Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides

• 38 Replies
• 7517 Views
?

Hugh

• 12
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« on: October 20, 2006, 06:40:49 AM »
Also known as, two things that prove the Flat-earth theory wrong and cannot be countered.

First, let's go over the atmosphere.  First of all, if the earth itself has no gravitational pull, it would diffuse, period.  But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it doesn't.

As we know, the earth's atmosphere extends several miles into the sky.  That's a fact, proven by the fact that 1) you can breathe at the top of mount Everest and 2) things can fly.  However, if the Earth's "gravity" were generated by it constantly accelerating upward at 1 g, the the atmosphere would not be that tall, if it even existed.

Why?

It's a simple effect.  Ever stuck your hand out a car window?  You feel the air rushing past your hand when you do.  The same effect would be true here: the atmosphere of earth would rush right around earth without giving it a second thought.  If we were lucky, perhaps 100 vertical feet of air would be trapped by the "150-ft ice wall."  So we'd be able to breathe, but barely.

But that thin atmosphere cannot exist because there is too much contradicting it.  1) Entire cities exist far above this 100-ft ceiling, and nobody there seems to be suffocating.  2) Passenger jets fly at 35,000 feet.  If the atmosphere only extend upwards 100 feet, the planes would be physically unable to fly at that altitude because there would be no air to allow their wings to generate lift.

Therefore, flat earth cannot exist.

Now, on to the tides.  You say in your FAQ that they are caused by a slight see-saw effect on the coin that you believe to be earth.  If that were true,  there would be high tide on one half of the earth and low tide on the other half.

That is not how the tides work.  Any 8th-grade science textbook will tell you that high and low tides exist in two places at once: first is where the one high or low tide is, and the second is on the exact opposite side of earth.  Your see-saw model doesn't allow for that.

Therefore, again, flat earth cannot exist.

?

jeremy.troy

• 16
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2006, 03:49:43 PM »
Bravo!

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2006, 11:21:20 PM »
Quote from: "Hugh"

That is not how the tides work.  Any 8th-grade science textbook will tell you that high and low tides exist in two places at once: first is where the one high or low tide is, and the second is on the exact opposite side of earth.  Your see-saw model doesn't allow for that.

Therefore, again, flat earth cannot exist.

That just means that that particular explanation is not feasable.  It doesn't mean the FE cannot exist.

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

?

Xargo

• 670
Re: Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2006, 12:32:52 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"

That just means that that particular explanation is not feasable.  It doesn't mean the FE cannot exist.

You mean that if everything FE-related would be disproved of it doesnt matter one bit because the Earth could still be flat?

Imagine a kid holding an apple, saying that it's a square (which it isn't). Then another kid comes by and explains how it can not be square-formed, giving valid arguments, reports of experiments and scientifical proofs for explanation. Now, if you were the latter kid, wouldn't you think the other kid would be rather stupid if he would keep insisting the apple is a square? I'm pretty sure you would, which is the point.

That's why FE are "gay retards", as beast mentioned in another post.
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

?

mjk

• 269
Re: Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2006, 02:13:11 AM »
Quote from: "Hugh"

First, let's go over the atmosphere.  First of all, if the earth itself has no gravitational pull, it would diffuse, period.  But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it doesn't.

uh :?: FE does have gravitational pull, why do we need to assume for the sake of the argument that it does if both RE and FE theory states that it already does?

Quote from: "Hugh"

As we know, the earth's atmosphere extends several miles into the sky.  That's a fact, proven by the fact that 1) you can breathe at the top of mount Everest and 2) things can fly.  However, if the Earth's "gravity" were generated by it constantly accelerating upward at 1 g, the the atmosphere would not be that tall, if it even existed.

umm, you CANT properly breathe at the top of mount Everest, there isnt enough oxygen, without a gas mask most people would die at the top.  and you can hardly say 2) is a valid fact without referencing it, especially when you first "fact" is incorrect.

Quote from: "Hugh"

It's a simple effect.  Ever stuck your hand out a car window?  You feel the air rushing past your hand when you do.  The same effect would be true here: the atmosphere of earth would rush right around earth without giving it a second thought.  If we were lucky, perhaps 100 vertical feet of air would be trapped by the "150-ft ice wall."  So we'd be able to breathe, but barely.

no it wouldnt, outside a car there is air everywhere, while in FE theory 'space'(i mean space surrounding the FE in every direction) does not contain air.  your comparison implies as we move upward we are moving into more air, when infact there is a certain amount of air held in the flat earth.

Quote from: "Hugh"

But that thin atmosphere cannot exist because there is too much contradicting it.  1) Entire cities exist far above this 100-ft ceiling, and nobody there seems to be suffocating.  2) Passenger jets fly at 35,000 feet.  If the atmosphere only extend upwards 100 feet, the planes would be physically unable to fly at that altitude because there would be no air to allow their wings to generate lift.

IF the FE was moving through air in space as you imply with your car analogy, then there could exist cities high above 100ft becuase it has always been continuing at this pace, so we have adapted to survive in it.  the reason we cannot handle it in cars is because we were not designed to move at that fast a speed through air.

Quote from: "Hugh"

Now, on to the tides.  You say in your FAQ that they are caused by a slight see-saw effect on the coin that you believe to be earth.  If that were true,  there would be high tide on one half of the earth and low tide on the other half.
That is not how the tides work.  Any 8th-grade science textbook will tell you that high and low tides exist in two places at once: first is where the one high or low tide is, and the second is on the exact opposite side of earth.  Your see-saw model doesn't allow for that.

have you ever been on both sides of the earth at the same time to witness this occurance?
quote="diegodraw"]you never mentioned anything about antagonizing naive idiots who have reason to believe they should defend what everyone already knows is logical....Not like anybody would ever have fun doing that, of course[/quote]

?

Hugh

• 12
Re: Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2006, 04:27:02 AM »
Quote from: "mjk"
uh :?: FE does have gravitational pull, why do we need to assume for the sake of the argument that it does if both RE and FE theory states that it already does?

And I could look around this board for three minutes and find 5 arguments be FE'ers, including your own admins, that say gravity doesn't exist.
Quote from: "mjk"
umm, you CANT properly breathe at the top of mount Everest, there isnt enough oxygen, without a gas mask most people would die at the top.  and you can hardly say 2) is a valid fact without referencing it, especially when you first "fact" is incorrect.

Bad example, then.  Switch it to the top of pretty much any mountain in the US if it'll make you feel better.
Quote from: "mjk"
no it wouldnt, outside a car there is air everywhere, while in FE theory 'space'(i mean space surrounding the FE in every direction) does not contain air.  your comparison implies as we move upward we are moving into more air, when infact there is a certain amount of air held in the flat earth.

IF the FE was moving through air in space as you imply with your car analogy, then there could exist cities high above 100ft becuase it has always been continuing at this pace, so we have adapted to survive in it.  the reason we cannot handle it in cars is because we were not designed to move at that fast a speed through air.

You're right, but you're misinterpreting.  The fact remains that air, our atmosphere, acts as a fluid.  Air molecules have weight, however miniscule they may be.  Now, the air molecules at the top of the atmosphere push themselves downward (assuming gravity exists, because it's sort of required for the air to not have diffused into space on its own) due to the force of the Earth's gravity pulling at them.  In reaction, the air molecules below it have to go somewhere (because that's the way fluids act).  The air pushing down cannot be pushed back up, so the molecules beneath the falling air distribute themselves to either side, and when they move to the side, they force other molecules to the side as well, and thus...  The atmosphere goes over the edge and drains right off.

Of course, on the round earth this doesn't happen because the horizontal distribution just moves the air to another section of earth.  But on the flat earth that can't happen because it runs out of space, so the only place the air can go is over the edge to be lost in space.
Quote from: "mjk"
have you ever been on both sides of the earth at the same time to witness this occurance?

If you think everyone has to be a personal witness to a proven scientific fact for it to be true than we may as well just dump all science out the window because it can't be proven.  If that's your strongest argument against this point than you may as well not be arguing it at all.

beast

• 2997
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2006, 06:45:02 AM »
I think it's important to understand that you can't assume that things you think are true in RE science may not actually be true in reality (FE science).

?

jeremy.troy

• 16
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2006, 11:38:08 AM »
Well, that's a handy argument for you guys.

I could use that horrible logic to defend any claim, no matter how ridiculous.

What a horrible cop-out to an actual defense.  If things that are true in "RE science" are not true in "FE science", then you need to offer an actual alternate system that makes logical sense.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2006, 11:49:55 AM »
Quote from: "Hugh"
Quote from: "mjk"
uh :?: FE does have gravitational pull, why do we need to assume for the sake of the argument that it does if both RE and FE theory states that it already does?

And I could look around this board for three minutes and find 5 arguments be FE'ers, including your own admins, that say gravity doesn't exist.

The FE stance is that gravity is not UNIVERSAL.  The earth itself does not generate a gravitational field, but that doesn't mean everything else doesn't.

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

?

Yardstick2006

• 280
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2006, 12:01:28 PM »
I wish you wouldnt keep changing your theory everytime an aspect of it gets proven wrong.
quote="Dogplatter"]
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.  [/quote]

LOL

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2006, 12:02:35 PM »
That's pretty much the way it's been for a while.  Evolving theories is how science works.

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

?

jeremy.troy

• 16
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2006, 12:07:17 PM »
What I think is funny (and this is sort of general observation that isn't necessarily a response to anything in this thread), is that I don't think a single FE'er in the forum has actually read Earth, Not a Globe.  Every time that someone asks for proof, instead of citing specifically any of Rowbotham's experiments, they only say something along the lines of "How about you provide proof that the Earth is round."

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2006, 12:09:20 PM »
I've read it.  I've pointed people to it numerous times.  They just come back and say "No, that's not true.", without offering any counter evidence.  I've grown weary of such responses.

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

?

jeremy.troy

• 16
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2006, 12:10:23 PM »
You I respect, then.  I still think its true of a good majority of the board.

?

Hugh

• 12
Re: Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2006, 07:00:57 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
The FE stance is that gravity is not UNIVERSAL.  The earth itself does not generate a gravitational field, but that doesn't mean everything else doesn't.
There is no way for gravity to exist for some things but not for others.  As the proven physics equation states:

Force (gravity) = (Gravitational constant * mass of body 1 * mass of body 2) / the distance between the two objects squared

That this phenomenon could exist for some objects and not others quite simply doesn't make sense.

But I can prove the atmosphere drainoff without the involvement of gravity if you want me to...

beast

• 2997
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2006, 07:06:04 PM »
Again - you're assuming that things that are true of the RE model are still true on our flat Earth.  This is simply not the case.  Instead of referring to RE science, why don't you give us evidence we can test ourselves?  Don't give us evidence we have to believe other people to accept.

?

phaseshifter

• 841
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2006, 07:19:46 PM »
Well. does air behave differently on flat earth?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

beast

• 2997
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2006, 07:29:48 PM »
Presumably it must.  I don't know since I don't really have the equipment to test our the air really behaves - especially at altitude.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2006, 08:44:52 PM »
Quote from: "Hugh"

Force (gravity) = (Gravitational constant * mass of body 1 * mass of body 2) / the distance between the two objects squared

I know the equation, so what?  Where does it require that ALL bodies must obey this equation?

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

?

Hugh

• 12
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2006, 09:15:46 PM »
It makes no logical sense for it not to.

But if it makes you happy, I'll now prove the atmospheric drainoff sans gravity just to make this whole side argument moot.

Let's review: our atmosphere is a very, very large collection of assorted air molecules.  These molecules have mass and therefore have inertia.

Now, if earth is, as you say, accelerating upwards at 1 g, each of these molecules will have to be accelerated, as well.  However, the air beneath the air on top is not enough to push it upward, so the air at the top will remain static until pushed on by a force strong enough to actually move it: a solid, in this case the earth.

When this is the case, the atmosphere will act like all other fluids, and it will flatten out until it reaches the boundaries of its container.  However, in the flat earth model it has no container outside of the ice wall and therefore will drain away from the earth until it reaches the approximate height of the ice wall.  From there, see my original post.

Why does it seem that this entire thing is just a joke to see how riled up everyone will get over it?

(Oh, and if you guys were actually right and there was a government conspiracy, one simple fact would be true: this site would not exist and its creator(s) would be dead.  Because that's how conspiring governments work, period.  As that is not the case...  Well, there you go.)

Quote from: "Beast"
Again - you're assuming that things that are true of the RE model are still true on our flat Earth. This is simply not the case. Instead of referring to RE science, why don't you give us evidence we can test ourselves? Don't give us evidence we have to believe other people to accept.
Because RE science has evidence to back it up.  FE 'science' must be put in quotes because it's 25% unfounded conspiracy theory, 25% random flawed theories that are explained differently (often with many debilitating contradictories) depending on what's being argued and 50% denial of all science that proves you wrong.

Regardless of what you call RE science and FE science, it's all science that has been proven on the earth that we exist on, meaning that all the observed science that is true in RE must also be true in FE for FE to even stand a chance of existing.

So sorry, dismissing my arguments as inapplicable is not going to defeat them.

beast

• 2997
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2006, 10:02:00 PM »
You can't just say that evidence exists.  You have to actually show us this evidence.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2006, 11:06:37 PM »
The UA (whatever the term is these days) particles are near massless and travel very near the speed of light.  The particles that are not intercepted by the earth rush past it.  This creates a barrier that prevents the air molecules from diffusing into space.  Thus it basically becomes a giant container, keeping all the air on the planet.

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

?

Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2006, 01:53:48 AM »
Quote from: "Hugh"
It makes no logical sense for it not to.

What is this drivel?

New theory: everything is pink.  See, I have this Starburst candy here; it's pink.  Why does that mean everything else is?  Well, it makes no logical sense for it not to.

Quote
(Oh, and if you guys were actually right and there was a government conspiracy, one simple fact would be true: this site would not exist and its creator(s) would be dead.  Because that's how conspiring governments work, period.

.... in the movies.  Yeah.  I'm sure you know all about how conspiring governments work, from all the courses you took in Conspiratory Governmetrics, and all the Government Conspiracies for Dummies books you read, and all those informercials by famous ex Government Conspirators about how "Using my patented method, in thirty days you too can set up your very own government conspiracy.  If I can do it, anybody can!"
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Hugh

• 12
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2006, 07:50:36 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
The UA (whatever the term is these days) particles are near massless and travel very near the speed of light.  The particles that are not intercepted by the earth rush past it.  This creates a barrier that prevents the air molecules from diffusing into space.  Thus it basically becomes a giant container, keeping all the air on the planet.
You're going to have to explain this further.  What exactly are UA?

@beast: go find any high school physics textbook and read it/conduct some or all the experiments within yourself.

@Erasmus: Congratulations on not attempting to counter any of my actual points.  Your skills of evasion truly astound me.

beast

• 2997
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2006, 08:42:27 AM »
Well I've studied physics at college (and passed with a high acheivement) - I'm fairly confident I know the basics.

What I'm saying is that if you're going to come onto this website and tell us that we are wrong - you have to say why we're wrong - otherwise it's a pretty meaningless statement.  I mean what is your purpose here?  Is it just to feel good about telling people they're wrong?  Is it to try to convince us of "the truth"?  Or do you have some other purpose?

You're not going to convince us of anything if you just say "you're wrong" so what do you hope to achieve?  If you're just trying to make us feel bad - what does that say about you as a person?

?

Hugh

• 12
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2006, 10:40:11 AM »
See my first, second and fourth posts in this thread.

beast

• 2997
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2006, 05:31:32 PM »
But that's not very good evidence.  That's just you telling me something and expecting me to believe you.  How do I know that what you say is true?

?

Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2006, 05:59:52 PM »
Quote from: "Hugh"
@Erasmus: Congratulations on not attempting to counter any of my actual points.  Your skills of evasion truly astound me.

I thank you for the compliment but I am afraid it is undeserved: I have shamefully failed to evade your unjustifiable and frankly silly claim about how government conspiracies work.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Hugh

• 12
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #28 on: October 22, 2006, 06:05:34 PM »
Quote from: "beast"
But that's not very good evidence.  That's just you telling me something and expecting me to believe you.  How do I know that what you say is true?
By observing the facts I pointed out and understanding how they lead to the conclusions that I made.  I spelled out each point very plainly, especially the one about the tides; they should not be hard to follow.
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I thank you for the compliment but I am afraid it is undeserved: I have shamefully failed to evade your unjustifiable and frankly silly claim about how government conspiracies work.
By which I meant that you did not attempt to argue any of the points that are the topic of this thread.

beast

• 2997
Atmospheric Diffusion/Drainage and the Tides
« Reply #29 on: October 22, 2006, 06:26:57 PM »
Quote
Now, on to the tides. You say in your FAQ that they are caused by a slight see-saw effect on the coin that you believe to be earth. If that were true, there would be high tide on one half of the earth and low tide on the other half.

That is not how the tides work. Any 8th-grade science textbook will tell you that high and low tides exist in two places at once: first is where the one high or low tide is, and the second is on the exact opposite side of earth. Your see-saw model doesn't allow for that.

It's all very well to say that but I can't be in more than one place in the world at once.  I can't test this for myself - I have to believe you and other people who say this is the case.