What? ???I especially like the inanity of every water molecule being perfectly buoyant.
Or the water is just being dragged into the earth.
Wow! That explain a lot. I always knew that FE involved major suckage.Or the water is just being dragged into the earth.
Exactly. The giant reptiles under the Earth next to the elephants and turtles suck up the water, counteracting the Earth's upward force.
I love it, no contest from RE. Everyone knows the oceans are weightless.
I love it, no contest from RE. Everyone knows the oceans are weightless.Please demonstrate your faith in the oceans' weightlessness by holding with just one of your arms 1,000 gallons of one of the oceans over your head. Please post a photo of your success. (Let's see: "A pint is a pound the world around.", 2 pints to the quart, 4 quarts to the gallon, 4*2*4*1,000 would be 16 tons. Good luck with that!)
Actually it's about 1000Kg/M^3, not weightless
I love it, no contest from RE. Everyone knows the oceans are weightless.
That's why one cubic meter of water weighs one metric ton right?
So basically, you're pulling facts out of your ass?Actually it's about 1000Kg/M^3, not weightlessI love it, no contest from RE. Everyone knows the oceans are weightless.
That's why one cubic meter of water weighs one metric ton right?
And it weighs 0 pounds in water. A situation all the waters in the ocean are in. Therefore the oceans are weightless.
Okay all you smart RE'ers, how much does a pint of water weigh when in water.
Okay all you smart RE'ers, how much does a pint of water weigh when in water.It depends.
water within water has a weight of 0. This means all the oceans, and none of you are able to
Oceans floating away? Water floats?
Is that why we have water falls?
Seriously, you people are trying much to hard to try and prove something that is simply impossible to prove.
Have you ever weighed a bucket of water? Weigh the bucket while it's empty, then fill it up with water. Notice a change? MAYBE ITS A CONSPIRACYOceans floating away? Water floats?
Is that why we have water falls?
That's my point, the earth is pushed upwards. It explains everything perfectly. But if the earth isn't moving, the oceans have a buoyancy force equal to gravity. Therefore on a RE the oceans are free to float away.
You guys keep laughing at the idea as if it is retarded. Well guess what? It's your model, it is retarded, you're laughing at yourselves. The world is flat, get used to it.
This is satire.I must agree.
If it weren't for me, none of this would happen.
we already took it out on your sonThis is satire.I must agree.
If it weren't for me, none of this would happen.
Have you ever weighed a bucket of water? Weigh the bucket while it's empty, then fill it up with water. Notice a change? MAYBE ITS A CONSPIRACY
Are you seriously that stupid?
Yes, the idea is retarded beyond belief. And so are you for even suggesting it.
The world is round, it's been proven long before morons such as yourself came about. There's no conspiracy. OMG ICE WALL OMG FAKE FACTS
ALL OF YOU WILL FEEL MY WRATH ON 2012. fistofanangrygod;we already took it out on your sonThis is satire.I must agree.
If it weren't for me, none of this would happen.
This thread is crimethink against BB.
Actually, let me just put it this way.
A cubic foot of fresh water weighs 62.4 lbs and a cubic foot of sea water weighs 64 lbs.
How is that not within the context of the topic? You claimed that water was weightless in your first post. And that water floats and some other bullshit.Actually, let me just put it this way.
A cubic foot of fresh water weighs 62.4 lbs and a cubic foot of sea water weighs 64 lbs.
Ok, but let's try doing this in context of the topic at hand. How much do either of those weigh within their own medium? Seriously, I've told you three times already.
If every gallon of water in the ocean weighs 0 pounds, than the whole of the oceans weigh 0 pounds. All our oceans are weightless, why don't they float away?Because they're not weightless?
How is that not within the context of the topic? You claimed that water was weightless in your first post. And that water floats and some other bullshit.Actually, let me just put it this way.
A cubic foot of fresh water weighs 62.4 lbs and a cubic foot of sea water weighs 64 lbs.
Ok, but let's try doing this in context of the topic at hand. How much do either of those weigh within their own medium? Seriously, I've told you three times already.
Obviously by stating that a cubic foot of fresh water weights 62.4 pounds, it proves your shitty theory incorrect. If you add that water to a larger body of water, it simply adds to its mass.
I don't see what you're getting at.
Also, the weight of the amount of a gallon of ocean water (which is made up of salt) depends on the amount of salt dissolved into the ocean.
1 gallon of ocean water doesn't equal 0 pounds. Where did you come up with this?
It's funny. dingleberry argues that that it something is held up by something (such as by other water) else it stops weighing anything. He's so silly.How is that not within the context of the topic? You claimed that water was weightless in your first post. And that water floats and some other bullshit.Actually, let me just put it this way.
A cubic foot of fresh water weighs 62.4 lbs and a cubic foot of sea water weighs 64 lbs.
Ok, but let's try doing this in context of the topic at hand. How much do either of those weigh within their own medium? Seriously, I've told you three times already.
Obviously by stating that a cubic foot of fresh water weights 62.4 pounds, it proves your shitty theory incorrect. If you add that water to a larger body of water, it simply adds to its mass.
I don't see what you're getting at.
How elementary does this conversation need to drop to for you RE'ers to participate? If you don't understand a topic, perhaps you shouldn't become to passionately involved. These questions are best on page 1, before your counter-argument.
Last try for you: Water is as buoyant (in water) as it is heavy. As long as it remains in water, it is weightless. Our oceans are all within water. Therefore, our oceans are all weightless. Why don't they float away?
Every time you mock this, remember you are mocking the round-earth model. Be careful what you toss insults at.
I think it'd be best that you go back to school and learn a thing or two.Also, the weight of the amount of a gallon of ocean water (which is made up of salt) depends on the amount of salt dissolved into the ocean.
1 gallon of ocean water doesn't equal 0 pounds. Where did you come up with this?
in ocean water it does... you're hopeless.
Yeah, boats don't float... what was I thinking.Woah woah woah.
Does this mean the rest of you noobs will stop posting about masts vs. ships?
Yeah, boats don't float... what was I thinking.Woah woah woah.
Does this mean the rest of you noobs will stop posting about masts vs. ships?
When were we talking about boats?
why don't they float away?
So buoyancy affects boats. What's your point? That boats don't weigh anything when they're on the water?Yeah, boats don't float... what was I thinking.Woah woah woah.
Does this mean the rest of you noobs will stop posting about masts vs. ships?
When were we talking about boats?
Buoyancy. (shhh! it affects boats too).
why don't they float away?
Gravity.
Of course I am answering this assuming you weren't an idiot.
Last try for you: Water is as buoyant (in water) as it is heavy. As long as it remains in water, it is weightless. Our oceans are all within water. Therefore, our oceans are all weightless. Why don't they float away?
Every time you mock this, remember you are mocking the round-earth model. Be careful what you toss insults at.
And if their buoyancy force is equal to the gravity force? Did you skip that part in the reading?
They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero.why don't they float away?
Gravity.
Of course I am answering this assuming you weren't an idiot.
And if their buoyancy force is equal to the gravity force? Did you skip that part in the reading?
I think we can all conclude that Smarticus is either joking about all of this, or he really is a fucking idiot.
That's probably the reason he used the structure "A or B", rather than "either A or B".I think we can all conclude that Smarticus is either joking about all of this, or he really is a fucking idiot.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
All you RE'ers are crying bloody murder but the fact remains, water within water has a weight of 0. This means all the oceans, and none of you are able to refute that. Our oceans are weightless.Yes narc, water in water has no weight.
it's even easier to explain, Narc has you hook, line and sinker.
Muppets...
They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero.
the water is resting on itself and it is a constant state of motion and its weight will not be nothing however the few molcules that wish to leave the ocean are held in place by the surrounding air pressure that is of course the said molecule gains enough energy to overcome this force and becomes water vapor hence our clouds
And, because water is weightless in water, no submarine will be crushed by water pressure at great depths.It's your model, careful to not point out how stupid it is. I actually think the oceans are held in place quite nicely, because the earth is accelerating into them.
In fact, you probably think that all submarines are actually made from plexyglass.
Really?They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero.
Which means the oceans are free of gravity and can float around.
Really?They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero.
Which means the oceans are free of gravity and can float around.
So you're saying that the oceans are free of gravity?
Define mass.
They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero.
Which means the oceans are free of gravity and can float around.
hay so the earth is accelerating upwards, somehow managing to avoid any astroids or planets that may be obstructing the path, while the moon and the sun follow us because we're so popular.
Also, if the Earth is flat, then explain why the Earth's shadow cast on the moon during an eclipse is round? No links please, explain this yourself.
hay so the earth is accelerating upwards, somehow managing to avoid any astroids or planets that may be obstructing the path, while the moon and the sun follow us because we're so popular.
Also, if the Earth is flat, then explain why the Earth's shadow cast on the moon during an eclipse is round? No links please, explain this yourself.
Wait, what's so wrong with links? If the link can explain it better than you can, shouldn't you just give it?
Offtopic and already discussed.
So far we have 5 pages of angry RE'ers, none of whom carry any valid counter-argument. Does this spell the end of their magical model?
Offtopic and already discussed.Actually, we've presented plenty of counter arguments.
So far we have 5 pages of angry RE'ers, none of whom carry any valid counter-argument. Does this spell the end of their magical model?
Offtopic and already discussed.Actually, we've presented plenty of counter arguments.
So far we have 5 pages of angry RE'ers, none of whom carry any valid counter-argument. Does this spell the end of their magical model?
It's not our fault you choose to be a stubborn prick about it.
Offtopic and already discussed.
So far we have 5 pages of angry RE'ers, none of whom carry any valid counter-argument. Does this spell the end of their magical model?
Water being weightless in water means that water will float on top of water, not on top of air. I like your manipulation, though, trying to confuse people with random jargon and irrelevant straw men, especially since it's actually fucking worked for five goddamn pages.And of course your post moves us all the closer to six pages.
Society's going to hell.
~D-Draw
Water being weightless in water means that water will float on top of water, not on top of air. I like your manipulation, though, trying to confuse people with random jargon and irrelevant straw men, especially since it's actually fucking worked for five goddamn pages.And of course your post moves us all the closer to six pages.
Society's going to hell.
~D-Draw
Okay all you smart RE'ers, how much does a pint of water weigh when in water.A pint of water + more water = a lot of water = more weight!
YOUR HEAD ASPLODE!My head is pretty big :-*
~D-Draw
NARC HEAD ASPLODEOh, my bad. :'( Now narc will see the truth, that is if he can read my bold print.
~D-Draw
10 lbs. of water is 10 lbs. of water.I'm surprised you haven't killed yourself yet.
10 lbs. of water in water weighs 0 lbs.
All our oceans are water in water. Therefore all our oceans additively are a grand 0 lbs. So you have a choice:
1) The world is round and the oceans float away.
2) The world is flat and the oceans don't float away.
I'm surprised so many want to fight this losing battle.
10 lbs. of water is 10 lbs. of water.I'm surprised you didn't read my post Narc, or killed your self.
10 lbs. of water in water weighs 0 lbs.
All our oceans are water in water. Therefore all our oceans additively are a grand 0 lbs. So you have a choice:
1) The world is round and the oceans float away.
2) The world is flat and the oceans don't float away.
I'm surprised so many want to fight this losing battle.
You RE'ers are clones. How does it feel to be wrong (all of you) ?
You RE'ers are clones. How does it feel to be wrong (all of you) ?
A pint of water + more water = a lot of water = more weight!
Now let me put it in numbers so Narc can understand. I'm removing pint btw
10 lb of water + 20 lb of water = 30 lb of water = more weight
Now for one more equation.
Cold water + warm water = cold water moving to the bottom and cold water moving to the top until the equal the same temp.[/b]
Let us consider the RE model, and please no giggling.
Their oceans. Consider a molecule of water anywhere in the ocean.
How much does this water molecule weigh?
How much volume does this water molecule displace?
What then is its buoyancy force?
Go ahead, figure it out... okay be lazy and I'll explain it. Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds. They fill their container, starting from the lowest possible point. This can only be if the container is pushed into them. The earth MUST be accelerating into our oceans to prevent them from floating away.
Another victory for FE!!!
If you put a boat into water it floats. This is because a buoyancy force is created between the mean mass of the boat and the water. But the boat doesn't float away Because if it came out of the water the buoyancy due to the contact with water would be lost and gravity would take it's course.
Let's try it this way. Fill a milk jug (1 gallon container) with water (Hint to RE'ers, you will need to remove the milk from the container for this to work). Weigh it. Now submerse it into water. Weigh it. Notice we are not weighing the water it is contained in. Notice we are only dealing with the gallon. Notice you are an idiot. Notice it weighs 0 pounds.
Reposting it only makes you twice the idiot.Reply in boldA pint of water + more water = a lot of water = more weight!
Let's try it this way. Fill a milk jug (1 gallon container) with water (Hint to RE'ers, you will need to remove the milk from the container for this to work). Weigh it. Now submerse it into water. Weigh it. Notice we are not weighing the water it is contained in. Notice we are only dealing with the gallon. Notice you are an idiot. Notice it weighs 0 pounds.
I've done something like this, put with glass cups. The weight would be more like this before and when it is sinking.
Before: Weighs say 1lb
During: weighs say .5lb: This is more like tying a rock to a helium balloon, less weight.
After: It will constantly sink until it reaches to the bottom, but the weight will be around the Before and During experiments.
Now let me put it in numbers so Narc can understand. I'm removing pint btw
10 lb of water + 20 lb of water = 30 lb of water = more weight
Yeah, let's take a step back and reflect on your inability to understand the topic at hand. Notice you are an idiot.
10 + 20 = 30
This is first grade stuffNow for one more equation.
Cold water + warm water = cold water moving to the bottom and cold water moving to the top until the equal the same temp.[/b]
Cold goes up and down? Notice this is not what we are talking about. Notice you are an idiot.
Well yeah cold water does go up and down. Let me put it this way. Cold water has a heavy density of +1. Warm, though +1, has a small density from cold water. When cold water gains some heat it losses its density and begins to rise, though the cold water is still cold. Once warm water becomes less than 1 in density it turns to vapor and condenses into clouds
Thanks for populating the world with another RE'er, we need you guys to slow progress.
10 lbs. of water is 10 lbs. of water.
10 lbs. of water in water weighs 0 lbs.
All our oceans are water in water. Therefore all our oceans additively are a grand 0 lbs. So you have a choice:
1) The world is round and the oceans float away.
2) The world is flat and the oceans don't float away.
I'm surprised so many want to fight this losing battle.
so you admit your wrong. You admit that out of water, water has a weight and therefore falls back. But in water it does have a buoyancy. This applies on a miniscule scale, around 1 femtometre, which is why water has a visible surface. The distance a molecule gets from the surface before it falls back in is so small you couldn't see it even with a powerfull electron microscope.
Except the oceans don't need to leave themself. They ARE the ocean. Whether they float or not, they are in the ocean. So your anology does not apply.
Well you can't weigh water in water, dumbfuck.so you admit your wrong. You admit that out of water, water has a weight and therefore falls back. But in water it does have a buoyancy. This applies on a miniscule scale, around 1 femtometre, which is why water has a visible surface. The distance a molecule gets from the surface before it falls back in is so small you couldn't see it even with a powerfull electron microscope.Except the oceans don't need to leave themself. They ARE the ocean. Whether they float or not, they are in the ocean. So your anology does not apply.
Also, @flat_earth: you are the only one that thinks water will still weigh something in water. Figure out why you're wrong, than meet us here.
Wrong. I as well believe that the water weighs its normal amount regardless of its support. You've presented no logic or evidence otherwise. The description of weight and the science behind is available many places. And of course, TheEngineer would argue that the EP proves you wrong and that both models result in the same primary effects of the RE's gravity and the FE's acceleration.so you admit your wrong. You admit that out of water, water has a weight and therefore falls back. But in water it does have a buoyancy. This applies on a miniscule scale, around 1 femtometre, which is why water has a visible surface. The distance a molecule gets from the surface before it falls back in is so small you couldn't see it even with a powerfull electron microscope.Except the oceans don't need to leave themself. They ARE the ocean. Whether they float or not, they are in the ocean. So your anology does not apply.
Also, @flat_earth: you are the only one that thinks water will still weigh something in water. Figure out why you're wrong, than meet us here.
Well you can't weigh water in water, dumbfuck.
Wrong.Well you can't weigh water in water, dumbfuck.
No, I can. You may not be able to. So let me educate you.
Get a bucket, and tie a rope to it.
Weigh them together, this is X.
Fill the bucket with water.
Dip the bucket in a tub filled with water such that the tub water reaches to the lip of the bucket without running over.
Hang the rop on a spring scale.
Read the ... oh. I see what you mean. Read the scale... you don't read do you?
AHA! Get someone to read the scale.
Subtract X from the reading.
Write '0' down on a piece of paper and kick yourself in the face.
Are you admitting the astronauts in the ISS are not weightless then?So where did you get you education from?
You love proving yourself wrong don't you?
Anyhow, mass and weight are different. Oceans have mass yet no weight. They are free to float.
Are you admitting the astronauts in the ISS are not weightless then?
You love proving yourself wrong don't you?
Anyhow, mass and weight are different. Oceans have mass yet no weight. They are free to float.Yes mass and weight are different. As stated Force(weight) equals mass times gravity. Show me somewhere where there is no gravity. O thats right, you can't.
So where did you get you education from?
So you're ignoring my post because it bent you over?So where did you get you education from?
So, you're saying I'm right? I love you RE'ers. Argue until you run out of evidence (this part can usually be skipped since there is little evidence), then flame and hope popularity will carry your voice.
So you're ignoring my post because it bent you over?
So you're ignoring my post because it bent you over?
Lol. All you're doing is thinking out-loud and off topic. Mass is irrelevant to the topic. Weight is the only thing that matters. You just admitted the oceans are weightless, but pretend you "bent me over" because you can show they have mass. Grats, you're an idiot.
The oceans are weightless, they should float.
They should, but they don't, do they?So you're ignoring my post because it bent you over?
Lol. All you're doing is thinking out-loud and off topic. Mass is irrelevant to the topic. Weight is the only thing that matters. You just admitted the oceans are weightless, but pretend you "bent me over" because you can show they have mass. Grats, you're an idiot.
The oceans are weightless, they should float.
Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero?
Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer.
They should, but they don't, do they?
Which also means you're wrong. How does it feel to be a dumbass?
Actually, I'm not validating anything. The Earth is round, yet I see no oceans floating away. SOMETHING IS WRONGThey should, but they don't, do they?
Which also means you're wrong. How does it feel to be a dumbass?
They should if the RE model is true, but they don't. Do they? No.
Which means I'm wrong to support RE, how does it feel to validate my model? Good, actually.
Actually weight does equal mass times gravity.Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero?
Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer.
Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;
I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.
Actually weight does equal mass times gravity.Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero?
Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer.
Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;
I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.
Or W=mg
As he continues to ignore my post he is only showing I'm right.
His education is irrelevant. His brain damage prevents any education from improving his state.Are you admitting the astronauts in the ISS are not weightless then?So where did you get you education from?
You love proving yourself wrong don't you?
Anyhow, mass and weight are different. Oceans have mass yet no weight. They are free to float.
His education is irrelevant. His brain damage prevents any education from improving his state.
This is satire.
Like I said, ammo depleted begin the flames. You guys sure do get mad when you're wrong.You're mistaken. We're just enjoying laughing at your stupidity. You do provide such a comical example of FEers. I wish all of them would expose their stupidity as well as you do. (Though dogsplatter and TomB do a good job too.)
Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero?
Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer.
Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;
I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.
I love winning threads. You guys didn't even try.Nope. And we didn't need to try.
Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;
I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.
Ok I'm back.
You are still wrong. The mass of the second m would be much greater than the first, thus you would have negative weight. This of course is going by what you said.
Now on to the other part that you are wrong. Saying the whole ocean would float around, so what medium is the whole ocean in that is the same mass as the whole ocean to cancel out the whole oceans weight?
Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;
I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.
Ok I'm back.
You are still wrong. The mass of the second m would be much greater than the first, thus you would have negative weight. This of course is going by what you said.
Now on to the other part that you are wrong. Saying the whole ocean would float around, so what medium is the whole ocean in that is the same mass as the whole ocean to cancel out the whole oceans weight?
Perhaps you can explain how the second m is smaller? This should be rich...
Please provide an example of a single molecule of ocean water that is not in a water medium. If the ocean entirely consists of such molecules it is entirely within a water medium. Therefore the ocean is weightless.
As far as weight... There is some giant communication barrier between you and I and I have this eerie feeling we are arguing different things.No, weight is universal.
Anyway.. What medium is the soda in?
No, weight is universal.
Please provide an example of one aluminum molecule that’s not in an aluminum medium.
No, weight is universal.
Please provide an example of one aluminum molecule that’s not in an aluminum medium.
Weight: you keep talking about weighing the medium and think that's what I'm talking about.
Which molecule of soda in your can is not in a soda medium? Aren't you agreeing with me now?
Weight + weight = more weightNO THEY CANCEL OUT THERE ARE NO BLOCKS
Just to make it easier for narc;
One block + one block = two blocks.
Weight + weight = more weightNO THEY CANCEL OUT THERE ARE NO BLOCKS
Just to make it easier for narc;
One block + one block = two blocks.
Weight + weight = more weight
Just to make it easier for narc;
One block + one block = two blocks.
Yeah, but one drop of water + one drop of water = ...Weight + weight = more weight
Just to make it easier for narc;
One block + one block = two blocks.
Yeah, but one drop of water + one drop of water = ...
ONE DROP OF WATER!!! :o
You RE'ers keep contradicting yourselves. You guys are funny.
You RE'ers keep contradicting yourselves. You guys are funny.
Opposed to what you do?
You RE'ers keep contradicting yourselves. You guys are funny.
Opposed to what you do?
No, opposing each other. It's all in the quote, really.
Water is neutrally buoyant in water, not in air. You fail again Narc.
All of them are not in a water medium.Water is neutrally buoyant in water, not in air. You fail again Narc.
Find a molecule of water in the oceans that is not within a water medium.
Now if the oceans begin to float, the same is true of each molecule individually, why not the whole ocean?
All of them are not in a water medium.Water is neutrally buoyant in water, not in air. You fail again Narc.
Find a molecule of water in the oceans that is not within a water medium.
Now if the oceans begin to float, the same is true of each molecule individually, why not the whole ocean?
Find me one that is. Water is the object so its not the medium.
So back to my argument. You are saying a pop can would be weightless because every aluminum atom touches another aluminum atom. This of course is narcberry stupid.All of them are not in a water medium.Water is neutrally buoyant in water, not in air. You fail again Narc.
Find a molecule of water in the oceans that is not within a water medium.
Now if the oceans begin to float, the same is true of each molecule individually, why not the whole ocean?
Find me one that is. Water is the object so its not the medium.
I'd bet most RE'ers cringe when you represent them. You are simply wrong.
So back to my argument. You are saying a pop can would be weightless because every aluminum atom touches another aluminum atom.
This of course is narcberry stupid.No, it's RE stupid. Seriously, why do you guys attack your own model and not my flawless proof? Oh yeah, because it's flawless.
Okay...LISTEN. The single individual water molecule is buoyant, the ocean is not.
Okay for your benefit, let's no longer call it the oceans. Let's call it the set of water molecules within the ocean. Since they all have 0 weight, they should all float. Therefore the set of water molecules within the ocean is free to float around our sky.
Okay for your benefit, let's no longer call it the oceans. Let's call it the set of water molecules within the ocean. Since they all have 0 weight, they should all float. Therefore the set of water molecules within the ocean is free to float around our sky.Let's review. Dingleberry's argument:
What's cruel is the RE'ers are keeping me in anticipation for their valid argument. And for 10 pages even!! Seriously, wtf guys.you must be really tough to be able to put up with us pesky RE'rs
I'm shocked that you're still all arguing this 10 pages on, Narcberry has pulled each and every one of your legs. Feel proud.
Hello all, I'm new here. I stumbled on to your site today, found it absoloutly hillarious and couldn't resist joining in the fun.
I've decided to start by proving the oceans do weigh something through mathematics without contradicting the absurd theory that the ocean is in the ocean.
It's clear from reading this thread that RE believers are all willing to admit that the ocean can't be inside the ocean. It's like my computer being inside my computer which is inside my computer which is inside... well, you all get the idea. And it's equally clear that the FE believers are unwilling to accept this as fact, claiming that the oceans are in fact in a water medium.
Here's proof that even if you considder the oceans to be in a water medium that they still have percieved weight of m*g.
Firstly: weight due to gravity is m*g. This is well known.
percieved weight is the net force acting on an object which in the case of an object immersed in fluid is weight due to gravity - the Buoyancy force
the Buoyancy force is density*acceleration due to gravity*Volume of displaced liquid
or more simply acceleration due to gravity*mass of displaced liquid.
The key word here is DISPLACED.
This means that if 200kg of water is submerged in 1000kg of water the mass of the displaced liquid is 200kg.
In this case Bouyancy = 200*9.81 = weight due to gravity.
Therefore in this case, yes, the liquid has a percieved weight of 0. Reading this thread shows this is not disputed.
However, here's the part you're all over looking: "DISPLACED liquid"
If I submerge 200kg of water in 10kg of water the mass of the displaced liquid is NOT 200kg because there is only 10kg of water to be displaced. Therefore in this case Bouyancy = 10*9.81 and therefore the percieved weight is 200*9.81 - 10*9.81 = 190*9.81 Newtons.
In the case of the ocean being in the ocean. If we accept this silly idea then the percieved weight of the total ocean = m(ocean) * 9.81 - buoyancy force = m(ocean) * 9.81 - mass of displaced liquid * 9.81 = m(ocean) * 9.81 because if you considder the whole of the ocean to be your displacing object then there is 0 mass of water left in the medium (the ocean) to be displaced by it.
An example was previously given about placing a container full of water suspended by a scale in a container full of more water and reading 0 on the scale (provided you take into considderation the mass of the container). This is true.
However if you try and place a container full of water suspended by a scale into a container with less water then you will read a force on the scale.
It is therefore obvious from my above arguments that if the bounds of your medium are the same bounds of the displacing object then buoyancy is 0 because there is 0 mass left of the medium to be displaced.
OMG NARC!
THE WATER DOESN'T F*CKING FLOAT, DIPSHIT.
Imagine an object that is neutrally buoyant in water, like a water molecule.
Now take it out the water.
Now the buoyancy in air is less, so the object doesn't float when you take it out the water.
F*ckshiter.
How cute, have all the RE'ers tucked tail?How cute, you were owned in the other threads so you have to try and draw attention away from it.
OMG NARC!
THE WATER DOESN'T F*CKING FLOAT, DIPSHIT.
Imagine an object that is neutrally buoyant in water, like a water molecule.
Now take it out the water.
Now the buoyancy in air is less, so the object doesn't float when you take it out the water.
F*ckshiter.
Yeah, if the molecule is ever in the air! But, sadly, this is not the case. The water would remain WITHIN the ocean.
So you deny everything I just showed you and your counter argument is one of your facts that you haven't proven.
After have being put into error an huge amount of times <insert subject> refuse to accept it. Therefore there are noe two options :
1. This whole topice is a joke, even tho schooling you was fun (which is <was than is> probably the case)
2. Your opinion is worth nothing for a lack of giving better counter-arguments and yet still refusing to accept it.
<insert two options anytime>
Oh, the irony! No, that's not all... Oh, the hypocrisy! No, that's not all... Oh, the logic error (ad hominem)!So you deny everything I just showed you and your counter argument is one of your facts that you haven't proven.
After have being put into error an huge amount of times <insert subject> refuse to accept it. Therefore there are noe two options :
1. This whole topice is a joke, even tho schooling you was fun (which is <was than is> probably the case)
2. Your opinion is worth nothing for a lack of giving better counter-arguments and yet still refusing to accept it.
<insert two options anytime>
Your opinion is invalidated by your inability to speak english.
Smarticus, once again:
We assume that your FE-Model is correct.
Please explain:
1) Why are the ocenas not weighless and
2) why aren't they floating around the air?
Smarticus, once again:
We assume that your FE-Model is correct.
Please explain:
1) Why are the ocenas not weighless and
2) why aren't they floating around the air?
Because, while weightless, they are not free to float away because the earth continually accelerates into them.
So you deny everything I just showed you and your counter argument is one of your facts that you haven't proven.
After have being put into error an huge amount of times <insert subject> refuse to accept it. Therefore there are noe two options :
1. This whole topice is a joke, even tho schooling you was fun (which is <was than is> probably the case)
2. Your opinion is worth nothing for a lack of giving better counter-arguments and yet still refusing to accept it.
<insert two options anytime>
Your opinion is invalidated by your inability to speak english.
They are one and the same.How can spelling bad and being a Narcberry/Smarticus be the same thing? :-\
How kind of you to notice they aren't.Except the bit where if I tied anchors to your feet and dumped you into the deepest oceans with a diver's air tank system you would be crushed to death by your so called "weightless" water.
Anyhow, 11 pages of no valid RE contention. I hereby declare myself the winner of this thread.
How kind of you to notice they aren't.
Anyhow, 11 pages of no valid RE contention. I hereby declare myself the winner of this thread.
I disagree, and am hereby the winner.
I'd like to thank all the RE'ers who tried to modify their model to allow for this, it was very kind of you.
I disagree, and am hereby the winner.
I'd like to thank all the RE'ers who tried to modify their model to allow for this, it was very kind of you.
I disagree, and am hereby the winner.
I'd like to thank all the RE'ers who tried to modify their model to allow for this, it was very kind of you.
Haha you just lost. We aren't modifying anything. You're essentially thanking us for letting you change the RE model to cause this. Good job tool. I've already told you, it doesn't work because the ocean is resting on the sea floor the ocean is not resting in the ocean.
So you deny everything I just showed you and your counter argument is one of your facts that you haven't proven.
After have being put into error an huge amount of times <insert subject> refuse to accept it. Therefore there are noe two options :
1. This whole topice is a joke, even tho schooling you was fun (which is <was than is> probably the case)
2. Your opinion is worth nothing for a lack of giving better counter-arguments and yet still refusing to accept it.
<insert two options anytime>
Your opinion is invalidated by your inability to speak english.
Let us consider the RE model, and please no giggling.your stupidity astounds me. Oceans dont float in the air because they are made of matter. The earth's gravitational forces keep them from floating away.
Their oceans. Consider a molecule of water anywhere in the ocean.
How much does this water molecule weigh?
How much volume does this water molecule displace?
What then is its buoyancy force?
Go ahead, figure it out... okay be lazy and I'll explain it. Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds. They fill their container, starting from the lowest possible point. This can only be if the container is pushed into them. The earth MUST be accelerating into our oceans to prevent them from floating away.
Another victory for FE!!!
I'm glad you guys agree, the earth MUST be flat.Smarticus winsthe epic fail award for ignorance!
Agreed!I'm glad you guys agree, the earth MUST be flat.Smarticus winsthe epic fail award for ignorance!
I'll keep making this post until you understand.
Water + Water = more water
5 pounds + 5 pounds = 10 pounds
1 + 1 = 2
ok that is true, but combined the first two that you see.I'll keep making this post until you understand.
Water + Water = more water
5 pounds + 5 pounds = 10 pounds
1 + 1 = 2
I'll keep responding this until you understand:
0 weight + 0 weight = 0 weight.
how much does water weigh in water?how much is the volume of water?
(hint: it's weightless)
how much does water weigh in water?How much does a mailbox weigh setting on its post?
(hint: it's weightless)
Actually it's about 1000Kg/M^3, not weightlessI love it, no contest from RE. Everyone knows the oceans are weightless.
That's why one cubic meter of water weighs one metric ton right?
And it weighs 0 pounds in water. A situation all the waters in the ocean are in. Therefore the oceans are weightless.
Smarticus, please answer my question or otherwise RE'ers will be the WINNERS of this thread.
I'm glad you guys agree, the earth MUST be flat.
Let us consider the RE model, and please no giggling.
Their oceans. Consider a molecule of water anywhere in the ocean.
How much does this water molecule weigh?
How much volume does this water molecule displace?
What then is its buoyancy force?
Go ahead, figure it out... okay be lazy and I'll explain it. Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds. They fill their container, starting from the lowest possible point. This can only be if the container is pushed into them. The earth MUST be accelerating into our oceans to prevent them from floating away.
Another victory for FE!!!
Ocean is water.
Water has mass.
Every massive object is affected by gravity.
Therefore the ocean is affected by gravity.
All you RE'ers are crying bloody murder but the fact remains, water within water has a weight of 0. This means all the oceans, and none of you are able to refute that. Our oceans are weightless.
Water doesn't float in water? This is a new aspect of RE I was not aware of, you guys are dumber than I thought.
Water doesn't float in water? This is a new aspect of RE I was not aware of, you guys are dumber than I thought.Water floats in water, but because you're completely deaf and most likely retarded, i shall say once again what's been tried to told you for ages.
Water doesn't float in water? This is a new aspect of RE I was not aware of, you guys are dumber than I thought.Water floats in water, but because you're completely deaf and most likely retarded, i shall say once again what's been tried to told you for ages.
OCEANS ARE NOT WATER IN WATER, MEANING IT IS NOT WEIGHTLESS, YOU ASSTARD.
Narcberry's ignorance and illogic is too powerful to be corrected, you cannot fix the failed, but he can report you.
No two RE'ers agree? Take FE'ers for christ sake, Tom Bishop rarely agrees with himself.RE: "No two RE'ers agree"
No two RE'ers agree? Take FE'ers for christ sake, Tom Bishop rarely agrees with himself.RE: "No two RE'ers agree"
FE: No two egos agree.
I'm flying... high as a kite.
Is he angry?I'm flying... high as a kite.
(http://www.citypages.com/blogmedia/amadzine/smokener.jpeg)
No, he's high.I don't look that angry when I'm high
Too. Many. Toms.Send in the clones!
No counter argument, maybe because the first argument was too stupid for words, it wasn't worth the space it takes on the server. His argument about floating oceans would apply to both FE and RE, and since his logic is fundamentaly flawed you should not claim it as a victory for FE. There are counter arguments, like the argument that gravity pulls water down, water can't be claimed as buoyant in itself, if it could then reality itself would cease to be logical. Mercury would be bouyant in mercury, so should also float. The fact is that firstly gravity pulls water down, and the pressure of the air pushes the water down. If you are going to declare anything, declare this argument null and void.Thank you, my heart and blood pressure rate has dropped back to normal.
Even if you were to somehow come to the insane conclusion that water can magically fly and matter should fly apart, then you would have to explain the fact that this magic flying water problem applies both to the RE and FE models, since the UA performs the same function as the gravity of RE.
(http://www.freemyspacegraphics.com/Graphics/Funny_Animations/images/42.gif)
Even if you were to somehow come to the insane conclusion that water can magically fly and matter should fly appart...
Welcome to the conclusion of this thread. FE is insane and magical. RE wins.
The floating oceans thing is absolutely hilarious.
The thing that makes me laugh more is the fact that water is denser than ice, and thus the ICEWALL (ZOMG) should float on top of the oceans, and the earth should spill off into nothingness
Even if you were to somehow come to the insane conclusion that water can magically fly and matter should fly appart...
Wait, did you just call the RE model, "insane" and "magical"?
Welcome to the conclusion of this thread. RE is insane and magical. FE wins.
Yeah, except we never remove the bottommost supporting layer. The ocean would remain within itself and could remain supporting itself through bouyancy force. The oceans would literally lift themselves into the upper atmosphere, where heat and cosmic decay would take their toll.Of course its ******* observed you moron. Blow a bubble underwater, the result is that the water on top no longer feels the buoyancy force as strongly and 'falls' in to the space occupied by the air. The result being that the air bubble rises to the surface as it is forced upwards due to it's lower density.
Since this is not observed, the earth must, indeed, be flat.
Welcome to the REAL conclusion of this thread: Smarticus is stupid as a cow and can not read.Even if you were to somehow come to the insane conclusion that water can magically fly and matter should fly appart...
Wait, did you just call the RE model, "insane" and "magical"?
Welcome to the conclusion of this thread. RE is insane and magical. FE wins.
Even if you were to somehow come to the insane conclusion that water can magically fly and matter should fly appart...
Wait, did you just call the RE model, "insane" and "magical"?
Welcome to the conclusion of this thread. RE is insane and magical. FE wins.
Note: this will be his reply.Even if you were to somehow come to the insane conclusion that water can magically fly and matter should fly appart...
Wait, did you just call the RE model, "insane" and "magical"?
Welcome to the conclusion of this thread. RE is insane and magical. FE wins.
All I want to say is no they are calling your incorrect version of RE theory insane and magical.
I underlined the important words so hopefully Smarticus will notice them. (not that I expect it too, stupid non-person)
Yeah, except we never remove the bottommost supporting layer. The ocean would remain within itself and could remain supporting itself through bouyancy force. The oceans would literally lift themselves into the upper atmosphere, where heat and cosmic decay would take their toll.Of course its ******* observed you moron. Blow a bubble underwater, the result is that the water on top no longer feels the buoyancy force as strongly and 'falls' in to the space occupied by the air. The result being that the air bubble rises to the surface as it is forced upwards due to it's lower density.
Since this is not observed, the earth must, indeed, be flat.
Let us consider the RE model, and please no giggling....are you completely loony?
Their oceans. Consider a molecule of water anywhere in the ocean.
How much does this water molecule weigh?
How much volume does this water molecule displace?
What then is its buoyancy force?
Go ahead, figure it out... okay be lazy and I'll explain it. Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds. They fill their container, starting from the lowest possible point. This can only be if the container is pushed into them. The earth MUST be accelerating into our oceans to prevent them from floating away.
Another victory for FE!!!
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/231/tempqg1.png)
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3692/temptw6.png)
(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2729/tempbx7.png)
These experiments only show that the earth is accelerated into the water. Thank you for that.
the FE model must be wrong.WELL NOW WE'RE TALKING!
You guys agree the oceans shouldn't float
You guys agree the oceans should float in RE, as per your lack of evidence otherwise
You guys agree the oceans do not float in FE
You guys still believe in a model that says the oceans should float when they do not. This makes you angry, hence the personal attacks. This thread has been over for pages. FE has been victorious for awhile now. Thanks for coming, but the show is over.
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/231/tempqg1.png)
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3692/temptw6.png)
(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2729/tempbx7.png)
You guys agree the oceans should float in RE, as per your lack of evidence otherwiseI think you have misunderstood something, or you haven't paid attention to anything that's said on this topic. Or then you're just plain stupid. :-\
You guys agree the oceans shouldn't floatYou crazy fool. Oceans don't float in the REal model.
You guys agree the oceans should float in RE, as per your lack of evidence otherwise
You guys agree the oceans do not float in FE
You guys still believe in a model that says the oceans should float when they do not. This makes you angry, hence the personal attacks. This thread has been over for pages. FE has been victorious for awhile now. Thanks for coming, but the show is over.
You guys agree the oceans should float in RE, as per your lack of evidence otherwiseI think you have misunderstood something, or you haven't paid attention to anything that's said on this topic. Or then you're just plain stupid. :-\
18 F*CKING PAGES!!! HOLY SH*T!!!18 pages of complete BS, having atleast twenty times Smarticus saying "Another victory for FE!"
I think this is officially a stalemate due to lack of an intelligent and logical argument. We should declare this thread officially:Amen.
Proof that Smarticus has a level of intelligence rivalled only by garden tools, and that nothing he has said/will ever say can be taken seriously again.
No dude, we need to keep it open so Smarticus can post a responseOr so we can flame him enough to make him believe that this thread is all BS and his ideas are all wrong.
No dude, we need to keep it open so Smarticus can post a responseOr so we can flame him enough to make him believe that this thread is all BS and his ideas are all wrong.
ULTIMATE RE FLOATING OCEANS DISPROVEMENT
CASE 1: FE
The Earth is accelerated upward by the UA.
The Earth is pushed into water.
The water is buoyant relative to itself but not to anything else, and is therefore null and void.
CASE 2: RE
Water is accelerated into the Earth by gravity.
Water rests upon a denser medium, the ground.
The water is buoyant relative to itself but not to anything else, and is therefore null and void.
(NOTE TO THEENGINEER - [/thread])If only he could save you so easily.
We will make him realise his ideas are wrong.
It takes like 18 of you ganged up against me and you still lose? Maybe you guys should try another tactic. Might I suggest supporting a true model of the earth?AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ..Hahahahhh... Ahah.
To expand upon the mental shortcomings of Narcberry, this was my favorite:XD that totally cracked me up.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12866.0
CASE 2: RE
Water is accelerated into the Earth by gravity.
Water rests upon a denser medium, the ground.
The water is buoyant relative to itself but not to anything else, and is therefore null and void.
This is absolutely false. The water never needs to rest on the ground. This is since it can rest on itself as it is buoyant within its own medium.
CASE 2: RE
Water is accelerated into the Earth by gravity.
Water rests upon a denser medium, the ground.
The water is buoyant relative to itself but not to anything else, and is therefore null and void.
This is absolutely false. The water never needs to rest on the ground. This is since it can rest on itself as it is buoyant within its own medium.
RETARD.
Q: What is the bottommost layer resting on if the oceans were floating?
A: Air.
Q: Is water denser or less dense than air?
A: Denser.
Q: Therefore, will water sink in air or rise in air? (HINT: Think rain)
A: Sink.
Q: Therefore, water should not float on RE, no?
A: Correct.
Q: What is Narcberry's IQ?
A: ERROR: 0.000000000000001e-99
Prove it, you asstard.CASE 2: RE
Water is accelerated into the Earth by gravity.
Water rests upon a denser medium, the ground.
The water is buoyant relative to itself but not to anything else, and is therefore null and void.
This is absolutely false. The water never needs to rest on the ground. This is since it can rest on itself as it is buoyant within its own medium.
RETARD.
Q: What is the bottommost layer resting on if the oceans were floating?
A: Air.
Q: Is water denser or less dense than air?
A: Denser.
Q: Therefore, will water sink in air or rise in air? (HINT: Think rain)
A: Sink.
Q: Therefore, water should not float on RE, no?
A: Correct.
Q: What is Narcberry's IQ?
A: ERROR: 0.000000000000001e-99
Wrong.
So, Smarticus, you agree that:
a) If water was buoyant in itself, and therefore can float into the air, the same logic can be applied to all matter, so it can be assumed all matter would fly appart.
b) On both RE and FE, by your reckoning, water should float in the air because it is weightless in itself.
c) since they do not float in the air, you are a retard.
d) Because you are a retard, the Earth cannot be flat, and so must be round.
So RE wins!!
So air is denser and rain falls up? Ha!CASE 2: RE
Water is accelerated into the Earth by gravity.
Water rests upon a denser medium, the ground.
The water is buoyant relative to itself but not to anything else, and is therefore null and void.
This is absolutely false. The water never needs to rest on the ground. This is since it can rest on itself as it is buoyant within its own medium.
RETARD.
Q: What is the bottommost layer resting on if the oceans were floating?
A: Air.
Q: Is water denser or less dense than air?
A: Denser.
Q: Therefore, will water sink in air or rise in air? (HINT: Think rain)
A: Sink.
Q: Therefore, water should not float on RE, no?
A: Correct.
Q: What is Narcberry's IQ?
A: ERROR: 0.000000000000001e-99
Wrong.
Narc,Of course it is! That's why rain falls up! The government just wants us to think it falls down.
Give a reason why water will not sink in air.
Sure, a water particle is buoyant in water, but water ain't buoyant in air.
GIVE UP.
Sure, a water particle is buoyant in water, but water ain't buoyant in air.
The water is accelerating to earth due to gravity after all. (again screw you Engineer)Sure, a water particle is buoyant in water, but water ain't buoyant in air.
Pff, you don't know that. The Earth is accelerating into the water after all!!
All you have to say is gravitation and you solve the incorrectness of your statement.
For a decent explanation: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17401.60
Gravitygravity = gray tits
It can't be buoyant if it's denser.Sure, a water particle is buoyant in water, but water ain't buoyant in air.
Pff, you don't know that. The Earth is accelerating into the water after all!!
:oThat guy's a nutjob. What do you expect?
WE'VE BEEN RESPONDING!!!
YOUR WHOLE IDEA IS FLAWED!!! Your throwing gravity a buoyancy out the window and replacing it with nonsense!
And by the way, a I've said, if what you say is true, the water's buoyancy would counteract the UA.
21 pages, still no RE response... so sad.Smarticus' complete blindness = Proven.
WE'VE BEEN RESPONDING!!!
Arrgh! Uga uga! Big flying water! Big flying water floats in itself! But water at the bottom of big flying water fall down because there is not any water under big flying water. Big flying water not fly anymore, it just big water!
The moment it leaves the seabed, air comes in to replace where the water has been. But, the air cannot support the water so it falls.
So, according to popular RE theory, the oceans do not float away because air rushes in between the ocean and the seabed.No no no. The water cannot just rise up unless it can overcome the forces pushing it down. For that to happen the water would have to become less dense, by being heated for example, this would lower the gravitational force felt by that particular volume of water, whilst the buoyancy force exerted upon it by the surrounding cooler water remains the same and it would rise out of the cooler water around it, until coming to a higher region where the forces balance out again.
Yes, yes that was a clumsy post, where's the air coming from Monsieur Bishop?The moment it leaves the seabed, air comes in to replace where the water has been. But, the air cannot support the water so it falls.The oceans lift up and air comes underneath. The oceans then fall down and air leaves. So the RE model claims the oceans are bouncing...
Not only are the oceans not bouncing, nor are their tremendous currents of air at our beaches, but even if there was air, the oceans still remain within themselves. They would still float away. That is unless the earth accelerates into the oceans.Kindly answer one of the posts by myself or Trekkie, your responses are conspicuously absent.
XD for irony. Why don't you look at the mirror and think who's the reatrd here?WE'VE BEEN RESPONDING!!!
I wasn't talking about the pretty little button that lets you type in retarded commentary. I was talking about an actual response to the op.
XD for irony. Why don't you look at the mirror and think who's the reatrd here?
You are the reatrd.XD for irony. Why don't you look at the mirror and think who's the reatrd here?
Yeah, who is the reatrd?
Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity.
gravity exert objects to the earth which causes weight. Without gravity everything would be weightless.Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity.
Or on the flat earth, it is the amount of force the earth exerts on an object by accelerating into it. So actually, if the earth is not accelerating, there is no weight. Thank you for pointing out that the RE model also believes all objects are weightless. Perhaps that is why pigs fly.
Thank you for shedding more light on your model.
Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity.
Or on the flat earth, it is the amount of force the earth exerts on an object by accelerating into it. So actually, if the earth is not accelerating, there is no weight. Thank you for pointing out that the RE model also believes all objects are weightless. Perhaps that is why pigs fly.
Thank you for shedding more light on your model.
Yeah, but the earth isn't accelerating upward. There's gravity. Deal.Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity.
Or on the flat earth, it is the amount of force the earth exerts on an object by accelerating into it. So actually, if the earth is not accelerating, there is no weight. Thank you for pointing out that the RE model also believes all objects are weightless. Perhaps that is why pigs fly.
Thank you for shedding more light on your model.
So, according to popular RE theory, the oceans do not float away because air rushes in between the ocean and the seabed.The moment it leaves the seabed, air comes in to replace where the water has been. But, the air cannot support the water so it falls.
The oceans lift up and air comes underneath. The oceans then fall down and air leaves. So the RE model claims the oceans are bouncing...
Not only are the oceans not bouncing, nor are their tremendous currents of air at our beaches, but even if there was air, the oceans still remain within themselves. They would still float away. That is unless the earth accelerates into the oceans.
Thank you for pointing out that the RE model also believes all objects are weightless. Perhaps that is why pigs fly.And where the **** do you get that conclusion from? Really, this is just stupid. ::)
Thank you for shedding more light on your model.
Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity.
Or on the flat earth, it is the amount of force the earth exerts on an object by accelerating into it. So actually, if the earth is not accelerating, there is no weight. Thank you for pointing out that the RE model also believes all objects are weightless. Perhaps that is why pigs fly.
Thank you for shedding more light on your model.
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?
> Oceans should not float on RE.
>Oceans should float on FE
>Oceans don't, so you are a retard.
>Since you are a retard, the Earth is round.
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?
The oceans float in RE and FE
You missed the bolded text. Then again all I could see is the underlined text.Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?NO, Smartyc***, I'm saying your argument is retarded. The oceans either float in RE and FE, or neither. But, since you won't buy that simple logic, which has been well explained, I'm going in at your angle.
The oceans stay put because gravity pulls them down, and the seabed pushes them up with equal force. The air sits on top of the water, since it is less dense.
But, on FE, due to the lack of gravity, your logic states that oceans should float, for the reasons I posted earlier.
So you agree your model is wrong. Is this your sad attempt of trying to drag our model down with yours?
lawlOh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?
The oceans float in RE and FE
So you agree your model is wrong. Is this your sad attempt of trying to drag our model down with yours?
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?
The oceans float in RE and FE
So you agree my model is wrong, and I am a retard. This is my sad attempt of trying to drag your model down with mine, I tried to prove I had more than three braincells and failed.
1. Admit that you are powerless over stupidity, that your like has become unmanageable.2.
By changing the subject i assume that you admit your defeat.
If you're not happy with it, i'm glad to wait him to spread out his total BS - again.By changing the subject i assume that you admit your defeat.
How is that again?
The fact this managed to go on for 23 pages is a sad indictment of everyone involved.
23 pages of repeating the same argument to some idiot too blind, stupid and/or stubborn to realise that what he is saying is completely flawed.
The oceans do not float. W = mg, if it has a mass and there is gravity it will have a weight.
All this proves is that Smarticus is an idiot and we have too much time on our hands to waste it by trying to convince an idiot of what he blindly refuses to believe.
The earth is not flat, and the oceans do not float.
And I am aware of the irony of saying that this 23 page thread is a sad indictment of all involved and it proves we have too much time and them posting on it myself.
If only science were a popularity contest, you guys might stand a chance.
On another note, why is being wrong so popular?
fro you being wrong is not popular. Not being completely stupid is.
But seriously, I raised a challenge to all RE'ers and none came through. How then have I been proven wrong? If anything, RE'ers lack of success proves me right.WHAT THE FUCKING HELL?
Oh boy. I really like this thread. I feel like taking my turn at trying to word the explanation for this, even though it was obvious right off the bat what this thread really was.
Narc, how about this line of reasoning.
If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?
But seriously, I raised a challenge to all RE'ers and none came through. How then have I been proven wrong? If anything, RE'ers lack of success proves me right.WHAT THE FUCKING HELL?
WHAT DO YOU THINK WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOUR ASSTARDNESS FOR THE PAST 23 PAGES?
YOU haven't responded, YOU are like you don't seem to know what's going on. You just say "So you admit your model is wrong" not caring about rest of the post. And just some pages ago your response to Trekky's very clear and easy to understand explanation was "Wrong", and you did not provide any evidence or even your bullshit theories of WHY is it wrong.
Why has "none came through" is because you're an idiot with no skills of seeing things (I actually wonder if you can read at all) and because you're plain stupid.
Oh boy. I really like this thread. I feel like taking my turn at trying to word the explanation for this, even though it was obvious right off the bat what this thread really was.
Narc, how about this line of reasoning.
If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?
Probably more water
Oh boy. I really like this thread. I feel like taking my turn at trying to word the explanation for this, even though it was obvious right off the bat what this thread really was.
Narc, how about this line of reasoning.
If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?
Probably more water
Let us consider the RE model, and please no giggling.
Their oceans. Consider a molecule of water anywhere in the ocean.
How much does this water molecule weigh?
How much volume does this water molecule displace?
What then is its buoyancy force?
Go ahead, figure it out... okay be lazy and I'll explain it. Every molecule in the ocean is perfectly buoyant. That is to say the buoyancy force is exactly opposite to the gravity force on it. This means the oceans are free from gravity.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds. They fill their container, starting from the lowest possible point. This can only be if the container is pushed into them. The earth MUST be accelerating into our oceans to prevent them from floating away.
Another victory for FE!!!
Probably more water
Probably more water
Then it wouldn't be floating in the way you describe.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.
If water molecules were floating "like giant liquid clouds," I understand that to mean that, like clouds, there's air beneath them. Is that not what you meant?
I never specified what was beneath the oceanic clouds since the RE model had already been shown to be so absurd that such details were not worth exploring. I'm sorry.
Is it clear now, that such details are worth exploring?
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.
Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.
Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.
Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!
It is not free from gravity but gravity works differently in waterBest post of this entire thread.
It is not free from gravity but gravity works differently in waterBest post of this entire thread.
It is not free from gravity but gravity works differently in waterBest post of this entire thread.
Wow was doing a school project on flat earth vs round earth,
Ah Ha OK then its not that gravity works differently in water, the thing is the water is denser then we and many other things are so that makes us float on the water the same reason helium balloons rise. Water is heavier then air so it falls. Helium is lighter than air so it rises. But as i said before water is denser then we are some we float.
So, how does that indicate that 'gravity' works differently in air than it does in a vacuum?
i know this. But try laying in a swimming pool on your back, without moving your body and let me know if you sink. Trust me, you will.
If I remember correctly, the reason dead bodies float is something to do with the body becoming bloated by something or other. I really don't know, it's just an outlandish claim with no evidence.
Smarticus is way smarter than all of youLOL!
EVERYONE STOP! Just stop posting! Narc is just using us in his game of chess. Where all his pawns and he the queen!
:o Gen. Gayer, are you serious? Consider that Smarticus thinks oceans would float into the air against the force of gravity. That's mean to say he's higher up on the chain of intelligence. :(
Give it up for Smarticus for the best bullshit forum i have ever read!!I SAID STOP POSTING!!! Narc is the queen and we're the pawns in his sick, sick, sick game of cheese.
but we don't. Otherwise we wouldn't drown.
l0l smarticus is a girlGive it up for Smarticus for the best bullshit forum i have ever read!!I SAID STOP POSTING!!! Narc is the queen and we're the pawns in his sick, sick, sick game of cheese.
Wow was doing a school project on flat earth vs round earth, and was reading through the forum, when i found this interesting topic, and had to register lol
well anyways flat earth society almost had me there, because I was just reading and the argument that the round earth people gave were the same thing and they really did not refute this at all.
Ok, this is what I think.
I totally agree with smarticus when he said water is weightless in water, but for that to actually make the water fly around it means that the the condition of water having to be in water has to be met at all times.
If we assume that the water does float because it is not affected by gravity, as soon as the part of the water start flying off, the outside is exposed from water and is not weightless anymore, meaning that gravity starts to work on the water again. Assuming that what smarticus said is true (which i am assuming) giant body of water still does not fly because every time it affect of gravity get canceled by buoyancy force and start to fly, the molecules that seperate from the other water molecule get affected by gravity instantaneously.
Which is my conclusion :P thus this argument cannot be used against re cause it has a flaw xD (and yes my english is bad gosh ...)
but we don't. Otherwise we wouldn't drown.
CAN key word CAN Humans can float that doesn't mean all of us do though.
No, I'm not.
I'm not the one who went offtopic.
I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?
Smarticus, your concept of water being weightless in water is entirely wrong and misinterpreted physics.
And instead of actually answering his question, you decided to leave it out of the conversation, causing so called "off-topic".I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?
Are you an RE'er?
And instead of actually answering his question, you decided to leave it out of the conversation, causing so called "off-topic".I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?
Are you an RE'er?
IRONY
I don't think the earth is flat.
Are you saying that "Are you an RE'er?" is a proper answer for "Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?"
Moron.
Wow was doing a school project on flat earth vs round earth, and was reading through the forum, when i found this interesting topic, and had to register lol
well anyways flat earth society almost had me there, because I was just reading and the argument that the round earth people gave were the same thing and they really did not refute this at all.
Ok, this is what I think.
I totally agree with smarticus when he said water is weightless in water, but for that to actually make the water fly around it means that the the condition of water having to be in water has to be met at all times.
If we assume that the water does float because it is not affected by gravity, as soon as the part of the water start flying off, the outside is exposed from water and is not weightless anymore, meaning that gravity starts to work on the water again. Assuming that what smarticus said is true (which i am assuming) giant body of water still does not fly because every time it affect of gravity get canceled by buoyancy force and start to fly, the molecules that seperate from the other water molecule get affected by gravity instantaneously.
Which is my conclusion :P thus this argument cannot be used against re cause it has a flaw xD (and yes my english is bad gosh ...)
This is the same contention all RE'ers have. Sadly, when the oceans float they remain within themselves. So yes, this condition would always be met. I challenged RE'ers to show otherwise and I have yet to see any evidence of a single molecule of water within the oceans that is not, within the oceans. The second RE'ers realize that all water within the oceans are, by definition, within the oceans; they will see why the oceans MUST float on the RE model.
Are you saying that "Are you an RE'er?" is a proper answer for "Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?"
Moron.
No, more it's more like the question, "Are you wrong?" Hardly out of the line of reasonable questioning.
Are you saying that "Are you an RE'er?" is a proper answer for "Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?"
Moron.
No, more it's more like the question, "Are you wrong?" Hardly out of the line of reasonable questioning.
So you admit that it was off-topic at the present time.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR RE!
Wow was doing a school project on flat earth vs round earth, and was reading through the forum, when i found this interesting topic, and had to register lol
well anyways flat earth society almost had me there, because I was just reading and the argument that the round earth people gave were the same thing and they really did not refute this at all.
Ok, this is what I think.
I totally agree with smarticus when he said water is weightless in water, but for that to actually make the water fly around it means that the the condition of water having to be in water has to be met at all times.
If we assume that the water does float because it is not affected by gravity, as soon as the part of the water start flying off, the outside is exposed from water and is not weightless anymore, meaning that gravity starts to work on the water again. Assuming that what smarticus said is true (which i am assuming) giant body of water still does not fly because every time it affect of gravity get canceled by buoyancy force and start to fly, the molecules that seperate from the other water molecule get affected by gravity instantaneously.
Which is my conclusion :P thus this argument cannot be used against re cause it has a flaw xD (and yes my english is bad gosh ...)
And instead of actually answering his question, you decided to leave it out of the conversation, causing so called "off-topic".I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?
Are you an RE'er?
IRONY
You're not the sharpest RE'er, so let me spell this out for you. He asked for proof he was wrong. I asked if he was an RE'er, because that is, by definition, being wrong. He understood this and then lied. So both he and I know he was wrong. You still need a verbal explanation, so I point you in this direction. No, you're other this direction. FFS, just read the quote you effing RE moron.I don't think the earth is flat.
Smarticus, do this little experiment:
1) Get a bowl.
2) Fill it with water.
3) Put some more water, just in case.
4) See if it floats.
Are you saying the bottomost water molecules aren't bouyant?
Are you saying the bottomost water molecules aren't bouyant?
There are no bottomost water molecules, with it being a fluid, the bottomost molecules will constantly be changing, but the fluid rests upon the ocean floor.
Are you saying the bottomost water molecules aren't bouyant?
There are no bottomost water molecules, with it being a fluid, the bottomost molecules will constantly be changing, but the fluid rests upon the ocean floor.
Let's skip a few pages in this thread. I've gone ahead and filled in the answers for you.
Are water molecules buoyant in water? Yes
What is the effective weight of a water molecule in water? 0 kg.
Is this true of all molecules in the ocean? Yes
How many molecules of water are there in the ocean? Like a whole bunch
What is the effective weight of the ocean? 0 kg * Like a whole bunch, or 0 kg.
So the RE oceans are free to float away? Yes.
It's still enough to prove your theory wrong.Smarticus, do this little experiment:
1) Get a bowl.
2) Fill it with water.
3) Put some more water, just in case.
4) See if it floats.
How scientific. You don't have any requirements of the bowl? It seems that this whole thread is about floating oceans, not floating bowls. Thanks for being an idiot though.
It's still enough to prove your theory wrong.Smarticus, do this little experiment:
1) Get a bowl.
2) Fill it with water.
3) Put some more water, just in case.
4) See if it floats.
How scientific. You don't have any requirements of the bowl? It seems that this whole thread is about floating oceans, not floating bowls. Thanks for being an idiot though.
If the water doesn't float from the bowl, then oceans mustn't float either.
So you're saying oceans ignore the attributes of their composing parts and create attributes of their own?
I was under the impression that the oceans only act as the sum of their parts. Does this mean we can ignore everything we know about elementary particles?
The longer we have this conversation, the dumber you RE'ers get.
So you're saying oceans ignore the attributes of their composing parts and create attributes of their own?
I was under the impression that the oceans only act as the sum of their parts. Does this mean we can ignore everything we know about elementary particles?
The longer we have this conversation, the dumber you RE'ers get.
Why don't you read about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.
So you're saying oceans ignore the attributes of their composing parts and create attributes of their own?
I was under the impression that the oceans only act as the sum of their parts. Does this mean we can ignore everything we know about elementary particles?
The longer we have this conversation, the dumber you RE'ers get.
Why don't you read about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.
Fluid dynamicists agree, even fluids are composed of more elementary particles. They go further in their agreement that the weight of any quantity of any fluid is the sum of all the molecules composing that fluid.
Why don't you read about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.
Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
So you agree the earth has floating oceans. Is that correct?
I never disputed that. But every molecule in a fluid is bouyant inside the fluid. That's what the definition of a fluid is, the particles are free to move around in it.
Why do you read some more about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.
Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
You never answered my question, Narc.
Here it is one more time:So you agree the earth has floating oceans. Is that correct?
If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?
Probably more water
Then it wouldn't be floating in the way you describe.
Sure it would, and no RE'er can contest it without becoming enraged and speaking in tongues. You are a funny lot.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.
If water molecules were floating "like giant liquid clouds," I understand that to mean that, like clouds, there's air beneath them. Is that not what you meant?
I never specified what was beneath the oceanic clouds since the RE model had already been shown to be so absurd that such details were not worth exploring. I'm sorry.
Ok. That clears up that misunderstanding. Apology accepted. Is it clear now, that such details are worth exploring?
No. The earth does not have floating oceans. It is safe to not explore the RE model any further.
Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!
I never disputed that. But every molecule in a fluid is bouyant inside the fluid. That's what the definition of a fluid is, the particles are free to move around in it.
Why do you read some more about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.
So you agree the oceans should float in RE.
You also think I need to learn more about fluid dynamics, yet agree with everything I've said.
Which side are you on, exactly?No. The earth does not have floating oceans.
Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
You never answered my question, Narc.
Here it is one more time:So you agree the earth has floating oceans. Is that correct?
Yeah, there's like 28 pages to this thread. Nowhere have I said the earth has floating oceans. Many times I've said the RE model predicts floating oceans. Seriously, are you all this dumb?
I do not agree that the oceans should float.
I'll break it down for you in simple steps:
1) Any molecule in a fluid has mass.
2) Any molecule in a fluid is free to move around in the fluid.
3) The total mass of the fluid is the sum of the masses of all of the molecules.
4) On an 'RE' this mass is affected by the Earths Gravitational field, and thus, the oceans do not float.
The End.
@Chief, try reading that again while walking into busy traffic.I do not agree that the oceans should float.
I'll break it down for you in simple steps:
1) Any molecule in a fluid has mass.
2) Any molecule in a fluid is free to move around in the fluid.
3) The total mass of the fluid is the sum of the masses of all of the molecules.
4) On an 'RE' this mass is affected by the Earths Gravitational field, and thus, the oceans do not float.
The End.
So every molecule in the oceans is free to float away, but not the oceans?
I'm going to do RE a big favor and wait for someone else to argue your points for you guys. Seriously, you're making yourselves look dumber than dumb.
I'm going to do RE a big favor and wait for someone else to argue your points for you guys.
@Chief, try reading that again while walking into busy traffic.I do not agree that the oceans should float.
I'll break it down for you in simple steps:
1) Any molecule in a fluid has mass.
2) Any molecule in a fluid is free to move around in the fluid.
3) The total mass of the fluid is the sum of the masses of all of the molecules.
4) On an 'RE' this mass is affected by the Earths Gravitational field, and thus, the oceans do not float.
The End.
So every molecule in the oceans is free to float away, but not the oceans?
I'm going to do RE a big favor and wait for someone else to argue your points for you guys. Seriously, you're making yourselves look dumber than dumb.
Guide to being an FE'erFixed. No need to thank me. Just doing my part for the community.
1) Be retarded
2) If that fails be an idiot
3) If that fails be a moron
4) If that fails go to step 1
The surface of the ocean can float away you say? Are we back to the jumping ocean hypothesis?
Guide to being an RE'er
1) Be retarded
2) If that fails be an idiot
3) If that fails be a moron
4) If that fails go to step 1
Guide to being an FE'erFixed. No need to thank me. Just doing my part for the community.
1) Be retarded
2) If that fails be an idiot
3) If that fails be a moron
4) If that fails go to step 1
If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?
Probably more water
Then it wouldn't be floating in the way you describe.
Sure it would, and no RE'er can contest it without becoming enraged and speaking in tongues. You are a funny lot.
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.
If water molecules were floating "like giant liquid clouds," I understand that to mean that, like clouds, there's air beneath them. Is that not what you meant?
I never specified what was beneath the oceanic clouds since the RE model had already been shown to be so absurd that such details were not worth exploring. I'm sorry.
Ok. That clears up that misunderstanding. Apology accepted. Is it clear now, that such details are worth exploring?
No. The earth does not have floating oceans. It is safe to not explore the RE model any further.
Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.
And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!
Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.
This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun.
No. The earth does not have floating oceans. It is safe to not explore the RE model any further.Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!
When you declared victory here, you claimed that the world HAS floating oceans.
Oh but the oceans do float. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times. And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.
The last sentence is a remark on water floating in water.
A hint:This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun.
NEATO!!! A mod!
What two words!!! TELL ME, GODDAMIT!
A hint:This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun.
NEATO!!! A mod!
What two words!!! TELL ME, GODDAMIT!
I use them quite often, most often with noobs.
A hint:This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun.
NEATO!!! A mod!
What two words!!! TELL ME, GODDAMIT!
I use them quite often, most often with noobs.
Guesses:
"You're banned"
"/thread"
"Moving thread"
"Thread locked"
Equivalence principle. I win.You get a cookie.
LOL, just thought I would have a go yesterday, got bored. It's quite clear that some people cannot be reasoned with.
LOL, just thought I would have a go yesterday, got bored. It's quite clear that some people cannot be reasoned with.
Still mad you lost?
RE at its best.
RE'ers still cannot find a water molecule within the oceans that is not, within the oceans.
All the water is buoyant and all of it is free to float away. Unless the world is flat of course.
Well the oceans are weightless. On RE this is true irregardless of whether they are airborne or not.no they are not.
I love you guys model, it's like extreme fantasy or something. Do you guys also believe the soul can be seperated from the body with a vorpal sword +5? That would be awsome.
All the water remains within the oceans.
How does each molecule float freely, but as a whole cannot? Do you understand the Law of Sums? The oceans ARE the many molecules of water that are free to float. The oceans ARE free to float.
Let's take this one step at a time.
Narc, what would support the oceans if they lifted up from the ground? They have weight, buoyancy and weightlessness are not the same thing.
No, it does not cease to be buoyant WITH ITSELF. However, water is just NOT BUOYANT in AIR! It won't float.
RE'ers still cannot find a water molecule within the oceans that is not, within the oceans.WATER IS NOT BUOYANT IN AIR!
All the water is buoyant and all of it is free to float away. Unless the world is flat of course.
All the water remains within the oceans.Because each molecule is atop another water molecule. Except on the bottom. It's on top of the ground there.
How does each molecule float freely, but as a whole cannot? Do you understand the Law of Sums? The oceans ARE the many molecules of water that are free to float. The oceans ARE free to float.
Narc, are you saying air can support water?
Air is less dense than water.
It cannot hold water up.
Water rests in water, where water supports water and makes the water neutrally buoyant. However, if the oceans were to rise, air would start supporting multiple layers of water, which it cannot because it is not as dense.
Think of this. If water were not part of anything, if there was only one water molecule, would it be weightless?
No.
It has weight.
Therefore, though a water molecule may be buoyant relative to the other water molecules supported on top of each other by the ground, they cannot rise because each individual water molecule cannot be supported by air.
Because a water molecule cannot be supported by air, the bottom layer of the ocean cannot be supported by air.
Same for the next layer.
And the next.
And the next.
Then how does it get up? Hm?Narc, are you saying air can support water?
Air is less dense than water.
It cannot hold water up.
Water rests in water, where water supports water and makes the water neutrally buoyant. However, if the oceans were to rise, air would start supporting multiple layers of water, which it cannot because it is not as dense.
Think of this. If water were not part of anything, if there was only one water molecule, would it be weightless?
No.
It has weight.
Therefore, though a water molecule may be buoyant relative to the other water molecules supported on top of each other by the ground, they cannot rise because each individual water molecule cannot be supported by air.
Because a water molecule cannot be supported by air, the bottom layer of the ocean cannot be supported by air.
Same for the next layer.
And the next.
And the next.
The water doesn't need to be buoyant in air if it is buoyant within itself and remains within itself, which it does.
The bottommost layer is buoyant on ground, not water.
Please don't spam this thread with your sexual innuendos...pervert, it's your fault for seeing it that way.
Equivalence principle. I win.You get a cookie.
WHY MUST THIS BE MORE THAN 30 PAGES LONG?!?!?!?
Fine, don't take the easy way out. Keep arguing.
Fine, don't take the easy way out. Keep arguing.
Somebody already brought up the point that it would have the same effect in both models. Narcberry ignored it. (big surprise)
A: You're adorable.
B: You're so beautiful.
C: You're cutie full of charms.
D: You're a darling.
E: You're exciting.
F: You're a feather in my arms.
G: You look good to me.
H: You're so heavenly.
I: You're the one I idolize.
J: We're like Jack and Jill.
K: You're so kissable.
L is the love light in your eyes.
M
N
O
P
I could go on all day.
Q
R
S
T
Alphabetically speaking, you're Okay.
U made my life complete.
V means you're very sweet
W
X
Y
Z
It's fun to wander through the alphabet with you,
To tell you what you mean to me!
He still hasn't explained away the fact, according to his floating oceans theory, there is no rain on FE.I thought he was just saying the RE theory made no sense, not that this was the official FE theory (which it obviously isn't)
f) Understands (unlike you) that as soon as you take him seriously enough to argue with him, he wins and gets to laugh at you.
Actually, he was making up a load of proposterous BS to get RE'ers all huffed up. and it worked.He still hasn't explained away the fact, according to his floating oceans theory, there is no rain on FE.I thought he was just saying the RE theory made no sense, not that this was the official FE theory (which it obviously isn't)
bouyancy and weight are different things, and you are confusung them. read the description of any large ship, and you will find a reference to it's "displacement", the amount of water it would push aside. this is much larger than the ship's actual weight.
i once saw a science experiment: a gadget called a "drip tank" was hooked up. it was perfectly full of water, so if something was dropped into it, the same volume of water would "drip" into a nearby bucket.
the teacher then slowly dropped a large piece of clay shaped like a brick into the tank. it pushed out a quantity of water that weighed about as much as the clay.
then he took a second, identical piece of clay, molded it into a crude boat, and slowly dropped it into the tank. result: it pushed out 3 or 4 times as much water, and floated!
sorry for the digresion there. still, let me make another observation: if he is right about water being weightless, anyone could scoop up a bucketfull of water, toss it in the air, and it would SHOOT OFF INTO OUTER SPACE.
he's too stupid/ignorant to understand the difference between water and water VAPOR. he would put water on a stove, turn the oven on, and have NO idea where the water went!
he also doesn't believe there are such things as rain or snow.
i wonder if he knows what ICE is...
I've been following this thread for... oh, about a week now. And it's kind of funny. While some of you are obviously enjoying yourselves in this big joke (Smarticus for one), some of your reactions indicate you're taking this SO seriously...!
I mean, a good pseudo-debate is kind of interesting, especially when some people don't quite get that it's not real.
You know very well that guy is a noob.
f) Understands (unlike you) that as soon as you take him seriously enough to argue with him, he wins and gets to laugh at you.
i don't take anything on this site seriously. It's all just for kicks for me.
When I start buying flat earth literature, and digging out physics, mathematics, and engineering books to reference for this site, then I'll decide I'm taking it too seriously.
so he claims sea water is weighless?ever tried reading through a thread before posting?
ever filled a bucket with sea water and lifted it?
oh snapso he claims sea water is weighless?ever tried reading through a thread before posting?
ever filled a bucket with sea water and lifted it?
You're like sheep. ;D
No, it was quite poetic.
You're like sheep. ;D
One question to the "FE sociaty"...
You keep saying that you have "proof" that your belifes are correct. I have seen none.
Christians say they have proof (bible)
Muslims say they have proof
Scientists say they have proof (real pictures)
You say you have proof (where?)
This is just another stupid sect, without proof, without brains
Correction: Church of Flawed Physics.
A) I wasn't singling out the flat Earth theory, more satirizing to show how stupid his statement was.
~D-Draw
A) I wasn't singling out the flat Earth theory, more satirizing to show how stupid his statement was.
B) Show me where physics are flawed in the flat Earth theory. I dare you.
~D-Draw
Okay all you smart RE'ers, how much does a pint of water weigh when in water.i'm sure someone already answered this put it wieghs the same as a pint of water.
B) Show me where physics are flawed in the flat Earth theory. I dare you.
A) I wasn't singling out the flat Earth theory, more satirizing to show how stupid his statement was.
~D-Draw
D-Draw: Are you referring to me? I can't tell. ???
Any math any time anywhere. The problem is no math has been cited to support FE. I can't point to a flaw in your physics if you don't show me where any physics is used.
A) I wasn't singling out the flat Earth theory, more satirizing to show how stupid his statement was.
~D-Draw
D-Draw: Are you referring to me? I can't tell. ???
whoa! a chick? no no no. probably a dude posing. :'(
........
Good enough. :-*
i call it gravity to be simplific.Simplistic, indeed. Gravity is a lie.
why doesnt anything float away anyway???The earth is experiencing a continuous 9.8m/s^2 acceleration upwards.
i call it gravity to be simplific.Simplistic, indeed. Gravity is a lie.Quotewhy doesnt anything float away anyway???The earth is experiencing a continuous 9.8m/s^2 acceleration upwards.
A) I wasn't singling out the flat Earth theory, more satirizing to show how stupid his statement was.
~D-Draw
D-Draw: Are you referring to me? I can't tell. ???
whoa! a chick? no no no. probably a dude posing. :'(
........
Good enough. :-*
Actually, my name is Tiffany. :-/
what makes the earth move upwards. and why havent we moved away from the other planets or the sun by now???. GRAVITY.
ownage like a potato
by, a person with a higher IQ then 49.99937433
what makes the earth move upwards. and why havent we moved away from the other planets or the sun by now???. GRAVITY.
ownage like a potato
by, a person with a higher IQ then 49.99937433
any evidance to support that gravity doesnt exist???
you still havent ansered the Q about moving away from the sun and... im not stupid (verified) and i dont have a heart as i am a C'Tan (makes more sense then a flat earth at any rate)
whoops. forgot to add a GRAVITY DOESNT EXIST book to my library. my fault
but then i should be reading stuff this close to exams. ill start writing the wron thing.
hmmm.... ill ask some people i know.
i cant belive you gayer cos "science is for losers". althouhg who needs science when you have the powers of the C'Tan.
Pfftt maths is for losers as well
The guys drank all my vodka and stole my box :(
oh look. no explanation. again
FE: well and truly owned (like a potato) by lord GreatMaju
Tides are caused by gravity from our twin moons, one underneath the earth and one above.Who, two moons now? Where's your evidence for this outlandish claim?
Tides are caused by gravity from our twin moons, one underneath the earth and one above.Who, two moons now? Where's your evidence for this outlandish claim?
Oh yeah, you don't have any.
Tides are caused by gravity from our twin moons, one underneath the earth and one above.Who, two moons now? Where's your evidence for this outlandish claim?
Oh yeah, you don't have any.
I have remained absent for pages in hopes of a valid RE contention.
Since there is none, Another victory for FE!!!
oh look. no explanation. againBeing ignored simply makes you look like a dumbass.
FE: well and truly owned (like a potato) by lord GreatMaju
Because oceans don't fucking float!
Because oceans don't fucking float!
Which is why the earth must be flat, not round. Thank you for pointing that out.
Because oceans don't fucking float!
Which is why the earth must be flat, not round. Thank you for pointing that out.
No, fail, again. Oceans would not float in either model.
ANOTHER WIN FOR FE!!!!
I have remained absent for pages in hopes of a valid RE contention.
Since there is none, Another victory for FE!!!
TheEngineer sides with us. "Equivalence Principle"
Face it. Buoyancy is much like a normal force. A table holding a cup has normal force holding the cup up. It is nothing more than support. Oceans don't float because there is no support.
Actually it's about 1000Kg/M^3, not weightlessI love it, no contest from RE. Everyone knows the oceans are weightless.
That's why one cubic meter of water weighs one metric ton right?
And it weighs 0 pounds in water. A situation all the waters in the ocean are in. Therefore the oceans are weightless.
I must say, your explanations impress me a lot, Smarticus.
The only answer to this is that oceans do, in fact, float, but government conspirasists have made us believe that they do not float, hence the fact that the earth is round.
ANOTHER WIN FOR RE!
I'm talking about a different conspiracy.I must say, your explanations impress me a lot, Smarticus.
The only answer to this is that oceans do, in fact, float, but government conspirasists have made us believe that they do not float, hence the fact that the earth is round.
ANOTHER WIN FOR RE!
The conspiracy is a function of FE...
There's still no rain according to FE. I felt rain today. Therefore Narc is a silly bunt.
Oh, Narc, I do.in RE gravity accelerates the topmost layer of the water :P
Since the oceans in FE can't float, because if they did the FE would instantly accelerate into them, we can assume that the topmost layer of water molecules cannot float away, because the earth accelerates into the oceans, which accelerate into the topmost layer.
Therefore, the topmost layer cannot float away. Since the layer cannot float away, it cannot form clouds, and cannot fall as rain because as soon as the water leaves the oceans and it's buoyancy, it is rammed into by the FE accelerating into it.
Therefore, no rain on FE.
also a bucket of water in a bathtub full of water weighs nothing but weight the tub with and without the bucket of water...
There's a reason why this thread isn't locked.
Narc is completely right. If the Earth was round, oceans would float, cows would have enslaved humanity, bananas would have legs, oil would spurt from trees, electricity would be a liquid, the sun would be made of OJ and the moon would crash into America six times a day.Why, of course! That's true, but some weird conspiracy is trying to make us believe it is not so.
Believe? You don't have to believe! I have seen him do it!!!WTF NO PIC NO PROOF NOOB GTFO.
You: How many do you have?He has antifollowers.
Me: About negative 6 billion.
You have 3 posts. Anything you say is spam.
You have 3 posts. Anything you say is spam.
This is untrue.
Yeah. Members consider small posters posts spam.