Poll

Should engy unlock this thread?

Yes
No

RE floating oceans.

  • 817 Replies
  • 179716 Views
*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #540 on: November 01, 2007, 03:09:07 PM »
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.

So you agree the oceans should float in RE.


You also think I need to learn more about fluid dynamics, yet agree with everything I've said.


Which side are you on, exactly?


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:

So you agree the earth has floating oceans. Is that correct?

Yeah, there's like 28 pages to this thread. Nowhere have I said the earth has floating oceans. Many times I've said the RE model predicts floating oceans. Seriously, are you all this dumb?

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #541 on: November 01, 2007, 03:15:01 PM »
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?

Probably more water

Then it wouldn't be floating in the way you describe.

Sure it would, and no RE'er can contest it without becoming enraged and speaking in tongues. You are a funny lot.

Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.

If water molecules were floating "like giant liquid clouds," I understand that to mean that, like clouds, there's air beneath them. Is that not what you meant?

I never specified what was beneath the oceanic clouds since the RE model had already been shown to be so absurd that such details were not worth exploring. I'm sorry.

Ok. That clears up that misunderstanding. Apology accepted. Is it clear now, that such details are worth exploring?

No. The earth does not have floating oceans. It is safe to not explore the RE model any further.

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.

HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!

By declaring victory here in the way you did, you implicitly agreed with the statement preceeding it. You agreed the world has floating oceans.

Regardless of whether you agree or not, by your definition, there are plenty of places in the RE-world where we have floating oceans. This is clear. In fact, you went out of your way to make it clear, Narc.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 03:19:14 PM by ChiefConspirator »
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #542 on: November 01, 2007, 03:20:49 PM »
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.

So you agree the oceans should float in RE.


You also think I need to learn more about fluid dynamics, yet agree with everything I've said.


Which side are you on, exactly?


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:

So you agree the earth has floating oceans. Is that correct?

Yeah, there's like 28 pages to this thread. Nowhere have I said the earth has floating oceans. Many times I've said the RE model predicts floating oceans. Seriously, are you all this dumb?


I do not agree that the oceans should float.

I'll break it down for you in simple steps:

1) Any molecule in a fluid has mass.
2) Any molecule in a fluid is free to move around in the fluid.
3) The total mass of the fluid is the sum of the masses of all of the molecules.
4) On an 'RE' this mass is affected by the Earths Gravitational field, and thus, the oceans do not float.

The End.
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 #543 on: November 01, 2007, 03:24:08 PM »
@Chief, try reading that again while walking into busy traffic.

I do not agree that the oceans should float.

I'll break it down for you in simple steps:

1) Any molecule in a fluid has mass.
2) Any molecule in a fluid is free to move around in the fluid.
3) The total mass of the fluid is the sum of the masses of all of the molecules.
4) On an 'RE' this mass is affected by the Earths Gravitational field, and thus, the oceans do not float.

The End.

So every molecule in the oceans is free to float away, but not the oceans?



I'm going to do RE a big favor and wait for someone else to argue your points for you guys. Seriously, you're making yourselves look dumber than dumb.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #544 on: November 01, 2007, 03:31:56 PM »
@Chief, try reading that again while walking into busy traffic.

I do not agree that the oceans should float.

I'll break it down for you in simple steps:

1) Any molecule in a fluid has mass.
2) Any molecule in a fluid is free to move around in the fluid.
3) The total mass of the fluid is the sum of the masses of all of the molecules.
4) On an 'RE' this mass is affected by the Earths Gravitational field, and thus, the oceans do not float.

The End.

So every molecule in the oceans is free to float away, but not the oceans?



I'm going to do RE a big favor and wait for someone else to argue your points for you guys. Seriously, you're making yourselves look dumber than dumb.

No, every molecule within the ocean is free to float within the ocean. At which point did I say "float away."

For every molecule that moves up, another moves down. For every molecule that moves left, another moves right.

I'm going to do FE a big favour and wait for someone else to reply to me. Seriously, you're making yourself look dumber than dumb.
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 #545 on: November 01, 2007, 03:32:53 PM »
I'm going to do RE a big favor and wait for someone else to argue your points for you guys.

I'm your huckleberry.
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #546 on: November 01, 2007, 03:41:32 PM »
This effect of moving molecules within a fluid is easily seen by the following experiment:

Take a glass of water.

Add 1 drop of blackcurrant cordial (or any other coloured substance, it really doesn't matter)
Observe as the the colour from the substance slowly spreads around the glass, until evenly distributed without. The reason: the molecules are all moving.
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 #547 on: November 01, 2007, 04:30:12 PM »
WATER IS NOT BUOYANT IN AIR
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?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #548 on: November 01, 2007, 04:31:59 PM »
Ok, Smarticus, I will argue.
1.) All the points for RE have been argued thoroughly, and all make sense.
2.) Your floating oceans hypothesis has been disproved time and again.
3.) You are acting like a retard, making up arguments as you go along.
4.) Other RE'ers are still trying in vain to make you see sense.

@Chief, try reading that again while walking into busy traffic.

I do not agree that the oceans should float.

I'll break it down for you in simple steps:

1) Any molecule in a fluid has mass.
2) Any molecule in a fluid is free to move around in the fluid.
3) The total mass of the fluid is the sum of the masses of all of the molecules.
4) On an 'RE' this mass is affected by the Earths Gravitational field, and thus, the oceans do not float.

The End.

So every molecule in the oceans is free to float away, but not the oceans?



I'm going to do RE a big favor and wait for someone else to argue your points for you guys. Seriously, you're making yourselves look dumber than dumb.

Correction, every molecule on the surface of the ocean in RE is free to float away, if it has enough energy, the molecules underneath can't.

However, you are saying that on FE the ocean's molecules cannot float away because the earth accelerates into them. That means that no molecules can float away, because if they did the earth would accelerate the rest of the ocean into them.

So, you admit that on FE, there cannot be rain. Oh dear.
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 #549 on: November 01, 2007, 04:35:56 PM »
The surface of the ocean can float away you say? Are we back to the jumping ocean hypothesis?

Guide to being an RE'er
1) Be retarded
2) If that fails be an idiot
3) If that fails be a moron
4) If that fails go to step 1

?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • +0/-0
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #550 on: November 01, 2007, 04:37:57 PM »
Guide to being an FE'er
1) Be retarded
2) If that fails be an idiot
3) If that fails be a moron
4) If that fails go to step 1
Fixed. No need to thank me. Just doing my part for the community.
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?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #551 on: November 01, 2007, 04:38:08 PM »
The surface of the ocean can float away you say? Are we back to the jumping ocean hypothesis?

Guide to being an RE'er
1) Be retarded
2) If that fails be an idiot
3) If that fails be a moron
4) If that fails go to step 1

No. That is the evaporation--->clouds--->rain hypothesis. Which cannot happen in FE. Therefore FE is wrong.
The jumping ocean hypothesis is based on the floating oceans hypothesis, which shows your hypothesis to be a steaming pile of bull excrement.
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 #552 on: November 01, 2007, 04:41:39 PM »
Guide to being an FE'er
1) Be retarded
2) If that fails be an idiot
3) If that fails be a moron
4) If that fails go to step 1
Fixed. No need to thank me. Just doing my part for the community.

The only thing you're proving is that you wish to be like me. You have a way to go still faggot.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #553 on: November 01, 2007, 04:45:37 PM »
SHiiiiit1! ! aOJEged1

Narc, imagine a piece of wood.  Wood is buoyant in water.

Just like water.

When the wood reaches the surface, it stops.  It doesn't jump, because wood is not buoyant in air.  It just stops.

Just like water.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #554 on: November 01, 2007, 04:47:11 PM »
This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun. 


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

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #555 on: November 01, 2007, 04:47:27 PM »
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?

Probably more water

Then it wouldn't be floating in the way you describe.

Sure it would, and no RE'er can contest it without becoming enraged and speaking in tongues. You are a funny lot.

Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.

If water molecules were floating "like giant liquid clouds," I understand that to mean that, like clouds, there's air beneath them. Is that not what you meant?

I never specified what was beneath the oceanic clouds since the RE model had already been shown to be so absurd that such details were not worth exploring. I'm sorry.

Ok. That clears up that misunderstanding. Apology accepted. Is it clear now, that such details are worth exploring?

No. The earth does not have floating oceans. It is safe to not explore the RE model any further.

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.

HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!

When you declared victory here, you claimed that the world HAS floating oceans.

Perplexed? Of course you are, you have never seen our oceans floating around our world like giant liquid clouds.

But anybody who's seen an ocean HAS seen this.
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 #556 on: November 01, 2007, 04:52:24 PM »
This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun. 

NEATO!!!  A mod!

What two words!!!  TELL ME, GODDAMIT!

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #557 on: November 01, 2007, 04:54:31 PM »
No. The earth does not have floating oceans. It is safe to not explore the RE model any further.

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.

HUZZAH Another victory for FE!!!

When you declared victory here, you claimed that the world HAS floating oceans.

How would you read the following sentence?
Quote
Oh but the oceans do float. 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.

The last sentence is a remark on water floating in water. If this confuses you, perhaps you should read the part where I said, "No. The earth does not have floating oceans." Since my stance on floating oceans confuses you let me phrase my standing another way for you.

No. The earth does not have floating oceans.


Seriously, you don't even have a chance, even the serious RE'ers like Trekky ran away from this thread a long time ago.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #558 on: November 01, 2007, 04:56:31 PM »
I'm here.  This is just so stupid.

See wood example above.

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • +0/-0
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #559 on: November 01, 2007, 04:57:49 PM »
The last sentence is a remark on water floating in water.

Which is exactly what a "floating ocean" is. So you repeatedly say that the world does not have floating oceans, but then you claim victory after making a remark confirming that water floating in water is a floating ocean.

If I'm wrong, what is the criteria for an ocean to be floating? What is your definition of floating?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 05:03:21 PM by ChiefConspirator »
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #560 on: November 01, 2007, 05:25:59 PM »
This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun. 

NEATO!!!  A mod!

What two words!!!  TELL ME, GODDAMIT!
A hint:
I use them quite often, most often with noobs.


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

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #561 on: November 01, 2007, 05:28:33 PM »
This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun. 

NEATO!!!  A mod!

What two words!!!  TELL ME, GODDAMIT!
A hint:
I use them quite often, most often with noobs.

Guesses:

"You're banned"
"/thread"
"Moving thread"
"Thread locked"

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #562 on: November 01, 2007, 05:37:43 PM »
This whole thing could be stopped with two words, but watching you guys argue is much more fun. 

NEATO!!!  A mod!

What two words!!!  TELL ME, GODDAMIT!
A hint:
I use them quite often, most often with noobs.

Guesses:

"You're banned"
"/thread"
"Moving thread"
"Thread locked"


Please do not spam this thread, you make it hard for intellectual conversations to persist.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #563 on: November 01, 2007, 06:25:03 PM »
Hint 2:
It has something to do with 'gravity'.


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

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #564 on: November 01, 2007, 06:47:49 PM »
Gravitation is Acceleration?

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #565 on: November 01, 2007, 06:52:47 PM »
Equivalence principle.  I win.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #566 on: November 01, 2007, 07:39:16 PM »
Equivalence principle.  I win.
You get a cookie.


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

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #567 on: November 01, 2007, 08:01:12 PM »
Well, f*ck yall, I got my own cookie.


*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #568 on: November 01, 2007, 11:27:20 PM »
OOooh. I want one.
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.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: RE floating oceans.
« Reply #569 on: November 02, 2007, 01:35:31 AM »
LOL, just thought I would have a go yesterday, got bored. It's quite clear that some people cannot be reasoned with.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness