Put a flat earthier into space

[BigPete]

FFS we haven't defined cupboard yet, who says there so called marshmallows within the so called space inside the cupboard. Bet you even believe the cupboard has "flat shelves" magically floating in the so called space inside

A cupboard is not as you know it.

Unhindered hinges which aren't at equal angles but they are the same due to the balance off the atmospheric stacking.

Opens a bit like predators mouth.. a demagnified version.

 

[chelt_mackem]

Thinking about it, this cell idea might not be so ridiculous, but there are a couple of issues with it that Nukey might be a little worried about:

Cells are spherical.
The stars could be on the outer edge.
This would explain why the night sky rotates clockwise around the celestial south pole, but anti-clockwise around the celestial north pole.
Earth could be like one of the atoms in the nucleus, as could the sun and the Milky Way, which would explain the central power source idea.

The only problem with Nukey's version of this idea is that every "body" contained within this cell would have to be spherical for it to make sense.

 

[DPTT]

Thinking about it, this cell idea might not be so ridiculous, but there are a couple of issues with it that Nukey might be a little worried about:

Cells are spherical.
The stars could be on the outer edge.
This would explain why the night sky rotates clockwise around the celestial south pole, but anti-clockwise around the celestial north pole.
Earth could be like one of the atoms in the nucleus, as could the sun and the Milky Way, which would explain the central power source idea.

The only problem with Nukey's version of this idea is that every "body" contained within this cell would have to be spherical for it to make sense.

Nah water level in a bath trumps all scientific date

 

[BigPete]

Thinking about it, this cell idea might not be so ridiculous, but there are a couple of issues with it that Nukey might be a little worried about:

Cells are spherical.
The stars could be on the outer edge.
This would explain why the night sky rotates clockwise around the celestial south pole, but anti-clockwise around the celestial north pole.
Earth could be like one of the atoms in the nucleus, as could the sun and the Milky Way, which would explain the central power source idea.

The only problem with Nukey's version of this idea is that every "body" contained within this cell would have to be spherical for it to make sense.

Maybe that's what the tunneling thing was to lead to some common ground.

Say if you had another some under out dome he like a sphere as you say but two separate cells.

2 cells creating a globe

 

[Pink Panther]

I've done some digging, with astonishing results.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[chelt_mackem]

Maybe that's what the tunneling thing was to lead to some common ground.

Say if you had another some under out dome he like a sphere as you say but two separate cells.

2 cells creating a globe

That could make sense, and explain the problem (for Flerthers) of Australia.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

The only problem with Nukey's version of this idea is that every "body" contained within this cell would have to be spherical for it to make sense.

Only?

 

[Big Jeff]

Gavity does not exist.

If you drop something it will never hit the floor.

It will just get closer to it.

 

[fyl2u]

I do think its unfair to mock a persons believes, its lazy, its far better to discuss and try and understand the persons view point even if you disagree, debate and engage is more productive, I find a lot of the time there is some common ground in some areas.

We tried that. About 5,000 times. Nukey just outright denies everything that disagrees with his fixed view of a lemon-squeezer earth and ignores every proof put before him.

 

[Big Jeff]

Gavity does not exist.

If you drop something it will never hit the floor.

It will just get closer to it.

I meant gravity.

Gavity definitely does exist - oh yes siree.

 

[DaveH]

Nah water level in a bath trumps all scientific date

I love how it keeps coming back to this. If you deleted many posts between these statements you pretty much have
- Here is a formula I learned from my flat earth bible to calculate the curve. It says the drop over the length of an average spirit level is many times smaller than the width of a human hair.
- I can’t see a curve with a spirit level in my bath, therefore flat
Repeat, repeat, repeat

Yet he still can’t see why his own experiment is flawed.

 

[Nobby]

Nobody's asking you to go with a water level in a bath. Just go larger and go with the 8 inches per mile squared, which brings us back to the Chicago skyline from distance.

It's all there.

Water in a bath
8 inches per mile squared
Nuke using an appeal to authority as evidence

A perfect trifecta in 2 sentences

 

[DPTT]

I love how it keeps coming back to this. If you deleted many posts between these statements you pretty much have
- Here is a formula I learned from my flat earth bible to calculate the curve. It says the drop over the length of an average spirit level is many times smaller than the width of a human hair.
- I can’t see a curve with a spirit level in my bath, therefore flat
Repeat, repeat, repeat

Yet he still can’t see why his own experiment is flawed.

And considering this one experiment is proof that the earth is not a globe he has never gone into any detail of this experiment
Wonder why

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I have not come across this theory before, the possible multi cell earth, I will give that a google and read up, as I have no knowledge about it, but it does sound a lot like the concave earth theory, I guess where we live inside the earth and not on it?

a lot of your thoughts I cant argue against when discussing the past and possible different histories and we have seen even in my lifetime some histories being rewritten, I cant fault the logical thoughts you have with being careful with what to believe as fact and to keep an open mind as I too believe in these things, history has shown mistakes are made, science is changed and sometimes the government will mislead the population.

This is the main issue. Scientists change theories all the time and we know governments and high authority spin all kinds of webs of disinformation and misinformation.

I struggle with the concept that people aren't testing the theories out, maybe some scientists are repeating what's wrote but what about the people who are trying to figure this out, the flat earthers who are doing tests and have failed to prove theories or the other people who have discredited some thoughts, the only way that would work is if the psychics we know works on "different earth" but since a lot of the flat earth advocates say the psychics is wrong, so if its wrong how can the same psychics be proved through experiments to be right, another problem I can see is the in fighting between the flat earth groups with some groups splintering and these groups changing there views to accommodate new information, it sometimes feels like changing a few things to better fit the current narrative as opposed to following the evidence, like many theories that evolve overtime, for example ghosts went from shadowy figures to orbs with the change in tech.

It's like religion. Many people follow a sort of set path based on adhering to a certain person or people who offer them a fix on a certain theory and the following ensues.
The same with alternate Earths.
All people will not accept just one alternate theory to the accepted mainstream norm.
As for scientists all being wrong or physics working on a different Earth, think about this.

We're told we live on a spinning globe and that's why we see the sun and the moon moving in the sky because apparently it's us moving and the sun and moon are still.
To cater to this and the seasons and all the rest of the stuff they have to tilt the Earth and then they have to invent a reason as to why any person would stay on this spinning ball and go against the natural reasoning of what happens when someone is placed on something like that and it's rotated. They fall off.
So gravity comes in. Nobody knows what it is but they offer what it does.
It becomes a magical force that somehow pulls everything towards the centre of the Earth to stop them from flying off into space.
The same for orbits.
They all go against reasoning but it's accepted because gravity was made up along with a whole host of other stuff when faults were being picked out.

We see the sun and moon moving. We do not feel ourselves moving. But as we know we can argue that sitting in a car next to another parallel to it at traffic lights or whatever and that car slightly moves backward or forwards, it can almost seem like it's you that's moving.
So there's the argument. Which is. Earthmoving or something in the sky.

This is a small snippet but think about it with any scientist reasoning any of this. It becomes a case of who takes the higher pedestal in that argument and who drops their cap and rolls it in their hands with heads bowed saying.
This is where we're at.

It's not about all scientists being wrong in everything. It's about the theoretical side of it and the potential for there being more than one answer but scientists basically following a set path that they may not fully accept as being nailed on, yet it suits a purpose and also suits their pay grade to not rock the boat, kind of thing.

But as I said, many will go with the theories set out because they actually believe them to be more correct.
Take light for instance.
They can't decide whether it's a wave or particle so they use wave-particle duality.

Was the moon landing faked, it could have been, was it faked due to trying keep alive the globe theory, my reason would be why, wouldnt it be better to forget anything to do with rockets than open a whole can of worms and to then have to fake stuff to explain away.

It depends on how it's looked at.
If you want to sell the story of a globe Earth and planets with moons and such-like then it would be better to offer a few visuals and a so-called reality to go with them.

People can't see the Earth as an entirety, so they basically have only visuals to look at to give them a clue as to what they're on.
The same goes with looking at the sun and a moon or points of light in the sky in their variations.
Trying to make something of it all is a hard task and can only offer hypotheses and total wild imaginary guesses as to what's what.

So why not show people?
Put a few men on the moon and have them look back at the Earth.
Send probes into space and show people Pluto and Uranus and Jupiter and so on and so on.

That should nail it and have people believing they live on a spinning ball and the moon is a rock covered in fine dust like cement. Mars is red dust and rock and had an atmosphere close to a vacuum as we're told and shown by landing space hoppers with vehicles inside onto ti or flying helicopters designed to work in this vacuum or a rover with battery life so long it just shows what can be done for a few billion dollars apiece.

All amazing stuff.
Big 3000-ton rickets just lifts off at bicycle speed and then accelerate all the way into space and to the moon in the '60s.

It's all fantastic stuff and the stuff of fantasy and joy. But is it just that or is it a reality?
It comes down to whether anyone questions the entirety of it all and marries stuff up to see if is something more or less than we are told.

I genuinely believe we get mocked on a mammoth scale but that's just my thoughts.
But I also believe there's a little magic show going on where they equally impress the public with their tricks and sleight of hand, kind of thing.

If the moon landings where faked its more likely to do with astronauts dying due to poor radiation shielding from having to go through the Van Allen radiation belt than flat earth theory imo, that would seem more plausible if you subscribe to the moon landing conspiracy.

I don't find it plausible in any way shape or form to be fair but I respect your thoughts pertaining to it.

 

[What A Waster]

This is the main issue. Scientists change theories all the time and we know governments and high authority spin all kinds of webs of disinformation and misinformation.

It's like religion. Many people follow a sort of set path based on adhering to a certain person or people who offer them a fix on a certain theory and the following ensues.
The same with alternate Earths.
All people will not accept just one alternate theory to the accepted mainstream norm.
As for scientists all being wrong or physics working on a different Earth, think about this.

We're told we live on a spinning globe and that's why we see the sun and the moon moving in the sky because apparently it's us moving and the sun and moon are still.
To cater to this and the seasons and all the rest of the stuff they have to tilt the Earth and then they have to invent a reason as to why any person would stay on this spinning ball and go against the natural reasoning of what happens when someone is placed on something like that and it's rotated. They fall off.
So gravity comes in. Nobody knows what it is but they offer what it does.
It becomes a magical force that somehow pulls everything towards the centre of the Earth to stop them from flying off into space.
The same for orbits.
They all go against reasoning but it's accepted because gravity was made up along with a whole host of other stuff when faults were being picked out.

We see the sun and moon moving. We do not feel ourselves moving. But as we know we can argue that sitting in a car next to another parallel to it at traffic lights or whatever and that car slightly moves backward or forwards, it can almost seem like it's you that's moving.
So there's the argument. Which is. Earthmoving or something in the sky.

This is a small snippet but think about it with any scientist reasoning any of this. It becomes a case of who takes the higher pedestal in that argument and who drops their cap and rolls it in their hands with heads bowed saying.
This is where we're at.

It's not about all scientists being wrong in everything. It's about the theoretical side of it and the potential for there being more than one answer but scientists basically following a set path that they may not fully accept as being nailed on, yet it suits a purpose and also suits their pay grade to not rock the boat, kind of thing.

But as I said, many will go with the theories set out because they actually believe them to be more correct.
Take light for instance.
They can't decide whether it's a wave or particle so they use wave-particle duality.


It depends on how it's looked at.
If you want to sell the story of a globe Earth and planets with moons and such-like then it would be better to offer a few visuals and a so-called reality to go with them.

People can't see the Earth as an entirety, so they basically have only visuals to look at to give them a clue as to what they're on.
The same goes with looking at the sun and a moon or points of light in the sky in their variations.
Trying to make something of it all is a hard task and can only offer hypotheses and total wild imaginary guesses as to what's what.

So why not show people?
Put a few men on the moon and have them look back at the Earth.
Send probes into space and show people Pluto and Uranus and Jupiter and so on and so on.

That should nail it and have people believing they live on a spinning ball and the moon is a rock covered in fine dust like cement. Mars is red dust and rock and had an atmosphere close to a vacuum as we're told and shown by landing space hoppers with vehicles inside onto ti or flying helicopters designed to work in this vacuum or a rover with battery life so long it just shows what can be done for a few billion dollars apiece.

All amazing stuff.
Big 3000-ton rickets just lifts off at bicycle speed and then accelerate all the way into space and to the moon in the '60s.

It's all fantastic stuff and the stuff of fantasy and joy. But is it just that or is it a reality?
It comes down to whether anyone questions the entirety of it all and marries stuff up to see if is something more or less than we are told.

I genuinely believe we get mocked on a mammoth scale but that's just my thoughts.
But I also believe there's a little magic show going on where they equally impress the public with their tricks and sleight of hand, kind of thing.

I don't find it plausible in any way shape or form to be fair but I respect your thoughts pertaining to it.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I do think its unfair to mock a persons believes, its lazy, its far better to discuss and try and understand the persons view point even if you disagree, debate and engage is more productive, I find a lot of the time there is some common ground in some areas.

I absolutely agree.

I have spoke to a few different people over the years who have "non everyday" view points, one thing that stands out is you tend to see a belief in one conspiracy or "none run off the mill ideas" tends to lead into a second or third, I noticed the same pattern with yourself, its seems to have been the moon landings which pointed you into the world of flat earth which has lead into the world of "other beings" "elites" or whatever name you would like to call them, being in charge and control us, some people call these beings the lizard people and claim the royal family are lizard people, some call them alien spirits.

I agree. One thing can spiral into many, as you say.
The thing is the waters can easily become far too muddied for certain people to ever gain any foothold on what and why they originally started to question if they try to take in all sides of all stories or conspiracies.
It's easy to do but the problem arises when you believe you've spotted a lie. Trust starts to wane and trust itself is hard to gain in the first place but so easily lost on the back of just snippets of disinformation or misinformation.

I am not saying what you have said is wrong, I personally cant disprove it, like I said I dont have the background or the equipment to do so, but after reading a little bit from both sides I do feel you need to take a bigger leap of faith to err on the side of the flat earth argument, maybe I haven't read or watched the right stuff yet, but it does feel like the flat earth side is lacking in proof compared to the other side, another issue is the many faces of flat earth, I cant help but compare it to a religion where we have the same idea that there's a god but then it breaks down into many differing gods depending on your upbringing, which has led to each religion saying the others aren't real.

It can be compared to a religion to be fair but no more or less so than the global Earth religion other than the obvious majority.
The thing about a globe is, it only takes one thing to destroy it, not a myriad of different Earth views.
Nobody has to be a flat Earther or any variation of it to simply question the global model.

People laugh and mock when the water level is used. It's plain to see it always finds its level and it's plain to see it will never do so on a curve.
Of course, it can be argued with gravity and stuff but when people argue it and are asked what it is, people simply say, it just is because scientists and Einstein say it is.

So, although it appears more points to a global Earth, it always would do when the story sold is just that.
It has been tweaked and better tweaked to iron out the flaws in that story in order to make it difficult to argue the magical fantasy of it. IMO.

I am quite willing to read more on the subject if you want to share links or maybe you have insight to better quality information, that I have missed on my searches, I have an open mind and would read anything with an open mind, but then again if its too technical I might not understand it.

All I can say to you is take in whatever info is put out and evaluate it as you do.
I think the best way to start is not to look at other theories but to look at the global storyline and do the very simple in-your-face experiments that require little to no cost and take it one step at a time because once you find one headscratcher your mind will open up to further investigate.
Doing this on your own and without the pressure of mixed views will gain you traction. It did for me.

 

[ned_werby]

Status quo.

If you claim it's wrong, you have to prove it, otherwise you're just talking bollocks.

You do realise you're going down down, deeper and down with all this? (sorry, couldn't resist. it's about as invested as I can get with this utter garbage he spouts these days.)

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So what causes these layers to form?

Molecular stacking and the varying densities of each stacked layer.

 

[Nobby]

Molecular stacking and the varying densities of each stacked layer.

And your experimental proof for this is?

 

[Pink Panther]

We're told we live on a spinning globe and that's why we see the sun and the moon moving in the sky because apparently it's us moving and the sun and moon are still.