Put a flat earthier into space

[legend7]

“The trouble with this global nonsense is, it's all down to fictional figures when any logical person who wants to question it all only has to do the simplest stuff to see that it is nothing like a spinning globe we supposedly live on.”

Fictional figures? Such as? And I love the implication that it's you who is being logical, priceless.


“I don't know the absolute truth of what Earth is and to say I do would be an outright lie.
But then again I don't offer it out as factual. What I do know is, Earth is absolutely not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.”

So, you don’t offer it as factual, except for in the very next sentence.


“See what? You see points of moving lights. You do not ever think it's you moving and the lights are stationary but you accept the story that Earth is moving anyway.
Of course you can see points of light with your own eyes but you do not know what they are. You're told what they are.”

Ok, so you're going to ignore the bit where I said you can see actual planets and pretend they’re just points of light. You would not know what a telescope was unless someone told you, nor a window or the garden, or the sky. So what? I’ve been told they’re planets and when I look, there they are, being all planety and behaving like planets. Planets confirmed until a better explanation comes along.


If you walk the length of a train is the train stationary beneath you?


“No, unless you mean the floor inside of the train.”
I think you're arguing from a point of you being on a spinning Earth with a perfect spinning atmosphere in unison with that solid Earth and this is your inner train, right?
Not the same argument, is it?
Outside of the train is atmosphere.
Outside of your global Earth train is a supposed vacuum.”

Outside of the Earth is the atmosphere. Outside of the atmosphere is vacuum. Not a Hoover, just a big and mostly empty space. What is so hard to grasp about a lump of something being there in the midst of not a lot else?


If you travel from East to West in the Northern hemisphere Polaris will always be there to your right. If you head South, Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky. Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.

“Just as it would if you did it on a circle.”
Just as it would if you went south on a circle, because you're going away from it and changing angle over distance.”


On a globe, yes. If it were flat then you could travel south all the way from north pole to whatever imaginary boundary you think there is and Polaris would still be to the North at the same height


“On a circle your compass would point south if you were walking away from the centre. No need for a spheroid.”

You know what a compass is and what it’s famous for? It has one job and pointing South isn’t it no matter what geometric shape you choose.



“Because atmosphere is layered. It's stacked layers of matter.”

It doesn’t matter, there is no up or down without gravity. Your stacked layers don’t get to decide. Without gravity these so called layers of supposedly differing densities have no concept of up or down, there is nothing to stop the higher densities being above, beside or below another density because without gravity they are meaningless.

4000, I'm done. I know I've asked questions but we all know they wont be answered in any meaningful way.

He can't even draw a sketch that a 12 year old could do

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

He can't even draw a sketch that a 12 year old could do

I just explained gravity to the dog, she gets it.
I dont even have a dog.

 

[legend7]

I just explained gravity to the dog, she gets it.
I dont even have a dog.

Are dogs even real.
Can you prove it, could be a boy in a suit or cgi

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Are dogs even real.
Can you prove it, could be a boy in a suit or cgi

Her super carbon arc is worse than her bite

 

[legend7]

Her super carbon arc is worse than her bite

Woof woof let's look up at the roof

 

[ned_werby]

What do you know about this space program?


I'll take it as it being unacceptable to me.
Do you think officials tell lies?

Or tell the truth but that truth is only provable to whoever knows it.

Many different fields of what?


My colaims would be worth nothing to those who are unconditional to the narratives set out for them, no matter what I said. I'm under no illusions about that and nor do I care.
But you aren't the entire makeup of people following set narratives. Some do think outside the box and some do get interested in simply thinking alternate to set narratives if they feel there's a potential for them to be wrong or misdirected...etc.

So why do you bother trying to argue with me?

Not too sure.

How come? You're sure of the earth's 'indentations ' which ensure water remains 'level' (it doesn't), you're sure the earth isn't a globe (it is), yet you don't know where our source of light and heat emanates from?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So what roughly is the distance as a drop from the area at the top of the lemon squeezer (alaska) to the bottom (argentina)
And therefore the difference appx in water depth based on my section which you said was what you meant by landmasses rising up through the water

Erm a big map of a globe or a small map still looks like a globe, as that's its shape, it's called scaling.
So your lemon squeezer should still look like a lemon squeezer

It will on scale but in actual full size it would not appear to be anything like it. Surely you can understand that.

Took me about 30 seconds to do my section sketch which you said you agreed with. Can't be that difficult for you to fine tune it to account for the deepest ocean being under 10 miles deep.

You know your argument so just be patient and I'll get around to it whether it takes 30 seconds or whatever.

He doesn't think it's flat cos it's got mountains and valleys IE it's crumpled not flat on the surface

Don't think he gets the idea that it's still a flat plain rather than a globe or a cube

If you think an orange squeezer like set up is a flat plain then you go with that. I'm ok with it.

That's my understanding of his denial about it too.

"Hills, mountains, valleys... see, it's not flat!"

It isn't but water certainly is.

It's that small scale thinking again. My street has got a hill on where the buses go down it so that is how it looks for a boat disappearing over the horizon. As if the horizon is a fixed point that you can go to rather than it relate to where an observer is standing

This is what is used to argue your globe when it suits before going right back to the old, " you can't detect any curvature due to the size", then go right back ro arguing ships drop down it or you can see it from a plane...etc....etc.

He thinks it's a lemon squeezer not flat and crumpled.
I showed him a flat map and he said nope more like "this" now he's in knots with either underwater countries or very deep seas.
I'm sure his sketch will clear everything up though the bloody genius that he is.

I'm far from in knots.
You thinking water has to be hundreds or thousands of miles deep is not me being in knots.

 

[fyl2u]

If you think an orange squeezer like set up is a flat plain then you go with that. I'm ok with it.

It isn't but water certainly is.

An orange squeezer setup fits into the same category as a flat-earth because they're both essentially a flat circle with the north pole in the middle and the south pole all around the outer edge. Whether it curves up in the middle and the edges, or the edge just has a mountain range instead, is immaterial to the fact that they're both barmy ideas that are easily discredited and where the Earth is essentially just a flat-plane circle. Hence "flat Earth".

You are a flat-earther. Deal with it.

You even post your zany ideas in the Flat Earth website forum, so I don't know why you're trying to make out you're not a flat-Earther.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If something disappears over it, it's not "theoretical." You ask for observable things on a scale that even you can comprehend.

There is no horizon line, it's a blend of atmospheric conditions that give you a theoretical line perception.
Maybe some on here will help you on that one.

Then when presented with such things - a horizon - you call it "theoretical." Something is not "theoretical" if it undeniably, demonstrably, tangibly exists.

It doesn't.

That method of argument is fun to laugh at, but it's not worth much more than that.

Make it worth whatever you feel it's worth. I'm not you so it has no bearing on me.

No. Just an approximate drawing to get an idea of what you're on about


There's no land from the Bering Sea down to Antarctica. That's a distance of about 10,000 miles. How is the water not draining away in the Pacific

Why would it drain away?
It's all part of the same water level. Only the land beneath differs.
With all your effort you're putting in to wondering where this and that is and why this and that doesn't work for you, just have a think about what's being said.

If you want to help yourself then fill the trough and raise the land masses and then understand that a lot of that trough is not just exactly the same big delve all around it.

You looking at that map and just going with what you actually see is all well and good but it's not just a smooth concavity all around.

“The trouble with this global nonsense is, it's all down to fictional figures when any logical person who wants to question it all only has to do the simplest stuff to see that it is nothing like a spinning globe we supposedly live on.”

Fictional figures? Such as? And I love the implication that it's you who is being logical, priceless.

Calculations rigged up to supposedly suit a told reality that is anything but.

“I don't know the absolute truth of what Earth is and to say I do would be an outright lie.
But then again I don't offer it out as factual. What I do know is, Earth is absolutely not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.”

So, you don’t offer it as factual, except for in the very next sentence.

Yep, that's what Earth is not. A difference.

“See what? You see points of moving lights. You do not ever think it's you moving and the lights are stationary but you accept the story that Earth is moving anyway.
Of course you can see points of light with your own eyes but you do not know what they are. You're told what they are.”

Ok, so you're going to ignore the bit where I said you can see actual planets and pretend they’re just points of light.

Your planets are what's going on from the centre projected into the sky, not in a space vacuum millions of miles away. IMO.

You would not know what a telescope was unless someone told you, nor a window or the garden, or the sky.

Well that's it all settled for you, so why are you wasting your time on me?

So what? I’ve been told they’re planets and when I look, there they are, being all planety and behaving like planets. Planets confirmed until a better explanation comes along.

Whatever you believe is in the space you believe in is entirely up to you, obviously. I'm ok with whatever a person believes in, I'm just telling you I don;t share that mindset.

If you walk the length of a train is the train stationary beneath you?


“No, unless you mean the floor inside of the train.”
I think you're arguing from a point of you being on a spinning Earth with a perfect spinning atmosphere in unison with that solid Earth and this is your inner train, right?
Not the same argument, is it?
Outside of the train is atmosphere.
Outside of your global Earth train is a supposed vacuum.”

Outside of the Earth is the atmosphere. Outside of the atmosphere is vacuum. Not a Hoover, just a big and mostly empty space. What is so hard to grasp about a lump of something being there in the midst of not a lot else?

You're arguing a moving train with us inside is the same as your Earth.
It's absolutely not the same.
Your Earth is supposedly a spinning ball with an atmosphere that just happens to supposedly spin in unison with the solid ball and water an d outside of that is a supposed space vacuum.

On a train you have the train as your globe with the air inside as air moving with your globe against an external atmosphere.
There's a massive difference between your analogies.
The global so called vacuum against atmosphere with the train is an absolute mismatch.

Not only does your supposed atmosphere move with your so called solid ball but wind moves in all directions, too. Weird as all hell...eh?
Planes and helicopters are simply dragged along with the atmosphere and the solid so called spin and people don;t bother to question this utter utter utter nonsense.

If you travel from East to West in the Northern hemisphere Polaris will always be there to your right. If you head South, Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky. Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.

“Just as it would if you did it on a circle.”
Just as it would if you went south on a circle, because you're going away from it and changing angle over distance.”


On a globe, yes. If it were flat then you could travel south all the way from north pole to whatever imaginary boundary you think there is and Polaris would still be to the North at the same height

No it wouldn't. You angle changes as you move away from the point of light. Eventually your sight will lose hat point of light.

“On a circle your compass would point south if you were walking away from the centre. No need for a spheroid.”

You know what a compass is and what it’s famous for? It has one job and pointing South isn’t it no matter what geometric shape you choose.

Your compass point will will show N if you're facing what is believed to be north. If you walk away from north your compass point is not going to point to north.

“Because atmosphere is layered. It's stacked layers of matter.”

It doesn’t matter, there is no up or down without gravity.

Yes there is. It's all about density and what we know to be up or down due to exactly that.
Atmospheric stacking and layers are each different densities. We are at the bottom of that in terms of on solid ground and are crushed down to the ground but resisting that crush because our bodies simply displace the stacked layers which are then imparted back onto us.
Displacement is the key word.
That's how we stay down and that's why we distinguish down from up. More dense down and less dense up.

No gravity fiction required.

Your stacked layers don’t get to decide.

They actually do.

Without gravity these so called layers of supposedly differing densities have no concept of up or down, there is nothing to stop the higher densities being above, beside or below another density because without gravity they are meaningless.

They don't need a concept of up and down, they're stacked in layers, they're not all the same dense make-up.

4000, I'm done. I know I've asked questions but we all know they wont be answered in any meaningful way.

Of course they won't be answered in any meaningful way...to you. The only answers you want are the answers you already dine out on.
Well you're not getting them from me. You'll get my answers and accept that they are my answers and move on or deck out like you appear to be doing.
No problem from me, you're your own person.

He can't even draw a sketch that a 12 year old could do

I haven't done one yet but a 12 year old may be able to leave me for dead in the sketch department. I never said I was good at sketching.

How come? You're sure of the earth's 'indentations ' which ensure water remains 'level' (it doesn't), you're sure the earth isn't a globe (it is), yet you don't know where our source of light and heat emanates from?

The centre of Earth.
I haven't been down into it to know exactly how far down and nor would I expect to.

 

[legend7]

It will on scale but in actual full size it would not appear to be anything like it. Surely you can understand that.

You know your argument so just be patient and I'll get around to it whether it takes 30 seconds or whatever.

.

Nope that's what scale is, you can draw or make something in various sizes but representing the same thing in shape and proportions, I deal with scale drawings every day, do you think when people build houses they give them full size drawings to work off, no wonder there are no trees if we use that much paper.

You must be logged on to see external links

Also you did agree my drawing with the land masses rising further to break the deeper water near south America was correct.
They have to be really deep to form any sort of gradient over that distance.
If not then the land mass is flat.

It's very telling the fact you can't produce a sketch to show what you mean with you being the world's leading/ only expert on it. I'm honestly dying to see it so I can understand it rather than keep being told "YOU DONT UNDERSTAND!"

 

[Nukehasslefan]

An orange squeezer setup fits into the same category as a flat-earth because they're both essentially a flat circle with the north pole in the middle and the south pole all around the outer edge. Whether it curves up in the middle and the edges, or the edge just has a mountain range instead, is immaterial to the fact that they're both barmy ideas that are easily discredited and where the Earth is essentially just a flat-plane circle. Hence "flat Earth". You are a flat-earther. Deal with it.

Go with that if it suits you better. I'm ok with it.
I get called a flat Earth retard and all the rest of the stuff so just go with whatever you think suits.

Nope that's what scale is, you can draw or make something in various sizes but representing the same thing in shape and proportions, I deal with scale drawings every day, do you think when people build houses they give them full size drawings to work off, no wonder there are no trees if we use that much paper.

You must be logged on to see external links

Course you can but it won't spread out the picture unless you make everything so tiny you can make nothing out just so you can make gradients look slight.

Pointless.

Also you did agree my drawing with the land masses rising further to break the deeper water near south America was correct.

No, I agreed that your landmasses were raised higher than the water. You offered no more than this.

They have to be really deep to form any sort of gradient over that distance.

And deep they will be but not the hundreds or thousands of miles deep you seem to be going with.

If not then the land mass is flat.

If you want to call a slight gradient, flat then go with it.

It's very telling the fact you can't produce a sketch to show what you mean with you being the world's leading/ only expert on it. I'm honestly dying to see it so I can understand it rather than keep being told "YOU DONT UNDERSTAND!"

I can produce a sketch but as of yet I have not.That's it.
Feel free to keep me updated on not providing one.
I'll get one done by tea time or before, depending.

 

[legend7]

Go with that if it suits you better. I'm ok with it.
I get called a flat Earth retard and all the rest of the stuff so just go with whatever you think suits.




Course you can but it won't spread out the picture unless you make everything so tiny you can make nothing out just so you can make gradients look slight.

Pointless.

So why make such a point of saying the flat map I posted was wrong and post an orange squeezer one if at that scale it's pointless
Also on the seas a 6 mile drop over 9000 miles would not look like an orange squeezer one little bit it would be indiscernible to the naked eye and even a spirit level, it's a one in 1500 gradient, on a 1m spirit level it's less than 1mm difference. Same as on a scale section drawing 300mm long it would only be 0.2mm difference from Alaska to Argentina.
Look forward to your interpretation by tea time though

 

[nahwee]

I can produce a sketch but as of yet I have not.

Be careful you don’t “paint yourself into a corner”.

Again.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So why make such a point of saying the flat map I posted was wrong and post an orange squeezer one if at that scale it's pointless
Also on the seas a 6 mile drop over 9000 miles would not look like an orange squeezer one little bit it would be indiscernible to the naked eye and even a spirit level, it's a one in 1500 gradient, on a 1m spirit level it's less than 1mm difference. Same as on a scale section drawing 300mm long it would only be 0.2mm difference from Alaska to Argentina.
Look forward to your interpretation by tea time though

I can't really help you to be honest. Your mindset is what it is.
I was asked what my Earth was. I tried to describe it by mentioning a done and a concavity to it bur with a gradual gradient towards the centre.
People didn't understand so I told them to imagine an orange squeezer and then I showed them a map that better describes what I'm saying.

You've decided your own thing about water depth and such even though I'm telling you about the land and raised and lowered land mass both in and out of the water at the moat or the gradual gradients.

You then try to make out the Earth would not look like an orange squeezer if you were to view it fill size.
Of course it wouldn't....why would it?
Only scaling down will accentuate that view.

By all means carry on but you're going to get the same answers.

 

[Nobby]

Looks like he doesn't understand scale either

 

[DaveH]

Looks like he doesn't understand scale either

Scale requires maths and maths has been described as fictional or magical. Never a reason or a breakdown of what is wrong.

It is all part of the handwavey bollocks for dismissing anything.

We have a set of fairly simple equations for predicting the movement of planets and where they should aplear in the sky, all based on circular geometry. I think we covered that in GCSE physics. Backed up by secondary school maths, it is all based around equations of circles. If that was all wrong you could go into a detailed breakdown of why it doesn work or an alternate idea why circular geometry just happens to work.

But to do all that would require effort and understanding. Far easier to say nah bollocks, you have just been schooled into thinking that and job done. It is a great tactic, you can apply it to anything. Elephants give birth to live young, it has been established for centuries, recorded by many different texts,reported by many different people and recorded on film. Some would say irrefutable evidence, but watch. Nah bollocks, lies conspiracy, people have been schooled into thinking that so vets just think they see elephants give birth. Films, CGI, you have seen Avatar right, what is the difference? Baby elephants come from the amino acid flux vortex.

See how easy that was? A few thousand years of human learning and evidence wiped away in 3 lines and replaced with something technical sounding but utterly meaningless.

Want to pick something else and I bet I can dismiss it as fake and conspiracy? Or do you want a go? The French language is real and is actually spoken in France.

 

[legend7]

You've decided your own thing about water depth and such even though I'm telling you about the land and raised and lowered land mass both in and out of the water at the moat or the gradual gradients.

You then try to make out the Earth would not look like an orange squeezer if you were to view it fill size.
Of course it wouldn't....why would it?
Only scaling down will accentuate that view.

No I didn't I said even drawn to scale if the deepest water is only 6 miles it would look nothing like a lemon squeezer it would appear flat.
And I drew exactly what you're saying in the tip bit and you said my drawing represented that.
Anyway your drawing will no doubt open all of our eyes, as a picture can literally paint a thousand words, looking forward to it.

 

[What A Waster]

Scale requires maths and maths has been described as fictional or magical. Never a reason or a breakdown of what is wrong.

It is all part of the handwavey bollocks for dismissing anything.

We have a set of fairly simple equations for predicting the movement of planets and where they should aplear in the sky, all based on circular geometry. I think we covered that in GCSE physics. Backed up by secondary school maths, it is all based around equations of circles. If that was all wrong you could go into a detailed breakdown of why it doesn work or an alternate idea why circular geometry just happens to work.

But to do all that would require effort and understanding. Far easier to say nah bollocks, you have just been schooled into thinking that and job done. It is a great tactic, you can apply it to anything. Elephants give birth to live young, it has been established for centuries, recorded by many different texts,reported by many different people and recorded on film. Some would say irrefutable evidence, but watch. Nah bollocks, lies conspiracy, people have been schooled into thinking that so vets just think they see elephants give birth. Films, CGI, you have seen Avatar right, what is the difference? Baby elephants come from the amino acid flux vortex.

See how easy that was? A few thousand years of human learning and evidence wiped away in 3 lines and replaced with something technical sounding but utterly meaningless.

Want to pick something else and I bet I can dismiss it as fake and conspiracy? Or do you want a go? The French language is real and is actually spoken in France.

France the country is only a story based on the arbitrary viscosity of a bio-sysnthetic landmass. So even though you think you hear the so called French language being spoken there it's an illusion caused by part of the brain known as the Lateral Meridian. A change in atmospheric conditions (feeling like you're further south, warmer temperature) means that aural distortion occurs and when the sounds travel into your ears they are not sounding like the familar aural friction we hear and understand. If you truly wanted to understand so called French you need to take a medicinal compound known as Dimesmeric Andersonphosphate which can change your brain chemistry to be able slow down the aural spaghettification that occurs as the sound waves enter your ear.

 

[DaveH]

France the country is only a story based on the arbitrary viscosity of a bio-sysnthetic landmass. So even though you think you hear the so called French language being spoken there it's an illusion caused by part of the brain known as the Lateral Meridian. A change in atmospheric conditions (feeling like you're further south, warmer temperature) means that aural distortion occurs and when the sounds travel into your ears they are not sounding like the familar aural friction we hear and understand. If you truly wanted to understand so called French you need to take a medicinal compound known as Dimesmeric Andersonphosphate which can change your brain chemistry to be able slow down the aural spaghettification that occurs as the sound waves enter your ear.

You are a natural!

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Scale requires maths and maths has been described as fictional or magical. Never a reason or a breakdown of what is wrong.

Maths has not been described as fictional.
How maths is used in a scientific pretence is what is fictional.

It is all part of the handwavey bollocks for dismissing anything.

Not dismissing anything. Questioning or not believing some things based on not enough or no real evidence or proof's. If that's hand waving it away then so be it but remember you're only throwing this stuff out based on no direct proof of any of it. I could catch that and hold onto it as a truth believed by you or I can wave it away until I'm in acceptance of a reality or even a potential reality that scuppers all other ideas.

We have a set of fairly simple equations for predicting the movement of planets and where they should aplear in the sky, all based on circular geometry.

What does predicting movement actually do?
Give me an example of what it proves?

It is a great tactic, you can apply it to anything. Elephants give birth to live young, it has been established for centuries, recorded by many different texts,reported by many different people and recorded on film. Some would say irrefutable evidence, but watch. Nah bollocks, lies conspiracy, people have been schooled into thinking that so vets just think they see elephants give birth. Films, CGI, you have seen Avatar right, what is the difference? Baby elephants come from the amino acid flux vortex.

But I believe and accept this, so your reasoning is way out.
Basically you're using anything and everything to argue some kind of point about unprovable

See how easy that was? A few thousand years of human learning and evidence wiped away in 3 lines and replaced with something technical sounding but utterly meaningless.

Want to pick something else and I bet I can dismiss it as fake and conspiracy? Or do you want a go? The French language is real and is actually spoken in France.