Poll

Should engy unlock this thread?

Yes
No

RE floating oceans.

  • 817 Replies
  • 179693 Views
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #270 on: October 15, 2007, 08:04:29 AM »
Idiot. The same floating oceans problem would plague the FE. Besides, you can't apply buoyancy to water, because water itself supplies the upwards force.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #271 on: October 15, 2007, 08:19:18 AM »
So every molecule in the ocean is weightless, but when you sum up those seemingly infinite zeros, you now have weight?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #272 on: October 15, 2007, 08:35:04 AM »
Water is not buoyant in itself. Things can be buoyant in water, but not water, because water is water. Silly bunt.
Infinite zeros are zero, so his "magic floating water" theory is bull. Besides, if the oceans floated they would diffuse to steam. Water is heavier than air, air pressure keeps it down along with gravity. If you want proof about air pressure, fill a cup completely with water, right to the rim, put a piece of card on top of the water so it forms and airtight seal, then flip the whole thing over. Take your hand from the card. The water stays in the glass, because the air pressure keeps it in.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #273 on: October 15, 2007, 08:40:26 AM »
Water doesn't float in water? This is a new aspect of RE I was not aware of, you guys are dumber than I thought.

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • +0/-0
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #274 on: October 15, 2007, 09:35:33 AM »
Water doesn't float in water? This is a new aspect of RE I was not aware of, you guys are dumber than I thought.

No water doesn't float in air what are you fucking retarded? Oh yeah and for an example of water not in water the ocean (it's water in air). Every water molecule may be in water, but ever water molecule is not weightless. As soon as you get below the first layer of water molecules, the second layer is making them weightless so it is supporting their weight. So now the third layer is supporting the weight of both the top layers, and so on with each new layer supporting all layers above. Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be the only molecules that would be perfectly weightless are the ones of the very surface of the ocean. And they can't float up into the air.

A water molecule is not the ocean. Why should they have the same properties?
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.

*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #275 on: October 15, 2007, 09:40:16 AM »
Water doesn't float in water? This is a new aspect of RE I was not aware of, you guys are dumber than I thought.
Water floats in water, but because you're completely deaf and most likely retarded, i shall say once again what's been tried to told you for ages.

OCEANS ARE NOT WATER IN WATER, MEANING IT IS NOT WEIGHTLESS, YOU ASSTARD.


?

Brennan

  • 144
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #276 on: October 15, 2007, 09:45:16 AM »
Weight is the exerted by gravity on a body. When immersed in an equally dense substance (more water) water molecules are apparently 'weightless' because the gravitational force is cancelled out by the force of buoyancy, not because they are no longer affected by gravity. Why? because water is as dense as water. Again.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.

?

Torn Bishop

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #277 on: October 15, 2007, 10:35:44 AM »
Narcberry's ignorance and illogic is too powerful to be corrected, you cannot fix the failed, but he can report you.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #278 on: October 15, 2007, 07:26:04 PM »
Water doesn't float in water? This is a new aspect of RE I was not aware of, you guys are dumber than I thought.
Water floats in water, but because you're completely deaf and most likely retarded, i shall say once again what's been tried to told you for ages.

OCEANS ARE NOT WATER IN WATER, MEANING IT IS NOT WEIGHTLESS, YOU ASSTARD.


You RE'ers are funny, I don't think any two of you agree.

Which molecule of water in our oceans is not weightless?

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #279 on: October 15, 2007, 07:55:34 PM »
None of them.  They are all buoyant.

SOMEBODY LOCK THIS F*CKING THREAD.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #280 on: October 15, 2007, 07:57:30 PM »
Buoyant and weightless are not the same thing.

Weightless means the particle never has weight, period.
Buoyant means that when a particle is placed in a certain medium, the buoyant forces cances out the gravitational force or UA.
However, a medium itself is not buoyant.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #281 on: October 15, 2007, 07:58:25 PM »
The molecules in my chair are buoyant in themselves.
All my chair molecules have weight of zero.

AH SHIT ME FLOATIN

WRONG.

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • +0/-0
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #282 on: October 15, 2007, 10:50:50 PM »
I'm flying... high as a kite.
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.

?

Torn Bishop

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #283 on: October 16, 2007, 12:07:43 AM »
Narcberry's ignorance and illogic is too powerful to be corrected, you cannot fix the failed, but he can report you.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #284 on: October 16, 2007, 12:39:48 PM »
water + water = more water

5 pounds + 5 pounds = 10 pounds

1 + 1 = 2

Your own shit can either float or sink. How about that?
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!!!"

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #285 on: October 16, 2007, 12:41:51 PM »
No two RE'ers agree? Take FE'ers for christ sake, Tom Bishop rarely agrees with himself.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #286 on: October 16, 2007, 12:48:15 PM »
No two RE'ers agree? Take FE'ers for christ sake, Tom Bishop rarely agrees with himself.
RE: "No two RE'ers agree"

FE: No two egos agree.
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!!!"

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #287 on: October 16, 2007, 01:07:02 PM »
I am 70% water. My water is buoyant in itself. My other molecules are buoyant in the water,

I CAN FLY!!!!

*Jumps off bridge*
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Gunznroses

  • 112
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #288 on: October 16, 2007, 01:50:17 PM »
No two RE'ers agree? Take FE'ers for christ sake, Tom Bishop rarely agrees with himself.
RE: "No two RE'ers agree"

FE: No two egos agree.

FE: no one FE'ers agree  ::)
No problem solved in the least--and you only had to eliminate an entire continent to fail to accomplish it.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #289 on: October 16, 2007, 03:45:11 PM »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #290 on: October 16, 2007, 03:45:36 PM »
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!!!"

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #291 on: October 16, 2007, 04:05:53 PM »
No, he's high.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #292 on: October 16, 2007, 04:59:11 PM »
Why is it that most threads, "TOM BISHOP" and "Iowa" moved to the angry ranting while this hasn't been moved to complete nonsense.
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!!!"

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #293 on: October 16, 2007, 05:17:18 PM »
Why hasn't this been locked, for that matter.

?

afiq980

  • 37
  • +0/-0
  • Earth is round.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #294 on: October 17, 2007, 07:34:56 AM »
Because we havnt corrected the RE-er's stupid misconceptions.

DUH.

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #295 on: October 17, 2007, 08:41:04 AM »
Too. Many. Toms.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #296 on: October 17, 2007, 11:21:30 AM »
No, he's high.
I don't look that angry when I'm high
If you can't acrgue bth sides, you u.nderstand niter

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #297 on: October 17, 2007, 12:43:03 PM »
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!!!"

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #298 on: October 17, 2007, 12:57:45 PM »
Im still waiting for a valid RE counter-arguement. But, I'm guessing, by page 16 this is probably not going to happen.


I hereby declare this topic another win for FE!!!

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #299 on: October 17, 2007, 01:02:20 PM »
Narc! If you make another BS post like that I will punch you with the head on commercial.

Beside we have countered you shit already. Here's mine again:

water + water = more water

5 pounds + pounds = 10 pounds

1 + 1 = 2

shit can float or sink.
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!!!"