• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


Nukehasslefan said:
Any size that you can basically arc one of them.
Click to expand...
Sigh....you are back to the thing that all flat earth conspiracy theorists do when stuck. Try to measure the curve of a massive planet on a really small scale and then claim flatness. Of course you are going to repeatedly fail doing that. It is like your spirit level all over again. Remember when I did the maths for you and found your spirit level would need to be 451 meters long to have any measurable drop? Well it is the same with sitting on the grass and bending a couple of sticks in the space between your outstretched legs. It is mathematically proven that if you try to judge the curve of the earth over a few centimeters then you are not going to see anything of value.

Lets picture a different but similar scenario. Can you imagine you are building a shelf with a thick 2m plank by standing it on two blocks? You don't have a spirit level so put a ball on it. If the ball rolls then the shelf is not level. If the ball does roll, it is not. Sound reasonable? The shelf is flat.

So then you lift one end of the shelf and put a brick underneath it. The ball rolls away right? The shelf is not flat.

Now remove the brick and replace it with a single strand of hair. The ball still stays in place. But the shelf is flat and now one end is higher. How can this be? What is this voodoo? Hopefully you agree that the width of a hair is not going to make much difference to our crude way of measuring the tilt of a shelf.

This is exactly the same as you with your sprit levels and bendy twigs. Doing something on a small scale is not going to be suitable for measuring something on the large scale. The big difference between what you propose and my shelf experiment is that the size you are trying to measure is over a thousand times smaller than an average human hair.
 
MunkyHeed said:
Hi @Nukehasslefan - sorry if this has been covered before, but are all moons/planets/stars flat, or just Earth? Cheers.
Click to expand...
:D They don't exist. The moon is a secondary reflection of the sun, obviously. That is why it is so similar.

The planets are a holographic image suspended in a crystal then projected by a naturally forming carbon arc lamp through a crystal lens and projected onto a ice dome.

The stars are points of light that shine through a crystal onto the dome.

Please don't think that sounds bat shit crazy.
 
DaveH said:
Sigh....you are back to the thing that all flat earth conspiracy theorists do when stuck. Try to measure the curve of a massive planet on a really small scale and then claim flatness. Of course you are going to repeatedly fail doing that. It is like your spirit level all over again. Remember when I did the maths for you and found your spirit level would need to be 451 meters long to have any measurable drop? Well it is the same with sitting on the grass and bending a couple of sticks in the space between your outstretched legs. It is mathematically proven that if you try to judge the curve of the earth over a few centimeters then you are not going to see anything of value.

Lets picture a different but similar scenario. Can you imagine you are building a shelf with a thick 2m plank by standing it on two blocks? You don't have a spirit level so put a ball on it. If the ball rolls then the shelf is not level. If the ball does roll, it is not. Sound reasonable? The shelf is flat.

So then you lift one end of the shelf and put a brick underneath it. The ball rolls away right? The shelf is not flat.

Now remove the brick and replace it with a single strand of hair. The ball still stays in place. But the shelf is flat and now one end is higher. How can this be? What is this voodoo? Hopefully you agree that the width of a hair is not going to make much difference to our crude way of measuring the tilt of a shelf.

This is exactly the same as you with your sprit levels and bendy twigs. Doing something on a small scale is not going to be suitable for measuring something on the large scale. The big difference between what you propose and my shelf experiment is that the size you are trying to measure is over a thousand times smaller than an average human hair.
Click to expand...
This is not simple enough logic for him
 
DaveH said:
Sigh....you are back to the thing that all flat earth conspiracy theorists do when stuck.
Click to expand...
I'm not stuck I'm perfectly content.
DaveH said:
Try to measure the curve of a massive planet on a really small scale and then claim flatness.
Click to expand...
It seems you can offer it with bridge towers and ships falling down a curve over a few miles when it suits.
Look at the Pontchartrain pylons and so on and so on. When it suits but then it looks flat when it suyits.
I'm extremely comfortable arguing about any of this stuff.
DaveH said:
Of course you are going to repeatedly fail doing that.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't see any failure from my side but I do from yours.
DaveH said:
It is like your spirit level all over again.
Click to expand...
By all means, use that as some kind of argument. It tells me a lot about how you argue.
DaveH said:
Remember when I did the maths for you and found your spirit level would need to be 451 meters long to have any measurable drop?
Click to expand...
No need for any of it, as I said. It's basically grasping at straws to keep a spinning globe as a reality which it is absolutely not.
DaveH said:
Well it is the same with sitting on the grass and bending a couple of sticks in the space between your outstretched legs. It is mathematically proven that if you try to judge the curve of the earth over a few centimeters then you are not going to see anything of value.
Click to expand...
The value is there and shows distances based on a curved are as warped as it.
It also shows the reality of a level ground-based entirely on those simple sticks to show a bigger area would create a much bigger issue.
DaveH said:
Lets picture a different but similar scenario. Can you imagine you are building a shelf with a thick 2m plank by standing it on two blocks? You don't have a spirit level so put a ball on it. If the ball rolls then the shelf is not level. If the ball does roll, it is not. Sound reasonable? The shelf is flat.
So then you lift one end of the shelf and put a brick underneath it. The ball rolls away right? The shelf is not flat.

Now remove the brick and replace it with a single strand of hair. The ball still stays in place. But the shelf is flat and now one end is higher. How can this be? What is this voodoo? Hopefully you agree that the width of a hair is not going to make much difference to our crude way of measuring the tilt of a shelf.
Click to expand...

One terrible way to use an analogy to try and offer up your global size.
DaveH said:
This is exactly the same as you with your sprit levels and bendy twigs.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. You see I'm offering reality. Observable testable and repeatable.
You're offering nothing.
DaveH said:
Doing something on a small scale is not going to be suitable for measuring something on the large scale.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned with your bridge towers and whatnot.
DaveH said:
The big difference between what you propose and my shelf experiment is that the size you are trying to measure is over a thousand times smaller than an average human hair.
Click to expand...
Try something else because this offers nothing.
MunkyHeed said:
Hi @Nukehasslefan - sorry if this has been covered before, but are all moons/planets/stars flat, or just Earth? Cheers.
Click to expand...
None.
Earth is a cell we live inside of.
The so-called planets and so-called stars are reflections emanating from the cell centre. In my opinion of course.
Feel free to ask further questions and I'll try my best to answer.
DaveH said:
:D They don't exist. The moon is a secondary reflection of the sun, obviously. That is why it is so similar.

The planets are a holographic image suspended in a under crystal then projected by a naturally forming carbon arc lamp through a crystal lens and projected onto a ice dome.

The stars are points of light that shine through a crystal onto the dome.

Please don't think that sounds bat shit crazy.
Click to expand...
I've just done a slight alteration. Hope you don't mind.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
I'm not stuck I'm perfectly content.

It seems you can offer it with bridge towers and ships falling down a curve over a few miles when it suits.
Look at the Pontchartrain pylons and so on and so on. When it suits but then it looks flat when it suyits.
I'm extremely comfortable arguing about any of this stuff.

I certainly don't see any failure from my side but I do from yours.

By all means, use that as some kind of argument. It tells me a lot about how you argue.

No need for any of it, as I said. It's basically grasping at straws to keep a spinning globe as a reality which it is absolutely not.

The value is there and shows distances based on a curved are as warped as it.
It also shows the reality of a level ground-based entirely on those simple sticks to show a bigger area would create a much bigger issue.


One terrible way to use an analogy to try and offer up your global size.

No, it's not. You see I'm offering reality. Observable testable and repeatable.
You're offering nothing.

As I mentioned with your bridge towers and whatnot.

Try something else because this offers nothing.

None.
Earth is a cell we live inside of.
The so-called planets and so-called stars are reflections emanating from the cell centre. In my opinion of course.
Feel free to ask further questions and I'll try my best to answer.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It seems you can offer it with bridge towers and ships falling down a curve over a few miles when it suits.
Look at the Pontchartrain pylons and so on and so on. When it suits but then it looks flat when it suyits.
I'm extremely comfortable arguing about any of this stuff.
Click to expand...
Bridges are really big but even then you are only talking of a distance of a few millimeters. It is enough for the girders not to meet and need to be manufactured accordingly. Your experiment is really small.

Ships don't fall down.
Nukehasslefan said:
I certainly don't see any failure from my side but I do from yours.
Click to expand...
Scale - you really can't grasp it
Nukehasslefan said:
No, it's not. You see I'm offering reality. Observable testable and repeatable.
Click to expand...
Pointless, bollocks and repeatable.

But perhaps it is the way you described it. If you have repeated this and it is easy, could you do your "experiment" again and take a photo of it so we can see, then use a bit of maths to predict the result on a flat earth, result on a gradual gradient and the result on the actual earth?
 
I saw a YouTube video that said all flat earthers decide (after discovering the lie) to get their little toes cut off as they no longer need them for curved balance. I wouldn't have learned this if I hadn't been told to do some research.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Why the massive curve?


Don't see any direct flight.
Click to expand...
Why do you think there's a "massive curve," given that you're the one seeking to explain an entire alternate model of the world?

And as for the direct flights between the UK and Australia that you don't see:
You must be logged on to see external links


That's QF10, literally in the air right now from LHR to Perth, having flown over Europe, the Gulf Region, and now the Indian Ocean.

The other flights you claim not to see between Auckland and Santiago, there's one in each direction scheduled within nine hours of now. The flights are LAN 800 and 801, operating on Boeing 787-9s. Here's the last flight in each direction:

You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links

So again, what's up with those paths that look curved?

I mean, there's a very obvious explanation that you've ignored, but I'm curious as to yours.

As I've said, the more entertaining part of this windup is when you make up bullshit out of thin air; pretending to ignore things placed right under your nose isn't really your strong suit. I've given you a good opening to spin a good yarn above, so it'd be good for all of us if you'd take it.
 
Last edited:
Hend79 said:
Earth diameter - 7915.5 miles
London to Sydney - 10553 miles

How does that work on a flat Earth you condescending moron?
Click to expand...
I'll let you figure that one out yourself. Take your time.
DaveH said:
Bridges are really big but even then you are only talking of a distance of a few millimeters. It is enough for the girders not to meet and need to be manufactured accordingly. Your experiment is really small.
Click to expand...
So your bridge towers are just a few millimetres apart at the top than the bottom. Oh ok, so there's no real argument with that anymore. One more thing out of the way as being pointless arguments for a supposed globe.
DaveH said:
Ships don't fall down.
Click to expand...
They don't, you're right.
DaveH said:
Scale - you really can't grasp it
Click to expand...
Aye, so I've been told.
DaveH said:
Pointless, bollocks and repeatable.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's the fictional globe alright.
DaveH said:
But perhaps it is the way you described it. If you have repeated this and it is easy, could you do your "experiment" again and take a photo of it so we can see, then use a bit of maths to predict the result on a flat earth, result on a gradual gradient and the result on the actual earth?
Click to expand...
No need for me to do anything. It's there for anyone who wants to take a step aside from the spinning global narrative.
That's the beauty of finding reality. It's there for us all but the mass indoctrination into creating a belief system that does not match reality is massively strong from being a kid to an adult.

But, we're all under those narratives, it's just a case of who decides to believe what.
legend7 said:
I'm still waiting to see where abu dhabi apparently is, my guess was so wrong, dying to see where it turns up.
I'm thinking near wrekenton or could equally be the South of France.
@Nukehasslefan come on show me on your map
Click to expand...
You got what you asked for and you're not happy with it. That's absolutely fine because I knew this from the start.
So don't expect me to offer anything else for your map.
You believe your map is based on a globe. I'll never alter that mindset. Only you can.
SYB_DC said:
Why do you think there's a "massive curve," given that you're the one seeking to explain an entire alternate model of the world?

And as for the direct flights between the UK and Australia that you don't see:
You must be logged on to see external links


That's QF10, literally in the air right now from LHR to Perth, having flown over Europe, the Gulf Region, and now the Indian Ocean.

The other flights you claim not to see between Auckland and Santiago, there's one in each direction scheduled within nine hours of now. The flights are LAN 800 and 801, operating on Boeing 787-9s. Here's the last flight in each direction:

You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links

So again, what's up with those paths that look curved?

I mean, there's a very obvious explanation that you've ignored, but I'm curious as to yours.

As I've said, the more entertaining part of this windup is when you make up bullshit out of thin air; pretending to ignore things placed right under your nose isn't really your strong suit. I've given you a good opening to spin a good yarn above, so it'd be good for all of us if you'd take it.
Click to expand...
Some curvature on those paths.
Let me guess. Great circle for you...right?
Or is it the great arc?
Or is it something else?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top