• 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


The Snockerty Friddle said:
Did he change his mind though, or was he just thinking something even more stupid than you suspected?
Click to expand...
Well I would not like to rule that out.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Brought what up? I thought it was about the craters that should cover the whole of Earths arse end. I may have missed a bit in the madness.
Click to expand...
I think because he was stuck in a bit of a corner about craters appearing, he chose to call the 8 inch thing "your rule" to me to try to deflect from the other issue.

That is one tactic he loves to use, or doesn't have the concentration span.
"You can't prove it is a globe"
"Here is some proof, look"
"But that doesn't tell me it is spinning"
"No that was not the point, but here is some proof of it spinning"
"But that doesn't tell me the distance to the moon"
"No but this is how it can be worked out"
"So how does that tell the distance to stars millions of lightyears away?"

In his mind that is 4 failures, because each thing doesn't prove something different from what was set out to prove in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Nobby said:
Because he still doesn't realise the significance of the parabola in deconstructing his argument
Click to expand...
Any idea?
Pancho said:
It was you who first introduced into this thread the expression 8 inches per mile squared to calculate the earth's curve.

It has been pointed out repeatedly by others on this thread that you cannot use that expression to determine the curve of a sphere because it refers to a parabola.

You have been told from whence this erroneous mathematical expression in relation to the globe first originated, and this was in an entirely fallacious pamphlet, Zetetic Astronomy, written by Samuel Rowbotham and first published in 1881.

This mathematical expression keeps cropping up because it is still used entirely disingenuously by snake oil salesmen on flat earth sites to con gullible and scientifically illiterate people such as yourself.

You cannot and never have been able to use 8 inches per mile squared to calculate the curvature of the earth.

This is the correct way:

You must be logged on to see external links


Edit: I'm more than happy to have the above information 'peer reviewed' by other members more adept at maths than myself - and that's not a high bar.
Click to expand...
The horizon line is imaginary and there's no need for calculation for any horizon line.
The calculation comes directly from a sphere from start to end distance horizontally and to the vertical from that horizontal back to the sphere or circle if you prefer.

You must be logged on to see external links


Try working your droop out for 60 miles and see where you get to.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Any idea?

The horizon line is imaginary and there's no need for calculation for any horizon line.
The calculation comes directly from a sphere from start to end distance horizontally and to the vertical from that horizontal back to the sphere or circle if you prefer.

You must be logged on to see external links


Try working your droop out for 60 miles and see where you get to.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Not really when most people have no real clue as to what Earth is except what they are told it is supposed to be.


Or they're all run by one overall power and sectioned off as and when. Maybe..eh...or not in most people's minds.

It depends on who the people are and what it is they're tasked with. Compartmentalisation and a need-to-know setup.
A football club can have millions of fans all over the known Earth but how many truly know what goes on at the very top of those clubs, even past the boardroom?


You stood beside a big model.
It offers no proof of the flight of it into space just like the rest of the models but your tour guide will offer you that scenario and that tour guide has been trained to regurgitate just like you can do after the tour guide puts all that into your head and all others who visit.

The media is the same. They regurgitate what's handed down to them from the top.
Scripts.

If you think none of that can happen then you can go on to accept whatever is given out and I have no issue with any of that because generally, we're all hanging onto stories of some description.
The issue is in whether we can know if those stories go on the fact or fiction shelf....or maybe something in between.

Your words, not mine.
Click to expand...
I see you're parroting exactly what the head of the flat earth movement, Mark Sergeant, says in all of his interviews, concerning compartmentalisation and a need to know basis. You've quoted him word for word,he said exactly this when being interviewed by Schofield on This Morning. So it's not just your "musings", is it.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Any idea?

The horizon line is imaginary and there's no need for calculation for any horizon line.
The calculation comes directly from a sphere from start to end distance horizontally and to the vertical from that horizontal back to the sphere or circle if you prefer.

You must be logged on to see external links


Try working your droop out for 60 miles and see where you get to.
Click to expand...
unbelievable
 
Roman maroni said:
I see you're parroting exactly what the head of the flat earth movement, Mark Sergeant, says in all of his interviews, concerning compartmentalisation and a need to know basis. You've quoted him word for word,he said exactly this when being interviewed by Schofield on This Morning. So it's not just your "musings", is it.
Click to expand...
It can be anything you decide you want it to be. As I said I'm fine with any of it.
payne said:
unbelievable
Click to expand...
I know and it shows that seeing things in the distance cannot work due to this and yet we do see them. Why?
Because the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
 
Last edited:
payne said:
you must be one of the most arrogant and stupid persons to have ever lived
Click to expand...
And you're welcome to those thoughts as I explained many many times before.
What you think of me has absolutely no bearing on my thoughts, so you carry on if you feel it aids you, somehow.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
And you're welcome to those thoughts as I explained many many times before.
What you think of me has absolutely no bearing on my thoughts, so you carry on if you feel it aids you, somehow.
Click to expand...
Aids me? It's a simple observation using logic on how you go on when putting forth your views against the history of human knowledge. Huge arrogance on the back of incredible levels of stupidity. It's the obvious conclusion.

I've came to this doing simple experiments on my own without appeals to authority. It's my view alone, therefore allowed.
 
payne said:
Aids me? It's a simple observation using logic on how you go on when putting forth your views against the history of human knowledge. Huge arrogance on the back of incredible levels of stupidity. It's the obvious conclusion.

I've came to this doing simple experiments on my own without appeals to authority. It's my view alone, therefore allowed.
Click to expand...
As above.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It can be anything you decide you want it to be. As I said I'm fine with any of it.

I know and it shows that seeing things in the distance cannot work due to this and yet we do see them. Why?
Because the Earth is not a globe we supposedly walk upon.
Click to expand...

But you also can't see things in the distance....so flat earth cannot work. Depends on a multitude of factors beyond your tiny brains ability to comprehend.
 
taipeisafc said:
But you also can't see things in the distance....so flat earth cannot work. Depends on a multitude of factors beyond your tiny brains ability to comprehend.
Click to expand...
Due to atmospheric mass from a level sight, I agree distance is gradually blocked out but more distance can be seen when moving into an angled position due to higher elevation.

Higher elevation, just like a crow's nest on a ship enables a person to see farther.
On a globe, this would be impossible.

You see, in the distance, you always have your theoretical horizon line.
If you elevate your sight your theoretical horizon line rises with you and offers you farther sight into the distance, without having to alter your eye line.

A scope with crosshair will show this to be correct.

Now it comes down to the other part whether people want to believe they can see farther on a globe by elevation with that very same scenario.
The answer is absolutely not.

As I pointed out before. If you raised a level scope your pinpoint on the crosshair would not offer you any angle down to the ground or sea. It would offer you nothing more than the sky because the ground and the sky will not intersect due to a curve downwards no matter how small or large.
A downward curve would be just that and offer you absolutely nothing through a horizontal pinpoint view through a scope.

The only argument that seems to arise with this is when people try to use the field of vision which I clearly do not offer, hence the pinpoint view.
 
Last edited:
taipeisafc said:
But you also can't see things in the distance....so flat earth cannot work. Depends on a multitude of factors beyond your tiny brains ability to comprehend.
Click to expand...
His stock answer is dense atmosphere. However as we all know, the density of the atmosphere changes with temperature, moisture, pressure etc. If you live somewhere and can only see the top half of a lighthouse on the horizon, you might have days where haze, cloud, fog means you can’t see it or the horizon at all. What you never have is days you can see the whole lot, days you can only see the top etc.

But it you say that he points to the single lake Michigan effect on still water in very specific atmospheric conditions.

It also doesn’t account for you climbing a hill and being able to see further over the horizon, exactly as maths says you should. (Actual maths, not his nut job rule)

He will not accept an argument either way, but can not provide maths for working out distance to the horizon in his fantasy land. He just knows.
ah, he typed at the same time and his is back to his very best thing. I love this one of maximum dribbling moronic levels. If you are on a tower of any height (say a small box) and live on a globe, the horizon disappears and you will only be able to see the sky. One step up and you live thinking “fuck me, where did the ground go”.

Mental.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top