Poll

Should engy unlock this thread?

Yes
No

RE floating oceans.

  • 817 Replies
  • 140175 Views
?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #60 on: September 18, 2007, 05:28:05 PM »
I think were going through a sinking ship thread again. ;)
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

?

something

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #61 on: September 18, 2007, 05:33:23 PM »
I think we can all conclude that Smarticus is either joking about all of this, or he really is a fucking idiot.


*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #62 on: September 18, 2007, 05:34:20 PM »
why don't they float away?

Gravity.

Of course I am answering this assuming you weren't an idiot.

And if their buoyancy force is equal to the gravity force? Did you skip that part in the reading?
They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #63 on: September 18, 2007, 06:09:12 PM »
2 points
1) if I displace a Newton of soil and then fill it with a Newton of soil does that mean that it weighs nothing? (Sarcasm intended)

2) the water is resting on itself and it is a constant state of motion and its weight will not be nothing however the few molcules that wish to leave the ocean are held in place by the surrounding air pressure that is of course the said molecule gains enough energy to overcome this force and becomes water vapor hence our clouds
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

Pope Zera

  • 329
  • A Firm Believer in NOTHING
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #64 on: September 18, 2007, 10:08:11 PM »
I think we can all conclude that Smarticus is either joking about all of this, or he really is a fucking idiot.




The two are not mutually exclusive.

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #65 on: September 18, 2007, 10:25:31 PM »
I think we can all conclude that Smarticus is either joking about all of this, or he really is a fucking idiot.




The two are not mutually exclusive.
That's probably the reason he used the structure "A or B", rather than "either A or B".

?

Pope Zera

  • 329
  • A Firm Believer in NOTHING
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #66 on: September 18, 2007, 11:28:07 PM »
[derail]

Well, and =/= or.

And I can clearly see an either A or B structure in his conclusion.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2007, 11:49:36 PM by Pope Zera »

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #67 on: September 19, 2007, 02:57:24 AM »
All you RE'ers are crying bloody murder but the fact remains, water within water has a weight of 0. This means all the oceans, and none of you are able to refute that. Our oceans are weightless.
Yes narc, water in water has no weight.
That's why the pressure at 1 meter below the waterline is different than the one at, say 200 meters.
And, because water is weightless in water, no submarine will be crushed by water pressure at great depths.
In fact, you probably think that all submarines are actually made from plexyglass.
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #68 on: September 19, 2007, 03:09:51 AM »
I'm willing to let Narc get away with this utter load of BS because it's been so damn entertaining.

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #69 on: September 19, 2007, 03:24:08 AM »
Narc, since you're such an expert in the mechanics of the buoyancy of molecules, maybe you can explain how come salt molecules don't just drop to the bottom of the oceans, or how oxygen can stay in the water (you know fish live in large bodies of water, don't you?) and not just float up, in the atmosphere.
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

?

The Terror

  • 1776
  • Flat Earth Propane Tank
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #70 on: September 19, 2007, 03:35:56 AM »
It's quite simple to explain - fish are robots, they don't need oxygen to breath. And the salt molecules are robots as well. And the water is a robot

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #71 on: September 19, 2007, 04:06:29 AM »
it's even easier to explain, Narc has you hook, line and sinker.

Muppets...

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #72 on: September 19, 2007, 04:57:44 AM »
ANIMAL! ANIMAL! ANIMAL!
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Theories

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #73 on: September 19, 2007, 06:23:06 AM »
The mass of water in water is exactly the same if it was not in water.

You fail to understand Mass is independent on space.

Weight is just a measurement used in relation to a mass.

Waters Mass is exactly the same no matter where you put it.

Example.

On Earth I weigh 75 kilo's.

now (in the FE theory) if I was to go to the moon Id be less mass right? wrong.

My mass would be the same on the moon a sif on earth.

The only difference is my weight in relation to the moon.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2007, 06:25:33 AM by Theories »

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #74 on: September 19, 2007, 07:43:03 AM »
it's even easier to explain, Narc has you hook, line and sinker.

Muppets...

^I reiterate...^

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #75 on: September 19, 2007, 08:10:05 AM »
They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero. 

Which means the oceans are free of gravity and can float around.

the water is resting on itself and it is a constant state of motion and its weight will not be nothing however the few molcules that wish to leave the ocean are held in place by the surrounding air pressure that is of course the said molecule gains enough energy to overcome this force and becomes water vapor hence our clouds

Oh so it's the air pressure that holds the oceans in place? How do you account for the air pressure being phenomenally smaller than the water pressure at the greatest dephts? If the oceans are weightless, then the pressure of the depths would launch the oceans upwards.


And, because water is weightless in water, no submarine will be crushed by water pressure at great depths.
In fact, you probably think that all submarines are actually made from plexyglass.
It's your model, careful to not point out how stupid it is. I actually think the oceans are held in place quite nicely, because the earth is accelerating into them.


QED the earth is flat.

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #76 on: September 19, 2007, 08:16:10 AM »
They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero. 

Which means the oceans are free of gravity and can float around.
Really?
So you're saying that the oceans are free of gravity?
Define mass.
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #77 on: September 19, 2007, 08:19:01 AM »
They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero. 

Which means the oceans are free of gravity and can float around.
Really?
So you're saying that the oceans are free of gravity?
Define mass.

Free as in buoyancy cancels it out. Next pass of the moon the oceans will fill our skies. GREAT MODEL GAIS!!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #78 on: September 19, 2007, 08:44:31 AM »
They cancel each other out, they don't go to zero. 

Which means the oceans are free of gravity and can float around.

Nope.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #79 on: September 19, 2007, 08:45:47 AM »
Well not if it's a flat earth, but we're talking about a round earth. I know I know, the RE model is silly.

?

something

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #80 on: September 19, 2007, 08:55:55 AM »
hay so the earth is accelerating upwards, somehow managing to avoid any astroids or planets that may be obstructing the path, while the moon and the sun follow us because we're so popular.

Also, if the Earth is flat, then explain why the Earth's shadow cast on the moon during an eclipse is round? No links please, explain this yourself.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #81 on: September 19, 2007, 08:58:45 AM »
hay so the earth is accelerating upwards, somehow managing to avoid any astroids or planets that may be obstructing the path, while the moon and the sun follow us because we're so popular.

Also, if the Earth is flat, then explain why the Earth's shadow cast on the moon during an eclipse is round? No links please, explain this yourself.

Offtopic and already answered. Tom Bishop has an excellent explanation.

Is this topic diversion your way of saying I'm right? Thanks, I guess.

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #82 on: September 19, 2007, 09:04:46 AM »
hay so the earth is accelerating upwards, somehow managing to avoid any astroids or planets that may be obstructing the path, while the moon and the sun follow us because we're so popular.

Also, if the Earth is flat, then explain why the Earth's shadow cast on the moon during an eclipse is round? No links please, explain this yourself.

Wait, what's so wrong with links?  If the link can explain it better than you can, shouldn't you just give it?

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #83 on: September 19, 2007, 09:17:47 AM »
Wait, what's so wrong with links?  If the link can explain it better than you can, shouldn't you just give it?

There's a difference between presenting an argument using proof, and letting the proof speak alone. Presenting a faux-witty comment and following it with a link that explains nothing is only proof of lazyness or incompentence. However, a cited argument is different.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #84 on: September 19, 2007, 09:19:51 AM »
Offtopic and already discussed.

So far we have 5 pages of angry RE'ers, none of whom carry any valid counter-argument. Does this spell the end of their magical model?

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #85 on: September 19, 2007, 09:21:03 AM »
Offtopic and already discussed.

So far we have 5 pages of angry RE'ers, none of whom carry any valid counter-argument. Does this spell the end of their magical model?

So far we have had a whole forum of angry FE'rs, none of whom carry any valid argument. Does this spell the end of this magical fourm?

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #86 on: September 19, 2007, 09:33:00 AM »
Narcberry, PLEASE define mass.
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

?

something

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #87 on: September 19, 2007, 09:44:55 AM »
Offtopic and already discussed.

So far we have 5 pages of angry RE'ers, none of whom carry any valid counter-argument. Does this spell the end of their magical model?
Actually, we've presented plenty of counter arguments.

It's not our fault you choose to be a stubborn prick about it.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #88 on: September 19, 2007, 10:00:33 AM »
Offtopic and already discussed.

So far we have 5 pages of angry RE'ers, none of whom carry any valid counter-argument. Does this spell the end of their magical model?
Actually, we've presented plenty of counter arguments.

It's not our fault you choose to be a stubborn prick about it.

Counter-arguments to your own model (ironic) but none to oceans being weightless.

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #89 on: September 19, 2007, 11:00:36 AM »
I did, so did midnight it just seems you were probably not intelligent enough to understand the replies and thus ignored them. It's an understandable debate tactic for a 5 year old.
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.