Poll

Should engy unlock this thread?

Yes
No
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 28   Go Down

RE floating oceans.

  • 817 Replies
  • 179629 Views
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #510 on: November 01, 2007, 09:10:45 AM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 09:05:59 AM
No, I'm not.

You are so offtopic, and still wrong. All RE'ers are alike: wrong and not even talking about the right thing.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #511 on: November 01, 2007, 09:13:34 AM »
I'm not the one who went offtopic.
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 #512 on: November 01, 2007, 09:24:18 AM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 09:13:34 AM
I'm not the one who went offtopic.

Ye olde be more wrong to prove your weren't wrong method?
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #513 on: November 01, 2007, 09:48:17 AM »
I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?
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 #514 on: November 01, 2007, 09:50:16 AM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 09:48:17 AM
I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?

Are you an RE'er?
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #515 on: November 01, 2007, 09:52:01 AM »
I do not support any view in particular.
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
?

klukesauser

  • 10
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #516 on: November 01, 2007, 11:14:15 AM »
The entire concept of FE is absolutely ridiculous. Smarticus, your concept of water being weightless in water is entirely wrong and misinterpreted physics. Water is only "weightless" in water because of something called pressure. States of matter, liquid in this case, have different properties to them. Oceans stay in their basins because of GRAVITY. If you blend up enough apples, they will fill up a basin like water the same as solid apples. Gravity is not constituted of acceleration from the earth flying uncontrollably through space. State your rebbutals and prepare to be owned like a fat kid in a marathon.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #517 on: November 01, 2007, 11:24:21 AM »
Gravity does not exist.

Rebut.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #518 on: November 01, 2007, 11:31:54 AM »
Quote from: klukesauser on November 01, 2007, 11:14:15 AM
Smarticus, your concept of water being weightless in water is entirely wrong and misinterpreted physics.

Perhaps you should tell your RE buddies that agree.

As for your insistance, how much does a pint of water weigh in water?
Logged
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #519 on: November 01, 2007, 01:12:20 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 09:50:16 AM
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 09:48:17 AM
I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?

Are you an RE'er?
And instead of actually answering his question, you decided to leave it out of the conversation, causing so called "off-topic".

IRONY
Logged

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #520 on: November 01, 2007, 01:13:30 PM »
Nooo! Narc! Don't make me lose this bet!
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #521 on: November 01, 2007, 01:27:43 PM »
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:12:20 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 09:50:16 AM
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 09:48:17 AM
I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?

Are you an RE'er?
And instead of actually answering his question, you decided to leave it out of the conversation, causing so called "off-topic".

IRONY

You're not the sharpest RE'er, so let me spell this out for you. He asked for proof he was wrong. I asked if he was an RE'er, because that is, by definition, being wrong. He understood this and then lied. So both he and I know he was wrong. You still need a verbal explanation, so I point you in this direction. No, you're other this direction. FFS, just read the quote you effing RE moron.

Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 09:56:28 AM
I don't think the earth is flat.
Logged
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #522 on: November 01, 2007, 01:40:39 PM »
Are you saying that "Are you an RE'er?" is a proper answer for "Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?"

Moron.
Logged

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #523 on: November 01, 2007, 01:43:21 PM »
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:40:39 PM
Are you saying that "Are you an RE'er?" is a proper answer for "Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?"

Moron.

No, more it's more like the question, "Are you wrong?" Hardly out of the line of reasonable questioning.

Anyhow, for the RE'ers with firing neurons:
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 08:34:25 AM
Quote from: providence on October 30, 2007, 11:13:43 PM
Wow was doing a school project on flat earth vs round earth, and was reading through the forum, when i found this interesting topic, and had to register lol

well anyways flat earth society almost had me there, because I was just reading and the argument that the round earth people gave were the same thing and they really did not refute this at all.

Ok, this is what I think.

I totally agree with smarticus when he said water is weightless in water, but for that to actually make the water fly around it  means that the the condition of water having to be in water has to be met at all times.

If we assume that the water does float because it is not affected by gravity, as soon as the part of the water start flying off, the outside is exposed from water and is not weightless anymore, meaning that gravity starts to work on the water again. Assuming that what smarticus said is true (which i am assuming) giant body of water still does not fly because every time it affect of gravity get canceled by buoyancy force and start to fly, the molecules that seperate from the other water molecule get affected by gravity instantaneously.

Which is my conclusion :P  thus this argument cannot be used against re  cause it has a flaw xD (and yes my english is bad gosh ...)

This is the same contention all RE'ers have. Sadly, when the oceans float they remain within themselves. So yes, this condition would always be met. I challenged RE'ers to show otherwise and I have yet to see any evidence of a single molecule of water within the oceans that is not, within the oceans. The second RE'ers realize that all water within the oceans are, by definition, within the oceans; they will see why the oceans MUST float on the RE model.
Logged
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #524 on: November 01, 2007, 01:47:32 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:40:39 PM
Are you saying that "Are you an RE'er?" is a proper answer for "Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?"

Moron.

No, more it's more like the question, "Are you wrong?" Hardly out of the line of reasonable questioning.

So you admit that it was off-topic at the present time.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR RE!
Logged

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #525 on: November 01, 2007, 01:50:51 PM »
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:47:32 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:40:39 PM
Are you saying that "Are you an RE'er?" is a proper answer for "Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?"

Moron.

No, more it's more like the question, "Are you wrong?" Hardly out of the line of reasonable questioning.

So you admit that it was off-topic at the present time.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR RE!




Speaking of floating oceans:

Quote from: providence on October 30, 2007, 11:13:43 PM
Wow was doing a school project on flat earth vs round earth, and was reading through the forum, when i found this interesting topic, and had to register lol

well anyways flat earth society almost had me there, because I was just reading and the argument that the round earth people gave were the same thing and they really did not refute this at all.

Ok, this is what I think.

I totally agree with smarticus when he said water is weightless in water, but for that to actually make the water fly around it  means that the the condition of water having to be in water has to be met at all times.

If we assume that the water does float because it is not affected by gravity, as soon as the part of the water start flying off, the outside is exposed from water and is not weightless anymore, meaning that gravity starts to work on the water again. Assuming that what smarticus said is true (which i am assuming) giant body of water still does not fly because every time it affect of gravity get canceled by buoyancy force and start to fly, the molecules that seperate from the other water molecule get affected by gravity instantaneously.

Which is my conclusion :P  thus this argument cannot be used against re  cause it has a flaw xD (and yes my english is bad gosh ...)

This is the same contention all RE'ers have. Sadly, when the oceans float they remain within themselves. So yes, this condition would always be met. I challenged RE'ers to show otherwise and I have yet to see any evidence of a single molecule of water within the oceans that is not, within the oceans. The second RE'ers realize that all water within the oceans are, by definition, within the oceans; they will see why the oceans MUST float on the RE model.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #526 on: November 01, 2007, 01:52:29 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:12:20 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 09:50:16 AM
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 09:48:17 AM
I'm not wrong. Why don't you prove that I'm wrong?

Are you an RE'er?
And instead of actually answering his question, you decided to leave it out of the conversation, causing so called "off-topic".

IRONY

You're not the sharpest RE'er, so let me spell this out for you. He asked for proof he was wrong. I asked if he was an RE'er, because that is, by definition, being wrong. He understood this and then lied. So both he and I know he was wrong. You still need a verbal explanation, so I point you in this direction. No, you're other this direction. FFS, just read the quote you effing RE moron.

Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 09:56:28 AM
I don't think the earth is flat.

I didn't want to bait myself into your stupid trap. But the oceans do not float, because they rest on the ocean bed. Go to the bottom of it and check for yourself.
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 #527 on: November 01, 2007, 01:53:31 PM »
Are you saying the bottomost water molecules aren't bouyant?
Logged
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #528 on: November 01, 2007, 01:55:25 PM »
Smarticus, do this little experiment:

1) Get a bowl.
2) Fill it with water.
3) Put some more water, just in case.
4) See if it floats.
Logged

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #529 on: November 01, 2007, 02:00:50 PM »
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:55:25 PM
Smarticus, do this little experiment:

1) Get a bowl.
2) Fill it with water.
3) Put some more water, just in case.
4) See if it floats.

How scientific. You don't have any requirements of the bowl? It seems that this whole thread is about floating oceans, not floating bowls. Thanks for being an idiot though.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #530 on: November 01, 2007, 02:03:22 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 01:53:31 PM
Are you saying the bottomost water molecules aren't bouyant?

There are no bottomost water molecules, with it being a fluid, the bottomost molecules will constantly be changing, but the fluid rests upon the ocean floor.
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 #531 on: November 01, 2007, 02:10:06 PM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 01:53:31 PM
Are you saying the bottomost water molecules aren't bouyant?

There are no bottomost water molecules, with it being a fluid, the bottomost molecules will constantly be changing, but the fluid rests upon the ocean floor.

Let's skip a few pages in this thread. I've gone ahead and filled in the answers for you.

Are water molecules buoyant in water? Yes
What is the effective weight of a water molecule in water? 0 kg.
Is this true of all molecules in the ocean? Yes
How many molecules of water are there in the ocean? Like a whole bunch
What is the effective weight of the ocean? 0 kg * Like a whole bunch, or 0 kg.
So the RE oceans are free to float away? Yes.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #532 on: November 01, 2007, 02:16:46 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 02:10:06 PM
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 01:53:31 PM
Are you saying the bottomost water molecules aren't bouyant?

There are no bottomost water molecules, with it being a fluid, the bottomost molecules will constantly be changing, but the fluid rests upon the ocean floor.

Let's skip a few pages in this thread. I've gone ahead and filled in the answers for you.

Are water molecules buoyant in water? Yes
What is the effective weight of a water molecule in water? 0 kg.
Is this true of all molecules in the ocean? Yes
How many molecules of water are there in the ocean? Like a whole bunch
What is the effective weight of the ocean? 0 kg * Like a whole bunch, or 0 kg.
So the RE oceans are free to float away? Yes.


You're missing the point. As a fluid, the entire ocean acts like a single object. The properties of the single molecules do not make up the properties of the whole thing. Because 1 molecule of water is bouyant in itself, doesn't matter. The same is true of every fluid, but every fluid has weight.
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
*

Misfortune

  • 512
  • +0/-0
  • My name is no longer blank. God damn it.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #533 on: November 01, 2007, 02:18:30 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 02:00:50 PM
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:55:25 PM
Smarticus, do this little experiment:

1) Get a bowl.
2) Fill it with water.
3) Put some more water, just in case.
4) See if it floats.

How scientific. You don't have any requirements of the bowl? It seems that this whole thread is about floating oceans, not floating bowls. Thanks for being an idiot though.
It's still enough to prove your theory wrong.

If the water doesn't float from the bowl, then oceans mustn't float either.
Logged

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #534 on: November 01, 2007, 02:52:44 PM »
So you're saying oceans ignore the attributes of their composing parts and create attributes of their own?

I was under the impression that the oceans only act as the sum of their parts. Does this mean we can ignore everything we know about elementary particles?


The longer we have this conversation, the dumber you RE'ers get.
Logged
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #535 on: November 01, 2007, 02:54:35 PM »
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 02:18:30 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 02:00:50 PM
Quote from: His misfortune on November 01, 2007, 01:55:25 PM
Smarticus, do this little experiment:

1) Get a bowl.
2) Fill it with water.
3) Put some more water, just in case.
4) See if it floats.

How scientific. You don't have any requirements of the bowl? It seems that this whole thread is about floating oceans, not floating bowls. Thanks for being an idiot though.
It's still enough to prove your theory wrong.

If the water doesn't float from the bowl, then oceans mustn't float either.

I guess you skipped the part of this thread that required reading.

On a flat earth, the earth accelerates into the oceans. The earth would also accelerate into water within bowls.

This whole thread shows that water will float in the RE model, and that it does not. Your experiment only further proves my point, the FE model and your inability to pick your own side. Thanks, once more, for being an idiot.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #536 on: November 01, 2007, 02:55:36 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 02:52:44 PM
So you're saying oceans ignore the attributes of their composing parts and create attributes of their own?

I was under the impression that the oceans only act as the sum of their parts. Does this mean we can ignore everything we know about elementary particles?


The longer we have this conversation, the dumber you RE'ers get.

Why don't you read about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.
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 #537 on: November 01, 2007, 03:01:12 PM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 02:55:36 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 02:52:44 PM
So you're saying oceans ignore the attributes of their composing parts and create attributes of their own?

I was under the impression that the oceans only act as the sum of their parts. Does this mean we can ignore everything we know about elementary particles?


The longer we have this conversation, the dumber you RE'ers get.

Why don't you read about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.

Fluid dynamicists agree, even fluids are composed of more elementary particles. They go further in their agreement that the weight of any quantity of any fluid is the sum of all the molecules composing that fluid.

Why don't you read about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #538 on: November 01, 2007, 03:04:03 PM »
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: Agent Z on November 01, 2007, 02:55:36 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on November 01, 2007, 02:52:44 PM
So you're saying oceans ignore the attributes of their composing parts and create attributes of their own?

I was under the impression that the oceans only act as the sum of their parts. Does this mean we can ignore everything we know about elementary particles?


The longer we have this conversation, the dumber you RE'ers get.

Why don't you read about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.

Fluid dynamicists agree, even fluids are composed of more elementary particles. They go further in their agreement that the weight of any quantity of any fluid is the sum of all the molecules composing that fluid.

Why don't you read about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.

I never disputed that. But every molecule in a fluid is bouyant inside the fluid. That's what the definition of a fluid is, the particles are free to move around in it.

Why do you read some more about fluid dynamics. Then get back to me.
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
?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #539 on: November 01, 2007, 03:06:09 PM »
Quote from: ChiefConspirator on October 30, 2007, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on October 30, 2007, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: ChiefConspirator on October 30, 2007, 04:00:09 PM
Quote from: Smarticus on October 30, 2007, 03:59:00 PM
No. The earth does not have floating oceans.

Oh but they do. You're absolutely right. Water does, in fact, float in water, as you pointed out many times.

And is held in it's container since the container accelerates into it.

You never answered my question, Narc.

Here it is one more time:

Quote from: ChiefConspirator on October 30, 2007, 04:04:14 PM
So you agree the earth has floating oceans. Is that correct?
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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 28   Go Up
« previous next »