Put a flat earthier into space

[zwartekat]

The oxidisers allow the fuel to burn against atmosphere. It expands into the atmosphere.
Your space vacuum offers no atmosphere and nothing to expand into. It's a dead stick.

What do you mean by 'burn against atmosphere'? The oxidizers just allow the fuel to burn, nothing to do with atmosphere (as I understand it).

The gases are just exhaust and there is no reason they can't be expelled into space.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I think these two lines together sums on the thread and conspiracy theorists in general.

First one: I have my own belief based on nothing, no proof so I'm not going to give any or engage on any details of my idea of the world.

If I have no proof I cannot give any, can I?
The thing is you're offering me supposed proof when you know fine well you can't give me any.
What you can give me is what you've been taught. It's all on the silver platter. Off the peg, so to speak.

Second one: I demand rigorous proof of every aspect of the accepted norm and there is none which I think is valid because I dismiss all proof as faked or just wrong, because it goes against my ideas for point one.

You give me valid proof and I'll accept it with no issues. But don't just expect me to accept something which you decide is a proof based on perusing books or the internet.
If you have proof then offer it.

For the rest of us on this thread the reason we have all failed is because we have discussed things on a logical and scientific level.

The reason why you've failed is because you've tried to coax me into your belief system and are using all kinds of stuff you believe to be true but cannot prove.
It really is that simple.

But this is not a logical or scientific thing.

Correct, it's not. Not a spinning globe in a space vacuum...etc. It's at best pseudo-science or basically misinformation or disinformation as far as I'm concerned and you and others merely accept that, which is fine,. I have no issue with that and I certainly do not believe any of you to be liars.
I'd go with mistaken.

Essentially it is an emotional almost religious feeling and you can't fight that.

I agree, it's almost like a religion with what we've been taught about a global spinning Earth and what not.

Parallels between conspiracy theorists and brexit followers was drawn earlier.

You can draw anything or anyone can. If one person questions one thing then some people believe everything is in question from that person, very quickly. That person soon becomes everything other can use in conspiracy theory terms, from the mild to the absolute bottom of the barrel.
I liken it to a posse or a witch hunt or mass torches at midnight....etc.

A lot of people for Brexit openly admitted that was an emotional thing. Fear we didn't have control, fear of foreign people taking our jobs, homes and lives, fear that we had lost control and the feeling that being independent would give that back. The actual facts didn't back that up, so were waved away.

What facts?

Responses to this and a lot of other conspiracy theories seem to follow a similar vein. Lack of control, that feeling of just being another cog in the machine, the lack of significance.

If anything official is questioned the questioner becomes a conspiracy theorist.
Those who label other like this are absolute utter hypocrites because everybody questions authority of official lines in some way shape or form.
As the saying goes, trust is extremely hard to get but extremely easy to lose. If someone lies they will likely lie again and again.
If people don't think we get lied to by the powers that be then more power to them.
However, I think they would be in the absolute minority as my guess.

But invent a special new world of their own where you know the truth and all of a sudden they have control and they have significance.

Inventing a new world as a truth has not been done by me.
I have an alternate thought about what Earth is but as I keep saying time and time and time and time again, I do not pass it out as factual.

It is not logical but I can kind of understand it.

A spinning globe in a space vacuum is so far from logical it beggars belief...seriously but I also understand why people believe in it. Schooling and movies and everyday saturation of stories about it is more than enough to keep a person following the crumbs of comfort.

That last line especially. I just think of this 8 inch per mile squared rule.

If you don't believe it would be anything feasible for your 24,000+ mile Earth circumference then you don;t have to go anywhere near it.
Make your own reasoning, which I think you once did where you mentioned about coming so close to it.
Am I right?
So go with that one. It still wrecks the set up.

Do your own research, did you come up with the maths yourself etc. All thrown at us, but actually when you prove it from first principals, it doesn't trump this rule from Flat Earth training, which is wrong and they all seem to have been 'schooled' in.

We're all schooled. I'm absolutely no different to anyone else.
I go about life being schooled like we all do.
It's just that there's plenty of stuff I do not accept within that schooling. That's it.

Don't take it personal.

 

[Nobby]

I can promise you one thing. I will never believe a spinning globe again unless someone offers me proof and that cannot be done because it's plain and clear it is not a spinning globe

So you want proof, but will never accept any proof that is offered.

 

[jacko100]

So you want proof, but will never accept any proof that is offered.

He can't handle the proof!!

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Let's approach this first without examining scientific examples at all, because for contrarians like you it's not actually about the science. Let's examine what disbelieving the science functionally requires.

It requires believing not just one branch of science, astronomy, is a vast conspiracy. No, it requires believing that astronomy, physics, every branch of engineering, biology, oceanography, geology, geography, meteorology, all of mathematics beyond grade school, are vast conspiracies involving millions of scientists across time, politics, and just about every conceivable human divide.

Millions upon millions upon millions of people believe in space and a spinning globe and everything else you mention. Why? Not because they know it to be factual but because they were and are schooled into that mindset.
Are they lying?
Of course not. They can do a quiz with every question in it that they learned about Earth and what not and answer those questions in a belief the answers are correct.
Equally they could ready the entire Harry Potter book set, Enid Blyton's famous five book set and any other book set.
They are told those books are fiction so they memorise them all the same but in their mind as fiction.

There's no proof for the actions of any of the books other than watching them all on film as proof of nothing more than re-enacting story-lines onto pictures/movies or documentaries...etc.

That's a place you can go, but basic human behavioral incentives show why it's a silly one: scientists and academicians get nowhere in their careers if all they do is confirm existing theories. The names on the Nobels, the ones with in the textbooks, and even the ones who advance in modest academia are those who make discoveries or prove things contrary to existing dogmas. Just think of the names any dribbler knows: Darwin, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Watson and Crick. These are people who changed existing knowledge in massive ways. These are the scientists that every scientist wants to be. In other words, every single scientist on earth has a powerful incentive to counter existing beliefs.

And those who prove something which others can see as proof, makes them a factual scientist.

And yet science over the past five centuries has unearthed just more and more interlocking ways in which the only set of facts that allows any branch of science to make sense in light of all others is based on the earth being round and revolving around the sun.

Absolutely not.

Think of all the powerful contrarian incentives: wouldn't it have been a powerful victory for the USSR to show that the US, UK, and the rest of the twentieth-century capitalist establishment was just dead wrong in terms of a major tenet of its science?

Absolutely if that was their modus operandi.
For us mere pawns, the stories told and sold may just be sitting on the wrong shelf.

Well, turns out they tried. But the ones they challenged were Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, not earth science. And the result was a massive decline in crop yields and mass famine. Turns out that incredulous contrarianism has its costs.

That depends on whether it was contrarianism or a deliberate act.

Now, just to return to an example that's been discussed to death: ships over the horizon. There is always a horizon, and it has a maximum bound that happens to conform exactly to what one would predict based on a round earth of the accepted diameter. That's something one can confirm in both directions - going from theory to observation, but also observation to theory. Not so with whatever atmospheric pressure gobbledygook you came out with.

No it absolutely does not.
The horizon line is theoretical. It is not a line. It's merely the distance where light back to your eyes is omitted below whilst still reaching from above. A convergence of atmospheric dense mass to less dense mass, below and above leaving a theoretical line always at level sight because it's the only way it can possibly happen.

On a globe you would never see any horizon line, theoretical or not.
Your globe would always drop away from your level sight and you could never bring any horizon into view, only sky if it could magically be shown in reality, which it can't because Earth is not a globe we walk on, sail on or fly over.

It's an unmoored assertion that loosely correlates with some aspects of reality but does not correlate with other major observable facts and requires that human eyesight and oceanic navigation somehow become dismembered from the rest of science and objective reality.

No matter how it's dressed up, nobody is navigating a global spinning Earth.

Yeah, I think the geometry of a circle thing was the point it became clear he can't accept even the most basic concepts because he knows/fears it will bring his house or cards down

It was never answered.

He can't handle the proof!!

There is none to handle.

I wouldn't say he is brainwashed, more that he is so terrified of real science and our continuing existence being dependent upon everything we understand being 'right', that he can't emotionally or intellectually cope with it.

Nice thought from you but it's wrong.

It's took you days, basically because nothing you draw will work with what you have said and shown with your lemon squeezer and the seas.

It works fine for me. It won't work for you because you believe you live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum with water just clinging on.

So you're stuck.

Absolutely not.

And people have put many proofs up to do with key elements of why it's a globe

No, they haven't.

yet you have none to prove your inaccessible crystal generator, or reflections, or atmospheric pressure pendulum movements.

Does it matter if I can't prove it?
I think it would only matter of I told you it was factual. then I'd be compelled to prove it. But I don't, so use it as nothing more than a thought.

You literally have zero evidence for any of your musings

Water level is all that's needed.

You literally have zero evidence for what you believe in terms of what we're arguing and all your stuff is on tap.

What do you mean by 'burn against atmosphere'? The oxidizers just allow the fuel to burn, nothing to do with atmosphere (as I understand it).

The oxidiser is a thrust for the fuel. A thrust is required to thrust against the atmosphere to create a push against it to push the rocket the opposite direction.

The gases are just exhaust and there is no reason they can't be expelled into space.

So burning gases are just exhaust and do nothing?
Tell me where the burning gases actually do their work then.

So you want proof, but will never accept any proof that is offered.

I will accept proof every time.
Do you have any?

 

[payne]

So you want proof, but will never accept any proof that is offered.

That's exactly what the open minded bloke means.

That sentence alone should inform everyone of the intellect of the man.

 

[legend7]

It works fine for me. It won't work for you because you believe you live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum with water just clinging on.

Nope I'm not on about a spinning globe in on about how your lemon squeezer shape works as a cross section where the seas and land masses are concerned.
You said my sketch worked until it showed that the seas would be hundreds of miles deep and then you backtracked.
So a sketch would be a great help to explain your model.
Unless you've realised you're wrong of course.

 

[Bobthebasted]

So if energy and matter caused helium and hydrogen which caused the big bang, which in effect caused carbon, oxygen and a few heavy elements.

Is the same maths used for for flat earthers.

(I might have my big bang understanding wrong)

<----- thicko

 

[SYB_DC]

Millions upon millions upon millions of people believe in space and a spinning globe and everything else you mention. Why? Not because they know it to be factual but because they were and are schooled into that mindset.
Are they lying?
Of course not. They can do a quiz with every question in it that they learned about Earth and what not and answer those questions in a belief the answers are correct.
Equally they could ready the entire Harry Potter book set, Enid Blyton's famous five book set and any other book set.
They are told those books are fiction so they memorise them all the same but in their mind as fiction.

There's no proof for the actions of any of the books other than watching them all on film as proof of nothing more than re-enacting story-lines onto pictures/movies or documentaries...etc.


And those who prove something which others can see as proof, makes them a factual scientist.



Absolutely not.

Absolutely if that was their modus operandi.
For us mere pawns, the stories told and sold may just be sitting on the wrong shelf.

That depends on whether it was contrarianism or a deliberate act.

No it absolutely does not.
The horizon line is theoretical. It is not a line. It's merely the distance where light back to your eyes is omitted below whilst still reaching from above. A convergence of atmospheric dense mass to less dense mass, below and above leaving a theoretical line always at level sight because it's the only way it can possibly happen.

On a globe you would never see any horizon line, theoretical or not.
Your globe would always drop away from your level sight and you could never bring any horizon into view, only sky if it could magically be shown in reality, which it can't because Earth is not a globe we walk on, sail on or fly over.

No matter how it's dressed up, nobody is navigating a global spinning Earth.

That post wasn't about "millions upon millions of us." It was about you. So the first part of that babble was entirely irrelevant.

As to the scientists I listed, two of them were revolutionaries in proving that the earth revolves around the sun. So, thank you for admitting that at least.

I'm not sure about what you're talking about with the Soviet "modus operandi." It was indeed their MO to reflexively contest things the West did. And of course their embrace of Lamarckian evolution and selection was a deliberate act. They put geneticists in the Gulag and completely changed their plant breeding practices. What did you think it was, accidental performance art?

And if you think a globe never results in a horizon line, try putting a football between your face and a lamp. Look at what you see when you press your nose to it and stare towards the lamp, with your eyes just below the top of the ball. Hm, a defined line beyond which you can't see the other side of the ball. Then rotate the ball in your hands without moving anything else. Same line, same place. Funny, that.

 

[DaveH]

Let's approach this first without examining scientific examples at all, because for contrarians like you it's not actually about the science. Let's examine what disbelieving the science functionally requires.

It requires believing not just one branch of science, astronomy, is a vast conspiracy. No, it requires believing that astronomy, physics, every branch of engineering, biology, oceanography, geology, geography, meteorology, all of mathematics beyond grade school, are vast conspiracies involving millions of scientists across time, politics, and just about every conceivable human divide. That's a place you can go, but basic human behavioral incentives show why it's a silly one: scientists and academicians get nowhere in their careers if all they do is confirm existing theories. The names on the Nobels, the ones with in the textbooks, and even the ones who advance in modest academia are those who make discoveries or prove things contrary to existing dogmas.

Just think of the names any dribbler knows: Darwin, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Watson and Crick. These are people who changed existing knowledge in massive ways. These are the scientists that every scientist wants to be. In other words, every single scientist on earth has a powerful incentive to counter existing beliefs. And yet science over the past five centuries has unearthed just more and more interlocking ways in which the only set of facts that allows any branch of science to make sense in light of all others is based on the earth being round and revolving around the sun.

Think of all the powerful contrarian incentives: wouldn't it have been a powerful victory for the USSR to show that the US, UK, and the rest of the twentieth-century capitalist establishment was just dead wrong in terms of a major tenet of its science?

Well, turns out they tried. But the ones they challenged were Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, not earth science. And the result was a massive decline in crop yields and mass famine. Turns out that incredulous contrarianism has its costs.

Now, just to return to an example that's been discussed to death: ships over the horizon. There is always a horizon, and it has a maximum bound that happens to conform exactly to what one would predict based on a round earth of the accepted diameter. That's something one can confirm in both directions - going from theory to observation, but also observation to theory. Not so with whatever atmospheric pressure gobbledygook you came out with. It's an unmoored assertion that loosely correlates with some aspects of reality but does not correlate with other major observable facts and requires that human eyesight and oceanic navigation somehow become dismembered from the rest of science and objective reality.

Good post, especially your point that every scientist has to change something and deliver something new.

There was a time in human history where for a few hundred years people (in Europe at least) were told not to challenge the ideas, were encouraged not to think for themselves and not to challenge the teachings of the ruling bodies (heavily influenced by the church). That period was known as the dark ages and the time that followed was the Renaissance. That following period was known as the waking up and discovery again, to look with your own eyes.

During the dark ages, our learning seemed to stop. No new discoveries and very little technological advancement. Society then seemed to surge ahead following that.

Conspiracy theorists often describe the world as the dark ages (not using that term), claiming people just repeat facts. The difference between the different levels of education is the amount of stuff you need to remember and repeat. That is bollocks. To really over simplify the education system, I see it as:
GCSE - Repeat a lot of facts but show you can do calculations, and apply knowledge in the likes of science. History requires critical thinking, weeding out reliable information from less reliable.
A-level - Repeat some facts but work through a lot of proofs and experimental discovery. Maths in particular involves proofs from first principals.
Degree - Specialist areas, final year project often involves some unique research or application
Masters degree - Greater level of research, again showing you are not just repeating work someone else has done and demonstrate something truely unique
PhD - A large piece of significant and unique research, usually the pathway to a career in unique research which as you say, changes at least one aspect of their area.

Those claiming the education system to be very different to that are usually the ones who haven't been through it and have no basis for making that claim. Would not surprise me if they are the same kind who say "Me, University of life mate", which often means no education but not died. Well done.

 

[payne]

Good post, especially your point that every scientist has to change something and deliver something new.

There was a time in human history where for a few hundred years people (in Europe at least) were told not to challenge the ideas, were encouraged not to think for themselves and not to challenge the teachings of the ruling bodies (heavily influenced by the church). That period was known as the dark ages and the time that followed was the Renaissance. That following period was known as the waking up and discovery again, to look with your own eyes.

During the dark ages, our learning seemed to stop. No new discoveries and very little technological advancement. Society then seemed to surge ahead following that.

Conspiracy theorists often describe the world as the dark ages (not using that term), claiming people just repeat facts. The difference between the different levels of education is the amount of stuff you need to remember and repeat. That is bollocks. To really over simplify the education system, I see it as:
GCSE - Repeat a lot of facts but show you can do calculations, and apply knowledge in the likes of science. History requires critical thinking, weeding out reliable information from less reliable.
A-level - Repeat some facts but work through a lot of proofs and experimental discovery. Maths in particular involves proofs from first principals.
Degree - Specialist areas, final year project often involves some unique research or application
Masters degree - Greater level of research, again showing you are not just repeating work someone else has done and demonstrate something truely unique
PhD - A large piece of significant and unique research, usually the pathway to a career in unique research which as you say, changes at least one aspect of their area.

Those claiming the education system to be very different to that are usually the ones who haven't been through it and have no basis for making that claim. Would not surprise me if they are the same kind who say "Me, University of life mate", which often means no education but not died. Well done.

you've obviously never performed an experiment in a bathtub.

testable, repeatable etc etc

 

[legend7]

you've obviously never performed an experiment in a bathtub.

testable, repeatable etc etc

I don't think @Nukehasslefan has performed any experiments full stop.
Just a lot of musings

 

[What A Waster]

I don't think @Nukehasslefan has performed any experiments full stop.
Just a lot of musings

He's aware he's out of his depth here that's why he won't share the experiments he claims to have done. He's dealing with people who know what they're talking about. But can't back down to anything now.

I mean the horizon doesn't exist, right angles aren't real... where does it stop?
Without even a single doubt he may actually be wrong.
The actions of somebody deeply embedded within a cult. Deny everything. He's only following the narrative though, like the scientology victims.

 

[Nobby]

He's aware he's out of his depth here that's why he won't share the experiments he claims to have done. He's dealing with people who know what they're talking about. But can't back down to anything now.

I mean the horizon doesn't exist, right angles aren't real... where does it stop?
Without even a single doubt he may actually be wrong.
The actions of somebody deeply embedded within a cult. Deny everything. He's only following the narrative though, like the scientology victims.

Nail on the head

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nope I'm not on about a spinning globe in on about how your lemon squeezer shape works as a cross section where the seas and land masses are concerned.
You said my sketch worked until it showed that the seas would be hundreds of miles deep and then you backtracked.

It didn't show any seas to be hundreds of miles deep. You decided that for whatever reasons, even after I explained.
You took the map on absolute face value as simply a tiny scale and you attributed that entire map to my set up.
You're welcome to do that of course but it doesn't show anything to you in terms of what you think should happen.

So a sketch would be a great help to explain your model.

Yep but I don't think that would appease you.

Unless you've realised you're wrong of course.

Wrong about what? Your hundreds of miles deep oceans?

And if you think a globe never results in a horizon line, try putting a football between your face and a lamp. Look at what you see when you press your nose to it and stare towards the lamp, with your eyes just below the top of the ball. Hm, a defined line beyond which you can't see the other side of the ball.

Try doing that with your Earth.

Then rotate the ball in your hands without moving anything else. Same line, same place. Funny, that.

It is funny when you're looking up a curvature on your b all to get your so called horizon line but you seem to think you can stick a huge head on a big 24,000+ mile globe and drop your eyes until you see some kind of line.

I don't think so.

He's aware he's out of his depth here that's why he won't share the experiments he claims to have done.

Far from it. I'm 100% comfortable.

He's dealing with people who know what they're talking about. But can't back down to anything now.

That remains to be seen on what we're arguing.

I mean the horizon doesn't exist, right angles aren't real... where does it stop?

Horizon line is theoretical. You're not forced to accept this you can believe it's a real line if you want.
As for a right angle. I was asking how it's made on a circle and have had no answer.

Without even a single doubt he may actually be wrong.

I could be wrong on a lot of stuff but not when it comes to a spinning globe in a so called space vacuum.

The actions of somebody deeply embedded within a cult.

No cult required.

Deny everything.

In your mind.

 

[payne]

always a pleasure to wake up the morning musings.

I don't think @Nukehasslefan has performed any experiments full stop.
Just a lot of musings

he used his eyes to have a look

 

[DaveH]

He's aware he's out of his depth here that's why he won't share the experiments he claims to have done. He's dealing with people who know what they're talking about. But can't back down to anything now.

I mean the horizon doesn't exist, right angles aren't real... where does it stop?
Without even a single doubt he may actually be wrong.
The actions of somebody deeply embedded within a cult. Deny everything. He's only following the narrative though, like the scientology victims.

I do wonder if he has ever even done his water level with a spirit level experiment. What he has repeatedly failed to do is say or draw what his experiment would look like if we are on a globe and water conforms to the shape of the sphere.

In a few posts he has said “I don’t need to do the experiment, I know….”. Says it all

 

[fyl2u]

It was never answered.

I never bothered finishing the conversation because you spent 8 pages stalling rather than accept what a circle, a normal and a tangent were. Literally the kind of maths any 11-year old can accept because they can do it themselves with a pair of compasses, a protractor and a pencil.

There's no hope for you outside medication and a psychiatric care home.

At this point, talking with you is like kicking a kitten.

Your level of intellect is so far below remedial special needs, that it is borderline bullying to prove you wrong any more times than we already have.

Still you keep your fingers in your ears shouting "la la la there's no proof, la la la I know 100% for a fact that the earth isn't a globe, la la la none of you who say otherwise know anything, la la la I don't have to prove my ideas because I'm not presenting them as a fact, except the one where I say that the earth definitely isn't a globe and I don't have to prove that "fact" because reasons, la la la not listening."

If you're doing this as an act, it's just sad and I'm done with it. If your intelligence is genuinely this impaired then there's no point talking to you about this stuff either, because you'll never get it.

Either way...

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I do wonder if he has ever even done his water level with a spirit level experiment. What he has repeatedly failed to do is say or draw what his experiment would look like if we are on a globe and water conforms to the shape of the sphere.

In a few posts he has said “I don’t need to do the experiment, I know….”. Says it all

It's irrelevant as to what I've done or not done. Nothing will make any difference to people like yourself.
Those that want to do experiments can easily do many of what I've put forward; for themselves.
That's the beauty of it.
I'm not required to prove anything and nor do I need to.

This is all down to those who wish to question the narrative and if not, no issue here.
You don't but some will.

You say I haven't done any experiments and I'd be more than happy for you to keep that mindset.
To do experiments you have to know what you're going against and once people understand that then they can actually see that their own observations and tests laugh in the face of the set narratives offered for a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

The issue is in people actually being bothered. Most people are just getting on with their lives to bother to argue what Earth may or may not be and I fully get that.

Those who have an inquisitive mind in terms of going over it all may just get a bit more enlightened. However, it makes no difference to me if nobody does. It's not to appease me. It's not to make me feel any better. It's for them who are bothered to check stuff out.

It's all about peeling off all the layers to reveal what's really under it all and start from that rebuild of potentials.

 

[fyl2u]

It's irrelevant as to what I've done or not done. Nothing will make any difference to people like yourself.
Those that want to do experiments can easily do many of what I've put forward; for themselves.
That's the beauty of it.
I'm not required to prove anything and nor do I need to.

This is all down to those who wish to question the narrative and if not, no issue here.
You don't but some will.

You say I haven't done any experiments and I'd be more than happy for you to keep that mindset.
To do experiments you have to know what you're going against and once people understand that then they can actually see that their own observations and tests laugh in the face of the set narratives offered for a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

The issue is in people actually being bothered. Most people are just getting on with their lives to bother to argue what Earth may or may not be and I fully get that.

Those who have an inquisitive mind in terms of going over it all may just get a bit more enlightened. However, it makes no difference to me if nobody does. It's not to appease me. It's not to make me feel any better. It's for them who are bothered to check stuff out.

It's all about peeling off all the layers to reveal what's really under it all and start from that rebuild of potentials.

No it isn't. To you it's about peeling everything back that can be proven, coming up with bizarre false experiments that prove nothing but claiming they do, and closing your ears to anything that doesn't fit your narrative.