magically possible to have a globe in space, which it's not.

Now look at this amazing lemon squeezer. About half way down the northern curve, say the southern UK or France, looking north we have a horizon leading off into space/sky, and the same going east to west, looking good so far. But now consider south. When looking south you are now looking down the slope into the trench. That big ring of lemon juice that would gather in time and settle in one continuos loop around the planet. Look up a bit and you start to see the other side of the trench. In fact you have to look up at about 50 degrees to the horizon before you are not looking directly at and other type of ocean or land, and can see the dome/sky/space/blancmange (delete as appropriate to your musings - please don't let pesky reality get in the way of that one).

The Earth you mention is still atmospherically full with a dome covering it.
What you see looking horizontally over that area is only a few miles to your theoretical horizon line. This is because our eyes lose the light bottom up, naturally and anything within that sight disappears or goes very small due to demagnification.

We clearly see the sun, stars and planets close to the horizon so what is going on here?

You see any points of light if it's between the theoretical horizon line because you still get the light back to your eyes.
You see a disappearing sun because the light below is not reaching your eyes. It is disappearing behind the dense mass of atmosphere or bottom of your theoretical horizon line.

On a flat earth, in order to see the sun in the observed positions (particularly low in the southern sky in winter for the UK), light would have to bend a fair bit.

Nope. It only has to be massed out by the atmospheric density over horizontal distance.

On this earth, it not only has to bend a lot but to a full U turn following the curve of this crinkly earth.

No, not at all. All it has to do is move around and over from that position where you lose it in your horizontal vision.
People then see it as their so called setting sun and others see it as their so called rising sun on that particular part of the circle.

Remember that we have learned today that this stacked atmosphere also follows this strange curve of the earth for reasons not yet explained

The stacking of the atmosphere is bottom to top. Dense to less dense with every layer.

, so during the point where the light completely turns it is going through atmosphere of the same or similar density,

Absolutely not.
The light moves over and round, higher to lower, lower to higher and is producing light and heat through varying angles of dense to less dense atmosphere.

meaning any refraction effect will be a minimum.

Refraction can be massively different depending on the density of atmosphere and angles of reflection.

In this new and improved earth, light and the direction it travels takes on entirely new properties.

Absolutely. It has to or we'd be stuck with the nonsense of a nuclear sun 93 million miles distant and near one million miles in diameter from a spinning globe in a space vacuum, as we're conned into. In my opinion of course.

112 pages ago this thread started with the suggestion that nothing could be stupider than a flat earth. Now we find it can be.

Yep, a global one...especially spinning.

Angles to anything observed in the sky just don't work on a flat earth, so their great philosophers seem to have recognised this problem and said "in for a penny, in for a pound" and come up with this. "If we are going to propose something stupid and unworkable, lets propose something really stupid and unworkable. After all the flat earth idea is getting old and people are tired of giving us attention on this one. Lets go all in for this one and see how many we can catch".

To be fair, I think that's what they did with the spinning globe. They had to tilt it and create special relativity and all kinds of utter nonsense to make it workable to our observations. Gravity was especially clever but silly as all hell when looked at logically.

I think the earth is ruled by a small rubber plant that likes to be known as Uncle Cyril the Fourteenth. He communicates his wishes to world leaders by dripping morse code rubber sap messages on the back of small Dachshund puppies which are then carried by osprays to each leader.

At least it sounds much more feasible than having a tilted spinning globe whizzing around a big few million mile circumference of a fiery ball in a space vacuum of free roaming scattered particles among other big planets and balls of gas and fire ....etc......etc.....etc.

Ticks the boxes for being my own thoughts and going against the mainstream grain. Does anyone really consider this sane and normal?

The globe? Nope. I consider it absolutely nuts but then again we're all entitled to our thoughts.

 

[Monty Pigeon]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[DaveH]

Correct.


You need indentations to hold water.



Shallow pools on a small scale, yes. Not on a massive scale such as Earth.


A trench might exist but no trench has been explored at that depth we are told about. In my honest opinion, of course.
Of course it does take a film maker to achieve it.

There is no south unless you want to move outwards to any part of the circle/cell that can be reachable but will likely be stopped by ice and snow before becoming too cold and dark to trek any further.


The global south is exactly that, in my opinion.



The atmosphere sees to it that the bottom and top come together. Lighter to darker over distance due to atmospheric horizontal density build.



Your globe offers no horizon over distance as I mentioned before.
You would be looking over the globe as the globe curved downwards from your standing point into distance. All you would see would be sky or space if it were magically possible to have a globe in space, which it's not.

The Earth you mention is still atmospherically full with a dome covering it.
What you see looking horizontally over that area is only a few miles to your theoretical horizon line. This is because our eyes lose the light bottom up, naturally and anything within that sight disappears or goes very small due to demagnification.




You see any points of light if it's between the theoretical horizon line because you still get the light back to your eyes.
You see a disappearing sun because the light below is not reaching your eyes. It is disappearing behind the dense mass of atmosphere or bottom of your theoretical horizon line.


Nope. It only has to be massed out by the atmospheric density over horizontal distance.



No, not at all. All it has to do is move around and over from that position where you lose it in your horizontal vision.
People then see it as their so called setting sun and others see it as their so called rising sun on that particular part of the circle.


The stacking of the atmosphere is bottom to top. Dense to less dense with every layer.




Absolutely not.
The light moves over and round, higher to lower, lower to higher and is producing light and heat through varying angles of dense to less dense atmosphere.


Refraction can be massively different depending on the density of atmosphere and angles of reflection.

Absolutely. It has to or we'd be stuck with the nonsense of a nuclear sun 93 million miles distant and near one million miles in diameter from a spinning globe in a space vacuum, as we're conned into. In my opinion of course.

Yep, a global one...especially spinning.

To be fair, I think that's what they did with the spinning globe. They had to tilt it and create special relativity and all kinds of utter nonsense to make it workable to our observations. Gravity was especially clever but silly as all hell when looked at logically.



At least it sounds much more feasible than having a tilted spinning globe whizzing around a big few million mile circumference of a fiery ball in a space vacuum of free roaming scattered particles among other big planets and balls of gas and fire ....etc......etc.....etc.


The globe? Nope. I consider it absolutely nuts but then again we're all entitled to our thoughts.

Thank you for your post. I think every single word is utter drivel

 

[fyl2u]

You must be logged on to see media items

I f***ing love Stewart Lee.

Now there is a very VERY clever man.

 

[SYB_DC]

There is no proof for a globe ...

Imagine spending a significant amount of thinking and typing time and ending up with this mess

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Thank you for your post. I think every single word is utter drivel

And you are absolutely entitled to that. Thanks for your answer, which I absolutely do not agree with.

Imagine spending a significant amount of thinking and typing time and ending up with this mess

What mess?

 

[SYB_DC]

What mess?

Try divorcing the rhetoric from the subject matter. If someone were to contend that World War I never actually occurred based on nobody alive having direct and irrefutable proof that it did, they'd say things very much like:

A trench might exist but no trench has been explored at that depth we are told about. In my honest opinion, of course.
Of course it does take a film maker to achieve it.

When one is willing to separate oneself from the accumulated knowledge of mankind that is derived from repeatable and consistent experiments - even if these experiments cannot all be repeated by a random punter in his flat in Seaham - for the simple reason of uncomprehending personal incredulity, then folly is likely to ensue. It has.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

You must be logged on to see media items

Lee at his best

 

[What A Waster]

Try divorcing the rhetoric from the subject matter. If someone were to contend that World War I never actually occurred based on nobody alive having direct and irrefutable proof that it did, they'd say things very much like:


When one is willing to separate oneself from the accumulated knowledge of mankind that is derived from repeatable and consistent experiments - even if these experiments cannot all be repeated by a random punter in his flat in Seaham - for the simple reason of uncomprehending personal incredulity, then folly is likely to ensue. It has.

It's possibly a wind up, but if not it comes across as total paranoia. Imagine disbelieving everything and thinking it's all a lie. Disputing everything because you can't comprehend it so everybody is just out to fool us. For no apparent reason

 

[babyimreadytoblow]

There is no proof for a globe so I'm fine on that one. As for my musings, nobody's asked to follow them. That's up to each individual to use as their own "hmmmm" process....or not.
Either way it doesn't stop me carrying on.


No I'm not surprised.
Why would anyone agree with me on something that's my thought process?
Why would they want to be digged at for alternate thoughts? I fully understand people who may want to think outside the box but not actually share it. I'm sure they can see what happens when going against a mainstream narrative.

Anyway I fully understand them.

Because the water is inside a container, meaning it sits in indentations around the gradient as well as at the bottom of one.
And the gradient is on a massive scale of elevation over massive distance not as in walking up a steep mountain.

Educated does not specifically mean truth.
It means you followed instructions and were marked down for the ability to regurgitate what you learned which gave you a grade that gave you a stance of being better educated or worse educated than others doing the same thing.

You could be studying truth's and fallacies.



ok.

You mean no one backs me up on this forum.
First of all I wouldn't expect anyone to back me up on anything. Most people who view could see what that would lead to and why would they want to throw themselves into the snake pit?


No. It's saying OZ's picture is on the wall and his voice reverberates around the room but the reality of this great and powerful may lie just behind a curtain.


Nope.
Just offer concrete proof. That's all I ask.
People can cite seeing a spinning ball in space but what does it prove other than to accept something they are not able to prove themselves.
I could argue asteroids not being real and you could show me one in the movie, armageddon and sy " look, what more proof do you need."
You have no clue whether you're looking at movie making or real life in this scenario other than to be told it's a movie or to be told it's a reality this time.

You accept what you're told and that's fair enough.........but it's not proof that you can offer and this is why I don't accept.

I have all the proof I need for Earth not being a spinning ball in a space vacuum and I'm more than happy with it.
I don't have proof of what Earth is in its entirety for reality but I'm working on that and may never find the reality......but, what I have found is what isn't reality, which is the nonsensical rotating oblate spheroid story and all the silly trimmings to cater for what we observe.

It's easy to make people follow a direction if that's what is taught as a narrative to follow.


As above.


Yes it does happen.
You see many countries at higher elevation and many at low.
There's a reason for acclimatising.



When you walk down the beach into the water you realise you see the water rising as you take a few steps. Why?
Because the water is in a container. It's in a concave container.#
Surely you didn't think you were walking into water sitting on a convex gradient and still expecting it to gain depth, did you?



Nope, you're thinking of fictional gravity on your fictional globe.


Are you ok?

Fine hun just sick of snakes. Inbox me

 

[SYB_DC]

It's possibly a wind up, but if not it comes across as total paranoia. Imagine disbelieving everything and thinking it's all a lie. Disputing everything because you can't comprehend it so everybody is just out to fool us. For no apparent reason

It's a windup and a fairly amusing one at that. You could use essentially the same techniques to dispute most any fact that involves knowledge on a physical or temporal scale not observable to an average individual, and watching the same basic arguments tossed back and forth as any argument between aggressive incredulity and normal mental processes is usually good for a laugh.

 

[payne]

Thank you for your post. I think every single word is utter drivel

You're just not clever enough to understand his musings or involved in the cover up

 

[chelt_mackem]

Well this has been a most entertaining thread to have read over the last couple of days. Hats off to @DaveH for his patience and for posting so many of the experiments and observations he has done, it's been genuinely fascinating for a layman like me with a passing interest in astronomy to actually see the maths working. Not to mention some of the historical science that was used to work out the distance to Polaris for example, triangulating it from opposite ends of Earth's orbit, absolutely fascinating.

A few pages back, I thought this thread would be so much better without the Flat Earth Fruit Loop, but if it wasn't for him, so much of the genuinely interesting stuff wouldn't have been posted in the first place.

 

[DaveH]

Some interesting background reading. Bear in mind that thinks handed to us on a plate, documented by other people are apparently invalid:

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Nobby]

Some interesting background reading. Bear in mind that thinks handed to us on a plate, documented by other people are apparently invalid:

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

Brilliant research, well done

 

[What A Waster]

Some interesting background reading. Bear in mind that thinks handed to us on a plate, documented by other people are apparently invalid:

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

Well well well...not like him to follow the stories we are told