• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Flat earther kryptonite. Will be ignored.

You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see media items
 

Nukehasslefan said:
Just trying it in extreme low pressure is enough.

No medium in which to push against. No resistance to energy applied.
Click to expand...
What? You have burned rocket fuel in extreme low pressures? Can you say where you got hold of the rocket fuel, where you got it from? How did you create the extreme low pressures?

Do you still have the equipment to do a short video? That would be amazing to see and repeat.
 
DaveH said:
What? You have burned rocket fuel in extreme low pressures? Can you say where you got hold of the rocket fuel, where you got it from? How did you create the extreme low pressures?

Do you still have the equipment to do a short video? That would be amazing to see and repeat.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'd love to see that too, even more than his sketch.
@Nukehasslefan if its a time management thing, please show us you burning rocket fuel before you do the sketch.

I did post a video ages ago proving that you do get propulsion in a vaccum even from a can of pop but he didn't reply to that.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Where are the audience to see this?
And what radio signals are emitted?

In your mind they do.

That depends on what's being launched.


Basically, yes.

No, that seems plausible.

The so called moon landings were plastered all over the press.
The so called 1970's probes were plastered all over the press and still are.
Star trek was once plastered all over the press.
Star trek conventions are a thing.
Star wars, the same.
Superman was from the planet krypton we are told.

Do I need to go on?

In your mind it works fine because that's what you believe. And fair enough.


That depends on the data and how a person is using it and what they believe it pertains to rather than what they know..


It doesn't need to take a lot on the grand scheme of it, overall.
Compartmentalisation is all that's required. Peter doesn't know what Paul's doing or Julie doesn't know what Janet's doing.


Why bother lying about anything? But people lie. People act and people will sell their own granny for fame and/or fortune.
People like to feel important and people love control.
All kinds it takes.

Or pretend it's up there and throw out data from a mountain top scope, or similar? Or even from an aircraft.

The piltdown man as told to us. Or the petrified wood moon rock...and so on and so on.
Anyone can make up anything if they don't have to prove anything.
The issue is, are people making up stuff because they believe in something or something has potential even though it's hard to prove or can't be physically proved or simply telling porkies?


Your perception is on hundreds of thousands of people supposedly being in on something. I've explained why this does not have to be the case.

Nothing works in that respect as far as people like you are concerned. You believe the set narratives so why would you go against them?
You wouldn't for a few reasons. Most of which you would likely deny, I would think.
Click to expand...
That is a lot of waffle and deflection and again one of your favourite words "compartmentalisation". Another hand wave term, say that and the problem goes away. That was in response to my question about how the masses of data is shared massively world wide, the opposite of compartmentalisation.

On the technical side you struggle to explain why anything works.

On the conspiracy side you struggle to explain how on earth you could do anything that big. But most of all you keep avoiding the questions why and why make the lie more and more complicated year on year? Neither make any logical sense.

My perception of hundreds of thousands involved is because that is the numbers working in space research with access to the data. The whole field of space and astronomy is about the sharing of massive data sets. Why do I have that perception? From the reports and papers coming out of the many many organisation with access to these sorts of data. Are these people real? Possibly not, but then why fake all these people. However one person involved in a lot of this data, the sharing, presenting and supporting research based on it is me. I'm pretty sure I'm real and not telling lies to myself. I know from working in the field of research and data sharing, communicating and partnering up with other institutes keeping the massive data sharing going. Attending conferences with other people doing the same from their sites working together asking "How can we do this better".

There is no compartmentalisation.

Oh and fake space signals being sent from aircraft (that never land) or mountain tops :D :D :D. Literally no idea have you?
 
You’re saying that a layer of air actually gets to decide which way is up and down, and that the result of these decisions, made by air, is what we know as gravity.


“They're stacked according to dense mass of molecules.
The more molecules that are stacked the more compressed the below molecules become and the less compressed the above molecules become.”

Oh, so now they don’t decide, ok. What magical force makes the molecules above press down on those below in order to compress them? What is stopping them pushing upwards instead?
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
“Are you answering this to number 2 quote?”

“Are you answering this to number 3 quote?”

Given that you gave three numbered points to which I gave three numbered responses you really don’t need to ask this, unless it’s just deflection.

As for your first point, yes, I do know what a planetarium is and how it works, but it shows the sky as seen from a global Earth. I asked you to show one that can accurately display what we can all see, but from the viewpoint of your cell. You can’t, because it isn’t possible. Someone in Australia has a full 180 degree panorama of sky to look at, as does someone in UK. But with entirely different stars/constellations.



1.The seating plan of the planetarium would have to be set out to represent the land masses of your cell-based Earth. The people from more northern places would have to sit near the centre while those from the so-called southern hemisphere would have to sit further out. How come they’d still see the same projected display as those from the north?

2.How would it accurately project the divide between day and night?

3.How many projectors are needed to display everything we can observe from Earth?

4.5 and 6. Who made the projectors? Who installed them? What was there before them?

7.If they’re natural and 4,5 and 6 don’t apply, how do they update themselves and adapt every time we supposedly launch another so-called satellite?

8.If the dome is constantly melting and re-freezing and reacting to waves of varying pressure, how come we see no deformation of the projection?

9.If it’s a diffuse reflector, how does it reflect sharp images?

10. If we are not to use knowledge passed on to us by others, or by schooling or learning then the same must surely apply to you. How then is so much of what you claim is lifted straight from the flat earthers bible?
Click to expand...
To everyone in the planetarium, Polaris would be high overhead. If everyone turned their backs away from the middle they would see something different on the dome.

In reality (as your said earlier) people further away from the centre see Polaris lower and lower in the sky (a fact he agreed to a few weeks back but seems to have back tracked on now) as you go south. This amount is exactly consistent with moving south on a globe earth.

Those who get far enough south that they can't see Polaris any more (i.e. in the southern hemisphere or the outer edges of the planetarium) stand with their backs to the centre/north and in the planetarium all see something different. In the real world they all see the southern cross.

There is very little comparison between what is observed across the globe as to what is observed in a planetarium. A planetarium gives the view an individual might see sat in one place and everyone in the same place. It does not and can not represent the different views seen by people in the real world. The major reason for that is we live on a f***ing globe but some people are too stupid/paranoid/attention seeking to see it.
 
DaveH said:
What? You have burned rocket fuel in extreme low pressures? Can you say where you got hold of the rocket fuel, where you got it from? How did you create the extreme low pressures?

Do you still have the equipment to do a short video? That would be amazing to see and repeat.
Click to expand...
Absolute wackjob
 
DaveH said:
That is a lot of waffle and deflection and again one of your favourite words "compartmentalisation". Another hand wave term, say that and the problem goes away. That was in response to my question about how the masses of data is shared massively world wide, the opposite of compartmentalisation.

On the technical side you struggle to explain why anything works.

On the conspiracy side you struggle to explain how on earth you could do anything that big. But most of all you keep avoiding the questions why and why make the lie more and more complicated year on year? Neither make any logical sense.

My perception of hundreds of thousands involved is because that is the numbers working in space research with access to the data. The whole field of space and astronomy is about the sharing of massive data sets. Why do I have that perception? From the reports and papers coming out of the many many organisation with access to these sorts of data. Are these people real? Possibly not, but then why fake all these people. However one person involved in a lot of this data, the sharing, presenting and supporting research based on it is me. I'm pretty sure I'm real and not telling lies to myself. I know from working in the field of research and data sharing, communicating and partnering up with other institutes keeping the massive data sharing going. Attending conferences with other people doing the same from their sites working together asking "How can we do this better".

There is no compartmentalisation.

Oh and fake space signals being sent from aircraft (that never land) or mountain tops :D :D :D. Literally no idea have you?
Click to expand...

Imagine how much work would be involved in creating the fake people to create the fake data. You're doubling the people involved. You've gotta have people to teach the teachers to school people who eventually end up in on the lie and then their handlers
 
Nukehasslefan said:
"Either every one of billions of stars is centred on and revolving around the one star that just happens to sits at or near our celestial pole, all inexplicably moving at different speeds, yet co-ordinated so as to keep the same pattern for any observer on the Earth.

OR

We are on a rotating globe."

A rotating globe in a space vacuum with atmosphere just adhering to it all around with no container for it and no medium around it.
It literally makes no sense.
It's a fantasy story told with models and pictures to supposedly rubberstamp a reality.
Click to expand...

It was an either/or thing.

Either a. ridiculous, impossible and demonstrably incorrect

or

b. Simple, observable and correct.

You rubbished the second option as it makes no sense to you, but ignored the first, why? Do you think the first one is correct? Or do you just want it to go away?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
What was your question?

Height.
You're looking at a ship from an almost horizontal standpoint and through the same dense mass which takes away the reflected light back to your eyes.
You are looking at a point of light from an angled standpoint into a less dense sky enabling you to see more reflected light due to ever lessening atmospheric dense mass.
Click to expand...

Yet again I am dragged back in - I should really learn. Light is instantaneous it has no speed hence it doesn't travel anywhere so why is it affected by air density?
 
What A Waster said:
Imagine how much work would be involved in creating the fake people to create the fake data. You're doubling the people involved. You've gotta have people to teach the teachers to school people who eventually end up in on the lie and then their handlers
Click to expand...
That is where it all breaks down and it comes down to the lack of understanding about what is behind the science.

Conspiracy theorists make out like science is done by an elite few, in a cold war style compound with compartmentalisation. Reality is very different. Look at an example I picked a couple of weeks ago. Interesting research done in conjunction with a UK university, ESA and NASA. You can try to wave that away, but I picked a named individual and when you start looking at things on a person by person basis, it fails to work. You can look at an organisation as a badge but when you get down to people you have to ask if they are real or fake. If they are real then what about their lives, how did they get in so deep and at what point?

Or they are being conned, but again like you say you need a team of fakers. These space probes are more than just a fancy camera. They contain a suite of instruments designed to work in unison. Almost every probe is unique in design and operation. If someone has been part of the team that designed, built and prototyped a space probe and sent it on it’s way, then they have invested years in it. They are the world experts. They are not just getting a pretty picture back. If the exact nature of the data does not match the design spec, simulations or prototypes it sets alarm bells ringing. You would need a team of dedicated experts pulling everything apart to make a realistic hoax for the experts who designed the instruments in the first place.

That leaves you on a mission to not only recruit the brightest minds to hoax, but to recruit brighter to maintain the hoax. It all gets terribly complicated when you could just not. Leave things be. Some conspiracy loons say the radiation belts are too great for space probes or manned missions to leave the planet. You could seize this ready made excuse, say not possible, walk away and have an easy job maintaining the lie. But no, they make it really difficult for themselves.

It is worrying that someone is so much of a paranoid delusional to think not only that these things are possible but that people really are out to get him,
 
DaveH said:
That is where it all breaks down and it comes down to the lack of understanding about what is behind the science.

Conspiracy theorists make out like science is done by an elite few, in a cold war style compound with compartmentalisation. Reality is very different. Look at an example I picked a couple of weeks ago. Interesting research done in conjunction with a UK university, ESA and NASA. You can try to wave that away, but I picked a named individual and when you start looking at things on a person by person basis, it fails to work. You can look at an organisation as a badge but when you get down to people you have to ask if they are real or fake. If they are real then what about their lives, how did they get in so deep and at what point?

Or they are being conned, but again like you say you need a team of fakers. These space probes are more than just a fancy camera. They contain a suite of instruments designed to work in unison. Almost every probe is unique in design and operation. If someone has been part of the team that designed, built and prototyped a space probe and sent it on it’s way, then they have invested years in it. They are the world experts. They are not just getting a pretty picture back. If the exact nature of the data does not match the design spec, simulations or prototypes it sets alarm bells ringing. You would need a team of dedicated experts pulling everything apart to make a realistic hoax for the experts who designed the instruments in the first place.

That leaves you on a mission to not only recruit the brightest minds to hoax, but to recruit brighter to maintain the hoax. It all gets terribly complicated when you could just not. Leave things be. Some conspiracy loons say the radiation belts are too great for space probes or manned missions to leave the planet. You could seize this ready made excuse, say not possible, walk away and have an easy job maintaining the lie. But no, they make it really difficult for themselves.

It is worrying that someone is so much of a paranoid delusional to think not only that these things are possible but that people really are out to get him,
Click to expand...

Well there is that. But obviously you've fell for the stories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top