No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.
OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree? I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules? Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise. Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity. Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space). Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure. So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are. Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity. In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't. It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason. You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud. PSo, it's all density, eh? Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules: In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*? In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber? The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce) environments. If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions. 1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall 2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly3) Density = mass/volume. That's it. Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure. We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight. This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface). Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity. By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity. In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0. So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with the apple? To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force. Also, NASA does fake all their space walks in their fake space. You can see air bubbles rising, scuba tanks in the background and various items floating up in their "official" videos. It's not a matter of "belief" as you put it. Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc. A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless. Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground. There is no force of density. But weight *is* equal to a force. This has nothing to do with bubbles. Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.  EDIT: After viewing the behavior of a helium balloon in a moving vehicle, I see you're probably correct about the balloon losing its buoyancy in the vomit comet in the same way a bowling ball loses its depression. FYI though, you're still living in a complete fantasy world in regards to the remainder of you're misguided arguments in regards to your globalist prerogative. Then what's your formula for weight that 1) doesn't involve g, and that 2) works in a vomit comet, on the ground, and in any other environment? |
|
|
|
That's because it's not even a door. It's a thermal cover for the hatch. |
|
|
|
I just got a private message from "the joint", he's throwing in the towel on his advocation of spinning globe earth.  It's probably for the best as he wasn't going to win the artificial horizon and gyroscopic compasses prove the earth is flat argument as that's where the planes flying in straight lines discussion was headed. Holy shit! I hope it ain't due to a virus due to he not being that far from me. I gave him a courtesy notice that I was ignoring him so he would stop wasting his time responding to me. I engage in this thread because I work in the mental health field, and I'm exceptionally curious about where the line blurs between diagnosable psychosis as a result of chemical imbalance vs. a result of social influence (generally speaking). Edit: It's also a fun excercise in critical thinking, and I've learned a surprising amount when thinking about refuting some of the most absurd claims I've ever heard. |
|
|
|
Please bear in mind that in the past I've actually contacted local (to the person) emergency personnel to report suicidal intentions declared on this forum. And yes, they showed up quickly.
So did I, three times prior. The first was Atlas. Remember Atlas! As far as I'm concerned, the OP of this thread is a lyin' piece of shit. You called regarding Atlas, too? I think I remember that, actually. No wonder authorities showed up so quickly! And yeah, most likely the OP is lying, but as I've said in other threads, wisdom unfortunately can't afford the luxury of making this assumption. It's sad, but true. In any case, having an unexpected knock at the door and possibly a hefty ambulance bill will make someone whose proverbial pants are on fire reconsider making such reckless statements in public. |
|
|
|
|
Please bear in mind that in the past I've actually contacted local (to the person) emergency personnel to report suicidal intentions declared on this forum. And yes, they showed up quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
When I have ideas for practical inventions, I often wonder what others think of them, or if they've already been thought of. This is a thread where you can post any ideas for new inventions or products, or to provide feedback for others.
I'll start with a few of mine:
1) A refillable, concentrated caffeine spritzer built into a mechanical pen/pencil for long work or study nights.
2) Natural-looking, synthetic firewood, refillable with flammable liquid that is released externally at a controlled rate to simulate burning of real wood. No more chopping/buying firewood, disposing of ash, or cleaning chimneys.
3) Small hole built into driver's side of vehicle that sucks cigarette smoke and ash and dispenses it cleanly outside of the vehicle. Smoke in rain or snow with the windows rolled up without hot-boxing the interior.
|
|
|
|
earth isn't flat, go to space and take a look, or sail a world, it's not medival ages anymore, how can you be so dumb, and to think that earth is flat
East/West circumnavigation is possible on the Flat Earth model. Scroll up and look at the United Nations map again. When you travel Eastwards your compass is at a right angle to North; hence Eastwards travel would curve around the North Pole and bring you back where you started. As an analogy, imagine that you are standing twenty feet from the North Pole. If you travel Eastwards where will your path take you? That's right. Your path takes you in a circle around the North Pole. It's 2016. Full hand transplants? Check. Cloning? Check. Quantum computing? Check. Traveling in a straight line without constantly turning in one direction? Way beyond our capabilities.  |
|
|
|
I sincerely believe this notion is a by-product of a complete distrust in the establishment. If every word coming from the mouth of the beast is a lie, why couldn't this one be as well?
+1  the fact a working scale model of flat earth exists and no working scale model of sphere or hollow earth is a massive give away, also if you look deep into vortex maths, all will be revealed. maths is the cryptography left to us by the ancients which were still decoding  I hope you understand the problems of having a "working scale model of earth" while you're actually *on* Earth. But hey, if you have a scale model of a flat earth located in some distant part of space where it isn't subject to all of the forces present near Earth itself, I'd love to see it. Any physical model of a planetary body would be invalid right off the bat if it is affected by forces of the body it is attempting to model. Fortunately, we have computers that allow us to create virtual models based upon precise mathematical inputs. So, naturally, your task would be to create a virtual flat earth model that accounts for all of the data, modeled from physics equations that would allow you to predict events in the model. Do you have such equations? No, you do not, and accordingly no such working model of a flat earth exists. go look up the recreation of the ancient greek antikythera mechanism, theres your working scale model of flat earth, found on earth and recreated, they wont tell you its a scale model of flat earth as that goes against "common core" or "common purpose" but if you watch it and study it you will see im not wrong, that device has predicted the location of stars and planets, the sun and moon with 100% accuracy for cenuries, if thats not a working scale model then were back to having 3 concepts that none have evidence for, if you think im blindly accepting 1 concept out of 3 with zero physical evidence then your a fool im afraid  That's not a scale model of Earth. Wonderful, you don't even know what constitutes a model. Put another way, it's about as much of a scale model of Earth as a Punnett Square is a model of Darwinian Evolution. go and watch the recreation, you haven't had time to so your commenting based on your own programed opinion, watch research and learn jeez you really can lead a human to knowledge but cant make them look at it can you  you are making idiocracy a reality my learned friend i dont type out this info for the good of my health, im attempting to educate you on the real world, if there was nothing in this then why are numerous universities funding string theory? because they know the real world is far from popular belief another 1, nasa now say were on an oblique spheroid aka a giant pear yet nasa own images of sphere earth blow this new theory out of the water, stop falling for the bullshit your spoon fed because your too lazy to do your own due diligence and research What were you saying? You know what they say about assuming... We already had this conversation. yeah and i dont recall you replying to "thats a matter of opinion and open minds that 1 mate Wink" lol watch it with an open mind, the earth is center to everything in space, the antikythera mechanism shows that, then if you raise up the top of the mechanism off the top of earth depicting cog, then you have the earth and the skys, with perfectly accurate locations of everything we allegedly already know about... hey im still not fully convinced myself but i no longer believe the sphere earth concept myself, there are 3 concepts and so far i prefer flat earth, i dont pretend to know all the ins and outs, but i do like to theorize as thats how we progress, yeah i may be wasting my time but thats my choice im sure out of 7.8 billion of us, me choosing to prefer 1 concept over the other 2 isnt likely to hinder progress in any way shape or form, we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things 1) I didn't respond to it because I don't feel like taking the time to explain the differences between fact and opinion. There are correct interpretations and incorrect ones. Sometimes interpretations can be blurry, but this isn't one of those times. It's not a flat earth model. It's not even close. 2) An open mind is one thing, a rational mind is another. You seem to be favoring the former at the expense of the latter. For example, now you're saying that the device proves a geocentric earth (it doesn't), which has nothing to do with proving a flat earth. 3) Yes, you can believe what you want, and yes you can waste time if you choose. But you don't have to. There's no need to reinvent the wheel in this case. We've already figured this out. 1 lol you seem to be under some misguided opinion that your programmed opinion has some kind of value amongst true free thinkers, your opinion is programed, that doctrine you likely received from a school, i get it you cant help but resort back to the bullshit you were programmed with, this is you withholding progress by not even looking at the evidence you are presented. 2 erm yes it does, you have still clearly not looked at the recreation, due diligence and research are very valuable either that or you lack the imagination to replace 1 gear with a longer gear to raise up the sky system from the earth plane cog but hey thats your hang up, all you are doing is proving you are an ignorant individual desperately clinging to the doctrines you were implanted with, all you have to do is watch the recreation of the device, its not rocket science, mind neither is string theory, yet countless universities are working on string theory and investing heavily, must be something in it for these places to be investing, thats just common sense 3 not trying to reinvent the wheel, im trying to prove 1 of the 3 concepts right or wrong, so far you have offered no evidence of substance, you have regurgitated somebody elses theories which are not true, sorry if you dont like it but facts are facts the truth cares not what your opinion might be, the truth cares not what 7.8 billion opinions may be, the truth is the truth, and is generally not appreciated evidenced by your comments And this is where I bow out of our conversation. Thanks for the entertainment. |
|
|
|
I sincerely believe this notion is a by-product of a complete distrust in the establishment. If every word coming from the mouth of the beast is a lie, why couldn't this one be as well?
+1 the fact a working scale model of flat earth exists and no working scale model of sphere or hollow earth is a massive give away, also if you look deep into vortex maths, all will be revealed. maths is the cryptography left to us by the ancients which were still decoding I hope you understand the problems of having a "working scale model of earth" while you're actually *on* Earth. But hey, if you have a scale model of a flat earth located in some distant part of space where it isn't subject to all of the forces present near Earth itself, I'd love to see it. Any physical model of a planetary body would be invalid right off the bat if it is affected by forces of the body it is attempting to model. Fortunately, we have computers that allow us to create virtual models based upon precise mathematical inputs. So, naturally, your task would be to create a virtual flat earth model that accounts for all of the data, modeled from physics equations that would allow you to predict events in the model. Do you have such equations? No, you do not, and accordingly no such working model of a flat earth exists. go look up the recreation of the ancient greek antikythera mechanism, theres your working scale model of flat earth, found on earth and recreated, they wont tell you its a scale model of flat earth as that goes against "common core" or "common purpose" but if you watch it and study it you will see im not wrong, that device has predicted the location of stars and planets, the sun and moon with 100% accuracy for cenuries, if thats not a working scale model then were back to having 3 concepts that none have evidence for, if you think im blindly accepting 1 concept out of 3 with zero physical evidence then your a fool im afraid That's not a scale model of Earth. Wonderful, you don't even know what constitutes a model. Put another way, it's about as much of a scale model of Earth as a Punnett Square is a model of Darwinian Evolution. go and watch the recreation, you haven't had time to so your commenting based on your own programed opinion, watch research and learn jeez you really can lead a human to knowledge but cant make them look at it can you you are making idiocracy a reality my learned friend i dont type out this info for the good of my health, im attempting to educate you on the real world, if there was nothing in this then why are numerous universities funding string theory? because they know the real world is far from popular belief another 1, nasa now say were on an oblique spheroid aka a giant pear yet nasa own images of sphere earth blow this new theory out of the water, stop falling for the bullshit your spoon fed because your too lazy to do your own due diligence and research What were you saying? You know what they say about assuming... We already had this conversation. yeah and i dont recall you replying to "thats a matter of opinion and open minds that 1 mate Wink" lol watch it with an open mind, the earth is center to everything in space, the antikythera mechanism shows that, then if you raise up the top of the mechanism off the top of earth depicting cog, then you have the earth and the skys, with perfectly accurate locations of everything we allegedly already know about... hey im still not fully convinced myself but i no longer believe the sphere earth concept myself, there are 3 concepts and so far i prefer flat earth, i dont pretend to know all the ins and outs, but i do like to theorize as thats how we progress, yeah i may be wasting my time but thats my choice im sure out of 7.8 billion of us, me choosing to prefer 1 concept over the other 2 isnt likely to hinder progress in any way shape or form, we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things 1) I didn't respond to it because I don't feel like taking the time to explain the differences between fact and opinion. There are correct interpretations and incorrect ones. Sometimes interpretations can be blurry, but this isn't one of those times. It's not a flat earth model. It's not even close. 2) An open mind is one thing, a rational mind is another. You seem to be favoring the former at the expense of the latter. For example, now you're saying that the device proves a geocentric earth (it doesn't), which has nothing to do with proving a flat earth. 3) Yes, you can believe what you want, and yes you can waste time if you choose. But you don't have to. There's no need to reinvent the wheel in this case. We've already figured this out. |
|
|
|
I sincerely believe this notion is a by-product of a complete distrust in the establishment. If every word coming from the mouth of the beast is a lie, why couldn't this one be as well?
+1 the fact a working scale model of flat earth exists and no working scale model of sphere or hollow earth is a massive give away, also if you look deep into vortex maths, all will be revealed. maths is the cryptography left to us by the ancients which were still decoding I hope you understand the problems of having a "working scale model of earth" while you're actually *on* Earth. But hey, if you have a scale model of a flat earth located in some distant part of space where it isn't subject to all of the forces present near Earth itself, I'd love to see it. Any physical model of a planetary body would be invalid right off the bat if it is affected by forces of the body it is attempting to model. Fortunately, we have computers that allow us to create virtual models based upon precise mathematical inputs. So, naturally, your task would be to create a virtual flat earth model that accounts for all of the data, modeled from physics equations that would allow you to predict events in the model. Do you have such equations? No, you do not, and accordingly no such working model of a flat earth exists. go look up the recreation of the ancient greek antikythera mechanism, theres your working scale model of flat earth, found on earth and recreated, they wont tell you its a scale model of flat earth as that goes against "common core" or "common purpose" but if you watch it and study it you will see im not wrong, that device has predicted the location of stars and planets, the sun and moon with 100% accuracy for cenuries, if thats not a working scale model then were back to having 3 concepts that none have evidence for, if you think im blindly accepting 1 concept out of 3 with zero physical evidence then your a fool im afraid That's not a scale model of Earth. Wonderful, you don't even know what constitutes a model. Put another way, it's about as much of a scale model of Earth as a Punnett Square is a model of Darwinian Evolution. go and watch the recreation, you haven't had time to so your commenting based on your own programed opinion, watch research and learn jeez you really can lead a human to knowledge but cant make them look at it can you you are making idiocracy a reality my learned friend i dont type out this info for the good of my health, im attempting to educate you on the real world, if there was nothing in this then why are numerous universities funding string theory? because they know the real world is far from popular belief another 1, nasa now say were on an oblique spheroid aka a giant pear yet nasa own images of sphere earth blow this new theory out of the water, stop falling for the bullshit your spoon fed because your too lazy to do your own due diligence and research What were you saying? You know what they say about assuming... We already had this conversation. |
|
|
|
I sincerely believe this notion is a by-product of a complete distrust in the establishment. If every word coming from the mouth of the beast is a lie, why couldn't this one be as well?
+1 the fact a working scale model of flat earth exists and no working scale model of sphere or hollow earth is a massive give away, also if you look deep into vortex maths, all will be revealed. maths is the cryptography left to us by the ancients which were still decoding I hope you understand the problems of having a "working scale model of earth" while you're actually *on* Earth. But hey, if you have a scale model of a flat earth located in some distant part of space where it isn't subject to all of the forces present near Earth itself, I'd love to see it. Any physical model of a planetary body would be invalid right off the bat if it is affected by forces of the body it is attempting to model. Fortunately, we have computers that allow us to create virtual models based upon precise mathematical inputs. So, naturally, your task would be to create a virtual flat earth model that accounts for all of the data, modeled from physics equations that would allow you to predict events in the model. Do you have such equations? No, you do not, and accordingly no such working model of a flat earth exists. go look up the recreation of the ancient greek antikythera mechanism, theres your working scale model of flat earth, found on earth and recreated, they wont tell you its a scale model of flat earth as that goes against "common core" or "common purpose" but if you watch it and study it you will see im not wrong, that device has predicted the location of stars and planets, the sun and moon with 100% accuracy for cenuries, if thats not a working scale model then were back to having 3 concepts that none have evidence for, if you think im blindly accepting 1 concept out of 3 with zero physical evidence then your a fool im afraid That's not a scale model of Earth. Wonderful, you don't even know what constitutes a model. Put another way, it's about as much of a scale model of Earth as a Punnett Square is a model of Darwinian Evolution. |
|
|
|
I sincerely believe this notion is a by-product of a complete distrust in the establishment. If every word coming from the mouth of the beast is a lie, why couldn't this one be as well?
+1 the fact a working scale model of flat earth exists and no working scale model of sphere or hollow earth is a massive give away, also if you look deep into vortex maths, all will be revealed. maths is the cryptography left to us by the ancients which were still decoding I hope you understand the problems of having a "working scale model of earth" while you're actually *on* Earth. But hey, if you have a scale model of a flat earth located in some distant part of space where it isn't subject to all of the forces present near Earth itself, I'd love to see it. Any physical model of a planetary body would be invalid right off the bat if it is affected by forces of the body it is attempting to model. Fortunately, we have computers that allow us to create virtual models based upon precise mathematical inputs. So, naturally, your task would be to create a virtual flat earth model that accounts for all of the data, modeled from physics equations that would allow you to predict events in the model. Do you have such equations? No, you do not, and accordingly no such working model of a flat earth exists. |
|
|
|
I sincerely believe this notion is a by-product of a complete distrust in the establishment. If every word coming from the mouth of the beast is a lie, why couldn't this one be as well?
I think it's a function of two things, primarily: 1) It's exciting and makes one feel special, intelligent, privileged, etc. to feel as a part of some small minority that has access to exclusive knowledge and insight that billions of others do not, especially when those billions of people include many extremely intelligent and powerful ones. 2) Dumb people (in this case, I'm referring specifically those ignorant of physics, math, experimental interpretation, and sound inference) believe their dumb ideas are smarter than the smart ideas of smart people. Such is the nature of stupidity. I mean, nobody likes to come to grips with the dumbness of their most pervasive and time-consuming ideas. |
|
|
|
The world is not flat, its round like a ball. As because the earth is so big people who lives sees infront of him that everything is flat but its round like a ball. Its proved and confirmed very well.
yeah were on a giant ball spinning at 1000mph i'l just leave this here  Try spinning the tennis ball at a rate of one revolution every 24 hours and see how much water flies off. so you honestly believe the sphere earth concept, where the sphere turns 360 degrees in 24 hours, yet spins at 1038MPH at the equator?  LMFAO Pardon me for not being persuaded by your image of a tennis ball which, if spinning at 1038 mph, would make close to 200 million revolutions in a 24-hour period. what about your satellite tv, you know those alleged satelittes which are capable of flying in perfect synchronicity with the earth, ever set a sky tv system up? if you have you will know your disk has to be perfectly accurately pointed at something we are told is hovering a mile in the sky LMFAO sky tv is ground based the satelitte signal is reflected off the ionosphere, this is the only accurate method of fixing a so called satellite signal "Oh no, my analogy was false! Abort! Abort! Switch topics immediately!" you clearly have zero sense of perspective LOL Correct, I am under the false impression that anything reasonable will make sense to you when filtered through your perspective. works 2 ways that one dude i learned concepts at school not facts, there are many concepts out there, accepting the one we are steered towards is not always intelligent, like i say i deal in facts but love a good debate over concepts and theories, that is how we progress after all I'm an autodidact. School and I never got along, though I appreciated that it was easy. Learning on your own, questioning what you're taught, and going against the grain can be great -- surely, it can lead to great insights under many circumstances. However, it can also lead to time-wasting and can do more harm than good. Judging by your tennis ball analogy, please excuse me for thinking it's doing you more harm than good. The point you were trying to make with it was off by a factor of ~200 million. |
|
|
|
The world is not flat, its round like a ball. As because the earth is so big people who lives sees infront of him that everything is flat but its round like a ball. Its proved and confirmed very well.
yeah were on a giant ball spinning at 1000mph i'l just leave this here Try spinning the tennis ball at a rate of one revolution every 24 hours and see how much water flies off. so you honestly believe the sphere earth concept, where the sphere turns 360 degrees in 24 hours, yet spins at 1038MPH at the equator? LMFAO Pardon me for not being persuaded by your image of a tennis ball which, if spinning at 1038 mph, would make close to 200 million revolutions in a 24-hour period. what about your satellite tv, you know those alleged satelittes which are capable of flying in perfect synchronicity with the earth, ever set a sky tv system up? if you have you will know your disk has to be perfectly accurately pointed at something we are told is hovering a mile in the sky LMFAO sky tv is ground based the satelitte signal is reflected off the ionosphere, this is the only accurate method of fixing a so called satellite signal "Oh no, my analogy was false! Abort! Abort! Switch topics immediately!" you clearly have zero sense of perspective LOL Correct, I am under the false impression that anything reasonable will make sense to you when filtered through your perspective. |
|
|
|
The world is not flat, its round like a ball. As because the earth is so big people who lives sees infront of him that everything is flat but its round like a ball. Its proved and confirmed very well.
yeah were on a giant ball spinning at 1000mph i'l just leave this here Try spinning the tennis ball at a rate of one revolution every 24 hours and see how much water flies off. so you honestly believe the sphere earth concept, where the sphere turns 360 degrees in 24 hours, yet spins at 1038MPH at the equator? LMFAO Pardon me for not being persuaded by your image of a tennis ball which, if spinning at 1038 mph, would make close to 200 million revolutions in a 24-hour period. what about your satellite tv, you know those alleged satelittes which are capable of flying in perfect synchronicity with the earth, ever set a sky tv system up? if you have you will know your disk has to be perfectly accurately pointed at something we are told is hovering a mile in the sky LMFAO sky tv is ground based the satelitte signal is reflected off the ionosphere, this is the only accurate method of fixing a so called satellite signal "Oh no, my analogy was false! Abort! Abort! Switch topics immediately!" |
|
|
|
The world is not flat, its round like a ball. As because the earth is so big people who lives sees infront of him that everything is flat but its round like a ball. Its proved and confirmed very well.
yeah were on a giant ball spinning at 1000mph i'l just leave this here Try spinning the tennis ball at a rate of one revolution every 24 hours and see how much water flies off. so you honestly believe the sphere earth concept, where the sphere turns 360 degrees in 24 hours, yet spins at 1038MPH at the equator? LMFAO Pardon me for not being persuaded by your image of a tennis ball which, if spinning at 1038 mph, would make close to 200 million revolutions in a 24-hour period. |
|
|
|
The world is not flat, its round like a ball. As because the earth is so big people who lives sees infront of him that everything is flat but its round like a ball. Its proved and confirmed very well.
yeah were on a giant ball spinning at 1000mph i'l just leave this here Try spinning the tennis ball at a rate of one revolution every 24 hours and see how much water flies off. |
|
|
|
The flat earth extends without end in every direction?
That's a good one.
Soon we'll learn that we are inside a sphere not ON one.
What will these kids come up with next?
Well, isn't this right? They simply spout a bunch of stuff about things they know little about. But they don't really have a clear picture of anything that they talk about. Modern cosmology may be wrong. But at least they have reasonable theory to cover almost everything. These flat-earth jokers don't have enough to even explain the few things they might actually have, correctly. And they certainly don't have an all-compassing theory about their flat earth idea. They can't even tell you anything about the whole idea of it. And they are contradictory among the members of their group. Well I'm sorry if I disappointed you. But com'on man, "modern" theory is a joke, a fairytale. In fact it is nothing modern about it. A complete fraud. It is very hard to unlearn it now, I agree. You will have all the answers you need in time. We are moving on. Meanwhile you can look at this presentation and use your imagination: https://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/universe.pngKey word: "Imagination." One of the funny things to me is the language virtually all flat earth believers use -- words and phrases like: fairytale; hoax; fraud; deception; "just a theory;" magical; indoctrination; etc. These usually indicate when someone has no idea what they're talking about...as if that type of provocative language would actually prove anything to people who 'do' know what they're talking about. |
|
|
|
No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.
OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree? I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules? Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise. Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity. Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space). Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure. So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are. Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity. In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't. It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason. You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud. PSo, it's all density, eh? Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules: In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*? In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber? The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce) environments. If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions. 1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall 2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly3) Density = mass/volume. That's it. Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure. We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight. This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface). Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity. By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity. In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0. So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with the apple? To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force. Also, NASA does fake all their space walks in their fake space. You can see air bubbles rising, scuba tanks in the background and various items floating up in their "official" videos. It's not a matter of "belief" as you put it. Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc. A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless. Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground. There is no force of density. But weight *is* equal to a force. This has nothing to do with bubbles. Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world. If you think so, you have one simple way to show it: what is the formula for weight using density as a variable? Hint: There isn't one. Fuck off with the straw-man dude, weight is defined using the "magical" gravitational acceleration variable 'g'. Mass however can be calculated simply by volume * density. Correct, mass=volume * density, but that doesn't explain why objects float in a vomit comet but don't on the surface of the Earth. The volume and density of an object remain the same regardless of whether its in a vomit comet or on Earth's surface, and thus so does its mass. This means something else must explain why objects float in a vomit comet, but not on Earth. Slinky floats on the surface of the earth:  This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. But that would be your common tactic: "Shit, I can't explain floating objects in freefall, let's talk about bubbles!" Or, "Shit! I can't explain weight in terms of density, so I'll just move onto something irrelevant, like slinkies." Although the explanation for the slinky is different, that explanation still has nothing to do with its density, but does have to do with gravity. The slinky's natural tendency is to remained coiled; when you stretch out a slinky, it wants to revert back to its coiled shape. When you hold a slinky in the air and release it, the top of the slinky falls at the rate of acceleration of gravity, which means the bottom of the slinky will experience an *upward* force at the rate of acceleration of gravity. But, at the same time, the bottom of the slinky still wants to go downward as a result of gravity. The upward force cancels out the downward force, and -- voila! -- the bottom of the slinky appears to float. Once the slinky reverts back to its original coiled shape, the upward force no longer acts on the bottom of the slinky, and so the entire slinky falls and hits the ground. You can't explain what happens to the slinky with density. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
