Poll

Should engy unlock this thread?

Yes
No
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 28   Go Down

RE floating oceans.

  • 817 Replies
  • 179696 Views
?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #420 on: October 24, 2007, 06:08:51 PM »
I AN RETARD!
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!!!"
?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • +0/-0
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #421 on: October 24, 2007, 06:13:34 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.
Yeah, but the earth isn't accelerating upward. There's gravity. Deal.
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?
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #422 on: October 24, 2007, 08:55:59 PM »
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.

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.

My shit, Narc, you are as stupid as hell.
Because of this, the oceans won't rise at all.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #423 on: October 24, 2007, 09:04:51 PM »
lol - "the oceans are bouncing" That's possibly the funniest line in existence.
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 #424 on: October 24, 2007, 09:07:03 PM »
That's also why water falls.  Air is less dense, and it's trying to support the more dense oceans but can't and therefore collapses and the water takes the place of the air and continues to fall.


When water is resting, air isn't going to take the place of the water, it's less dense and is perfectly content sitting on the surface of the water.
Logged
?

Brennan

  • 144
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #425 on: October 25, 2007, 01:12:16 AM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 24, 2007, 01:37:50 PM
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.
And where the **** do you get that conclusion from? Really, this is just stupid. ::)
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.
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #426 on: October 25, 2007, 02:14:32 AM »
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.

Errr, point of advise, Smartypants, try reading up on RE theory and understanding it before trying to find faults. Now, go and rest, all these big words must be giving you a headache.

I was not saying the oceans are bouncing, (although I knew you'd tear that contorted statement out of what I said, you seem to be good at that.), I am stating that your theory is seriously flawed. Even if the oceans were to rise, they would only have to rise by the width of a molecule before they fell, so they could be bouncing, just not noticably. Of course, they aren't, because gravity pulls the water down.

However, in FE theory, since water is buoyant in itself, and there is no gravity, the oceans should float, by your reckoning, because the UA pushes on the Earth, Earth pushes on the air and the air pushes on the floating oceans. So, the oceans should by your logic float on FE and RE, they don't, so you are a retard.
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 #427 on: October 25, 2007, 05:43:19 PM »
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #428 on: October 25, 2007, 05:59:20 PM »
NO SHIT HEAD.


Why are they going to rise?

Gravity's pullin on 'em.
Air isn't going to hold it up.
Water don't float in air in it's normal state.

???
Logged
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #429 on: October 25, 2007, 06:50:18 PM »
Narc doesn't understand buoyancy.   ;D
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.
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #430 on: October 26, 2007, 04:10:13 AM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 25, 2007, 05:43:19 PM
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?

NO, Smartyc***, I'm saying your argument is retarded. The oceans either float in RE and FE, or neither. But, since you won't buy that simple logic, which has been well explained, I'm going in at your angle.

The oceans stay put because gravity pulls them down, and the seabed pushes them up with equal force. The air sits on top of the water, since it is less dense.

But, on FE, due to the lack of gravity, your logic states that oceans should float, for the reasons I posted earlier.

so, in summary:
Quote
> Oceans should not float on RE.
>Oceans should float on FE
>Oceans don't, so you are a retard.
>Since you are a retard, the Earth is round.
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 #431 on: October 26, 2007, 01:10:03 PM »
Quote from: Monsieur Bishope on October 26, 2007, 04:10:13 AM
Quote from: Smarticus on October 25, 2007, 05:43:19 PM
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?

The oceans float in RE and FE

So you agree your model is wrong. Is this your sad attempt of trying to drag our model down with yours?
Logged
?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #432 on: October 26, 2007, 01:12:37 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 26, 2007, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Monsieur Bishope on October 26, 2007, 04:10:13 AM
Quote from: Smarticus on October 25, 2007, 05:43:19 PM
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?
NO, Smartyc***, I'm saying your argument is retarded. The oceans either float in RE and FE, or neither. But, since you won't buy that simple logic, which has been well explained, I'm going in at your angle.

The oceans stay put because gravity pulls them down, and the seabed pushes them up with equal force. The air sits on top of the water, since it is less dense.

But, on FE, due to the lack of gravity, your logic states that oceans should float, for the reasons I posted earlier.

So you agree your model is wrong. Is this your sad attempt of trying to drag our model down with yours?
You missed the bolded text. Then again all I could see is the underlined text.
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!!!"
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #433 on: October 26, 2007, 01:18:34 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 26, 2007, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Monsieur Bishope on October 26, 2007, 04:10:13 AM
Quote from: Smarticus on October 25, 2007, 05:43:19 PM
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?

The oceans float in RE and FE

So you agree your model is wrong. Is this your sad attempt of trying to drag our model down with yours?
lawl
Logged
If you can't argue both sid.es, you understand neith?er
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #434 on: October 26, 2007, 02:35:50 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 26, 2007, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Monsieur Bishope on October 26, 2007, 04:10:13 AM
Quote from: Smarticus on October 25, 2007, 05:43:19 PM
Oh so now your oceans stay put because the air pushes them?

The oceans float in RE and FE

So you agree my model is wrong, and I am a retard. This is my sad attempt of trying to drag your model down with mine, I tried to prove I had more than three braincells and failed.

Well, Narc, there's hope for you yet. You are finally accepting the fact you are a retard and your argument is shit.
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.
?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #435 on: October 26, 2007, 03:51:59 PM »
Acceptance is the first step to recovery. We're all behind you, narc.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2007, 11:25:02 AM
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #436 on: October 26, 2007, 04:36:52 PM »
1. Admit that you are powerless over stupidity, that your like has become unmanageable.
Logged
?

Torn Bishop

Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #437 on: October 26, 2007, 06:24:48 PM »
Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 26, 2007, 04:36:52 PM
1. Admit that you are powerless over stupidity, that your like has become unmanageable.
2.
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #438 on: October 29, 2007, 11:56:21 AM »
If only science were a popularity contest, you guys might stand a chance.

On another note, why is being wrong so popular?
Logged
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #439 on: October 29, 2007, 01:01:50 PM »
By changing the subject i assume that you admit your defeat. (It's about time you ignorant pig did something right!)
Logged

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #440 on: October 29, 2007, 01:42:55 PM »
Quote from: His misfortune on October 29, 2007, 01:01:50 PM
By changing the subject i assume that you admit your defeat.

How is that again?
Logged
If you can't argue both sid.es, you understand neith?er
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #441 on: October 29, 2007, 01:52:51 PM »
Quote from: Username on October 29, 2007, 01:42:55 PM
Quote from: His misfortune on October 29, 2007, 01:01:50 PM
By changing the subject i assume that you admit your defeat.

How is that again?
If you're not happy with it, i'm glad to wait him to spread out his total BS - again.

But it's pointless. Even though Smartiass doesn't say it, i think we all know that RE has won this one.
Logged

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #442 on: October 29, 2007, 01:57:12 PM »
Well no, neither has, its completely unrelated to whether the earth is flat or not despite what Narc says
Logged
If you can't argue both sid.es, you understand neith?er
?

Viva La Relativity

  • 29
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #443 on: October 30, 2007, 02:55:29 AM »
The fact this managed to go on for 23 pages is a sad indictment of everyone involved.
23 pages of repeating the same argument to some idiot too blind, stupid and/or stubborn to realise that what he is saying is completely flawed.
The oceans do not float. W = mg, if it has a mass and there is gravity it will have a weight.
All this proves is that Smarticus is an idiot and we have too much time on our hands to waste it by trying to convince an idiot of what he blindly refuses to believe.
The earth is not flat, and the oceans do not float.
And I am aware of the irony of saying that this 23 page thread is a sad indictment of all involved and it proves we have too much time and them posting on it myself.
Logged
You cannot apply logic to the following:
-zombies
-a flat earth
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #444 on: October 30, 2007, 04:14:40 AM »
Quote from: Viva La Relativity on October 30, 2007, 02:55:29 AM
The fact this managed to go on for 23 pages is a sad indictment of everyone involved.
23 pages of repeating the same argument to some idiot too blind, stupid and/or stubborn to realise that what he is saying is completely flawed.
The oceans do not float. W = mg, if it has a mass and there is gravity it will have a weight.
All this proves is that Smarticus is an idiot and we have too much time on our hands to waste it by trying to convince an idiot of what he blindly refuses to believe.
The earth is not flat, and the oceans do not float.
And I am aware of the irony of saying that this 23 page thread is a sad indictment of all involved and it proves we have too much time and them posting on it myself.


damn, I was gonna quote you for irony, but you covered your tracks. I essentially agree.
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
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #445 on: October 30, 2007, 04:24:50 AM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 29, 2007, 11:56:21 AM
If only science were a popularity contest, you guys might stand a chance.

On another note, why is being wrong so popular?

If only science was based on religion, then FE might stand a chance. Unfortunately fro you being wrong is not popular. Not being completely stupid is.
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 #446 on: October 30, 2007, 08:46:06 AM »
Quote from: Darth Bishop on October 30, 2007, 04:24:50 AM
fro you being wrong is not popular. Not being completely stupid is.

RE wisdom im sure.








But seriously, I raised a challenge to all RE'ers and none came through. How then have I been proven wrong? If anything, RE'ers lack of success proves me right.
Logged
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #447 on: October 30, 2007, 10:59:00 AM »
Quote from: Smarticus on October 30, 2007, 08:46:06 AM
But seriously, I raised a challenge to all RE'ers and none came through. How then have I been proven wrong? If anything, RE'ers lack of success proves me right.
WHAT THE FUCKING HELL?

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOUR ASSTARDNESS FOR THE PAST 23 PAGES?

YOU haven't responded, YOU are like you don't seem to know what's going on. You just say "So you admit your model is wrong" not caring about rest of the post. And just some pages ago your response to Trekky's very clear and easy to understand explanation was "Wrong", and you did not provide any evidence or even your bullshit theories of WHY is it wrong.

Why has "none came through" is because you're an idiot with no skills of seeing things (I actually wonder if you can read at all) and because you're plain stupid.
Logged

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #448 on: October 30, 2007, 03:03:10 PM »
Is your temper tantrum supposed to distract us from the fact that no RE'er has fulfilled my challenge?
Logged
?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #449 on: October 30, 2007, 03:40:05 PM »
Oh boy. I really like this thread. I feel like taking my turn at trying to word the explanation for this, even though it was obvious right off the bat what this thread really was.

Narc, how about this line of reasoning.

If a weightless collection of water molecules did float off the ocean floor, in the way you describe, what would take the space directly underneath them?
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2007, 11:25:02 AM
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 28   Go Up
« previous next »