Flat Earth Victory

Quote from: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 02:45:24 PM

Quote from: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 02:09:13 PM

How can you see stars so far away, yet unable to see the ones from the Moon, around Earth?

Answered many times... Here's one answer: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Why do you provide useless links to unecessary sources?

If you can't explain it yourself, you are utterly useless here.

I thank you.

How is that link useless? Why do I have to explain it to when many people have already publicly explained it to you?

Here are the graphics you requested:



This is the original experiment with no boats. Whether the Earth is flat or round, the experiment dictates that we travel 100 km, so the black line (representing the path travelled / Earth's surface) is exactly 100 km long. If the Earth is flat, then a taut rope (red) would be the same length, but if the Earth is round, the taut rope must go underwater and naturally be shorter than our travel distance.

This is the second version of the experiment, where the ships hold up the rope:



The ship-lineup necessitates that the rope is always parallel to the water regardless of the shape of the Earth, therefore giving identical results no matter what and making the whole experiment pointless.

I thank you. Yes, I do believe in FET. This whole experiment is the easiest known way to prove FET, to the entire world, yes?

That's why I started this thread, I was inspired by kosh5's question about funding some boat ride from Alaska to Russia to measure the sea distance from one shore to the other.

I don't think he realised that Russia and Alaska are far up in the northern "hemisphere", thus closer to the actual geographical Center of the Earth, in the Arctic Sea.

Thus no distortions would appear across the Bering Strait.

However those distortions should appear when flying from Africa to Australia, as the Indian Ocean would be 2-3 times longer to cross than that same paralel distance from Kaliningrad to Japan.

In fact I even proved the flat earth to my parents using a model of the earth's globe.

I did the following easy example. Showing them several air flights from America to Japan, for example, that have absolutely no speed gain from flying east.

If I recall well, the plane should benefit from the earth's rotation, that when flying east towards Japan should actually reach it very very fast in less than 3 hours or so. Judging by the speed of the plane itself, and the speed of the earth flying Japan closer to the plane, as the plane is in mid air.

Only the time distance was still well over 8-9 hours, thus the rotation of the world would have no speeding effect on the plane's journey.

The same example, only when flying west, proves there is no rotation of any kind, as well. Since flying directly West, doesn't mean you reach your destination much slower, because you're racing against the Earth's revolution itself, which should be flying against you, at over 1000 meters per second, or something like that.

By proving with known airflights, their so called distances and their actual flight durations, estimated by the companies themselves, I have proven then, how there is absolutely no way to profit from air flights, to make them shorter, by using the supposed rotation of the earth.

In reality, those planes still have the same distance to fly across, no matter if they fly east or west. There is no movement of the earth beneath them, so they take just as long to get to either place.

If the earth's rotation was real, that plane's speed should reach Japan in three hours.

However it takes over 8-9 hours, because the earth doesn't "bring Japan closer" to the West, since there is no earth movement.

This was years ago, like 4-5 years back maybe. I don't recall all the details, sorry.

Quote from: Cosmas on December 25, 2011, 02:10:27 PM

So if the earth is round, why is the water flat ?

RET predicts that the water will appear flat left to right in the photo. Why do you think otherwise?

So accoring to RET, the earth is not flat, while the water between the continents is actually concave by comparisson?

Sorry RET cannot explain flat water. It implies CONCAVE water, meaning it would appear to go down into a pit, beneath the level of the horizon, according to your RET.

Meaning you would actually see the edge of the other shore, with the water beneath it's beach. This is impossible, of course. Water cannot become concave as it would have to be to explain RET. It does however, remain very flat.

Why wouldn't we think otherwise? RET implies only concave water, not flat water.

In reality, those planes still have the same distance to fly across, no matter if they fly east or west. There is no movement of the earth beneath them, so they take just as long to get to either place.

If the earth's rotation was real, that plane's speed should reach Japan in three hours.

However it takes over 8-9 hours, because the earth doesn't "bring Japan closer" to the West, since there is no earth movement.

This was years ago, like 4-5 years back maybe. I don't recall all the details, sorry.

Are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't move with the Earth? You have hear of Newton's Three Laws of Motion, right?

How is that link useless? Why do I have to explain it to when many people have already publicly explained it to you?

How is it useful?

Once I carefully place a lense before your eyes, and show you any given pen, would you dare deny that the pen is curved?

You and anyone else seeing through that type of lense, would always see a curved pen. How then, could you deny it's roundness?

How can you say a pen or pencil is flat? Length-wise of course. I have the lense to disprove it's flatness. And prove it's curved !!

I am only providing you with the visual lenses for you to look through, and see that the table or pencil you once thought you saw as "flat", were actually Round All Along !!!

You're welcome.

So accoring to RET, the earth is not flat, while the water between the continents is actually concave by comparisson?

Sorry RET cannot explain flat water. It implies CONCAVE water, meaning it would appear to go down into a pit, beneath the level of the horizon, according to your RET.

Meaning you would actually see the edge of the other shore, with the water beneath it's beach. This is impossible, of course. Water cannot become concave as it would have to be to explain RET. It does however, remain very flat.

Why wouldn't we think otherwise? RET implies only concave water, not flat water.

No, as usual you're smoking your socks. RET does not imply only concave water. Do the math for yourself or follow the link I gave you.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 02:49:34 PM

How is that link useless? Why do I have to explain it to when many people have already publicly explained it to you?

How is it useful?

Once I carefully place a lense before your eyes, and show you any given pen, would you dare deny that the pen is curved?

You and anyone else seeing through that type of lense, would always see a curved pen. How then, could you deny it's roundness?

How can you say a pen or pencil is flat? Length-wise of course. I have the lense to disprove it's flatness. And prove it's curved !!

I am only providing you with the visual lenses for you to look through, and see that the table or pencil you once thought you saw as "flat", were actually Round All Along !!!

You're welcome.

Just because the image doesn't match the predictions of your lame theory, it does not imply a lens. You really need to stop with the special pleading fallacies.

Are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't move with the Earth? You have hear of Newton's Three Laws of Motion, right?

Are you saying all the planes and all the plane companies are lying to you?

Dear unstable individual. Plane companies DO NOT LIE. The planes themselves DO NOT LIE.

The distances and durations of those flights, prove the earth is flat.

It takes just as much to travel the same distance, for a plane, in any given direction or route.

Why? Because a plane knows it still has to fly the FULL measure of that distance from one airport or another. The earth below it still does not move at all.

So unless you have evidence all those companies and their planes and air durations have reasons to lie to me, or the world in general, I don't see why you would defy basic mathmatics.

Air planes don't lie. They take just as much to travel in any direction, from any chosen airport. Their journey isn't shortened, at all. Or lengthened.

Since pilots and airplanes Prove there is absolutely no Gain from the earth's rotation, from long distance flights, then all those planes are trying to tell me they're flying across a very unmoving earth.

Again, if you think all the planes in the world, and all their companies are lying to me, seek help. Those companies are privately owned, by normal people. They have no reason to elongate their flight durations, or the distances between two airports, simply to support my Flat Earth theory.

Unless, of course, you believe I own all those companies, and all those air planes. Thus ordered them to only give out the conveniant durations and distances of their flights to suit my FET ?

Sorry, those all still privately owned companies. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Airplanes tend to agree with FET, even if I don't own their companies, see?

Are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't move with the Earth? You have hear of Newton's Three Laws of Motion, right?

Water moves with the Earth. Assuming the Earth moved ..... which doesn't. They all stand very very still.

Why should air also move with them? Air is superfluidic. Meaning it's more mobile and "unbound" than water.

I will reply with a simple experiment. When you're in a car, and you move very fast does the air inside the car move with you? No, new air comes from in front of you.

Air only "travels with you" if you have a perfectly closed hood, with closed windows, and so forth. Because that upper metal layer and glass is actually pushing the air with it's acceleration, and giving it the same speed as the car around or beneath it.

A simple car that has no windshield or hood, or has a retractable roof, can prove air doesn't travel with you.

Even in a normal car, when you stick your hand out the window when racing at over 60 kmph or more, you will feel incredible ressistance or pressure back from the air.

That air just outside is staying very still, and has great opposition and resists against your hand which is rushing against it with a high speed. The air also resists any form of fast moving or flying vehicle.

Air resistance is one of the easiest ways to prove the air doesn't "move with the earth". Because the air has more stability to resist any fast object travelling through it, than can be explained by RET.

If the earth did move, air would lose a great deal of it resistance to most moving objects through it. Since it still has a lot of resistance, no matter the direction you're moving through it, it's obvious it has a lot of stability, from standing generally still. Just like the earth, only with less density.

The air moves faster in upper layers than the lower layers, I see this whenever smoke rises from house chimneys or large factory towers. At one point the vertical line of smoke is broken and dissipates into an almost horizontal line of smoke, as it loses it's density, from being in less denser air above the surface it rose from.

This is just because earth has more density than air. It fully supports FET, no matter the experiment you try.

I thank you.

Just because the image doesn't match the predictions of your lame theory, it does not imply a lens. You really need to stop with the special pleading fallacies.

Do all of your link appear through lenses, that distort direct vision?

If so, allow me to mock your pathetic links.

Explain it here, with your own words, or begone.

Cretin.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 03:09:02 PM

Just because the image doesn't match the predictions of your lame theory, it does not imply a lens. You really need to stop with the special pleading fallacies.

Do all of your link appear through lenses, that distort direct vision?

If so, allow me to mock your pathetic links.

Explain it here, with your own words, or begone.

Cretin.

1) Please stop with the special pleading fallacies. There's no sense in it, as you've been caught. If you have to invoke a magic lens to explain away evidence, you've already lost.
2) Please stop with the straw man fallacies. Newton's Three Laws of Motion explained why airplanes don't benefit or suffer from the Earth's rotation long before the Wright Brothers. Please educate yourself by reading http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00385.htm.
3) I feel no obligation to explain anything with just my own words.

So, Silverdane, you're saying that when a plane lifts off the ground, it should stop moving with the Earth and appear to automatically move relatively as it is stationary and Earth continues rotating below it?

I have to ask then if you believe the Universal Acceleration theory. If so, these two ideas are incompatible. One depends on denying Newton's first law, and the other depends on accepting it.

If not, then what do you propose causes things to fall?

Electromagnetic pressure from above. All that air is very heavy, heavy enough to throw down anything that doesn't rise upon the earth.

If there were only void, in an entire continent, everything on it would be easier or "lighter". They could be thrown higher up, and people could jump much higher.

The great air pressure across the known world, makes the air very dense, you can feel it's density when putting your hand out the car window, as you're in a fast car. That air pressure just forces your hand back, so it's definately strong enough to force everything you see downwards.

There is no such thing as "vertical acceleration". That is more nonsense than the RET itself.

There is, however, vertical pressure from above. Just like waterfall accelerate as they fall, or anything that falls gains more mass and accelerates as it falls longer, the same is with the air pressure. It's enough to push everything down.

Just like wind, only from above. Vertically instead of side to side, like the wind does.

So vertical winds, from above, are the ones responsable for what you asked for.

This is more throughly explained by the Ether theory, that Levee explained somewhere else on this site.

If you're unfamiliar with the Ether theory, feel free to look for it. If you can't find it, I can post the links here. But then I'd be lazy and useless like the Big Ben.

So, Silverdane, you're saying that when a plane lifts off the ground, it should stop moving with the Earth and appear to automatically move relatively as it is stationary and Earth continues rotating below it?

I have to ask then if you believe the Universal Acceleration theory. If so, these two ideas are incompatible. One depends on denying Newton's first law, and the other depends on accepting it.

If not, then what do you propose causes things to fall?

There is no magnetic force to force any airplanes to move along with the earth. Is there? If there were, that airplane would be so magnetically bound to the Earth, how could it ever lift itself up?

There is no evidence that an airplane is magnetically attracted to the earth below. It's gravity or weight doesn't decrease the further it distances itself from the Earth.

However it is possible the airplane suffers from a magnetic pressure, from above. The air above it, as well as around it, forces it down, in a standard acceleration downwards, toward the earth below.

As the plane gains enough lift of it's own, it breaks through the magnetic wall of the air, that normally forced it down on the ground.

Simple explanation. Air is electromagnetic itself, only it forces almost everything down. Just like magnets repel their similar ends, the air "repels" most things down, unto the earth. Then the earth compensates with it's density, balancing out the downwards magnetic pressure of the air. By keeping most things stable, in a balance between magnetic pressure from the air above, and resistance from the Earth's density below.

If all the air would be suddenly demagnetised above a region, most things would become extremly light, almost weightless. Until air from around it would rush in, and magnetise it back up, restoring the illusion of gravity.

It's definately not some earth upwards acceleration. It's air downwards pressure (temporary acceleration).

Again, this is possible thanks to the Ether Theory.

If that's hard to understand, just imagine the air like an expanding, or slowly exploding gas.

As it attempts to expand, it's forced downwards, forcing everything down. Over time it's so strong that it erodes mountains into hills, rivers into great valleys, and so forth.

The pressure of the air, is similar to the pressure on the bottom of the sea. Since air and water are both fluids, only one is just a normal dense liquid, while the other is superfluidic and several times lighter, and less dense.

The air is just like a translucent sea, that floats above the level of the actual maritime sea. It also has greater pressure, and "down force" that you find within the sea itself.

Or imagine the sky above the Flat Earth, like a barrel. The air above us is the cannonball and a powerful magnetic (EM pulse) above the air layers are forcing it down on the earth. Just like a cannon would explode and force it's ball to "fall" horizontally, because of the pressure behind it, the same way the air above us, is forced down by a similar explosive like force. Only electro magnetical in nature, and slower, instead of faster and short lived like gun powder exploding in a cannon.

This EM force that pushes all the air down, and everything within this air, also down until the earth stop it, is measured and called ..... I don't recall? Some myth like the bigbong or ? Star power? Some fluffy nonsense like that.

It's the same one that appears on tv, between channels, and the "white noise" between radio stations. That's the electromagnetic force strong enough to make the air above us "heavier" and force everything down.

The higher up you are, the less acceleration this downward force has. That's why satellites easily float one they're high up enough. The air is so thin there, it's density isn't enough to give it a downforce acceleration, like everything here has.

Fire or warmth is either the most similar to this EM vertical falling force, or it's very opposite. Since warmth / fire, can expand or dilate or "thin" the air enough to lessen it's pressure, and lessens the magnetic acceleration from above, enough to lift things up.

That explains hot air baloons, and so forth. Warmth either has a negating equalising force against vertical magnetism, just like "anti-gravity" to "gravity" if either of these existed.

So that upper force is either ..... very cold air, that pushes everything down, or "anti-fire" an EM field that is as expanding as fire is, only it's direction is "down", instead of fire which is up, up, up, and all around.

It's definately not some earth upwards acceleration. It's air downwards pressure (temporary acceleration).

Again, this is possible thanks to the Ether Theory.

So can you demonstrate why anyone would believe that it's air downwards pressure? Point us to an peer-reviewed journal article that reports the result you.

If you throw yourself from a bridge, do you need a peer-reviewed journal article to report to you that you can crash into the earth and broke your bones, for you to be able to?

Or do you just break your bones, and fall like everyone else?

See, articles don't make it happen. Your bones are still broken, even without the peers to decide before hand, that your bones will break.

If you can jump from a bridge, not break your bones, and not fall, simply because it hasn't been foretold in a magical prophecy by your prophets or Gods, I will believe there is use to your prophecy.

Until then, do keep in mind this is not the Oracle of Delphi. And even those Oracles can be bought with persian gold to lie about their findings. Or have you not heard of corruption and bribery before ...

So can you demonstrate why anyone would believe that it's air downwards pressure? Point us to an peer-reviewed journal article that reports the result you.

You tell me.

Do you deny air pressure?

Do you deny air density?

Do you deny air mass?

Do you deny air has weight?

If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before?

If nitrogen is made liquid, does the liquid nitrogen not become more heavy than the non-liquid form of itself?

Just because you can't see air, doesn't mean it's not being pushed down, by something above it.

If you hold a massive tire pump downwards, and press down on the end, forcing the air inside to increase it's pressure, does that air not become forced down, and then through the hose, inflating the tire?

If you push your hand through the air, straight down, fast enough, does your hand not feel resistance from the air density itself?

Does that air density not create a wave of air loud enough to be heard in the room, as you move your hand downwards very fast?

Does that not prove air itself has a kinetic power, that's proportionate to it's density?

If a storm with winds above 70 kmh, direct that air pressure horizontally instead of vertically, does it now push you horizantally or to the side, instead of down towards the ground?

Does that horizontal wind, not weaken and later negate "gravity" enough for you to lift up the ground and fly into the nearest wall, or heavy obstacle?

Or are you unfamiliar with the clichee of a cow that flies into a building, because of the winds inside a hurricane?

If air can have such tremendous antigravitational forces when it's directed horizontally, and creates tornadoes very fast when it's directed vertically, could it not have the force to accelerate or push everything down, or "away from itself" into the Earth, when in it's normal "passive" unaltered state?

Doesn't water have the same pressure, when it pushes things down to the bottom of it's sea?

Doesn't water and air, as fluid and superfluid, allow the same floatability to some elements, or densities or forms of "energy"?

Doesn't wood float on water, the same way polen or light feathers or dust float on air?

If you throw yourself from a bridge, do you need a peer-reviewed journal article to report to you that you can crash into the earth and broke your bones, for you to be able to?

Or do you just break your bones, and fall like everyone else?

See, articles don't make it happen. Your bones are still broken, even without the peers to decide before hand, that your bones will break.

If you can jump from a bridge, not break your bones, and not fall, simply because it hasn't been foretold in a magical prophecy by your prophets or Gods, I will believe there is use to your prophecy.

Until then, do keep in mind this is not the Oracle of Delphi. And even those Oracles can be bought with persian gold to lie about their findings. Or have you not heard of corruption and bribery before ...

So you can't then? Figures?

How do we know that you aren't the one bribing the oracles?

As far as I'm concerned as soon as you have to invoke "corruption and bribery" you lose the debate.

My answer are inline below.

You tell me.

Do you deny air pressure? no

Do you deny air density? no

Do you deny air mass? no

Do you deny air has weight? Only in the presence of gravity

If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before? no

If nitrogen is made liquid, does the liquid nitrogen not become more heavy than the non-liquid form of itself? no

Just because you can't see air, doesn't mean it's not being pushed down, by something above it.

If you hold a massive tire pump downwards, and press down on the end, forcing the air inside to increase it's pressure, does that air not become forced down, and then through the hose, inflating the tire? yes

If you push your hand through the air, straight down, fast enough, does your hand not feel resistance from the air density itself? yes

Does that air density not create a wave of air loud enough to be heard in the room, as you move your hand downwards very fast? no

Does that not prove air itself has a kinetic power, that's proportionate to it's density? no and no

If a storm with winds above 70 kmh, direct that air pressure horizontally instead of vertically, does it now push you horizantally or to the side, instead of down towards the ground? no

Does that horizontal wind, not weaken and later negate "gravity" enough for you to lift up the ground and fly into the nearest wall, or heavy obstacle? no

Or are you unfamiliar with the clichee of a cow that flies into a building, because of the winds inside a hurricane? yes

If air can have such tremendous antigravitational forces when it's directed horizontally, and creates tornadoes very fast when it's directed vertically, could it not have the force to accelerate or push everything down, or "away from itself" into the Earth, when in it's normal "passive" unaltered state? no

Doesn't water have the same pressure, when it pushes things down to the bottom of it's sea? no

Doesn't water and air, as fluid and superfluid, allow the same floatability to some elements, or densities or forms of "energy"?

Doesn't wood float on water, the same way polen or light feathers or dust float on air? yes

^ Rewarding to debate with, isn't he?

That's true but I never considered to be debating against you.

Your question was "Why should anyone believe it's downwards air pressure", and if I can prove it.

My intention is never to force or fool people to believe anything. That is propaganda thought pattern, right there. You may have it, but don't expect others to.

Let's see .... if you wish me to take you seriously, and pretend to "debate" your so called arguments, very well. I shall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So can you demonstrate why anyone would believe that it's air downwards pressure? Point us to an peer-reviewed journal article that reports the result you.

If a cannon shots something straight down, does it not have the most force, than if it were facing straight up?

The air pressure that pushes the cannonball down, is directly and immediately ADDED to the vertical pressure of the air itself that magnetises everything to accelerate down.

Since that same forces later decreases the speed of the cannonball when it's cannon is shot straight up, that proves the air has an equal force, but of less density to oppose it.

Since firing a cannon into a void, or very low density air would increase it's speed and impact tenfold (or something like that) it's obvious air has a direct influence on this "weight" you can measure.

Helium proves this. Despite having weight like other gasses, it's polarity tends to reverse the general magnetism "from above" that forces most gasses down towards the earth, increasing their pressure directly by adding the earth's upwards resistance.

If helium as a gas, directly opposes the magnetism of other gases, doesn't this prove helium is an element less "touched" or affected by the magnetism of downwards accelerating air pressure?

Unless, of course, you claim helium was made up by FET infiltrators. I myself came up with the idea of Helium, and cleverly bribed enough scientists and RET to allow me to sneak all these useful tactics to aid my Indoctrination of the Masses.

I see you don't understand normal logic, so I will play on your field of Espionage, Dogma & Other Lies and Manipulations, with which you are most familiar.

Just as I ordered all those flight companies that I personally own, with my various false identities, to pretend they take just as long to fly in any given direction, with no effect WHATSOEVER from the Earth's supposed "revolution".

Any other questions you wish me to debate before you?

I thank you.

If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before? no

A tank filled with compressed air will weigh more than a tank that is filled with air at normal atmospheric pressure.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_compressed_air_weigh_more_than_non_compressed_air#ixzz1hbFhXSdx

Wow, you already lost. And it was just at the beginning questions !!

I am dissappoint.

Air does weigh a lot more, when it is condensed. Gravity has nothing to do with this, it's just the density of the air itself which makes it "weigh more".

As if this wasn't enough to proclaim my victory, I shall continue exposing your fallacies.

I thank you.

So you can't then? Figures?

How do we know that you aren't the one bribing the oracles?

As far as I'm concerned as soon as you have to invoke "corruption and bribery" you lose the debate.

Oh, I have seen through your brilliance !!

By posing as a RET noob who conveniently asks "all the wrong questions" you get all the RET folk reading this to "side with you", so to speak.

Then you purposefully ask enough detailed questions to reveal the flaws in your RET Dogma, thus forcing the ones who previously were RET who thought they were on your side, to be "exposed" and gradually convert FET, by devouring my arguments.

Genius !!

You, sir, are a wonderful Flat Earth Theorist, and you even fooled me for a second. I see now, you are only doing this as a stage play, like Shakespeare.

Brilliant !! Hat is tipped to you.

Keep up the good work, Sir !! For I shall now go back in character, for our avid viewers ...

Quote from: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 05:24:25 PM

If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before? no

Quote

A tank filled with compressed air will weigh more than a tank that is filled with air at normal atmospheric pressure.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_compressed_air_weigh_more_than_non_compressed_air#ixzz1hbFhXSdx

Wow, you already lost. And it was just at the beginning questions !!

I am dissappoint.

Air does weigh a lot more, when it is condensed. Gravity has nothing to do with this, it's just the density of the air itself which makes it "weigh more".

As if this wasn't enough to proclaim my victory, I shall continue exposing your fallacies.

I thank you.

I see. Would you please help me understand. How is your question: "If air is condensed or frozen, does it not weigh more than before?" related to your citation: "A tank filled with compressed air will weigh more than a tank that is filled with air at normal atmospheric pressure." Isn't there more air in the first case than the second?

I think that you should have cited this from that reference: "Since weight is the measure of an object's gravitational pull, the compressed air does not weigh more."

Does that air density not create a wave of air loud enough to be heard in the room, as you move your hand downwards very fast? no

Wow I did not expect your hands to be so weak.

When I lower my hand down, very fast, it does create an audible rush of air around it.

As the density and speed of my hand is displacing the air beneath it, to replace the void where my hand once was.

I can prove this to anyone, if they are in the same room. Rushing my hand down very fast, does create an audible sound that echos through the air.

This is because air has friction, from it's resistance to my movement.

When rushing my hand upwards, the sound is weaker because the air is easily forced up, and has less echo and resistance from itself.

When rushing my hand down, the sound is strongest, as the air is more slowly forced down, since it has the most resistance from the floor, and Earth below it.

This cannot possibly be explained by gravity. Only by air magnetism, that is stronger on the vertical direction, from above .... to below.

^ Rewarding to debate with, isn't he?

Ah yes !! Mostly such.

In fact, I suspect he's Levee, testing us to see which Flat Earther is intelligent and dedicated enough to join the Inner Sanctum of the FE Forums.

Yaaay, I'm so excited !!

If a cannon shots something straight down, does it not have the most force, than if it were facing straight up?

nope

If a storm with winds above 70 kmh, direct that air pressure horizontally instead of vertically, does it now push you horizantally or to the side, instead of down towards the ground? no

Again, years ago, a storm strong enough to tear down trees, topple them on houses, and kill anyone who was unfortunate enough to be under that falling tree, as each of them broke from the strong winds ....

I went out towards north, from my neighbourhood on foot, with someone else from my family. Who happens to be a scientist and also RET, like yourself.

The winds were constantly over 60 km/h, nobody was bold enough to walk on the streets then. And just near a river (small afluent of the Danube) where the city was more clear, and the air flowed more freely, the winds became so fast, they literally stopped me from moving forward.

So even when trying to move against them or sideways from their origin, I was almost paralysed from the air pressure those winds were throwing against me.

It's the same from above. The EM pressure of the air throws itself at things constantly, making it hard to rise up from the earth as easily as you try to.

Most of your kinetic force remains "landbound". Or is reflected back inside your body stopping you from jumping up very high. Because that EM force of air, that pushes it from above, also pushes you from all sides.

Without it, your body would expand very fast, it's own inner pressure would cause it to explode. This is seen in deep sea divers who's depression chamber is leaking. They literally explode with blood inside the chamber, because the dense air (nitrogen and oxigen) inside their bodies, is surrounded by very low pressure air, from above the sea surface.

So any deep sea diver, and their depression chambers, and air tanks will confirm air pressure has a lot to do with it's kinetic force. It's that same kinetic force slowing you down in water, and stopping you from flying high up into the air above you.

Unless of course, you suspect the visible, tangible laws of fluid pressure (of air and water) .... don't apply to you?

I thank you.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 05:24:25 PM

If a storm with winds above 70 kmh, direct that air pressure horizontally instead of vertically, does it now push you horizantally or to the side, instead of down towards the ground? no

Again, years ago, a storm strong enough to tear down trees, topple them on houses, and kill anyone who was unfortunate enough to be under that falling tree, as each of them broke from the strong winds ....

I went out towards north, from my neighbourhood on foot, with someone else from my family. Who happens to be a scientist and also RET, like yourself.

The winds were constantly over 60 km/h, nobody was bold enough to walk on the streets then. And just near a river (small afluent of the Danube) where the city was more clear, and the air flowed more freely, the winds became so fast, they literally stopped me from moving forward.

So even when trying to move against them or sideways from their origin, I was almost paralysed from the air pressure those winds were throwing against me.

It's the same from above. The EM pressure of the air throws itself at things constantly, making it hard to rise up from the earth as easily as you try to.

Most of your kinetic force remains "landbound". Or is reflected back inside your body stopping you from jumping up very high. Because that EM force of air, that pushes it from above, also pushes you from all sides.

Without it, your body would expand very fast, it's own inner pressure would cause it to explode. This is seen in deep sea divers who's depression chamber is leaking. They literally explode with blood inside the chamber, because the dense air (nitrogen and oxigen) inside their bodies, is surrounded by very low pressure air, from above the sea surface.

So any deep sea diver, and their depression chambers, and air tanks will confirm air pressure has a lot to do with it's kinetic force. It's that same kinetic force slowing you down in water, and stopping you from flying high up into the air above you.

Unless of course, you suspect the visible, tangible laws of fluid pressure (of air and water) .... don't apply to you?

I thank you.

You've confused wind and its force with air pressure.

You write so much and say so little.

What are "depression chambers"? These? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair

What is "kinetic force"?  This? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2011/03/max-vadukul.html