What would change your mind?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2021, 03:09:22 AM

You havent
Because you, self admitted, rhat this drawing is not to scale.
Your whole arguement is prwmsied on this drawing and you, self admitted, it is not to scale.
Draw it to scale.

Take your time and think about things.

Draw it to scale.
Ill find the drawing eventually.

Menawhile
Nothing prevents you from actually proving us wrong by drawing it to scale

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2020, 09:59:26 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 08, 2020, 10:00:53 AM

sceppy you are truly AMAZING!



watch the video.
let me know how much field of view is seen through this 1in sniper's scope at 500yards and the different levels of magnifications.
amazing!

Your field of view is compressed into an inch from the tube.
Magnification does not make the object physically bigger at distance.
Maybe have a think about it and you will understand.........................................maybe.

AMAZING!

Heres a funny tidbit
Definition of "Scoped" where i actually show a scope view as veey apparent by the use of a snipers scope.
You twistibg words is very obvious.
You are a pos.

Global Earth summed up in one sentence.

Fair enough.  If that's true then just explain how there are two points in the sky, separated by 180 degrees around which all the stars rotate.  Anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. If you live at the equator then all the stars rise vertically and set vertically. 

How does your model explain that reality?

Man
Anyone remeber the drawing he posted where thean was like 5km tall on a ball earth showing some "level" site lines?


Is that image gone?


Did he delete it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 03:05:19 AM

Quote from: Bored on April 27, 2021, 11:14:07 PM

Bravo.

So, do you understand the difference?

Absolutely but it seems you do not.

Quote

Global Earth summed up in one sentence.

Fair enough.  If that's true then just explain how there are two points in the sky, separated by 180 degrees around which all the stars rotate.  Anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. If you live at the equator then all the stars rise vertically and set vertically. 

How does your model explain that reality?

Can you make yourself clear and explain to me what you're actually saying?

Its very clear.
You are obviously trying ti troll out a discussion that, in simialr past experience, after lentghy posts, is waved away.




There is only one shape that will match the star pattern

Baby steps.


Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.

I've shown you what your globe would offer

No, you have repeatedly lied about the globe to pretend it doesn't match reality.
You haven't shown anything that the globe would offer.
Because if you did, you would have to admit that it matches reality.

You're not exposing any lies from me because I'm not telling any lies.

You have lied so much in this thread it isn't funny.

If you weren't lying, you would admit that the fact that we always have a FOV (at least when our eyes are open and not covered), even when looking through a level tube means that the ability to see the RE is dependent upon the size of that FOV, and your elevation above Earth.
Instead you lie and claim it magically isn't visible at all, yet you cannot defend that lie and simple questions expose that lie.
Just like you lied to try to pretend the drop is much larger than it actually is, claiming that an object on ground level at 1 mile distance is magically 11 feet because we all know that 6 ft plus 8 inches is magically 11 ft.

Again, every time you avoid these simple questions, it further supports the fact that all you have against the globe are pathetic lies.

Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.

Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?

Can you make yourself clear and explain to me what you're actually saying?

I have made myself pretty clear.  I assume you know what 180 degrees looks like and I assume you know what clockwise, anticlockwise and vertical means yes?

Just because I literally don't have anything better to do right now, imagine a sphere. Now take a point on the surface of that sphere. Any point will do.  Now draw a line inside (i.e. through) the sphere from that point such that it passes through the centre of the sphere and continues on to the inside surface on the other side. What is the angular separation between the two points on the the surface of the sphere? We could draw any umber of arcs to join these points and they would be analogous with lines of longitude on Earth or lines of RA on the sky. Now rotate the sphere around the line you have just drawn.

Now imagine that your observation point is the centre of the sphere and you are watching the sphere rotate all around you. Above you the sphere is rotating anticlockwise, below you the sphere is rotating clockwise.  This is the perception that we have of the sky. Of course as things are you would be able to see the entire inside surface of the sphere would you not. 

So now imagine you are actually standing on a second sphere which is concentric with our original sphere. This second sphere starts to grow increasingly large so our view of the original sphere below us also gets more and more obstructed by the sphere we are standing on. As the sphere we are standing on gets larger, so too does the original sphere but the two remain concentric (i.e. have common centre). Eventually the sphere we are standing on becomes very large compared to us to the point where we can only see half of the inside surface of the original sphere.

As we look at it there will always be two fixed points on the inside surface of the original sphere which lie along a straight line which passes through the centre of both spheres. This line can be thought of as the polar axis of the Earth. From our vantage point on the sphere we are standing on we can move around the surface as we wish but we will only ever be able to see half of the inside surface of the original sphere at any one moment. That accounts (or explains to use your favourite word) for why we can only see different stars from different locations on Earth, with the exception of the equator where we can see all of the stars. That in turn explains why most large observatories are sited near the equator. Because there they can see the most regions of sky.

If you are having problems matching these simple, real world observations with your model then ask yourself why.

Quote from: Stash on April 27, 2021, 10:43:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 27, 2021, 10:28:40 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 27, 2021, 01:07:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2021, 09:17:24 PM

I absolutely feel I'm getting somewhere with it even if I can't physically prove it.

And that has no bearing on reality

The global model you adhere to has no bearing on reality, in my honest opinion.

Are you saying that all the worlds transport of goods and people on board planes and ships, all of which utilize globe earth navigation measurements and tools, is not reality? It's all fake?

Nobody utilises global navigation.
The reason they don't is very simple.
The globe we are told to believe in, does not exist.

That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:

"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/

So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?

Its very clear.
You are obviously trying ti troll out a discussion that, in simialr past experience, after lentghy posts, is waved away.




There is only one shape that will match the star pattern

Explain what's happening in your world that you can confirm from a global point of view and which you think I can't.
Just explain it so I can give you an answer.

Baby steps.


Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.

What the hell is that number?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 04:06:36 AM

Quote from: Bored on April 28, 2021, 03:11:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 03:05:19 AM

Quote from: Bored on April 27, 2021, 11:14:07 PM

Bravo.

So, do you understand the difference?

Absolutely but it seems you do not.

So, explain it to me.
What is the difference between a curve and a gradient?
Remembering that you claim I don't understand it, despite having drawn the picture.

Your response sounds like you are struggling, going into a nasty angry frenzy at the sight of a curve.

A curve is an arc. A gradient can also also arc up or down and also at a straight angle up or down.

Either way, if you look level when stood on any of them you will not see the gradient or the bottom of it when looking down and away from it.


A curve downwards offers you the same thing.

So what are you struggling with?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 03:04:18 AM

I've shown you what your globe would offer

No, you have repeatedly lied about the globe to pretend it doesn't match reality.

I don't believe I'm lying, at all.
One simple thing is needed, only, to destroy the globe you adhere to.
Water level.

I could go on and on but water level is all that's needed to destroy the global model you believe to be your facts.

I'm not lying and you may not be intentionally lying.
You believe in magic and because of that your globe stays alive, to you and anyone else who thinks like you.

Quote

Can you make yourself clear and explain to me what you're actually saying?

I have made myself pretty clear.  I assume you know what 180 degrees looks like and I assume you know what clockwise, anticlockwise and vertical means yes?

Yes.

Just because I literally don't have anything better to do right now, imagine a sphere. Now take a point on the surface of that sphere. Any point will do.  Now draw a line inside (i.e. through) the sphere from that point such that it passes through the centre of the sphere and continues on to the inside surface on the other side. What is the angular separation between the two points on the the surface of the sphere? We could draw any umber of arcs to join these points and they would be analogous with lines of longitude on Earth or lines of RA on the sky. Now rotate the sphere around the line you have just drawn.

Now imagine that your observation point is the centre of the sphere and you are watching the sphere rotate all around you. Above you the sphere is rotating anticlockwise, below you the sphere is rotating clockwise.  This is the perception that we have of the sky. Of course as things are you would be able to see the entire inside surface of the sphere would you not.

So now imagine you are actually standing on a second sphere which is concentric with our original sphere. This second sphere starts to grow increasingly large so our view of the original sphere below us also gets more and more obstructed by the sphere we are standing on. As the sphere we are standing on gets larger, so too does the original sphere but the two remain concentric (i.e. have common centre). Eventually the sphere we are standing on becomes very large compared to us to the point where we can only see half of the inside surface of the original sphere.

As we look at it there will always be two fixed points on the inside surface of the original sphere which lie along a straight line which passes through the centre of both spheres. This line can be thought of as the polar axis of the Earth. From our vantage point on the sphere we are standing on we can move around the surface as we wish but we will only ever be able to see half of the inside surface of the original sphere at any one moment. That accounts (or explains to use your favourite word) for why we can only see different stars from different locations on Earth, with the exception of the equator where we can see all of the stars. That in turn explains why most large observatories are sited near the equator. Because there they can see the most regions of sky.

If you are having problems matching these simple, real world observations with your model then ask yourself why.

Let's make this a bit more clear.

Your Earth is believed to be on a 23.5 degree tilt and going around a big ball of fire/heat/so called fusion, or whatever, you call a sun.

Let's start from here.


Why?

Simple answers and I'll move on asking simple questions.
If you're up to it then simple answers that make sense.
I know I can go and look it all up but I would like explanations for what I ask, as in, why the 23.5 degree tilt.

That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:

"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/

So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?

How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?

If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.


I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.

Quote from: Stash on April 28, 2021, 09:28:03 AM

That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:

"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/

So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?

How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?

Because all of the documentation references the usage of WGS-84. Are you saying that even though all the documentation and calculations are referencing WGS-84 that they are not really using WGS-84? And secretly using a flat earth navigation/calculation? And again, if so, which flat earth map/model do they use?

If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.

How long have you been at this FE thing? Like a dozen+ years and you still don't know the basics of the model you disagree with?

I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.

Are you an aeronautics engineer now? Somehow re-writing all of avionics as well of the entirety of physics? You must think yourself a genius.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2021, 04:12:19 AM

Baby steps.


Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.

What the hell is that number?

it's a typo as if you've read any of my posts, you know i'm very prone to have.

and the number has been given to you on many occasions now.

life isn't that difficult.

quit playing udmb

12,750,000

draw the circle

draw it to scale

Your Earth is believed to be on a 23.5 degree tilt and going around a big ball of fire/heat/so called fusion, or whatever, you call a sun.

Let's start from here.

Why?

Simple answers and I'll move on asking simple questions.
If you're up to it then simple answers that make sense.
I know I can go and look it all up but I would like explanations for what I ask, as in, why the 23.5 degree tilt.

And let me make my position nice and clear. I'm not here to spoon-feed you at whatever simple level you demand. Everything I have said so far to me is simple. Not just simple but also very logical. But if what I call simple and logical is going over your head to the extent that you can't understand any of it and therefore you dismiss it as nonsense then I'm sorry I can't help you.  What causes the seasons in your world then? I'm sure you have an explanation because the seasons are undoubtedly real. Also how do you account for the latitude depend variation in climatic changes due to the seasonal cycle?

I am not going to bring myself down to your level with the attitude that you currently have towards all this. Get rid of your ego and then we might have a basis to go forward.

Why the 23.5 degree tilt which causes the seasons?  The scientific explanation is that during its formation 4.3 billion years ago the Earth was in collision with another forming planetesimal which altered the angle of spin of the Earth in relation to its orbit in the plane of the solar system.  This caused a partial disintegration of Earth and the debris from both the Earth and the planetesimal re-congealed to form the Moon. The inclination of the Earths spin wobbles over time with a period of around 26,000 years.  We know that from historical records of star positions which can then be extrapolated.  We call this precession. 

Obviously there was no one around 4.3 billion years ago to observe all this going on so all this is - as I'm sure you will point out - ultimately a hypothesis. No one has come up with any better an explanation so until someone does, that is what we will go with.  It seems to match observations quite nicely.  The iron rich core of the forming Earth was unaffected by the collision and remained intact.

I'm sure you will dismiss all this as pure nonsense and gobble-de-gook as you have before and have other and no doubt better ideas about all this. So perhaps you can enlighten us about the 'truth'.  But since you cannot prove any of your alternative ideas as correct, they are also pure hypothesis on your part as well and therefore no better than the scientific view.

Quote from: Stash on April 28, 2021, 09:28:03 AM

That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:

"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/

So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?

How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?

If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.


I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.

Surely you jest? A plane skims the atmosphere even though it is fully within the atmosphere? Have you ever tried skimming a flat-sided rock underwater, sceptimatic? No, I guess you haven't.

Planes don't skim.  Flat rocks skim across the surface of a pool of water. There is no surface within the atmosphere for a plane to skim across.

Your conspiracy theorisations continue to grow more outlandish as your imagination is stretched to it's absolute limits.

When you realised globe earth has always been the symbol of the start of science and the start of the ideological crumble of institutional christianity, you really drank all the cups of cool aide you could get your hands on!

I'd like to watch your flat earth YouTube videos. Can you post up a link?

did sceppy say that, on a ball earth, a plane has to constantly fly DOWN so that it doesn't fly away from the earth?
woweeeee

I could go on and on but water level is all that's needed to destroy the global model you believe to be your facts.

What sort of size scales are we talking here? A puddle? A lake? the ocean?  I placed a metre rule over a puddle recently and the surface of the water certainly did seem to be pretty parallel with the ruler. So perhaps that simple experiment provides evidence that the Earth is not a globe?

Unfortunately I don't have a ruler long enough to lay over the surface of the lake near my home so I am not sure how I can measure how level that actually is but again it looks pretty level. Is that evidence enough?

Looking out from the beach near my home I can look out over the sea and in the distance are some wind turbines.  Some of those seem to look a bit shorter than others. Just how can I tell whether the sea is level and flat other than just visual estimate? Not very scientific but then science is trying to dupe us right?

Explain what's happening in your world that you can confirm from a global point of view and which you think I can't.

Anything provided you will just dismiss as fake.
For example, the fact that the horizon is observed to be BELOW eye level.
The thing provided right near the start of the thread, which shows that Earth isn't flat, which you then just dismissed as fake because it shows you are wrong.

Either way, if you look level when stood on any of them you will not see the gradient or the bottom of it when looking down and away from it.
A curve downwards offers you the same thing.
So what are you struggling with?

We aren't struggling with anything.
You are struggling to justify that outright lie of yours.
Again, this lie of yours requires it to be impossible to see anything below "level".
It means you cannot have a FOV.

As soon as you accept the fact that we do have a FOV, it is not as simple as you make it because you can see things below level, including potentially the ground on a downwards gradient or curve.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 28, 2021, 04:35:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 03:04:18 AM

I've shown you what your globe would offer

No, you have repeatedly lied about the globe to pretend it doesn't match reality.

I don't believe I'm lying, at all.

And even then you lie.
Due to how you respond to everything, you KNOW you are lying.
Stop playing dumb.

One simple thing is needed, only, to destroy the globe you adhere to.
Water level.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, water level strongly supports the globe.
It in no way refutes it.
Again, the fact that you can go to a large body of water and look out across it at a distant object and see the bottom of the obscured by the water, even though both you and the object are above the water, shows that the surface of the water is curved, with that curve blocking your view.

This shows Earth is round.
It in no way destroys the globe model.

I'm not lying

Yes, you are.
It has been repeatedly explained to you how water level shows Earth is round, yet you contiually lie and claim it magically destroys the globe model.
It has been repeatedly explained to you how the fact we have a FOV allows you to potentially see a downwards gradient or a curve, even when you look out level, based upon how large your FOV is, and the slope of that downwards slope, or your height above the curve and the radius of the curve; yet you continually lie and claim it is impossible to see.

You are lying repeatedly.
All because you cannot justify your irrational hatred of the globe, so you lie to pretend it is flawed.

You are the one continually appealing to magic, not us.
You are the one continually defying simple logic, not us.

Again, if you weren't lying with almost every post you make, you would answer the simple questions and stick to the answers.
But you don't, because you know with the way one of these questions is stated, there is no distinction between if Earth is flat and horizontal with you 6 ft above the surface, or if it is a downwards slope, with you some height above the surface, or if it is curved with you some height above the surface, the answer is the same. Either you see the base of the tree and thus the ground, or you don't.
Because of that, there is no easy opportunity for you to twist it and pretend you can see the ground if it is flat but lie and claim you can't if it is a curve or a downwards slope.
And that means you either say that on a FE you can't see the ground, or you say on a RE you can, either way you contradict your prior claims.

Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?

Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube? Make sure when you answer you don't pretend we don't have a FOV. That means Earth being below the tube is not enough to make it invisible, even if it gets further below the tube the further away it is. The only way to have such a general statement is if you reject the fact that we have a FOV and boldly state the outright false claim that nothing below the tube is visible through it, which will then take us straight back to the tree.

And again, if you weren't lying or didn't think you were, you would have no issues with answering these simple questions.
You would be able to answer these trivial questions and stick to the answer.
The fact you continually refuse to do so shows that you know you are lying.

Your Earth is believed to be on a 23.5 degree tilt and going around a big ball of fire/heat/so called fusion, or whatever, you call a sun.
Let's start from here.

No.
Lets start with the simple tube and FOV you have been avoiding ever sense the start of this thread.

If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path.

There you go with more lies.
They would be maintaining altitude to keep a curved path.
They would need to alter their altitude to fly a straight path.
They don't need to intentionally alter their course to follow the curve. All they need to do is maintain their altitude and attitude.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 09:54:27 AM

Quote from: Stash on April 28, 2021, 09:28:03 AM

That's weird because flight plan maps/software use the WGS84 standard. Which, as you know, is a spheroid model of earth:

"The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifies the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84) or equivalent as the geodetic reference datum Standard for air navigation latitude/longitude coordinates."
https://ww2.jeppesen.com/wgs-84-status/

So are you saying that the flight industry, even though they use a globe earth for navigation, is really secretly using a flat earth model? If so, what flat earth model are they using?

How would you know they use a globe Earth for navigation?

Because all of the documentation references the usage of WGS-84. Are you saying that even though all the documentation and calculations are referencing WGS-84 that they are not really using WGS-84? And secretly using a flat earth navigation/calculation? And again, if so, which flat earth map/model do they use?

From what I read it seems to be a terrain mapper for high and low lands.

It doesn't show any navigation of a globe.
If it does then explain exactly what's happening, nice and simple and from your own words.
Explain it to the retard that I am or in so simple terms.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 09:54:27 AM

If this was the case they would be consistently altering altitude to keep a curved path. You know this does not happen and so do I.

How long have you been at this FE thing? Like a dozen+ years and you still don't know the basics of the model you disagree with?

Yep, I know what I'm arguing against and this is exactly why this stuff will not just go away, no matter how many times you try to use this line of waving away.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 09:54:27 AM

I'll tell you what I feel a plane is doing in the sky. It's skimming the atmosphere it sits on as it flies a straight path.
It acts like a atmospheric speed boat with wings.

Are you an aeronautics engineer now? Somehow re-writing all of avionics as well of the entirety of physics? You must think yourself a genius.

I think we all have genius is us.

Did you know that engineers still do not know fully why a plane stays in the air.
And I believe I do. How weird is that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 09:32:45 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2021, 04:12:19 AM

Baby steps.


Draw a circle of diameter 12,750,00units, with a triangle on its surface.

What the hell is that number?

it's a typo as if you've read any of my posts, you know i'm very prone to have.

and the number has been given to you on many occasions now.

life isn't that difficult.

quit playing udmb

12,750,000

draw the circle

draw it to scale

Are you panicking?

I think anyone who cares to look logically will see what happens, regardless of whether you try to play scale.

Like I said before, don't try to play the scale game when you argue for a ship falling down your globe at just a few miles away.
It's massively contradicting and you know this, I think.

Quote

Your Earth is believed to be on a 23.5 degree tilt and going around a big ball of fire/heat/so called fusion, or whatever, you call a sun.

Let's start from here.

Why?

Simple answers and I'll move on asking simple questions.
If you're up to it then simple answers that make sense.
I know I can go and look it all up but I would like explanations for what I ask, as in, why the 23.5 degree tilt.

And let me make my position nice and clear. I'm not here to spoon-feed you at whatever simple level you demand. Everything I have said so far to me is simple. Not just simple but also very logical. But if what I call simple and logical is going over your head to the extent that you can't understand any of it and therefore you dismiss it as nonsense then I'm sorry I can't help you.

If you're not here to spoon feed me,a s you call it, then don't interact with me.
Treat me with the contempt you have and don't lower yourself to my level.

That would be the sensible option for you but you seem to feel the need to try and knock me down, which is fine..but to do that you need to play by the simple rules I go by.
Just shut me up by going nice and simple in proving your side.

I see no proof, regardless of whether you think you have it by appeals to so called authority.

  What causes the seasons in your world then?
 I'm sure you have an explanation because the seasons are undoubtedly real.

Yes I do.
As the sun moves over and around it rises and drops due to the dome rising and dropping caused by the centre of Earth's circle of energy within, rising and falling as energy depletes and replenishes.


It requires a lot of explanation and would massively go right over your head because your mindset is firmly against anything contrary to your globe.

Also how do you account for the latitude depend variation in climatic changes due to the seasonal cycle?

I'm not even sure what this is.
Maybe you can explain what you see and how you know it's a thing.

I am not going to bring myself down to your level with the attitude that you currently have towards all this. Get rid of your ego and then we might have a basis to go forward.

Get rid if your own ego. You seem to be massively projecting.

Why the 23.5 degree tilt which causes the seasons?  The scientific explanation is that during its formation 4.3 billion years ago the Earth was in collision with another forming planetesimal which altered the angle of spin of the Earth in relation to its orbit in the plane of the solar system.  This caused a partial disintegration of Earth and the debris from both the Earth and the planetesimal re-congealed to form the Moon. The inclination of the Earths spin wobbles over time with a period of around 26,000 years.

See what I mean?
You sit and swallow that story without one iota of reality in any way shape or form.
The idea/story is so nonsensical that to pass it off as potential is stretching it massively.
As a fantasy for a film or the fictional story, it's fine.
It baffles me why people go along with this.
I fully understand why kids would. I fully understand why the ordinary everyday person who takes no notice of why we are here and what we live on/in, would.

I get baffled as to why anyone else would who actually takes the time to question it all.

  We know that from historical records of star positions which can then be extrapolated.  We call this precession.
Obviously there was no one around 4.3 billion years ago to observe all this going on so all this is - as I'm sure you will point out - ultimately a hypothesis.

What records are these?
Explain simply what the records show and how far back?

No one has come up with any better an explanation so until someone does, that is what we will go with.

People have but it's hard to explain something that the masses have already adhered to like limpets, unconditionally.

  It seems to match observations quite nicely.

Anything can be set up to match observations.
We could be told that the lights in the sky are  diamonds and people would accept it if that was what was taught as part of a curriculum and even religion.

It's so easy to dupe people with stories and so easy for people who number crunch to set up pretences of distances and what not to fit a model.

All it is , is tweaking as people question.

Eventually the tweaking will cater for the questions and the masses will be once again, pacified.

The iron rich core of the forming Earth was unaffected by the collision and remained intact.

You have absolutely no idea what the core is.
You're told it's iron but you have little clue as to what is farther down than a score of miles and I'm being very very generous with that.

 

I'm sure you will dismiss all this as pure nonsense and gobble-de-gook as you have before and have other and no doubt better ideas about all this.

I believe I have better ideas and yes, I do believe it's absolute nonsense.
I'm surprised people don't question it.

So perhaps you can enlighten us about the 'truth'.

The truth about what?

  But since you cannot prove any of your alternative ideas as correct, they are also pure hypothesis on your part as well and therefore no better than the scientific view.

Of course they are. I've repeatedly said they are...but you seem to want to bring that argument up as if I'm spouting off my hypotheses, as facts, which I'm not.

All I say is, they fit much better, for me.....for me, than anything to do with a spinning global set up that the masses have been severely indoctrinated into.

That's simply my opinion and you're very welcome to spit it back at me....but don't expect me to swallow it and do expect me to return it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 09:31:55 AM

Explain what's happening in your world that you can confirm from a global point of view and which you think I can't.

Anything provided you will just dismiss as fake.
For example, the fact that the horizon is observed to be BELOW eye level.

It's not observed to be below eye level.
How is it that you can't understand that your eye centre converges light shades over distance. It has to be central. It has to be level over distance, to your own eye.

If you look slightly up your horizon focus is off. If you look slightly down your horizon focus is off.

If you look directly level....horizontally, your horizon is right there as your theoretical line which are lighter to darker shades converged to your farthest sight ability.


And yes, anything provided to me without proof, I will question or dismiss as fake if it reeks of it, like a lot of this space stuff reeks of it, as an instance.

Surely you jest? A plane skims the atmosphere even though it is fully within the atmosphere? Have you ever tried skimming a flat-sided rock underwater, sceptimatic? No, I guess you haven't.
Planes don't skim.  Flat rocks skim across the surface of a pool of water. There is no surface within the atmosphere for a plane to skim across.

I was waiting for someone to come in with this.
You see, if you had paid attention you would understand that I go with  stacked atmospheric layers.
The plane sits on a layers among layers.

Let me try and explain a bit better, not that you'll get it.

A speedboat will sit in water, not skim the very top.
It will sit in a fair few layers of that water (yes water has stacked layers, too).
Once you power against the water you push against layers behind and slice through layers in front.

Now here's the key.
On a speed boat, or any moving boat, but more easily seen on a moving speed boat, you notice the nose raises slightly as it moves forward.
It does this to skim as little water as opposed to pushing against much more.

This allows it to gain speed and much less resistance to the front, by the water, leaving only less dense wind resistance to skim through.

The plane does the very same thing, only it does it through atmosphere.

Have a real good think about it before you come back with whatever.

Your conspiracy theorisations continue to grow more outlandish as your imagination is stretched to it's absolute limits.

My imagination is calm and collective.
My theories are also calm and collective.
What they appear to you, is not my concern.

When you realised globe earth has always been the symbol of the start of science and the start of the ideological crumble of institutional christianity, you really drank all the cups of cool aide you could get your hands on!

I have no god. I am me and my god is myself.

You have a god, right?
For what reason do you have one and why?
It might seem to run off on a sort of tangent but you argue against me for my theories and you try to tell me a globe is logical to you. But so is your god...right?


 

I'd like to watch your flat earth YouTube videos. Can you post up a link?

I have no need for videos.

You can watch many videos on flat Earth and many that are so logical and simple when destroying the global model.
I'd hazard a guess you've seen most.

did sceppy say that, on a ball earth, a plane has to constantly fly DOWN so that it doesn't fly away from the earth?
woweeeee

I did say, if you were on a ball Earth your plane would have to adjust altitude to follow the curve.
This clearly doesn't happen and for obvious reasons.
This stuff just does not go away because it was discussed many time many years ago.
It's still valid and has no explanation from globalists.