• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


Nukehasslefan said:
It's about light being reflected through it and what you see.
I still don't get what you're saying about a clear plastic tube.

I I accepted one thing that gave me an inkling that Earth was a globe I'd be more than happy to go along that route.
Nothing adds up. Nothing.
It doesn't add up to anyone that water stays on a ball but the indoctrination is severe to the point of it being akin to religion.
I fell for it all and this is where I'm at now, because I actually decided to question all this stuff.

One day you might.

I'll try not to.
Click to expand...

Light doesn't get "reflected through things" it gets reflected off things and changes direction as a consequence. The phenomenon of light bending as it travels through media is refraction, caused by the differing densities of the media slowing the light down (until you get to the critical angle then you get total internal reflection - at least for some materials). However as you have already stated light doesn't have speed it cannot be refracted as a further point i am not sure it can be reflected as it is reflected by striking objects in the path of the beam and as it doesn't travel how can it strike something as it is already through it and way past onto infinity.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It doesn't add up to anyone that water stays on a ball but the indoctrination is severe to the point of it being akin to religion.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It makes perfect sense that water would stay on a ball if the net centre of gravity (i.e. the "net external force") acting upon the water is directly towards the centre of the ball.

The indoctrination here is in YOU, not the rest of us. The Flat Earth Society have got their claws into you and are fooling you hook, line and sinker. The rest of us are all perfectly happy to actually perform our experiments to determine whether or not the Earth is a globe. You are not. You just keep repeating "water level nails it" over and over like a toy monkey clapping its cymbals in its hands together. The problem for you is that we all know that water level, if measured properly in an unbiased scientific manner, will actually curve to the expected amount and nails the fact that the globe earth is the true model.

You just refuse to do the experiments because you know you'll be proven wrong and your brainwashing won't allow that.

Nukehasslefan said:
I fell for it all and this is where I'm at now, because I actually decided to question all this stuff.
Click to expand...

No, you are where are you are now because you've been brainwashed by the Flat Earth Society and are actually NOT capable of thinking for yourself. If you were, you'd see straight through their pseudoscientific bullshit and test their wacky claims for yourself instead of just parrotting the lies they've schooled into you.

Nukehasslefan said:
One day you might.
Click to expand...

We do, you sanctimonious buffoon.

Nukehasslefan said:
I'll try not to.
Click to expand...

We already know you don't. If you did you would have argued with the Flat Earth Society at some point and seen through the lies those idiots have brainwashed into you.
 
taipeisafc said:
Light doesn't get "reflected through things" it gets reflected off things and changes direction as a consequence.
Click to expand...
In terms of the clear plastic it goes through so I have no clue what you're trying to make out.
fyl2u said:
Yes it does. It makes perfect sense that water would stay on a ball if the net centre of gravity (i.e. the "net external force") acting upon the water is directly towards the centre of the ball.
Click to expand...
Tell me what this net centre of gravity is. Just explain what's happening.

fyl2u said:
The indoctrination here is in YOU, not the rest of us.
Click to expand...
We're all severely indoctrinated with all kinds of stuff that is good bad and ugly as well as fictional and factual.
It's all about which bits can be seen to be more of a reality.
fyl2u said:
The rest of us are all perfectly happy to actually perform our experiments to determine whether or not the Earth is a globe.
Click to expand...
Have you performed any? If so, what?
fyl2u said:
You are not. You just keep repeating "water level nails it" over and over like a toy monkey clapping its cymbals in its hands together.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you have to keep repeating when asked the same question.
fyl2u said:
The problem for you is that we all know that water level, if measured properly in an unbiased scientific manner, will actually curve to the expected amount and nails the fact that the globe earth is the true model.
Click to expand...
No...you don't.
You believe it for absolutely no other reason than to be told/coerced into a belief system of a so called massive glob=e and gravity as some kind of force that supposedly allows this magic you think is a reality..
fyl2u said:
You just refuse to do the experiments because you know you'll be proven wrong and your brainwashing won't allow that.
Click to expand...
I'm happy with what I've done and absolutely content in knowing they prove we are not on a spinning globe...among other things.
What you think I have or have not done or whether anything I say is nothing more than utter gunk to you, I don't care one iota.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
I'm still not with you. What are you trying to say?
Click to expand...

You say its due to light reflecting through plastic.
You also say if you look down you can see further.

I said so if I looked down I could see better (due to looking further down the stack) and you involved a plastic tube and an opaque one for some reason.

We brushed that aside and you said its due to the light reflecting through the tube..

So back to what I said to start with if I look down would my vision improve?
Plastic tube or no tube...

Also my eyes are getting worse so I'd imagine if the stack causes that it would be the same opposite so if I looked up I should be able to see fuck all..

Yet I see stars at night 😲
 
BigPete said:
You say its due to light reflecting through plastic.
You also say if you look down you can see further.

I said so if I looked down I could see better (due to looking further down the stack) and you involved a plastic tube and an opaque one for some reason.
Click to expand...
You involved the plastic tube, not me.
BigPete said:
We brushed that aside and you said its due to the light reflecting through the tube..
Click to expand...
Because you used a see through plastic tube so I offered you an opaque tube and said place both upright on the deck and look through them from the top. Which one can you see further to the bottom, best?

BigPete said:
So back to what I said to start with if I look down would my vision improve?
Click to expand...
It depends on the reflection of light.

BigPete said:
Plastic tube or no tube...

Also my eyes are getting worse so I'd imagine if the stack causes that it would be the same opposite so if I looked up I should be able to see fuck all..

Yet I see stars at night 😲
Click to expand...
Of course you see so called stars. They're points of light, which is what I mean by reflection back to your eyes.
 
BigPete said:
As I said if I looked down through a tube you said it wouldn't work as no light gets through.

Light does get through a clear plastic tube..
Click to expand...
Which is why you can see to the bottom of that tube better than the opaque tube which blocks light to the sides of it and only allows such much into the top when you look into it because it cannot reflect and is absorbed.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Which is why you can see to the bottom of that tube better than the opaque tube which blocks light to the sides of it and only allows such much into the top when you look into it because it cannot reflect and is absorbed.
Click to expand...

What opaque tube?

It's opaque of course it will be harder to see through hence why its called opaque.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
We'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...
opaque
/ə(ʊ)ˈpeɪk/
You must be logged on to see external links


adjective

  1. not able to be seen through; not transparent.
    "bottles filled with a pale opaque liquid



You are just stating the obvious yet missing out on what you said to start with..

So forget the opaque tube we now have one that allows light through..

So I should now be able to see better if I look down using it, right?
 
fyl2u said:
Oh yes.

He's reached so many new levels of bullshittery that he's practically in orbit now.
Click to expand...
:D no such thing as orbit
taipeisafc said:
Light doesn't get "reflected through things" it gets reflected off things and changes direction as a consequence. The phenomenon of light bending as it travels through media is refraction, caused by the differing densities of the media slowing the light down (until you get to the critical angle then you get total internal reflection - at least for some materials). However as you have already stated light doesn't have speed it cannot be refracted as a further point i am not sure it can be reflected as it is reflected by striking objects in the path of the beam and as it doesn't travel how can it strike something as it is already through it and way past onto infinity.
Click to expand...
Cheers for posting about that, it was something I was meaning to say.

Refraction is well known and exists, so is often used as a convenient reason for why flat/non-globe earths work, how we see sunset, why ships disappear over the horizon, why sunlight on a dome does not illuminate the whole world etc. Hey, that would need light to bend consistently your model doesn't work. Refraction - job done in one word.

However the key thing is that bit you say about going through materials of different densities. The density of substance A can be measured and so can the density of substance B, as can the angle of light entering B from A. Then guess what? Like the rest of physics there is repeatable, testable maths where you can work out and predict exactly what will happen, and like many things on this thread, you actually go into that at school level. It is not black magic for elite scientists, it is what kids do, then they do an experiment with glass prisms to verify the maths work and they are not just being told something.

So, if light was going to bend by 70 degrees over a certain distance and we know the density of air at the surface (based on current conditions) we can tell what the different densities though the higher atmosphere should be. However actual recorded densities do not lend themselves well to some of the magic bending light required as the dome earth bodge.

This is especially so in the event of a solar eclipse where the light from the super carbon arc bounces off the dome but after a bit, does a complete 180 degree turn and comes back at itself exactly in a way which is completely in phase so it will cancel itself out. No intensity is lost. To quote Douglas Adams, it is all clearly a load of dingoes kidneys.

Then you have to consider changing atmospheric densities and how they change with weather but many flat earth effects stay the same. Hmmmm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top