Flat Earth

[notbatman]

@af_newbie

I think the first thing we need to do is establish that the Earth indeed has an electric field that measures 100 Volts per meter and extends out perpendicular to the ground.

The globalists don't deny this field exists but nor do they ever bring it up with rare exceptions like Feynman and his lectures that only a few physics enthusiasts attend. The globalist explanation for this field is induction from the Sun (in Feynman's case he claims thunderstorms) and that the charge spreads out to cover the entire surface. Unfortunately for the globalists these theories fail when one looks at the magnetic fields that would be produced by the current flows, the compass needle would be going nuts.

On a flat Earth with an electrically polarized dome with the dome surface being the positive (+) plate and the ground the negative (-) plate creating a giant capacitor the Earth's electric field is easily and neatly explained.



Now the thing you need to understand regarding density and why the denser an object is, the heavier it gets is the electric field line density at the surface of an object is greater with objects that are more dense; more particles require more lines to "feed" them thus the net force which acts via these lines is greater on the denser objects. Air pressure, the force it exerts on an object is via the electric field lines; electromagnetism is fluid dynamics with the primary fluid being an aether that itself is best described as being a gaseous crystal.

Now the reason the air an object has displaced is pushing that object in any particular direction is the electric field (between the dome and the ground) is creating an asymmetry in the lines on the objects surface; the pressure is not uniform.

Few issues/questions with your description:

1. Electric Field intensity observed in nature varies based on the atmospheric conditions such as fog, lightning or after sunrise.  It can vary widely from 20 V/m to 1200+ V/m at the Earth surface. This would impact the "weight" of objects in your model.  In nature we observe that the weight of the objects does not vary due to the atmospheric conditions.

2. Not sure what you mean by "more particles require more lines to feed them", electric field flux would be constant for a given object surface provided the electric field intensity is uniform and does not fluctuate due to the atmospheric conditions, I'm not sure how you think it relates to the weight of the object.

3. What do you mean by the pressure is not uniform?  It is measurable, is it not?  Wouldn't the air pressure be the same around a wood block and a gold brick placed next to each other?

1. Perhaps small variations might be measured but for the most part the force on an object is based on the ratio of displaced atmosphere to the density of the material displacing it.

2. All particles have field lines irrespective of any externally generated fields. More field lines means more net force, each additional line gives a little more for the atmosphere to push on.

3. The atmosphere is pushing on objects, the force is at the interface between the object and the atmosphere, however since the force acts via the field lines it's transmitted to each individual particle via the line. Taking a pressure reading of the atmosphere surrounding an object can't say anything about the displacement the object causes. You're just wasting my time until you can understand this. An anology would be connecting a voltmeter to one pole of a battery and expecting to get a reading with an open circuit.

Look at how a helium balloon is pushed up, understand how air pressure is acting on it. For dense objects it's the same only the push is in the opposite direction.


There's a saying that in the land of the blind the man with one eye is king. Density and buoyancy explain why objects fall and I can't explain any more than I already have as my understanding is not complete. My ability to accurately articulate something i don't fully understand myself to a retarded child is limited.

[af_newbie]

@af_newbie

I think the first thing we need to do is establish that the Earth indeed has an electric field that measures 100 Volts per meter and extends out perpendicular to the ground.

The globalists don't deny this field exists but nor do they ever bring it up with rare exceptions like Feynman and his lectures that only a few physics enthusiasts attend. The globalist explanation for this field is induction from the Sun (in Feynman's case he claims thunderstorms) and that the charge spreads out to cover the entire surface. Unfortunately for the globalists these theories fail when one looks at the magnetic fields that would be produced by the current flows, the compass needle would be going nuts.

On a flat Earth with an electrically polarized dome with the dome surface being the positive (+) plate and the ground the negative (-) plate creating a giant capacitor the Earth's electric field is easily and neatly explained.



Now the thing you need to understand regarding density and why the denser an object is, the heavier it gets is the electric field line density at the surface of an object is greater with objects that are more dense; more particles require more lines to "feed" them thus the net force which acts via these lines is greater on the denser objects. Air pressure, the force it exerts on an object is via the electric field lines; electromagnetism is fluid dynamics with the primary fluid being an aether that itself is best described as being a gaseous crystal.

Now the reason the air an object has displaced is pushing that object in any particular direction is the electric field (between the dome and the ground) is creating an asymmetry in the lines on the objects surface; the pressure is not uniform.

Few issues/questions with your description:

1. Electric Field intensity observed in nature varies based on the atmospheric conditions such as fog, lightning or after sunrise.  It can vary widely from 20 V/m to 1200+ V/m at the Earth surface. This would impact the "weight" of objects in your model.  In nature we observe that the weight of the objects does not vary due to the atmospheric conditions.

2. Not sure what you mean by "more particles require more lines to feed them", electric field flux would be constant for a given object surface provided the electric field intensity is uniform and does not fluctuate due to the atmospheric conditions, I'm not sure how you think it relates to the weight of the object.

3. What do you mean by the pressure is not uniform?  It is measurable, is it not?  Wouldn't the air pressure be the same around a wood block and a gold brick placed next to each other?

1. Perhaps small variations might be measured but for the most part the force on an object is based on the ratio of displaced atmosphere to the density of the material displacing it.

2. All particles have field lines irrespective of any externally generated fields. More field lines means more net force, each additional line gives a little more for the atmosphere to push on.

3. The atmosphere is pushing on objects, the force is at the interface between the object and the atmosphere, however since the force acts via the field lines it's transmitted to each individual particle via the line. Taking a pressure reading of the atmosphere surrounding an object can't say anything about the displacement the object causes. You're just wasting my time until you can understand this. An anology would be connecting a voltmeter to one pole of a battery and expecting to get a reading with an open circuit.

Look at how a helium balloon is pushed up, understand how air pressure is acting on it. For dense objects it's the same only the push is in the opposite direction.


There's a saying that in the land of the blind the man with one eye is king. Density and buoyancy explain why objects fall and I can't explain any more than I already have as my understanding is not complete. My ability to accurately articulate something i don't fully understand myself to a retarded child is limited.

1. The electric field intensity can be 10+ times larger or 5 times smaller, if you think your "air pressure gradient" is due to the electric field flux going though the object's surface, objects should be weighing 10 times more during lightning and 5 times less during sunrise.  You are in denial of your own theory.

2. Neutrally charged particles do not generate electric field, the electric field in your model is generated by positively charged dome and negatively charged Earth.  The density would have no effect on the outside electric field coming to the object surface.  

3. Even if you assume that your "air pressure gradient" exist and is affected by the atmospheric electric field, by measuring the air pressure around the object you would be measuring the scalar value of that "air pressure vector".

You are in complete denial of observable reality and your own dome theory.

You deny that atmospheric conditions have significant, measurable effect on the atmospheric electric field.
You deny that air pressure is the same around objects of different densities.
You deny that the atmospheric electric field measured around objects with different densities stays the same.

On top of that, you claim that the arrangement of atoms in the object generates electric field outside of the object.

There is no need to discuss this further.  It is obvious to me that you are suffer from cognitive dissonance.

BTW, we have a name for your dome, it is called ionosphere.   You have twisted what is observed by adding the concept that object density is increasing electric field intensity by some unknown force and that air pressure is acting in the direction of the atmospheric electric field.

I have shown you where your model breaks.  Take it or stay in the dark.

[Herbys]

The most obvious proof that the Earth is round is a lunar eclipse. The shape of the shadow from the Earth, which falls on the moon during eclipses, is completely round.
That's why the moon becomes a crescent moon.

[exemplaar]

Show me here how can ground(earth) cast a shadow on the light levitating above(aka the moon).



You have been successfully indoctrinating with a heliocopernican lie. About the time to do your research on Flat Earth.

[YuTü.Co.in]

Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is gray and yellow white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion

Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let insipid figures of light pass by
The mighty light of ten thousand specks on the dome
Challenges infinity and is soon gone

Nighttime to some, a brief interlude
To others the fear of solitude
Brave Helios, wake up your steeds
Bring the warmth the flat Earth needs

[notbatman]

The most obvious proof that the Earth is round is a lunar eclipse. The shape of the shadow from the Earth, which falls on the moon during eclipses, is completely round.
That's why the moon becomes a crescent moon.

What proof do you have that a shadow in the sky is created by the Earth beneath your feet? One must assume the heliocentric model is correct to even make that claim!

On a flat and motionless Earth the Sun, Moon, stars and planets are holographically projected off of a mirrored dome. The mirror is a golden reflective oxide layer on a nickel-iron damascus type steel.

A lunar eclipse in this case would be a 3rd dark celestial object that masks the Moon's projection for a period of time.

[notbatman]

@af_newbie every particle has a field line; the particle has to be entangled or it doesn't exist. A particle in a state of superposition is no particle at all.







"Emission theory or extramission theory (variants: extromission, extromittism) is the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by eye beams emitted by the eyes." -- Wiki

[BADecker]

Show me here how can ground(earth) cast a shadow on the light levitating above(aka the moon).



You have been successfully indoctrinating with a heliocopernican lie. About the time to do your research on Flat Earth.

Great religion you have there.   

[YuTü.Co.in]

Show me here how can ground(earth) cast a shadow on the light levitating above(aka the moon).



You have been successfully indoctrinating with a heliocopernican lie. About the time to do your research on Flat Earth.

Great religion you have there.   

In Jehovah's Witnesses' afterlife, man lays down with lions ...

seals don't fuck penguins ...

and chimps don't fuck frogs ...

[aip78]

but I still believe that the earth is round

[Nanoverso]

but I still believe that the earth is round

The earth doesn't exist... (quoting Matrix movie). 

[notbatman]

@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.

[notbatman]

Show me here how can ground(earth) cast a shadow on the light levitating above(aka the moon).



You have been successfully indoctrinating with a heliocopernican lie. About the time to do your research on Flat Earth.

Great religion you have there.    

In Jehovah's Witnesses' afterlife, man lays down with lions ...

seals don't fuck penguins ...

and chimps don't fuck frogs ...

Ugh this is bad, really really bad. I'm 100% with God on this, no just no! This is so bad I'm not even going to go into any details. BTW they changed the lion into a wolf a few years ago, just FYI.



In related news Trudeau recently legalized frog blowjobs in Canada. How's that for a progressive society?

[flekkelek]

@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.

I don't really think he can lose something he never had.

[tableofcontents]

but I still believe that the earth is round

The earth doesn't exist... (quoting Matrix movie). 

I'd never sing of Earth...if it does not exist... (quoting stupidly. I love Paramore <3)

[notbatman]

@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!

[notbatman]

^^^ 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.

[Astargath]

^^^ 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-relativity

You 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.''

[YuTü.Co.in]

FWIW: This thread was read 1,017,763 times and counting.

"Everything's goin' exactly as planned as long as POTUS doesn't tweet what's in stored."

[notbatman]

^^^ 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-relativity

You 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.