Poll

Should engy unlock this thread?

Yes
No

RE floating oceans.

  • 817 Replies
  • 179649 Views
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #120 on: September 19, 2007, 02:08:50 PM »
Are you admitting the astronauts in the ISS are not weightless then?

You love proving yourself wrong don't you?

Thats exactly what I'm saying.  The astronauts feel weightless because they are in a constant state of free fall.

Quote
Anyhow, mass and weight are different. Oceans have mass yet no weight. They are free to float.
Yes mass and weight are different.  As stated Force(weight) equals mass times gravity.  Show me somewhere where there is no gravity. O thats right, you can't.

I see why you argue for a flat earth.  You don't know jack shit about a round one. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #121 on: September 19, 2007, 02:11:24 PM »
So where did you get you education from?

So, you're saying I'm right? I love you RE'ers. Argue until you run out of evidence (this part can usually be skipped since there is little evidence), then flame and hope popularity will carry your voice.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #122 on: September 19, 2007, 02:12:29 PM »
So where did you get you education from?

So, you're saying I'm right? I love you RE'ers. Argue until you run out of evidence (this part can usually be skipped since there is little evidence), then flame and hope popularity will carry your voice.
So you're ignoring my post because it bent you over? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #123 on: September 19, 2007, 02:14:14 PM »
So you're ignoring my post because it bent you over? 

Lol. All you're doing is thinking out-loud and off topic. Mass is irrelevant to the topic. Weight is the only thing that matters. You just admitted the oceans are weightless, but pretend you "bent me over" because you can show they have mass. Grats, you're an idiot.

The oceans are weightless, they should float.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #124 on: September 19, 2007, 02:16:47 PM »
So you're ignoring my post because it bent you over? 

Lol. All you're doing is thinking out-loud and off topic. Mass is irrelevant to the topic. Weight is the only thing that matters. You just admitted the oceans are weightless, but pretend you "bent me over" because you can show they have mass. Grats, you're an idiot.

The oceans are weightless, they should float.

Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero? 

Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

something

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #125 on: September 19, 2007, 02:17:24 PM »
So you're ignoring my post because it bent you over? 

Lol. All you're doing is thinking out-loud and off topic. Mass is irrelevant to the topic. Weight is the only thing that matters. You just admitted the oceans are weightless, but pretend you "bent me over" because you can show they have mass. Grats, you're an idiot.

The oceans are weightless, they should float.
They should, but they don't, do they?
Which also means you're wrong. How does it feel to be a dumbass?


*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #126 on: September 19, 2007, 02:19:34 PM »
Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero? 

Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer. 

Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;

I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #127 on: September 19, 2007, 02:20:47 PM »
They should, but they don't, do they?
Which also means you're wrong. How does it feel to be a dumbass?

They should if the RE model is true, but they don't. Do they? No.
Which means I'm wrong to support RE, how does it feel to validate my model? Good, actually.

?

something

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #128 on: September 19, 2007, 02:23:56 PM »
They should, but they don't, do they?
Which also means you're wrong. How does it feel to be a dumbass?

They should if the RE model is true, but they don't. Do they? No.
Which means I'm wrong to support RE, how does it feel to validate my model? Good, actually.
Actually, I'm not validating anything. The Earth is round, yet I see no oceans floating away. SOMETHING IS WRONG

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #129 on: September 19, 2007, 02:24:43 PM »
Correct, your model. You're right about the oceans though.

?

something

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #130 on: September 19, 2007, 02:25:22 PM »
Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero? 

Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer. 

Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;

I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.
Actually weight does equal mass times gravity.

Or W=mg

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • +0/-0
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #131 on: September 19, 2007, 02:26:45 PM »
So you continue to ignore the points like mine or midnight's that are actually good? Then go on saying how we have no evidence to support the RE and you're some kind of all powerful person. So this is a typical Narc... er I mean smarticus thread. Gotcha.

The oceans are not in the oceans, they are on the ocean floor or the crust of the Earth. This is why smarticus is wrong. As he continues to ignore my post he is only showing I'm right.
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #132 on: September 19, 2007, 02:28:07 PM »
Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero? 

Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer. 

Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;

I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.
Actually weight does equal mass times gravity.

Or W=mg

Minus it's buoyancy of course. Hydrogen has a negative weight at sea level. How does NASA get away with breaking your precious formula with extra details?

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #133 on: September 19, 2007, 02:34:09 PM »
As he continues to ignore my post he is only showing I'm right.

More damning evidence he and Tom are the same being. Both ignore or vanish from unwinnable arguments.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #134 on: September 19, 2007, 02:36:29 PM »
Are you admitting the astronauts in the ISS are not weightless then?

You love proving yourself wrong don't you?


Anyhow, mass and weight are different. Oceans have mass yet no weight. They are free to float.
So where did you get you education from?
His education is irrelevant. His brain damage prevents any education from improving his state.

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #135 on: September 19, 2007, 02:37:35 PM »
His education is irrelevant. His brain damage prevents any education from improving his state.

LOL
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #136 on: September 19, 2007, 02:44:29 PM »
Like I said, ammo depleted begin the flames. You guys sure do get mad when you're wrong.

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • +0/-0
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #137 on: September 19, 2007, 02:47:21 PM »
I have a tendency to not get mad. I do tend to get annoyed when I am purposefully ignored. Especially when someone continues to prattle on like an idiot despite logical and factual rebuttals. You are a lot like Tom.
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #138 on: September 19, 2007, 02:49:20 PM »
This is satire.

No, this is the round earth model. It's sad, truly.

This is the best counter-argument you RE'ers can provide? I Pfff in your general direction.

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #139 on: September 19, 2007, 02:51:27 PM »
Like I said, ammo depleted begin the flames. You guys sure do get mad when you're wrong.
You're mistaken. We're just enjoying laughing at your stupidity. You do provide such a comical example of FEers. I wish all of them would expose their stupidity as well as you do. (Though dogsplatter and TomB do a good job too.)

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #140 on: September 19, 2007, 03:11:57 PM »
I love winning threads. You guys didn't even try.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #141 on: September 19, 2007, 03:16:42 PM »
Weight = mass times gravity
So once again, which one of those is zero? 

Show the math for your supposed "zero weight" answer. 

Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;

I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.

Ok I'm back.  
You are still wrong.  The mass of the second m would be much greater than the first, thus you would have negative weight.  This of course is going by what you said.  
Now on to the other part that you are wrong.  Saying the whole ocean would float around, so what medium is the whole ocean in that is the same mass as the whole ocean to cancel out the whole oceans weight?  
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #142 on: September 19, 2007, 03:22:14 PM »
I love winning threads. You guys didn't even try.
Nope. And we didn't need to try.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #143 on: September 19, 2007, 03:34:11 PM »
Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;

I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.

Ok I'm back.  
You are still wrong.  The mass of the second m would be much greater than the first, thus you would have negative weight.  This of course is going by what you said.  
Now on to the other part that you are wrong.  Saying the whole ocean would float around, so what medium is the whole ocean in that is the same mass as the whole ocean to cancel out the whole oceans weight?  

Perhaps you can explain how the second m is smaller? This should be rich...

Please provide an example of a single molecule of ocean water that is not in a water medium. If the ocean entirely consists of such molecules it is entirely within a water medium. Therefore the ocean is weightless.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #144 on: September 19, 2007, 03:52:50 PM »
Actually, weight = mg - ng | n = the mass of the medium displaced. In our case it is the same substance and volume.
So...
weight of a water in water = mg - mg = 0;

I did this math earlier, thanks for reading.

Ok I'm back.  
You are still wrong.  The mass of the second m would be much greater than the first, thus you would have negative weight.  This of course is going by what you said.  
Now on to the other part that you are wrong.  Saying the whole ocean would float around, so what medium is the whole ocean in that is the same mass as the whole ocean to cancel out the whole oceans weight?  

Perhaps you can explain how the second m is smaller? This should be rich...

Please provide an example of a single molecule of ocean water that is not in a water medium. If the ocean entirely consists of such molecules it is entirely within a water medium. Therefore the ocean is weightless.

1 gallon of water in a pool that has more than one gallon of water in it.  1 gallon does not mass the same as 1,000 gallons. 
You cannot look at a single molecule of water and then use its features to look at the whole ocean. 

To find the whole ocean’s weight take the whole oceans mass and then multiply it by gravity. 
You need to look up the word medium.  According to you, my pop can is in a pop can medium and there for should float. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #145 on: September 19, 2007, 03:56:14 PM »
As far as weight... There is some giant communication barrier between you and I and I have this eerie feeling we are arguing different things.

Anyway.. What medium is the soda in?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #146 on: September 19, 2007, 03:58:47 PM »
As far as weight... There is some giant communication barrier between you and I and I have this eerie feeling we are arguing different things.

Anyway.. What medium is the soda in?
No, weight is universal.
Please provide an example of one aluminum molecule that’s not in an aluminum medium. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #147 on: September 19, 2007, 04:00:06 PM »
No, weight is universal.
Please provide an example of one aluminum molecule that’s not in an aluminum medium. 


Weight: you keep talking about weighing the medium and think that's what I'm talking about.

Which molecule of soda in your can is not in a soda medium? Aren't you agreeing with me now?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #148 on: September 19, 2007, 04:04:12 PM »
No, weight is universal.
Please provide an example of one aluminum molecule that’s not in an aluminum medium. 


Weight: you keep talking about weighing the medium and think that's what I'm talking about.

Which molecule of soda in your can is not in a soda medium? Aren't you agreeing with me now?

I'm pointing out how stupid your argument is.

You want to know what water molecule is not in a water medium?  When looking at the ocean, all of them.  Air is the medium.   

And I never said soda anywhere. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #149 on: September 19, 2007, 05:39:59 PM »
Weight + weight = more weight

Just to make it easier for narc;

One block + one block = two blocks.
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!!!"