Flat Earth

[quynhdang]

I learn from Physics at school that the earth is not flat. Although I didn't understand any of the holy complicated physical formula. Most of the time I did not understand the formula which are said to be true. So OK I have to believe it's true.

[1713422645]

1713422645

[1713422645]

1713422645

[1713422645]

1713422645

[1713422645]

1713422645

[MiSKLaCH]

Planet Earth is a geoid, period!
Useless thread, lock it.

[notbatman]

@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/Buoyancy

You 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.

[Astargath]

@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/Buoyancy

You 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.

Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming.

[BADecker]

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.

Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming.

But when you feed him with statements like this,
without anything to back up what you say,
you only increase the validity of the things that he says.

But that is you, of course. Simply a different religion from the one that he has.

[MiSKLaCH]

Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming.

And, voilà: GPS proves relativity is real! http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

[Astargath]

@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/Buoyancy

You 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.

Ok, so you are flipping again.  You've been going back and forth between the air pressure and the E field.
Now that we've got you committed (pun intended) to the atmospheric air pressure as the cause of the force objects exert on the ground, we can drill further into your fantasy.

Put two objects on the ground, let's say two blocks of different wood but identical in size, say oak and pine.  Why one is heavier than the other?
The air pressure is all the same around them.

Show your math to show that the oak block is heavier than the pine block, or be quiet when adults are talking.

Hey calm down, you are going to scare him away. Watch him change the subject entirely and completely ignoring this point just like many others. The guy doesn't even understand that buoyancy cannot exist without gravity.

[notbatman]

@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.

[Astargath]

@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.

I'm by no means an expert in this but I'm fairly sure he said ''Why one is heavier than the other?'' Not to measure the air pressure surrounding the objects.

[BADecker]

@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.

I'm by no means an expert in this but I'm fairly sure he said ''Why one is heavier than the other?'' Not to measure the air pressure surrounding the objects.

Right! If there weren't any gravity, their wouldn't be heavier, and their wouldn't be any easy ways to measure density.

[notbatman]

Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming.

And, voilà: GPS proves relativity is real! http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

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.

[Astargath]

Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming.

And, voilà: GPS proves relativity is real! http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

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

[trolltalk]

The earth is absolutely round, there will be many conflict in the law of physics if the earth is flat.

[notbatman]

@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.

[notbatman]

Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming.

And, voilà: GPS proves relativity is real! http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

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.

[notbatman]

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.

[notbatman]

@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.

"the pressure on objects from the atmosphere is immense" - 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.

[notbatman]

^^^ 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.

[Bheb112795]

I believe in science, and not to a false science like flat earthers.

[notbatman]

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.