1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If I jump in the air why doesn't the ground move @ 1000MPH?

« on: November 08, 2013, 07:36:29 AM »

It's like you understand that the train travels at say, 65 mph faster than you do on average - yet you insist that if you are sat down on a moving train you have zero speed.  You have to acknowledge that if you are sat down on a moving train, you are travelling just as fast as the train is - or there would be no point in taking it, as it would leave you behind.

YOU, have zero speed on a train. The train has the speed. To an outside observer, he/she, will see you sat on a train that is going at 65 mph. You, however, are not moving at any speed.

If you are sitting on a train travelling 65 mph, then, to an outside observer, you and the train are moving at the same 65 mph.

Nope!
To an outside observer, the train is moving at 65 mph with you moving at zero mph whilst seated on it.

The next time you get pulled over for speeding, try and argue that you were moving 0 MPH while your car was going 80.

LOL.  Well played - and on a more serious note, precisely this.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If I jump in the air why doesn't the ground move @ 1000MPH?

« on: November 08, 2013, 07:34:34 AM »

Wow.

If the speed of the train is not relevant then why bother taking the train?  Why bother doing anything other than good old fashioned walking?

I didn't ask you to take the train, it was your idea. You could have walked, so don't be blaming me.

It's like you understand that the train travels at say, 65 mph faster than you do on average - yet you insist that if you are sat down on a moving train you have zero speed.  You have to acknowledge that if you are sat down on a moving train, you are travelling just as fast as the train is - or there would be no point in taking it, as it would leave you behind.

YOU, have zero speed on a train. The train has the speed. To an outside observer, he/she, will see you sat on a train that is going at 65 mph. You, however, are not moving at any speed.

Do you honestly not see how ridiculous you are being?

I'm not being ridiculous, I'm merely answering your questions, honestly.

If I am on a train that is travelling 70 mph.  I am, by default, travelling 70 mph if I am sitting still.

This is exactly why I am taking the train to begin with, it will move me a lot faster to my desired location than I can possibly do on my own.

It's all relative to whatever is already in motion - I can see what you are trying to get at when you say you personally are not moving within the train - but that is because you already are moving, at the same speed as the train.

I think you are being stubborn.  Children understand this, often without need for explanation, but for whatever reason you won't concede.

Suit yourself.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If I jump in the air why doesn't the ground move @ 1000MPH?

« on: November 08, 2013, 06:50:46 AM »

Right.  What you are saying is that when I'm walking on the train, my own personal speed is 4/5 mph.  However, surely you must see that in order for me to reach my friend I have to have an overall speed that is greater than that of the train?  You're effectively saying that when you are sitting still on the train you have ZERO speed - when of course you must, because you are travelling somewhere.

No?

When you are sat on the train, you have zero speed. Correct!
If you walk along the train, you are walking at whatever speed you are walking and that's it. The train is irrelevant as you are part of it.

Wow.

If the speed of the train is not relevant then why bother taking the train?  Why bother doing anything other than good old fashioned walking?

It's like you understand that the train travels at say, 65 mph faster than you do on average - yet you insist that if you are sat down on a moving train you have zero speed.  You have to acknowledge that if you are sat down on a moving train, you are travelling just as fast as the train is - or there would be no point in taking it, as it would leave you behind.

Do you honestly not see how ridiculous you are being? 

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If I jump in the air why doesn't the ground move @ 1000MPH?

« on: November 08, 2013, 05:54:18 AM »

All I'm saying is, there is no 2000 mph speed of the plane at any time where this rotating earth comes in.
Talk to me like you're explaining it to a 5 year old if you think I'm wrong.

Let me try the 4 year old level...

A fishtank full of water is being pulled with a wagon.  A fish is swimming through the water.  The fish is swimming the same direction the tank is being pulled.  The fish is therefore moving faster than the water and tank.

But not faster than the wagon pulling it.

It is going faster then the wagon pulling it.

No it's not.

The wagon and the tank are going at the same speed. So if the fish is going faster then the tank it's going faster the wagon.

No it's not.

Honestly lost for words. 

Imagine the tank is touching the wagon that is pulling it as they move forward.  The fish is swimming in the same direction as the wagon.

Is the fish going to bump into the wall between the tank and wagon - yes or no?  I.e., is the fish going to catch the rear end of the wagon?

You're on a train and you see your friend further along the carriage in the direction you are travelling.  You get up to go and meet them.  Are you seriously telling us that while you are walking towards your friend, you are not travelling faster than the train itself?  In other words - it's impossible for you to get to your friend?

Unreal.

No. You are on the train, as the fish is in the tank. The fish is swimming at whatever mph and the person is walking at, say, 5mph.
The fish isn't going faster than the wagon, it's part of the wagon, it's simply going at it's normal pace, just as the person in the train is.

It's about an outsiders perception that you are talking about and it is just a perception.
Basically, what I'm saying, is, it's a pointless argument.

Right.  What you are saying is that when I'm walking on the train, my own personal speed is 4/5 mph.  However, surely you must see that in order for me to reach my friend I have to have an overall speed that is greater than that of the train?  You're effectively saying that when you are sitting still on the train you have ZERO speed - when of course you must, because you are travelling somewhere.

No?

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If I jump in the air why doesn't the ground move @ 1000MPH?

« on: November 08, 2013, 05:29:23 AM »

All I'm saying is, there is no 2000 mph speed of the plane at any time where this rotating earth comes in.
Talk to me like you're explaining it to a 5 year old if you think I'm wrong.

Let me try the 4 year old level...

A fishtank full of water is being pulled with a wagon.  A fish is swimming through the water.  The fish is swimming the same direction the tank is being pulled.  The fish is therefore moving faster than the water and tank.

But not faster than the wagon pulling it.

It is going faster then the wagon pulling it.

No it's not.

The wagon and the tank are going at the same speed. So if the fish is going faster then the tank it's going faster the wagon.

No it's not.

Honestly lost for words. 

Imagine the tank is touching the wagon that is pulling it as they move forward.  The fish is swimming in the same direction as the wagon.

Is the fish going to bump into the wall between the tank and wagon - yes or no?  I.e., is the fish going to catch the rear end of the wagon?

You're on a train and you see your friend further along the carriage in the direction you are travelling.  You get up to go and meet them.  Are you seriously telling us that while you are walking towards your friend, you are not travelling faster than the train itself?  In other words - it's impossible for you to get to your friend?

Unreal.

6

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Why was Nick's post with the video moved?

« on: November 07, 2013, 06:30:47 AM »

That video has been posted here many, many times.  It has been refuted many, many times.  It is complete nonsense. 

Also, moving this to S&C.

As you wish.  Just wondering.

'Refuted'. 

Of course.

7

Suggestions & Concerns / Why was Nick's post with the video moved?

« on: November 07, 2013, 06:21:48 AM »

As the title says.

Has it been discussed before? 

Why does the thread deserve to be put into complete nonsense? 

The video is completely legitimate so I see no reason to move his thread at all, let alone into 'complete nonsense'.

Do you not want anyone seeing the video? 

What's up?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can we stop all this ignorance please?

« on: October 27, 2013, 07:22:01 AM »

Oh will this ever end? (sigh)    This is why we stop responding...it's exhausting going over this stuff over and over again.  In fact, I'm not going to respond to all that.  I'm going to show you in a video or diagram instead. You're going to feel so dumb after you see it.  I feel embarrassed for you already.  And it's FARTHER, not "further".

It's exhausting because I think you know what we are saying is correct, but for whatever reason you won't concede.

fur·ther adverb \ˈfər-thər\
: to or at a more distant place or time

: to a greater degree or extent

: in addition to what has been said

That's great though, that instead of attempting to address anything I write, you focus on the semantics.  The dictionary seems to indicate either word is acceptable, so yeah, good luck the next time you try to be a smart-ass without even thinking about having a quick look yourself.

I suppose I can't expect much from someone who believes the earth is flat.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can we stop all this ignorance please?

« on: October 26, 2013, 08:17:47 AM »

You're not the first FE proponent to play this style of card, Yeah, I did as well.

The horizon is simply the point where the earth begins to curve out of view.   No, the horizon is where the enormous sky meets the farthest distance your eyes can see.

You are effectively claiming nobody should believe anything unless they can personally verify it, and oh boy, what an intellectually dangerous position that is. 

Your position on the existence of god is not analogous because there is no proof to suggest one exists.  RE theory is not an assumption, it is a certainty and the amount of supporting evidence for it (personally verifiable or not) is huge. There is no proof the Earth is a sphere.  Believing in a creator is not the same as religion. There IS proof of a creator....us! The Earth.....EVERYTHING.  WE CREATE and destroy.[color]

However, the people who believe the Earth is a sphere without having even the most basic proof for such an important statement are people who will believe everything that someone in authority told them. They are your real problem.

This statement just isn't true.  Yes, the first time you are told the earth is round it will be from an authoritative figure - but there is proof behind the statement, a lot of it at that. I disagree. It is  We are told the Earth is a sphere when we are too young to fully understand the science and even if we could, we will never be able to discover if it's true.  But the simple fact that the idea was planted into our brain, it then becomes part of our reality because we trust the authority figure, making it more difficult to break out of that idea if we ever decide to question it in the future.  It's the SAME as religion.  It's not fair to tell a child what to believe spiritually.  They need to discover the truth on their own.

Nonsense regarding the horizon.  If that were the case then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why, on a clear day, the separation between flat land (or indeed water) should be so fine and sharp.  Secondly, your claim intrinsically implies that a telescope would overcome this human limitation - it simply does not, there's no way getting around this.  There are images out there of skyscraper tops being clearly visible above the horizon, yet the bases are not - feel free to search for yourself.

Another common cop-out is that the atmosphere itself will stop your view - maybe it would, but not at a horizon distance.  Also, we can see the moon and that's looking through about 62 miles of atmosphere, not to mention it's much, much further away than the horizon yet our eyes seem to manage just fine here, same goes for commercial aircraft. 

The moon is really big you say?  Ok, I'll accept that despite the fact you still have to look through the atmosphere and it's still hundreds of thousands of kilometres away.  What about the ISS?  That thing that some people on here love to deny exists?  Under the right conditions it can be seen with the naked eye - you won't see any detail, but you can still see an object over 200 miles away.

Finally, why on earth (pun intended, no apologies) would I be able to see further into the distance the higher I go?  Hmmm.  Puzzling.

Like I said, mental gymnastics is what it takes to deny the horizon is the earth curving.

As for there being  'no proof the earth is a sphere' - I'm not even going to begin with this, but I'll coin the phrase mental gymnastics again.

You're actually a perfect candidate to exemplify the mental gymnastics I speak of.  To say there is no proof of a round earth is astonishingly closed-minded.  It's all there - it's not my fault that you don't believe it.

The only convincing piece of 'evidence' for a flat earth is that by standing here on the ground, it seems flat.  However, the same would be true (and is true) if you had an impeccably small perspective, from ground level, on a giant sphere - like every living organism on the planet does.  So there goes the ambiguous flat earth evidence.

Everything else points to the truth, and like I said in the original post, they oh-so-conveniently interlock and support one another.

What a dreadful, dreadful coincidence for the FE proponents.  Of all the rotten luck, it just all happens to seem like it's all related, right?  What a shame.  Conspiracy 1 - FES 0, yeah?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can we stop all this ignorance please?

« on: October 26, 2013, 12:01:26 AM »

Just to add one general thought to this discussion: Whenever someone claims that the Earth is flat, they are called "ignorant". However, I am absolutely sure that a large percentage (above 90%) of the population in all developed countries would not be able to provide a proof that the Earth is a sphere that is in accordance with the alleged proofs provided by mainstream science. And I don't count "Go to space and take a picture!" here, because I want proof that can be reproduced by an average person. Allegedly, such simple proofs exist in mainstream science, yet, like I said, most people would not be able to provide such a proof if you stopped them on the street and asked them. I dare you to try it if you think otherwise.

In fact, I have seen many people give "proofs" that were easily refuted and where even mainstream scientists would have bashed their heads into a wall. And many people would eventually probably admit that their teacher simply told them so, so it must be correct.

Yet, it is the flat-earthers who are described as "ignorant"? In my opinion, it is more ignorant to accept some statement as a basic fact without being able to actually prove it than rejecting it outright and using the basic perception of our senses as default assumption. I might be an anomaly among flat-earthers, but I am an atheist. I will not accept the assumption that there is a god without accompanying proof. In the same way, I will not accept the assumption that the Earth is a sphere without accompanying proof. However, large parts of the population do. And that to me is akin to a religious belief. If you determine why people believe in a god, you will find that most of them simply accepted the statement "There is a god!" from their parents. In the same way, people simply accept the statement "The Earth is a sphere."

So if someone wants to stop ignorance, they should start with the people who actually do believe that the Earth is a sphere. If the Earth is indeed a sphere, then we flat-earthers are simply a strange anomaly, a sadly small bunch of misled people. Such people are easily ignored. However, the people who believe the Earth is a sphere without having even the most basic proof for such an important statement are people who will believe everything that someone in authority told them. They are your real problem.

You're not the first FE proponent to play this style of card, and the short response is that even if a RE proponent cannot personally verify their claim, they are more than entitled to believe the earth is round due to how substantiated the claim is.  There is an absolute wealth of evidence available, evidence that is out-right foolish to discard just because you cannot personally verify it - photographs and videos come to mind, as does the existence of satellite based technologies.

Furthermore, everybody has clearly visible evidence to suggest that at the very least the earth certainly isn't flat.  The horizon is simply the point where the earth begins to curve out of view.  Any other suggestion involving bendy light, the atmosphere's opacity, etc, etc - that's all nonsense.  The most simple answer is that the earth is curving out of view.  I'm not going to get into the debate about the ship 'rising' out of the ocean but it honestly takes mental gymnastics to believe anything other than the horizon is exactly what the vast majority of the population believe it to be - because that's what it is. 

Carl Sagan once said,  'It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.' 

You are effectively claiming nobody should believe anything unless they can personally verify it, and oh boy, what an intellectually dangerous position that is.  Can you imagine a world where evidence provided for statements was never accepted because people didn't come up with said evidence personally?  Are you actually serious?

We breathe oxygen - fact or fiction?
The molecular formula for water is H2O - fact of fiction?
Kangaroo's exist - fact or fiction?

Honestly - that list is effectively endless.  The amount of things people 'know' without ever being able to personally verify it is astronomical.  However, they all have something in common.  Evidence - all of these things can be demonstrated as true, even if you cannot personally verify it. 

Your position on the existence of god is not analogous because there is no proof to suggest one exists.  RE theory is not an assumption, it is a certainty and the amount of supporting evidence for it (personally verifiable or not) is huge.  Not only that, all the pieces of said evidence interlock and support each other.  That's rather convenient for a conspiracy isn't it?

In a nutshell, don't pretend that disbelief in something because you can't personally verify whatever 'something' is, is always the intellectual high-ground.  It most certainly isn't.

However, the people who believe the Earth is a sphere without having even the most basic proof for such an important statement are people who will believe everything that someone in authority told them. They are your real problem.

This statement just isn't true.  Yes, the first time you are told the earth is round it will be from an authoritative figure - but there is proof behind the statement, a lot of it at that.

People who disregard hard evidence on the grounds that they can't test it themselves, instead favouring wild, unsubstantiated, bronze-age theories that ironically have little to no proof - now that's a problem.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 25, 2013, 03:15:31 AM »

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

He can't see what I'm typing Duck but please don't open this perfect vacuum vs nothing can of worms. It will go nowhere. If everyone just stopped replying to this nonsense we could move on.

I've went there before with him.

Indeed it is a waste of time (just like every other attempt at debate with him).

His reaction when I told him that the vast majority of atoms is actually composed of empty space was what you would expect.

I mean, what does he think everything is made of?  Particles would need to be non-spherical for a start, because if  they weren't then obviously it would be mathematically impossible to avoid these empty spaces that he so dreads for whatever reason.  Everything would need to be physically touching somehow, and then we have the problem of how exactly molecules move over one another.

He doesn't see the problem with suggesting that pressure compresses molecules and makes them smaller, while reducing pressure expands them.  If there is no space between particles then how can they expand?  As one, particle expands another would have to contract.

Likewise, if they were to all contract under pressure, then would this not leave the dreaded gaps between the particles?

He makes himself out to be some sort of great thinker, with his common 'sense'.

The fact is you can't beat him because he never concedes, no matter how badly you smash his arguments in.  So I agree - let's ignore and ignore.

Duly noted, this will be my last correspondence to you. I'm happy enough with this.

I actually thought you had me ignored already.

The truth is you offer us no sane alternative.  Take what I was writing about in that post for example regarding the compression/expansion of molecules you seem to believe in.  You wouldn't dare address these 'elephant in the room' points regarding your thoughts because how can you?  How can you explain that somehow increased pressures compresses all molecules that in your world are already touching, without making empty space?  Like wise, if they expand under reduced pressure - then what space do they have to expand into?  The short answer is you can't - nobody can because of the intrinsic effect they have against your initial belief that there is no such thing as vacant space between molecules.

It's worthless debating with you for reasons like that, so yes, ignoring you seems to be the only solution.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 24, 2013, 12:29:04 PM »

So then you have the concept of why there must be empty space between molecules, especially gases.  Now we just need to figure out why you believe that atoms can expand and contract instead of there being space between molecules.

Define empty space?

Really...space which is void of matter, otherwise known as empty. It is the area in air where there are no air molecules which allows for the air to move independently of the whole, same with liquids such as water.

A perfect vacuum between matter. This is what you are saying, right? I just need to clarify this.

He can't see what I'm typing Duck but please don't open this perfect vacuum vs nothing can of worms. It will go nowhere. If everyone just stopped replying to this nonsense we could move on.

I've went there before with him.

Indeed it is a waste of time (just like every other attempt at debate with him).

His reaction when I told him that the vast majority of atoms is actually composed of empty space was what you would expect.

I mean, what does he think everything is made of?  Particles would need to be non-spherical for a start, because if  they weren't then obviously it would be mathematically impossible to avoid these empty spaces that he so dreads for whatever reason.  Everything would need to be physically touching somehow, and then we have the problem of how exactly molecules move over one another.

He doesn't see the problem with suggesting that pressure compresses molecules and makes them smaller, while reducing pressure expands them.  If there is no space between particles then how can they expand?  As one, particle expands another would have to contract.

Likewise, if they were to all contract under pressure, then would this not leave the dreaded gaps between the particles?

He makes himself out to be some sort of great thinker, with his common 'sense'.

The fact is you can't beat him because he never concedes, no matter how badly you smash his arguments in.  So I agree - let's ignore and ignore.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 24, 2013, 03:17:56 AM »

Electrons are individual particles, and by denying their existence you are denying the explanation for electricity.  So you better put your thinking cap on, because you are disqualifying a whole new field of extremely substantiated science.

In the video I posted in Scepti's thread, Tom Dollard specifically describes what electricity is.  Electrons do not exist.

What the hell is this I'm reading now?

Electrons don't exist?

Never mind electricity, denying their existence is denying everything material.  Electrons are key to the make up of the very atoms that make us, they are the key particles in chemical reactions, and they are responsible for the bonds between atoms of any molecule.  We have measured their mass, we've also demonstrated their wave properties as well.   Without a shadow of a doubt they most certainly exist.

The entire subject of chemistry is effectively based on chemical reactivity and our understanding of the electron is the basis for reactivity.  Are you saying chemistry is a sham?

For crying out loud, we abuse them to form beams which are used in powerful microscopes.  Powerful microscopes that can only function using electrons because we are exploiting the fact that their wavelengths are about 100,000 times shorter than the photons that constitute visible light.

You're just like Scepti - your ignorance is willful. 

It's hard to believe I'm reading this.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 22, 2013, 12:23:16 PM »

If you want to debate with me, Rab..you can cut this garbage out and play the game or this is what you will see, time and time again.

Ignorance?

Your techniques have been tried and better tried on me and all failed, yet most who take me on, do so by playing it the way it should be played...by keeping it simple. Try it!

We have, several times since you joined this site.

I'd answer you but I don't really know where to start with all that, so how about trying to stump me,

We have, several times since you joined this site.

by putting something forward that makes me eat my words, in simple terms.

He did.  He conducted an experiment showing physical evidence contradicting your theory.

Nothing any of you have said has stumped me. The ignorance is on your side, that much I'm certain of.

Ok.  F*ck the numbers. 

Your argument regarding how 'compact' the molecules are within the balloons is incorrect.

How does that sound instead?

You see, there is a reason I go into detail - it's to avoid doing exactly what you do, which is make statement without having a fucking clue about what I'm talking about, and without supporting my claim.

The numbers demonstrate WHY your theory is wrong.  That's why I included them.

The fact they confuse you and you don't want to deal with them is hardly surprising I guess.  Your ignorance is through choice - as you just so blatantly demonstrated.

What's the point in dealing with you at all?  I'm not lowering myself to your form of ridiculous arguments where people make statements without any supporting evidence and discard other peoples arguments on the grounds that they are too tough to intellectually deal with.  I don't care if you say that's not the case - it simply is.

Ignorance is bliss and you want to stay that way.

EDIT:  You know what?  I actually talked you through the numbers as I'm aware how off-putting numbers can be - but still you complain about them.  You're willfully ignorant.

I think you need to deck out of this to be fair. You are getting frustrated and arrogant. Converse with the others if you're going to start trying to be clever, because it really cuts no ice with me, you have to believe that. All it does, is makes me smile and forces me to keep typing stuff like this, which gets boring.
Play the game or take me for what you have already labelled me as and be done with me. 

What's your problem?  I give you a detailed answer - you don't like it.  I dumb the answer down - you don't like it. 

You need to 'deck' out of the whole thing.  You are absolutely clueless and you make no apology for it.  You literally asked me to speak to you like a child - you are asking me to patronize you, and then when I do exactly that I'm still the bad guy.

You're just an ignorant person.

I'm sorry my arguments are too much for you because they include extremely relevant detail.
I'm sorry you can't handle basic maths - I didn't throw equations at you, just basic multiplication - again, I'm sorry you either can't or don't want to deal with it.
I'm sorry that any time someone throws concrete points against you all you can do is call BS and simply deny it.
I'm sorry that you are just so damn ignorant - and that's the bottom line.  You have no desire to educate yourself or listen to reason - only listen to what your own mind concocts.

Arrogance?  Arrogance?!  I'm not the one who is throwing out unsubstantiated theories that are contradictory to globally accepted, factual science and claiming it to be correct.  I'm not the one who thinks that he above all others telling him otherwise is correct - so finally, I'm sorry that you are so arrogant that you think your silly little ideas are actually correct.

Ok, apology accepted. In future, play the game and you might enjoy the experience. You aren't dealing with a sucker here, I just appear like one to you.

You think you're smart, but you're not.  You're just demonstrating your ignorance.  Nothing more.

You just do the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, 'lalalalala'.

It's fitting that you have nothing to say about any of my points - even on a qualitative level.  You are only capable of trying to instruct me on how to 'play the game' as you put it.  I tried to 'play the game', even by 'your rules' and it still wasn't good enough - still it was too complicated.

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that much is clear by observation - and that isn't your fault.  However, the fact you refuse, outright, to even try and educate yourself reveals your true colours.

Willful ignorance.  Intrinsic arrogance. 

I mean look at this:

That's because the science you are learning is not what it really is and a lot of it is merely guess work, plus much of it has to fit in with the nonsense earth , don't forget.

Who is actually doing the guess work here?  Is it we whom make substantiated claims with an abundance of evidence? - Or is it you with your borderline insane theories, which are unsubstantiated and backed up by nothing more than your own mind?

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 22, 2013, 11:59:08 AM »

If you want to debate with me, Rab..you can cut this garbage out and play the game or this is what you will see, time and time again.

Ignorance?

Your techniques have been tried and better tried on me and all failed, yet most who take me on, do so by playing it the way it should be played...by keeping it simple. Try it!

We have, several times since you joined this site.

I'd answer you but I don't really know where to start with all that, so how about trying to stump me,

We have, several times since you joined this site.

by putting something forward that makes me eat my words, in simple terms.

He did.  He conducted an experiment showing physical evidence contradicting your theory.

Nothing any of you have said has stumped me. The ignorance is on your side, that much I'm certain of.

Ok.  F*ck the numbers. 

Your argument regarding how 'compact' the molecules are within the balloons is incorrect.

How does that sound instead?

You see, there is a reason I go into detail - it's to avoid doing exactly what you do, which is make statement without having a fucking clue about what I'm talking about, and without supporting my claim.

The numbers demonstrate WHY your theory is wrong.  That's why I included them.

The fact they confuse you and you don't want to deal with them is hardly surprising I guess.  Your ignorance is through choice - as you just so blatantly demonstrated.

What's the point in dealing with you at all?  I'm not lowering myself to your form of ridiculous arguments where people make statements without any supporting evidence and discard other peoples arguments on the grounds that they are too tough to intellectually deal with.  I don't care if you say that's not the case - it simply is.

Ignorance is bliss and you want to stay that way.

EDIT:  You know what?  I actually talked you through the numbers as I'm aware how off-putting numbers can be - but still you complain about them.  You're willfully ignorant.

I think you need to deck out of this to be fair. You are getting frustrated and arrogant. Converse with the others if you're going to start trying to be clever, because it really cuts no ice with me, you have to believe that. All it does, is makes me smile and forces me to keep typing stuff like this, which gets boring.
Play the game or take me for what you have already labelled me as and be done with me. 

What's your problem?  I give you a detailed answer - you don't like it.  I dumb the answer down - you don't like it. 

You need to 'deck' out of the whole thing.  You are absolutely clueless and you make no apology for it.  You literally asked me to speak to you like a child - you are asking me to patronize you, and then when I do exactly that I'm still the bad guy.

You're just an ignorant person.

I'm sorry my arguments are too much for you because they include extremely relevant detail.
I'm sorry you can't handle basic maths - I didn't throw equations at you, just basic multiplication - again, I'm sorry you either can't or don't want to deal with it.
I'm sorry that any time someone throws concrete points against you all you can do is call BS and simply deny it.
I'm sorry that you are just so damn ignorant - and that's the bottom line.  You have no desire to educate yourself or listen to reason - only listen to what your own mind concocts.

Arrogance?  Arrogance?!  I'm not the one who is throwing out unsubstantiated theories that are contradictory to globally accepted, factual science and claiming it to be correct.  I'm not the one who thinks that he above all others telling him otherwise is correct - so finally, I'm sorry that you are so arrogant that you think your silly little ideas are actually correct.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 22, 2013, 11:25:02 AM »

Are you suggesting that the molecules inside a helium filled balloon will be larger than the molecules inside an oxygen filled balloon of the same volume and temperature?

Another ridiculous point I didn't address, an atom of helium is smaller than a molecule of diatomic oxygen or nitrogen.  However, seeing as I haven't personally verified this I know Scepti would just claim BS.  In fact, he claims BS even when I have done something.

Ignorance is bliss.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 22, 2013, 10:52:29 AM »

If you want to debate with me, Rab..you can cut this garbage out and play the game or this is what you will see, time and time again.

Ignorance?

Your techniques have been tried and better tried on me and all failed, yet most who take me on, do so by playing it the way it should be played...by keeping it simple. Try it!

We have, several times since you joined this site.

I'd answer you but I don't really know where to start with all that, so how about trying to stump me,

We have, several times since you joined this site.

by putting something forward that makes me eat my words, in simple terms.

He did.  He conducted an experiment showing physical evidence contradicting your theory.

Nothing any of you have said has stumped me. The ignorance is on your side, that much I'm certain of.

Ok.  F*ck the numbers. 

Your argument regarding how 'compact' the molecules are within the balloons is incorrect.

How does that sound instead?

You see, there is a reason I go into detail - it's to avoid doing exactly what you do, which is make statement without having a fucking clue about what I'm talking about, and without supporting my claim.

The numbers demonstrate WHY your theory is wrong.  That's why I included them.

The fact they confuse you and you don't want to deal with them is hardly surprising I guess.  Your ignorance is through choice - as you just so blatantly demonstrated.

What's the point in dealing with you at all?  I'm not lowering myself to your form of ridiculous arguments where people make statements without any supporting evidence and discard other peoples arguments on the grounds that they are too tough to intellectually deal with.  I don't care if you say that's not the case - it simply is.

Ignorance is bliss and you want to stay that way.

EDIT:  You know what?  I actually talked you through the numbers as I'm aware how off-putting numbers can be - but still you complain about them.  You're willfully ignorant.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 22, 2013, 09:51:33 AM »

If the oxygen is more agitated, then that means it's hotter, the balloon would expand, and it would be less dense.  As I stated, the two balloons are the same temperature.

Temperature differences would act on the balloons but both balloons would equally be in that temperature from the start, so that's negligible.
The issue is about the density of air that is trapped in that balloon, plus the balloon itself, against the lesser resistance of air under it. Helium is more expanded molecules and much lighter and larger than the denser air molecules, which contain many other elements that makes it more compact.

Or...

OR, the mass of helium is much smaller than that of the main constituents of air, and as such a balloon of this will float on the ocean of air molecules it is submerged in - so up it goes.

YES - oxygen and nitrogen are more dense than Helium.  However, do you even grasp what you are talking about when you say that?  All it means is that the mass per unit volume for oxygen and nitrogen is higher than that for helium - and this is purely because they are heavier than helium, it isn't to do with how 'compact' they are.

In the gas phase at atmospheric pressure (and 0 °C),  if you take 1 litre of ANY of the three gases - each will contain about the SAME NUMBER OF MOLES of molecules (about 0.0446 moles = about 26858120000000000000000 molecules).  Oxygen, Nitrogen and Helium - 1 litre of each will contain about that many molecules of each element.   If you put the gases under pressure or elevated temperature, then there would still be about the same number of atoms per litre for the 3 of them (just a proportionally greater number for each).

SO Scepti, in your balloon of air, versus your balloon of Helium - your air balloon basically has about the same number of molecules in it as your Helium balloon.  The increased pressure within the balloon simply means the number of atoms per litre will increase for each gas, but the relative number of molecules in each balloon will be about the same.

Now what, Scepti? Your air balloon is actually just as compact as your helium balloon - the helium balloon is simply less dense because helium is a lighter element than nitrogen or oxygen.  About the same number of atoms exist per cubic centimeter in a He balloon as there does in an air balloon - the elements of air are simply heavier, thus the density (i.e the mass per unit volume) is greater - so the weight of the rubber balloon is enough to take it back down to earth under gravity - as where despite the rubber balloon, the He balloon will rise.

The oxygen is the same temperature as the helium, and it's denser than the helium, and the surface area for the atmosphere to push down on for each balloon is the same, which means your atmospheric force pushing down on each balloon is the same.  So why would the Oxygen balloon be 'heavier'?

There is no PUSHING DOWN as such. It's more to do with resistance of each molecule in the stacking sandwich from the ground to the dome.

It's hard to explain to someone who is not willing to understand it and who is simply just hell bent on caring more about trying to keep a lie alive than to actually question it all.

That's why he is giving you the example of the gases in a balloon.  The helium atoms are not coming into contact with any air molecules of air so they can't even enter the sandwich.  Helium is simply lighter than air, in fact, it is so light that it will even float the balloon containing the gas.

You talk about 'not willing to understand' - how can you possibly throw that at someone else when all you do is sit there and make up theories with no evidence to back it up?  You probably won't even understand the math-work above and just declare it is all bullshit.

Helium is a monatomic gas (He) with a mass of 4 g/mol and a density of 0.1786 g/L (at STP).
Nitrogen is diatomic (N2) and has a mass of 28 g/mol and a density of 1.251 g/L.
Oxygen is diatomic (O2) and has a mass of 32 g/mol and a density of 1.429 g/L g/L.

I'll walk you through it: Divide the densities of each gas by their molar masses.  I think you'll find that comes to about 0.0446 moles for each gas.  Multiply this by avogadros number to see the number of molecules - 26858120000000000000000.  I only did this because I'm guessing you don't understand the concept of a mole (other than the subterranean dwelling mammal) - that's not an insult towards you, but you wouldn't know unless you have studied any chemistry (going out on a limb here and saying no you haven't).  So, having a figure for the number of molecules is easier for the explanation.

I have a feeling I've wasted my time, but hey-ho, maybe - just maybe - you will concede.

For any viewers looking in. This is where mainstream science tries to dupe you into accepting gravity, by differentiating weight and mass, when in truth, mass and weight are the same thing, essentially and it's just the density of matter that makes up the mass.
Weight is just the measurement of any mass. This is where science likes to confuse people and baffle the mind, just like they do with much of unprovable science.

The values for somethings mass and weight are equivalent at gravitational acceleration.  They are not the same thing, we measure mass at our gravitational constant because it is obviously convenient for us to do so.

However, we can create weightless environments right here, within the atmosphere (or 'dome' as you would prefer) in so-called 'vomit-comets'.   You know this - regardless of your belief about space or the shape of the earth, these 0G environments can be created, an environment where the net force acting upon you is zero and so you are effectively weightless.   However, you still have a mass.  Matter always has a mass.

It's the same deal if you weigh something underwater or on land.  Due to the buoyancy of water an object will weigh less in water than it does on land.  You can deny this all you want, it's just a simple fact that is true once again regardless of your beliefs about the earth's shape or space.  However, the object retains the same mass on land or in water, it just weighs differently depending if it is in water or on land.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 21, 2013, 07:12:46 AM »

Rab,
Do you not understand what pressure is?  There is less pressure on top of the aluminum boat than there is under it in the more dense gas.   It just proves Scepti's example of gasses stack up on top of each other all the way to the dome, depending on density.

Incorrect.  The aluminium boat is filled with air, which is much less dense than the gas the foil is sitting on, so the boat is buoyant. 

Is that not what I said?

No you didn't say that.

You keep focusing on pressure and it isn't pressure difference that is causing what you can see.  The pressure within that tank (an open system) and the pressure outside it will be virtually the same - such is the expansive nature of gases.  There is nothing compressing the gas in that tank other than the air (another gas) on top of it.  So what happens?  The gas in the box pushes outwards until it meets the pressure of the gas pushing down on it.  If this was not true then the gas in the box would flow upwards and out of the box because the pressure within is greater than the pressure outwith.

Imagine you punched a hole in the side of a deodorant can (a closed system - so now you create an open one), the pressurized gases within would eject through the hole until the moment the pressure within the can is equal to the pressure surrounding it, then diffusion would, over time, see air molecules enter the can and the other deodorant gases leave.

That box of SF6 is an open system, like the deodorant can with the hole in it.  It's pressure is in equilibrium with the pressure surrounding it.  The reason the diffusion process is so slow is because the SF6 is so much heavier and dense than the air above, so gravity contains it within the box rather well - not pressure.

Why am I even trying to explain this to you?  You have no idea what you are talking about and you don't trust what I am telling you, even though I'm qualified to talk about this. 

It's useless, you don't understand so you will keep trying to refute me when you have no idea what you're on about.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 20, 2013, 10:02:15 AM »

Rab,
Do you not understand what pressure is?  There is less pressure on top of the aluminum boat than there is under it in the more dense gas.  It just proves Scepti's example of gasses stack up on top of each other all the way to the dome, depending on density.

Incorrect.  The aluminium boat is filled with air, which is much less dense than the gas the foil is sitting on, so the boat is buoyant.  This is exactly why we can float boats that weigh thousands of tonnes on water - the volume of air they carry within them.  If they were to fill the boat with the gas below it then it would sink - which they actually did in the video!  How am I supposed to take you seriously?

Also can you be any more condescending?  I hold a 1st class masters degree in chemistry and soon I'll also hold a PhD in the same field so I know what I'm talking about, especially in comparison to you.  Yet, you question me about pressure?

You are so, so incredibly ignorant.

Look, I'll leave you both to your madness.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Check this out!

« on: October 20, 2013, 07:48:37 AM »

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ship floating on nothing! :: Physikshow Uni Bonn

What is your point?  The gas inside the chamber is clearly a very heavy dense one like SF6 or elemental Xenon.

Scepti's belief is that pressure holds things down, what exactly is yours? - because it clearly isn't the same as his.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 20, 2013, 07:33:01 AM »

I'm not going to bother with you anymore.  You just told me things are actually heavier underwater - which they are absolutely not.  I've picked things up under water and they are lighter due to the Archimedes' principle.

You are truly unbelievable.

No I didn't. I said things appear heavier but are not actually heavier, yet to you (dependent on the object) it can feel heavier.
It depends on how any given object reacts to sitting at the bottom, as in, it may carry some air trapped in it but not enough to stop it hitting the bottom, in which case it can appear lighter and also something with less or no air trapped within it will feel heavier. It's not a simple easily drawn out thing and you should know this.

I went through it all in as much detail as I thought would be suffice for you to understand, and then you tell me to take a breeze-block to a swimming pool and see how heavy it is under water.  It would be EASIER, to pick up because it is no longer as heavy.  I cannot actually believe you honestly think things under water are actually heavier.

Ok. Go to a knee high pool with a man hold cover on a chain. Firstly, pick up the man hold cover up to your knee height, on dry land, against the atmosphere.
Now drop it in the pool and do the same thing and tell me which is easier.
Think about it.

My girlfriend can lift me off the swimming pool floor when I am standing in 4 foot of water with ease.  She struggles to do this on land because water buoyancy is greater than air buoyancy.

I've never come across such a deluded individual.

You're full of air for crying out loud, she's bound to. Are you serious here?

Even a young child can verify that objects are lighter underwater.  I remember diving for bricks at swimming classes when I was about 6 years old and realising that the black blocks we used were easier to pick up under water than on the ground.

Are you actually serious?

The black blocks were made of rubber.
And you're asking me if I'm serious.

You're unreal.

The manhole would be easier to lift in water - 100%.  This isn't even debatable.  Forget the how and why, it's simply a fact that things are easier to lift underwater. 

Actually I think the blocks were simply paint coated iron blocks.

You really do live in a world of your own.

As for having a text book jammed against my face - I've told you about real life scenarios I have been involved in but you see all that as BS as well.  You do not care what I have to offer you that indicates the contrary to your absurd theory.

You're effectively putting your fingers in your ears and going 'lalalalala'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

Everything in that article applies to air as well.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 20, 2013, 07:21:55 AM »

Gravity is one of the greatest scientific mysteries there is. Figuring it out is a huge scientific problem that the entire world is trying to understand. If you think the cause is pressure then go for it. Try and prove your hypothesis correct.

It will always be a mystery to you because you believe the Earth is a sphere and we live on the outside of it, exposed to the blackness of space.  Pressure will never be the answer to you as long as you believe a lie.

It's such a shame that all evidence points to the contrary then isn't it? 

You're a very special individual.  You both are actually. 

One word:  evidence

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 20, 2013, 07:13:47 AM »

I'll say one thing. Gravity has to rank up there with the best cons in known history. It's clever. If you can't explain something or it doesn't fit in, simply add another ingredient, which changes everything, regardless of knowing how and why it works or what the real ingredient is.

Things are heavier underwater - I still can't get over the fact you believe this.

Yet you sit there and have the audacity to call gravity a con.  Think about that - a man who believes things are heavier underwater, says gravity is a con.

It's truly unbelievable.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 20, 2013, 07:11:11 AM »

Like I said, the atmosphere is like the ocean, and we are at the bottom of said ocean.  We sink in it because air buoyancy is so negligible that most things are dense enough to overcome it under the force of gravity, but that does not change the fact air is actually pushing us upwards, gravity simply overwhelms it to such a degree that we can ignore air buoyancy in all but the most intricate weighing.

The bottom line is Sceptimatic's bogus theory is wrong.  The pressure he speaks of is actually making us negligibly lighter, it's not making us heavy and it's not pressing us to the earth.  Going by the logic you seem to understand, if you go below about 8 ft of water (or something like that) the pressure down there is actually greater than atmospheric - so by Scepti's logic anything that goes deeper than that would be under a greater 'gravitational' force because the pressure is greater.

You just said that most things are more dense than air.  That's all gravity is.  The force (which is PRESSURE) is not dense enough to keep us up.

I'll just leave you two to conquer the scientific world.

You are both so horribly ignorant that I pity you so.

Come back when you have been awarded the Nobel Prize for debunking physics as a whole.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 20, 2013, 07:05:19 AM »

Rab,
It all depends on how you measure weight.  Obviously, objects seem lighter underwater because the water below it is helping to lift the object.  Water is more dense than air, therefore it has more strength, so to speak, to help lift the object.  You HAVE to account for the density of the environment when weighing something.

What?  I am!

Read the post, it's like you actually understand but refuse to digest what I wrote.  Yes, the water exerts more upward force - BUT AIR DOES THE SAME THING, IT'S JUST NEGLIGIBLE IT IS SO SMALL.

The point here is pressure it absolutely NOT keeping things pressed to the earth, IT DOES THE OPPOSITE.  It actually acts AGAINST gravity and makes things LIGHTER.  In other words, things in reality, are actually slightly HEAVIER in a vacuum than at atmospheric pressure. 

This is unreal.  You understand when it is water, you understand that water exerts more force than the air due to it's density, but do you not understand that air is doing exactly the same thing?

Like I said, the atmosphere is like the ocean, and we are at the bottom of said ocean.  We sink in it because air buoyancy is so negligible that most things are dense enough to overcome it under the force of gravity, but that does not change the fact air is actually pushing us upwards, gravity simply overwhelms it to such a degree that we can ignore air buoyancy in all but the most intricate weighing.

The bottom line is Sceptimatic's bogus theory is wrong.  The pressure he speaks of is actually making us negligibly lighter, it's not making us heavy and it's not pressing us to the earth.  Going by the logic you seem to understand, if you go below about 8 ft of water (or something like that) the pressure down there is actually greater than atmospheric - so by Scepti's logic anything that goes deeper than that would be under a greater 'gravitational' force because the pressure is greater.

He's wrong.

See the light - you've almost got it.

Your problem is the mention of gravitational force when arguing the point. Try and see it from the alternate point of view and dismiss it that way, if you can. Which you can't.
The best way to tear something apart, is to use basics and simplistic ways, because it can be understood by all and give people a better insight into what you are actually getting at.

I'm not going to bother with you anymore.  You just told me things are actually heavier underwater - which they are absolutely not.  I've picked things up under water and they are lighter due to the Archimedes' principle.

You are truly unbelievable.

I went through it all in as much detail as I thought would be suffice for you to understand, and then you tell me to take a breeze-block to a swimming pool and see how heavy it is under water.  It would be EASIER, to pick up because it is no longer as heavy.  I cannot actually believe you honestly think things under water are actually heavier.

My girlfriend can lift me off the swimming pool floor when I am standing in 4 foot of water with ease.  She struggles to do this on land because water buoyancy is greater than air buoyancy.

I've never come across such a deluded individual.

Even a young child can verify that objects are lighter underwater.  I remember diving for bricks at swimming classes when I was about 6 years old and realising that the black blocks we used were easier to pick up under water than on the ground.

Are you actually serious?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 20, 2013, 06:29:29 AM »

Rab,
It all depends on how you measure weight.  Obviously, objects seem lighter underwater because the water below it is helping to lift the object.  Water is more dense than air, therefore it has more strength, so to speak, to help lift the object.  You HAVE to account for the density of the environment when weighing something.

What?  I am!

Read the post, it's like you actually understand but refuse to digest what I wrote.  Yes, the water exerts more upward force - BUT AIR DOES THE SAME THING, IT'S JUST NEGLIGIBLE IT IS SO SMALL.

The point here is pressure it absolutely NOT keeping things pressed to the earth, IT DOES THE OPPOSITE.  It actually acts AGAINST gravity and makes things LIGHTER.  In other words, things in reality, are actually slightly HEAVIER in a vacuum than at atmospheric pressure. 

This is unreal.  You understand when it is water, you understand that water exerts more force than the air due to it's density, but do you not understand that air is doing exactly the same thing?

Like I said, the atmosphere is like the ocean, and we are at the bottom of said ocean.  We sink in it because air buoyancy is so negligible that most things are dense enough to overcome it under the force of gravity, but that does not change the fact air is actually pushing us upwards, gravity simply overwhelms it to such a degree that we can ignore air buoyancy in all but the most intricate weighing.

The bottom line is Sceptimatic's bogus theory is wrong.  The pressure he speaks of is actually making us negligibly lighter, it's not making us heavy and it's not pressing us to the earth.  Going by the logic you seem to understand, if you go below about 8 ft of water (or something like that) the pressure down there is actually greater than atmospheric - so by Scepti's logic anything that goes deeper than that would be under a greater 'gravitational' force because the pressure is greater.

He's wrong.

See the light - you've almost got it.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 20, 2013, 05:25:27 AM »

No problem, as I said earlier, I have no wish to drag you screaming from your trained thoughts. I know I'm right and you think you are right. That's good enough for me.
One day you may decide to evaluate it all. One day. Who knows.

If what you are suggesting is correct, then even on a qualitative front, when I pick something up inside the evacuated chamber it should instantly feel lighter than it does at atmospheric pressure.  However, no object ever does - because the weight is the same either way.

I tell you what, I didn't want to muddy the water here but for the sake of trying to convince you one last time - I'm going to make a concession with regards to pressure affecting weight and tell you that things are actually a bit lighter than their true weight when in our atmosphere.  Before I go any further, the weight of an object is the force measured on the object due to gravity.  This is constant for any given gravitational environment.

Allow me to digress - and I apologise to all for the can of worms I may be about to open.

You surely acknowledge that a brick in a pond weighs less than a brick sitting on the ground in the atmosphere?  Do you know why this happens?  I'll explain.  As you should know, pressure increases in a body of water as you go deeper.  This fact is indisputable and if you even try to deny it I will abandon this thread and ignore you immediately (it's something you will surely have experienced yourself).  In other words, at any given moment when an object is submerged in water, the water is actually pressing up on it due to the pressure difference above and below it, and this force is equal to the weight of the water displaced by the object so things are lighter underwater - surely you know this?).  This is actually known as Archimedes' principle and actually it extends to all fluids - fluids including gases, i.e. our atmosphere.

So... you can imagine our atmosphere as being rather analogous to the oceans and we are at the bottom of this ocean, where the pressure is greatest.  Like the oceans, the pressure is greater the further down you go, and actually just in the same way that water pushes up on an object with a weight equal to the volume of displaced water - air (or indeed any fluid) does the same thing.  For things on the ground in our atmosphere, the air is actually making them marginally lighter than they would be in a vacuum, however this is virtually negligible at atmospheric pressure and is treated as such.

Now here's the clincher.  Notice that this buoyancy actually makes something (anything) lighter from their 'true' weight.  If I understand you correctly, you are implying that pressure is keeping things pinned to the earth, when really, in reality - the pressure is acting against gravity (it's just negligible for air - but not in water, as you surely have experienced).  So, due to the fact the density of air lessens as you climb in altitude (interestingly, water's density remains pretty much constant regardless of depth - a fact we should be grateful for as it happens) then things should actually be (negligibly) heavier at great altitudes than they are at sea level - ultimately being their heaviest, or 'true' weight within a vacuum.

That being said, do not misconstrue this as pressure changing the true weight of something.  Ultimately, I will re-iterate that the true weight of an object is a measurement of the force on the object due to gravity and gravity alone - and this is constant for the gravitational environment. 

So there Scepti - I just made a concession for you that I didn't really want to make because air buoyancy is negligible.  However, the truth is, with regards to your own theory - pressure actually works in the opposite way to which you suggest.  The pressure of a surrounding fluid actually makes things lighter than they really are - not heavier.  I've clearly spoke about water here so that you understand this, and surely you do.  For air though, this buoyancy is negligible.

So - how does that go down with your way of thinking?

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 19, 2013, 07:57:12 PM »

So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?

No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.

So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.

One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraped solves this problem.

We have a four figure balance in the glove box at my university.  We use it to weigh out extremely reactive substances in a vacuum and it is calibrated by the same weights whether or not it is inside the glove box.  It makes no difference whether it is under the vacuum or if the scales are outside the glove box.

I know you won't believe me but I felt I should chip in because I actually have first hand experience with this.  Furthermore, if you place a calibrated set of these extremely sensitive scales into the glove box (calibrated at atmospheric pressure and reads 0.0000 g when tared) and then apply the vacuum, the scales will stay at 0.000 g the whole way down until the maximum vacuum is reached, which is about 0.1 mbar - that's about 10,000 times less pressure than outside the box.

Conversely, it's also possible to flood the glove box with an inert gas such as argon, which usually results in a pressure greater than atmospheric within the box.  We do this when there is an intention to conduct an experiment within the box but without the desire to have reduced pressure (as many common solvents would simply boil at such reduced pressure).  Just the same way as the scales stay at 0.0000 g as pressure is reduced, it also stays at 0.0000 g as pressure is applied.

Again, you won't believe me, but that's how it is.

The scales may stay at zero but that doesn't mean they will be at zero, only that they say zero.
Why?

Because scales calibrated at sea level atmospheric pressure to read zero, will read zero because the pressure is already bearing down on the plate of the scale in some capacity....BUT...in an evacuated chamber they cannot be calibrated with any accuracy other than guess work, because having them at zero at sea level atmospheric pressure, means they go into the chamber reading zero and once evacuation starts, they will still read zero, yet the pressure on the plate will be marginally released...UNLESS the scale shows that reverse discrepancy, so it can be calibrated from that point on with the gloves that will by that time, look like inflated fingers with little flexibility.

Yes - the scales can go negative.  If something particularly heavy is on them (say, a 500 ml round-bottomed flask with some chemicals in it) and it is quickly removed, the scale will easily oscillate between negative and positive weights until it reaches zero again for a few moments.

Alternatively, (and I have done this as well), you can 'zero' the balance with something already placed on it (like an empty flask, ready to weigh something into it).  Remove said item, and voila - the scale will go into the negative by exactly whatever the flask weighs.

Honestly Scepti, I'm heavily experienced with this and you're simply wrong.  You won't like that, but you are.

Also, unlike many other things, I do actually have first-hand experience with what I'm talking about and I can 100% verify that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of an object what-so-ever.  There is no guess work - I have literally zeroed the plate before the vacuum is applied (I have done it many times) and when the vacuum is applied, the plate does not drop into the negative.  When I flood the chamber with argon, I must firstly evacuate it of air (so basically put it under vacuum), then I flood it with argon which typically goes to a pressure a little above atmospheric (then I repeat the process twice more to make sure there is no air in there) and the scales will literally sit at zero the whole time (until I place something on the scale).

The 200 g calibration weight (it weighs 200.0000 g exactly) will weigh exactly that regardless of the pressure.  You're just wrong.  If you refuse to believe me then fine.  I can't convince you of the fact we are not encapsulated by a giant ice-dome, I've come to peace with this.  However, if I cannot convince you that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of something, given it is something that I have personally dealt with so many times - then I give up.

If you believe for one second that pressure can have no bearing on weight, then I can't help you if you are not willing to actually take off your blinkers and I'm being 100% serious.

Ok, I'm done.  I'm not sure if you are perhaps getting your wires crossed with the fact that pressure exerts force on things or if you just truly are that ignorant.

I've dealt with this first-hand, many, many times - yet you dismiss me on an uneducated, unsubstantiated whim.  I am absolutely qualified to know what I'm talking about here, where as you are absolutely not and probably never will be, but sure - you'r right and I, despite my first-hand experience (along with the rest of the scientific world) am incorrect.

Sure, Scepti.   Sure.



 

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can anyone answer this question.

« on: October 19, 2013, 07:29:45 PM »

So one would just need to reduce the air pressure on an object and see if it weighs less?

No, this is where it becomes difficult and has to be done the right way.
Measuring a weight at sea level and then carrying the scales and weighted object up a sky scraper to measure again will produce a marginal effect, making it appear that the weighted object is slightly lighter at that height if the scales are not calibrated and it has to be done properly to show that weight would not physically change.

So then don't travel to different elevations.  Use vacuum chamber to get less air pressure.  A weight and a precision scale, one reading at ambient air pressure, and then another at reduced pressure.

One problem.
How do you calibrate a scale then put it inside a vacuum chamber to extract air and then calibrate again?

At least the sky scraped solves this problem.

We have a four figure balance in the glove box at my university.  We use it to weigh out extremely reactive substances in a vacuum and it is calibrated by the same weights whether or not it is inside the glove box.  It makes no difference whether it is under the vacuum or if the scales are outside the glove box.

I know you won't believe me but I felt I should chip in because I actually have first hand experience with this.  Furthermore, if you place a calibrated set of these extremely sensitive scales into the glove box (calibrated at atmospheric pressure and reads 0.0000 g when tared) and then apply the vacuum, the scales will stay at 0.000 g the whole way down until the maximum vacuum is reached, which is about 0.1 mbar - that's about 10,000 times less pressure than outside the box.

Conversely, it's also possible to flood the glove box with an inert gas such as argon, which usually results in a pressure greater than atmospheric within the box.  We do this when there is an intention to conduct an experiment within the box but without the desire to have reduced pressure (as many common solvents would simply boil at such reduced pressure).  Just the same way as the scales stay at 0.0000 g as pressure is reduced, it also stays at 0.0000 g as pressure is applied.

Again, you won't believe me, but that's how it is.

The scales may stay at zero but that doesn't mean they will be at zero, only that they say zero.
Why?

Because scales calibrated at sea level atmospheric pressure to read zero, will read zero because the pressure is already bearing down on the plate of the scale in some capacity....BUT...in an evacuated chamber they cannot be calibrated with any accuracy other than guess work, because having them at zero at sea level atmospheric pressure, means they go into the chamber reading zero and once evacuation starts, they will still read zero, yet the pressure on the plate will be marginally released...UNLESS the scale shows that reverse discrepancy, so it can be calibrated from that point on with the gloves that will by that time, look like inflated fingers with little flexibility.

Yes - the scales can go negative.  If something particularly heavy is on them (say, a 500 ml round-bottomed flask with some chemicals in it) and it is quickly removed, the scale will easily oscillate between negative and positive weights until it reaches zero again for a few moments.

Alternatively, (and I have done this as well), you can 'zero' the balance with something already placed on it (like an empty flask, ready to weigh something into it).  Remove said item, and voila - the scale will go into the negative by exactly whatever the flask weighs.

Honestly Scepti, I'm heavily experienced with this and you're simply wrong.  You won't like that, but you are.

Also, unlike many other things, I do actually have first-hand experience with what I'm talking about and I can 100% verify that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of an object what-so-ever.  There is no guess work - I have literally zeroed the plate before the vacuum is applied (I have done it many times) and when the vacuum is applied, the plate does not drop into the negative.  When I flood the chamber with argon, I must firstly evacuate it of air (so basically put it under vacuum), then I flood it with argon which typically goes to a pressure a little above atmospheric (then I repeat the process twice more to make sure there is no air in there) and the scales will literally sit at zero the whole time (until I place something on the scale).

The 200 g calibration weight (it weighs 200.0000 g exactly) will weigh exactly that regardless of the pressure.  You're just wrong.  If you refuse to believe me then fine.  I can't convince you of the fact we are not encapsulated by a giant ice-dome, I've come to peace with this.  However, if I cannot convince you that pressure has absolutely no bearing on the weight of something, given it is something that I have personally dealt with so many times - then I give up.