Meteorites?

That’s the thing, though. All the people with “access to an advanced lab” have found enormous evidence for RE. Even modest amateur telescopes show moons orbiting Jupiter. Neptune was found using RE math. Two independent people used calculations from the RE/solar system model and found that Uranus was in the wrong spot—not moving along its orbit as predicted. They did some more math and predicted that there would be another planet. They reported their work to astronomers who found Neptune almost immediately. RE works.

Then go make that argument rather than dragging it into a thread about meteorites. It's not even tangentially related.

Here we have JackAss making a claim that all meteorites, "[LIE REMOVED]" when across the time of written history, there have been documented instances of just that.

Meterorites simply falling from the sky.

Got any proof of that?
A documented case of a meteor with purely vertical speed, no sideways speed at all?
If not, kindly fuck off with your lies.

P.S. stop lying about what people have said. Address what they actually say, not your strawman of it.

Or not every test is doable for your typical person without access to an advanced lab. Science doesn't work by inventing a convenient test, it can only go by what's predicted.
Just don't claim FET doesn't have an answer for meteorites until you have more ground to stand on. It has several answers, that doesn't mean none of them are true just that it's far from easy to test.

There is no FET, and I am yet to see anyone provide a rational answer for meteorites in a FE model.
It has no actual answers, just crap which fails to answer the question.

Until you can provide one, stop claiming they exist.

I just don't like bad arguments from both sides  Especially REers, we have it easy, why would we need fallacies?

Except I don't see you commenting on arguments from FEers. You seem to just keep patting them on the back.

Then go make that argument rather than dragging it into a thread about meteorites. It's not even tangentially related.

Or how about you go make one to show everyone how its done rather than continually bitching about everyone else?

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 21, 2017, 09:15:15 AM

That’s the thing, though. All the people with “access to an advanced lab” have found enormous evidence for RE. Even modest amateur telescopes show moons orbiting Jupiter. Neptune was found using RE math. Two independent people used calculations from the RE/solar system model and found that Uranus was in the wrong spot—not moving along its orbit as predicted. They did some more math and predicted that there would be another planet. They reported their work to astronomers who found Neptune almost immediately. RE works.

Then go make that argument rather than dragging it into a thread about meteorites. It's not even tangentially related.

I might just do that. However, the point I’m making is that RE is very thorough (explains and correctly predicts dozens of phenomena, including meteors and other celestial objects), very heavily tested (holds up to many different kinds of experiments), long-understood (since sailing ships disappeared bottom up —just like the Sun—more than 2,500 years ago), and is consistent with all known science (gravity on Earth works the same as gravity on meteors and Neptune).

Meteorites are among dozens of things easily explainable with RE but leave FE folks guessing.

Jane is arguing purely from a point of ignorance combined with an odd sense of the ridiculous. How can we take seriously that meteors, something we can all witness on a dark night, fall down from the sky! That is clearly not the case and runs contrary to reality.
Why is she bothering to state such blatant mistruths?

Meteorites are among dozens of things easily explainable with RE but leave FE folks guessing.

A fact you have already seen refuted. Why are you on this site if you're only interested in proving yourself right rather than making an actual argument?

Jane is arguing purely from a point of ignorance combined with an odd sense of the ridiculous. How can we take seriously that meteors, something we can all witness on a dark night, fall down from the sky! That is clearly not the case and runs contrary to reality.
Why is she bothering to state such blatant mistruths?

...I don't know what thread you've been reading but it's clearly not this one.

However, the point I’m making is that RE is very thorough (explains and correctly predicts dozens of phenomena, including meteors and other celestial objects), very heavily tested (holds up to many different kinds of experiments), long-understood (since sailing ships disappeared bottom up —just like the Sun—more than 2,500 years ago), and is consistent with all known science (gravity on Earth works the same as gravity on meteors and Neptune).

Meteorites are among dozens of things easily explainable with RE but leave FE folks guessing.

Best claim made on that is that the spherical Earth is a mirror of how our universe works, it mirrors something that is different from what we'd normally assume is RE. It is like an illusion that can represent our observation.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 21, 2017, 02:56:11 PM

Meteorites are among dozens of things easily explainable with RE but leave FE folks guessing.

A fact you have already seen refuted. Why are you on this site if you're only interested in proving yourself right rather than making an actual argument?

Quote from: Nightsky on November 21, 2017, 03:25:44 PM

Jane is arguing purely from a point of ignorance combined with an odd sense of the ridiculous. How can we take seriously that meteors, something we can all witness on a dark night, fall down from the sky! That is clearly not the case and runs contrary to reality.
Why is she bothering to state such blatant mistruths?

...I don't know what thread you've been reading but it's clearly not this one.

Reftued?! I’ve seen lots of guessing—people just throwing out whatever pops into their head when the question is posed. Why am I on this site? Because someone might be wondering “what’s all this flat Earth talk? Do they have better answers?” And then they will see that they clearly don’t.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 21, 2017, 02:56:11 PM

Meteorites are among dozens of things easily explainable with RE but leave FE folks guessing.

A fact you have already seen refuted.

No, a fact everyone has seen confirmed, without FEers able to provide an explanation that holds any water.

Why are you on this site if you're only interested in proving yourself right rather than making an actual argument?

Good question.
Why are you here continually bitching about people and trying to prove yourself rather than making an actual argument?

I’ve been trying to find anything to explain meteorites. What are those streaks blazing across the sky? Some of them are quite clearly solid objects disintegrating, and they are moving incredibly fast. Your firmament ain’t so firm, eh?

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/764204/Hundreds-meteor-fireball-US-sonic-boom

How do you know theyre solid objects, whats to say its not god

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 19, 2017, 09:55:56 AM

I’ve been trying to find anything to explain meteorites. What are those streaks blazing across the sky? Some of them are quite clearly solid objects disintegrating, and they are moving incredibly fast. Your firmament ain’t so firm, eh?

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/764204/Hundreds-meteor-fireball-US-sonic-boom

How do you know theyre solid objects, whats to say its not god

Well, I suppose we could just shrug and say it’s all magic. I guess that I like the idea of trying to understand. Besides, where would your philosophy get us? Disease? It’s just God, Earthquakes? It’s just God. Flood? It’s just God. How could we build a civilization with that approach?

However, meteorites land on the ground and are often found. Meteors do just burn up and are lost.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 21, 2017, 02:56:11 PM

Meteorites are among dozens of things easily explainable with RE but leave FE folks guessing.

A fact you have already seen refuted. Why are you on this site if you're only interested in proving yourself right rather than making an actual argument?

Quote from: Nightsky on November 21, 2017, 03:25:44 PM

Jane is arguing purely from a point of ignorance combined with an odd sense of the ridiculous. How can we take seriously that meteors, something we can all witness on a dark night, fall down from the sky! That is clearly not the case and runs contrary to reality.
Why is she bothering to state such blatant mistruths?

...I don't know what thread you've been reading but it's clearly not this one.

Why are you on this site? To offer casual guesses about scientific questions?

Reftued?! I’ve seen lots of guessing—people just throwing out whatever pops into their head when the question is posed. Why am I on this site? Because someone might be wondering “what’s all this flat Earth talk? Do they have better answers?” And then they will see that they clearly don’t.

Except that's not what you've shown, you've shown you don't understand how to make an argument. if you are claiming that FET cannot explain it then you've shown they have no working explanation. You haven't done that, you've rejected the multiple possible explanations because they have not yet sorted between them. Hardly 'leaves them guessing,' science always begins with multiple possibilities.
People wondering about "all this flat Earth talk," are going to see your posts and assume RET needs dishonesty to defend itself, which is just wrong.

Why are you on this site? To offer casual guesses about scientific questions?

To call out bad arguments that haven't yet been called out wherever they arise.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 21, 2017, 07:06:45 PM

Reftued?! I’ve seen lots of guessing—people just throwing out whatever pops into their head when the question is posed. Why am I on this site? Because someone might be wondering “what’s all this flat Earth talk? Do they have better answers?” And then they will see that they clearly don’t.

Except that's not what you've shown, you've shown you don't understand how to make an argument. if you are claiming that FET cannot explain it then you've shown they have no working explanation. You haven't done that, you've rejected the multiple possible explanations because they have not yet sorted between them. Hardly 'leaves them guessing,' science always begins with multiple possibilities.
People wondering about "all this flat Earth talk," are going to see your posts and assume RET needs dishonesty to defend itself, which is just wrong.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 22, 2017, 04:50:13 AM

Why are you on this site? To offer casual guesses about scientific questions?

To call out bad arguments that haven't yet been called out wherever they arise.

Saying, “I can invent a story that has the same ending,” is not the same as, “I can tell you what happened.” Your admission that FE HAS NO WORKING MODEL OF METEORITES means that RE is a superior model. RE is logically consistent throughout. FE is an incoherent patchwork of guesses, fantasy, bogus science, and “still working on it.”

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2017, 12:42:32 PM

FEers claim that as a strength.

Guess what?
Them lying and saying crap like that doesn't make it true.
Having numerous contradictory models to be able to explain things is a massive weakness which shows that none of the models are correct.

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2017, 12:42:32 PM

I'm just giving FE answers.

You mean repeating the same refuted BS.

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2017, 12:42:32 PM

Besides, the Sun hardly moves slowly. It travels the length of the equator in a day. That's about 460m/s under RE measurements, and it's generally much bigger under FET.

Now compare that to meteors, which move a lot faster.

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2017, 12:42:32 PM

As for what causes it to move, dark energy's a popular term, and there's aether though the precise definition of that depends on the model and we would be here all day if I went through them.

i.e. they have a bunch of terms, but no actual explanation.

you should've noticed by now that Jane plays Devil's Advocate for FE's

Quote from: AltSpace on November 21, 2017, 01:09:44 AM

How do they reach the high speeds these meteorites seem to go in that model?

Some are more denser than others and will naturally be faster as they create fiction, not to mention  those closer to the centre of the dome that are caught in  the atmospheric spiral.

You could call it an upper icicle stream if you want to.

I thought density was a lie?

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 21, 2017, 07:06:45 PM

Reftued?! I’ve seen lots of guessing—people just throwing out whatever pops into their head when the question is posed. Why am I on this site? Because someone might be wondering “what’s all this flat Earth talk? Do they have better answers?” And then they will see that they clearly don’t.

Except that's not what you've shown, you've shown you don't understand how to make an argument. if you are claiming that FET cannot explain it then you've shown they have no working explanation. You haven't done that, you've rejected the multiple possible explanations because they have not yet sorted between them. Hardly 'leaves them guessing,' science always begins with multiple possibilities.
People wondering about "all this flat Earth talk," are going to see your posts and assume RET needs dishonesty to defend itself, which is just wrong.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 22, 2017, 04:50:13 AM

Why are you on this site? To offer casual guesses about scientific questions?

To call out bad arguments that haven't yet been called out wherever they arise.

Part of the reason that the quality of the debates on this site are so low is that the FE folks resist saying anything definitive. RE is very specific and detailed, but FE slips and slides around every time you try to confront it. RE says “exactly...exactly...exactly...” while FE says “approximately...not sure...haven’t worked it out yet...it depends...” Present something coherent, and we can compare and debate.

unless there is a Flat Earther who has an idea that is so out there, that they speak from a point of authority on something... There is no debate here... it is...

FE: Gravity is a lie, Air pressure is what causes gravity
RE: umm... so what about inertia
FE: INERTIA IS A LIE
RE: Okay... so what about (Blah blah blah)
FE: YOU ARE SO STUPID, THAT'S ALSO A LIE!!!!
FE: YOU'RE WORLD IS A LIE
RE: Okay Scepti, calm down a little... jeeez
FE: YOU WILL ALL BOW DOWN TO ME AS YOUR OVERLORD!!!!!!! I AM ZEUS!!!
RE: he must be mixing shrooms and pcp again

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 21, 2017, 01:21:08 AM

Quote from: AltSpace on November 21, 2017, 01:09:44 AM

How do they reach the high speeds these meteorites seem to go in that model?

Some are more denser than others and will naturally be faster as they create fiction, not to mention  those closer to the centre of the dome that are caught in  the atmospheric spiral.

You could call it an upper icicle stream if you want to.

I thought density was a lie?

Pay attention.

why? did you make a good point somewhere?

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2017, 03:40:29 PM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 21, 2017, 02:56:11 PM

Meteorites are among dozens of things easily explainable with RE but leave FE folks guessing.

A fact you have already seen refuted. Why are you on this site if you're only interested in proving yourself right rather than making an actual argument?

Quote from: Nightsky on November 21, 2017, 03:25:44 PM

Jane is arguing purely from a point of ignorance combined with an odd sense of the ridiculous. How can we take seriously that meteors, something we can all witness on a dark night, fall down from the sky! That is clearly not the case and runs contrary to reality.
Why is she bothering to state such blatant mistruths?

...I don't know what thread you've been reading but it's clearly not this one.

Reftued?! I’ve seen lots of guessing—people just throwing out whatever pops into their head when the question is posed. Why am I on this site? Because someone might be wondering “what’s all this flat Earth talk? Do they have better answers?” And then they will see that they clearly don’t.

Isn't that an explanation or hypothesis? If so, then it has been refuted that they do can explain meteorites in FE, that the explanation is correct or incorrect is a waaay different thing now.

Saying, “I can invent a story that has the same ending,” is not the same as, “I can tell you what happened.” Your admission that FE HAS NO WORKING MODEL OF METEORITES means that RE is a superior model. RE is logically consistent throughout. FE is an incoherent patchwork of guesses, fantasy, bogus science, and “still working on it.”

What are you talking about? It's not that FE has no working model, it has multiple. You've seen every step walked through from beginning to end and the only parts details weren't given were when there were several obvious possibilities.
Yes, RET is the superior model but you don't reach that conclusion through such blatant disregard for logic and facts as this.

Part of the reason that the quality of the debates on this site are so low is that the FE folks resist saying anything definitive. RE is very specific and detailed, but FE slips and slides around every time you try to confront it. RE says “exactly...exactly...exactly...” while FE says “approximately...not sure...haven’t worked it out yet...it depends...” Present something coherent, and we can compare and debate.

There are multiple FEers with their own models, they're not a hive mind. So long as you don't make plainly ridiculous demands (eg: "Go map out the world," is a common one, though suspiciously those people go quiet if you ask for a methd) it's not that hard to have a good conversation. The quality of debates is low when you cling to bad arguments rather than adjust. learn what you're arguing against, make an informed case.

Except that's not what you've shown

No, the FEers have shown that. They have shown that they do not have answers and instead are just making wild guesses which don't work.

shown you don't understand how to make an argument.

No. That would be you, continually bitching about people rather than ever making an argument.

if you are claiming that FET cannot explain it then you've shown they have no working explanation. You haven't done that, you've rejected the multiple possible explanations because they have not yet sorted between them.

No, we have rejected the mutiple impossible explanations as they don't actually explain it.

People wondering about "all this flat Earth talk," are going to see your posts and assume RET needs dishonesty to defend itself, which is just wrong.

Except the dishonesty shown here is by you and other FEers, lying and pretending FE can explain meteors while providing pure crap which doesn't work at all.

To call out bad arguments that haven't yet been called out wherever they arise.

Then go watch the FEers and start calling out their bad arguments. They make far more than the REers.

Also, you seem to like calling any argument made by a REer a bad argument regardless of if it is.

What are you talking about? It's not that FE has no working model, it has multiple.

No it doesn't.
I has multiple horribly broken models which do not work.

FE has no WORKING model.

Having a bunch of models doesn't mean any of them work.

You've seen every step walked through from beginning to end

And failing to match reality.

such blatant disregard for logic and facts as this.

You are the one showing a blatant disregard for logic and facts.
You are the one who is lying and claiming FE has working models.
You are the one who is lying and claiming FE can explain things, when it can't.

So long as you don't make plainly ridiculous demands (eg: "Go map out the world," is a common one, though suspiciously those people go quiet if you ask for a methd)

Except people like me that have provided several methods for how to do it fairly easily.
Which you then ignore or lie about because it doesn't fit your agenda.

it's not that hard to have a good conversation.

Then why are you completely unable to have one?
Why do you instead ignore what people say and continually bitch about people?

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 22, 2017, 06:33:46 AM

Saying, “I can invent a story that has the same ending,” is not the same as, “I can tell you what happened.” Your admission that FE HAS NO WORKING MODEL OF METEORITES means that RE is a superior model. RE is logically consistent throughout. FE is an incoherent patchwork of guesses, fantasy, bogus science, and “still working on it.”

What are you talking about? It's not that FE has no working model, it has multiple. You've seen every step walked through from beginning to end and the only parts details weren't given were when there were several obvious possibilities.
Yes, RET is the superior model but you don't reach that conclusion through such blatant disregard for logic and facts as this.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 22, 2017, 08:16:25 AM

Part of the reason that the quality of the debates on this site are so low is that the FE folks resist saying anything definitive. RE is very specific and detailed, but FE slips and slides around every time you try to confront it. RE says “exactly...exactly...exactly...” while FE says “approximately...not sure...haven’t worked it out yet...it depends...” Present something coherent, and we can compare and debate.

There are multiple FEers with their own models, they're not a hive mind. So long as you don't make plainly ridiculous demands (eg: "Go map out the world," is a common one, though suspiciously those people go quiet if you ask for a methd) it's not that hard to have a good conversation. The quality of debates is low when you cling to bad arguments rather than adjust. learn what you're arguing against, make an informed case.

Learn what I’m arguing against?! You are the one who kept being vague. When I finally got you to actually give your own answers, you seemed to be making it up on the fly. “I dunno, maybe it gets bumped by something invisible.” (That’s not a direct quote, I know, but that’s not too far off.)

Your answer was another evasion. “Unknown object supplies unknown lateral force via unknown mechanism” means that you don’t have an explanation.

Perhaps you should start every sentence with, “There isn’t any evidence for this, but it could be...” Examples:

“There isn’t any evidence for this, but it could be that stars and planets are all just points of light on a crystal dome.”

“There isn’t any evidence for this, but it could be that the Earth is an infinite plane.”

“There isn’t any evidence for this, but it could be that meteors are just ice falling off the dome.”

The fact that you can conjure a fiction is not the same as being able to explain something. Having a good imagination is only a small fraction of understanding science.

 

Learn what I’m arguing against?! You are the one who kept being vague. When I finally got you to actually give your own answers, you seemed to be making it up on the fly. “I dunno, maybe it gets bumped by something invisible.” (That’s not a direct quote, I know, but that’s not too far off.)

Your answer was another evasion. “Unknown object supplies unknown lateral force via unknown mechanism” means that you don’t have an explanation.

Uh, what? I said the problem isn't that there isn't an explanation, it's that there are several.
if you wanted to quote what I actually said, "There's hardly a lack of potential reasons rocks and dust could fall to a flat disc." Would you really suggest out I list every possible FE model and every mechanism when it really should be obvious how many possibilities there are?
Plus of course "I'm not naming one because there are multiple models and this is hardly the place to go through them all. Plus I literally have given reasons why things might fall from the dome already. Besides it's pretty pointless to go into detail as to what mechanism makes the Sun etc move, all that matters is that they do, so it's hardly outlandish to suggest the force that makes them do so would also affect other things in their vicinity."
Which actually goes a step beyond what you asked for; it doesn't describe the force, it gives you evidence that it exists. Why is that not enough for you?
If you want to debate the FE mechanism that's responsible for their movement have fun looking up whirlpools and celestial gears and all manner of things that are only tangentially relevant here and are proven to the extent that they are needed.

Perhaps you should start every sentence with, “There isn’t any evidence for this, but it could be...” Examples:

“There isn’t any evidence for this, but it could be that stars and planets are all just points of light on a crystal dome.”

“There isn’t any evidence for this, but it could be that the Earth is an infinite plane.”

“There isn’t any evidence for this, but it could be that meteors are just ice falling off the dome.”

The fact that you can conjure a fiction is not the same as being able to explain something. Having a good imagination is only a small fraction of understanding science.

Again: "if you are claiming that FET cannot explain it then you've shown they have no working explanation. You haven't done that, you've rejected the multiple possible explanations because they have not yet sorted between them."
You are claiming FET cannot explain meteorites. if you're going to do that you need to go a whole lot further than "They don't have evidence." Those are not equivalent claims.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on November 19, 2017, 09:55:56 AM

I’ve been trying to find anything to explain meteorites. What are those streaks blazing across the sky? Some of them are quite clearly solid objects disintegrating, and they are moving incredibly fast. Your firmament ain’t so firm, eh?

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/764204/Hundreds-meteor-fireball-US-sonic-boom

How do you know theyre solid objects, whats to say its not god

You know you can hold a meteorite in your hand, right?

You are claiming FET cannot explain meteorites. if you're going to do that you need to go a whole lot further than "They don't have evidence." Those are not equivalent claims.

But like I mentioned in another thread, that meteor showers are predicted by the movement of the rocks in the solar system and them entering our atmosphere. You then have the celestial gears of the flat earth or the like explaining this, but as has been pointed out, they couldn't move as fast as recorded in such a system, which will have REers pouncing on it saying that this only works if the solar system is larger than Earth, and we are moving within it, otherwise, we can't say they are moving through our solar system at similar speed to the gears, and then when they reach earth, they are much faster. Giving out the notion that they are far out and the observed solar system is simply large enough so the distances observed travel can only be covered at their quite high initial velocities.

So the issue is with meteor observations and meteor shower predictions and speeds recorded.

But like I mentioned in another thread, that meteor showers are predicted by the movement of the rocks in the solar system and them entering our atmosphere. You then have the celestial gears of the flat earth or the like explaining this, but as has been pointed out, they couldn't move as fast as recorded in such a system

They don't have to, they only have to impart horizontal velocity, the majority of its speed can come from another source. Given meteors are typically only visible when they hit the atmosphere and given that's going to clearly alter the meteor's velocity (particularly downwards, all the more if you want to get into models where there are very different forces at play horizontally vs vertically) that argument needs a lot more to stand up.

Quote from: AltSpace on November 22, 2017, 03:27:29 PM

But like I mentioned in another thread, that meteor showers are predicted by the movement of the rocks in the solar system and them entering our atmosphere. You then have the celestial gears of the flat earth or the like explaining this, but as has been pointed out, they couldn't move as fast as recorded in such a system

They don't have to, they only have to impart horizontal velocity, the majority of its speed can come from another source. Given meteors are typically only visible when they hit the atmosphere and given that's going to clearly alter the meteor's velocity (particularly downwards, all the more if you want to get into models where there are very different forces at play horizontally vs vertically) that argument needs a lot more to stand up.

From what I've read, while meteor showers are cyclical, they can be predicted by determining when rocks in the solar system reach earth. So, they at least correlate with comets entering the solar system, and have been predicted to leave debris and when we enter it's area of orbit, we get the correlated showers.
How does this correlate with a rock falling from high up randomly? The comet is a piece of the dome that eventually allows drops in meteorites? Or whatever else is up there.

Uh, what? I said the problem isn't that there isn't an explanation, it's that there are several.

And until you can provide one which holds up to scrutiny, you have no basis for that claim.

it's pretty pointless to go into detail as to what mechanism makes the Sun etc move, all that matters is that they do, so it's hardly outlandish to suggest the force that makes them do so would also affect other things in their vicinity.

No, it still quite important to do so, as all you are doing is pushing the problem back.
FE models can't explain that either.

So that is effectively saying "well FE can't explain the motion of the sun either so who cares"

And due to the massively different speeds, it is quite important.

it doesn't describe the force, it gives you evidence that it exists. Why is that not enough for you?

No it doesn't. It assumes a FE to pretend it exists.
That is no better than saying:
"Meteorites fall and Earth is flat so there is no problem with it."

It is completely circular. It assumes Earth is flat to ignore the problems presented by FE models.
That is not enough for any rational human being.

things that are only tangentially relevant here and are proven to the extent that they are needed.

If they are used to explain the motion of meteorites they are quite relevant here.
They are yet to be proven at all.
That is far less than needed.

Again: "if you are claiming that FET cannot explain it then you've shown they have no working explanation. You haven't done that, you've rejected the multiple possible explanations because they have not yet sorted between them."

Again, that is pure BS.
They are yet to present a working explanation. The "explanations" provided don't work.
Stop act like people rejecting things because they don't work means they are being rejected as they can't sort between them.

They don't have to, they only have to impart horizontal velocity, the majority of its speed can come from another source

And then you need to explain that source.
Before you were acting like those things mentioned where what caused the horizontal motion.