Flat Earth Victory

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."

Yes, if a ton of air is condensed, that same ton of air, would still weigh the same. It would just be in a much smaller area of occupation.

It's your fault for misunderstanding my question, see?

Nitrogen that is very dense, in liquid form, weighs more than normal air nitrogen. It's more dense and affected more strongly by the EM acceleration from above, thus pushed down more strongly.

So gas density of whatever element is directly proportionate to how much it's being forced down by the air above it.

Just like colder air "falls down" from upper layers of air, because it dislodges the less dens air, which more easily rises to the surface, that colder air, with higher density is in fact more "in tune" with the EM force that pushes it down.

Since both Magnetism is weakened and dissabilitates by high temperature, and highly effective in COLD or lower temperatures, the air's EM that has a downwards sense of direction, has the EXACT SAME PROPERTY.

When that air is very cold, the "gravitational" electromagnetism from above it, is the most effective, and pushes it down the easiest.

When that same air is very hot, it's magnetism is weakened to the point the "Upper Magnetism" that should force it down, is less effective, and thus it appears to weigh less.

If both metalic Magnetism and air Magnetism have the same "cool preference" and "warm weakness", how then could they not be the same force?

If you can't even understand how magnetism works, you are an utter tool. And not even a metalic or magnetic one.

..... You're an imagnetic tool.

Nitrogen that is very dense, in liquid form, weighs more than normal air nitrogen. It's more dense and affected more strongly by the EM acceleration from above, thus pushed down more strongly.

Let's take it slowly...

How do you know that these statements, quoted above, are true? What do you mean by "Nitrogen that is very dense in liquid form, weighs more than normal air nitrogen". What is "normal air nitrogen"? Do you mean N at STP?

Are you making that same mistake as before? Condensing a volume of N does not affect its mass. How do you know that "the EM acceleration from above" affects LN more than gaseous N?

Because denser nitrogen is also MORE COLD.

And since MAGNETISM is stronger in cold temperature, and weaker in warmer temperature .......

The magnetism of the air above the nitrogen is more effective in forcing it down. With magnetism. Which is better with cold.

And weaker without cold. Thus, the "less cold" nitrogen, is the least affected by Magnetism from above (the upper air and gasses above itself pushing it down with their magnetic weight). Because it's natural heat from within has a negating effect on the Magnetism from Above, that created that downwards pressure.

I'm glad you finally played out your part, little one. Through your sacrifice of dignify and self respect, you have possibly converted anyone reading your questions and my answers, to FET.

Again, hat tipped unto thee ...

How do you know that "the EM acceleration from above" affects LN more than gaseous N?

Oh dear .. I suppose no one ever told you that denser gases are also colder?

Or that magnetism is intensified with coldness, and weakened or canceled out in intense heat?

Oh my !! Oh, stars !! Oh, Sacred Mother of Most Sacriledge Most Holy !!

Check ... and Mate.

Wow, if really are Levee, I am dissappointed.

I thought you to be more skilled in debate. Throwing the battle to me, wasn't the best course of trying to argue against me ...

You ... Do know, you're supposed to be .... on Your side ..... Yes?

Because chosing my side, and abandoing RET is kind of a weak challange for One Such As Myself .... 

I see you are being merciful on me, Levee. Pretending to lose, to spare my feelings.

I thank you.

Because denser nitrogen is also MORE COLD.

That would be your problem. I refer you to the gas laws. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws. If pressure is the same then a denser volume of N would indeed be colder. But that's not what you said.

I suggest that you take high school chemistry and then try again.

Density and temperature are directly proportionate.

That's why liquid nitrogen is able to freeze your face off, and break it up like a glass cup smashed by a piano.

Again. Try and make the simplest of connections. Physics teach (and prove) that density and temperate are affected closely.

Because liquid nitrogen, being so very cold and in tune with normal Magnetism, is most likely to be forced down by Magnetism from above, of the other gases in the upper air layer.

Less denser, or gaseous nitrogen, being less cold and more warm, thus weakens Magnetism all around it, is less likely to be forced down by Magnetism, from above. It's natural "Anti Magnetism", which also gives it some natural warmth or radiation, weaken the upper air's Magnetism to the point it's less affected by your "Gravity".

Again, normal non-thinking RET minds are unable to make this simple connection. That temperature and density are directly proportionate to each other.

Or even the tougher ones, like "Magnetism is directly weakened by high temperatures, and strongest when in lower temperatures".

Which is why, dear Levee pretending not to be an FET,  most people in this brutally Flat world .... are RET imbeciles.

They are unable to see the direct relation between Pressure (or Density) and Temperature, that Physics teaches even from grade school.

Again .... Check and Mate.

But you can struggle, now. Give it more Drama, to nurture the RET's hope here, then send them crashing down when you realise you're Severely undermatched.

I thank you.

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.

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html

I thank you.

That would be your problem. I refer you to the gas laws. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws. If pressure is the same then a denser volume of N would indeed be colder. But that's not what you said.

I suggest that you take high school chemistry and then try again.

Very well, I shall try this again. This time, lowering the bar down to your level of intellect.

Magneto Have Good Power With Magnetism When It Cold Everywhere.

Magneto Lose All Power When Pyro Start Throwing Flame At Magneto.

Magneto + Cold - STRONG MAGNETO

Magneto + Fire - WEAK MAGNETO

With me, thus far? I hope at least X Men is suited enough for whatever character you've acting as.

Good.

Density and temperature are directly proportionate.

That's why liquid nitrogen is able to freeze your face off, and break it up like a glass cup smashed by a piano.

Again. Try and make the simplest of connections. Physics teach (and prove) that density and temperate are affected closely.

Because liquid nitrogen, being so very cold and in tune with normal Magnetism, is most likely to be forced down by Magnetism from above, of the other gases in the upper air layer.

Less denser, or gaseous nitrogen, being less cold and more warm, thus weakens Magnetism all around it, is less likely to be forced down by Magnetism, from above. It's natural "Anti Magnetism", which also gives it some natural warmth or radiation, weaken the upper air's Magnetism to the point it's less affected by your "Gravity".

Again, normal non-thinking RET minds are unable to make this simple connection. That temperature and density are directly proportionate to each other.

Or even the tougher ones, like "Magnetism is directly weakened by high temperatures, and strongest when in lower temperatures".

Which is why, dear Levee pretending not to be an FET,  most people in this brutally Flat world .... are RET imbeciles.

They are unable to see the direct relation between Pressure (or Density) and Temperature, that Physics teaches even from grade school.

Again .... Check and Mate.

But you can struggle, now. Give it more Drama, to nurture the RET's hope here, then send them crashing down when you realise you're Severely undermatched.

I thank you.

Do you understand the Gas Laws? LN can be warmer than gaseous N. I've told you that you need high school chemistry to advance this wild idea of yours.

Please do tell us how you know that N is affected by magnetism.

Please do tell us how you know that "Magnetism is directly weakened by high temperatures, and strongest when in lower temperatures". Remember that you've been talking about the temperature of N, not the magnet. (Unless you're arguing that N acts a magnet, in which case, I ask you to demonstrate that.)

Quote from: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 06:19:10 PM

That would be your problem. I refer you to the gas laws. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws. If pressure is the same then a denser volume of N would indeed be colder. But that's not what you said.

I suggest that you take high school chemistry and then try again.

Very well, I shall try this again. This time, lowering the bar down to your level of intellect.

Magneto Have Good Power With Magnetism When It Cold Everywhere.

Magneto Lose All Power When Pyro Start Throwing Flame At Magneto.

Magneto + Cold - STRONG MAGNETO

Magneto + Fire - WEAK MAGNETO

With me, thus far? I hope at least X Men is suited enough for whatever character you've acting as.

Good.

Irrelevant. Your response has nothing to do with the quote. Please do a better job.

Again, is N the magnet? If so, then do tell us about N magnets. If not, then your analogy fails.

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html

I thank you.

You play your part flawlessly, Flat Earther.

Your experiment PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT, that "Gravity" doesn't rely on mass.

Since even in a void chamber, the HEAVY ball and the LIGHT feather fall at the same speed !!

Thus, MASS cannot possibly ever be the cause of GRAVITY, because if it were, the Mass of the Earth would draw the largest objects first, faster than the Objects with less mass, such as a feather.

Since you just negated that mass increases gravity, and the large dense ball falls as the same speed in a void as the very light feather, this proves they aren't magically attracted to the Earth, because of "Mass".

Since both the normal air pressure chamber, and the voided chamber, had the exact same TEMPERATURES, the MAGNETISM of the upper layers above them, had the exact same FORCE OF DOWNWARD ACCELERATION.

Proving, yet again, that temperature is the Prime reason why Gravity / Magnetism from above makes things fall. That temperature is directly affected by Magnetism. And that Magnetism is directly affected by the temperature.

If you would have performed the same experiment in an extremely cold void chamber, you would see they would have fallen A LOT FASTER.

Again, you realise you're supposed to be, not on my side ... in this debate .... right?

And this is why you are brilliant.

I thank you.

Quote from: zarg on December 25, 2011, 06:36:27 PM

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html

I thank you.

...

Your experiment PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT, that "Gravity" doesn't rely on mass.

Since even in a void chamber, the HEAVY ball and the LIGHT feather fall at the same speed !!

Thus, MASS cannot possibly ever be the cause of GRAVITY, because if it were, the Mass of the Earth would draw the largest objects first, faster than the Objects with less mass, such as a feather.

...

Nope. You don't know Newton's Three Laws of Motion either. <sigh> You might want to consider that acceleration is proportional to mass.

Do you understand the Gas Laws? LN can be warmer than gaseous N. I've told you that you need high school chemistry to advance this wild idea of yours.

Please do tell us how you know that N is affected by magnetism.

Please do tell us how you know that "Magnetism is directly weakened by high temperatures, and strongest when in lower temperatures". Remember that you've been talking about the temperature of N, not the magnet. (Unless you're arguing that N acts a magnet, in which case, I ask you to demonstrate that.)

Of course, Levee.

I love how you play right into my game, so everyone things you're a legit RET, when you're just throwing the debate to me. Flawless thus far, and you are dedicated to your persona, instead of going out of character, as I do.

Nitrogen has both Protons and Electrons. Which act as opposite poles, just as any Magnet has opposite poles. In fact, one pole of the magnet Rejects electrons, while the other pole Attracts electrons.

Thus, nitrogen has the same polarity as any magnet, because it has opposing protons and electrons. And of course, neutrons who are mostly unaffected by gravity thanks to not being Magnetised from above, and forced down along with everything else.

This is also why neutrons appear to have "no mass". Being unmagnetic and unpolarised by excellence, they are unmoved or unaffected by the air's Magnetism from above, that should push everything else downwards.

When Nitrogen is made very very cold and dense, it's protons and electrons are forced closer to it's neutrons. Thus binding the neutrons in it's core to also be dragged down along with the rest of the particles in Nitrogen.

When Nitrogen is made very warm and less dense, it's protons and electrons are forced away from it's neutrons. Thus releasing it's neutrons from the Magnetic pull of it's other particles, that are less dragged down by upper Magnetism.

I applaud your acting skills !!

Quote from: zarg on December 25, 2011, 06:36:27 PM

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sbtroy/Guinea_and_Feather/Guinea_and_Feather.html

I thank you.

You play your part flawlessly, Flat Earther.

Your experiment PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT, that "Gravity" doesn't rely on mass.

Since even in a void chamber, the HEAVY ball and the LIGHT feather fall at the same speed !!

Thus, MASS cannot possibly ever be the cause of GRAVITY, because if it were, the Mass of the Earth would draw the largest objects first, faster than the Objects with less mass, such as a feather.

Since you just negated that mass increases gravity, and the large dense ball falls as the same speed in a void as the very light feather, this proves they aren't magically attracted to the Earth, because of "Mass".

Since both the normal air pressure chamber, and the voided chamber, had the exact same TEMPERATURES, the MAGNETISM of the upper layers above them, had the exact same FORCE OF DOWNWARD ACCELERATION.

Proving, yet again, that temperature is the Prime reason why Gravity / Magnetism from above makes things fall. That temperature is directly affected by Magnetism. And that Magnetism is directly affected by the temperature.

If you would have performed the same experiment in an extremely cold void chamber, you would see they would have fallen A LOT FASTER.

Again, you realise you're supposed to be, not on my side ... in this debate .... right?

And this is why you are brilliant.

I thank you.

I don't think you understood what actually happened. The larger mass felt a larger force on it than the lighter object, but they both felt the same acceleration. All this experiment proves is that inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass.

...
Nitrogen has both Protons and Electrons. Which act as opposite poles, just as any Magnet has opposite poles. In fact, one pole of the magnet Rejects electrons, while the other pole Attracts electrons.
...

Nope.

You forget that ordinary matter has an equal number of protons and electrons and therefore no poles. Even if it did, you're confusing having an electrical charge with having the property of responding to magnetism.

Nope. You don't know Newton's Three Laws of Motion either. <sigh> You might want to consider that acceleration is proportional to mass.

Again. In extremely cold temperatures, that same void chamber would allow everything to fall A LOT FASTER. Because, you already know and understand by now, Magnetism from above, allows it to accelerate objects down a lot faster, the colder it becomes.

Again. In extremely warm temperatures, that same void chamber would allow everything to fall A LOT SLOWER. Because, all magnetism, including the Magnetism from above, prevents it from accelerating objects down, thus slowing their downfall.

You are a very clever actor, Levee !! All the RET are left jaws acleft by now, and are either suiciding or converted to FET, or going into full panic mode !!

I thank you for my small role in your Grand Scheme of things.

Your experiment PROVES BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT, that "Gravity" doesn't rely on mass.

Since even in a void chamber, the HEAVY ball and the LIGHT feather fall at the same speed !!

You just said that air pressure causes things to fall and nothing would fall in a void. Now you're making an argument based on the assumption that things do fall in a void, clearly contradicting yourself. Please decide what theory you stand for. I'm not going to waste time arguing if you keep changing your premise. Do things fall due to air pressure? Yes or no.

the MAGNETISM of the upper layers above them

Layers of what? There's no gas. There's nothing there. It's a vacuum.

You might want to consider that acceleration is proportional to mass.

Indeed it is. Yet with only Magnetic acceleration from above, both the ball and the feather have the exact same speed.

Since that Magnetism from above, is Uniformous. It doesn't dramatically accelerate them differently, due to their masses.

It only accelerates them according to their Temperature / Density.

If those feather and ball were cold, they would also fall faster. Because Magnetism would push it down faster.

If they were hot, the feather could very well just float up into the air. In fact feathers do that.

Again, don't make this too easy for me, Levee. I have to appear to have some difficulty in disproving your challanges.

How else are they supposed to be in fear of FET, until they cannot dare to oppose it's Greatness?

Did you guys seriously stretch this out over 4 pages in a single day, on Christmas?

Quote from: ClockTower on December 25, 2011, 06:55:39 PM

Nope. You don't know Newton's Three Laws of Motion either. <sigh> You might want to consider that acceleration is proportional to mass.

Again. In extremely cold temperatures, that same void chamber would allow everything to fall A LOT FASTER. Because, you already know and understand by now, Magnetism from above, allows it to accelerate objects down a lot faster, the colder it becomes.

Again. In extremely warm temperatures, that same void chamber would allow everything to fall A LOT SLOWER. Because, all magnetism, including the Magnetism from above, prevents it from accelerating objects down, thus slowing their downfall.

You are a very clever actor, Levee !! All the RET are left jaws acleft by now, and are either suiciding or converted to FET, or going into full panic mode !!

I thank you for my small role in your Grand Scheme of things.

I refer you to high school physics.

Would you please provide an experiment that you've performed that demonstrates that objects are accelerated from above differently based on temperature? I'm sure a video of that experiment would go viral and the Nobel Prize will be yours in less than a year. Don't wait. Fame and fortune await your video.

Did you guys seriously stretch this out over 4 pages in a single day, on Christmas?

No.

5.

The only reason this thread was stretched out so far is because no matter who or what just makes shit up, ClockTower has to argue with it.

Nope.

You forget that ordinary matter has an equal number of protons and electrons and therefore no poles. Even if it did, you're confusing having an electrical charge with having the property of responding to magnetism.

Not always "equal" but I see you have to play the common RET noob here. So I will let you keep character, for now.

Electrical charges are strong enough to Magnetise common iron and other metals, to BECOME MAGNETS themselves. Check.

Ionised gases from the upper layers of air, are under the highest radiation from the Magnetism of which I speak. Thus they are the first to become ionised and even creates what you see as Aurora Borealis. Check.

Ionisation from Upper Magnetism, and Magnetisation from Electrified metals, are both proof that Magnetism is maleable, and adheres to all these properties.

Magnetism can both create electrical charge, which it does. In the summer when Magnetism is more blocked by warm air, into the upper layers of the air, creates giant electrical storms. Which detense some of this repelled Magnetism horizontally, or sometimes even as vertical lightning bolts.

In the winter, when this Magnetism is most permissive through the air, things not only fall faster, and louder, because Magnetism (that creates your "Gravity") is a bit stronger. But all that magnetism that was locked up in thunderstorms and absorbed by water particles in the summer, is now fully flowing down to the Earth, uninhibited. Thus electricity in thunder clouds is drained down to the earth in colder weather. Check.

Aaaaand Mate.

You just said that air pressure causes things to fall and nothing would fall in a void. Now you're making an argument based on the assumption that things do fall in a void, clearly contradicting yourself. Please decide what theory you stand for. I'm not going to waste time arguing if you keep changing your premise. Do things fall due to air pressure? Yes or no.



Layers of what? There's no gas. There's nothing there. It's a vacuum.

Air pressure is caused by magnetism. In high magnetism, air has more pressure or "density". In lower magnetism, air has less pressure or "density".

That was, in fact, bait. And you swallowed it, hook line and sinker.

I thank you.

Layers of what? There's no gas. There's nothing there. It's a vacuum.

Magnetism also causes the air to "fall" thus increasing it's density and general pressure.

In a void chamber, the Magnetism is not eliminated. Since the temperature is, in fact, identical.

All you did was eliminate the air, which was only one of the elements forced down by Magnetism from above it.

Since air alone isn't exclusive in it's magnetic properties that force it down, you realise why it's absence wouldn't change Magnetism in other elements, yes?

Air doesn't just force things "down" because it's heavy. It's being forced down itself, by More Air from Above it. From the Upper layers, where MORE AIR is very cold and thus Highly MAGNETISED, and forced down by gravity.

It's pressure forced not only that cold air from above down to the earth, but also all the elements that are also within range of that Magnetism.

Did you guys seriously stretch this out over 4 pages in a single day, on Christmas?

What can I say ... they keep asking the wrong questions, allowing me to provide all the right answers.

FE Theorists do that, when they're testing my Faith, to see if I'm truly a Believer. In fact, I may have opened their own eyes a bit, in the process.

For this, they are thankful.

Because it's Christmas !! These answers are like ... gifts. From me, unto them.

If I can't even convert people to FET, on Christmas ... When !??!

The only reason this thread was stretched out so far is because no matter who or what just makes shit up, ClockTower has to argue with it.

Hey don't interfere with Levee's testing me for FET membership of the Inner Forums !!

If I lose this, I won't be able to post with all the cool Flat Earth Believers on the "Cool Threads" .... 

I refer you to high school physics.

Would you please provide an experiment that you've performed that demonstrates that objects are accelerated from above differently based on temperature? I'm sure a video of that experiment would go viral and the Nobel Prize will be yours in less than a year. Don't wait. Fame and fortune await your video.

I point you to a volcano. Throw something into it, and measure the time it takes to fall inside.

I point you to an iceberg. Throw something unto it from the exact same height, and measure the time it takes to fall inside.

And keep in mind the difference of temperature isn't even that great from the air above icebergs and volcanoes.

Maybe if it's cold water and very warm water? Objects would float down a lot faster in colder water, while remaining afloat for longer in very warm water.

I see no reason why you have to bring a Nobel comitee into this. I am, after all, unselfish and don't care for such trivial things such as fame or what not.

You need bring a very cold water and it's container. And a very warm water and it's container. Measure how much slower the objects sink into the warm water, and how fast in the coldest water.

Then repeat this, above a volcano, or gheiser, or what have you, and again over an iceberg, or crevasse, or ....

Or even during the summer and during the winter. Since it's winter in the inner half of the Flat Earth, right now. And summer in the outer half of the Flat Earth, anyone can just travel from Europe to Australia, or something.

And confirm immediately, that the same object falls faster when it's winter, than when it's summer.

Coldness hastens the natural Magnetism that pushes elements down.

Warmth slows them down, along with their own magnetic properties.

No.

5.

Winning against Levee in just 5 pages? Wow

I DO DESERVE A NOBLE PRIZE !!!!

Or .. Levee was very very merciful with me. Seeing it's Christmas and all.