Gravity, just understood it existed

I was the only one who provided the correct explanation for the orbital motion of the Sun/Moon/stars/planets: ball lightning torus.

Then, I was asked to provide proof for this statement. Ball lightning means visible ether, elements lighter than hydrogen.

Here is Koronium and Newtonium:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058259#msg2058259

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064256#msg2064256

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2065771#msg2065771

Go ahead and explain to your readers the existence of Koronium, a gas lighter than hydrogen, in the solar atmosphere.

It’s not floating, it has internal energy like every other heavenly object above Earth.

So you have no explanation at all, and instead will just appeal to pure magic.
Yet, in your extreme dishonesety, you object to us using buoyancy, a direct result of gravity, to explain why some things float.

Again, for the comparison, we use a single force, and the logical consequences of it, to explain so much of reality.
You appeal to pure BS, outright reject a key part of reality, and now appeal to pure magic.
This makes it quite clear

the Sun is clearly proof of there being some sort of ‘eternal’ energy it must have

No, it isn't.
Care to explain how rather than provide yet another delusional assertion?

Look at how they all shine out in lights, change shapes so rapidly for some of them, follow along in one group above Earth, while doing all this, and all are unique from the others, in various degrees.  One can identify which star they see without knowing its position in the skies, without any star maps.  I mean those who know and have seen the stars many times, that is. They even ‘sparkle’ differently, see their colours and motion differently from the other stars. That is not from the effects of our atmosphere, nothing else is either

And more delusional BS stated with no justification at all, and knowing that your prior justification has been refuted repeatedly.

They are not in one big bag of some kind, Each one is based on what we know exists, what must be proven to exist, and so on.

No, you don't know any of that.
You are literally appealing to pure magic because you hate a model that explains reality so well.
What we know exists, what has been proven to exist beyond any sane doubt, is gravity.
Gravity explains orbits. You have no explanation.
But because that would have Earth as a round object, you must reject it at all costs.

I was the only one who provided the correct explanation for the orbital motion of the Sun/Moon/stars/planets: ball lightning torus.

You provided a collection of words strung together into a meaningless phrase which explains nothing.
You then spammed a bunch of crap because you can't answer the question.

And your links to the liars only section of this forum are entirely worthless.
If you want to provide your prior BS, provide a link to the debate section where it has been refuted.

What magic holds this "ball lightning torus" up?
What magic makes the sun take the crazy path it does throughout the year?

Sandhokan. But earlier you said it was the Biefeld-Brown effect that held the sun up. You even have the equations.Im confused now

I was the only one who provided the correct explanation for the orbital motion of the Sun/Moon/stars/planets: ball lightning torus.

Then, I was asked to provide proof for this statement. Ball lightning means visible ether, elements lighter than hydrogen.

Here is Koronium and Newtonium:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058259#msg2058259

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064256#msg2064256

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2065771#msg2065771

Go ahead and explain to your readers the existence of Koronium, a gas lighter than hydrogen, in the solar atmosphere.

Shut up dude. At the very least try to quote some parts of your links instead of just pasting links and be all "look at big beautiful formulas". Get lost. And finally, ANSWER my question in the atmosphere thread instead of just pasting links like a dumb bot.

Those are called bibliographical references you dimwit. In fact, I did you a favor by not bringing here the entire material pertaining to Koronium and Newtonium.

You, the RE, must now explain the presence of a gas LIGHTER than Hydrogen in the solar atmosphere.

To even complain about reading a few paragraphs means that you have never been exposed to an academic level of research where they simply put 100 references in front of you and you are supposed to read them by the end of the week.

Go ahead and explain the presence of Koronium in the solar atmosphere. Since you cannot, I claim immediately the existence of a ball lightning torus around the Sun. This kind of torus has been experimented on (of course, at a much smaller scale) by the US NAVY, the works of Dr. Salvatore Pais. The antigravitational effect of these fields has been proven and published in peer reviewed papers sponsored by the US NAVY.

I can explain it. It's imaginary.
In engineering we call such things "unobtainium".
You funny guy.

Those are called bibliographical references you dimwit.

No, they are links to more of your delusional BS.
In a special section where only people like you can post, and you can't get your BS refuted.

You, the RE, must now explain the presence of a gas LIGHTER than Hydrogen in the solar atmosphere.

No, we don't.
YOU, the conman FEer, must explain what magic keeps the sun up and moving in such a crazy pattern.

We don't need to explain your fantasy.

Pulling things downward by a force within Earth is not a fall, which happens without any external force acting on it, pulling down on it from below.

Nice try anyway

Now THIS is a very VALID point.........................................perhaps that's why the expression is "PULL your head in"

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 06, 2024, 12:44:16 AM

Pulling things downward by a force within Earth is not a fall, which happens without any external force acting on it, pulling down on it from below.

Nice try anyway

Now THIS is a very VALID point.........................................perhaps that's why the expression is "PULL your head in"

So, Turbonium. What you're describing is how gravity works. It pulls shit back to the ground. Everything at the same rate, if there was no air.

Haven't you ever gone snorkeling or scuba diving!!!
Explain the increase in pressure with depth of water without a force that pulls down on the water. That force being weight directed at the center of mass of the earth.

Oh shit the scientist is here. Gravity works by pulling things to the ground. Do you even hear how fucking dumb that sounds? My fairie god nonsense says things fall, so they do.  Yeah we all know about fucking air resistance.

What exactly do you think it has to do with snorkeling?

Oh shit the scientist is here. Gravity works by pulling things to the ground. Do you even hear how fucking dumb that sounds? My fairie god nonsense says things fall, so they do.  Yeah we all know about fucking air resistance.

Gravity works (at a simple level) as a force of attraction between masses, proportional to the product of their masses.

What exactly do you think it has to do with snorkeling?

Gravity explains the pressure gradient.
Things being denser than surroundings so they magically go down does not.

Oh shit the scientist is here. Gravity works by pulling things to the ground. Do you even hear how fucking dumb that sounds? My fairie god nonsense says things fall, so they do.  Yeah we all know about fucking air resistance.

What exactly do you think it has to do with snorkeling?

Well you FE folks are always spouting off about personal experience. But that's hard to do sitting in Mommy's basement. If you've ever benn scuba diving or snorkeling you would have first hand experience with the increasing pressure with water depth.
So just asking if you can explain that pressure gradient with you're magical everything falls down without gravity viewpoint.

I haven't yet seen any solid objects falling up, have you?

Well you FE folks are always spouting off about personal experience. But that's hard to do sitting in Mommy's basement.

Personal experience is a great indicator of reality as opposed to following a storyline and accepting it as fact without actually knowing anything.
So who's the one in the basement?
You people use this stuff a lot as if it offers you credence. It offers you nothing.

If you've ever benn scuba diving or snorkeling you would have first hand experience with the increasing pressure with water depth.

Increasing pressure is increasing crush which is never a pull and can't ever be a pull in nature in any scenario.

So just asking if you can explain that pressure gradient with you're magical everything falls down without gravity viewpoint.

A pressure gradient is based entirely on dense mass stacking and a resistance of each dense mass in the stack against each other.

I haven't yet seen any solid objects falling up, have you?

Define a solid object and when does an object become a solid?

Personal experience is a great indicator of reality as opposed to following a storyline and accepting it as fact without actually knowing anything.

Seem several people called you out for your personal experience, and you turn tail.

What was it you would post?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 24, 2023, 07:36:42 AM

Do you have any arguments instead of simply offering nothing but a few words

Like how I showed a balloon larger than a bowling ball displaces more fluid than the bowling, while you yet to provide one experiment to support den pressure delusion.

I can repost that experiment again…

It’s on this page

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91690.2460

Quote from: Cameron 1964 on April 09, 2024, 05:34:38 AM

Well you FE folks are always spouting off about personal experience. But that's hard to do sitting in Mommy's basement.

Personal experience is a great indicator of reality as opposed to following a storyline and accepting it as fact without actually knowing anything.
So who's the one in the basement?
You people use this stuff a lot as if it offers you credence. It offers you nothing.

Quote from: Cameron 1964

If you've ever benn scuba diving or snorkeling you would have first hand experience with the increasing pressure with water depth.

Increasing pressure is increasing crush which is never a pull and can't ever be a pull in nature in any scenario.

Quote from: Cameron 1964

So just asking if you can explain that pressure gradient with you're magical everything falls down without gravity viewpoint.

A pressure gradient is based entirely on dense mass stacking and a resistance of each dense mass in the stack against each other.

And what would be the pressure at 32.2 ft depth? Or 64.4ft deep? Can you figure that out?

I haven't yet seen any solid objects falling up, have you?

Define a solid object and when does an object become a solid?
[/quote]
I'll use your approach to explain. A solid is an object that is solid. Being solid it has the properties of being solid therefore more dense than an object that's not solid. Solid becomes a solid when it solidifies.

A pressure gradient is based entirely on dense mass stacking and a resistance of each dense mass in the stack against each other.

i.e. gravity.
As we have been over countless times, you need a force acting directly on each layer. That can't just be the stuff around it.

Quote from: Cameron 1964 on April 09, 2024, 05:34:38 AM

Well you FE folks are always spouting off about personal experience. But that's hard to do sitting in Mommy's basement.

Personal experience is a great indicator of reality as opposed to following a storyline and accepting it as fact without actually knowing anything.
So who's the one in the basement?
You people use this stuff a lot as if it offers you credence. It offers you nothing.

Quote from: Cameron 1964

If you've ever benn scuba diving or snorkeling you would have first hand experience with the increasing pressure with water depth.

Increasing pressure is increasing crush which is never a pull and can't ever be a pull in nature in any scenario.

Quote from: Cameron 1964

So just asking if you can explain that pressure gradient with you're magical everything falls down without gravity viewpoint.

A pressure gradient is based entirely on dense mass stacking and a resistance of each dense mass in the stack against each other.

Quote from: Cameron 1964

I haven't yet seen any solid objects falling up, have you?

Define a solid object and when does an object become a solid?

Here's a simple question, at least for some.
What's the difference between weight and mass?
Anyone dare to try that one?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 10, 2024, 02:26:47 AM

Quote from: Cameron 1964 on April 09, 2024, 05:34:38 AM

Well you FE folks are always spouting off about personal experience. But that's hard to do sitting in Mommy's basement.

Personal experience is a great indicator of reality as opposed to following a storyline and accepting it as fact without actually knowing anything.
So who's the one in the basement?
You people use this stuff a lot as if it offers you credence. It offers you nothing.

Quote from: Cameron 1964

If you've ever benn scuba diving or snorkeling you would have first hand experience with the increasing pressure with water depth.

Increasing pressure is increasing crush which is never a pull and can't ever be a pull in nature in any scenario.

Quote from: Cameron 1964

So just asking if you can explain that pressure gradient with you're magical everything falls down without gravity viewpoint.

A pressure gradient is based entirely on dense mass stacking and a resistance of each dense mass in the stack against each other.

Quote from: Cameron 1964

I haven't yet seen any solid objects falling up, have you?

Define a solid object and when does an object become a solid?

Here's a simple question, at least for some.
What's the difference between weight and mass?
Anyone dare to try that one?

Come on Turbonium, you can do it. Throw out some word salad to explain the difference between weight and mass.
Do you even know the proper units in metric or English?
I bet not since you can't even comprehend the concept of a force having direction.
No, I figured not.

Here I'll do some simple math that shows your ideas of density/ air pressure are silly.
Take a six inch diameter bowling ball, let's say it weighs 10 lbs.
What pressure difference is required across the ball is required to make it weigh 10lbs on your scale or in your hand?
Answer: about 11 psi. So 26 psi on top assuming 15 psi everywhere else.
So how the guck does that happen?
But of course if I use a basketball on the same scale (about 1 lb) the pressure difference needed is only 1.1 psi?
Magic density, air pressure up lifting, down drafting, pushing pulling whatever. 👍🌎😉

if you're were willing to put your beliefs on the line, you could replicate Cavendish experiment. Like is done routinely in universities so students aren't blindly following the evil professors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

See science is about experimental evidence, not blind faith.

Although I liked the Blind Faith with Clapton, Ginger Baker and Rick Greck or was it Jack Bruce?

Those are called bibliographical references you dimwit. In fact, I did you a favor by not bringing here the entire material pertaining to Koronium and Newtonium.

You, the RE, must now explain the presence of a gas LIGHTER than Hydrogen in the solar atmosphere.

To even complain about reading a few paragraphs means that you have never been exposed to an academic level of research where they simply put 100 references in front of you and you are supposed to read them by the end of the week.

Go ahead and explain the presence of Koronium in the solar atmosphere. Since you cannot, I claim immediately the existence of a ball lightning torus around the Sun. This kind of torus has been experimented on (of course, at a much smaller scale) by the US NAVY, the works of Dr. Salvatore Pais. The antigravitational effect of these fields has been proven and published in peer reviewed papers sponsored by the US NAVY.

Your references are posts made by you in a thread where I can't even tell you why you're wrong. And koronium is a highly ionized iron atom, I believe? No way does it indicate an element lighter than hydrogen. I mean, come on. You argue about lack of gravity, that's one thing. But now you want to change the periodic table as well?

Here's one such setup in a university
Oh yeah, skip to 7:30

Here's one such setup in a university
Oh yeah, skip to 7:30

Love it. Actual scientific evidence of the reality of gravity.
Nice video.

What do you think Turbonium? I'm sure you gonna say it's fake
Or maybe your flat earth is 6000 km thick?

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 22, 2024, 02:08:04 AM

Here's one such setup in a university
Oh yeah, skip to 7:30

Love it. Actual scientific evidence of the reality of gravity.
Nice video.

What do you think Turbonium? I'm sure you gonna say it's fake
Or maybe your flat earth is 6000 km thick?

At that point it's a cylindrical earth.

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 22, 2024, 02:08:04 AM

Here's one such setup in a university
Oh yeah, skip to 7:30

Love it. Actual scientific evidence of the reality of gravity.
Nice video.

What do you think Turbonium? I'm sure you gonna say it's fake
Or maybe your flat earth is 6000 km thick?

I’m not sure Turbs is very happy.  The individual went on and on about a laser experiment and accuracy of “lasers”.  Then when it was pointed out repeated laser experiments that fit the individual’s criteria show the earth is curved.  All the sudden Turbs thinks lasers aren’t accurate?


😂😂😂😂😂😂

Again, how do they test laser levels for accuracy over distances?

Knowing lasers emit straight beams of sharp light, how can they be used to measure for a curved surface on ball Earth?

Why are they called levels?

Because levels DO measure for straight and flat, horizontal lines and surfaces, of course.

They test them for accuracy by how straight and level they are over distances, by targets that ARE level and straight across from them, at the exact same height they are.

They set up targets at various distances away from their laser levels, at ‘true level’ to them.

If they accounted for any ‘curvature’ in their tests for accuracy, then lasers couldn’t work to measure for level in the first place!

Lasers use straight beams of light to measure for level, they cannot measure for a curve as level, even if did exist at all.

Lasers could never measure for level to ‘curvature’, with a made up force making level read to ball Earth curvature, for no reason at all.

Lasers can’t have that bs excuse for them. How can you excuse them?

You can’t excuse them.

Laser levels use a perfectly straight beam of fine light to measure for level, for a straight flat horizontal line or surface.

Now you can drop the bs excuses

Again, how do they test laser levels for accuracy over distances?

You…

Anyway, how do we know that level can NOT mean 'level to Earth's curvature'? Because we have another instrument, which measures level, and is called a LASER LEVEL. They do not use Earth's surface, or it's atmosphere, to measure for level. They use lights, which are concentrated to a small point, and cast that light outward, over long distances. No matter WHAT the surface below it, wouldn't matter at all.

ANY curved surface, no matter how slight a curve it has, can be measured, same as a FLAT surface can be measured, or any OTHER surface can be measured.

Your excuse that Earth's 'curve' is too 'slight' to measure, is complete BS. We can measure a curve of microns, on surfaces, with our instruments of today. So we can certainly measure a curve of 8 inches over one mile distance, with our instruments, too.

It isn't that we cannot MEASURE for such a curve, it is that there IS no curve at all, to BE measured for!

So.  The laser experiment demonstrates a curved earth and you got pissy.

You literally went from “over long distances. No matter WHAT the surface below it, wouldn't matter at all” to “test laser levels for accuracy over distances?”

Fucking hypocrite.

Again, how do they test laser levels for accuracy over distances?

You..

Except for laser levels, of course, not used on planes, to measure for level flight in air.

How could we even MEASURE for a ball Earth's surface, being curved all over the surface below a plane in air? Make up a magical force that doesn't even EXIST, and make up whatever you want it to do, like changing what instruments read as level, as flat and horizontal, no problem at all, right?

The ball Earth lie, is purely made up nonsense.

Again, how do they test laser levels for accuracy over distances?

You have already had that explained.
They measure things like beam divergence and accuracy of the self levelling mechanism.

Why are they called levels?

Because they operate over such a small distance compared to the size of Earth that their inaccuracies are greater than the curvature.

Because levels DO measure for straight and flat

Repeating the same lie will not make it true, no matter how many times you do it.

Levels do not measure for straight, nor flat, they measure for level, specifically being perpendicular to down.

They set up targets at various distances away from their laser levels, at ‘true level’ to them.

No, they don't.

a made up force making level read to ball Earth curvature

It isn't made up at all.
Meanwhile, you have levels just be pure magic, magically aligning to a magical reference surface to no reason at all.

Now you can drop the bs excuses

How about you do, and admit the experiment that you asked for shows Earth is round?