Atmoplane

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/a-new-form-of-sky-diving-if-your-crazy/

You should tell these people the atmosphere is only 9.5 miles high. 

Quote

No doubt this was a thread just like the photoelectric effect one. Your credibility still suffers from that. You always seem to remember these threads incorrectly as supporting FE.

You're actually crying Conspiracy for thread display issues on this site? To think the FEers get accused of foil-hattism.

Anyway, try the search terms "waves" and "obscure". It's the one with the diagrams by yours truly, and started as an attempted attack on the law of natural perspective/a clarification of waves or something.

You attack a straw man. I never said "conspiracy". I do, however, call you on your credibility in referencing other threads. The last time you referenced a nondescript thread we found there wasn't one. We just don't believe you anymore.

I too can play the nondescript thread game. Watch: We've totally refuted that claim in a thread on another issue. Anyway, try the search terms "horse" and "feathers". It's the one with the diagrams by Elvis.

If you want us to believe you, post a link to a working thread. Otherwise, we'll just assume that you're making things up again.

And I know full well that you will not change your stance no matter how many times we prove it.  The atmosphere is much higher then you think.  To say its not is to add a few more million people to the conspiracy. 

Did you even read what I posted? I said a re-iteration of your beliefs is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a proof.

Okay, so I take it that you've given up of the ludicrous "UA catches up with the escaping particle" idea.

Of course I haven't, stop putting words in my mouth. The UA has to catch up with the particle. The particle cannot maintain an acceleration greater than 9.8m/s^2. It's ridiculous to even think that it might happen - the particle isn't going to outspeed the Earth for any sustained period of time.

Your common sense is faulty. If you understood Brownian motion, you'd quickly understand that the same principle that inflates a balloon means the FE atmosphere will leak out. The air molecules bump into each other, the air moves outward. Air moves from high pressure to low pressure. Over the edge there is no pressure, so air would move other the edge. It's basic science.

I'm not denying these rudimentary principles like you want to believe I am. Vertically, diffusion is contradicted because the Earth is RACING THROUGH SPACE at incalculable speeds. Sideways, the air has to diffuse through the several-mile-thick Ice Wall, which doesn't happen.

You attack a straw man. I never said "conspiracy". I do, however, call you on your credibility in referencing other threads. The last time you referenced a nondescript thread we found there wasn't one. We just don't believe you anymore.

I too can play the nondescript thread game. Watch: We've totally refuted that claim in a thread on another issue. Anyway, try the search terms "horse" and "feathers". It's the one with the diagrams by Elvis.

If you want us to believe you, post a link to a working thread. Otherwise, we'll just assume that you're making things up again.

Look, there's no way I could be responsible for the state of the photoelectric thread. I don't have the ability to mysteriously gut a thread's contents, and I wouldn't want to in that case either, as I know full well that it not displaying makes me look like an idiot. The thread about the waves actually exists. You can find it if you want, not if you don't.

Did you even read what I posted? I said a re-iteration of your beliefs is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a proof.

No, but the millions or articles are proof.  The fact that people are going to ride balloons higher then 9.5 miles and then jump out is proof.  It adds up, now stop staring at a tree and saying its not there. 

I'm not denying these rudimentary principles like you want to believe I am. Vertically, diffusion is contradicted because the Earth is RACING THROUGH SPACE at incalculable speeds. Sideways, the air has to diffuse through the several-mile-thick Ice Wall, which doesn't happen.

The speed of the earth cannot be greater then the speed of light. 
So now the icewall is also several miles thick.  Now you are just making things up.   

Quote

You don't understand probability. The RE atmosphere must be replenished constantly even with its thousand-mile-high container. A fifty-mile high container would not even come close to filling the bill. Have you done the mathematics required to support your claim?

I assume you're talking about replenishment from Earthly sources. I've never claimed that this sort of thing doesn't occur through photosynthesis, burning and all the other processes which do this.

And stop trying to debunk a 50-mile Ice Wall, I'm not arguing for that and I never have.

Quote

Then show us the mathematics that show you're right.

It's not mathematics, it's common sense. Given all the contributing factors, the escape of particles is unlikely and infrequent enough not to pose a serious threat to the Earth's atmolayer as a whole.

The RE looses atmosphere with its thousand-mile high "walls". And you want to go with 10-mile high Ice Wall? Sure, that just make the case as easy one for RE win. At 10 miles there is still 50 millibars of pressure pushing the atmosphere out. Once we loose the stratosphere and higher layers of the atmosphere, the troposphere's pressure would drop by 50 millibars. That should be enough to destroy all economic activity on Earth, but the disaster would continue as the air would move up and our even more. Death would come quickly for all the planet. That's science.

You fail here since the North Pole doesn't have a mile-high spire of naturally frozen water.

There is a northern Ice Wall! If you think I'm just making it up as I go along, I'll let you know that Rowbotham pre-empted you 127 years ago...

If we travel by land or sea, from any part of the earth in the direction of any meridian line, and towards the northern central star called "Polaris," we come to one and the same place, a region of ice, where the star which has been our guide is directly above us, or vertical to our position. This region is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH; and recent observations seem to prove that it is a vast central tidal sea, nearly a thousand miles in diameter, and surrounded by a great wall or barrier of ice, eighty to a hundred miles in breadth.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 05:56:21 PM

Hmmm. You've yet to provide any support for your figure on the height of the atmosphere.

Here's the link that I've already posted that shows the atmosphere extending over 70 miles: ou.

I know full well what REers believe about their spherical atmolayer. That link offers nothing in the way of evidence, only a breakdown of what REers believe.

It's sad that you can't accept scientific authority. You claim the atmosphere doesn't extend more than 10 miles in height. What evidence makes you believe that? What evidence do you need to believe otherwise. I'd suggest that if a credible university showed you that the atmosphere extended fifty miles that any reasonable person would accept that figure--until he or she found another source or another experiment to justify changing his or her acceptance.

The RE looses atmosphere with its thousand-mile high "walls". And you want to go with 10-mile high Ice Wall? Sure, that just make the case as easy one for RE win. At 10 miles there is still 50 millibars of pressure pushing the atmosphere out. Once we loose the stratosphere and higher layers of the atmosphere, the troposphere's pressure would drop by 50 millibars. That should be enough to destroy all economic activity on Earth, but the disaster would continue as the air would move up and our even more. Death would come quickly for all the planet. That's science.

That's science fiction. Honestly, you just made up this completely fanciful atmo-apocalypse and shoved in some pseudo-science buzzwords. Demonstrate WHY this would happen.

No, but the millions or articles are proof.  The fact that people are going to ride balloons higher then 9.5 miles and then jump out is proof.  It adds up, now stop staring at a tree and saying its not there.  

There are millions of articles about God. There are millions of articles about Allah, and Zeus, and the underground Dero hellworms, but volume does not equal any sort of proof. I can write "the sky is green" a billion times and it won't make it any truer.

The speed of the earth cannot be greater then the speed of light.  

It can, it is, and this statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the UA model.

So now the icewall is also several miles thick.  Now you are just making things up.  

Find a single instance where I have claimed anything to the contrary. The Ice Wall has always been several miles thick.

Quote

Okay, so I take it that you've given up of the ludicrous "UA catches up with the escaping particle" idea.

Of course I haven't, stop putting words in my mouth. The UA has to catch up with the particle. The particle cannot maintain an acceleration greater than 9.8m/s^2. It's ridiculous to even think that it might happen - the particle isn't going to outspeed the Earth for any sustained period of time.

Why does a particle have to travel faster than the Earth to escape it? If a particle moves over the edge, then its momentum will continue to carry it away from the Earth. The Earth will continue to accelerate upwards and away from the particle and never again encounter it. You seem not to understand basic kinetics.

It's sad that you can't accept scientific authority.

No, it's sensible. Why would taking their word for it be any different from taking the word of say, the Church, or L Ron Hubbard? That's partly what REers need to learn from this website! Taking people's word for it is not good enough on important issues of science and philosophy.

You claim the atmosphere doesn't extend more than 10 miles in height. What evidence makes you believe that? What evidence do you need to believe otherwise. I'd suggest that if a credible university showed you that the atmosphere extended fifty miles that any reasonable person would accept that figure--until he or she found another source or another experiment to justify changing his or her acceptance.

Well no - what evidence do you have for it being any higher, Mr. Occam's-Razor? I have personally witnessed the atmolayer being at least 40000 feet high. There is no reason for me to believe that it's any higher, except that scientists with a motive to lie about it tell me it's higher.

That's science fiction. Honestly, you just made up this completely fanciful atmo-apocalypse and shoved in some pseudo-science buzzwords. Demonstrate WHY this would happen.

JUST BECAUSE YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SCIENTIFIC FICTION.

There are millions of articles about God. There are millions of articles about Allah, and Zeus, and the underground Dero hellworms, but volume does not equal any sort of proof. I can write "the sky is green" a billion times and it won't make it any truer.

The articles I refer to have numbers in them.  They have experiments in them.  They have proof in them.  What are you going to say when the guy jumps from 25 miles up?  (discounting the fact that someone has already jumped from super high up.) 

It can, it is, and this statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the UA model.

Please, by all means, disprove Einstein.  You are going to need to post some math though, not your opinion. 

Find a single instance where I have claimed anything to the contrary. The Ice Wall has always been several miles thick.

I'm sure its sitting next to your proof the icewall exists.  You have no proof for how tall the icewall is yet alone how thick it is. 

Quote

Your common sense is faulty. If you understood Brownian motion, you'd quickly understand that the same principle that inflates a balloon means the FE atmosphere will leak out. The air molecules bump into each other, the air moves outward. Air moves from high pressure to low pressure. Over the edge there is no pressure, so air would move other the edge. It's basic science.

I'm not denying these rudimentary principles like you want to believe I am. Vertically, diffusion is contradicted because the Earth is RACING THROUGH SPACE at incalculable speeds. Sideways, the air has to diffuse through the several-mile-thick Ice Wall, which doesn't happen.

For Pete's sake, it doesn't matter how fast the Earth is racing through space. It will carry its atmosphere with it at the same velocity. A particle need only move vertically over the edge to escape and air pressure will cause that to happen for the stratosphere and higher layers very quickly. Why do you think that the thickness of the Ice Wall has any effect on this? How do you know that the Ice Wall is that thick?

Why does a particle have to travel faster than the Earth to escape it? If a particle moves over the edge, then its momentum will continue to carry it away from the Earth. The Earth will continue to accelerate upwards and away from the particle and never again encounter it. You seem not to understand basic kinetics.

Well because in order to go OVER the edge, it has to be OVER the Earth to start with, which requires it to leave the atmolayer by travelling faster than the Earth. It then has to sustain that speed (and an acceleration greater than that of the Earth) for long enough for it to get over the edge.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 06:17:28 PM

You attack a straw man. I never said "conspiracy". I do, however, call you on your credibility in referencing other threads. The last time you referenced a nondescript thread we found there wasn't one. We just don't believe you anymore.

I too can play the nondescript thread game. Watch: We've totally refuted that claim in a thread on another issue. Anyway, try the search terms "horse" and "feathers". It's the one with the diagrams by Elvis.

If you want us to believe you, post a link to a working thread. Otherwise, we'll just assume that you're making things up again.

Look, there's no way I could be responsible for the state of the photoelectric thread. I don't have the ability to mysteriously gut a thread's contents, and I wouldn't want to in that case either, as I know full well that it not displaying makes me look like an idiot. The thread about the waves actually exists. You can find it if you want, not if you don't.

If you want us to believe you, then post a link. If you don't, you know what we'll think of you.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 06:11:01 PM

You fail here since the North Pole doesn't have a mile-high spire of naturally frozen water.

There is a northern Ice Wall! If you think I'm just making it up as I go along, I'll let you know that Rowbotham pre-empted you 127 years ago...

Quote from: Samuel Rowbotham

If we travel by land or sea, from any part of the earth in the direction of any meridian line, and towards the northern central star called "Polaris," we come to one and the same place, a region of ice, where the star which has been our guide is directly above us, or vertical to our position. This region is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH; and recent observations seem to prove that it is a vast central tidal sea, nearly a thousand miles in diameter, and surrounded by a great wall or barrier of ice, eighty to a hundred miles in breadth.

I must again point out to you that your argument that being distant from the Sun causes an Ice Wall in the South, then being equally distant from the South would cause an Ice Spire in the North. Since there is demonstratively no such spire, your argument fails.

Oh, and I have no interest in anything Parallax imagined.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 06:26:56 PM

The RE looses atmosphere with its thousand-mile high "walls". And you want to go with 10-mile high Ice Wall? Sure, that just make the case as easy one for RE win. At 10 miles there is still 50 millibars of pressure pushing the atmosphere out. Once we loose the stratosphere and higher layers of the atmosphere, the troposphere's pressure would drop by 50 millibars. That should be enough to destroy all economic activity on Earth, but the disaster would continue as the air would move up and our even more. Death would come quickly for all the planet. That's science.

That's science fiction. Honestly, you just made up this completely fanciful atmo-apocalypse and shoved in some pseudo-science buzzwords. Demonstrate WHY this would happen.

Gee, high school chemistry should have taught you the reason such a calamity would occur. Do you want us to conduct a review session about the gas laws in this thread? Perhaps, you'd consider cracking open a good chemistry text to the relevant chapters.

This argument is stupid.  Every where you look you see that the hight of the atmosphere is much taller then 9.5 miles.  Everywhere from weather balloons to planes to new extreme sports.  I'm out. 

Capt. Joe W. Kittinger achieved the highest parachute jump in history on August 16, 1960 as part of a United States Air Force program testing high-altitude escape systems. Wearing a pressure suit, Capt. Kittinger ascended for an hour and a half in an open gondola attached to a balloon to an altitude of 102,800 feet, where he then jumped. The fall lasted 4 minutes and 36 seconds, during which Capt. Kittinger reached speeds exceeding 700 miles per hour. The air in the upper atmosphere is less dense and thus leads to lower air-resistance and a much higher terminal velocity.

JUST BECAUSE YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SCIENTIFIC FICTION.

I understand what he posted perfectly well. What he posted was MADE UP. He literally made up that this wacky apocalypse would happen. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR WHAT HE POSTED.

The articles I refer to have numbers in them.  They have experiments in them.  They have proof in them.  What are you going to say when the guy jumps from 25 miles up?  (discounting the fact that someone has already jumped from super high up.)  .

Numbers? Golly gosh! E:NaG contains both numbers and experiments. This alone does not make them prove anything, as I'm sure you'll agree. They have to be - you know - correct, to prove anything.

Please, by all means, disprove Einstein.  You are going to need to post some math though, not your opinion. 

There's no maths involved, it's a question of logic. The Earth's acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. It has been accelerating at this rate for a good few billion years. Since there is no independant frame of reference (there's nothing outside what is being accelerated, because everything is), the Earth has a HYPOTHETICAL speed which is greater than that of the local speed of light.

I'm sure its sitting next to your proof the icewall exists.  You have no proof for how tall the icewall is yet alone how thick it is. 

It would have to be several miles thick in order to be structurally integral.

If you want us to believe you, then post a link. If you don't, you know what we'll think of you.

What you, Gulliver, think of me is something I care little about. Think what you want.

Quote

The speed of the earth cannot be greater then the speed of light. 

It can, it is, and this statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the UA model.

You fail here. SR prohibits the earth from ever traveling faster than the speed of light in any observer's frame of reference. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass "GO".

You fail here. SR prohibits the earth from ever traveling faster than the speed of light in any observer's frame of reference. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass "GO".

So a hypothetical speed greater than the speed of light is impossible because... Einstein said so.

I know how much you bum scientific authority, but being Einstein doesn't automatically make you infallible. Einstein was capable of error.

I say I'm leaving and you post this stupid shit.

There's no maths involved, it's a question of logic. The Earth's acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. It has been accelerating at this rate for a good few billion years. Since there is no independant frame of reference (there's nothing outside what is being accelerated, because everything is), the Earth has a HYPOTHETICAL speed which is greater than that of the local speed of light.

You are singlehandedly trying to disprove Einstein and others with logic. That DOES NOT WORK.  Physics states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, who are you to say things can? 
No frame of reference will save you from your stupid.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 06:31:00 PM

It's sad that you can't accept scientific authority.

No, it's sensible. Why would taking their word for it be any different from taking the word of say, the Church, or L Ron Hubbard? That's partly what REers need to learn from this website! Taking people's word for it is not good enough on important issues of science and philosophy.

I hope that no one ever learns that from any site ever. It's wrong and harmful. We must build upon each other's work. Without that trust and teamwork, we'd not have the technologies that we're using in this thread.

I would say that we should always be ready to dismiss a claim or to hold our opinion in abeyance on even the most fundamental principle. To reject an authority's work just because it doesn't agree with your prized idea is a mistake of grave proportions.

I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.

I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You  fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 06:31:00 PM

You claim the atmosphere doesn't extend more than 10 miles in height. What evidence makes you believe that? What evidence do you need to believe otherwise. I'd suggest that if a credible university showed you that the atmosphere extended fifty miles that any reasonable person would accept that figure--until he or she found another source or another experiment to justify changing his or her acceptance.

Well no - what evidence do you have for it being any higher, Mr. Occam's-Razor? I have personally witnessed the atmolayer being at least 40000 feet high. There is no reason for me to believe that it's any higher, except that scientists with a motive to lie about it tell me it's higher.

I've measured the sound from meteorites in an astronomy lab that demonstrated a high atmosphere. I rely on the good work of meteorologists. I can post links to numerous experiments that demonstrate the height of the atmosphere. You can calculate the height of the atmosphere by taking the gas laws and basic physics. I imagine that there are numerous other ways to document this. Do we really need to show you such basic observational values? You're starting to look like a lost cause, willing to suspend belief in anyone or anything if it conflicts with your idea of FE.

I say I'm leaving and you post this stupid shit.

Welcome back  

You are singlehandedly trying to disprove Einstein and others with logic. That DOES NOT WORK.  Physics states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, who are you to say things can? 
No frame of reference will save you from your stupid.

"Physics states"? Physics is just the say-so of scientists. Your argument boils down to "Earth's Hypothetical Speed is impossible BECAUSE SCIENTISTS SAID SO". Don't you see the fallacy? The appeal to authority? Back up your statements or leave the thread as you had planned to.

I hope that no one ever learns that from any site ever. It's wrong and harmful. We must build upon each other's work. Without that trust and teamwork, we'd not have the technologies that we're using in this thread.

So where do we draw the line? Why shouldn't I just send all my money to the church of scientology - I mean, I should just trust that what they say is correct, right?

I would say that we should always be ready to dismiss a claim or to hold our opinion in abeyance on even the most fundamental principle. To reject an authority's work just because it doesn't agree with your prized idea is a mistake of grave proportions.

Those two sentences are in direct contradiction...

I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.

So you admittedly enter into a discussion with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. It certainly shows in your tone of debate.

I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You  fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.

But respect-in-field has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong! Both you and Sokarul are guilty of an appaling appeal to authority. You just cannot accept that a scientist might be wrong about something.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 06:35:50 PM

Why does a particle have to travel faster than the Earth to escape it? If a particle moves over the edge, then its momentum will continue to carry it away from the Earth. The Earth will continue to accelerate upwards and away from the particle and never again encounter it. You seem not to understand basic kinetics.

Well because in order to go OVER the edge, it has to be OVER the Earth to start with, which requires it to leave the atmolayer by travelling faster than the Earth. It then has to sustain that speed (and an acceleration greater than that of the Earth) for long enough for it to get over the edge.

No. Simply no. You're wrong. You're basically saying you can't throw an apple out of your car because your car is accelerating. You can.

You can also see that you're wrong by answering the question: How wide is the edge of the Earth? The answer is: It isn't wide. The edge is a line without thickness. So in your argument, the air needs to maintain its acceleration for no time as it travels over the edge.

Quote

Please, by all means, disprove Einstein.  You are going to need to post some math though, not your opinion. 

There's no maths involved, it's a question of logic. The Earth's acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. It has been accelerating at this rate for a good few billion years. Since there is no independant frame of reference (there's nothing outside what is being accelerated, because everything is), the Earth has a HYPOTHETICAL speed which is greater than that of the local speed of light.

Yes, there is an independent FoR. It's the history FoR, where we were when. It doesn't go away just because we've accelerated out of it.

No, your logic is preposterous. There is no "local" speed of light. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant for all observers. There is no such thing as a "HYPOTHETICAL" speed for the Earth. You are demonstrating that you don't know science and that you can't use logic, repeatedly.

No. Simply no. You're wrong. You're basically saying you can't throw an apple out of your car because your car is accelerating. You can.

Your car doesn't normally accelerate vertically at 9.8m/s^2 - if it does, you should worry.

You can also see that you're wrong by answering the question: How wide is the edge of the Earth? The answer is: It isn't wide. The edge is a line without thickness. So in your argument, the air needs to maintain its acceleration for no time as it travels over the edge.

The Ice Wall is quite thick - DIDN'T JUST MAKE IT UP, said it earlier in this very thread.

Yes, there is an independent FoR. It's the history FoR, where we were when. It doesn't go away just because we've accelerated out of it.

You're right it doesn't. It goes away because time passes.

No, your logic is preposterous. There is no "local" speed of light. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant for all observers. There is no such thing as a "HYPOTHETICAL" speed for the Earth. You are demonstrating that you don't know science and that you can't use logic, repeatedly.

You're just stating your beliefs, not bringing any legitimate evidence to the table, and here's why - your only evidence is that Einstein says so and Einstein has to be right about everything. It's not that I "don't know science", it's that I don't BELIEVE in YOUR science. There's a huge difference.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 06:48:37 PM

You fail here. SR prohibits the earth from ever traveling faster than the speed of light in any observer's frame of reference. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass "GO".

So a hypothetical speed greater than the speed of light is impossible because... Einstein said so.

I know how much you bum scientific authority, but being Einstein doesn't automatically make you infallible. Einstein was capable of error.

If you think that you've found an error by Einstein, do pray tell enlighten all of us! If not, then admit that you're wrong, again.

It's interesting that you argue that since you've not personally experienced the atmosphere above 40,000 feet that you know that it's not there. But you also argue that even though you've only travel personally at 600 MPH that you know that there are speeds greater than 300,000 m/s. It seems to be that your belief system varies with the need to support your FE idea.