Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Amoranemix

Pages: [1] 2
1
Quote from: E E K 58
Quote from: Amoranemix 57
I can't find an intelligible explanation of that. Can you provide that explanation in English physics ?
I would suggest using Google translate.
I suspect the reason you failed to answer my question is because of the answer : No, you cannot provide an intelligible explanation in English physics as to how multiplication is one of the natural fundamental issues that the gravity model has.
I am not seeing any service on Google translate to explain your claim intelligibly in English physics. Why don't you let Google do that and then paste the explanation here ?

Quote from: E E K
Quote from: Amoranemix 57
1. Why would the person fall down ?
2. I don't understand the setup.
3. Why would the table fall ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my questions.

Quote from: E E K
Quote from: Amoranemix 57
Quote from: E E K 46
Counting like 10 p * 3 o/p = 30 o is wrong - sorry about misrepresentaion of orange.person
So you claim, but can you prove that ?
Consult a local student of lower graders/3rd grader is fine!!!!
Ask if items of different categories are multiplied? For example pencils, trees, stars, aliens etc.
I don't have a lower grade student available.
Suppose such student would tell me what you want them to, which I doubt. Then what ? Are you suggesting that the authority of lower grade students in matters of physics is so great that would should accept their claims as proof ?

Quote from: E E K
Quote from: Amoranemix 57
Quote from: E E K 53
And why do the scientists stick to the definition of velocity as a meter per second when it can be written as a second/meter “time /distance”. And acceleration as changes in time /meter/meter.[7]
So what would be the new form of F=GMm/d^2 where g =GM/d^2?[8]
[7] Writing a velocity, which has the dimension of distance / time, as time / distance would be confusing.
[8] The form would be unchanged. Formulas are independent of how the units of the variables and constants are written.
Why would it be confusing? Its just you are not used to it.[9]

Using the second concept, the form of F=GMm/d^2 is invalidated due to the unit of g=GM/d^2 (s/m^2).[10] For, G is asserted just to get the unit of g in the first concept, not natural.

The unit of g in the first concept is m/s/s or m/s^2. Inverse is s^2/m
The unit of g in the second concept is s/m/m or s/m^2[11]
So s^2/m is not equivalent to s/m^2[12]
[9] Communication relies on clear, unambiguous conventions. One meaning being conveyed in more ways makes study of the conventions more laborious and the choice more error prone. For example, someone following the prevalent convention might falsely think that with s/m you mean seconds per meter.
[10] What is that second concept you are referring to ?
In the convention used by almost all scientists the unit of g is written as m/s^2, not s^2/m.
[11] I am confused. Does the problem lie with the second concept or with the convention you use ?
[12] You are the only one who seems to have suggested otherwise.

Quote from: E E K 58
Quote from: Amoranemix 57
[1] You are claiming that a falling feather would be accellerated differently than a falling hammer. In what way ? What evidence can you present that the earth's gravitational accelleration depends on the mass that is being accellerated ?
[2] Greater masses mean greater accelleration, which reduces the distance faster, which again increases accelleration. However, when talking about g (of earth), the mass of the falling object (A) is assumed tiny compared to earth's. Hence, the earth's accelleration is tiny.
[3] In the case of an object falling on earth one microsecond later the accellation would be exactly the same. I am sure Newtin knew that.
No offense but below is only for your clarification.
There are three accelerations due to gravities involved. The gm of moon, the gh of hammer, and the gf of feather.
The gm >>>>>>>>>> gh >>>>gf
A tiny being on the surface of hammer sees moon falling on hammer due to gh
A tiny being on the surface of feather sees moon falling on feather due to gf [a]
A normal being on the surface of moon sees falling both hammer and feather on moon due to gm
Note down the striking time of moon and hammer if hammer is dropped from height h. let it be t1
Note down the striking time of moon and feather if feather is dropped from height h. let it be t2 [13]
You know t2 would be >>>> t1 – Reasons; The gm >>>>>>>>>> gh >>>>gf [14]

Fall both the hammer and feather simultaneously from h
All strike one another at t1. The falling acceleration of the feather is disturbed by the falling acceleration of moon due to gh. Moon falls on feather at gh not gf.[15]
Here striking is ignorable but it cannot be ignored if the sizes of the hammer increase to a notable size.
If the theory is not satisfactory for small masses then how it can be true for bigger masses/celestial–solar systems.[16] Sorry it might hurt you but its true.
[a] Those beings must have phenomenal measurement equipement in order to 'see' that.
[13] You failed to mention the time at which the hammer and feather were released. If they were both released at the same time t0, then t1 = t2.
[14] You are mistaken, for I don't know that. gh and gf are irrelevant due to gh, gf <<<<<<<<<< gm.
Jackblack did the math in post 59. He calculated t as a function of x and h. Translated to your example, t stands for arrival times t1 and t2, x stands for h (the height) and a stands for accelleration gm.
So, we have
t1 = sqrt(2*h/gm) = t2

[15] That is correct and the impact on t1 and t2 is the same and negligible.
[16] For one thing, truth and satisfaction may not be related. Relevance ? I haven't seen anyone claiming the theory is not satisfactory for small masses. I certainly haven't.

Quote from: E E K 58
Quote from: Amoranemix 57
Quote from: E E K 36
You know all the variables of M, m G, g, F and d but still can’t figure out nascent velocities, d, F and g. This means either the theory is incomplete or there is something wrong with it.

The unit of time used in the unit of g is borrowed from G but we need the actual variable of time for calculation of distance covered which this theory lacks.

How is the unit of time of g borrowed from G ?
What do you mean with actual variable of time ? There is only one variable of time in Newton's theory of gravity and only one is needed.
- g got its unit due to the presence of G in g=GM/d^2. There is no actual variable of time or unit of time in equation of F=GMm/d^2 or g=GM/d^2. G is used just to get the unit of g.[17]

This formula doesn’t work in the second concept as G is not natural but fitted for the unit of g.[18]

Read the following; there is no consistency in the unit of mass. How do we know that masses of atomic particles are correct? 
#13 - Is the definition of UNIT [gram, kilogram] of MASS absolute or iffy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gram#Is_definition_of_UNIT_[gram,_kilogram]_of_MASS_absolute_or_iffy?[19]
[17] I take it that what you mean is that G contributes to g and that since G has a unit of time, so does g. OK.
[18] So what ? No one claims that formula works in the second concept.
[19] What are you talking about ? Are you annoyed by the fact that not everyone agrees on what a gram is ? What does that have to do with the theory of gravity or with the shape of the earth ?

You claimed that the theory of gravity is either incomplete or that their is something wrong with it. You are right. Even the general theory of relativity is not a complete theory. As for a calculating distances covered, whether the ways to do that are considered to be part of the theory of gravity is nit-picking. It is inappropriate to blame a theory for not doing what is not supposed to do. If you dislike that omission, then just include the methods to do that in the theory.

Quote from: E E K 58
Quote from: Amoranemix 57
[4] The existence of gravitational potential wells is independent of their worthwhileness.
No second mass, no gravitational wells for a lone object in the universe.[20] Again d is o/c distance b/t two masses in the equation of g=GM/d^2[21], g=0 when d=0.[22] Here d is not the radius of the earth. There is potential for g to exit upon the presence of second no matter what its mass is – This should be the case. I just favor you
[20] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[21] There is only one mass in g = GM/d/d. That is not a coincidence.
[22] You are mistaken, g would be infinite if d = 0.

Quote from: E E K 58
Quote from: Amoranemix 57
What does any of that have to do with the earth allegedly being flat ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: E E K 60
Quote from: JackBlack 59
Repeatedly asserting the same nonsense won't magically make it correct.
The gravitational well exists regardless of if another object exists to be acted upon by it.
d is the distance to the object.
This applies for any point, regardless of if an object is there or not.
Repeatedly ignoring that fact will not change it.
I made it clear earlier that g = GM/d^2 is independent of falling therefore one can calculate g at any height w/o the presence of a second mass. It doesn’t mean that lone mass has all those values in reality. The potential word is used for these values of g. The activation of these requires the presence of a second mass.
Indeed. Contrary to what you claimed, a single mass generates a gravitational potential well, but in order for that well to affect a second mass, a second mass must exist.

Quote from: E E K 60
Quote from: JackBlack 59
No, it is simply a different unit.
So kids are being misled.

There are 10 students in a class. Each student has 3 oranges. I can say 1 student per 3 oranges instead of saying 3 oranges per student - 1 student for 3 oranges/ 1 student to 3 oranges/ 1 student for every 3 oranges.

How many oranges are there in total? - Please.
JackBlack has already calculated it for you :

10 students times 3 oranges per student = 30 oranges.
In this case 3 oranges per student must converted to mathematics as 3 oranges divided by one student.

Quote from: E E K 60 to JackBlack
Come to the real picture on which universal law is based for two objects A and B of discernable sizes in order to address the issue of misunderstanding.

As soon as both objects A and B start moving towards each other simultaneously, their inceptive accelerations “gs=gees” start facing challenges due to latent change in o/c distance “d” (equal or unequal on either side) b/w them. Both A and B have to face this change in d every moment till they strike each other. Both A and B adopt higher types of motion right at their starting points due to such changes in d.[23] Of course, g is there in gravitational jerk,/jolt, gravitational snap/jounce, etc. So g in the equation of F = GMm/d^2 where g = GM/d^2 and = Gm/d^2 are not best fit due to the involvement of higher types of motion.[24]
[23] Higher types of motion ? What are those ?
What evidence can you present that A and B adopt those right at their starting points ?
[24] So what ? No one claimed g are the best fit.

Quote from: E E K 65
Quote from: JackBlack 64
A better way to determine mass is inertia.
How?
This inertia property of the falling mass is also ignored in gravity.
A falling body has never got a chance to use its inertia against g.
The injustice of gravity exposed.

Quote from: E E K 87 to JackBlack
All above shows center to center distance in F=GMm/d^2 doesn’t work – Right[25]
he concept of the gravitational acceleration of the earth came in by the idea of rolling a ball on an inclined plane. Newton tried to grasp it and finally formulated it. Einstein didn’t introduce new things but shapes the same idea of acceleration. He used the same G and other basics fundamentals not different. So if newton is wrong then Einstein as well.[26]
[25] How so ?
[26] How is that supposed to follow ?

Quote from:  E E K 98
Furthermore, it is said that the gravitational field inside shell is zero. This means G is zero inside the shell.[27] If G is zero then how come a mass of shell is concentrated at its center and attracts things towards its center.

Doesn't an object inside the shell fall on the gravitating mass located outside the shell?[28]

Gravitational law fails when an object achieves escape velocity.[29]
[27] The gravitational field inside a hollow sphere is 0. That implies g, not G, is 0 inside the sphere.
[28] Indeed, it doesn't.
[29] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

Quote from:  E E K 106
I assumed the escape velocity was constant forever but anyway, how about if we let the escape velocity/speed (11,186 m/s. or greater) constant with hypothetical auto adjustment of thrust but not forever as a point will come in the future where it requires almost or congruent to zero thrusts.

Does G still affect the above escaping object if yes then the object is not escaping?[30]

In a nutshell, G is zero for an object in escaping mode. It may be for some time or forever.[31]
[30] At great enough distance the pull of earth's gravity (and thus the impact of G) becomes negligible. At infinite distance the pull is 0.
[31] Below the escape velocity, eventually gravity (and thus G) wins. Above escape velocity, the fleeing object wins. Earth is still pulling, but not hard enough.

Quote from:  E E K 109
Quote from: JackBlack 108
No, there is a single escape velocity.
This velocity is the minimum velocity required. Any velocity above that velocity will allow the object to continue moving away.
in your case all escaping velocities even if greater than the min are also influenced by gravity.

I understand what you say but no influence of gravity means, no influence of G on escaping objects. The escaping object should be free from gravitational worries otherwise it is not escaping.

Again, any velocity if reduced or turn into a declaration should not be considered as escaping velocity from the grip of gravity.[32]

Escape velocity is more authentic if constant forever.[33]

The escape velocity is independent of the escaping mass. It doesn't work vice versa.

Smaller masses may escape from bigger but bigger ones can’t escape from smaller masses. For example, the earth would take the smaller mass along with it if ever tries to escape from a smaller mass.[34]
[32] Apparently most scientists have a different view than yours on what constitutes escaping. They would consider an inmate to have escaped when he left the prison compound and authorities are unaware of his whereabouts. Even though it may bother the escapee that the authorities are still looking for him and even though he may have keep a low profile to keep his freedom, he still has escaped.

[33] Scientists prefer to use useful defenitions. Definitions about things that (can) exist tend to be more useful than those about things that can't. There is no velocity with the property of staying constant forever.

[34] That idea seems to lack potential applications, but the earth's escape volocity, assuming the small object is not fixed, would also be 11,186 m/s.

Quote from:  E E K 112
Similarly, if Newtonian gravity were really true then the phenomenon of temperature, which is related to the average kinetic energy of atoms and molecules in a system, would not happen. And the same is applied to pressure.[35]

How do these atoms and molecules of a system gain motion (K.E) when each individual particle of the system is accelerated @ GM/d^2 towards the center of the earth?[36]
[35]What evidence can you present to support those claims ?
[36] You tell us. No one has claimed these atoms and molecules of a system gain motion.
Atoms can bounce of each other, like a ball doesn't keep accellerating until it reaches the earth's center, because usually it bounces of the surface first.

Quote from:  E E K 116
Similarly, elasticity is to bounce therefore why would they be bouncing in the first place (not the real reason) in a random direction?[37] Any object if thrown upward in any direction comes back to the surface of the earth and is finally settled.[38] Therefore all those atoms and molecules should settle now even if they were bouncing. Enough spaces among similar charge particles are included in the gravitational settlement. Keep in mind all masses fall at the rate. Regarding pressure, doesn’t liquid transmit pressure equally in all directions?[39] The g of individual particles nullifies pressure.[40]
[37] That is due to elektron clouds repelling each other due to the elektromagnetic force.
[38] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
[39] Indeed it does and so does a gas. However, the pressure at the top of a body is lower than at the bottom.
[40] It is true that in an atmosphere gravity and atmospheric pressure compensate each other for the athmospheric molecules.

Quote from:  E E K 116
When A collides with B. A loss some of its momentum to B due to the rate of change of momentum, however, it is said the total momentum of the system remains constant – Both declaration of A and acceleration of B are ignored in the equation of m1v1 = m2v2 but anyway,

Rate of change of momentum = force applied OR F = mv/t

This is not true when the difference in masses is mammoth. For example if m1 <<<<<<<<<< m2 like a dust particle and moon.  B doesn’t move at all due to its greater inertia when A collides with B at greater m1v1 where v1 is very high velocity. Object A rests on B due to the greater size, inertia, and gravitational strength of B. There is a continuous force of A on B (may be less, =, and or greater than gravitational force b/t A and B) but no change of momentum as t is yet to be known for the change in momentum and this unknown t leads to force ultimately tends to zero (mv/t) and hence momentum of the system isn’t conserved.[41] We can say B absorbs the shock of A. Gravitational force may exits b/t A and B but this is irrelevant to the momentum mentioned previously.
[41] I have not understood your explanation, but you claimed that momentum is not conserved. Can you demonstrate that ? Do the math. Calculate the momentum change.
What does that have to do with gravity or the earth's shape ?

Quote from:  E E K 116
Bigger masses are harder to move as well as stops as compared to lighter ones and you know that.

So if A can’t move B due to its greater inertia then how come an apple accelerates earth with such a small force.
That phenomenon is known as gravity. Learn about it here : www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics

Quote from:  E E K 122
Since A rests on B in either case the momentum therefore in the foregoing case is disappeared though there are gravitational forces but they have nothing to do with m1v1.
What does that mean, “the momentum is disappeared” ? Momentum does not disappear. It is conserved. It may be transferred.

Quote from:  E E K 125 to JackBlack
Make it simpler. Here on earth, anything if throws upward it comes downward. The momentum of that thing is not conserved.
Indeed. Conservation of momentum applies to systems that do not exchange momentum with the rest of the world.
What does that have to do with the shape of the earth or the alleged problems with the theory of gravity ?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Please Participate in my Research Project
« on: July 31, 2021, 06:28:37 AM »
There seems to be flaw in your survey. It seems to addressed at active members, but fail to mention so.
I started the survey and could only guess the first answers. Perhaps you should first ask information about the participant or add the option 'I don't know'.


3
Quote from: E E K 11
Quote from: Unconvinced 9
But it didn’t have an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s.  It’s just sitting on the ground in a gravitational field of strength 9.8m/s/s.  How can it be accelerating if it’s not moving?

g is not acceleration, but it is the same as the acceleration of an object in free fall, and your hypothetical object is not in free fall.

Even if it was in free fall just above the surface when the earth is magicked away, that acceleration would stop, and the object would just continue at its current velocity.
No change in the velocity of “A” of the subject means the g=GM/d^2 of “A” can’t be equivalent to acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s/s – Right
g = GM/R^2 (with r the earth's radius) is not a property or state of A, but a property of the earth's gravitational field.

Quote from: E E K 16
An object with no velocity can have the potential to fall @ of GM/^2 = 9.8 m/s/s if placed on the surface of the earth but it can’t have the final velocity that it had from the 9.8 m/s/s after removing the earth suddenly.
The final speed it had was zero. There is nothing preventing A from keeping that speed. It got that speed from the earth's gravitational attraction (g) and from the reaction force from the ground.

Quote from: E E K 16
1-   Both springs attached to feet would release in a downward direction – A person would fall down
2-   Spring would release in an upward direction but a person would fall in a downward direction.
3-   A sphere is attached to the table (sorry). A table to which sphere is attached would also fall in both cases. There is no sag in the first case but the upper part of the table on which the sphere rests is in tension continuously.
1. Why would the person fall down ?
2. I don't understand the setup.
3. Why would the table fall ?


Quote from: E E K 34
Newton succeeded to formulate g=GM/d^2 m/s/s independent of falling mass but fixing the gravitational potential/strength for any gravitating mass at any height without the presence of falling mass is wrong. It does depend upon the second mass.[1] Both ga and gb are always present at one place at the same time and, therefore, affect one another greatly if the sizes of the masses increases.[2] Similarly, the unit of time in the unit of gravitational acceleration is derived indirectly from G and it's very easy-peasy to calculate gravitational force and acceleration at any point at any instant if we know G, M, m, and d but none including Newton knows what would be their next values after a microsecond unless I need correction if yes then how, please.[3]
[1] You are claiming that a falling feather would be accellerated differently than a falling hammer. In what way ? What evidence can you present that the earth's gravitational accelleration depends on the mass that is being accellerated ?
[2] Greater masses mean greater accelleration, which reduces the distance faster, which again increases accelleration. However, when talking about g (of earth), the mass of the falling object (A) is assumed tiny compared to earth's. Hence, the earth's accelleration is tiny.
[3] In the case of an object falling on earth one microsecond later the accellation would be exactly the same. I am sure Newtin knew that.

Quote from: E E K 36 to JackBlack
You know all the variables of M, m G, g, F and d but still can’t figure out nascent velocities, d, F and g. This means either the theory is incomplete or there is something wrong with it.

The unit of time used in the unit of g is borrowed from G but we need the actual variable of time for calculation of distance covered which this theory lacks.
How is the unit of time of g borrowed from G ?
What do you mean with actual variable of time ? There is only one variable of time in Newton's theory of gravity and only one is needed.

Quote from: E E K 36
So, there is no set standard for measuring the gravitational force on the surface of gravitating mass say earth. Both objects are on the surface of the earth but due to the difference in their o/c distances d, the gravitational force varies. This means bigger masses can’t utilize their full mass on the surface of gravitating mass for producing a full weight force.
What does any of that have to do with the earth allegedly being flat ?

Quote from: E E K 43
I have no idea if gravity exists or not in reality but multiplication is just one of the natural fundamental issues that the gravity model has as explained above.
I can't find an intelligible explanation of that. Can you provide that explanation in English physics ?

Quote from:  E E K 43
Quote from: JackBlack 41
But why those lengths?
Again, your argument was that it isn't actually multiplication and that to find out how far they have moved you add up 1 m 5 times to get 5 m.
But if 1 m is your base you cannot add to get 5.5 m.
Why add 1 m then? Why add 0.5 m now? or a mix of 1 m and 0.5 m?
There is no justification for it at all.
That apparent simple logic is just delusional semblance.
These gravitational potential wells aren’t worthwhile if unable to give velocities of both masses at any time (previous, instant, and final)![4]
Reiterating something, which is unjust intrinsically as repeated multiple times, is just not fruitful.
[4] The existence of gravitational potential wells is independent of their worthwhileness.

Quote from:  E E K 46
Quote from: JackBlack 41
No, by simple logic.
Again, velocity is distance (technically displacement) per unit time.
To find that distance you multiply velocity with time.
Unless you can show distance is quantised, there is no reason to think it is just repeated addition.
Actually, I referred to your above statement.

Again, items of different categories can't be added (unless totaling is required in organizing) or multiplied.[5] The meanings of per in not divide. Here one meter per second means a distance covered in one second.[6] Similarly, mass per volume means how much mass is there in unit volume.
[ . . . ]
[5] It is not because you cannot do it that no one else can.
[6] No. It implies a distance of one meter is covered in one second.

Quote from:  E E K 46
And why do the scientists stick to the definition of velocity as a meter per second when it can be written as a second/meter “time /distance”. And acceleration as changes in time /meter/meter.[7]
So what would be the new form of F=GMm/d^2 where g =GM/d^2?[8]
[7] Writing a velocity, which has the dimension of distance / time, as time / distance would be confusing.
[8] The form would be unchanged. Formulas are independent of how the units of the variables and constants are written.

Quote from:  E E K 53
Counting like 10 p * 3 o/p = 30 o is wrong - sorry about misrepresentaion of orange.person
So you claim, but can you prove that ?

4
Flat Earth General / Re: transantartic expedition
« on: July 29, 2021, 06:10:15 AM »
In his travel series 'Pole to Pole with Michael Palin' Micheal travelled to the South pole : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_to_Pole_with_Michael_Palin
He failed to report an ice wall.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:21:55 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic 116
Quote from: Amoranemix 126
Quote from: sceptimatic
You know how you have snow on high mountains, even in sunlight and the same sunlight at sea level makes you hot.
It's due to dense agitation of molecules, because you are under much more mass of pressurised molecules than up high on the mountain in the sunbeams.
Basically, you mean the sun at low altitude heats the air, meaning the kinetic energy of the molecules increases, causing the gas to expand.
Why didn't you just say that in stead of claiming that dense agitation causes agitation ?
I didn't say dense agitation causes agitation.[15]
Playing games will just ensure you keep typing and typing the same thing.
Carry on if that's your game.[16]
Yes, you did say that in post 115 to Jackblack : “It expands because it is not under the pressure it was. It is first agitating to get to be expanded. This agitation is due to dense agitation creating heat due to it.”
First, A being due to B means almost the same as B causing A. Second, A creating B implies A causing B. You have not explained what agitation is, so I have done it for your by clarifying it is heat.

If one wants to promote true knowledge, then one should promote clarity, for clarity leads to truth and knowledge. Sometimes you do anything but that. Many of your responses, if you respond at all, are an exercise in guessing what you could have meant that makes the most sense. If your interlocutor guessed incorrectly, then, if you were interested promoting truth and knowledge, you would not just point that out, but clarify what you did mean in stead. If you are merely interested in hanging on to a flat-earth worldview, then indeed clarity is your ennemy and confusion your friend.

[16] What are you talking about ?

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 126
If your claim does not follow, why did you pretend it does ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic 131
Quote from: JackBlack
You cannot have your gas magically expand and freeze to form a solid dome.
Yes I can.
So you claim, but can you prove it ?


The question on what keeps the atmosphere on earth has long been resolved. The only thing on topic that has been discussed lately is what sceptimatic (ought to) believe(s).

6
@ Danang :
You seem to assume that the net force on someone's head towards a low sun would be higher at his/her head than at his/her feet.

If the tangential speed of the earth were zero, then indeed someone's head would accellerate towards the sun (it even does so with 100.000 km/s tangential speed), but so would his/her feet and so would the ground (s)he is standing on. Hence there would still be no reason for their relative positions to change.

What you have done is a scientific experiment : You started with a hypothesis, namely some flat-earth model you believe in. On it you based the prediction that round-earthers would be unable to answer your question. Your prediction turned out to be wrong. What conclusion can one draw from your experiment ?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 20, 2020, 12:22:06 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic 117
Quote from: Amoranemix 116
What is dense agitation and how does it create heat ?
You know how you have snow on high mountains, even in sunlight and the same sunlight at sea level makes you hot.
It's due to dense agitation of molecules, because you are under much more mass of pressurised molecules than up high on the mountain in the sunbeams.
Basically, you mean the sun at low altitude heats the air, meaning the kinetic energy of the molecules increases, causing the gas to expand.
Why didn't you just say that in stead of claiming that dense agitation causes agitation ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 117
Quote from: Amoranemix 116
Quote from: sceptimatic
The best model is the real model.[12] None of us possess that model in terms of physically proving it.
So the best model has to be the one that logically appears more feasible than others.[13]
This means the the global model you adhere to is way down on the list in terms of logical.[14]
[12] Wrong. Reality is not a model and is impossible for anyone to grasp. A model is a simplified version or representation of something.
[13] Wrong again. Feasibility is no criterion for a good model (at least not to scientists). A cube is a feasible model for reality, yet for most purposes it is a bad one, because it fails on an important criterion for the quality of a model (at least to scientists) : how useful it is for making predictions. On that criterion the round, geocentric model beats your flat-earth model hands down. For example, the former can explain why air stays on earth; the latter can not.
[14] How is that supposed to follow ?
[no no response]
If your claim does not follow, why did you pretend it does ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 115
Quote from: Jackblack
Have you seen the frozen helium dome?
Nope. Have you see any of the stuff you're arguing for?
We already knew you can present no evidence for your dome, but now it turns out you haven't even seen it.

Quote from: Themightykabool 125 to sceptimatic
So in summary
Your answer in your defnese is "nope" and that we shoukd take your word for it because you are logical and can only explain via half thought out analogies.
He did not say we should believe him. He merely shared his beliefs to accept or not.


After all this discussion flat-earthers still have not been able to present a viable theory for the earth keeping an atmosphere. Gravity still reigns supreme with TINA as its queen.

8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 230
a) Come on, think !
[no response]
For someone who questions reality based on his own thoughts, you should benefit from doing it some more.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 230
It is not that difficult. Evidence is more likely to point to a true claim than to a false one. Hence … It is not that difficult. Evidence is more likely to point to a true claim than to a false one. Hence …
[no response]
Hence, evidence is unlikely to point to a false claim. That makes the lack of evidence an indication that a claim is false. Since your claims lack evidence, skeptics tend to believe they are false, especially when they contradict claims that are supported supported by evidence.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 230
Skeptics want to believe in reality. Is there good reason to believe unsupported claims comport with reality ?
[no response]
Unless there is other reason to believe a claim comports with reality (like authority), the answer is no. Hence, all else being equal, a supported claim is more likely to comport with reality than a unsupported one.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 230
Quote from: sceptimatic
Pick one query/question at a time.
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question. Again.

Quote from: skeptimatic 188 to Timeisup
That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
Sorry. My previous answer came out wrong.
Agreed. Your evaluation of your position does not seem to be too unreasonable, as you realise there is no good reason adopt your beliefs.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 230
The only explanation we were able to come up with the for the curvature of the oceans is gravity. It is another case of TINA.
And yet you have absolutely no clue what it is and why it supposedly works[10] but you were told it was gravity and you accept it as a truth.[11]
[10] Even if that were true, that would be irrelevant. The existence of gravity, nor its workings are independent from anyone having a clue about either. Thousands of years ago, people were clueless about the nature of matter and yet matter existed. People were even able to make some predictions regarding its behaviour.
[11] That is not a truth, but a convention. No one needs to tell me that gravity is gravity. It follows from the law of identity.

Quote from: JackBlack 240
]Stop focusing on 2 objects and instead focus on one. You have the same issue yet again.
How does an individual link in the chain pull the rest of that link along?
The only way is by PULLING it.
The problem with metal chains is that they also involves pushing between links. A cable or rope is a better example.

Quote from: sceptimatic 241
Quote from: JackBlack 240
Again, you have an object, like a rope. You pick up the right end and apply a force to the right.
Which is a push to the right.
When a chain is pushed, links push each other because they are hooked into each other. With molecule chains like in ropes or atom chains like in cables that is usually not the case.
Suppose an atom L is covalently bonded to an atom R on its right and both are part of a rope that lays in the left-right direction. Suppose the atom R accellerates to the right due to a force being applied to it. What makes the atom L follow R ?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 19, 2020, 07:01:17 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 96
[10]There is a difference between establishing what the best model for reality is and how to make you believe that model. Based on the information provided by flat-earthers, the best model is the geocentric round earth-model. Why ? Because of TINA : there is no alternative.
The best model is the real model.[12] None of us possess that model in terms of physically proving it.
So the best model has to be the one that logically appears more feasible than others.[13]
This means the the global model you adhere to is way down on the list in terms of logical.[14]
[12] Wrong. Reality is not a model and is impossible for anyone to grasp. A model is a simplified version or representation of something.
[13] Wrong again. Feasibility is no criterion for a good model (at least not to scientists). A cube is a feasible model for reality, yet for most purposes it is a bad one, because it fails on an important criterion for the quality of a model (at least to scientists) : how useful it is for making predictions. On that criterion the round, geocentric model beats your flat-earth model hands down. For example, the former can explain why air stays on earth; the latter can not.
[14] How is that supposed to follow ?

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 96
If you do not see gaping holes as problematic for a worldview, what are your criteria for the quality of a worldview ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 96
That you fail to see them, does not imply they don't exist. I and others have pointed out several problems. Are you blind or do you refuse to see ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic 100
Quote from: Amoranemix 96
No flat-earther has to my knowledge, and certainly not you in this thread, provided a coherent flat-earth model that is consistent with the evidence.
You mean nobody has provided a model that fits the magical one made up for you?
No. I mean what I said.

Quote from: sceptimatic 100
Quote from: Amoranemix 96
To my knowledge, all evidence.
To your knowledge?
What knowledge is this?
I have no knowledge indicating that there is evidence inconsistent with the absence of a hydrogen-helium ice dome.
I won't share all my knowledge with you because that would be too much work.

Quote from: sceptimatic 100
Quote from: Amoranemix 96
Sceptics require something you can't provide : evidence.
Ditto.
Ambiguous.

Quote from: sceptimatic 100
Quote from: Amoranemix 96
So, we can choose bettween a working model and a collection of hypotheses.
A working model is not a reality...but, yes, you can pick and choose...as you have. It does not mean you know it to be reality.[15] It means you are schooled into a belief system which may not be reality.[16]
[15] I have never claimed otherwise.
[16] Of course it doesn't mean that. It doesn't even imply that. Yet the belief system I am schooled in is not reality and neither is yours.

Quote from: sceptimatic 100
Quote from: Amoranemix 96
Quote from: JackBlack 86
Again, how does your air freeze into a solid dome which prevents further air from escaping?
If it freezes then it would take up basically no volume and just fly off into space or crash down onto the surface. Over time this would allow all the air to leave.
In the absense of gravity, it should fly of.
When you fail to understand it from my side, it can do anything you wish.
You are mistaken. I fail to understand it from your side and yet, alas, air cannot do anything I wish.

Quote from: sceptimatic 101
Quote from: Themightykabool
How very true!
Start taking your advice.
When you saybsomehing that doesnt make sense, we question it.
When you refuse to answer it... well thats no real proof is it now?
Feel free to question, as I do.
As for refusal to answer. I certainly do answer.[17]
The issue is in my answers not being accepted as an answer because it doesn't suit.[18]
Whose issue is that?[19]
[17] You forgot to mention that you certainly do fail to answer.
[18] Suiting isn't the appropriate word but when you do give answers, they are often either unintelligible or inconsistent with the best models we have.
[19] The issue of those worried about your belief in a fantasy.

Quote from: sceptimatic 106 to Stash
We are all force fed in all ways, shapes and forms.
However, at school we are especially force fed because we have zero choice but to follow a curriculum and be quizzed on the absorbance of it, at the end.
It doesn't mean the learning is all reality based[20]....but if that learning is told to you as being reality based and you accept it without question then later you teach that to others or refuse to accept there could be alternatives to that[21], then it's basically a case of, do you hold that same view and go with the mass flow, or do you step outside of that box and put your own mind to use in an alternate thought process.
[20] It doesn't mean it is not reality based either.
[21] There could have been, but there aren't.

Quote from: sceptimatic 106
Quote from: Stash
You, on the otherhand, are a deep thinker, outside the box, alternative, blah, blah, blah. However, the skepti rule is really:
- If someone accepts mainstream knowledge it's only because it was "handed to them on a platter", they were indoctrinated and never got out.
That's basically a truth. This isn't about you or globalists...this is about all of us with whatever we accept without proof of reality.
Most people believe the round, geocentric world model because they have been taught it. However, it turns out the if one does investigate it, it holds up to scrutiny.

Quote from: sceptimatic 108
Quote from: Jackblack 107
Which puts the globe model up quite high, as that can explain so much of observed reality without appealing to self-contradictory nonsense, and which is yet to be refuted.
No. There is no observed reality for your globe. There is a perceived reality for you, based on what you're told
Sceptics don't evaluate models based on how much reality there is for it, but based on evidence. By that criterion the round, geocentric model wins by a landslide. Also, the evidence that would exist if the model were false, is strangely absent.

Quote from: sceptimatic 115
Quote from: Jackblack 114
First tell me how your air magically doesn't fly away?
Tell me how it expands with the agitation decreasing?
It expands because it is not under the pressure it was. It is first agitating to get to be expanded. This agitation is due to dense agitation creating heat due to it.
What is dense agitation and how does it create heat ?

10
Quote from: Shifter 179 to rabinoz
Low content, trolling post.
Pull it or recieve a warning. Thanks.
Please refrain from such postings in the future and contribute your posts constructively as relating to the OP
Please stick to the topic of the thread.

Quote from: sceptimatic 183
Quote from: Amoranemix 176
Ia) Why do you think it is you are unable to support your claims ?
b) You forgot to answer my question.
[no response]
a) Come on, think !

Quote from: sceptimatic 183
Quote from: Amoranemix 176
I'll give you a hint : Which claims are easiest to support ? True ones of false ones ?
[no response]
It is not that difficult. Evidence is more likely to point to a true claim than to a false one. Hence …

Quote from: sceptimatic 183
Quote from: Amoranemix 176
Should sceptics take unsupported claims seriously ?
[no response]
Skeptics want to believe in reality. Is there good reason to believe unsupported claims comport with reality ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 183
Quote from: Amoranemix 176
So, in your worldview, there is no magnetism in (near) vacuum. Is that correct ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic 183
Quote from: Amoranemix 176
Stop being evasive and explain how magnetism works. Rational people are beginning to think you are stalling to hide your ignorance.
[no response]
if you don't understand how magnetism works, it is understandable you don't explain it.

Quote from: sceptimatic 183
Quote from: Amoranemix 176
Quote from: sceptimatic
It has everything to do with it, otherwise there would be zero tension.
So you claim, but can you prove it ?
[No]
I suspectedosition seems to be not too z as much.

Quote from: sceptimatic 183
Pick one query/question at a time.
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 188 to Timeisup
That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
Agreed. Your evaluation of your position does not seem to be too reasonable, as you realise there is no good reason adopt your beliefs.

That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
These points seem to have escaped me. Where has sceptimatic made them ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 216 to Timeisup
They do work well. I have no issue with it.
What I do have issue with is in how we are told they all work.
One such thing told is, gravity and how they measure it with a meter.
Explain this to me how engineering and such works using this principle and if you can prove gravity is real, then I have no case.
The only explanation we were able to come up with the for the curvature of the oceans is gravity. It is another case of TINA.

Quote from: sceptimatic 216 to Timeisup
I can explain it all using what I've been explaining.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequencies and molecular linking to determine the make up and strengths of matter/objects. In my opinion.
That seems to explain the confusion : you are talking about your opinion, while everyone else is talking about reality.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 17, 2020, 01:45:05 PM »
Quote from: Amoranemix 62
Quote from: sceptimatic 63
So far we were able to establish that we are unable provide dimeonsions for hydrogen-helium dome that are consistent with the evidence, a big problem for the flat-earth model.
It's not an issue to me.[10]
I mean you have zero proof of the size of the glo0bal model you adhere to, other than to be told it is what you're told it is.[11]
Admit that much.
[10]There is a difference between establishing what the best model for reality is and how to make you believe that model. Based on the information provided by flat-earthers, the best model is the geocentric round earth-model. Why ? Because of TINA : there is no alternative. No flat-earther has to my knowledge, and certainly not you in this thread, provided a coherent flat-earth model that is consistent with the evidence. Your worldview is full of gaping holes.
[11] a) Your reasoning is flawed. The proof I do or do not have says nothing about the validity of the problems with your worldview.
b) I do not base my beliefs on proof, but on reason and evidence, where reason is a procedure for deriving 'new' evidence from existing evidence. No single proof can establish a particular worldview. However, there is plenty of evidence for the geocentric round-earth model.

If you do not see gaping holes as problematic for a worldview, what are your criteria for the quality of a worldview ?

Quote from: Amoranemix 62
Quote from: sceptimatic 63
In the round-earth model there is no such dome, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence.
What evidence is this?
Not what you're told...... what you know.
To my knowledge, all evidence.

Quote from: Amoranemix 62
Quote from: sceptimatic 63
I have pointed out several more problems with the flat-earth model, but those might still be solved. I am not optimistic though.
I don't see any problems.
That you fail to see them, does not imply they don't exist. I and others have pointed out several problems. Are you blind or do you refuse to see ?
We provided an illustration of how to strengthen a hypothesis based on predictions. I had the hypothesis that your worldview is bad. Based on that I made the prediction that you would not solve the problems with your worldview. You validated that prediction. That increases the confidence in my hypothesis.

Quote from: sceptimatic 84
Quote from: JJA
How about YOU show me a map of your flat Earth.
From your own explorations. Don't copy and paste some other work.
I don't have a map of the flat Earth that is a proof of anything.
Sceptics require something you can't provide : evidence.

Quote from: sceptimatic 84
Quote from: JJA
You do that, then I'll tell you how to measure the earth with sticks and shadows.
My hypotheses are just that. I don't pass them off as a reality. I pass my stuff off as my potentials
So, we can choose bettween a working model and a collection of hypotheses.

Quote from: JJA 85
You just admitted you don't believe in the Eratosthenes experiment, so why should I waste time explaining it to you? It's explained hundreds of times all over the internet, and if none of that convinces you, my explaining it certainly won't.
In addition, it would be off topic in this thread.

Quote from: JackBlack 86
Again, how does your air freeze into a solid dome which prevents further air from escaping?
If it freezes then it would take up basically no volume and just fly off into space or crash down onto the surface. Over time this would allow all the air to leave.
In the absense of gravity, it should fly of.

12

Quote from: faded mike 11 to OP
Yeah, but i can see to far, i think. So if the earth is flat, hows a guy like me supposed to know how the sun works?
Why are you asking me ? That is a question for a flat-earther.

Quote from: faded mike 11 to OP
Does the moon appear upside down in some places? Also i think we could just be seeing a tunnel to another plane...
The moon has no upside or downside. The orientation of the moon may appear different to different observers, depending on their relative orientation.
Could the moon be a tunnel to another plane ? Is there any evidence to support that hypothesis ?

13
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 128
Quote from: sceptimatic
It would likely break apart if you pushed each end away from centre of the object.
a) I am sorry, but I don't understand how your evidence is supposed to support your claims. Even if what you claimed were likely, it does not seem to support that there is tension in the compression of the atmospheric pressure. Can you provide evidence that actually supports your claims ?
b) You failed to answer my question. Please do.
[a) No]
a) Why do you think it is you are unable to support your claims ?
b) You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 128
Have you ever wondered why it could be that you are unable to support your claims ?
[No]
I'll give you a hint : Which claims are easiest to support ? True ones of false ones ?

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 128
Quote from: sceptimatic
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Jesus Christ was a gay Martian who came to earth 2000 years ago, sailing on the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
That is another classic case of alternate thinking against mainstream indoctrinated narratives. Should such thinking be taken seriously ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 128
Quote from: sceptimatic
Oceans do not curve, unless you mean waves.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
Thus are your claims, but can you prove them ?
[No]
Should sceptics take unsupported claims seriously ?

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: JJA 139
leading to a high pressure push towards that which creates what we see as a magnetic attraction.
HOW?
I notice you just provide vague nonsense rather than any attempt at an actual explanation.
Sometimes he doesn't even provide vague nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic 142
Quote from: rabinoz
What total garbage! Magnetic effects have nothing to do "how much atmosphere they trap"! Where did you drag that from?
Of course it's nonsense to you. Everything I say is nonsense to you and this is why we're debating it all.
A lot of mainstream ideals are nonsense to me and this is where we're at.
So, in your worldview, there is no magnetism in (near) vacuum. Is that correct ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 149
Quote from: rabinoz
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
The pot calls the kettle black.

Quote from: sceptimatic 161
Quote from: rabinoz
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
We can talk about electric currents later if you want.
First of all, tell me how a magnet works. a magnet in your hand...tell me how and why that works. Or admit you have no clue.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
Stop being evasive and explain how magnetism works. Rational people are beginning to think you are stalling to hide your ignorance.

Quote from: sceptimatic 162
Quote from: rabinoz
Surface tension has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure!
It has everything to do with it, otherwise there would be zero tension.
So you claim, but can you prove it ?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 14, 2020, 08:46:29 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Quote from: sceptimatic
Because air moving there would still be in energy range for agitation. It would be like brushing the walls.
So at the air ice rim air is depositing. Yet some air is still moving, presumably the air that is arriving to replace the air that is depositing (which takes less volume, making room for more air). So we have high pressure inside the southern ring, low pressure at the air ice ring and intermediate pressure at the southern ring. So one would expect air at the southern ring to flow outward to the air ice ring. Now according to you the air still in gas form at the air ice ring prevents that from happening because it still contains heat. How does that work ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: rabinoz 52
In 1992, Michael Palin made a documentary for the BBC featuring his travel from the Arctic to the South Pole
Pole to Pole with Michael Palin. I have seen that series. :D

Quote from: sceptimatic 59
One question at a time. I'm bored trawling through various.
No problem. Feel free to answer my questions one at a time.

So far we were able to establish that we are unable provide dimeonsions for hydrogen-helium dome that are consistent with the evidence, a big problem for the flat-earth model.
In the round-earth model there is no such dome, which is perfectly consistent with the evidence.

I have pointed out several more problems with the flat-earth model, but those might still be solved. I am not optimistic though.

15
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 106
Quote from: sceptimatic 94
Quote from: Amoranemix 93
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
What position would that be and how do I do it?[4]
Are you of a position to know the truth against anything I say and if so...how?[5]
[4] Am I understanding correctly that you are asking me to tell you what your position is ?
[5] That would depend on what you say, but probably not.
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic 107
Quote from: Amoranemix 106
Quote from: sceptimatic 94
But what is happening?
The tension is in the compression of the atmospheric pressure you are under and the lace, which is expanding it's own dense matter in its make up in conjunction with your push , meaning the matter becomes less and less in keeping the lace in the dense mass it was, because it's being squeezed, which is, once again....a push.[7]
What evidence can you present that the mechanism you are describing is realistic ? You seem to say that the stretching of the lace depends on the pressure from the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, in (near) vacuum, the lace could not stretch, correct ?
It would likely break apart if you pushed each end away from centre of the object.
a) I am sorry, but I don't understand how your evidence is supposed to support your claims. Even if what you claimed were likely, it does not seem to support that there is tension in the compression of the atmospheric pressure. Can you provide evidence that actually supports your claims ?
b) You failed to answer my question. Please do.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoraemix 106
You still have to prove your claims above.
Moreover, you are committing a proof by example fallacy. Even if in your example no tension were to occur, that would not imply tension can never occur, like in the tensile strength test of the steel rod, where you merely claim, not demonstrate, there is no pull.
[no response]
Have you ever wondered why it could be that you are unable to support your claims ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 112
Quote from: Timeisup 108
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Jesus Christ was a gay Martian who came to earth 2000 years ago, sailing on the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
That is another classic case of alternate thinking against mainstream indoctrinated narratives. Should such thinking be taken seriously ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 124
Quote from: Macarios 119
Speaking of "just pushing", how two magnets pull towards each other?
Or two charged particles, one positive, the other negative?
To understand magnets, just understand trapped atmosphere, porosity and pressures.
I understand magnets without relying on any of those.
You forgot to answer Macarios' question.

Quote from: sceptimatic 127
Quote from: rabinoz 126
So we agree that surface tension does not explain how oceans can curve.  That must be a first.
Oceans do not curve, unless you mean waves.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
Thus are your claims, but can you prove them ?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 13, 2020, 12:08:04 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic 45
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Yes. They simply freeze due to expansion.
What evidence is there that these gasses cool enough up there ? Hydrogen gas and helium freeze only at extremely low temparature.
Plenty if you take the time to look at evacuation chambers and helium balloons, etc, etc, etc.
Great! Then please present that evidence.

Quote from: sceptimatic 45
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
A frozen skin is a normally pliable sheet at such low temperature that it is not pliable anymore.
What do you mean by pliable sheet in terms of ice?
I don't mean a pliable sheet in terms of ice. Ice to my knowledge does not form pliable sheets.

Quote from: sceptimatic 46
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
I fail to see how frozen hydrogen and helium can be more like a frozen skin than as a sheet of water ice.
You fail to see it because you live below and are not marrying up what extreme low pressure is up above as part of a stacked atmosphere and huge expansion of gases sitting up at the top.
I would ask you to prove that, but it doesn't seem important. If the helium-hydrogen ice dome being like a frozen skin is important to your case, then feel free to prove that.

Quote from: sceptimatic 45
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Even so, how could that frozen skin be formed ?
I know if no example of a gas depositing into a frozen skin in the absense of a substrate (i.e. some surface to deposit on).
If forms because of pressures and agitation.[7]
the most molecules are at the bottom, compressed by all the stacked molecules all the way up, becomes less in mass with each stack, meaning each stack is more expanded than the last.
The more expanded matter becomes the less agitation of pressure against other matter, meaning less friction/heat...meaning a dormancy.[8]
[7] The question remains: how ?
[8] You seem to attempt to explain how molecules high up in the atmosphere become dormant, whatever that means, but that is not what I asked.

Quote from: sceptimatic 47
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Most likely because we live inside a sort of sphere...a cell, if you like.
So we are living on an infinite plane inside a sphere under a frozen skin dome made from hydrogen and helium.[8]
What is the boundary of that sphere made of ? How big is it ? Does it inersect with the earth ?[9]
[8] No. I don't go along with infinite plain.
[9] [no response]
[8] So your earth is a plane without an edge. Yet it is not infinite. What is it's geometry then ?
[9] You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic 48
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
OK. For that ice dome no dimensions can be provided that are consistent with the evidence.
Evidence of what?
Evidence of the real world that relates to the existence of such dome.

Quote from: sceptimatic 48
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Are the sun and moon inside that ice dome ?
What people observe as a sun and moon.....Yes.
At what altitude are the sun and moon ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 48
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Are the stars outside of it ?
So called stars are also inside the dome, which aren't stars as we are told, In my opinion.
That would be interesting to analyse further, but seems to much off topic.

Quote from: sceptimatic 49
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Antractica is the continent at the south pole. In the monopole flat earth it is a land mass that forms a rim around the known world. Apparently you don't believe in that land mass.
There may be a land mass they call Antarctica but I don't believe it to be at a south pole or as a outer flat Earth rim.
So there is this southern rim of water ice, that has no land mass. Antarctica, if it exists, is somewhere else.

Quote from: sceptimatic 51
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Does that mean that there is merely a water ice rim without land that rises above sea level ?
I believe there is an inner gradient towards the centre and an outer gradient that eventually becomes the ice wall for the dome.
Basically a cell.
I assume that with inner and outer (gradient) you mean inside, respectively outside of the southern rim. A gradient of what ?
How are the water ice wall (i.e. the southern rim) and the dome (of heliun-hydrogen ice) related ? I have asked this before, but your forgot to answer : Is the southern rim the base of the dome ?
That is the second time you refer to something remotely similar to a cell, as a cell.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
I don't understand your last sentence, but you appear to claim that gas is depositing (turning from gas to solid) outside of the southern rim. Hence, the amount of gaz decreases and the amount of solid increases, correct ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Quote from: sceptimatic
The rimj is a rim somewhere on Earth. This is no rim.[6] It's one upwardly curved structure. A concave build.
[6] I assume 'this' is referring to the dome.
OK, but you haven't answerd my question. I was asking about the atmospheric gasses flowing over the southern ice ring, not the dome.
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
What is that, a gradual freeze ?
Yes.
I assume you have misunderstood my question. I had asked what a gradual freeze is.
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Quote from: sceptimatic
Pressure waves of agitation due to the central energy (sun)....yes.
So the waves you are referring to are actually the sun's light.
Are you claiming that light consists of pressure waves ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic 55
Quote from: rabinoz 54
[accounts of people traversing the south pole]
You also believe men walked upon a moon and many many other things that you have no direct proof of and are reliant on simply following set narratives.
Perhaps he does, but rabinoz' beliefs do not undermine the evidence supporting that people traversed the south pole.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Quote from: sceptimatic
The pressure would fluctuate the more you pushed towards the gradient, from high to lower pressure, until you would simply have to stop and where vehicles would simply seize up....etc.
I assume that with 'pushing towards the gradient' you mean, going where the atmospheric pressure is lower, i.e. closer to the air ice ring. Why would pressure fluctuate there ?
So yes, farther away, pressure would be lower. Hence there would be net wind from the high pressure area inside the southern rim to the low pressure region far outside of it. Does that wind exist in your reality ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my questions.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: Amoranemix 44
Quote from: sceptimatic
It's a cyclone.
The cyclone would be super strong at the centre of Earth....the feed for the sun's energy and the return back to atmosphere, creating a central cyclone that spans out, getting weaker and weaker depending on the movement of the energy reflections.
Needs more explanation but basically, something like this.
So there is one part of the atmosphere that flows over the Southern rim and deposits further away at the air ice rim. There is also another part, wich is a cyclone, which is strongest at the centre of the earth. Where is that centre of the earth ? Underground ?
You seem to mean that that cyclone is powered by the sun and returns back to the atmosphere. Where does that cyclone return to the atmopshere ? What is it's entry point ? Does the cyclone also leave the atmosphere that way ?
Then allegedly that cyclone spans out and becomes I imagine like a real weather phenomenon.
[no response]
You forgot to answer my questions.

17
Quote from: sceptimatic 94
Quote from: Amoranemix 93
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
What position would that be and how do I do it?[4]
Are you of a position to know the truth against anything I say and if so...how?[5]
[4] Am I understanding correctly that you are asking me to tell you what your position is ?
[5] That would depend on what you say, but probably not.

Quote from: sceptimatic 94
Quote from: Amoranemix 93
That tension is a compressive force is a belief that you have so far been unable to prove.
It depends how you want to look at it or perceive it.[6]
If you were to push apart a liquorice lace, the grip is the same. You grip each end and push which visually shows you the lace becoming thinner. It's stretching and that is a pull to you....or your pull/tension.

But what is happening?
The tension is in the compression of the atmospheric pressure you are under and the lace, which is expanding it's own dense matter in its make up in conjunction with your push , meaning the matter becomes less and less in keeping the lace in the dense mass it was, because it's being squeezed, which is, once again....a push.[7]
[6] No. The nature of tension does not depend on the observer. The meaning of term tension does depend on the used convention. I use the prevalent scientific convention, according to wich tension is the opposite of compression.
[7] What evidence can you present that the mechanism you are describing is realistic ? You seem to say that the stretching of the lace depends on the pressure from the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, in (near) vacuum, the lace could not stretch, correct ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 94
Quote from: Amoranemix 93
You have indeed demonstrated that push is usually involved in taking a sledge uphill by means of a rope. However you have yet demonstrate that it is all push, i.e. that only push is onvolved or that there is no pull at all. You have merely claimed so.
See above.
You still have to prove your claims above.
Moreover, you are committing a proof by example fallacy. Even if in your example no tension were to occur, that would not imply tension can never occur, like in the tensile strength test of the steel rod, where you merely claim, not demonstrate, there is no pull.

Quote from: sceptimatic 94
Quote from: Amoranemix 93
Quote from: sceptimatic 79
If you push on a rope it will, indeed, bend. It would still compress but that's not the issue.

If you grab a rope your grip pushes that rope. If you hold the rope in both bands and go left with left hand and right with right hand, you are still pushing the rope to the left and to the right, leaving it taut.
There is no pull, at all.
As a kid, I sometimes moved a sledge uphill using a rope. I thought that I was pulling the sledge, but now I have learned that I was in fact pushing the sledge uphill with the rope. However, now you claim that doing so would have bent the rope. Yet, the contrary was true. When I pushed the rope, it was actually more straight then when I left it alone. How can that be ?
No I haven't claimed that, at all.[8]
I never mentioned bending a rope pushing that rope with a sled attached, up a hill.
Feel free to go and find where i said it.

I'll help you out with what I did say.
I said if you have a rope in both hands and push them towards each other, as in left to right and right to left, the rope will obviously bend.[9]
[8] Actually, you have, as my quote from your claim in post 79 demonstrates again.
[9] I assume that is what you meant to say and are just clumsy at admitting your lapsis. So I'll drop it.

In the mean time, the earth is still round.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 12, 2020, 12:23:02 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
If I understand correctly, these stacked layers of air don't fly off into space because they are contained by a dome of ice.
Yes. They simply freeze due to expansion.
What evidence is there that these gasses cool enough up there ? Hydrogen gas and helium freeze only at extremely low temparature.

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
How can very thin layers of atmosphere freeze into a solid structure ?
It depends what you mean by a solid structure. It's basically a frozen skin.
I was thinking of a dome that is solid as if made of water ice. A frozen skin is a normally pliable sheet at such low temperature that it is not pliable anymore. I fail to see how frozen hydrogen and helium can be more like a frozen skin than as a sheet of water ice.
Even so, how could that frozen skin be formed ? I know if no example of a gas depositing into a frozen skin in the absense of a substrate (i.e. some surface to deposit on).

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
Why is that structure a dome ?
Most likely because we live inside a sort of sphere...a cell, if you like.
So we are living on an infinite plane inside a sphere under a frozen skin dome made from hydrogen and helium.
What is the boundary of that sphere made of ? How big is it ? Does it inersect with the earth ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
What are the dimensions of that dome ?
I have absolutely no clue whatsoever.
OK. For that ice dome no dimensions can be provided that are consistent with the evidence.
Are the sun and moon inside that ice dome ? Are the stars outside of it ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Because it will go dormant and freeze by then.
If I understand correctly, going further over Antarctica, the distance from the sun keeps increasing and thus it becomes colder and colder.
I don't go with the Antarctica stuff in the terms others think.[4]
Towards the outer gradient the central Earth energy (sun) cannot agitate the matter due to distance[5], so gradually the matter changes until frozen is varying degrees up to the dome.
[4] Antractica is the continent at the south pole. In the monopole flat earth it is a land mass that forms a rim around the known world. Apparently you don't believe in that land mass. Does that mean that there is merely a water ice rim without land that rises above sea level ? I will assume that for now and use the term southern rim or water ice rim to refer to it.
Let's define terms. The southern rim or ice rim is the frozen wall of water ice that surrounds the habitable area of the earth. On the round globe that would be  Antarctica. The air ice rim is some distance farther south beyond the southern ice ring. It is where the atmopheric gasses are depositing.
[5] In science, what you refer to as agitating matter is called heating. Matter, including gas, loses heat (agitation) through radiation. That is called cooling.
I don't understand your last sentence, but you appear to claim that gas is depositing (turning from gas to solid) outside of the southern rim. Hence, the amount of gaz decreases and the amount of solid increases, correct ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
The air from within the Antarctic rim flows over there and transitions directly from gaseous to solid state. Is that correct ?
The rimj is a rim somewhere on Earth. This is no rim.[6] It's one upwardly curved structure. A concave build.
[6] I assume 'this' is referring to the dome.
OK, but you haven't answerd my question. I was asking about the atmospheric gasses flowing over the southern ice ring, not the dome.

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
What is that, a gradual freeze ?
Yes.
I assume you have misunderstood my question. I had asked what a gradual freeze is.

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
What are those waves you are referring to ? Are you talking about electromagnetic waves, i.e. light from the sun ?
Pressure waves of agitation due to the central energy (sun)....yes.
So the waves you are referring to are actually the sun's light.
Are you claiming that light consists of pressure waves ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
If the air far over the Antarctic rim freezes solid, does that cause the atmospheric pressure over there to drop ?
The pressure would fluctuate the more you pushed towards the gradient, from high to lower pressure, until you would simply have to stop and where vehicles would simply seize up....etc.
I assume that with 'pushing towards the gradient' you mean, going where the atmospheric pressure is lower, i.e. closer to the air ice ring. Why would pressure fluctuate there ?
So yes, farther away, pressure would be lower. Hence there would be net wind from the high pressure area inside the southern rim to the low pressure region far outside of it. Does that wind exist in your reality ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 42
Quote from: Amoranemix 41
What is all that rest of the atmosphere ? Is there atmosphere that does not flow over the Antarctic rim ? If so, how does it get recycled ?
It's a cyclone.
The cyclone would be super strong at the centre of Earth....the feed for the sun's energy and the return back to atmosphere, creating a central cyclone that spans out, getting weaker and weaker depending on the movement of the energy reflections.
Needs more explanation but basically, something like this.
So there is one part of the atmosphere that flows over the Southern rim and deposits further away at the air ice rim. There is also another part, wich is a cyclone, which is strongest at the centre of the earth. Where is that centre of the earth ? Underground ?
You seem to mean that that cyclone is powered by the sun and returns back to the atmosphere. Where does that cyclone return to the atmopshere ? What is it's entry point ? Does the cyclone also leave the atmosphere that way ?
Then allegedly that cyclone spans out and becomes I imagine like a real weather phenomenon.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic 43
Because it will go dormant and freeze by then.
How will that stop more air moving there "going dormant and freezing" until there is virtually no gaseous air left?
Because air moving there would still be in energy range for agitation. It would be like brushing the walls.
So at the air ice rim air is depositing. Yet some air is still moving, presumably the air that is arriving to replace the air that is depositing (which takes less volume, making room for more air). So we have high pressure inside the southern ring, low pressure at the air ice ring and intermediate pressure at the southern ring. So one would expect air at the southern ring to flow outward to the air ice ring. Now according to you the air still in gas form at the air ice ring prevents that from happening because it still contains heat. How does that work ?

Added to that is the question of the helium-hydrogen ice dome, which presumably touches the earth somewhere. Where does it touch the earth at the air ice rim, that rim thereby forming the base of the dome ?

19
Quote from: sceptimatic 67
Quote from: Amoranemix 64
Quote from: sceptimatic 61
What evidence would you like?
What would pacify you?
[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.
[no response]
For you that may be enough to accept claims, but skeptics require evidence.

Quote from: sceptimatic 67
Quote from: Amoranemix 64
Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.
Then our conversation is over.
That must be part of the explanation why you reject reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic 67
Quote from: Timeisup
Quote from: sceptimatic 70
Then our conversation is over.
It's a difficult position you have there, the wrong one that is. None of your ideas are supported by any scientific theory and more importantly, are at odds with everyday reality.
I don't believe they are at odds with reality. I believe they are closer to the reality than the so called scientific theory handed out, which includes something that is complete and utter nonsense, in gravity.

So, yeah, I am in a difficult position in one respect. I'm in a position of being a minority minnow against the mass of mainstream so called scientific might.

I'm ok with that. If people refuse to try to understand it from my side by adhering to the mainstream narratives, without proof, then that's what it is.
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?

Quote from: Stash
Quote from: sceptimatic 71
Do you believe in tension?
As in compressive force; yes.
That tension is a compressive force is a belief that you have so far been unable to prove.

Quote from: Stash
Quote from: scepticmatic 77
It's not what were were taught. Any child knows there is a big difference between pulling their sled up a hill versus pushing it.
Any child knows because they were taught to use push and pull for their visual to physical activities.
Taking a sled uphill requires your feet to push into the hillside and all of your muscles required to compress to ensure that push.
Gripping a rope with the sled behind is still pushing your shoulder/arm and pushing your gripped hand along the rope, as you push into the atmosphere that is compressing you down.
All push, no pull.
You have indeed demonstrated that push is usually involved in taking a sledge uphill by means of a rope. However you have yet demonstrate that it is all push, i.e. that only push is onvolved or that there is no pull at all. You have merely claimed so.

Quote from: sceptimatic 79 to rabinoz
If you push on a rope it will, indeed, bend. It would still compress but that's not the issue.

If you grab a rope your grip pushes that rope. If you hold the rope in both bands and go left with left hand and right with right hand, you are still pushing the rope to the left and to the right, leaving it taut.
There is no pull, at all.
As a kid, I sometimes moved a sledge uphill using a rope. I thought that I was pulling the sledge, but now I have learned that I was in fact pushing the sledge uphill with the rope. However, now you claim that doing so would have bent the rope. Yet, the contrary was true. When I pushed the rope, it was actually more straight then when I left it alone. How can that be ?

Quote from: Zaphod 86
Forces are vector quantities, they have magnitudes and (importantly) directions. "Push" and "Pull" are surely just defining the direction of an applied force from the perspective of the person applying said force.
By convention, push is repellant, a force away from objects applying the force, and pull is attractive, a force towards objects applying it.

Quote from: Zaphod 86
Take 2 people facing each other in a tug-of-war with a rope. They would both say they are "pulling" on the rope. If they both turned around (backs to each other) they might say they are both "pushing" the rope away. Either the way the rope experiences a stretching force and is placed under tension.
Where sceptimatic goes wrong, is in claiming that tension is compressive, wich implies that pulling or pushing on a rope would increase pressure in the rope.

Quote from: sceptimatic 88 to Timeisup
For instance. You go with gravity pulling in the oceans to the centre of a spinning ball. The centre of mass, as you're told.
This also supposedly pulls in the atmosphere and is supposedly the reason why it doesn't fall off, kind of nonsense.
Just this alone makes no sense and I have my own ( in my belief) much much logical and simpler explanation.
That is nonsense, indeed. Without gravity the atmosphere would not fall off anything. It would fly off into space. However, this thread is about oceans, so you can present your much much logical and simpler explanation in a thread about the atmosphere.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: how does air stay on earth
« on: June 10, 2020, 11:19:14 PM »
Quote from: wise
Quote from: JJA 18
Quote from: wise 4 to Solarwind
I have all the answers. I just have not enough time to reply all the BS.
Air was exist with earth since establishment.
I'm curious what evidence you have for this idea that the atmosphere and earth were created as they are now.
Can you show any effects that the simultaneous creation would leave that we can now observe?
Thanks.
[No]
I thought so.

Quote from: sceptimatic 22
Air stays on Earth because it's stacked in atmospheric layers from more densely packed matter at the bottom (ground) to less and less densely packed with each layer above until the very top layers sit atop of the rest ans basically freeze under little agitation due to those gases being the very last Earth has to give and so creating the ice dome.
If I understand correctly, these stacked layers of air don't fly off into space because they are contained by a dome of ice.
What kind of ice is that ?
How can very thin layers of atmosphere freeze into a solid structure ?
Why is that structure a dome ?
What are the dimensions of that dome ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 34
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: sceptimatic
There is no edge.
So why doesn't the air just flow away and be lost to past your "Antarctic rim"?
Because it will go dormant and freeze by then.
If I understand correctly, going further over Antarctica, the distance from the sun keeps increasing and thus it becomes colder and colder. The air from within the Antarctic rim flows over there and transitions directly from gaseous to solid state. Is that correct ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 36
Quote from: JJA
Quote from: sceptimatic
Because it will go dormant and freeze by then.
Then all the air would eventually collect at the rim, frozen into solid oxygen and nitrogen snow. Fresh air from the center would flow into replace it until there was a near vaccum.
Nope.
If the air cannot be agitated by the central energy reflection (sun) off the dome due to the waves not being able to penetrate that far, then you have a gradual freeze due to that lesser agitation of atmosphere, until it freezes solid.
All the rest of the atmosphere before this is being recycled.
Anything that can be agitated can be recycled.
What is that, a gradual freeze ?
What are those waves you are referring to ? Are you talking about electromagnetic waves, i.e. light from the sun ?
If the air far over the Antarctic rim freezes solid, does that cause the atmospheric pressure over there to drop ?
What is all that rest of the atmosphere ? Is there atmosphere that does not flow over the Antarctic rim ? If so, how does it get recycled ?

21
Quote from: sceptimatic 61
What evidence would you like?[2]
What would pacify you?[3]
[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.

Quote from: sceptimatic 61
When you can show me a curved bath where the water equally touches either side and then follows the curve of the bath then I'll evaluate the globe again.
Can you do this?
Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun Spots
« on: June 09, 2020, 12:26:26 PM »
Why would there be condensation in a burning mass of thousands of Kelvin ?

I have seen condensation that varies over a surface.

23
Quote from: sceptimatic 53
Tensile forces are all compressive push, not pull.
Can you prove that ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 56
Think about this.
Take a chamber. You know it's full of atmosphere as an open container....right?
You know the atmosphere outside is basically equalised to the inside of that chamber. Nothing pushing out and nothing pushing in, as such. Just a overall set pressure which is a molecular push on push or push on resistance to push and vice versa.
[ . . . ]
The chamber is still full but full by molecular expansion, meaning much less molecules, meaning much more compressed molecules now added externally.
What is the relevance of all of that ?
This thread is about whether surface tension can cause oceans to curve.
This forum is about the shape of the earth.
The behaviour of gasses in containers appears to have nothing to do with either.

Quote from: sceptimatic 56
Quote from: Amoranemix 49
Hence, no matter how gigahuge the gargantuan superpush forces are that create vacuums, the vacuums themselves still don't push.
Lowered pressure still pushes. It's still under compression, no matter how weak.
What evidence can you present that the pressure of a vacuum is enough to make oceans curve ?

Quote from: sceptimatic 56
Quote from: Amoranemix 49
[2] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
Observe a chamber and pump and items inside of it and put your thinking cap on, alternate to what you've been accustomed to.
Sorry, but I don't understand your evidence. I got untill putting my thinking cap on, but do not understand the instruction that follows. Your evidence does not appear to support your claim.

24
Quote from: sceptimatic 43
Quote from: Amoranemix 39
Pulling on a rope means creating tensile stress or tension (i.e. negative pressure) in the rope. The means to achieve that may in[quotevolve pushing. At the contact between the puller's hands and the rope there is probably shear stress.
In molecules electron clouds and atomic nuclei have an opposite charge. Physics tells us that there thus is an attractive force between them. In layman terms that can be described as them pulling on each other. Due to the shape of watermolecules in water that pulling force promotes the creation of hydrogen bonds, where the hydrogen atom of one molecule and the oxygen atom of another pull on each and hence tend to stick together. It is easy to find information online on how those hydrogen bonds create surface tension, which is a stress that tries to make the surface smaller. That also occurs in a vaccuum, which can't push.
A vacuum does not exist but an extreme low pressure comes about due to a push, not a pull or a suck.[1] Those two words do not exist in reality in terms of what they're told to mean.[2] They exist only as easier explanations as to what people assume is happening.
[1] Most people use the word vacuum for a volume that is close enough to a perfect vacuum.
So you claim that pushing is necessarily involved in the formation of a vacuum. I don't see why that would be, nor why that would be relevant. I was referring to the force applied by the vacuum (which is no force at all), not to any force involved in the vacuum's formation. Hence, no matter how gigahuge the gargantuan superpush forces are that create vacuums, the vacuums themselves still don't push.
[2] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

In the mean time,wether surface tension is caused by push of pull, the earth is still round.

25
Quote from: existoid 1
Here’s an instruction manual for using the Mark 3 plotting boards in WW2. I admit I do not understand all of it:
http://fer3.com/arc/imgx/Plotting-board-instructions.pdf
The manual refers to a computer MK8 and jets, so I suspect it dates from after the war. Nonetheless the objection that the use of such plotting boards would be different if the earth were flat, remains valid.

Quote from: existoid 7
I wanted to try what I thought was a novel approach in proving that the earth is a sphere.
It is an example of reliance navigation in the southern hemisphere, which is inconsistent with a flat earth with only a north pole. These problems are relatively easy to overlook because of the relatively small population size of that sphere.

Again flat-earthers appear clueless. That seems to be state these people find themselves quite often in. I wonder why that is.

26
I fail to see the relevance of wether surface tension can curve the oceans.

Elsewhere I'm presently speaking to a globe proponent who's trying to tell me the oceans bend in the same way a drop of water bends. I need a succinct way of telling him why he's wrong in thinking that but TBH it's not absolutely clear to me. Which is why I'm here really.
Does that globe proponent not believe in gravity ?

If the oceans are curved; then that seems to imply the earth is round, not matter what is doing the curving.

Quote from: sceptimatic 30 to JJA
Try looking deeper into what's happening with the rope.
What are you doing when you supposedly pull?
Your muscles are all pushing the rope apart.
Start thinking how your muscles work in this scenario and you'll see there's no such thing as, pull. It's all  from a push.
Pulling on a rope means creating tensile stress or tension (i.e. negative pressure) in the rope. The means to achieve that may involve pushing. At the contact between the puller's hands and the rope there is probably shear stress.
In molecules electron clouds and atomic nuclei have an opposite charge. Physics tells us that there thus is an attractive force between them. In layman terms that can be described as them pulling on each other. Due to the shape of watermolecules in water that pulling force promotes the creation of hydrogen bonds, where the hydrogen atom of one molecule and the oxygen atom of another pull on each and hence tend to stick together. It is easy to find information online on how those hydrogen bonds create surface tension, which is a stress that tries to make the surface smaller. That also occurs in a vaccuum, which can't push.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun Spots
« on: June 06, 2020, 09:09:01 AM »
I have a few questions based on that map with sun and moon 'orbits'.

The sun appears to be over the equator. So it must be march or september in that animation. The north pole is being lit about 24 hours a day and the shores of Antarctica about 5 hours a day. Does that imply that if the earth is flat the north pole is lit 24 hours a day and Antarctica about 5 hours a day in march and september ?

The moon is not lit by the sun in that animation. Does that mean if the earth is flat the moon emtis its own light in stead of reflecting the sun's ?

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Southern circumpolar stars
« on: May 06, 2020, 06:59:29 AM »
Quote from: Aolarwind 31
So it matters not what evidence you present that shows that the south celestial pole is real and that there definitely are circumpolar stars. That will all wash over them as some sort of lie, conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. To a flat Earther the Earth is flat. Always has been and always will be. You can go into as much detail as you like to explain that how the real sky behaves and how that shows that flat Earth models cannot possibly be right. It won't matter to them. We are all lying and presenting fake photos, fake videos etc etc.
Once a flat-earther, one doesn't necessarily die a flat-eather. FTFE has on his Youtube channel done five interviews with ex-flat-eathers : www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLG6-rRsH3vpRH5K2JsXHPRr7XYTlVa9FF
So it seems that some are susceptible to reason.

Quote from: wise
Quote from: Amoranemix 30
In what kind of change are these stars ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: wise
Quote from: Amoranemix 30
How have these astronomers established the absense of such pole ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: flat-earthers
Quote from: Amoranemix 30
Suppose someone is out at night in clear weather in South Afrika. He observes the sky the whole night. Everyone knows what he will observe if the heliocentric world model is correct. But what will he observe if the flat-earth world model is correct ?
[no response]
Surely there must be a flat-earther somewhere who has a good idea of what happens in the southern sky at night ?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Southern circumpolar stars
« on: May 04, 2020, 04:58:50 AM »
Quote from: wise post 2
Flat-earth astronomers working in the southern semicircle report that these stars are in constant change.
In what kind of change are these stars ?

Quote from: wise post 16
I have told we have astronomers and approving there isn't anything like southern celestial pole.
How have these astronomers established the absense of such pole ?


A claim prestented as evidence to evaluate the best wordview is the existence of southern circumpolar stars (SCS) and a south celestial pole (SCP). This claim is supported with testimonial evidence and timelapse photos of a night sky. The only flat-earther participing denies the existence of SCSs and appears to deny the existence of an SCP. He explains the evidence by putting forward the hypothesis that southerners are lying about their astronomical observations or unable to overcome their prejudices. The nighttime timelapse images showing the SCP are posited to be fake. The flat-earther claims the existence of counter-evidence in the form of astronomers denying the existence of an SCP.

As additional evidence was presented the claim that telescopes are equipped with an equatorial mount that permits them to function properly in the southern hemisphere, but only in the presence of an SCP, and that telescopes do indeed function properly in the southern hemisphere. That evidence is not disputed and no explanation consistent with a flat earth could be presented for it.


Suppose someone is out at night in clear weather in South Afrika. He observes the sky the whole night. Everyone knows what he will observe if the heliocentric world model is correct. But what will he observe if the flat-earth world model is correct ?

30
Quote from: wise
Quote from: Amoranemix
That claim would merit clarification and evidence, but not in this thread. This thread is about observations people can do in their back yard without NASA's help.

So far explanations for the observed phenomena consistent with a flat earth are proving elusif.
I guess your question is not about observations people can do in their back yard without NASA's help. This question:
You may not have noticed, but I have asked several questions. Feel free to answer them.

Quote from: wise
Quote from: Amoranemix
When was that on what forum ?
You have entered with a great speed and proved to troll us with same speed. You are seemingly, but whether or not you are alt of solarwind, you are seemingly so. So, bye bye.
Don't be paranoic I am against flat-earthers being censored.

I am still waiting for explanations for the observed phenomena consistent with a flat earth.

Pages: [1] 2