Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on December 02, 2022, 03:00:06 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 01, 2022, 05:13:01 AM

blimp that is broadcasting internet than it is to fly into space to put up satellites

If the earth was flat, you would just need one big tower….

I am begging you to know the answers before you make claims about them. If you don't know, ask a question, rather than presenting ignorance as fact.

FE response is usually that the atmosphere does block signals - if you transmit something through a lot of gas, that gas will muffle the signal, especially denser/lower down.
If you object to that explanation, great, make sure it's the model that the person you're talking to holds to (don't know if it is for Bulma, but giving the most common reply as an example) and then poke your holes.

I personally don't study sound, so I'm afraid I can't give an answer whether the FE gas thing is true or not, but as you seem more reasonable than say Stash or Jack Black, I'll give my best attempt.

The RE explanation for radio waves is that sound goes up, hits the upper atmosphere and bounces back down, and that somehow the means people all over the world can hear ham radio signals. But based on the shape of the globe, this isn't possible.



Here's a flat earth map given earlier. As you can see, there are no spatial curves that sound has to travel through. In a  globe map, sound has to curve around the equator, which would result in a lost or distorted signal. But ham radio operators assure me that they can communicate with most countries.

I do think the atmosphere is thinner at night. Not sure if this is due to clouds and such being less prevalent at night,  or that the sun affects the atmosphere, but radio frequency tends to travel better if my signal is at night. Just from being in the car, clear radio.

Basically, the problem of satellites is similar to a photon experiment. Grab a worldmap, flashlight, and a ladder. Get a globe too, we're going to do this right.

Test 1: Overhead flashlight on map, close range
Test 2: Overhead flashlight on globe, close range
Test 3: Test 1, distant range
Test 4: Test 2, distance range

That farther away, the more spread out the light is. But also, the more diffused it is (not as bright). Supposedly, we have over 30,000 satellites in space.

Ummmm.
(1) We haven't been in space often enough due to launch cost for that even to be possible. That would entail one rocket going up somewhere in the world every day for about 82 years.
(2) It also implies that multiple companies have money enough to build a space shuttle to set up a satellite. Cost efficiency declared that a permanent satellite is easier to build inside Earth's atmosphere
(3) In the four tests above, not only would one satellite, not 30,000 be enough to serve the entire Earth on a flat Earth, but the underside on a RE would not be exposed to light, so you'd need to launch about four satellites for every one under FE. So yeah, my argument against RE is that it's just more expensive.
(4) if the RE does bounce radio waves down, why would it be advantageous to be outside the Earth? Maybe it might help radio waves circle around this globe, but it can't penetrate unless it is higher frequency (more like a beam than a wave)
(5) And such a beam doesn't work any better at high altitude. So again, cheaper and more practical to do this in atmosphere than outer space

Basically this. The whole idea of space travel to satellites doesn't seem to have a good reason why it couldn't be done more cheaply and easily within Earth. And more importantly, it seems like they say these satellites are outside Earth just so ppl will accept RE.

Basically this. The whole idea of space travel to satellites doesn't seem to have a good reason why it couldn't be done more cheaply and easily within Earth. And more importantly, it seems like they say these satellites are outside Earth just so ppl will accept RE.

What would be the motive to fake satellites to convince people the earth is a globe? In short, what benefit do whomever "they" are to fake the shape of the earth? Seems like a tremendous amount of work and money to make people who actual design and build such systems think they are doing something they are actually not. As well as somehow managing to keep millions of people quiet. What gain is there to all of this?

So you can't handle the refutation of your claims regarding the shelf so you deflect to the south pole?

Again, place your shelf on a scale, and then place the books on it.
If what you are saying is true, and there is no downwards force from the books onto the shelf, then the scale should not record any increase in weight.
But we both know it will.

There probly isn't one. North is the magnetic center of the Earth. South is the magnetic rim. There isn't an actual pile and those in power know it. We say South Pole only as a matter of tradition.

No, we say south pole because there certainly is one.

This is why expeditions through the South Pole tend to skim sideways. Or outright double back like so.

You mean they will try to take a shorter route over land?

Your paranoia in no way discounts the existence of the south pole.
We know a south pole must exist, because we can observe the southern sky, observing a point due south about which stars appear to circle.
This is due south for everyone in the southern hemisphere, with the same stars making the same pattern.
And, we can circle this south celestial pole, keeping it to one side.

So there must be a south celestial pole, and below that there must be a south pole on Earth.

I personally don't study sound, so I'm afraid I can't give an answer whether the FE gas thing is true or not, but as you seem more reasonable than say Stash or Jack Black, I'll give my best attempt.

It isn't a matter of being more reasonable, it is they are more willing to humour you.
Even when there is a massive problem with your model, they will ignore it, and try to get more information out to try to fully understand the model; whereas I see the problem and point it out, and because you can't handle your model being wrong you deem that to be unreasonable.

The RE explanation for radio waves is that sound goes up, hits the upper atmosphere and bounces back down, and that somehow the means people all over the world can hear ham radio signals. But based on the shape of the globe, this isn't possible.

See, this is an example of actually being unreasonable.
You claim that based upon the shape of the globe it isn't possible, yet provide no justification at all for why that is the case.

This applies to a particular set of frequencies. Frequencies which can be reflected by both Earth and the ionosphere, and it depends upon the consistency of the ionosphere at any given time.

But because these waves can bounce off the ionosphere and Earth, that means as long as Earth is roughly a convex hull, the radio waves can propagate everywhere.

So just how do you think the shape of Earth makes that impossible?

In a  globe map, sound has to curve around the equator

And this is another example of being unreasonable.
Stop acting like the RE is 2 flat discs stuck together.
The equator is only special due to the rotation.
If Earth didn't spin, any point along the equator would be no different to the poles.

which would result in a lost or distorted signal.

WHY?
Again you assert pure nonsense with no justification at all.

Basically, the problem of satellites is similar to a photon experiment. Grab a worldmap, flashlight, and a ladder. Get a globe too, we're going to do this right.

By "right" do you mean entirely wrong just like you did last time? Or do you mean actually right, which will expose your nonsense?
You may also want to clarify what you mean by "close range" vs "distant range".

Supposedly, we have over 30,000 satellites in space.

Do you have a source for that? Or are you just making up numbers?
The sources I find indicate closer to 5 000-10 000, with a higher count if you include space junk and broken/fragmented satellites, and prior launches.
This list includes 14281 objects, including those no longer in orbit:
https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/osoindex/search-ng.jspx?lf_id=

We haven't been in space often enough due to launch cost for that even to be possible. That would entail one rocket going up somewhere in the world every day for about 82 years.

Why?
Because you want to pretend every rocket launch can only deploy a single satellite?
If you would like a recent example, SpaceX launches their Starlink constellations in groups. For example, the most recent launch on the 28th of October launched 53 satllites.
These are deployed in a certain orbit in close proximity, and they spread out.

However the list of large numbers would count things like a satellite, and the rocket used to launch it, separately.

It also implies that multiple companies have money enough to build a space shuttle to set up a satellite. Cost efficiency declared that a permanent satellite is easier to build inside Earth's atmosphere

Why?
Are you wanting to act like all satellites need to be the ISS?
Most satellites are quite small, and the expensive part is the launch.

In the four tests above, not only would one satellite, not 30,000 be enough to serve the entire Earth on a flat Earth

The issue is where they are. People use round Earth math to locate satellites and point satellite dishes towards them.
Because they would be pointing at different locations you would need quite a lot of satellites on a FE.
One geostationary satellite for a RE would need to be replaced by countless "satellites" for a FE.

Likewise, 1 sun would be enough to illuminate the entire surface of the disc, all the time. Yet FEers need to invent some excuse for why that doesn't happen. Why doesn't that excuse apply equally to your satellites?

but the underside on a RE

What underside of the RE?

So yeah, my argument against RE is that it's just more expensive.

As above, if Earth was flat, it would be cheaper, if it was done based upon a FE, assuming it costs the same to get a satellite up there. But the FE offers no reason why why the satellite stays up.
However, if they are lying and pretending Earth is round when it is actually flat, it would be vastly more expensive due to having to fake all the different directions the satellites should be found at.

if the RE does bounce radio waves down, why would it be advantageous to be outside the Earth?

Because only certain radio waves bounce off the ionosphere, and the bounce depends upon the conditions of the ionosphere.
That wouldn't work well for GPS.
And it highly limits the bandwidth.

And such a beam doesn't work any better at high altitude. So again, cheaper and more practical to do this in atmosphere than outer space

No, still radio waves, still spread out, not a "beam", so doing it in space allows you to cover a larger area.

Basically this. The whole idea of space travel to satellites doesn't seem to have a good reason why it couldn't be done more cheaply and easily within Earth.

Only because you want to pretend Earth is flat.
On a FE you just need a large enough tower, with a powerful transmitter and you can cover whatever distance you want.
But on a RE, for the vast majority of frequencies, Earth gets in the way.
On a RE, it makes sense.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 02, 2022, 08:30:23 AM

Basically this. The whole idea of space travel to satellites doesn't seem to have a good reason why it couldn't be done more cheaply and easily within Earth. And more importantly, it seems like they say these satellites are outside Earth just so ppl will accept RE.

What would be the motive to fake satellites to convince people the earth is a globe? In short, what benefit do whomever "they" are to fake the shape of the earth? Seems like a tremendous amount of work and money to make people who actual design and build such systems think they are doing something they are actually not. As well as somehow managing to keep millions of people quiet. What gain is there to all of this?

Yeah that model. That looks stupid. Really stupid. And it doesn't account for what ham radio operators say, which is that their old frequency has more range than even modern satellite radio, that they sometimes can carry out convos with people in Iceland or Saudi Arabia or India, after figuring out the call address and language spoken.

What if it's just range and there is no curvature obstruction, just obstruction to vision?

What motive, you ask. Okay. What about all the money you make building satellites, and pocket the difference for not traveling to space? With these same sattelites, you can surveill every square inch, claiming that you need more bars for 5G. Sorry but I remember landline phones. They were much clearer than internet phones our family uses today. Which btw crap out alot. Bad companies trying to sell sucky infrastructure when old landlines worked even in a storm.

Or hey, if you tell people that there's nothing to the South but a big ice continent, and sign accords preventing everyone but the very elite from visiting, sending everyone else off to an iceberg several degrees north, and shooting the people who earnestly try to cross the "South Pole", you can effectively trade farm resources with Africans and Southeast Asians, who you deliberately sabotaged their poor development in farming.
The U.N. has in the name of sustainability and a lot of other buzzwords sabotaged the government's of most of these countries, and under Biden we're doing a good job of screwing America up too. FEMA sells government emergency food and water when they actually have an excess from hidden lands. Ditto for thing like Unicef. What if there are resources to spare?



Oh yes, and I almost forgot the lucrative wars fought over land, all of which are avoided if there's plenty to spare. The war industry makes billions a year.
 Suddenly telling people that maybe there is extra land they are not telling about means everyone has enough land to farm and mine and whatever else, that we don't have to bother third world countries, forcing their children to work in cobalt or lithium mines crawling through narrow shafts. Wars over land cease, the military industry dries up. And that white part is just projected boundary. I've seen models with three or more layers.

Money, power, land, and control. What else?

Now I don't know whether this extra land exists or whether it's infinite ice wall outward, it's two theories I throw around. But you should not ask "what is there to gain"? You might not like the answer. Nor might you like consequences of knowing the answer (Feds investigating you for knowing too much). Me? I always value the truth, so I'll tell you this answer.

Now.  For your model of no gravity.  What is the energy density of the atmosphere around the train, and how is that energy being captured.  And how does the atmosphere and density give the directionality of a force to push the train down hill.

The train has to have initial energy to be pushed uphill in the first place. It requires massive energy to achieve this. Where does this energy come from, from your side?

Example.  I have a ten pound bowling ball sitting at rest.  I don’t care what direction the ball moves.  Show the formulas using only atmosphere and density to get the ball to accelerate from rest.  And what magnitude of atmosphere it takes to move the bowling ball.

To move the bowling ball it requires a force to imbalance the stacked layers the ball sits in. You can be the force if you push it or you can rely on the wind (high/low-pressure change) or a gradient which would still require a force to overcome the stacked layers.
On its own and sitting on a foundation the ball is simply displacing each set of layers on either side of it all around up to the point of the round top then the rest of the layers are simply sitting above it in more or less uniform status, horizontally but no stacked layer is every the same as the one above nor the one below.

How is the atmosphere providing work?

By manipulation by any applied force.

As in why does a wind turbine need wind in your model?

To turn the blades.

  And why does a strong breeze in a constant direction produce more power than variable winds at 1 or 2 MPH.

More force to overcome the same dense mass and resistance to it.

Why doesn’t the atmosphere and density keep a wind turbine going without wind on a calm day.

It doesn't.

How do you refuel the energy used out of the atmosphere in your model?  Like you refill the fuel tank in a electric diesel train.  Or like how the battery is depleted moving the train back up hill, converting kinetic energy back to potential energy.  Why can’t the regenerative brakes in your model be used going back up hill to charge the battery.  The train is going into less dense atmosphere.

To get something out of anything you must put in the exact same force/energy. Equal reaction to action.

You can offer a force/energy and store that energy (potential energy) and release it when required but you cannot gain more energy from something than you originally put into it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2022, 03:35:02 AM

Everything is porous to some degree in terms of what's between any structural makeup.
It then comes down to molecular density of the structure.

But the question is what is in those pores.
For solid metals like aluminium and lead, the voids (or pores) in the crystal structure are empty. They don't contain air.
The voids are not compatible with air molecules.

Molecules contain everything of themselves in different forms due to each having a different density of layering. Remember the gobstopper. Put your mind to work on it.

Yeah that model. That looks stupid. Really stupid.

Ah, drill down far enough and this is always the argument a flat earther comes down to.

They don't understand something, so it must be the world that's stupid.  It can't be them, right?

What motive, you ask. Okay. What about all the money you make building satellites, and pocket the difference for not traveling to space?

And the other common flat earther reasoning flaw, inability to understand scale.  I await your analysis of how much it would cost to fake our entire communications infrastructure, plus the ISS, space exploration and keeping it all secret worldwide.

You really have NO idea how much your 'little' conspiracy would cost to actually run, do you? 

Just because you are easily taken in by conspiracy theories doesn't mean billions of other people are so easily fooled.

Yeah that model. That looks stupid. Really stupid.

Why? Because you don't like it because it shows your claims are wrong?

their old frequency has more range than even modern satellite radio

Ignoring what is said wont help you.
The model does entirely account for it.
Only certain frequencies are reflected by the ionosphere.
Satellite radio is not.

The question is how this would work in your fantasy.
Why is there any limit to the range of the satellite radio?

What motive, you ask. Okay. What about all the money you make building satellites

What about all the money then spent building devices to transmit that data to various locations around the world, which would have to be independent transmitters due to the different directions they would be pointing to, and the money required to fake all the data that is being sent, and faking the rocket launch, and setting up a covert launch, and so on.

sign accords preventing everyone but the very elite from visiting, sending everyone else off to an iceberg several degrees north, and shooting the people who earnestly try to cross the "South Pole"

You mean sign a treaty ensuring Antarctica remains open to all?
Which FEers then blatantly lie about?

excess from hidden lands.

There is no justification for any extra lands, nor that anyone is getting anything from there.
Having this extra land wont magically stop wars or exploitation of children.

Now again, how about you stop fleeing from the topic, and instead grab one of your shelves, place it on a scale, record the weight and then place some books inside.
If your nonsense was true, the weight shouldn't increase, but we all know it does.

The train has to have initial energy to be pushed uphill in the first place. It requires massive energy to achieve this. Where does this energy come from, from your side?

That would come when the train is initially placed on the track with charged batteries.
Then as it goes down the hill carrying cargo it recharges the battery due to gravity.
Then when it goes up the hill it discharges the battery, but as it is lighter, the force of gravity it has to overcome is less.

To move the bowling ball it requires a force to imbalance the stacked layers the ball sits in.

Or gravity can be the force, as it is on an inclined plane or in mid-air.

Again, if it was just the air, then the greater pressure of the air below would push it up.

Molecules contain everything of themselves in different forms due to each having a different density of layering. Remember the gobstopper. Put your mind to work on it.

Remember that I am talking about reality, not your fantasy.
In reality, the voids in the structures of solid metals are not capable of supporting any air.

In reality, molecules are made of atoms. Atoms which have a physical volume. Atoms which hold themselves together via electrostatic forces.
Atoms which can't just be compressed or expand.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 30, 2022, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2022, 03:35:02 AM

Everything is porous to some degree in terms of what's between any structural makeup.
It then comes down to molecular density of the structure.

But the question is what is in those pores.
For solid metals like aluminium and lead, the voids (or pores) in the crystal structure are empty. They don't contain air.
The voids are not compatible with air molecules.

Molecules contain everything of themselves in different forms due to each having a different density of layering. Remember the gobstopper. Put your mind to work on it.

You still haven't answered the most fundamental of questions. Denpressure is a better explanation than gravity in your mind. So give some real world applications that people can use in lieu of the more commonly applied practice of gravity inclusion.

How might engineers use Denpressure instead for their designing/coding/calculating purposes? What sort of calculations, formulas should everyone be using? Without any real world applications, I'm afraid Denpressure is useless otherwise.

Quote from: Stash on December 02, 2022, 11:31:27 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 02, 2022, 08:30:23 AM

Basically this. The whole idea of space travel to satellites doesn't seem to have a good reason why it couldn't be done more cheaply and easily within Earth. And more importantly, it seems like they say these satellites are outside Earth just so ppl will accept RE.

What would be the motive to fake satellites to convince people the earth is a globe? In short, what benefit do whomever "they" are to fake the shape of the earth? Seems like a tremendous amount of work and money to make people who actual design and build such systems think they are doing something they are actually not. As well as somehow managing to keep millions of people quiet. What gain is there to all of this?

Yeah that model. That looks stupid. Really stupid. And it doesn't account for what ham radio operators say,

Frequency. Please learn more about technologies before you just start making things up.

Radio waves below 40 MHz are significantly affected by the ionosphere, primarily because radio waves in this frequency range are effectively reflected by the ionosphere. This region reflects medium and short wave radio signals, bouncing them back towards the Earth and enabling these radio communications to be heard over vast distances.

What motive, you ask. Okay. What about all the money you make building satellites, and pocket the difference for not traveling to space?

And your solution is cheap? So we'd need thousands of blimps no one has ever seen, crisscrossing way up high all over the planet. Some roving in specific patterns, others stationary. We need to launch, maintain, fuel them all without anyone being the wiser.
They must be constructed without anyone being the wiser
None have ever been seen in the air or on the ground.
The 10's of thousands of people required to maintain this must be somehow kept quiet.
The 10's of thousands of people who work in the satellite industry must must be somehow kept quiet.
All the countries of the world with satellite technology must also be kept quiet

Yeah, really sounds like a tremendous profit center...Wheres your evidence for any of this?

Do you realize how utterly delusional your theories are?

With these same sattelites, you can surveill every square inch, claiming that you need more bars for 5G. Sorry but I remember landline phones. They were much clearer than internet phones our family uses today. Which btw crap out alot. Bad companies trying to sell sucky infrastructure when old landlines worked even in a storm.

Sorry, I can help it that you live where cell coverage isn't so great. Where I live, my cell coverage is awesome. I can move, travel (can't do that with my landline) with my phone, the sound is crystal clear and I don't ever drop calls. My phone works in storms. I've had more issues with my land-based internet service than I've ever had with my satellite based cell service. Not to mention, satellite based GPS is AMAZING!

You really need to get out more and realize that just because you have problems doesn't mean everyone else does.

shooting the people who earnestly try to cross the "South Pole"

Evidence for shooting people please.

(1) We haven't been in space often enough due to launch cost for that even to be possible. That would entail one rocket going up somewhere in the world every day for about 82 years.

(2) It also implies that multiple companies have money enough to build a space shuttle to set up a satellite. Cost efficiency declared that a permanent satellite is easier to build inside Earth's atmosphere

You are under the mistaken impression that it takes one rocket to put one satellite into orbit.  A little research would have saved you some embarrassment.

Elon Musk's SpaceX surpassed ISRO's record by successfully launching 143 satellites aboard Falcon 9 into space on 24 January 2022.

(3) In the four tests above, not only would one satellite, not 30,000 be enough to serve the entire Earth on a flat Earth, but the underside on a RE would not be exposed to light, so you'd need to launch about four satellites for every one under FE. So yeah, my argument against RE is that it's just more expensive.

What's your point?  Is it "The world should be Flat because that's cheaper?"

(4) if the RE does bounce radio waves down, why would it be advantageous to be outside the Earth? Maybe it might help radio waves circle around this globe, but it can't penetrate unless it is higher frequency (more like a beam than a wave)
(5) And such a beam doesn't work any better at high altitude. So again, cheaper and more practical to do this in atmosphere than outer space

Radio waves are a different frequency than cell phone waves.  One "bounces" under very specific conditions (Google ionospheric radio signal propagation ) the other penetrates.  Do some of your own research.

Basically this. The whole idea of space travel to satellites doesn't seem to have a good reason why it couldn't be done more cheaply and easily within Earth. And more importantly, it seems like they say these satellites are outside Earth just so ppl will accept RE.

Duh!

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 03, 2022, 05:05:50 AM

shooting the people who earnestly try to cross the "South Pole"

Evidence for shooting people please.

I have the evidence - I AM the evidence.

Eighteen years ago I was on a scientific expedition with the World Globalist Society.  In my vehicle, I got lost in a blinding snowstorm and went too far "south".  When the sky cleared I could see the beautiful land mass beyond.

I was quickly captured, placed in a facility and subjected to intense "reprogramming".  I am now in a facility with thousands of others writing Round Earth propaganda stories.  Only very occasionally do I see beyond my programming and am able to export brief snippets like this.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 03, 2022, 05:05:50 AM

Yeah that model. That looks stupid. Really stupid.

Ah, drill down far enough and this is always the argument a flat earther comes down to.

They don't understand something, so it must be the world that's stupid.  It can't be them, right?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 03, 2022, 05:05:50 AM

What motive, you ask. Okay. What about all the money you make building satellites, and pocket the difference for not traveling to space?

And the other common flat earther reasoning flaw, inability to understand scale.  I await your analysis of how much it would cost to fake our entire communications infrastructure, plus the ISS, space exploration and keeping it all secret worldwide.

You really have NO idea how much your 'little' conspiracy would cost to actually run, do you? 

Just because you are easily taken in by conspiracy theories doesn't mean billions of other people are so easily fooled.

Actually, it's surprisingly inexpensive.

Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

If you have a computer with a printer, you can digital edit pictures of planets (I've done it unprofessionally before, to show that it can be done) complete with fake moons and satellites. This price of a computer, internet, and a decide press and you make a few National Geographics. Pay a few teachers off, students become teachers and do it for free.  A couple of films a year that involve round Earth (usually deal like Apollo 13).

All of this is less expensive than one space shuttle built, it's fuel, and the challenges of bypassing the atmosphere, making food that is freeze dried for trips, shelters for moon/Mars, etc. All of this is custom made. Btw, this whole narrative fall apart when you realize that these people are often supposed to be in airless environment, yet they basically have to remove the helmet to eat, instantly depressurizing.

Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.

Yes, you are a great example of that.

You seem to have fully fallen for the lie that you can make loads of money by pretending Earth is round.

If you have a computer with a printer, you can digital edit pictures of planets (I've done it unprofessionally before, to show that it can be done)

Do you mean the incredibly poor quality ones that were posted here? Or some other ones.

If you want them to look good, and with the number being produced, it would cost a fortune.

Pay a few teachers off, students become teachers and do it for free.  A couple of films a year that involve round Earth (usually deal like Apollo 13).

And don't forget all the rest. The flight companies, flying routes based upon a RE, which would result in them wasting loads of fuel and using incredibly fast planes.
Shipping companies taking ships on ridiculous routes again wasting fuel and going at ridiculous speeds.
Anyone who installs satellite internet or TV.
All the fakes to provide the signals for these satellite services.
This includes GPS which covers pretty much the entire world.

All of this is less expensive than one space shuttle built, it's fuel, and the challenges of bypassing the atmosphere, making food that is freeze dried for trips, shelters for moon/Mars, etc. All of this is custom made.

No, it is vastly more expensive. Especially as they still launch the shuttle and other rockets, so they can't get money back from that, they pay an external supplier for the fuel, so either they have to be paid off, or that money is gone, the same applies to the food and so on.

Btw, this whole narrative fall apart when you realize that these people are often supposed to be in airless environment, yet they basically have to remove the helmet to eat, instantly depressurizing.

No, they are rarely in an airless environment.
The inside of the shuttle crew compartment (not the cargo), the ISS, the Apollo modules, and so on, were all made to be pressurised, and typically are pressurised.
They wear their full suit and helmet in certain situations, like re-entry, in case something goes wrong.
They aren't eating out in space. They are eating inside their vessels.

So no, your delusional BS falls apart, when people realise you are spouting pure nonsense because they are in pressurised environments.

[quote author=bulmabriefs144 Btw, this whole narrative fall apart when you realize that these people are often supposed to be in airless environment, yet they basically have to remove the helmet to eat, instantly depressurizing.
[/quote]

What are rambling about?

Anyway.  What navy in the world, or shipping company even, have a tactical and/or cost and time advantage because they treat the world as flat? 

If you have a computer with a printer, you can digital edit pictures of planets (I've done it unprofessionally before, to show that it can be done) complete with fake moons and satellites.

And you can't say CGI because there is footage of all kinds of zero g acrobatics from SkyLab, predates CGI. And wirework couldn't be it either as their movements wouldn't allow for it. Shots are too long for the vomit comet.





As far as CGI goes, have you ever watched the credits for a heavy VFX movie before? There are 100's of people listed under VFX. 100's.

Take the movie 'The Martian':

2015   The Martian
- VFX Shots: 1100   
- VFX Companies: MPC (425 shots), Framestore (338 shots), Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), Milk Visual Effects, Prime Focus World, The Senate Visual Effects and Territory. 700 artists in total.   
- Production Budget: $108,000,000

That doesn't look inexpensive to me.

This price of a computer, internet, and a decide press

Internet?  You believe there is an internet?  What's next?  Are you going to come out of the closet and admit you have a cell phone?   Do you have a car?  Do you ever use the GPS?

For all these things, you need satellites.

In your opinion, supported by FE facts, how do satellites stay where they are supposed to stay relative to any spot on your earth.

If you don't believe satellites are real, how do you account for things like the internet and GPS?

 

What motive, you ask. Okay. What about all the money you make building satellites, and pocket the difference for not traveling to space?

 

You and your fellow FEers can look at the morning or evening sky and see the actual ISS orbiting the earth.
NASA can tell you exactly when and where to look  i.e. Chicago Mon Dec 19, 5:46 AM   7 min   55°   10° above SW   10° above ENE   (https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/view.cfm?country=United_States&region=Illinois&city=Chicago#.Y5IeM3bMKUk)

Do you believe the ISS exists?  If you do, this contradicts your comments about satellite and rocket launches being fakes.  If you don't believe, then what is that thing you can see moving across the sky over Chicago on Dec 19?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 07, 2022, 11:47:37 PM

This price of a computer, internet, and a decide press

Internet?  You believe there is an internet?  What's next?  Are you going to come out of the closet and admit you have a cell phone?   Do you have a car?  Do you ever use the GPS?

For all these things, you need satellites.

In your opinion, supported by FE facts, how do satellites stay where they are supposed to stay relative to any spot on your earth.

If you don't believe satellites are real, how do you account for things like the internet and GPS?

Technically no.
Cell phones use towers on Earth, with limited range.
In fact, the difference between coverage for cell phones and GPS indicates a fundamentally different technology which indicates GPS is not being provided by cell towers.

The majority of the internet uses wires/cables on Earth, including undersea cables. Those (or similar) cables are also used for phone lines.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 03, 2022, 05:05:50 AM

Yeah that model. That looks stupid. Really stupid.

Ah, drill down far enough and this is always the argument a flat earther comes down to.

They don't understand something, so it must be the world that's stupid.  It can't be them, right?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 03, 2022, 05:05:50 AM

What motive, you ask. Okay. What about all the money you make building satellites, and pocket the difference for not traveling to space?

And the other common flat earther reasoning flaw, inability to understand scale.  I await your analysis of how much it would cost to fake our entire communications infrastructure, plus the ISS, space exploration and keeping it all secret worldwide.

You really have NO idea how much your 'little' conspiracy would cost to actually run, do you? 

Just because you are easily taken in by conspiracy theories doesn't mean billions of other people are so easily fooled.

Speaking of drilling far enough down, assuming you have 100% heatproof and pressure-proof suits, could a person dig to China? No, they couldn't.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27585/could-you-really-dig-hole-china

Let’s have a little fun and speculate, then, about what physicists say a trip through the planet might be like. To make your journey a little easier, we’ll assume certain ideal conditions:

1. You did your homework and know that if you dig a straight hole down in the United States, you’ll come out the other side not in China, but in the Indian Ocean. To avoid this very wet ending and get to China, you started digging in Argentina. Good for you. 2. You managed to actually dig a tunnel with your fancy homemade digging machine and found a place for all the rubble. You’re now standing there, peering into the hole and ready to jump in, passing Argentinians eyeing you warily. 3. The Earth’s core is not molten, so your digging machine did not melt and neither will you. 4. The Earth has the same density throughout. At the center, you have approximately equal amounts of mass on all sides of you, which cancel each other out and result in no net gravitational force acting on you. 5. The Earth isn’t rotating, which made it easier to dig your hole and will keep you from bouncing around in your tunnel and getting all bruised up. 6. There’s no friction, no air resistance, and no mole men. update: some helpful readers have pointed out other conditions that I neglected in the original post... 7. Either Bernoulli’s principle doesn’t apply or you're wearing some sort of breathing apparatus and oxygen tank, that way your high travel speed won't affect your ability to breath. 8. The air pressure at your starting point, throughout your tunnel and at your end point is uniform, so you don't get squished into goo.

It’s a lot of concessions to make (and I'm sure we could even think of a few more), and we’re now on an Earth very much unlike the one we know and love. Whatever. It’s a small price to pay for the thrill ride you’re about to take.

So go on. Step into the hole. Or maybe dive in headfirst; you’ll have a better view. As you fall through your tunnel, gravity pulls you down towards the center, and you gain speed. As you get closer to the center, you’re closer to that balance of mass we assumed. Gravity doesn’t pull on you as much and while you’ll still gain speed, you won’t do it as fast. Once you hit the center of the Earth, you’ll be in zero gravity, but going at maximum speed (some 18,000 mph), you won’t even notice.

As you pass the center, gravity starts to work against you, pulling you back towards the core. You’ll start to decelerate at exactly the opposite rate that you accelerated during the first half of the trip. When you reach the opposite end of the tunnel (the trip would take you, appropriately, 42 minutes), you’ll come to a dead stop for an instant just as you pop out of the exit hole. Unless some considerate Chinese person happens to be near the hole and grabs you, all of Earth’s mass will pull you back towards the core and you’ll go back down (or up, as it were) the hole again.

If no one catches you at either end of the tunnel, you’ll spend the rest of your life oscillating back and forth, the human yo-yo at the center of the Earth.

Great job! This is your gravity theory at work here. But yeah, go right ahead, keep believing this nonsense.

Meanwhile, as I try to dig through the Earth, I will be rewarded for my efforts by increasing air density and heat, well before I tunnel through bottom and my digging machine and I fall through the Earth. I'm pretty sure this is more believable than a human yoyo.

And the other common flat earther reasoning flaw, inability to understand scale.  I await your analysis of how much it would cost to fake our entire communications infrastructure, plus the ISS, space exploration and keeping it all secret worldwide.

It doesn't require vast amounts of money. Just a few magazines (mostly National Geographic) being owned by supporters of this (like the Rothschild family), a few stock digitally edited images (I showed on other posts how easy it is to digitally edit images, but don't take my word for it),
https://petapixel.com/2015/09/30/5-ways-nasa-photoshops-images-to-create-stunning-photos-of-space/

We’ve shared a number of times in the past about how NASA uses Adobe Photoshop to create many of the dazzling space photos released to the public. Earlier this week, Adobe also published an interesting article that reveals 4 different ways the space agency uses image editing software to “reveal the unseeable.”

(if you can add color to such images in two minutes, you can also produce black and white images using a computer in a couple of hours, making the entire thing dubious. Btw, the "interesting article" was removed. Hmmmmmm)

and a few paid teachers who in turn indoctrinate a generation of true believers, people who will defend the RE philosophy and promote it onward to new generations (people like you).

The rest is done for them by gullible people. Within a single generation, any losses (well less than a billion back then) are recovered about ten or twenty fold in taxes allocated to NASA and globalist causes.

The rest is done for them by gullible people. Within a single generation, any losses (well less than a billion back then) are recovered about ten or twenty fold in taxes allocated to NASA and globalist causes.

The rest of what is done? You realize that NASA is not the only space oriented entity on the planet, right?

And how was the skylab footage created by another generation?

Great job! This is your gravity theory at work here. But yeah, go right ahead, keep believing this nonsense.

No, that isn't gravity. That is a very large number of assumptions/approximations, ignoring parts of reality to provide a simple answer to a question involving lots of speculation.

It doesn't require vast amounts of money.

Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.
You truly don't understand just how many images and videos would need to be produced, and how many other things would need to be faked. It is not just images. And you can't just ignore the amount of money that would need to be spent on the "show" with the rocket launch and so on.

I showed on other posts how easy it is to digitally edit images

Again, do you mean the incredibly pathetic examples which are easy to see are fake?
If so, they aren't going to convince anyone.

but don't take my word for it

Don't worry, I wont.
Notice how your sources don't claim they are just taking a few copies of national geographic and just faking the photos from that?
Instead, they are using photos from space, and doing things like stitching them together.
So that still requires the satellites, etc.

The rest is done for them by gullible people.

The gullible fool here is you.
You have fallen for the lies of conspiracy nuts, and are now spouting the same delusional BS here.

Meanwhile, as I try to dig through the Earth, I will be rewarded for my efforts by increasing air density and heat, well before I tunnel through bottom and my digging machine and I fall through the Earth. I'm pretty sure this is more believable than a human yoyo.

Okay, as ever sorry for joining the dogpiling, just curious about this detail. If you dig a hole, how would air density increase? Like, what seems to be happening is just that you're creating more space - it seems like it ought to diminish air density more than anything.
(I know Scepti's model deals with air stacking, which in this situation would lean to more air above you and the subsequent effect, but I don't think that's your explanation. Let me know if I'm wrong!)

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 09, 2022, 05:48:56 AM

Meanwhile, as I try to dig through the Earth, I will be rewarded for my efforts by increasing air density and heat, well before I tunnel through bottom and my digging machine and I fall t Fhrough the Earth. I'm pretty sure this is more believable than a human yoyo.

Okay, as ever sorry for joining the dogpiling, just curious about this detail. If you dig a hole, how would air density increase? Like, what seems to be happening is just that you're creating more space - it seems like it ought to diminish air density more than anything.
(I know Scepti's model deals with air stacking, which in this situation would lean to more air above you and the subsequent effect, but I don't think that's your explanation. Let me know if I'm wrong!)

You apologize, so I can dig it.

Basically the reason things "fall" is not because of a force pushing them down but because their own mass is heavier than light or even heavy air.

Think of the Earth as a sort of gradient of layers.

Space (no air, virtually no moisture)
----------------------------------------
Very light air
Light air
Normal air
----------------------------------------
Water/heavy air
Dense water(cool)/heavier air (warm)
Densest water (cold)/heaviest air (hot)
----------------------------------------
Rock & magma
----------------------------------------
Bottom

A rocket has trouble getting into space using conventional fuel because it doesn't burn long without air. In fact, this is reason #1 that I am dubious of space travel. However, without air, a fun thing happens. No loss in momentum (meaning things orbit using momentum because air resistance doesn't make them fall). It also has trouble because it is more sense than thick air. The rocket must be sturdy enough to handle pressure change (decompression), burn long enough to handle the now thinning air, and be lightweight enough to deal with being heavier than the thin air without too much drag. It also needs to be non-conductive, as the ionosphere is named such for a reason, it has ionizing radiation. The weird combination of lightweight and strong necessitates metals like Titanium and special alloys.

What this means is that while we don't yoyo up, the further down we get, the more the air resembles magma. unlike water, you aren't buoyant in it, but the air pressure is enough to kill you. Why does the water not do the same? The model shows it getting colder the deeper you go. Thermodynamics requires heat have a source and sink. Heat leaves the water, and heat enters the air. This frosty water in turn prevents out of control magma, as the cool air also reduces the heat of the air. There is a constant interplay but overall the air is not and the water is cool.
The air is not buoyant enough for people to float, but deeper water becomes difficult to swim through. So the conversion from air to water does reverse direction, but no amount of buoyancy will create a yoyo effect.

If i dived into water from great height, every bone in my body would likely break, momentum would carry me down, then buoyancy would carry me back up. But each layer makes a difference. I would stop near the surface of water because I have more mass than air and somewhere around the top layer of water. Maybe some bobbing but no yoyo back into space.

Btw, if you were to bring a feather or leaf with you deep underground, you might see this play out. You would feel exhaustion from the warmth of the depths assuming yo were wearing protective clothing, while removing leaf from your pocket, I suspect it would begin to float. We'd attribute this to hot air, but it's also the high pressure.

On the other end, artificial "gravity" is maintained as long as you have air in space. This means while the inside of the shuttle has normal (but direction-based) down. That is, down is on the side if the shuttle is on the side. Turning gravity off, then, is turning off life support. But what about zero gravity? It's nothing more than sine momentum. Basically, it's douchebaggery to fool the public. As long as an object maintains momentum and changes direction, objects moving at a greater speed than their weight remain airborne. This principle is easy to test. A person unbound by a seatbelt will slam into the side at a sudden hairpin turn. They lurch back if you accelerate or go up a hill, and the fly forward if you slammed on the brakes or went down a hill. But what would happen to them if before flying through the window after you braked, you suddenly came to full speed, lurched to a stop, came to full speed, etc?

You aren't able to retain to the ground, nor lurch forward nor be forced back. You are in midair stasis. Not zero gravity.

This is a trick, not zero gravity. It's either done with acrobatic effects or sketchy photography. Under this theory, objects at rest tend to fall if there is no air (object mass is heavier than no air), but are able to use their momentum to launch themselves across the room (momentum is greater than mass, and has no resistance).

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 07, 2022, 11:47:37 PM

If you have a computer with a printer, you can digital edit pictures of planets (I've done it unprofessionally before, to show that it can be done) complete with fake moons and satellites.

And you can't say CGI because there is footage of all kinds of zero g acrobatics from SkyLab, predates CGI. And wirework couldn't be it either as their movements wouldn't allow for it. Shots are too long for the vomit comet.





As far as CGI goes, have you ever watched the credits for a heavy VFX movie before? There are 100's of people listed under VFX. 100's.

Take the movie 'The Martian':

2015   The Martian
- VFX Shots: 1100   
- VFX Companies: MPC (425 shots), Framestore (338 shots), Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), Milk Visual Effects, Prime Focus World, The Senate Visual Effects and Territory. 700 artists in total.   
- Production Budget: $108,000,000

That doesn't look inexpensive to me.

Trick photography and trick room. They are actually photographed sideways. Fred Astaire, ladies and gentlemen.



Also, there's such a thing as wires and stop-motion animation. CGI can be expensive if you outsource it. You can also do it for free with programs like GIMP and animation. If China can routinely churn out wuxia stuff, there are definitely ways to do stunts like this.

Quote from: Stash on December 08, 2022, 05:43:40 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 07, 2022, 11:47:37 PM

If you have a computer with a printer, you can digital edit pictures of planets (I've done it unprofessionally before, to show that it can be done) complete with fake moons and satellites.

And you can't say CGI because there is footage of all kinds of zero g acrobatics from SkyLab, predates CGI. And wirework couldn't be it either as their movements wouldn't allow for it. Shots are too long for the vomit comet.





As far as CGI goes, have you ever watched the credits for a heavy VFX movie before? There are 100's of people listed under VFX. 100's.

Take the movie 'The Martian':

2015   The Martian
- VFX Shots: 1100   
- VFX Companies: MPC (425 shots), Framestore (338 shots), Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), Milk Visual Effects, Prime Focus World, The Senate Visual Effects and Territory. 700 artists in total.   
- Production Budget: $108,000,000

That doesn't look inexpensive to me.

Trick photography and trick room. They are actually photographed sideways. Fred Astaire, ladies and gentlemen.



Also, there's such a thing as wires and stop-motion animation. CGI can be expensive if you outsource it. You can also do it for free with programs like GIMP and animation. If China can routinely churn out wuxia stuff, there are definitely ways to do stunts like this.

Sorry, not like this in 1973...

Basically the reason things "fall" is not because of a force pushing them down but because their own mass is heavier than light or even heavy air.

And the big issue is that this doesn't give a why at all.
Why should something being heavier or lighter than air make them go up or down?
Why should that make them move at all?

no amount of buoyancy will create a yoyo effect.

So do you just entirely fail to understand what that was describing?

It isn't any yoyo effect from buoyancy.

It was from passing through the centre of Earth in an entirely speculative scenario.
With this, you are gaining speed as you fall down, and then you lose it on your way back up on the opposite side.

But what about zero gravity? It's nothing more than sine momentum. Basically, it's douchebaggery to fool the public. As long as an object maintains momentum and changes direction, objects moving at a greater speed than their weight remain airborne. This principle is easy to test. A person unbound by a seatbelt will slam into the side at a sudden hairpin turn. They lurch back if you accelerate or go up a hill, and the fly forward if you slammed on the brakes or went down a hill. But what would happen to them if before flying through the window after you braked, you suddenly came to full speed, lurched to a stop, came to full speed, etc?

You mean it is exactly how it has been explained to the public, with dishonest FEers blatantly misrepresenting it?

It is not zero gravity it is 0g.
There is a difference.
They still experience gravity as they orbit Earth, but as they are in free fall, it is 0g.

Trick photography and trick room. They are actually photographed sideways. Fred Astaire, ladies and gentlemen.

Putting it sideways wont help you.
Putting it sideways makes it look like gravity is in a different direction, it doesn't make it look like it is switched off.

Also, there's such a thing as wires and stop-motion animation.

Which would be entirely unsuitable for the footage provided.

CGI can be expensive if you outsource it. You can also do it for free with programs like GIMP and animation.

You mean it is expensive if you want it to be good.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 09, 2022, 10:59:50 PM

Basically the reason things "fall" is not because of a force pushing them down but because their own mass is heavier than light or even heavy air.

And the big issue is that this doesn't give a why at all.
Why should something being heavier or lighter than air make them go up or down?
Why should that make them move at all?

Out of curiosity, what's the objection to taking this as a law? Like, there's no inherently known reason for mass to bend spacetime. Is your objection just lack of evidence? It feels, to me at least, more than coherent to define this as at least a mechanism, and as much as you can kick the can down the road of 'Y justifies Z, X justifies Y...' it doesn't seem strictly necessary.




(Also, thanks Bulma! Am reading that slowly a few times. One quick clarifying question, in regards to air getting warmer and denser as a hypothetical person descends - is there a causative relationship here? As in, would the increased air density mean it was hotter, would the increased heat of the surroundings act to make the air more active/arguably functionally denser if we take an average over a second, or is there some other relationship/no relationship?)

Quote from: JackBlack on December 10, 2022, 03:42:09 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 09, 2022, 10:59:50 PM

Basically the reason things "fall" is not because of a force pushing them down but because their own mass is heavier than light or even heavy air.

And the big issue is that this doesn't give a why at all.
Why should something being heavier or lighter than air make them go up or down?
Why should that make them move at all?

Out of curiosity, what's the objection to taking this as a law? Like, there's no inherently known reason for mass to bend spacetime. Is your objection just lack of evidence? It feels, to me at least, more than coherent to define this as at least a mechanism, and as much as you can kick the can down the road of 'Y justifies Z, X justifies Y...' it doesn't seem strictly necessary.

There are many reasons (skipping the trivial possible mix-up between mass, weight and density).

One reason is because it lacks a justification for the directionality, which violates one of the fundamental assumptions of science without which there would be a massive question of if science could be done at all. And that is the assumption of isotropy, that all directions should be the same.

It provides no justification for the rate, especially given the rate varies across Earth.

And related to that there is no equation provided to determine just what the magnitude should be.

As highlighted in the other thread, things apply a force to objects they are sitting on, without falling.
So at best, this should be a forced based upon being denser or lighter than air.

It appeals to a medium, that is the air, to cause this.
This is further emphasised by the claim that air gives gravity in space.
Which means if you had a vacuum, then things should just float, but even in situations where the tiny amounts of air inside a chamber can't be modelled as a bulk gas and instead acts as individual particles primarily bouncing off the walls of the chamber, things still fall.

There is also the issue of everything else explained by gravity, which this doesn't come close to explaining.

But perhaps the biggest issue is the relation to buoyancy.
We can observe and measure the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or in any other fluid.
(As an aside, there is the question of what causes this pressure gradient. With gravity, it is explained, but with this idea, it simply exists without cause.)
This pressure gradient by necessity will apply an upwards force, unless you want to entirely discard how pressure works, discarding things like the wind and pistons in a car and so on.
That would mean in addition to this idea of things heavier than air going down and things lighter than air going up, you also have the buoyant force acting to push objects up. This should mean the pressure gradient is removed by this upwards force, and before that occurs or if that is magically prevented, all objects should experience an upwards force.
That should then mean that the an object equally dense as the air or fluid it is in should rise from this pressure gradient, with no motion occurring from the difference in density; and instead an object should need to be significantly denser than the surrounding fluid to actually go down.

So this would make far more sense as a law where all objects experience a downwards force based upon their mass and some unknown factor (with the unknown factor to explain the variance across Earth).
Then explain buoyancy in the exact same manner as with gravity. This downwards force acts on the fluid to create a pressure gradient proportional to the density of the fluid which pushes objects upwards, reducing their apparent weight and causing objects with a density less than the fluid to go upwards.

The big issue with this idea is that it means so many of the FEer excuses for why gravity can't be right would also apply equally to this.

And to throw in one more, you have this claim here:

The point being, while that shelf was around, it comfortably held three extra books, and a few chotskes beside, with no "constant downward force". The shelf acts as a limit to the books, until entropy final breaks it down (but this means for years and years the shelf works fine so long as it cleaned and cared for). But if it is suddenly gone, the books compare themself to the air, and the air loses.

Which appears to be claiming that if you place on object on another object that is more dense than it, it would experience any downwards force.
So for example, if you were to place down a jug of water on a scale, and then add something less dense than the water on top of it, then there should be no additional downwards force and the scale should read the same.