Atmosphere On Flat Earth

How does a flat earth retain atmosphere? Now, I could try to convince you why and why flat earth can't have an atmosphere, but then it would rely on previous "facts" established by others. So, how, according to a solid Flat Earth theory, is there an atmosphere on earth?
P.S. I love Mairimashita Iruma Kun

Producing gradient without downwards force remains mystery as of now to brightest Flat Earth scholars

Producing gradient without downwards force remains mystery as of now to brightest Flat Earth scholars

Could you please provide a link to the works of these alleged ‘brightest flat earth scholars’ as I would be very interested in reading what they are working on.
In all honesty I don’t believe there is any such thing as a bright flat earth scholar. It’s a bit of an oxymoron. But of course I’m more than prepared to being proved wrong.

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118489-global-natural-logarithm-formula/

I was also able to obtain the sum of the MacLaurin cosine expansion (see that thread for details) and the global arctangent formula.

Wait. Before we proceed with natural logarithm formula and what not, I would first like to ask: Is the Earth surrounded by a giant dome keeping the air from escaping?

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

You mean your useless pile of crap, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Just how would logarithms explain how the atmosphere stays on your fantasy disk?

Quote from: sandokhan on March 29, 2024, 11:03:56 AM

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

You mean your useless pile of crap, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Just how would logarithms explain how the atmosphere stays on your fantasy disk?

My formula is a major achievement, what have you got to show for yourself? Have you ever published anything similar?

As for  the formula for the atmosphere, here is the calculation provided by Wolfgang Pauli:



The calculation was carried out by Wolfgang Pauli, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, 'the universe would not even reach to the moon'".

If the ether drift field (zero point energy, scalar waves) does exist, then the radius of curvature of the observable universe is 31 km.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/011/pdf

C. P. Enz, A. Thellung : Nullpunktenergie und Anordnung
nicht vertauschbarer Faktoren im Hamiltonoperator ,
Helv. Phys. Acta 33, 839–848 (1960) pg 842

https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/53/1/1.24/218451

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.2213.pdf

Earlier, I stated that the upper bound of the distance to Sirius is less than 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

This is precisely what happens in reality.

The distance from the center of the flat surface of the Earth to the top of the second dome is 31 km.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2024, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on March 29, 2024, 11:03:56 AM

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

You mean your useless pile of crap, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Just how would logarithms explain how the atmosphere stays on your fantasy disk?

My formula

So that's a "No".
You can't explain what magic is keeping the atmosphere on your fantasy disk.
Instead you can only spam entirely irrelevant BS to pretend you are smart, and try to hide from the fact you are entirely wrong.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

Firstly, this tells us NOTHING about what magic is holding in the atmosphere.
But equally important, we have been over this before.
In order for this to be meaningful at all, it means the ENTIRE UNIVERSE must fit within a sphere with a radius of 31 km.
I alone have travelled much further than that so know it is pure BS.
Your fantasy contradicts it, so it doesn't work. Bringing it up doesn't help you at all.
All it does is show your stupidity and/or dishonesty.
Either you are too stupid to understand that it is equally a problem for your fantasy, or you know that it is equally a problem and you are intentionally lying to everyone.

jackblack, you are an underachiever.

Take a look at my big beautiful formulas:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118489-global-natural-logarithm-formula/

By comparison, you are just a science fiction peddler, a charlatan.

Have you ever published anything close to this major achievement? Shut the fuck up then.


You cannot make the distinction between the radius of curvature and the radius of a circle, a sure sign of your peddling.

You can have a flat surface and a radius of curvature of 31 km.

Do you understand what Pauli was saying? If ether exists, the radius of curvature of the universe is 31 km. Period.

No one can explain how a millon ton cloud stay up there in the first place on a round earth.

The force holding up clouds is the Biefeld-Brown effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759968#msg759968

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

Wolfgang Pauli

Here is the Weyl-Ivanov exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:



You can increase or decrease the weight of a capacitor by simply modifying the voltage.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational equations for static systems (Biefeld-Brown effect):

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

page 3:

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for
the electromagnetic field in the æther and of the “kinetic” energy-momentum
tensor of the matter

So ether does exist, thus Pauli's formula is correct.

Presentation made at the International Academy of Astronautics on the Biefeld-Brown effect, by Dr. Takaaki Musha (Honda R&D Institute):

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha-Presen.pdf

jackblack, you are an underachiever.

I get it, your complete lack of any serious accomplishment in your life, combined with your inability to think through quite simple things, and continually being refuted results in you throwing a tantrum like this.
But I don't care.

Take a look at my big beautiful formulas:

Does your worthless crap in any way explain what magic is holding the atmosphere on a flat Earth? If not, I DON'T CARE!

You cannot make the distinction between the radius of curvature and the radius of a circle

I can make the distinction, as already explained to you, which like the typical lying coward you are, you fled from.

In order for your radius of curvature to be significant, it must be the LARGEST.
Otherwise, you can have any size universe.
Consider a standard ellipse with a semi-major axis of a and semi-minor axis of b.
The curvature at min and max are a/b^2 and b/a^2.
And as by definition a is larger than b, the maximum is a/b^2.
And the radius is given as 1/curvature, so the minimum radius is b^2/a
i.e. r = b^2/a
We can rearrange this to get b^2=r*a which gives b=sqrt(r*a)
Or we can get a=b^2/r, which I think is more useful.

So lets set out minimum radius of curvature to 1 m.
Now, lets make the narrow portion of this universe just 1 light year wide, i.e. 9.46*10^15 m.
Well that gives us a universe that is 9.46*10^15 light years long.

We can go even bigger.
Lets make the universe 13 billion light years wide.
That gives us a universe that is 1.23*10^26 light years long.

So with that, there is no limit to the size of the universe.
Which makes all your claims based upon it pure BS.

In order for it to be meaningful, it needs to be the LARGEST radius of curvature, which means the curvature can only ever be smaller than it, so the entire universe must be smaller than a sphere of that radius.

And again, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is just a demonstration of your stupidity/dishonesty/both.
I wont be commenting on it again in this thread other than to further highlight your blatant lies.

Now again, care to tell us what magic keeps the atmosphere on?

Have you ever achieved anything like this?

COS θ =  1/2 x (({ [( (2 - θ²/2^N)² - 2)²...]² - 2}² - 2))    (n/2 + 1 evaluations)

COS^-1 θ =  2ⁿ x {2 - ((2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 2θ)^1/2]^1/2}^1/2...))}^1/2   (n + 1 evaluations)


My global cosine formula is the SUM of the Maclaurin cosine expansion.

COSH V =  1/2 x (([(({[(2 + V²/2ⁿ)² - 2]²} - 2))²...-2]² - 2))   (n/2 + 1 evalutions)

LN V =  2ⁿ x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)^1/2]^1/2...}^1/2))^1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2ⁿ x (V^1/2n+1 - 1/V^1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

ARCTAN V =  2ⁿ x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V²)}^1/2)^1/2]...^1/2}))^1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)

Only a psychopath would not appreciate this major achievement in higher mathematics, and that's you.

Again, have you ever published anything resembling these equations? No?


Someone else here has told you that you have no references for your statements.

Definition:

In differential geometry, the radius of curvature, R, is the reciprocal of the curvature. For a curve, it equals the radius of the circular arc which best approximates the curve at that point.

The radius of FE is 6,363.63 km.

With Pauli calculation, we get a radius of curvature of 31 km for the FE: since the shape of the Dome is a curve, it means that the highest altitude of this Dome cannot exceed 31 km . As simple as this.

But you knew all of this and opted to waste the time of your readers.

I have equations, you have nothing at all.

In FET, the weight of the clouds is held by the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Here is the Weyl-Ivanov exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:



You can increase or decrease the weight of a capacitor by simply modifying the voltage.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational equations for static systems (Biefeld-Brown effect):

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

page 3:

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for
the electromagnetic field in the æther and of the “kinetic” energy-momentum
tensor of the matter

So ether does exist, thus Pauli's formula is correct.

Presentation made at the International Academy of Astronautics on the Biefeld-Brown effect, by Dr. Takaaki Musha (Honda R&D Institute):

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha-Presen.pdf


Take a look at what I have: the formula derived by the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, Hermann Weyl. He explicitly had derived it using the concept of AETHER.

I have experimental evidence from the Honda Institute for the Biefeld-Brown effect as well in addition to the theoretical derivation.

This alone disqualifies any and all of your statements.

Have you ever achieved anything like this?

You mean continually deflecting from the topic like a coward?
Or continually repeating the same pathetic, refuted lies while ignoring the refutation of them?
No. Why would I want to?
That isn't something to be proud of.
It is like a criminal boasting about how many innocent people they have killed.
You should be ashamed of it, not boasting.

all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key.

Or we can use a calculator which has the four basic operations and the Ln key.
Much simpler.

Only a psychopath would not appreciate this major achievement

It isn't a major achievement.

Someone else here has told you that you have no references for your statements.

Conversely, your references directly contradict.
I don't need references when logic and math backs me up.

Again, you have had your lies about the radius of the universe refuted.
You don't even make any attempt to deal with that refutation, and instead just repeat the same pathetic, refuted BS.
All you are doing with that is showing how much of a lying conman you are.

Again, going to explain what magic holds in the atmosphere?

My global cosine formula

Cosine in context of what from what?

The fact this chart for the southern hemisphere is accurate kills flat earth.




Now.  If there was a dome on a flat earth with no gravity, why would there be a pressure gradient like we witness?  Where the atmosphere becomes a meaningless thing around 60 miles up.  Where on a flat earth with a dome, the pressure and density should be about the same throughout. 

And how isn’t there a build up of dust, condensation, soot on the dome.

Shrugs



The above provides something meaningful with meaningful labels.

Have you ever achieved anything like this?

COS θ =  1/2 x (({ [( (2 - θ²/2^N)² - 2)²...]² - 2}² - 2))    (n/2 + 1 evaluations

COS^-1 θ =  2ⁿ x {2 - ((2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 2θ)^1/2]^1/2}^1/2...))}^1/2   (n + 1 evaluations)


My global cosine formula is the SUM of the Maclaurin cosine expansion.

Now sandokhan, for you “formula” can you graph it in any meaningful way with meaningful labels?  Or is it useless a tits on a board?   

Have you ever achieved anything like this?

COS θ =  1/2 x (({ [( (2 - θ²/2^N)² - 2)²...]² - 2}² - 2))    (n/2 + 1 evaluations

COS^-1 θ =  2ⁿ x {2 - ((2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 2θ)^1/2]^1/2}^1/2...))}^1/2   (n + 1 evaluations)

If someone used the above “formulas”, what units does the answer come out in as it relates to measurable factors of the atmosphere?

Or is it just BS raised to the log of the words in the post? 

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118489-global-natural-logarithm-formula/

I was also able to obtain the sum of the MacLaurin cosine expansion (see that thread for details) and the global arctangent formula.

how is that related?

Quote from: sandokhan on March 29, 2024, 02:02:28 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2024, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on March 29, 2024, 11:03:56 AM

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

You mean your useless pile of crap, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Just how would logarithms explain how the atmosphere stays on your fantasy disk?

My formula

So that's a "No".
You can't explain what magic is keeping the atmosphere on your fantasy disk.
Instead you can only spam entirely irrelevant BS to pretend you are smart, and try to hide from the fact you are entirely wrong.

Quote from: sandokhan on March 29, 2024, 02:02:28 PM

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

Firstly, this tells us NOTHING about what magic is holding in the atmosphere.
But equally important, we have been over this before.
In order for this to be meaningful at all, it means the ENTIRE UNIVERSE must fit within a sphere with a radius of 31 km.
I alone have travelled much further than that so know it is pure BS.
Your fantasy contradicts it, so it doesn't work. Bringing it up doesn't help you at all.
All it does is show your stupidity and/or dishonesty.
Either you are too stupid to understand that it is equally a problem for your fantasy, or you know that it is equally a problem and you are intentionally lying to everyone.

i am curious how does his paper show that with ZPE universe can have maximum radius of 31 km?

Isnt Ivanov supporter of Einstein?

Weyl is famous for that and Sandokhans misquoting wont change any of that

i am curious how does his paper show that with ZPE universe can have maximum radius of 31 km?

I'm not sure about that paper specifically, since it is so vague, but Pauli used a particular idea about the expansion of the universe, and reached the conclusion that it would need to be expanding so fast that the OBSERVABLE universe would not reach the moon.
It isn't saying that the universe is physically limited to that size, but that before you reach the moon the rate of expansion would be faster than the speed of light so it would be outside the observable universe.

But a big problem with this is what this vacuum energy should be.
We even see that in the paper sandy takes the image from. They provide 2 equations, with no basis at all.
Just taking omega max, why should it be 2 * pi * mass of electron / fine structure constant?
On what basis is this determined?

And while I haven't done the math to check, I would be hesitant to accept the result of that choice of units being in km with no intermediate value presented.

Have you ever achieved anything like this?

COS θ =  1/2 x (({ [( (2 - θ²/2^N)² - 2)²...]² - 2}² - 2))    (n/2 + 1 evaluations)

COS^-1 θ =  2ⁿ x {2 - ((2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 2θ)^1/2]^1/2}^1/2...))}^1/2   (n + 1 evaluations)


My global cosine formula is the SUM of the Maclaurin cosine expansion.

COSH V =  1/2 x (([(({[(2 + V²/2ⁿ)² - 2]²} - 2))²...-2]² - 2))   (n/2 + 1 evalutions)

LN V =  2ⁿ x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)^1/2]^1/2...}^1/2))^1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2ⁿ x (V^1/2n+1 - 1/V^1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

ARCTAN V =  2ⁿ x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V²)}^1/2)^1/2]...^1/2}))^1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)

Only a psychopath would not appreciate this major achievement in higher mathematics, and that's you.

Again, have you ever published anything resembling these equations? No?


Someone else here has told you that you have no references for your statements.

Definition:

In differential geometry, the radius of curvature, R, is the reciprocal of the curvature. For a curve, it equals the radius of the circular arc which best approximates the curve at that point.

The radius of FE is 6,363.63 km.

With Pauli calculation, we get a radius of curvature of 31 km for the FE: since the shape of the Dome is a curve, it means that the highest altitude of this Dome cannot exceed 31 km . As simple as this.

But you knew all of this and opted to waste the time of your readers.

I have equations, you have nothing at all.

In FET, the weight of the clouds is held by the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Here is the Weyl-Ivanov exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:



You can increase or decrease the weight of a capacitor by simply modifying the voltage.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational equations for static systems (Biefeld-Brown effect):

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

page 3:

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for
the electromagnetic field in the æther and of the “kinetic” energy-momentum
tensor of the matter

So ether does exist, thus Pauli's formula is correct.

Presentation made at the International Academy of Astronautics on the Biefeld-Brown effect, by Dr. Takaaki Musha (Honda R&D Institute):

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha-Presen.pdf


Take a look at what I have: the formula derived by the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, Hermann Weyl. He explicitly had derived it using the concept of AETHER.

I have experimental evidence from the Honda Institute for the Biefeld-Brown effect as well in addition to the theoretical derivation.

This alone disqualifies any and all of your statements.

If I'm not wrong, weyl Ivanov formula uses big g in its calculation. If you see the paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf you'll see that the author has used the value of G as ~6.7 * 10^-11. So my question would be, how did they arrive at this value?


But that is not my question. My question is, and let me reiterate, Is there a dome above the discoidal earth holding the atmosphere and prevent it from escaping?

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118489-global-natural-logarithm-formula/

I was also able to obtain the sum of the MacLaurin cosine expansion (see that thread for details) and the global arctangent formula.

How does a flat, cirrcular object have an arctangent formula and a cosine formula?

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118489-global-natural-logarithm-formula/

I was also able to obtain the sum of the MacLaurin cosine expansion (see that thread for details) and the global arctangent formula.

I prefer the little ln() button on my calculator.
Don't think any of this addresses the question raised about atmosphere. Certainly not some back of envelope calcs from Pauli.

In flat earth a terrarium dome keeps the atmosphere on earth.
Makes sense, right?

Quote from: sandokhan on March 29, 2024, 11:03:56 AM

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118489-global-natural-logarithm-formula/

I was also able to obtain the sum of the MacLaurin cosine expansion (see that thread for details) and the global arctangent formula.

The people shilling for you on the link you gave never bothered to check your work.
for x = 100,000 and n = 20 it evaluates to 15.822348631720997 and not 11.512445 as you claim.
You rely on people not to check as the math looks complicated. You have a reputation score of -8 on the site you linked.
You are just a liar. You will cry to the mods.

I never bothered to check... well, because his "big beautiful formulas" are pointless in the context of flat earth debate, but yeah, maybe I should have checked

The people shilling for you on the link you gave never bothered to check your work.
for x = 100,000 and n = 20 it evaluates to 15.822348631720997 and not 11.512445 as you claim.
You rely on people not to check as the math looks complicated. You have a reputation score of -8 on the site you linked.
You are just a liar. You will cry to the mods.

I don't know how you got that number.
When I try I get 11.512925465 using excel and 11.512925465028057463824473... from Wolfram Alpha.
Compared to ln(100 000) which is 11.51292546497... from Wolfram Alpha.
So they match to 11.51292546...
With the real value continuing with 497; excel then terminating with 5 (which is correct to that level of precision) and wolfram continuing with 5028... which is wrong.

You can try it yourself:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2%5E20+*+%28100000%5E%281%2F%282%5E21%29%29+-+1%2F%28100000%5E%281%2F%282%5E21%29%29%29%29

But that still isn't the 11.512445 they claim, which is worse.
In fact, I don't think their formula could ever get that, as their formula appears to overestimate, and the value they provided is an underestimate.

But the reason that formula is just a completely useless waste of space, is because it has no practical value.
A computer will calculate x^n as e^(ln(x)*n)
So their ridiculous formula to calculate the natural log, will use the natural log.

Sorry Sandhokan but you're a poser.
You claim a lot of stuff, but you can't back anything.
So how does the atmosphere behave on the flat earth model?
No answer....So much for "debate" Or perhaps you're looking for an obscure note from a scientist written in 1847 to back up your silly claims?
Like holding the sun up with Tesla's death ray. That was a good one.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2024, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on March 29, 2024, 11:03:56 AM

Here is my formidable global natural logarithm formula:

You mean your useless pile of crap, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Just how would logarithms explain how the atmosphere stays on your fantasy disk?

My formula is a major achievement, what have you got to show for yourself? Have you ever published anything similar?

As for  the formula for the atmosphere, here is the calculation provided by Wolfgang Pauli:



The calculation was carried out by Wolfgang Pauli, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, 'the universe would not even reach to the moon'".

If the ether drift field (zero point energy, scalar waves) does exist, then the radius of curvature of the observable universe is 31 km.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/011/pdf

C. P. Enz, A. Thellung : Nullpunktenergie und Anordnung
nicht vertauschbarer Faktoren im Hamiltonoperator ,
Helv. Phys. Acta 33, 839–848 (1960) pg 842

https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/53/1/1.24/218451

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.2213.pdf

Earlier, I stated that the upper bound of the distance to Sirius is less than 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

This is precisely what happens in reality.

The distance from the center of the flat surface of the Earth to the top of the second dome is 31 km.

Another complete nonsequitor, but ..
If you're going to dredge up old arguments from esteemed physicists, you should really understand the background. Pauli is not supporting the aether argument, he's pointing out that the EM field cannot have a positive zero point energy, because the result would be totally against observed reality. Sort of like the FE viewpoint.

Sorry Sandhokan but you're a poser.
You claim a lot of stuff, but you can't back anything.
So how does the atmosphere behave on the flat earth model?
No answer....So much for "debate" Or perhaps you're looking for an obscure note from a scientist written in 1847 to back up your silly claims?
Like holding the sun up with Tesla's death ray. That was a good one.

Why would one expect the atmospheric pressure profile to be different from the globe earth model?  If it is different, it can be chalked up to "perspective".

Quote from: Cameron 1964 on April 04, 2024, 07:03:03 PM

Sorry Sandhokan but you're a poser.
You claim a lot of stuff, but you can't back anything.
So how does the atmosphere behave on the flat earth model?
No answer....So much for "debate" Or perhaps you're looking for an obscure note from a scientist written in 1847 to back up your silly claims?
Like holding the sun up with Tesla's death ray. That was a good one.

Why would one expect the atmospheric pressure profile to be different from the globe earth model?  If it is different, it can be chalked up to "perspective".

You do realize I have not received one coherent answer to my original post?

Quote from: gnuarm on April 24, 2024, 04:36:20 PM

Quote from: Cameron 1964 on April 04, 2024, 07:03:03 PM

Sorry Sandhokan but you're a poser.
You claim a lot of stuff, but you can't back anything.
So how does the atmosphere behave on the flat earth model?
No answer....So much for "debate" Or perhaps you're looking for an obscure note from a scientist written in 1847 to back up your silly claims?
Like holding the sun up with Tesla's death ray. That was a good one.

Why would one expect the atmospheric pressure profile to be different from the globe earth model?  If it is different, it can be chalked up to "perspective".

You do realize I have not received one coherent answer to my original post?

Is that unusual for a flat earth discussion?  I've seen little evidence that the flat earthers have much of an idea of how a flat earth can operate. 

I don't know why, but I expected there to actually be a description of a flat earth model, but I think I've been educated on just how poorly the flat earthers are at developing a workable model.  It's more of a thin bit of rigor, and people standing around saying, "I don't know how it actually works." 

Oh, let's not forget the ones who can weave some equations together, which have nothing to do with a flat earth model, but like to impress others here with their math skills.  Yeah, sure, we need a way to calculate natural logarithms, other than pressing the natural logarithm button on our calculators. 

Here's my take on the atmosphere issue.  With the earth being flat, and not spinning, there does need to be something to keep the atmosphere from sliding off the earth.  So, either there has to be, not a few hundred feet high wall at the periphery of the of the flat earth, but miles high, enough to keep the atmosphere from sliding over it. 

Or, a dome would do the same thing.  But how would such a dome or such high walls have come into being?  This is just such a strange design for an earth.  Maybe the flying spaghetti monster built it?