Flat Earth

[BADecker]

BADecker wants us to believe Aristotle proved we live on the surface of a sphere thousands of years ago. In reality he said nature abhors a vacuum and like Newton and Eisenstein who came after him, riding in one dick on-top of another, provides all the the tools and information needed to prove that, whatever theory made them famous is false and wrong.

Nature doesn't like a vacuum. How does it show us this? By using gravity to clear the skies of material, and form the material into globes.

[notbatman]

^^^ What proof or even evidence do you have that a force called gravity pulls all matter into balls?

If you look at the process of fractional distillation it forms layers based on density not balls based on weight. If one substance is more dense than another substance it's mixed with, the denser substance sinks by getting pushed down by the lighter substance moving up. It can be shown that an electric field defines up and down by replicating the process of electromigration, where by an applied electric field will cause the least dense material to migrate towards the positive anode. This process is explained via Coulombs Law and the presence of an electric field at the surface of the earth at ~100V/m has been measured.

Where's the evidence for your bullshit theory that pulls everything into a ball? Why the fuck isn't the universe just one giant ball then? You've got us rocketing through an imaginary cosmos a million miles an hour doing the corkscrew on the surface of a giant rotating space pear. You've got a screw loose with your screwball theories if you think we're in motion.

[odolvlobo]

I'm curious about density vs. gravity. I have only heard about this recently. There appears to be a force that pulls objects down, and it is called "gravity". What is the issue? Is the non-existence of gravity a central tenet of FE?

What is the force that causes objects to rise or fall according to their density?

If denser substances get pushed down by the lighter substance moving up, then why do objects fall in a vacuum when there is no lighter substance moving up?

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Finally, sorry to contradict your beliefs, but it seems to me that gravity is behind the effects of density that we observe. Given two equal volumes, the one with more mass sinks and the one with less mass rises, so mass is the key factor, just as in gravity. Doesn't this imply that gravity could be behind the effects of density that we observe?

[BADecker]

^^^ What proof or even evidence do you have that a force called gravity pulls all matter into balls? - If you mean me, I am not trying to suggest there is a "pull" on matter. We don't really know if it is a pull or a push or something else. What we DO know is that matter attempts to congregate together. We have named this attempted congregation - this force - gravity. We don't call it gravity theory. We call it gravity, by observation.

Some other force may appear to act in the same way that gravity does, at times. So, if we don't observe correctly, we might be calling something gravity that isn't gravity. Some other language may use different words for gravity. Some scientists may have coined some other word for gravity. Anybody is allowed to freely call gravity by some other name. It's still gravity.

If you look at the process of fractional distillation it forms layers based on density not balls based on weight. If one substance is more dense than another substance it's mixed with, the denser substance sinks by getting pushed down by the lighter substance moving up. It can be shown that an electric field defines up and down by replicating the process of electromigration, where by an applied electric field will cause the least dense material to migrate towards the positive anode. This process is explained via Coulombs Law and the presence of an electric field at the surface of the earth at ~100V/m has been measured. - Gravity is the thing that makes density act as it does. If there wasn't any gravity, density would act totally differently, even though it, itself, would remain essentially the same.

Where's the evidence for your bullshit theory that pulls everything into a ball? - Where's your BS evidence that that I have such a theory? Why the fuck isn't the universe just one giant ball then? - You don't even understand how gravity makes density work the way it does, and you ask a question like this? Nobody knows for a fact that the universe is or isn't a gigantic ball of sorts. You've got us rocketing through an imaginary cosmos a million miles an hour doing the corkscrew on the surface of a giant rotating space pear. - Show us your BS evidence that I have anything rocketing anywhere. You've got a screw loose with your screwball theories if you think we're in motion.

How's the funny farm these days? Now you are trying to suggest that we are at absolute zero where there is no motion.

But it is kinda fun playing with you. Should I be ashamed of picking on a FF joker who can't even see through his own silliness? Of course not. Why not? Because you don't mind getting picked on at all! It isn't picking to you. You are happy in your own little world.

Did they feed you a good lunch today?

[notbatman]

^^^

I'm curious about density vs. gravity. I have only heard about this recently. There appears to be a force that pulls objects down, and it is called "gravity". What is the issue? Is the non-existence of gravity a central tenet of FE?

Well the first issue is you have a force that pulls.  

The existence of gravity, an unproven hypothesis is unavoidable and central to the globe model. On our flat earth objects fall or sink because they've displaced the atmosphere (aether in the case of an evacuated chamber) and the atmosphere reacts by pushing them down. Up and down is defined by the electric field (see Coulomb's Law) between the dome (+ anode) and the ground (- cathode).

What is the force that causes objects to rise or fall according to their density?

It's kinetic force.

If denser substances get pushed down by the lighter substance moving up, then why do objects fall in a vacuum when there is no lighter substance moving up?

I would appreciate your thoughts.

The lighter substance is aether. You can refer to the Sagnac Experiment for more information.

Finally, sorry to contradict your beliefs, but it seems to me that gravity is behind the effects of density that we observe. Given two equal volumes, the one with more mass sinks and the one with less mass rises, so mass is the key factor, just as in gravity. Doesn't this imply that gravity could be behind the effects of density that we observe?

The liquid with more mass is more dense. The less dense liquid will migrate towards the anode and the denser liquid will be pushed towards the cathode. The ground (down) is the cathode (-) and the dome in the sky above us (up) is the anode (+). You can refer to electromigration for more information.

Gravity is an unproven theory needed to explain the motion of the lights in the sky if we foolishly assume they're heavy balls. There's no observable earthly phenomenon that requires gravity.

[BADecker]

^^^

Well, thank you. Since you can't answer my points, thanks for the lovely picture.

I'm curious about density vs. gravity. I have only heard about this recently. There appears to be a force that pulls objects down, and it is called "gravity". What is the issue? Is the non-existence of gravity a central tenet of FE?

Well the first issue is you have a force that pulls. 

Why would you think that gravity is a force that pulls.

Consider the rope. If you tie one end of a rope to an object, you might be able to easily pull that object along. But it would be difficult if not impossible to push the object via the rope.

If gravity pulled, we would have figured it out easily, long ago. But since gravity is such a difficult thing to figure out, more than likely gravity pushes.

The existence of gravity, an unproven hypothesis is unavoidable and central to the globe model. On our flat earth objects fall or sink because they've displaced the atmosphere (aether in the case of an evacuated chamber) and the atmosphere reacts by pushing them down. Up and down is defined by the electric field (see Coulomb's Law) between the dome (+ anode) and the ground (- cathode).

But if there were a dome, it would have been mentioned in the Bible (which you love to quote). But all that is mentioned is the canopy of water above the sky, and water below the sky. It's a canopy around globe earth.

If Coulomb's Law applied, we would have far more electrical reaction between various objects on earth than we do. We would be able to get free energy out of it.

If denser substances get pushed down by the lighter substance moving up, then why do objects fall in a vacuum when there is no lighter substance moving up?

I would appreciate your thoughts.

The lighter substance is aether. You can refer to the Sagnac Experiment for more information.

The aether isn't a lighter or heavier substance. You entirely misunderstand the aether. It holds denser and less dense materials, and propagates gravity waves and the energies that materials are made from. The aether, itself, is not affected by any scientific terms that are currently popular. Sagnac didn't understand the aether, either.

Gravity is an unproven theory needed to explain the motion of the lights in the sky if we foolishly assume they're heavy balls. There's no observable earthly phenomenon that requires gravity.

You still haven't figured out that there is a difference between gravity and gravity theory. Both gravity and gravity theory exist. Gravity is accurate. We don't know for sure if gravity theory is accurate. If it were accurate, it would be the law of gravity. Now don't go off spouting Newton or something.

[odolvlobo]

What is the force that causes objects to rise or fall according to their density?

It's kinetic force.

If denser substances get pushed down by the lighter substance moving up, then why do objects fall in a vacuum when there is no lighter substance moving up?

I would appreciate your thoughts.

The lighter substance is aether. You can refer to the Sagnac Experiment for more information.

Thanks for your answers, but there are some things that I don't understand.

If the aether has a kinetic force then it must have mass. Is that right? Is that possible?

Secondly, if the aether causes things to fall as it rises due to lower density, wouldn't the aether drift shown by Knodel's experiment cause things to move sideways?

[notbatman]

^^^ Yes aether has mass, this and the question of the rest mass of a photon are one and the same argument; it is non-zero. Zero and infinity are not tangible quantities, you can only approach them and have an equivalence due to their negligible or extreme value, your question is actually non-sequitur. Aether is the medium that propagates EM radiation such as light and radio; it has mass by definition and can be treated as a superfine gaseous substance.

On a large scale this [Knodel's observations of] aether drift [caused by the motion of the stars] has been shown to affect things like the direction of rotation in a hurricane. This and the so-called Coriolis force are one and the same. If the earth were rotating there would be a 24h cycle not the measured 23h 56m and, the effects would be devastating, the shear forces alone would tear the earth apart. It is quite unreasonable to assume the earth is in motion and it has been proven countless times to not move. See the M&M experiment for more information, the list of other corroborating experiments is quite impressive and leaves little to no doubt on the subject.




It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. -- Amos 9:6

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? -- Job 37:18

[BADecker]

^^^ Not being able to find proof for FE is a good reason to post all other kinds of things.

Personally, I don't mind supporting the FE thread. Such support helps to show FE people how silly they are. And it warns the weak thinkers to not get mixed up in FE foolishness.

[MadmanAmazon]

You know the earth if flat when Buzzfees (fake news) reports on the “conspiracy”
https://youtu.be/JO-ndBqZORk

[notbatman]

.

.

[BADecker]

^^^ Consider the second verse of the Bible: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Then consider 1 John 3:8: "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work."

God doesn't create stuff that is void and formless and empty. "But, He did the earth"... you might say. No, He didn't. Rather, the devil was sinful from the beginning. It was the devil, who was to be a magnificent tool  of God's, who corrupted the creation right at the beginning (see Ezekiel 28 for an understanding of the devil).

You need to catch up to von Braun. Since you don't even understand the above stuff, how in the world are you going to properly understand anything that is in the Bible? Let's hope that you understand Jesus salvation enough to be saved.

[notbatman]

^^^ "By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire." -- Ezekiel 28:16

"Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee." -- Ezekiel 28:18

[BADecker]

^^^ You know this stuff about yourself, yet you won't change. Why not?

One good thing. You finally found a picture that matches yourself better than that avatar of yours does.

[Last of the V8s]

[BADecker]

^^^ The reason why it was a "donk" rather than a "splat" was, you froze solid in outer space on the way down. Of course, flat Earth and flat Mars really have something else that is way bigger and way flatter beneath them, right?

 

[sirazimuth]

That's a ridiculous meme. You can't jump of the edge of the pancake earth, ffs.
Why, its surrounded by a circle of huge antarctic glaciers and is guarded by
an army of secret government mercenaries who will shoot you on sight if you try to get too close.
Just ask Batty or his sockpuppet pal Xempy, they know all about these evil government conspiracy thingies...

[Astargath]

That's a ridiculous meme. You can't jump of the edge of the pancake earth, ffs.
Why, its surrounded by a circle of huge antarctic glaciers and is guarded by
an army of secret government mercenaries who will shoot you on sight if you try to get too close.
Just ask Batty or his sockpuppet pal Xempy, they know all about these evil government conspiracy thingies...

It's funny because he keeps mentioning these huge things like a big dome above our heads or insane projectors that are projecting the sun and other shit all the time and yet no one has seen them, ever, no pictures, videos, nothing, there is always some sort of excuse as of why not.

[notbatman]

^^^ I've posted images that indicate there's a dome, you're a liar if you claim I haven't. In fact this is at least the second time you've made this accusation you fucking shill. Also it's better to have images that only provide limited evidence of the dome than showing provably fraudulent photographs of a globe earth.

You want to claim the lights in the sky are giant heavy balls billions and billions and billions of miles away, million mile wide thermonuclear bombs that never stop exploding with no proof what-so-ever. You're sharp as a bag full of wet mice if you believe any of that garbage, the Sun and the Moon and the stars are small close projected lights.

Watch the Sun travel across the sky, you're an idiot and a fool if you think it's not moving.

[Astargath]

^^^ I've posted images that indicate there's a dome, you're a liar if you claim I haven't. In fact this is at least the second time you've made this accusation you fucking shill. Also it's better to have images that only provide limited evidence of the dome than showing provably fraudulent photographs of a globe earth.

You want to claim the lights in the sky are giant heavy balls billions and billions and billions of miles away, million mile wide thermonuclear bombs that never stop exploding with no proof what-so-ever. You're sharp as a bag full of wet mice if you believe any of that garbage, the Sun and the Moon and the stars are small close projected lights.

Watch the Sun travel across the sky, you're an idiot and a fool if you think it's not moving.

''images that indicate'' Because it's really hard to have direct evidence that there is a huge fucking giant dome above our heads? What about the projectors mate, what's up with that, where the hell are they? Again, nothing huh? It's always like that with you, claiming crazy shit but 0 evidence and it should be really easy to provide evidence of a huge giant dome or huge projectors or a huge wall of ice that covers the entire earth and yet, nothing, 0 photos or videos even in 2019, crazy huh?