I believe in science, and not to a false science like flat earthers.
If you believe we're stuck to a spinning ball in a vacuum then it's not science that you believe in. Science is observable, testable, measurable and repeatable and the globe fails all of that. |
|
|
|
^^^ I've successfully debunked special relativity, your arguments are moot and I know you've jewed the metric system so it says 6.66. That look when you realize you're actually on the back of a giant fossilized turtle with a few elephants tossed in for good measure. For everybody else who can't see the scale of things you just keep on smoking those space rocks.  The mice follow imaginary dance lines, this the basis for mouse field theory and it governs all aspects of your reality. |
|
|
|
@af_newbie
You're just being a fucking idiot now, the air pressure caused by an object displacing it is not measurable as an increase in the air pressure surrounding that object; the force is on the object.
Do you see how retarded your argument is, you're trying to measure a drop in the ocean by analyzing the sea level rise it causes.
What is the cause of that force? Hint: If you think it is the air pressure, the weight of the objects would be determined by their geometry not their mass. If you think it is because of the air displacement, well, you just proved gravity. How do you get pressure difference due to displacement in absence of gravity? Do you even read my posts? If you were suddenly placed in a hard vacuum, you would explode, water boils in a vacuum and you would go puff puff splat. My point is the pressure on objects from the atmosphere is immense, the electric field in polarizing the air causes a small imbalance in that force with less dense objects migrating towards the dome (the anode) as displacement current flows to the ground (the cathode). The more dense an object is less the force from the anode has on it and force from less dense gases push on the object as they jockey for position closer to the anode. - atmospheric pressure is due to gravity, 1 sq. in of column of air from the seal level to the top of the Earth's atmosphere weighs about 6.65 kg. I guess you have to define immense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure"the electric field in polarizing the air causes a small imbalance in that force with less dense objects migrating towards the dome (the anode) as displacement current flows to the ground (the cathode)." - and we are back to the electric field as the cause "The more dense an object is less the force from the anode has on it" - huh? WTF does this even mean? Are all objects polarized? "force from less dense gases push on the object as they jockey for position closer to the anode." - you came up with this by yourself, or in a group session in your church basement? You are lost in basic Physics fundamentals. You are convinced that gravity does not exist and you desperately want to replace it with your own field theory (polarized air pressure due to electric field) Polarization of air has nothing to do with observed forces objects exert on the ground. You don't understand what atmospheric pressure, buoyancy or electric field is, and you deny gravity. You are simply lost. I define immense as immense, that 6.66 kg is the small imbalance. Also how the hell do you get that number, fuck the metric system man. We get back to the electric field because ultimately (not directly) the electrons (the least dense charged particle) at the dome (anode) are the cause of all this pushing action. They push everything else out of the way to get the closest to the anode, denser ionized gases are next in line (the ionosphere), then air, then solid matter (the ground). I'm hurt that you would imply that I need group consensus from my congregation to explain the situation. An ad-hoc attack no less, I must have really nailed it. |
|
|
|
The earth is absolutely round, there will be many conflict in the law of physics if the earth is flat.
It's a house of cards it needs to fall. |
|
|
|
You guys are twisting my assertions, my claims are that Dufour & Prunier's replication on the Sagnac effect took the non-rotating framework of special relativity into account and proved empirically that the results were not consistent with it. But hey thanks for strawmaning my argument by omitting D&P then knocking over Sagnac with the special relativity argument. Your random link to some bullshit about GPS doesn't change the results D&P obtained. You keep saying the same shit over and over again, your random links also don't change anything, keep believing fairy tales Perhaps the fact my argument doesn't change is evidence of its "weight". But hey, you just keep knocking over modified variations of all my assertions over and over while expecting a different result each time.  |
|
|
|
@af_newbie
You're just being a fucking idiot now, the air pressure caused by an object displacing it is not measurable as an increase in the air pressure surrounding that object; the force is on the object.
Do you see how retarded your argument is, you're trying to measure a drop in the ocean by analyzing the sea level rise it causes.
What is the cause of that force? Hint: If you think it is the air pressure, the weight of the objects would be determined by their geometry not their mass. If you think it is because of the air displacement, well, you just proved gravity. How do you get pressure difference due to displacement in absence of gravity? Do you even read my posts? If you were suddenly placed in a hard vacuum, you would explode, water boils in a vacuum and you would go puff puff splat. My point is the pressure on objects from the atmosphere is immense, the electric field in polarizing the air causes a small imbalance in that force with less dense objects migrating towards the dome (the anode) as displacement current flows to the ground (the cathode). The more dense an object is less the force from the anode has on it and force from less dense gases push on the object as they jockey for position closer to the anode. |
|
|
|
You guys are twisting my assertions, my claims are that Dufour & Prunier's replication on the Sagnac effect took the non-rotating framework of special relativity into account and proved empirically that the results were not consistent with it. But hey thanks for strawmaning my argument by omitting D&P then knocking over Sagnac with the special relativity argument. Your random link to some bullshit about GPS doesn't change the results D&P obtained. |
|
|
|
|
@af_newbie
You're just being a fucking idiot now, the air pressure caused by an object displacing it is not measurable as an increase in the air pressure surrounding that object; the force is on the object.
Do you see how retarded your argument is, you're trying to measure a drop in the ocean by analyzing the sea level rise it causes.
|
|
|
|
@af_newbie
Push a large piece of Styrofoam into the ocean, hold it down. You can feel the water pressure pushing it up!
Now get a water pressure meter and take a reading below the piece of submerged Styrofoam and measure the pressure. Do you see how obscene this logic and argument is trying to disprove my claim? I claim displaced air is pushing objects down and you tell me go take an air pressure reading above the object to prove it. Well it's the same deal as with trying to measure the pressure pushing the submerged Styrofoam up by putting a pressure meter below it; it doesn't work that way.
You literally have no argument.
You are conveniently forgetting that buoyancy is only observable when gravity is present. The pressure difference between the top of the object and the bottom is due to gravity. That pressure difference is the cause of the buoyancy upward force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuoyancyYou think the cause of the pressure is the electric field not the gravity, I have shown you that it cannot possibly be the electric field. You are twisting scientific principles, using them incorrectly because you do not understand the fundamentals. You have shown nothing and twisted my assertions. I on the other hand have used experiments already on the books to prove empirically that a) special relativity is not consistent with experiment [Sagnac: Dufour & Prunier] b), that experiment is consistent with an aether [Sagnac] and c), that the Earth is motionless [Michelson & Morley]. My assertions are testable, repeatable and well documented [see above] while yours uses faulty logic [i.e. pressure readings with a meter next to an object], theory that isn't supported by experimental evidence [i.e. special relativity] and claims backed by special relativity [i.e. no aether and field lines that aren't "real"]. Gravity as an unproven theory after all these years exists solely to support heliocentrism and a spinning globe. I can show that the Earth is motionless with experiments already on the books, such as M&M and these results are confirmed by Airy's failure to detect any motion. All arguments that invoke special relativity i.e. no aether and stellar aberration are put to rest by Dufour & Prunier. The electric field of the Earth is a testable and measurable thing and, it supports the idea of a flat and motionless Earth as well as an alternative and expanded mechanism for buoyancy that, accounts for motion in two directions; it's now also in compliance with Newton's (may he rot in hell) 3rd Law when applied to the displacement by denser than air objects. Atmospheric electric field intensity can be 5 times lower during sunrise, objects would be flying off to space every morning. During thunderstorms objects would weigh 10 to 20 times more, you would see major damage, all animals and people would die wherever there is a thunderstorm. You really need to start measuring the E field before you open your mouth on this subject. E field is not the only problem in your fantasy. The charges on the dome and the ground would have to gradually decrease as you move away from the center of your disk. Otherwise the same object would weigh less in Canada than in New Zealand. What magic would keep the nonuniform, slowly descreasing charge distribution? Again any lightning would increase the charges locally, and some other magic would have to fix the charge distribution for the dome model to predict the correct weights. Now to the fun part, can you show me your math how did you derive how much you weigh using your model based on 100 V/m E field and your directional air pressure? Show your math or be quiet forever. You arguments twist my assertions; I don't claim that the electric field is pushing objects down directly. I claim that the electric field is polarizing the atmosphere and that the atmosphere is pushing things down. It becomes clear that you're fielding a dishonest argument when you describe my model in an attempt to goad me into doing a lot of useless work that would just be ignored for the most part. All the experiments already on the books that I've listed i.e. M&M, Sagnac, D&P, Airy etc.. are all described mathematically, see for yourself. You don't have any rational arguments here, you're just trying to win an argument truth be damned; this isn't science. |
|
|
|
@af_newbie
Push a large piece of Styrofoam into the ocean, hold it down. You can feel the water pressure pushing it up!
Now get a water pressure meter and take a reading below the piece of submerged Styrofoam and measure the pressure. Do you see how obscene this logic and argument is trying to disprove my claim? I claim displaced air is pushing objects down and you tell me go take an air pressure reading above the object to prove it. Well it's the same deal as with trying to measure the pressure pushing the submerged Styrofoam up by putting a pressure meter below it; it doesn't work that way.
You literally have no argument.
You are conveniently forgetting that buoyancy is only observable when gravity is present. The pressure difference between the top of the object and the bottom is due to gravity. That pressure difference is the cause of the buoyancy upward force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuoyancyYou think the cause of the pressure is the electric field not the gravity, I have shown you that it cannot possibly be the electric field. You are twisting scientific principles, using them incorrectly because you do not understand the fundamentals. You have shown nothing and twisted my assertions. I on the other hand have used experiments already on the books to prove empirically that a) special relativity is not consistent with experiment [Sagnac: Dufour & Prunier] b), that experiment is consistent with an aether [Sagnac] and c), that the Earth is motionless [Michelson & Morley]. My assertions are testable, repeatable and well documented [see above] while yours uses faulty logic [i.e. pressure readings with a meter next to an object], theory that isn't supported by experimental evidence [i.e. special relativity] and claims backed by special relativity [i.e. no aether and field lines that aren't "real"]. Gravity as an unproven theory after all these years exists solely to support heliocentrism and a spinning globe. I can show that the Earth is motionless with experiments already on the books, such as M&M and these results are confirmed by Airy's failure to detect any motion. All arguments that invoke special relativity i.e. no aether and stellar aberration are put to rest by Dufour & Prunier. The electric field of the Earth is a testable and measurable thing and, it supports the idea of a flat and motionless Earth as well as an alternative and expanded mechanism for buoyancy that, accounts for motion in two directions. It's now also in compliance with Newton's (may he rot in hell) 3rd Law when applied to the displacement by denser than air objects. |
|
|
|
|
@af_newbie
Push a large piece of Styrofoam into the ocean, hold it down. You can feel the water pressure pushing it up!
Now get a water pressure meter and take a reading below the piece of submerged Styrofoam and measure the pressure. Do you see how obscene this logic and argument is trying to disprove my claim? I claim displaced air is pushing objects down and you tell me go take an air pressure reading above the object to prove it. Well it's the same deal as with trying to measure the pressure pushing the submerged Styrofoam up by putting a pressure meter below it; it doesn't work that way.
You literally have no argument.
|
|
|
|
|
@af_newbie
"gases exert an upward force"
That "upward force" by the "gases", would you describe the "force" as a pressure and the "gases" as air?
|
|
|
|
@af_newbie I notice you keep avoiding my point about objects that are less dense than air, what pushes the helium balloon up?  |
|
|
|
Earth is flat.
I once went off the edge and fell off. Im glad that huge turtle took Me and threw back somehere in middle of Africa.
The giant turtle along with the elephants have been dead for a long time now, their fossilized remains are many thousands of years old by now. Also the dome not to mention a giant wall of ice in Antarctica keeps most people from falling off. |
|
|
|
In answer to the bit about religious leaders, let's try a thought experiment. Let's suppose your church is absolutely right, in every feature and detail. That means you and I can agree that all those OTHER believers--everyone who has viewed God differently than you do--has been mistaken. That's over 6 of the 7 billion alive today, and tens of billions through history believing in false gods.
Who could be behind all these false gods?  |
|
|
|
^^^ You claim no aether and no "real" field lines à la special relativity and I provide documented and witnessed empirical proof à la Dufour & Prunier that special relativity is not consistent with experimental evidence à la The Sagnac Effect.
It's an organized madness.
How is it not consistent with the sagnac experiment exactly? https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184734/why-doesn-t-the-sagnac-effect-disprove-relativityYou also never answered this: ''PS. Did you figure out why you are not 10 times heavier during lightning or 5 times lighter during sunrise? The fact that the atmospheric electric field changes based on the atmospheric conditions should be enough proof for you to invalidate your own theory.'' 1. The argument was that due to a rotating system the Sagnac effect couldn't be applied to Special Relativity and that the results were therefore inconclusive. However Dufour & Prunier's replication of Sagnac's experiment took the SR linear framework into account and the measurements taken were not consistent with its predictions. 2. That's because the question is posing a strawman argument, I believe I lodged a complaint about strawmaning my arguments in the other thread and firmly reinstated that it's pressure from the atmosphere pushing you down; sunrise doesn't effect the amount of air on top of your head. The electric field between the dome and the ground is the reason why the direction you're pushed is up or down depending on density relative to the atmosphere and the pressure is not evenly distributed. To make an analogy here, if I push on a rotating gyroscope vs. a non-rotating gyroscope they will respond very differently; one gyroscope is polarized while one is not. The atmosphere in comparison is polarized by the dome's electric field and that causes how it responds to being displaced to change in a similar manner. Yet the air pressure value remains the same all around us. Lol. The density of the object does not influence the air pressure and the electric field outside of the object. Just buy yourself a $200 EMF meter and measure the E field intensity at different times and locations and weigh your test objects in those locations. This will put your fantasy to rest. The weights will stay the same. Like I said before you have lost your mind. Go tell it to your ward nurse that Newton, Einstein and all scientists after them were all wrong but you are right. You are spewing nonsense to unsuspected, uneducated, guillable future members of your cult. Just like all other religious folks are doing. You are refusing to accept reality. Go measure the electric field and air pressure see what happens. So you're going to stick with your misunderstanding about how displacement causes a change in air pressure in regards to an object? You've changed my argument into stawman; this is not my argument! Go get your atmospheric pressure meter and hold it under a helium balloon. Do you not see your fallacy here, how is the external meter measuring the balloons displacement? Explain to me what force is pushing the balloon up if it's not air pressure? Then you go on to tell me I've lost my mind because I have documented evidence that special relativity is not consistent with experimental evidence and you still pretend that it's still correct. You're the one who's refusing to accept reality and insists on being a cocksucker, you just love all those big black Jewish lies don't you!  |
|
|
|
How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is? https://i.imgur.com/O8IpMmi.jpgGo up to 35,000 Ft on a flight around the world and you can see for yourself it's NOT flat The passenger windows on commercial airlines are curved and cause barrel distortion in the image a passenger sees. The pilot has flat plane windows and he sees a perfectly flat horizon. |
|
|
|
^^^ You claim no aether and no "real" field lines à la special relativity and I provide documented and witnessed empirical proof à la Dufour & Prunier that special relativity is not consistent with experimental evidence à la The Sagnac Effect.
It's an organized madness.
How is it not consistent with the sagnac experiment exactly? https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184734/why-doesn-t-the-sagnac-effect-disprove-relativityYou also never answered this: ''PS. Did you figure out why you are not 10 times heavier during lightning or 5 times lighter during sunrise? The fact that the atmospheric electric field changes based on the atmospheric conditions should be enough proof for you to invalidate your own theory.'' 1. The argument was that due to a rotating system the Sagnac effect couldn't be applied to Special Relativity and that the results were therefore inconclusive. However Dufour & Prunier's replication of Sagnac's experiment took the SR linear framework into account and the measurements taken were not consistent with its predictions. 2. That's because the question is posing a strawman argument, I believe I lodged a complaint about strawmaning my arguments in the other thread and firmly reinstated that it's pressure from the atmosphere pushing you down; sunrise doesn't effect the amount of air on top of your head. The electric field between the dome and the ground is the reason why the direction you're pushed is up or down depending on density relative to the atmosphere and the pressure is not evenly distributed. To make an analogy here, if I push on a rotating gyroscope vs. a non-rotating gyroscope they will respond very differently; one gyroscope is polarized while one is not. The atmosphere in comparison is polarized by the dome's electric field and that causes how it responds to being displaced to change in a similar manner. |
|
|
|
|
^^^ You claim no aether and no "real" field lines à la special relativity and I provide documented and witnessed empirical proof à la Dufour & Prunier that special relativity is not consistent with experimental evidence à la The Sagnac Effect.
It's an organized madness.
|
|
|
|
@af_newbie
I'll mix and mach my theoretical framework as I please so long as it's descriptive of what going on. QM is already a Frankenstein's monster.
Field lines are in fact real; they're flows of aether that form solenoidal tubes; electromagnetics is fluid dynamics. The aetherless physics the TPTB push is provably wrong; special relativity has been proven to be not consistent with experimental evidence. All particles have a field or potential field that's very much real.
Also just look at what you're saying there's a field but it's nothing; get your head screwed on straight you can't have something (a field) then claim it's nothing. Your comments are indicative of a brainwashed child with it's head screwed on backwards, you must be a woman!
Edit:
Neutral particles have a toroidal dipole and an associated field.
You have lost your mind. Dufour & Prunier showed that special relativity is not consistent with experimental results (Sagnac effect). I offer this as empirical proof that it's you that's lost their mind to a dishonest group consensus promoted by a well organized tribe of psychopathic criminals. My ad-hoc grasp on aetheric dynamics (electromagnetism) may not be 100% however, special relativity is at 0%. You've been scammed! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
