• 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:
Ok, now a counter point.
Can any of you provide a scale map of your world without the aid of those who schooled the current one into you?

My guess is, you can't, so I'd say question 1 is absolutely pointless.

Question 2?
Click to expand...


There is a mapping system that works in the real world, who draws it isn't relevant. It works, it is tested everyday and always works. The fact that many people combine knowledge and experience to produce the map makes it more valid not less.

There isn't a working map of the model you believe.

That makes the question far from pointless, it makes it very relevant. You are proposing the world is not a globe but are unable to put forward an accurate map of the alternative.
 
If you pop a non geostationary satellite into low orbit and take a photo of the earth you'll see some water or land. If you wait a bit and repeat that process you'll see a different bit of land or water.

Using your logic if you did that experiment you'd have no force acting on the satellite so you'd have to propel it sideways and eventually if you waited the satellite would clear the earth and shoot off into deep space.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Is that question 2?
Click to expand...
What's the rush to get to point 2, is point 1 too inconvenient as it highlights a major flaw in your argument.

We can't really move on if you aren't able to demonstrate what the model you are arguing in favour off actually is.

Anything that came after that would not have a solid base to develop from
 
Nobby said:
There is a mapping system that works in the real world, who draws it isn't relevant. It works, it is tested everyday and always works.
Click to expand...
Is the entire world mapped?
Is the entire world, including oceans, including inhospitable ice covered areas all mapped.

Is it?
Or are you told it is?
What part of the map have you navigated?

Nobby said:
The fact that many people combine knowledge and experience to produce the map makes it more valid not less.
Click to expand...
There are maps that can be navigated from.
But are there entire Earth maps from the physical or from the partial from physical and some from the potential, possibly, maybe?
What do you KNOW. What do you actually know?
Nobby said:
There isn't a working map of the model you believe.
Click to expand...
No. Want to know why?
I shouldn't need to say it but I will.
It's because my thought process does not offer facts. It offers my potentials and I'm honest enough to admit that. I'm also honest enough to admit that I am incapable of mapping the Earth.

What about you?
I don't mean stories.
I don't mean back slapping nodding from peers.
I don't mean carrying a folded map with patterns on it.
I mean what do you actually know about Earth and where you navigate?
Nobby said:
That makes the question far from pointless, it makes it very relevant. You are proposing the world is not a globe but are unable to put forward an accurate map of the alternative.
Click to expand...
 
monkeytassle said:
If you pop a non geostationary satellite into low orbit and take a photo of the earth you'll see some water or land. If you wait a bit and repeat that process you'll see a different bit of land or water.

Using your logic if you did that experiment you'd have no force acting on the satellite so you'd have to propel it sideways and eventually if you waited the satellite would clear the earth and shoot off into deep space.
Click to expand...

He doesn't believe in space. Or orbits. Or satellites.
 
monkeytassle said:
If you pop a non geostationary satellite into low orbit and take a photo of the earth you'll see some water or land. If you wait a bit and repeat that process you'll see a different bit of land or water.
Click to expand...
Do you know this for sure?

monkeytassle said:
Using your logic if you did that experiment you'd have no force acting on the satellite so you'd have to propel it sideways and eventually if you waited the satellite would clear the earth and shoot off into deep space.
Click to expand...
How far out are these geostationary satellites and what are their purposes?
 
Nobby said:
What's the rush to get to point 2, is point 1 too inconvenient as it highlights a major flaw in your argument.
Click to expand...
Point one has been dealt with as pointless. No need for you to rush into number 2 if you don;t want to.
Nobby said:
We can't really move on if you aren't able to demonstrate what the model you are arguing in favour off actually is.
Click to expand...
The same goes for you. Put the books away.
Nobby said:
Anything that came after that would not have a solid base to develop from
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
No need to measure it over any massive distance.
Observation over distance that show landmarks over water, is more than enough.
However, the basics are right there in the faces of anyone who wishes to test.
Merely throwing it aside because you were told Earth is a spinning globe, means you go with the narrative that has zero reality of tests but does have plenty of pretence.

Yep, for mathematically true observations.

Ok, like I asked you before.
Tell me how you can get the distance to the moon and it's size.
Do not appeal to authority on this.
Let's see where you go on it.
If maths works and trig is all good and proper for things in the sky, then take me through it as simple and easy to prove. Can you offer that?
If you can then we can move on a little to see how it comes to what you suggest.


And you're welcome to that.

Show me.

Valid as in what?
You mean it's valid as a shape or valid as a planet?

The thing about a planetarium as they call it) it just is. The thing about a dome and projections is....it just is. It's easy to say it but proving what's being said is the hardest part.


I'm waiting for question 1 and then we can move to question 2...and so on.
Are you ready?
Click to expand...
I have stated that I can not determine the distance to the moon without observations made during an eclipse, which I have not done.

But why should I go into another lengthy discourse when you provide nothing.

Tell us how to measure water is flat.

Or tell us how to measure the distance to your holographic moon projected onto the dome.
 
fyl2u said:
Prove it. Provide evidence that "Fact#1" is true.

Otherwise it's not a fact, it's bullshittery.
Click to expand...
This, his whole belief system is based around flat water not conforming to a globe, but he can’t prove water is flat or describe a single experiment beyond a spirit level on a raft. That experiment does not prove water is flat.

All the other experiments posted here, such as a laser level over water showing it is not flat, has been dismissed from the pure reason that it does not match his belief system. No reason has been given, such as why the experiment might be flawed etc.
 
DaveH said:
I have stated that I can not determine the distance to the moon without observations made during an eclipse, which I have not done.
Click to expand...
So what are you relying on?
DaveH said:
But why should I go into another lengthy discourse when you provide nothing.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking you to do anything.
You offer your proof's and I call them out and ask you to show me.
You provide zero proof but many words.
DaveH said:
Tell us how to measure water is flat.
Click to expand...
I've explained many ways for you to find that out. You refusing to do that is down to you. It has no bearing on me.
DaveH said:
Or tell us how to measure the distance to your holographic moon projected onto the dome.
Click to expand...
I can't. I already told you that.
I'm being as real as I can be and as honest as I can be.



Anyway, so you can't measure the moon distance because of an eclipse or something.

So what would an eclipse offer you in terms of ability to measure.
You are under no obligation to answer, obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top