Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

fyl2u said:​

Take Newtonian physics. For years it was the best explanation we had to explain the way motion worked. We didn't need a more complicated explanation because almost everything around us seemed to conform to the predictions it gave us.

As time passed, we developed more powerful telescopes, more powerful microscopes, more sophisticated apparatus for looking at the very large and the very small, and gradually it became obvious that those original predictions didn't always hold true anymore. We needed a new model that would work for everything, not just the things in the "middle world" we can observe with our own senses.
Nukehasslefan said:
Yep. And time seems to change a lot of stuff.
Yesteryears' jigsaw pieces were found to be hammered in.
Today's pieces may also be hammered in and when this becomes yesteryear things are altered once again.

Now this is all well and good but the issue is we're all told everything works tickety boo in terms of gravity and space and what not.
The list is almost endless in terms of, "scientists say we may not......( add in anything).....
Basically we're getting told whatever suits the situation as time goes on.

A lot of inventions by scientists and fabricators/engineers...and so on, are genius. Fantastic.
This isn't my issue.
My issue is the one's that are told to us as being fantastic and magical forces that they operate in but are cloaked in secrecy and never proved for reasons like, plebs don't get to know what's what unless we decide to tell a story without proof and basically force feed them that narrative and never question it unless you want ridicule....or whatever..

fyl2u said:​

And so arrived relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, loop quantum gravity, and while we are still yet to find a "theory of everything" that explains everything in a simple way, all of these fields have produced results that each explain part of the picture in a more accurate manner than the established theories that came before them.
Nukehasslefan said:
Do you know anything about any of this?
I don't mean reading up on it. We can all do that. I mean actually understand how any of it is physically reasonable and if so, how and why?

I mean, anyone can tell you they have a magic rope in their home and if you climb it you can end up in space and it works because they tried it themselves.
They can tell you why it works with stuff you've never heard of.
Do you believe it or accept it may be true or would you immediately dismiss it until they actually show you?

Just be totally honest.
My answer is the latter as you know. Am I wrong to think like this and do I need to know anything for me to think like this?

Does it become more real if 10,000 people actually believe the story?
Because this is what we're being asked of a lot of stuff.

fyl2u said:​

Science isn't trying to be complicated. Quite the opposite in fact. Science wants to find the most simple honest explanation for everything.
Nukehasslefan said:
Science isn't an invention, it's Earth and what it holds...etc.
It is what it is and finding out anything is being a scientist.
That's when the scientists become compartmentalised and basically put into categories. And then you have the pretenders. The theoretical/hypothetical/pseudoscientists.

It's then down to finding what's what. It isn't easy to sort that wheat from that chaff.

fyl2u said:​

Unfortunately "the most simple honest explanation" is often complicated if you don't have the knowledge and understanding of the steps that came before the more complicated one.
Nukehasslefan said:
Absolutely.
Anything can be made complicated just by not being on the same wavelength of explanation.
One person's genius can be another person's dumb.
It's about what suits and what is allowed to suit.

Nukehasslefan said:
When you break it all down it becomes much more clear.

fyl2u said:​

That much is actually true.
Nukehasslefan said:
Yep and this is where breaking stuff down has to apply to reality or it has to show a potential for reality from the start.
There's a lot about this Earth we're told to accept that simply does not go into that realm other than to be told .... the Earth and the universe came from nothing. A big bang that just happened from nothing.

Then people can say "ahhhhh, so that's how we came about."
So simple but what the hell does it mean?
It's utter nonsense as it stands.

Nukehasslefan said:
A wave is simply that.

fyl2u said:​

Simply what?
Nukehasslefan said:
A wave.

Nukehasslefan said:
Water itself will show you what a wave is in a simpler form.

fyl2u said:​

Water can be used to exhibit various aspects of wave mechanics, yes.
Nukehasslefan said:

Water can be looked at to solve a lot of issues about Earth but only of people are prepared to look at it in conjunction with atmosphere and as a analogy to how atmosphere works.
It kills gravity stone dead, in my honest opinion.

Nukehasslefan said:
It's all about looking deeper into the simplicity if you can push aside the gobbledygook.

Indeed.

An awful lot of people have tried mate and you refute everything
If it was all bulshit I doubt we would be capable of having this conversation via the interweb

Why?

In the context of this thread, intelligence is the ability to understand another person's position fully and then devise an honest method of determining whether or not they are correct in that position.

I think intelligence can run into many realms as well as the one you mention.

Well the jet has thrust. It is being propelled through the air. So it is not being dragged by the atmosphere with the earth's so called spin.

But we are told the opposite of that.

 

[babyimreadytoblow]

fyl2u said:​

Take Newtonian physics. For years it was the best explanation we had to explain the way motion worked. We didn't need a more complicated explanation because almost everything around us seemed to conform to the predictions it gave us.

As time passed, we developed more powerful telescopes, more powerful microscopes, more sophisticated apparatus for looking at the very large and the very small, and gradually it became obvious that those original predictions didn't always hold true anymore. We needed a new model that would work for everything, not just the things in the "middle world" we can observe with our own senses.
Nukehasslefan said:
Yep. And time seems to change a lot of stuff.
Yesteryears' jigsaw pieces were found to be hammered in.
Today's pieces may also be hammered in and when this becomes yesteryear things are altered once again.

Now this is all well and good but the issue is we're all told everything works tickety boo in terms of gravity and space and what not.
The list is almost endless in terms of, "scientists say we may not......( add in anything).....
Basically we're getting told whatever suits the situation as time goes on.

A lot of inventions by scientists and fabricators/engineers...and so on, are genius. Fantastic.
This isn't my issue.
My issue is the one's that are told to us as being fantastic and magical forces that they operate in but are cloaked in secrecy and never proved for reasons like, plebs don't get to know what's what unless we decide to tell a story without proof and basically force feed them that narrative and never question it unless you want ridicule....or whatever..

fyl2u said:​

And so arrived relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, loop quantum gravity, and while we are still yet to find a "theory of everything" that explains everything in a simple way, all of these fields have produced results that each explain part of the picture in a more accurate manner than the established theories that came before them.
Nukehasslefan said:
Do you know anything about any of this?
I don't mean reading up on it. We can all do that. I mean actually understand how any of it is physically reasonable and if so, how and why?

I mean, anyone can tell you they have a magic rope in their home and if you climb it you can end up in space and it works because they tried it themselves.
They can tell you why it works with stuff you've never heard of.
Do you believe it or accept it may be true or would you immediately dismiss it until they actually show you?

Just be totally honest.
My answer is the latter as you know. Am I wrong to think like this and do I need to know anything for me to think like this?

Does it become more real if 10,000 people actually believe the story?
Because this is what we're being asked of a lot of stuff.

fyl2u said:​

Science isn't trying to be complicated. Quite the opposite in fact. Science wants to find the most simple honest explanation for everything.
Nukehasslefan said:
Science isn't an invention, it's Earth and what it holds...etc.
It is what it is and finding out anything is being a scientist.
That's when the scientists become compartmentalised and basically put into categories. And then you have the pretenders. The theoretical/hypothetical/pseudoscientists.

It's then down to finding what's what. It isn't easy to sort that wheat from that chaff.

fyl2u said:​

Unfortunately "the most simple honest explanation" is often complicated if you don't have the knowledge and understanding of the steps that came before the more complicated one.
Nukehasslefan said:
Absolutely.
Anything can be made complicated just by not being on the same wavelength of explanation.
One person's genius can be another person's dumb.
It's about what suits and what is allowed to suit.

fyl2u said:​

That much is actually true.
Nukehasslefan said:
Yep and this is where breaking stuff down has to apply to reality or it has to show a potential for reality from the start.
There's a lot about this Earth we're told to accept that simply does not go into that realm other than to be told .... the Earth and the universe came from nothing. A big bang that just happened from nothing.

Then people can say "ahhhhh, so that's how we came about."
So simple but what the hell does it mean?
It's utter nonsense as it stands.

fyl2u said:​

Simply what?
Nukehasslefan said:
A wave.

fyl2u said:​

Water can be used to exhibit various aspects of wave mechanics, yes.
Nukehasslefan said:

Water can be looked at to solve a lot of issues about Earth but only of people are prepared to look at it in conjunction with atmosphere and as a analogy to how atmosphere works.
It kills gravity stone dead, in my honest opinion.



Indeed.



Why?

I think intelligence can run into many realms as well as the one you mention.


But we are told the opposite of

What exactly are we told then?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes, first it appears to work and shows the interference pattern that the experiment expected if there was no flow of a ‘medium’ for light to travel through. But the key think is 150 years of the experiment being repeated by hundreds (possibly thousands) of other scientists around the world, in many cases trying to compete against each other, wanting to be the one to stand out, find something new and different and set themselves apart. But nobody has detected any evidence that em waves need a medium to travel through. The experiment has been expanded on, changed, different wavelengths used etc, all come to the same conclusion.

No medium, no travel. It really is as simple as that.
Naturally I know you do not accept that and go with the mainstream scientific flow as you accept. Fair enough but like I said, if there is no medium then a wave would be an impossibility to actually be a wave.
Water alone shows you the medium. It's all in our faces in different forms. Many just don;t marry it up into the basics, in my opinion.

So when you weigh up evidence you have a huge amount of people independently verifying the work, all coming to the same conclusions with data and experimental evidence to back it up. This is spread over many countries, many decades, many different environments, many different political agendas, many different scientific institutes and the experiment done in many different ways. That is pretty strong evidence and you have to ask how could they all be wrong or why would they all lie?

Let's go back to religion. There are many people weighing up their evidence and coming to the same conclusions in one aspect of religion then many people doing exactly the same for anotehr religion...and so on and so o n. Who's right?
Is only one right or half right or all right or none?

I know I keep coming back to this but this is a classic example of what you're basically putting forward.
Sometimes it's hard to distinguish scientific studies from religious to form a conclusion of reality.

You also have to add to that, the fact that space is real and we have sent many objects out into space with radio signals coming back. We have em waves travelling through the near vacuum of space that we have created, along with the light, radio, microwave, gamma etc all from distant stars and galaxies. If it is a lie, it has just extended far beyond those who repeated the experiment I mentioned.

here is no fact for space. There are videos showing launches and videos showing supposed moon landings and mars landings and CGI of supposed probes going billions and billions of miles into space, as we're told. All sending signals back after 50 years or so and people just accept it to be real.

It's utter absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
How can anyone can think a signal just gets sent back and forward to and from probes billions of miles away.....well, what can I really say?
The answer is simple. People will simply believe what they are told if they think it's official or told by what they believe are space experts...etc.
I once did. If nobody questions it with any deep meaning then like me in the earlier times, you just go with that flow.

It doesn’t prove 100%, but it is fair to say it is in the 99%+ bracket.

If it's not 100% provable then it could be 100% wrong or it could be 100% disinfo, depending on what's put on offer.

Against you have you standing alone with no education

What is education?

, no scientific background

What is scientific background?

, no experiments,

According to you.

no data

According to you.

, nothing more than sitting one day and musing that em waves must require a medium.

Nahhh. It's pretty plain and simple that everything requires a medium in order to work. No exceptions.....ever.

Pure thought, alone, independent and also contradicting everything known about science.

Nope. I don't question science. I go with all science.
What I am questioning is what's put out as scientific which has no verification.

It doesn’t look good in your favour, which is why I think it is on you to prove there is a medium required for EM waves to travel through.

The proof is in everything you do.
In atmosphere it's all there.
The trouble is, in so called space it is a pretence of it being there to work in a nothingness because to not have it would destroy the space shenanigans altogether. Gravity is equally used to cover for the fiction. In my opinion.

So far you have ignored and deflected (as per usual) any questions for you to actually offer any basis on why you are right and say we are all completely wrong.

Nahhh. I think I've done ok.
I'd say you have ignored a lot when asked for proof.
You have provided absolutely none.

Can you offer anything more than just a ‘musing’, to tip the scales in your direction?

I could lie and say I've built a machine that launched me into the dome or invented a device that tunnelled into the outside of the dome from the ocean or tunnelled into the centre of Earth....but I'd be lying.

This is why I don't pass anything off as factual apart from knowing that water is flat and level, unhindered and absolutely does not flow around a spinning globe in a space vacuum.


I'll put this to you.

If the mainstream ideal was my model and I went again st it by using a spinning globe, I'd be equally set upon. It really is the nature of the peer pressured following of the beast.

He put a map of his world up which was the shape of a lemon squeezer, raised in the middle, somehow the oceans were on a slope from the raised part to the lowest bit

Nope.

The start of your jigsaw is that you do not accept the earth is a globe.

Yep.

It doesn't matter at this point what shape you believe it to be.

It matters to me.

So for your hypothesis to move beyond believing that the earth is not a globe you need to be able to demonstrate in a measurable and repeatable way that is the case.

I have. Water level nails it solid.

If you can't do that the rest of your musings are irrelevant as you can't get past your first piece of the jigsaw

Already well past it.

Once you have demonstrated the earth is not a globe, you do the same looking at the other issues, eg what shape is it, how do night and day work etc.

I have my ideas but first and foremost Earth is absolutely not a spinning globe in a space vacuum. 100% sure on that.

So starting with your first price of the jigsaw. What is your repeatable and measurable evidence to demonstrate the earth is not a globe?

Water level. It is absolutely observable, testable and repeatable.

I would also like clarification from @Nukehasslefan what his repeatable and measurable evidence is to back up his theory the earth is not a globe.

If he would be kind enough to do so.

Don't wait on me. Go and prove it all yourself. It's not hard and costs next nothing if you have a few simple tools handy.

 

[legend7]

Nope

Well you did but that's old hat now (actually bit like a bowler hat too)
Anyway I think all we are saying is that if you shared some evidence rather than musings or shared some of your experiments we may get a better grasp of what you're on about.
It's OK dismissing scientists experiments but you have to have something to counter them?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What I described is a technique known to many areas of study (and every day life). I first encountered it at GCSE when talking about assessing historical evidence. Who wrote it? Why did they write it? Were they there at the time? How were they connected (i.e. trying to please the new King who had just granted them huge tracts of land) and the important one, who else agreed.

Basically if lots of people agree who are independent or even better, conflicting with each other then it is most likely true. Apply the same rational to politics, reading the papers etc, it all applies.

With the whole shape of the earth thing, it comes down to a few basic questions, why would hundreds of thousands of people from every country of the world club together to lie? Why would they make that lie more and more elaborate every year? The answers seem to be no reason and it is now so complex it becomes unfeasible.

Ok then let's start with Jesus having the last supper and being seen by many as they crucified him...etc.
Is this the truth or is it a story?

Because this is essentially what you're saying.

Ever played Chinese whispers at school?

Just look at the water in your bath.

That's a start.
Then a swimming pool.
Then a pond.
Then all kinds of different ways to check it out.

 

[Nobby]

So if water is demonstrably level show people how you measure that and then they can repeat it and you can be proved right.

You are doubting the established view so the onus is on you to present evidence to disrupt that view

 

[legend7]

That's a start.
Then a swimming pool.
Then a pond.
Then all kinds of different ways to check it out.

You could yourself do an experiment with a laser and a large lake that would prove you wrong.
But of course you won't.
Same as another poster mentioned another simple experiment using a balloon and a camera.
Both of these are doable by someone so passionate and as knowledgeable as yourself and would bring real evidence to the table (tables are flat)

 

[DaveH]

Ok then let's start with Jesus having the last supper and being seen by many as they crucified him...etc.
Is this the truth or is it a story?

Because this is essentially what you're saying.

Ever played Chinese whispers at school?

That's a start.
Then a swimming pool.
Then a pond.
Then all kinds of different ways to check it out.

Why bring religion into it? It is completely different. No first hand witnesses and not independently verified by thousands of people recently. No similarities. No real evidence for any Christian religious accounts. I’ve just given you a ton of evidence for science that you are waving away.

You replace it with a musing, no evidence. You suggest you may have an experiment, have you one that proves light and other EM waves must travel through a medium?

You could yourself do an experiment with a laser and a large lake that would prove you wrong.
But of course you won't.
Same as another poster mentioned another simple experiment using a balloon and a camera.
Both of these are doable by someone so passionate and as knowledgeable as yourself and would bring real evidence to the table (tables are flat)

The people who did that on a lake got it wrong or were liars. He would not say which or why.

 

[payne]

Why bring religion into it? It is completely different. No first hand witnesses and not independently verified by thousands of people recently. No similarities. No real evidence for any Christian religious accounts. I’ve just given you a ton of evidence for science that you are waving away.

You replace it with a musing, no evidence. You suggest you may have an experiment, have you one that proves light and other EM waves must travel through a medium?

The people who did that on a lake got it wrong or were liars. He would not say which or why.

It surprises me that someone who is really wants to understand the world (I truly believe he has an honest desire to understand) won't simply go out and test a few things for himself to actually find out. He could perform the experiment on the lake as was posted in the Hawking documentary, but won't because the test he done in the bath is all one needs. If I was so strongly opposed to mainstream theory and had my own ideas I'd certainly want to actually copy some mainstream tests to prove bullshit, i.e. prove that the results don't come out as we're told.

I wish I rich as I'd pay to send a flat earther up there to prove it, although they won't go as they'd be too paranoid that I'd get rid of them or summit.

 

[DaveH]

It surprises me that someone who is really wants to understand the world (I truly believe he has an honest desire to understand) won't simply go out and test a few things for himself to actually find out. He could perform the experiment on the lake as was posted in the Hawking documentary, but won't because the test he done in the bath is all one needs. If I was so strongly opposed to mainstream theory and had my own ideas I'd certainly want to actually copy some mainstream tests to prove bullshit, i.e. prove that the results don't come out as we're told.

I wish I rich as I'd pay to send a flat earther up there to prove it, although they won't go as they'd be too paranoid that I'd get rid of them or summit.

Keep up, he never mentioned a bath, said it the other day.

 

[ned_werby]

Am I?

Any idea what gravity is and how it works?

Gravity is the thing that clags watter to the oblate spheroid we live on.

it's great isn't it.

The greatest resonator for the phrase "Kids, don't do drugs" I've ever seen.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What exactly are we told then?

We are told to believe the Earth spins and the atmosphere and everything in it spins in unison.
This is why they argue a hovering helicopter doesn't see the solid ground moving beneath it because it's supposedly carried along in unison with the atmosphere in friction with the Earth.

And then they use coriolis effect to argue Earth's spin.
And then Brian Cox uses a pilot and jet to stop the sun setting by catching up with the Earth's spin
.
The contradictions are literally off the scale.

Well you did but that's old hat now (actually bit like a bowler hat too)
Anyway I think all we are saying is that if you shared some evidence rather than musings or shared some of your experiments we may get a better grasp of what you're on about.
It's OK dismissing scientists experiments but you have to have something to counter them?

You can do the same experiments yourself. You do not need me to show you. I tried to explain what to do but was waved away so I accepted that as nobody wanting to go against the grain, which is fair enough.

So if water is demonstrably level show people how you measure that and then they can repeat it and you can be proved right.

You are doubting the established view so the onus is on you to present evidence to disrupt that view

I can't show anyone.
People can either do it all for themselves or go with water curving around a ball and staying on by magical gravity.
Anyone that really wants to test it out to show level can do so.
Anyone that wants to pretend the curve over distance makes it look flat can also do so.

The thing is, what can be done on a big scale can also be done on a small scale.
Water adhering to a ball on a small scale is impossible just as it is on a large scale.

But....I mean we're shown a big blue marble in space so water has to stay on....right? Because none of it is CGI....right?
None of it are composites....right?

ANyway, you get my meaning and if you don't....no worries.

You could yourself do an experiment with a laser and a large lake that would prove you wrong.

It wo n't prove me wrong.
It would prove you wrong.

But of course you won't.

You have no clue what I do or don't do but you can certainly think what you like.

Same as another poster mentioned another simple experiment using a balloon and a camera.

For what purpose?
You're seeing no curve.

Both of these are doable by someone so passionate and as knowledgeable as yourself and would bring real evidence to the table (tables are flat)

I'm sure you can do them....right?
Let me know how you get on.

 

[DPTT]

@Nukehasslefan i was thinking last night (I know both dangerous and sad as fuck) but if your sun, moon and stars are reflections from the centre of your earth why are the stars always in a fixed position and the sun and moon aren’t

 

[Nobby]

We are told to believe the Earth spins and the atmosphere and everything in it spins in unison.
This is why they argue a hovering helicopter doesn't see the solid ground moving beneath it because it's supposedly carried along in unison with the atmosphere in friction with the Earth.

And then they use coriolis effect to argue Earth's spin.
And then Brian Cox uses a pilot and jet to stop the sun setting by catching up with the Earth's spin
.
The contradictions are literally off the scale.

You can do the same experiments yourself. You do not need me to show you. I tried to explain what to do but was waved away so I accepted that as nobody wanting to go against the grain, which is fair enough.

I can't show anyone.
People can either do it all for themselves or go with water curving around a ball and staying on by magical gravity.
Anyone that really wants to test it out to show level can do so.
Anyone that wants to pretend the curve over distance makes it look flat can also do so.

The thing is, what can be done on a big scale can also be done on a small scale.
Water adhering to a ball on a small scale is impossible just as it is on a large scale.

But....I mean we're shown a big blue marble in space so water has to stay on....right? Because none of it is CGI....right?
None of it are composites....right?

ANyway, you get my meaning and if you don't....no worries.


It wo n't prove me wrong.
It would prove you wrong.


You have no clue what I do or don't do but you can certainly think what you like.


For what purpose?
You're seeing no curve.

I'm sure you can do them....right?
Let me know how you get on.

So to sum up, you don't believe the earth is a globe but can't provide any evidence to support that hypothesis.

But you criticise people who believe the earth is a globe for believing something they can't (in your opinion) prove.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in that position

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why bring religion into it? It is completely different. No first hand witnesses and not independently verified by thousands of people recently.

Recently?
Who's verified what, recently?
We get told time and time again about all kinds of historical figures that supposedly did this and that and are regularly hit with them when arguing about global Earth as if it's a fact.

We also get told about the super technology of today that can basically sort out the wheat from the chaff yet still we're sent back into historical mindsets to supposedly rubber stamp supposed facts.

No similarities. No real evidence for any Christian religious accounts. I’ve just given you a ton of evidence for science that you are waving away.

So there's no evidence for any religion or gods but billions of people believe it?
What's going on with that if you say there's no evidence?

You seem ok to believe everything else except for religion and belief's. Is this right?

You replace it with a musing, no evidence. You suggest you may have an experiment, have you one that proves light and other EM waves must travel through a medium?

You have no need to worry about what I do. You just need to prove what you hand out as factual and you haven't done anything of the sort.

The people who did that on a lake got it wrong or were liars. He would not say which or why.

We could argue the lakes and both put up videos which neither side will accept.
The reality is to do it yourself.

It surprises me that someone who is really wants to understand the world (I truly believe he has an honest desire to understand) won't simply go out and test a few things for himself to actually find out.

That depends on what you regard as a test. I've done many that most will simply laugh at or pass off as nonsense or simply overlook as the nutter doing silly things. I understand t5hat and I'm not going to go into what I do unless someone understands the simplicity of it against what we're told is complicated.

He could perform the experiment on the lake as was posted in the Hawking documentary, but won't because the test he done in the bath is all one needs.

Your reliance is on this? Really?
Is it the experiment of because you think Hawking is narrating it?
I can bring you up a lake experiment. WIll you accept it or call it lies?

If I was so strongly opposed to mainstream theory and had my own ideas I'd certainly want to actually copy some mainstream tests to prove bullshit, i.e. prove that the results don't come out as we're told.

Do you seriously think anyone is going to listen to you if you go against the grain? I don;t think you're that naive to be fair.

 

[nahwee]

You can do the same experiments yourself. You do not need me to show you. I tried to explain what to do

No you haven’t.

But hey,

No worries.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Gravity is the thing that clags watter to the oblate spheroid we live on.

How?

@Nukehasslefan i was thinking last night (I know both dangerous and sad as fuck) but if your sun, moon and stars are reflections from the centre of your earth why are the stars always in a fixed position and the sun and moon aren’t

They aren't always in a fixed position. They move just like the sun and moon do.

If you mean so called constellations as we're told. They are simply fixed points of light and move together.

So to sum up, you don't believe the earth is a globe but can't provide any evidence to support that hypothesis.

I can and have.

So to sum up your globe. You can't provide any evidence to prove it is what you say it is....right?

But you criticise people who believe the earth is a globe for believing something they can't (in your opinion) prove.

Criticise who?
I've said many many many many many times that it's easy to believe a global Earth because that's what we were schooled in. Including myself.
If you take me calling it nonsense as if it's a personal attack on you then I'm afraid that's your issue, not mine.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in that position

Yep but not from my side.

 

[What A Waster]

@Nukehasslefan have you ever found anybody who agrees with your view on the earth? Even on those flat earth forums? Are you unique, to your knowledge, in your views?
Any other people think it's a giant ice celldome and the sun and moon are reflections, tides are caused by undetectable pressure waves, carbon arcs and lemon squeezers etc

 

[Nukehasslefan]

@Nukehasslefan have you ever found anybody who agrees with your view on the earth? Even on those flat earth forums? Are you unique, to your knowledge, in your views?
Any other people think it's a giant ice celldome and the sun and moon are reflections, tides are caused by undetectable pressure waves, carbon arcs and lemon squeezers etc

I'm not sure on any of those points.

 

[payne]

Recently?
Who's verified what, recently?
We get told time and time again about all kinds of historical figures that supposedly did this and that and are regularly hit with them when arguing about global Earth as if it's a fact.

We also get told about the super technology of today that can basically sort out the wheat from the chaff yet still we're sent back into historical mindsets to supposedly rubber stamp supposed facts.



So there's no evidence for any religion or gods but billions of people believe it?
What's going on with that if you say there's no evidence?

You seem ok to believe everything else except for religion and belief's. Is this right?


You have no need to worry about what I do. You just need to prove what you hand out as factual and you haven't done anything of the sort.

We could argue the lakes and both put up videos which neither side will accept.
The reality is to do it yourself.


That depends on what you regard as a test. I've done many that most will simply laugh at or pass off as nonsense or simply overlook as the nutter doing silly things. I understand t5hat and I'm not going to go into what I do unless someone understands the simplicity of it against what we're told is complicated.


Your reliance is on this? Really?
Is it the experiment of because you think Hawking is narrating it?
I can bring you up a lake experiment. WIll you accept it or call it lies?


Do you seriously think anyone is going to listen to you if you go against the grain? I don;t think you're that naive to be fair.

I'd listen to anyone who went against the grain if they could prove what they said. If someone came out tomorrow with a completely new view of the cosmos which was scrutinised and verified I'd jump ship no bother.

If this new world view was investigated, pulled apart an found to be water tight then no problem. Human understanding would have been improved upon and I'm all for that.

Now I know your retort will be along the lines of, who scrutinises, can they be trusted etc.....I can't answer that for you as I actually believe there are people out there with a knowledge of the world far greater than you and I and and that there isn't some mass conspiracy going on.