.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Mr. Nice
-
Posts
568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mr. Nice
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Yes I do. The gravitational force pulls the air towards the surface, creating a compression effect from air above. As the altitude increases the pressure decreases slowly until it reaches equilibrium with the vacuum. There is no magic blanket, just progressively less and less pressure.
-
6 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Sorry, you're right, the earth is a ball....I was wrong.
You can go back to where you came from now.
This reminds me of the Mark Twain quote "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Not saying you are an idiot but you are certainly acting like one.......Now take that lamp out of my face.
The one thing I NEVER do is get into any dialogue with aggressive people....On and offline.
Right there demonstrating the very thing you complain about. Your reply is needlessly obnoxious and aggressive.
You failed to answer my responses like a civil person. Explain my response to your moon image about the southern hemisphere inversion. None of my posts are aggressive, rude, uncivil or provocative.
-
7 minutes ago, zarkov said:
Ive not entered into discussing this subject as yet but would like to now how a ball earth can spin without all the water from the oceans not accumulating at the equator?
Even the slightest angular change and water runs to the lowest point.
The slightest centrifugal action would result in all the oceans at the equator.
Not true. The centrifugal force is very small and nowhere near enough to counter gravitational force. The angular velocity is 360 degrees in 24hrs.
7 minutes ago, zarkov said:To keep the oceans intact on a spinning ball the gravitational variance would have to be precise.
No it would not. That makes no sense at all.
7 minutes ago, zarkov said:also gravity would be less at the "equator" as it is countered by centripetal force. Has that been noted?
Yes.
7 minutes ago, zarkov said:As earth is supposed to be an oblate spheroid, how does that work with materials of different fluidity! on a blob with an even crust.
Not sure what you mean. Clarify.
-
8 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Wow, slow down man....Just joined and at this rate you'll be top poster in a week.
Just answer my posts thank you.
8 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:Who the hell sent you!
Nobody.
8 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:As I said, answer my constellation question first and we'll continue the conversation like civilised people.
Answered above. Please read my replies. My replies are perfectly civil.
8 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:Your aggression is already showing you know.........Typical ball believer behaviour when cognitive dissonance sets in.
There is no aggression in any of my posts and you just cast the first stone by labelling me as cognitively dissonant. The second stone lumps in "ball believers" into a group with similar attributes.
8 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:It was why the other thread was locked.
The other thread was locked because a flat earther came in and started abusing a moderator. Just answer the questions and replies, try not to get sucked in to the personality game and defend your case. Now, the Moon questions when you're ready.
-
Just now, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Who says we can't?
I say we can't and every single piece of high altitude footage shows this. Your example image is from footage confirming this.
Just now, Ziggy Sawdust said:The first human being that ever travelled up to any decent height was Auguste Piccard in 1931....He observed that at 52,000 feet Earth “seemed a flat disc with an upturned edge.”
Did he now. Planes get up to to 35000 feet and clearly that is a load of nonsense. Lear jets fly at that altitude and it just shows a low level curve as expected.
Just now, Ziggy Sawdust said:On you tube, there is official US Airforce footage showing the view from a jet at 375,000 feet and guess what?....The horizon is flat.
Says who? Let me guess the source is a manipulated flat earth video.
Just now, Ziggy Sawdust said:And how do you explain that no matter how high you go the horizon rises with you to the eye.....That's impossible on a ball and you know it.
You are quoting something that has been proven to be absurdly wrong.
-
3 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Thank you for the stock and absurd explanation. Now tell me why the view from the same latitude the same distance apart doesn't do the same thing. If you view the Moon at rise from South America and at set in Perth Australia the same face is visible at the same time.
Explain please.
Further to your picture, track the Moon down to the horizon and show the view from either of those two observers - it now becomes the same!
-
3 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Perhaps you'd be courteous enough to answer my constellation question that I asked you before you start grilling me.
Answered already pending mod approval see above. That post wasn't from one of your quotes. It was from alexa.
-
Just now, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Sorry, no CGI or cartoons allowed.
This would be the video that that you are citing. It is always the same, the video shows curvature, briefly flat as it crosses the lower lens and always shows a circle that is NOT the full Earth.
Just now, Ziggy Sawdust said:I think you're getting a bit mixed up here....Pizzas and Pancakes are circular, but they're flat my friend, not spherical.
No confusion. We see a partial of a circle that is round and curved, but not the full flat earth. Explain why we cannot see the entire flat earth from so high up.
-
1 minute ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Hi Mr Nice.
Good to see you've joined and decided your first post should be one supporting 'space'
As you're now here and obviously think you live on a ball would you perhaps care to tell me why the constellations above us (specifically the polar star) have never changed position in thousands and thousands of years despite us travelling at immense unimaginable speeds through the void....The Earth, NASA tells me, travels around the sun at 66, 666 mph (where have I seen that number before?). The Sun (our solar system) rotates around the center of the Milky Way at beween 420, 000 and 540, 000 mph. Finally, it is believed that the Milky Way is traveling or moving around a "local group" of galaxies at 2, 237, 000 mph.
Doesn't make sense to me.
This is where I ask you to explain why they should be moving significantly. EVERYTHING together in the Milky Way is rotating. They are so far away from the Earth it is really, really difficult to demonstrate. It's like if I was The Earth and you the Sun 10 feet away - the nearest star would be about a billion miles away. Our shared movement is tiny compared to the distance of the stars from us.
It's wiki, that doesn't mean it's wrong since every statement is sourced. There is movement, just very very slow and over significant time.
-
On 3/7/2022 at 12:29 AM, alexa said:
I'm so glad this topic is back on board as it is a topic that has bought me closer than ever to God whereby most of this Heliocentrism was to hide God & his word in the first place.
Having read the Bible three times I'm fully convinced that the Bible is a Flat Earth book & that God wants us to truly know that the earth is flat and that his word is true.
Perhaps you can share your faith properly and demonstrate that you can answer things that prove your views incorrect.
Explain why the Moon is inverted in the southern hemisphere. I have numerous follow up questions accordingly.
-
On 3/7/2022 at 12:37 AM, Ziggy Sawdust said:
Amateur balloon at 120,000 feet with no fish eye lens.
Notice that the level of the horizon rises with the eye.....This would not be the case on a ball.
This is the deceptive use of one small section of footage where the curve matches the inversion of the lens. Basically there was no fish-eye lens used at all. It was a wide angled lens for sure, showing curvature as you would expect but as the camera tracked high, the curvature passed over the lower half of the lens. This for a tiny section balanced out the curve and effectively straightened it. If you wish I can find a video showing this.
One thing NEVER noted on any of these videos is that we often see the camera do a complete 360 scan and lo and behold there is no complete flat Earth, just a segment of the circle. Right there is the slam dunk proof it aint flat.
-
There are thousands of pictures of the Earth taken from space, many dating back during and before the Apollo missions, well before digital imaging software. Every one of them kills off flat earthers, but they just invoke the only response possible and suggest that they are all faked. The ISS which orbits the Earth and can be seen doing so, had a 24hr real-time coverage video running the whole time for years on end. To suggest there is magical software capable of doing this is just absurd. The film gravity took months just for small sections and modelled its video on actual footage.
-
6 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:
If the 'James Webb telescope' is that powerful why don't they turn it back onto the 'globe' and then zoom in showing us all boats, planes, cars and people upside down at the bottom of it and kill off us Flat Earthers once and for all.
The idea behind its purpose is that it is in a position that enables it to be safe and able to be used for imaging things we haven't seen before. The idea that you think they should image the Earth so that flat earthers are placated is rather daft.
6 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:I think we all know the answer.
Yes, you will just make a blanket denial of the images and consign them to a bullring. There would be no point in doing it in the first place.
The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread
in Space & Universe
Posted
Great, so what is he saying that confirms the Earth is flat? His views do not match with those from passenger planes and Lear jets.