Poll

Which model should I follow?

The old UA model
1 (7.1%)
Sceptimatic's denpressure/dome
1 (7.1%)
JRowe's Dual Earth
5 (35.7%)
Davis' non-Euclidean Earth
2 (14.3%)
Sandokhan's Advanced FET
3 (21.4%)
Just give Round Earth answers and see if anyone notices
2 (14.3%)

Total Members Voted: 14

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Time to Change Sides

  • 40 Replies
  • 9540 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Time to Change Sides
« on: September 07, 2016, 02:48:08 PM »
Hey there!
I still think the world's round, but I've had and seen pretty much every conversation that can be had on that topic, and it gets kinda dull. Plus, it doesn't achieve anything. So, I figure I may as well start arguing for FET (not by parody, actually learn and provide the model, and whatever resolutions in-model I can see).

Why?
1. The mental exercise is fun (undeniably defending FET is a challenge)
2. If I can give the actual answers, it'll hopefully free up some FEers from answering the same common questions over and over and over, so the more esoteric, interesting topics might get more time to be discussed.
3. There aren't too many active FEers who debate, so I may as well add to their number, increase the amount of discussion that can be had, and give the answers to people who're actually curious.
4. There's a bonus paycheck for deep cover shills.
5. If any of you are actually interested in one user's model but don't have a clue what they're on about most of the time you can get me to do all the work.

To reiterate, I think the world's round, and can happily argue to that effect, but what's the point? Doesn't convince anyone, isn't remotely interesting. May as well try to challenge myself. Learning FE models isn't too easy, defending them less so. Even doing so strictly as a hypothetical is hard. Builds up good skills though; researching past answers, thinking in terms of an abstract situation with abstract rules, going by logic (even if applied to faulty precepts) rather than intuition...

So, if I'm going to switch sides, which model should I argue for?
The poll lists the main distinct models I've seen on this site. Your vote will decide my fate, whether I'm arguing for something vaguely defensible, or a real challenge. Or you could be a real sadist and expect me to learn Sandokhan's. Please don't.
It's up to you.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2016, 02:56:04 PM »
I picked DET.  It actually acknowledges some of the obvious problems with FET.

For you though, I think you should roll your own.  A while back I was watching some special about the geocentric model verses the heliocentric model.  It had to do with some guys, can't remember the name, trying to come up with the math to predict the orbit of the planets under geocentrism.  Of course it turned out that under heliocentrism it becomes much simpler but what's interesting is that maybe a very talented mathematician could have come up with a solution for a geocentric model albeit very unnecessarily convoluted.

I guess what I'm saying is use what you have, math skills, and come up with your own model.

From there you would have to decide if you're going to argue your point honestly or dishonestly.  Both approaches have their pros and cons.
Logged
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget
?

Woody

  • 1144
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2016, 02:58:13 PM »
John's model would be easier to defend as long as you do not start arguing the fake fossil conspiracy and bio-engineered penguins aspect of it. .  Since it seems all observations would make it seem the Earth is round. 

Jrowe probably needs the most help with arguing for his model. 
Logged
*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2016, 03:04:23 PM »
Good for you Jane! I kind of go for scepti's denpressure. A lot of people go on about him being stupid. I believe him to be very smart, not perfect, but he seems to know how to think logically. Just not brainwashed logic.
Logged
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2016, 03:30:42 PM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 07, 2016, 02:56:04 PM
I picked DET.  It actually acknowledges some of the obvious problems with FET.

For you though, I think you should roll your own.  A while back I was watching some special about the geocentric model verses the heliocentric model.  It had to do with some guys, can't remember the name, trying to come up with the math to predict the orbit of the planets under geocentrism.  Of course it turned out that under heliocentrism it becomes much simpler but what's interesting is that maybe a very talented mathematician could have come up with a solution for a geocentric model albeit very unnecessarily convoluted.

I guess what I'm saying is use what you have, math skills, and come up with your own model.

From there you would have to decide if you're going to argue your point honestly or dishonestly.  Both approaches have their pros and cons.
That can easily be done, probably with John's, but it's not as interesting. Most of the details of FET are reliant on mechanism, and no amount of maths gives the mechanisms. That's why geocentrism fails: you can easily come up with a system where all the maths checks out but you've got no hope of explaining the actual reasons why everything happens. Riffing off an existing model is the best way to do that.

On the whole I'm going to try and argue honestly, because it's pointless otherwise. Doing this as much for the mental challenge of thinking in terms of a different framework and drawing conclusions based on it, and cheap tricks negate that.

Quote from: Woody on September 07, 2016, 02:58:13 PM
John's model would be easier to defend as long as you do not start arguing the fake fossil conspiracy and bio-engineered penguins aspect of it. .  Since it seems all observations would make it seem the Earth is round. 

Jrowe probably needs the most help with arguing for his model. 
Main limitation with John's is that it's a fairly recent model compared to the others, so researching it isn't too easy.
From what I've seen of JRowe's, it's harder to explain that it is to defend.

Quote from: hoppy on September 07, 2016, 03:04:23 PM
Good for you Jane! I kind of go for scepti's denpressure. A lot of people go on about him being stupid. I believe him to be very smart, not perfect, but he seems to know how to think logically. Just not brainwashed logic.
I don't think he's stupid. I mean, obviously I don't agree, but I'm definitely tired of the trend of arguing by pages of insults rather than discourse.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

Charming Anarchist

  • 558
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2016, 03:42:44 PM »
Quote from: Jane on September 07, 2016, 02:48:08 PM
It's up to you.
LOL 
Keep the jokes coming! 
Logged
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2016, 03:48:06 PM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 07, 2016, 02:56:04 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . .
A while back I was watching some special about the geocentric model verses the heliocentric model.  It had to do with some guys, can't remember the name, trying to come up with the math to predict the orbit of the planets under geocentrism.  Of course it turned out that under heliocentrism it becomes much simpler but what's interesting is that maybe a very talented mathematician could have come up with a solution for a geocentric model albeit very unnecessarily convoluted.
On the accuracy of predictions point, it is interesting to note that Tycho Brahe's "part geocentric" model gave better predictions than the Copernician heliocentric model.

The Copernician heliocentric model had all the planets orbiting the sun in circular  (he "liked" circles) orbits.

Tycho Brahe was a very meticulous and accurate astronomer. His model had Mercury and Venus orbiting the sun, then the moon, sun and the rest of the planets orbiting the earth.

It was not till Kepler came along with elliptical orbits that a better match than Tycho Brahe's model was found.
Of course, even Kepler's "model" is an approximation, as it ignores the effect of planets on each other.
Logged
*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Planar Moderator
  • 52379
  • +99/-95
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2016, 03:55:48 PM »
I picked John's model because I don't know about Jrowe, he's someone that seems to have showed up while I was away.
Logged
Quote from: Thork on November 27, 2012, 12:25:43 PM
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.
*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2016, 04:14:45 PM »
Quote from: Jane on September 07, 2016, 03:30:42 PM

On the whole I'm going to try and argue honestly, because it's pointless otherwise. Doing this as much for the mental challenge of thinking in terms of a different framework and drawing conclusions based on it, and cheap tricks negate that.


I'd disagree that the dishonest approach is pointless. You wouldn't get much out of it science wise. But being effective at arguing dishonestly is far from a cheap trick. It takes a lot of skill and practice. Even if you intend to live honestly, and I'm pretty sure you do, studying charlatans is valuable if you wish to defend yourself and the people around you from them.
Logged
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2016, 04:24:21 PM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 07, 2016, 04:14:45 PM
I'd disagree that the dishonest approach is pointless. You wouldn't get much out of it science wise. But being effective at arguing dishonestly is far from a cheap trick. It takes a lot of skill and practice. Even if you intend to live honestly, and I'm pretty sure you do, studying charlatans is valuable if you wish to defend yourself and the people around you from them.
Less useful skills though. The mental exercise of actually thinking in terms of a different framework is much more useful, and for that matter fun. I'll need to be dishonest to an extent given I'll be arguing for something I don't accept, but if conversation's to be possible I'll need to try to use honest tactics.
If I was being dishonest, the model would barely matter, you can use the same tricks to defend anything.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

bbarreto

  • 41
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2016, 05:11:16 PM »
I wish there was a better way to illustrate JRowe's Dual Earth theory
Logged
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." - Proverbs 27:17
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2016, 05:13:20 PM »
Quote from: bbarreto on September 07, 2016, 05:11:16 PM
I wish there was a better way to illustrate JRowe's Dual Earth theory
I'm no artist so don't expect that from me.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2016, 12:00:03 AM »
Quote from: rabinoz on September 07, 2016, 03:48:06 PM
On the accuracy of predictions point, it is interesting to note that Tycho Brahe's "part geocentric" model gave better predictions than the Copernician heliocentric model.

The Copernician heliocentric model had all the planets orbiting the sun in circular  (he "liked" circles) orbits.
Copernicus was simply following the Pythagorean belief in perfection of the sphere. That's how globularism began.

Quote
Tycho Brahe was a very meticulous and accurate astronomer. His model had Mercury and Venus orbiting the sun, then the moon, sun and the rest of the planets orbiting the earth.
No, he had all the planets revolving about the sun which revolved around the earth, as did the moon.

Quote
It was not till Kepler came along with elliptical orbits that a better match than Tycho Brahe's model was found.
Of course, even Kepler's "model" is an approximation, as it ignores the effect of planets on each other.
Yes, it's a shame that the satanic Kepler stole Brahe's work after poisoning him.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2016, 12:06:29 AM »
Quote from: bbarreto on September 07, 2016, 05:11:16 PM
I wish there was a better way to illustrate JRowe's Dual Earth theory

You're in luck. Scroll up to the top. Defocus your eyes and look at the polling results. Looks like DET to me. Or a middle finger.
Logged
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget
*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2016, 01:36:21 AM »
Flat Earth can be destroyed instantly by observation.

Denpressure is just as moronic

I suggest you stop thinking you can create realities using maths or whatever, and instead learn about the one you are in by what can be observed that is simple and easy to understand.
Logged
*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2016, 01:59:50 AM »
"Davis' non-Euclidean Earth" is going to be the easiest to defend, as it is just the standard globe model, apart from in some philosophical sense it's apparently flat.

Whichever "model" you choose, you will automatically have to argue for a vast global conspiracy spanning thousands of years and involving millions of people.  That's why I couldn't hack been a flattie when I tried it - you just end up a conspiracy theorist rather than exploring new modes of thought.

I mean, which of the "models" explains this recently taken photo of the earth by a Japanese weather satellite:




Anyway, I vote Sandokhan -  I love his "most of history is invented" schtick.  Apparently Switzerland was unocuppied before the 18th century.  That BS is far more interesting than most flat earth BS.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 02:02:49 AM by JimmyTheCrab »
Logged
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.
*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2016, 02:05:28 AM »
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 08, 2016, 01:59:50 AM
"Davis' non-Euclidean Earth" is going to be the easiest to defend, as it is just the standard globe model, apart from in some philosophical sense it's apparently flat.

Whichever "model" you choose, you will automatically have to argue for a vast global conspiracy spanning thousands of years and involving millions of people.  That's why I couldn't hack been a flattie when I tried it - you just end up a conspiracy theorist rather than exploring new modes of thought.

I mean, which of the "models" explains this recently taken photo of the earth by a Japanese weather satellite:



That "photo" was subjected to fairly intensive computer processing using a round earth model to create that image.
Logged
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2016, 02:47:16 AM »
Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 08, 2016, 01:36:21 AM
I suggest you stop thinking you can create realities using maths or whatever, and instead learn about the one you are in by what can be observed that is simple and easy to understand.
I'm not trying to create realities. I understand RET just fine, there's just no point in having the exact same discussions over and over again. Where exactly are you getting the idea that I'm planning to create reality anyway? The skill of being able to think in terms of a different situation, even a non-intuitive one, and being able to develop it is a very useful ability to have, and a fun one, whether you're practising it with something possible or not.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 08, 2016, 01:59:50 AM
"Davis' non-Euclidean Earth" is going to be the easiest to defend, as it is just the standard globe model, apart from in some philosophical sense it's apparently flat.

Whichever "model" you choose, you will automatically have to argue for a vast global conspiracy spanning thousands of years and involving millions of people.  That's why I couldn't hack been a flattie when I tried it - you just end up a conspiracy theorist rather than exploring new modes of thought.
A couple of models do minimise that, at least. Davis at least seems to have implied satellites are real. Still, there are plenty of discussions that don't rely on the conspiracy.

Quote
Anyway, I vote Sandokhan -  I love his "most of history is invented" schtick.  Apparently Switzerland was unocuppied before the 18th century.  That BS is far more interesting than most flat earth BS.
Sadist.
Yep, did read the first page of his AFET. I think the Earth's about 500 years old, and for some reason a point of relevance to FET is that the Beatles didn't write their own songs. Could be a vaguely fun one to argue for if it was possible to learn, but it seems like most of the links he relies on lead somewhere broken.
Neat way of doing away with thousands of years of conspiracy at least  :P
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7272
  • +7/-41
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2016, 03:09:12 AM »
Apparently Switzerland was unocuppied before the 18th century.

http://dillum.ch/html/manifesto_historical_criticism_ch.pfister_2016.htm (Christoph Pfister's latest article on the new radical chronology of history)


Over the years, plenty of FE models have been proposed: yet, none of them, with the exception of my AFET, have survived the debates.

None of the other models can explain the solar precession (1.5 km/yr) shift in the westward direction.
Logged
*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2016, 03:13:43 AM »
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 02:47:16 AM
Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 08, 2016, 01:36:21 AM
I suggest you stop thinking you can create realities using maths or whatever, and instead learn about the one you are in by what can be observed that is simple and easy to understand.
I'm not trying to create realities. I understand RET just fine, there's just no point in having the exact same discussions over and over again. Where exactly are you getting the idea that I'm planning to create reality anyway? The skill of being able to think in terms of a different situation, even a non-intuitive one, and being able to develop it is a very useful ability to have, and a fun one, whether you're practising it with something possible or not.


Baloney.  When you said denpressure was simple and we only had to think about bouyancy, and I replied what causes bouyancy to go up and not sideways, you were fairly disgusting towards me and later suggested it was charitable I was suggesting some force was needed to create bouyancy.

Only somebody who was creating a reality which had no connection to our current one, and had no awareness that was the case, would have acted the way you did.

Likewise with the 'right behind the pump' nonsense.

Even science fiction writers realise what they describe has to be believable and there is only so far you can go to  bend reality before the reader thinks the plot is stupid.   Your behaviour towards me was disgusting.  Why should it be verboten to require a model fits our reality?   Why in Gods name do I have to learn even more elements of some stupid model that cannot fit even the most basic observations humans know about?

You were not requiring me to learn the plot of a fantasy novel.  I was supposed to be finding out about something that was claimed to describe reality.  Clearly it did not describe reality, and your only response was to accuse me of not reading and require me to learn even more about the nature of another persons stupidity.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 03:17:31 AM by Aliveandkicking »
Logged
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2016, 03:26:00 AM »
Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 08, 2016, 03:13:43 AM
Only somebody who was creating a reality which had no connection to our current one, and had no awareness that was the case, would have acted the way you did.
You were asking about someone's model, so I answered with respect to what that model said. Get over yourself. If you're wondering why I got snippy with you it's because you acted like that: you got absurdly defensive, apparently enough so that you need to resurrect the debate into an unrelated thread, and then complained that the contents of the model aren't in line with what you currently believe. Big deal, who was ever claiming that was the case?
Gravity is not required for buoyancy in the denpressure model, clearly. I'd hope that is incredibly obvious. I explained what was: the exertion of a force along with the direction it came from. You didn't respond to that, you ignored it, so yes I criticised you for not actually reading my posts.

Quote
Why should it be verboten to require a model fits our reality?   Why in Gods name do I have to learn even more elements of some stupid model that cannot fit even the most basic observations humans know about?
Because how can you say it doesn't work if you haven't taken the time to understand any of it? You agreed with this.
Doesn't change the fact that typically your actual arguments against it were terrible, of the form "This isn't the same as RET," rather than "This doesn't match the observation ___."

If you're not interested in hypothetical discussion, don't engage with me. There's an easy solution for you. I can promise I'll thank you.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2016, 03:46:41 AM »
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 03:26:00 AM
Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 08, 2016, 03:13:43 AM
Only somebody who was creating a reality which had no connection to our current one, and had no awareness that was the case, would have acted the way you did.
You were asking about someone's model, so I answered with respect to what that model said. Get over yourself. If you're wondering why I got snippy with you it's because you acted like that: you got absurdly defensive, apparently enough so that you need to resurrect the debate into an unrelated thread, and then complained that the contents of the model aren't in line with what you currently believe.

I said the model was not in agreement with reality as measured by simple observation

And yet you keep twisting what I say.

If a model says bouyancy causes things to go up for no reason whatsoever then why not sideways?

That statement has nothing to do whatsoever with some quaint belief I have.

Logged
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2016, 03:50:12 AM »
Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 08, 2016, 03:46:41 AM
I said the model was not in agreement with reality as measured by simple observation

And yet you keep twisting what I say.

If a model says bouyancy causes things to go up for no reason whatsoever then why not sideways?

That statement has nothing to do whatsoever with some quaint belief I have.
You said that, yet you never gave observations, just the RE explanations.
It didn't say for no reason whatsoever, I literally just gave you the reason, this is my entire problem with you. Now if you're quite finished resurrecting an ancient debate that was pointless when we had it, there's an actual topic to this thread and i'd like to hear what people have to say.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2016, 03:58:33 AM »
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 03:50:12 AM
Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 08, 2016, 03:46:41 AM
I said the model was not in agreement with reality as measured by simple observation

And yet you keep twisting what I say.

If a model says bouyancy causes things to go up for no reason whatsoever then why not sideways?

That statement has nothing to do whatsoever with some quaint belief I have.
You said that, yet you never gave observations, just the RE explanations.
It didn't say for no reason whatsoever, I literally just gave you the reason, this is my entire problem with you. Now if you're quite finished resurrecting an ancient debate that was pointless when we had it, there's an actual topic to this thread and i'd like to hear what people have to say.

Bullshit.  What I was talking about had totally squat to do with this "RE explanations" or my "beliefs" garbage you keep throwing at me.

You said the explanation for why something goes down in denpressure was simply explained by bouyancy and I asked you why up?  why not sideways?

What in Gods name has that go to do with RE or my beliefs??

Obviously bouyancy cannot be simply explained in denpressure.   The model is just handwaving.

Logged
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2016, 03:59:46 AM »
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 03:50:12 AM
It didn't say for no reason whatsoever, I literally just gave you the reason, this is my entire problem with you. Now if you're quite finished resurrecting an ancient debate that was pointless when we had it, there's an actual topic to this thread and i'd like to hear what people have to say.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2016, 04:01:32 AM »
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 03:59:46 AM
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 03:50:12 AM
It didn't say for no reason whatsoever, I literally just gave you the reason, this is my entire problem with you. Now if you're quite finished resurrecting an ancient debate that was pointless when we had it, there's an actual topic to this thread and i'd like to hear what people have to say.

All you have to agree to is:

 the reason for down in denpressure is not simply explained by bouyancy in denpressure.
Logged
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2016, 04:07:18 AM »
Grow up. Seriously. This conversation's over. We've had it multiple times before, you never actually read my posts. There is an explanation for that much under denpressure, you just never pay any attention to them, and will you please shut up about that already? This thread isn't about that. Why exactly did you need to resurrect that waste of time?
Do I agree with the answers? No, but you'll have to do more than "It's not the same as RET," to actually refute them.
This conversation is over. This thread is about something completely different.

God help me I'm starting to sound like JRowe. Thanks for that.
READ MY PENGUINING POSTS AND LEARN THE PENGUINING MODEL
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2016, 04:11:49 AM »
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 04:07:18 AM
here is an explanation for that much under denpressure,

There is no explanation for why things go down in denpressure.  Denpressure relies on things going up for things to go down.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 04, 2016, 03:56:41 AM
Quote from: Omega on September 04, 2016, 03:53:07 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 04, 2016, 03:39:54 AM
Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 03, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Quote from: Jane on September 03, 2016, 12:35:33 PM
Quote from: 29silhouette on September 03, 2016, 12:23:53 PM
I still don't know why air molecules are all pushed, or are pushing, down in his model either.
That much, at least, is simple. Think of it in terms of buoyancy

Why do bouyant objects go up?  Why not sideways?
I've been reading this shit for years, and despite what Jane says, this has never been properly answered.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 04:17:45 AM by Aliveandkicking »
Logged
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2016, 04:17:08 AM »
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 04:07:18 AM
This conversation is over. This thread is about something completely different.

If you wonder why I accuse you of never reading my posts, this is why. Last thing I'll say to you, blocked and good riddance. Seriously. A discussion was over, you resurrected it in an unrelated thread for no actual reason, and now you're insisting on getting the last word despite the fact your questions were answered several times, and you'd rather ignore everything I actually say just to make yourself look better. That's ridiculous.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on December 02, 2022, 08:48:03 AM
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!
*

Aliveandkicking

  • 1100
  • +0/-0
Re: Time to Change Sides
« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2016, 04:21:32 AM »
Quote from: Jane on September 08, 2016, 04:17:08 AM
A discussion was over


Quote from: Omega on September 04, 2016, 03:53:07 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 04, 2016, 03:39:54 AM
Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 03, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Quote from: Jane on September 03, 2016, 12:35:33 PM
Quote from: 29silhouette on September 03, 2016, 12:23:53 PM
I still don't know why air molecules are all pushed, or are pushing, down in his model either.
That much, at least, is simple. Think of it in terms of buoyancy

Why do bouyant objects go up?  Why not sideways?
I've been reading this shit for years, and despite what Jane says, this has never been properly answered.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »