Air - And how it contradicts a flat earth

1) Air is a gas. We all know that gases expand until they reach some sort of barrier. In an RE, this barrier is the Ozone layer/gravitational pull. In a Flat Earth...No barrier. Thusly, air would expand and flow off of the edge of the Flat Earth as it is propelled through the universe. We'd be leaking air... but we arn't! Explain why we arn't all suffocating.
(If you say the same force that propels us through the universe also keeps it in, you'd be wrong because that force would push the air easier than the Earth, and would take away air from us)

2) If we are accelerating, air pressure would increase rapidly as the Earth would constantly apply more pressure to the air, and would slowly squeeze it - if the air somehow had a way of being held in on the sides. Aircraft's cielings at which they could fly would decrease, and we would slowly be crushed under air pressure. Eventually, the air would be compressed to the point where it would combust, and we'd all die.
Explain why this does not happen, if the Earth is flat.

FE explains this with Dark Energy.  See this topic.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24563.0

Oh, that surely convinced me....With the proof and all....

Oh yes, well it's good to know our atmosphere is held in with ozone, a gas made of three oxygen molecules, because a gas expands until it reaches a gas.

Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.

Oh yes, well it's good to know our atmosphere is held in with ozone, a gas made of three oxygen molecules, because a gas expands until it reaches a gas.

Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.

The ozone layer would drift away as well. It's not a solid, and it'd have nothing to keep it there.
The ozone layer is just a O3 gas layer floating on top of the air. It doesn't actually do enough to keep it in.
Perhaps it's just the gravity wich prevents the air from floating out in space....that seems logical...

1) Air is a gas. We all know that gases expand until they reach some sort of barrier. In an RE, this barrier is the Ozone layer/gravitational pull.

Not what you said. Though I don't believe the ozone layer is the edge of our atmosphere either.

You said a barrier keeps it in, then said the ozone layer is the barrier.

There is not immediate end to our atmosphere, the gas just keeps getting more and more dispersed and closer to a vacuum.


@goldstein, if something wasn't being accelerated, it would be very far below us by now.

Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.

An 'imaginary force' is holding all objects in the universe together, it is clearly observable everywhere in the universe. The only question is how, which scientists are getting closer to finding out.

Quote from: Raist on December 30, 2008, 08:23:40 AM

Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.

An 'imaginary force' is holding all objects in the universe together, it is clearly observable everywhere in the universe. The only question is how, which scientists are getting closer to finding out.

Closer to? You mean they keep looking and have yet to find it. They keep building larger and larger colliders, with no results.

Quote from: avsfan987 on December 30, 2008, 08:33:34 AM

Quote from: Raist on December 30, 2008, 08:23:40 AM

Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.

An 'imaginary force' is holding all objects in the universe together, it is clearly observable everywhere in the universe. The only question is how, which scientists are getting closer to finding out.

Closer to? You mean they keep looking and have yet to find it. They keep building larger and larger colliders, with no results.

You have to give them credit for searching for it.  All this coming from a theory that won't even chart the coast line in their own back yard?  Please.

Quote from: Raist on December 30, 2008, 08:49:45 AM

Quote from: avsfan987 on December 30, 2008, 08:33:34 AM

Quote from: Raist on December 30, 2008, 08:23:40 AM

Also an imaginary force is holding it in, that magically attracts all objects in the universe to each other.

An 'imaginary force' is holding all objects in the universe together, it is clearly observable everywhere in the universe. The only question is how, which scientists are getting closer to finding out.

Closer to? You mean they keep looking and have yet to find it. They keep building larger and larger colliders, with no results.

You have to give them credit for searching for it.  All this coming from a theory that won't even chart the coast line in their own back yard?  Please.

Ah yes, charting coast lines, because we can just give up our lives, study for years to learn accurate charting techniques, then spend our lives surveying coasts. If we'd just put in a little effort.

Searching for does not prove.

The Earth is accelerating up into the air, simulating gravity.

1) Air is a gas. We all know that gases expand until they reach some sort of barrier. In an RE, this barrier is the Ozone layer/gravitational pull. In a Flat Earth...No barrier. Thusly, air would expand and flow off of the edge of the Flat Earth as it is propelled through the universe. We'd be leaking air... but we arn't! Explain why we arn't all suffocating.
(If you say the same force that propels us through the universe also keeps it in, you'd be wrong because that force would push the air easier than the Earth, and would take away air from us)

2) If we are accelerating, air pressure would increase rapidly as the Earth would constantly apply more pressure to the air, and would slowly squeeze it - if the air somehow had a way of being held in on the sides. Aircraft's cielings at which they could fly would decrease, and we would slowly be crushed under air pressure. Eventually, the air would be compressed to the point where it would combust, and we'd all die.
Explain why this does not happen, if the Earth is flat.

1. There is a dark energy shield formed around the earth, formed when something gets in the way of DE.
2. No, pressure would not increase. The formula for pressure is Force/Area. Is the mass of the air changing? Is the acceleration changing? Is the earth shrinking? No No No.

By your logic I could argue that we will all be doomed by atmospheric pressure eventually.

1. There is a dark energy shield formed around the earth, formed when something gets in the way of DE.

Would you (or any other FE'er) care to advance FET by creating a scale drawing of the FE, sun, moon, stars and dark energy shield showing how the UA is able to flow around the DE shield and accelerate the celestial objects along with the FE?  Nothing fancy is needed, just a simple cross section view would be sufficient.

Quote from: Raist on December 30, 2008, 09:08:39 AM

Ah yes, charting coast lines, because we can just give up our lives, study for years to learn accurate charting techniques, then spend our lives surveying coasts. If we'd just put in a little effort.

Maybe if you did the coasts first, then took the money you made from the book deal, and the film rights etc etc you could set up a lab to research dark energy and dark matter, and the universal accelerator, and the shadow object, and the twin moon, and the celestial gears, and the ice wall and all the other stuff FE requires yet cannot be seen by mortal eye.

Just an idea.

Ah yes, give up my life to chart coasts, which would require extensive training. Also, one person in a boat charting coastlines would be considered a lunatic for declaring the Earth Flat.

Have you charted the coasts yourself?

Quote from: goldstein on December 30, 2008, 06:17:13 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 30, 2008, 09:08:39 AM

Ah yes, charting coast lines, because we can just give up our lives, study for years to learn accurate charting techniques, then spend our lives surveying coasts. If we'd just put in a little effort.

Maybe if you did the coasts first, then took the money you made from the book deal, and the film rights etc etc you could set up a lab to research dark energy and dark matter, and the universal accelerator, and the shadow object, and the twin moon, and the celestial gears, and the ice wall and all the other stuff FE requires yet cannot be seen by mortal eye.

Just an idea.

Ah yes, give up my life to chart coasts, which would require extensive training. Also, one person in a boat charting coastlines would be considered a lunatic for declaring the Earth Flat.

Have you charted the coasts yourself?

All you need to know is how to work a boat to chart a coast line.

Please keep to serious discussion. If you would like to discuss the lizard army, take it to angry ranting.

The Earth is accelerating up into the air, simulating gravity.

Ok thats just stupid, gravity has nothing to do with magnetic poles, compasses point to a polar north(not true north by the way).  This is due to the arrangement of the iron on the earths crust, which is aligned in a way that creates aagnetic polar north, this is caused my magma flow in the earths mantle, as a matter of fact the the earths poles are slowly moving because of this, eventually our compasses may point east

FE explains this with Dark Energy.  See this topic.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24563.0

Dark energy does not interact with regular matter!!!!  This is why it is called DARK ENERGY, because it is undetectable because it does not interact with matter, this is why of is only speculated to exist, are there any of you FEers who can put up an intelligent conversation?

Air contradicts a flat earth?

Not only can RET not account for air, it cannot even explain why its oceans don't float through it...

Of course. Its all Dark Energy, isn't it.

Are any of you parents, cause I can invision this conversation.

Child:When did we go to the moon.
Parent:We never went to the moon.
C:Why not?
P:Because... um... Dark Energy!
C:Whats dark energy?
P:Energy that's... uh.... Dark.
C:Why did Neil Armstrong say he's been their?
P:Because Neil is just a blob of Dark Energy.
C:Oh...

And to the last post:
Yes it can. Oceans are more dense than air so they don't float. The atmosphere is here because the things that form it are attracted by gravity.

Gravity in RET is every bit as hypothetical as Dark Matter is in FET.

Gravity in RET is every bit as hypothetical as Dark Matter is in FET.

RET Gravity is also a lot more believable and logical.

Of course. Its all Dark Energy, isn't it.

Are any of you parents, cause I can invision this conversation.

Child:When did we go to the moon.
Parent:We never went to the moon.
C:Why not?
P:Because... um... Dark Energy!
C:Whats dark energy?
P:Energy that's... uh.... Dark.
C:Why did Neil Armstrong say he's been their?
P:Because Neil is just a blob of Dark Energy.
C:Oh...

And to the last post:
Yes it can. Oceans are more dense than air so they don't float. The atmosphere is here because the things that form it are attracted by gravity.

Wow, mocking a theory you don't understand. Since about the third grade I've been asking teachers, "what causes gravity" and they always told me "gravity is the attractive force between two objects" never siting how or why. I have yet to get a good answer from a teacher on this.

Why are we arguing gravity again? Both models have an unknown force that keeps us attracted towards the surface. The fact gravity is unknown doesn't make the RE model any weaker than the FE model, as FE model DE is just as unknown, and vice versa.

Why are we arguing gravity again? Both models have an unknown force that keeps us attracted towards the surface. The fact gravity is unknown doesn't make the RE model any weaker than the FE model, as FE model DE is just as unknown, and vice versa.

He decided to act like we know nothing, when in fact we have a perfectly viable argument for that specific stance. So instead of picking apart that boring strawman I am bringing up a point, RE'ers will gladly declare an explanation is fact when they don't even know why it works.

There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.

There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.

I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.

Quote from: svenanders on January 10, 2009, 03:18:50 PM

There are a lot of things we don't know why works. But we know it works.
Do you know why you exist? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that you do exist.
So to say that if we don't know why things work, doesn't mean that it's not working.
You get my point.

I know why I exist, I exist because I can exist, so my DNA made me, and I will make more of it slightly changed, and that will make a person, because it can. So on and so forth until more like me can not be made.

That's fine but you do not know the purpose of our existence. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2009, 01:30:22 AM

Gravity in RET is every bit as hypothetical as Dark Matter is in FET.

RET Gravity is also a lot more believable and logical.

Because you say so?

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on January 10, 2009, 03:06:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2009, 01:30:22 AM

Gravity in RET is every bit as hypothetical as Dark Matter is in FET.

RET Gravity is also a lot more believable and logical.

Because you say so?

Because he is taking his preconceived conclusion (RE) and working backwards in order to form his opinions.