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.
I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.
All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.
Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?
In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.
You are the latter, Scepti:You're entitled to waffle on as you wish. What you say does not change my thoughts in any way. As long as you always remember this, then everything is fine.QuoteTrue wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
You're so full of projection it is all rather sad to watch (though still very entertaining). You project your own failings at understanding science and the world around you onto others and make them out to be the idiots.
Your own shortcomings are obviously far too painful to admit to, thus your ridiculous assertions about being a genius who understands everything once you 'thought about it'.
Anyway, hopefully you'll admit your numerous erroneous assertions in this thread and bow out graciously (something I've only seen you do once before, despite it being a necessity with nearly every single post you make).
I don't know everything. I don't profess to know everything. My arguments are nopt about me knowing I'm correct on all I say about my theories. My arguments are about knowing for sure that the theories that you abide by are erronous at best and downright blatant lies at worst.
Anything from this point on is about figuring out the truth from the errors and the blatant lies. Not an easy thing to do but that's the game.
there is no complete model yet. there is no complete round earther model yet, you still struggle with such a basic part of your fantasy as gravity, and you have the benefit of discarding reality and a multi-billion dollar budget behind it. why do you expect us to do fantastically well when everything we're taught are round earther lies?
most of your question is bs of the highest order. stars rotate around the central pole. if you curl the flat earth and contract the outer wall so that it meets at the south pole in your model, you will get the same basic movements. the aetheric whirlpool explains this. the only possible thing you could take issue with is how stars may become visible when they cross over what you call the south pole, or go near it. i suspect this is to do with the rush of pure aether closer to the edge of the world. it may carry light also.
ausgeoff, i have no intention of derailing this thread with why i believe the world is flat. if you want to ask, start another thread. this is not the time or place to explain the origins or proof of aether. you asked for the flat earth explanation, i have provide.d moving the goalposts is a bad habit. try not to do it again.
We don't struggle with gravity at all. There is a clear and concise equation that can predict gravity's effect every time with 100% accuracy. If you mean we aren't sure what it is, then sure.
But we also don't know what magnetism is, does that make it fake?
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.I think this is definitive evidence that sceptimatic is a sociopath. What a dick. Sure makes him look really weak when falling back into emotional attacks. Maybe one day he'll realize how much of a failure all of his attempts at proving a baseless delusion was.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now.
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot.
This is just one of the ridiculous things about a global Earth that literally shocks me, when I think how people actually buy into it.well its a simple test . We build an open symmetric level channel a mile long & fill it with water . If earth has a curviture , then the water will be lower at both ends & higher in the middle.I don't think that you understand the difference between "level" and "straight" in the context of a sphere. On a round earth, "level" follows the curvature of the earth. If you make the channel "straight" then you might see a difference (of maybe 4 inches).
There's a reason why things are called level and it's nothing to do with anything other than true - straight - perfectly horizontal - perfectly vertical. Never round. Never curved.
How in the hell can human beings not understand this simple thing?
if we are standing on a globe, then we'd be standing on a globe: a curved surface. it is as simple as that. unless the earth's some cube or icosahedron now?i have. you're the one who's asserting.you keep saying that. maybe you should be working on coming up with something that's actually true.If you hold an apple and you get to be as small as a bacteria, it would look flat to you once you stand on anywhere of the apple.wrong. there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. denying that doesn't make it true.
Next, please.
There are indeed no flat surfaces on a sphere, but if the sphere is really big then any small chunk of the surface would look pretty darn flat.
you keep misunderstanding that. If you were as little as a bacteria and stood on an apple, it would all look flat. And we humans would see the roundness of an apple.
wrong.
Nope. Show why is wrong.
You actually have this notion that if we are to stand in a few thousand kms diameter globe, anywhere we would stand on, would be a tangent to that sphere, and there wouldn't be any flat surface? This would be true if you stood up on a beach ball. But not if that beach Ball is thousand upon thousands diameter.
i have. you're the one who's asserting.you keep saying that. maybe you should be working on coming up with something that's actually true.If you hold an apple and you get to be as small as a bacteria, it would look flat to you once you stand on anywhere of the apple.wrong. there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. denying that doesn't make it true.
Next, please.
There are indeed no flat surfaces on a sphere, but if the sphere is really big then any small chunk of the surface would look pretty darn flat.
you keep misunderstanding that. If you were as little as a bacteria and stood on an apple, it would all look flat. And we humans would see the roundness of an apple.
wrong.
Nope. Show why is wrong.
It's fairly clear that you don't have a clue. Merely reading up on velocity does not mean you know what you're talking about. That's clear when I'm talking about a bus and pressure. What's your velocity got to do with it.You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
You simply had no idea what I was talking about here so you threw your toys out your pram. You should stop digging yourself deeper and deeper. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.
Explain or sit back and put your slippered feet up and watch a genius at work who will wipe the floor with your globalist friends.
Velocity is velocity at whatever constant speed.Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
I've left you stumped. This happens because you have no ability to think logically.And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
you keep saying that. maybe you should be working on coming up with something that's actually true.If you hold an apple and you get to be as small as a bacteria, it would look flat to you once you stand on anywhere of the apple.wrong. there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. denying that doesn't make it true.
Next, please.
There are indeed no flat surfaces on a sphere, but if the sphere is really big then any small chunk of the surface would look pretty darn flat.
you keep misunderstanding that. If you were as little as a bacteria and stood on an apple, it would all look flat. And we humans would see the roundness of an apple.
wrong.
you keep saying that. maybe you should be working on coming up with something that's actually true.If you hold an apple and you get to be as small as a bacteria, it would look flat to you once you stand on anywhere of the apple.wrong. there are no flat surfaces on a sphere. denying that doesn't make it true.
Next, please.
There are indeed no flat surfaces on a sphere, but if the sphere is really big then any small chunk of the surface would look pretty darn flat.
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
I was was taken beyond Antarctica by Nazi UFO, and they showed me another disk shaped world it was 100 times the size of our world, it was amazing, with immense beauty and great technology.
excuse me???
Btw... "grasping" is not the same as "accepting". THe same way we can grasp the concept of a pink unicorn. That doesn't mean we accept that pink unicorns exist.Why not? you appear to grasp gravity and accept that without knowing it exists. You've never seen it and you think by dropping something it proves it's existence.
Well, if that's the case then you may as well drop something else and proclaim that to be the existence of pink unicorns.
You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.
You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.
Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.
Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.
Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?
