Poll

Should engy unlock this thread?

Yes
No
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 28   Go Down

RE floating oceans.

  • 817 Replies
  • 179637 Views
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #390 on: October 22, 2007, 07:18:46 PM »
Gravity
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #391 on: October 22, 2007, 07:20:52 PM »
Logged
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!!!"
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #392 on: October 22, 2007, 07:31:37 PM »
gravity = it's gravy
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • +0/-0
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #393 on: October 22, 2007, 07:33:13 PM »
Quote from: divito the fascist on October 22, 2007, 06:56:10 PM
Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 22, 2007, 05:18:03 PM
Sure, a water particle is buoyant in water, but water ain't buoyant in air.

Pff, you don't know that. The Earth is accelerating into the water after all!!
It can't be buoyant if it's denser.

Put some oil and water in a cup or bottle of something. The oil should be on top.
Now accelerate it upward. Does the oil magically go on the bottom? No.
Logged
Quote from: McDonalds Fan
Why is it when I throw a delicious McNugget up in the air it always comes back down into my eagerly awaiting mouth?
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #394 on: October 22, 2007, 07:36:12 PM »
21 pages, still no RE response... so sad.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #395 on: October 22, 2007, 07:38:53 PM »
What response are you actually looking for?
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #396 on: October 22, 2007, 07:39:52 PM »
:o

WE'VE BEEN RESPONDING!!!

YOUR WHOLE IDEA IS FLAWED!!!  Your throwing gravity a buoyancy out the window and replacing it with nonsense!

And by the way, a I've said, if what you say is true, the water's buoyancy would counteract the UA.
Logged
?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • +0/-0
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #397 on: October 22, 2007, 07:55:09 PM »
Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 22, 2007, 07:39:52 PM
:o

WE'VE BEEN RESPONDING!!!

YOUR WHOLE IDEA IS FLAWED!!!  Your throwing gravity a buoyancy out the window and replacing it with nonsense!

And by the way, a I've said, if what you say is true, the water's buoyancy would counteract the UA.
That guy's a nutjob. What do you expect?
Logged
Quote from: McDonalds Fan
Why is it when I throw a delicious McNugget up in the air it always comes back down into my eagerly awaiting mouth?
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #398 on: October 22, 2007, 08:22:46 PM »
Responses have been given. You only state they have not been answered, or disregard them without proving them wrong. I remember you saying you'd let itself proof itself wrong, to save your energy. Yet no flaw is apparent or even hinted at. Your frequent posts after that are energy savers alright.  ::)

LOCK THREAD.
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #399 on: October 22, 2007, 08:29:47 PM »
Narc just loves keeping this thread bumped up, doesn't he?

It's better if we just ignore this thread. After all, he'll just give up and drain this to the sink.
Logged
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #400 on: October 23, 2007, 02:27:05 AM »
21 Pages of proof that Smartypants is (acting like, at least) a

RETARD
« Last Edit: October 23, 2007, 02:28:49 AM by Hypnobishop »
Logged
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.
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #401 on: October 23, 2007, 06:07:02 AM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 22, 2007, 07:36:12 PM
21 pages, still no RE response... so sad.
Smarticus' complete blindness = Proven.

Just give it up, you mister "Rain Falls Up".
Logged

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #402 on: October 23, 2007, 06:50:47 AM »
I think the "Shoe results are in" thread was more retarded than this one.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #403 on: October 24, 2007, 07:26:42 AM »
Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 22, 2007, 07:39:52 PM
WE'VE BEEN RESPONDING!!!

I wasn't talking about the pretty little button that lets you type in retarded commentary. I was talking about an actual response to the op.
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #404 on: October 24, 2007, 07:37:40 AM »
I love how everyone plays into his hands so easily. Come on people, brains are there to use from time to time.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #405 on: October 24, 2007, 07:49:12 AM »
Official "RE Floating Oceans" Response

Why should the ocean's float?  Water has the same density as water, and will therefore float IN WATER.  Air is less dense than water and therefore water can not float on top of it.  Imagine a helicopter with a load of water, and it drops the load.  As the water comes out, the buoyancy force of the air is less than that of gravity pulling down on the group of water.  Meanwhile, within the load of water, water molecules are floating around, being buoyant.  However, the water as a whole cannot float because a less dense medium is under it and it begins to fall and it will keep falling until it meets a medium as dense or denser than itself.  This is ridiculus.  If this is true, a weight should not fall because the molecules in the weight are buoyant relative to themselves.  The only difference is that the medium of the weight is so dense that the particles cannot move very far unlike a liquid which is more fluid.

Think of a piece of wood.  The wood is less dense than water, so it floats.  However, once it reaches the top of the water, it stops because the buoyancy force is now equal.  The weight of the wood has been displaced, so it stops.  If it were to keep rising, the buoyancy force would be less than that of gravity and the wood would fall back to Earth.
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #406 on: October 24, 2007, 08:07:29 AM »
The water never leaves the water. So as long as it is buoyant within itself, it will float.
Logged
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #407 on: October 24, 2007, 08:21:30 AM »
This is hilarious, Narcberry has all of you well and truly wrapped around his little finger!

Kudos to you Narcberry, shame on everyone else who's argued.
Logged
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #408 on: October 24, 2007, 08:30:30 AM »
Err, zis Smarticus iz a retard, non?

The water is buoyant in itself, yes, it would float however the moment it leaves the seabed, air comes in to replace where the water has been. But, the air cannot support the water so it falls. Let us assume that your magical ocean has floated into the air. Let us theorise what would happen.
>Each water molecule is buoyant in water, so it can float.
>1.But, alas, the bottom layer of water molecules has no water below it, so has no buoyancy, so it falls.
>2.This exposes the next layer of water molecules, which have now lost the buoyancy of the lower layer. So, point 1. applies to it.
>3.This reasoning can be applied to every layer of water molecules, not only from the bottom but from the sides. So, the water would fall, layer by layer, back to earth.

So, your theory of floating oceans is flawed, because they could not stay afloat.

However, if this is too much for you to comprehend, it is provided in retard language below:
Quote
Arrgh! Uga uga! Big flying water! Big flying water floats in itself! But water at the bottom of big flying water fall down because there is not any water under big flying water. Big flying water not fly anymore, it just big water!
Logged
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 #409 on: October 24, 2007, 08:37:58 AM »
So, according to popular RE theory, the oceans do not float away because air rushes in between the ocean and the seabed.

Quote from: Monsieur Bishope on October 24, 2007, 08:30:30 AM
The moment it leaves the seabed, air comes in to replace where the water has been. But, the air cannot support the water so it falls.


The oceans lift up and air comes underneath. The oceans then fall down and air leaves. So the RE model claims the oceans are bouncing...


Not only are the oceans not bouncing, nor are their tremendous currents of air at our beaches, but even if there was air, the oceans still remain within themselves. They would still float away. That is unless the earth accelerates into the oceans.
Logged
?

Brennan

  • 144
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #410 on: October 24, 2007, 09:51:36 AM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 24, 2007, 08:37:58 AM
So, according to popular RE theory, the oceans do not float away because air rushes in between the ocean and the seabed.
No no no. The water cannot just rise up unless it can overcome the forces pushing it down. For that to happen the water would have to become less dense, by being heated for example, this would lower the gravitational force felt by that particular volume of water, whilst the buoyancy force exerted upon it by the surrounding cooler water remains the same and it would rise out of the cooler water around it, until coming to a higher region where the forces balance out again.

Please do not respond by saying that proves hot water floats around in the air. It would either rise to an equilibrium position or to the surface, where it cannot rise further as it is more dense than air and so if it tried to rise out of the water the gravitational force, being larger than the force of buoyancy of water in air would push it back down again.
Quote from: Smarticus on October 24, 2007, 08:37:58 AM
Quote from: Monsieur Bishope on October 24, 2007, 08:30:30 AM
The moment it leaves the seabed, air comes in to replace where the water has been. But, the air cannot support the water so it falls.
The oceans lift up and air comes underneath. The oceans then fall down and air leaves. So the RE model claims the oceans are bouncing...
Yes, yes that was a clumsy post, where's the air coming from Monsieur Bishop?
Quote from: Smarticus on October 24, 2007, 08:37:58 AM
Not only are the oceans not bouncing, nor are their tremendous currents of air at our beaches, but even if there was air, the oceans still remain within themselves. They would still float away. That is unless the earth accelerates into the oceans.
Kindly answer one of the posts by myself or Trekkie, your responses are conspicuously absent.
Logged
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.
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #411 on: October 24, 2007, 11:14:39 AM »


*headdesk*
Logged
?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #412 on: October 24, 2007, 12:24:08 PM »
MWAHAHAHAH! Dance my little puppets! DANCE!
Logged
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!!!"
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #413 on: October 24, 2007, 12:47:27 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 24, 2007, 07:26:42 AM
Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 22, 2007, 07:39:52 PM
WE'VE BEEN RESPONDING!!!

I wasn't talking about the pretty little button that lets you type in retarded commentary. I was talking about an actual response to the op.
XD for irony. Why don't you look at the mirror and think who's the reatrd here?
Logged

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #414 on: October 24, 2007, 12:50:29 PM »
Quote from: His misfortune on October 24, 2007, 12:47:27 PM
XD for irony. Why don't you look at the mirror and think who's the reatrd here?

Yeah, who is the reatrd?
Logged
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #415 on: October 24, 2007, 12:56:12 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 24, 2007, 12:50:29 PM
Quote from: His misfortune on October 24, 2007, 12:47:27 PM
XD for irony. Why don't you look at the mirror and think who's the reatrd here?

Yeah, who is the reatrd?
You are the reatrd.
Logged

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #416 on: October 24, 2007, 01:28:09 PM »
Narcberry. Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity. We cannot measure the acceleration of mass due to gravity of water in water because matter of the same density (water or not) prevents it from moving down further. Pressure is alleviated. Normal force prevents movement down but only with pressure of resistance. Try to push against a wall. The normal force against you only applies as long as you push. Stopping would not fling you across the room because it over powers you. No force exists to raise water against gravity except structural support or the normal force. Water in air has no support under it.

So seriously, JUST STOP TALKING and keep from embarrassing yourself more.
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #417 on: October 24, 2007, 01:37:50 PM »
Quote from: L0gic on October 24, 2007, 01:28:09 PM
Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity.

Or on the flat earth, it is the amount of force the earth exerts on an object by accelerating into it. So actually, if the earth is not accelerating, there is no weight. Thank you for pointing out that the RE model also believes all objects are weightless. Perhaps that is why pigs fly.

Thank you for shedding more light on your model.
Logged
?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #418 on: October 24, 2007, 01:58:30 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 24, 2007, 01:37:50 PM
Quote from: L0gic on October 24, 2007, 01:28:09 PM
Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity.

Or on the flat earth, it is the amount of force the earth exerts on an object by accelerating into it. So actually, if the earth is not accelerating, there is no weight. Thank you for pointing out that the RE model also believes all objects are weightless. Perhaps that is why pigs fly.

Thank you for shedding more light on your model.
gravity exert objects to the earth which causes weight. Without gravity everything would be weightless.
Logged
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!!!"
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #419 on: October 24, 2007, 06:07:53 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 24, 2007, 01:37:50 PM
Quote from: L0gic on October 24, 2007, 01:28:09 PM
Weight is a measure of how much force an object exerts due to gravity.

Or on the flat earth, it is the amount of force the earth exerts on an object by accelerating into it. So actually, if the earth is not accelerating, there is no weight. Thank you for pointing out that the RE model also believes all objects are weightless. Perhaps that is why pigs fly.

Thank you for shedding more light on your model.

It's an oversimplification. You seem to need those.
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 28   Go Up
« previous next »