Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

What is your water level experiment, and what does it prove?

It proves there's no convex curvature.
Water level is there for all to observe. It's not hidden and is always repeatable.

What exactly was your bell-jar/pump experiment and what were the results?

It comes down to so called orbits and so called gravity.
You see we are made to believe the opposite of what we actually see with our own eyes and understand.

We can see people on a fairground rotating set of swings all push outwards as they rotate. Break a chain and they go flying off away from the ride.
We are told objects can reach a speed around a spinning ball and they would not fly off into s called space because this magical gravity acts like the swing chain and supposedly pulls it back, creating an orbit.

The thing is, the thing that pushes those swings out is all down to atmosphere, just like it is on the rota (anyone remember this?) where it spins and people are pushed to the wall which naturally acts as a barrier to stop them being flung into the crowds outside of it.

But a global storyline offers up a spinning globe that can have objects flying around it at speeds on thousands or miles per hours around it whilst having a mysterious force stopping that object from flying off into s called space.

A bell jar and pump, plus a simple motor with an attached lid and a plastic bead will show the space orbit to be nonsense.

And just in case you need a visual aid and further explanation of this...

Logon or register to see this image

At the top of this drawing, the black outline represents a convex container full of blue liquid.

Below that container, the dotted lines indicate the distance from the bottom of the container to the centre of gravity (in our case, this is the centre of the planet Earth because this is our net centre of gravity.)

The labels r1, r2 and r3 represent the distances from the bottom of the container to the red dot.

The red dot represents the point of the net centre of gravity.

What you have said is that the liquid will never conform to a convex container such as the one in my drawing.

What I am saying is that it all depends on the values of r1, r2 and r3. If r2 is less than or equal to r1 and r3, then the water will conform to the container

When you try this experiment at home, it is easy to get r1 and r3 to be equal. You just find a flat surface and put the container down on it. You can use a spirit level to find a properly flat surface.

The problem is r2, which is effectively the measurement that determines exactly how deep the curve of the container is.

If r2 is equal to r1 (and also therefore equal to r3 as we know r1 and r3 are the same on this flat surface we've measured) then the liquid will perfectly conform to the container. The depth of the liquid will be exactly the same everywhere in the container (assuming it is a liquid with zero

You must be logged on to see external links

, otherwise there would be a tiny variation at the very edge where it meets the container).

If r2 is less than r1, the liquid will be deeper in the middle than at the edges.

If r2 is greater than r1, the liquid will be deeper at the edges than in the middle.

It is clear from your posts about this scenario that whenever you personally have visualised this experiment, you have always used a container that has an r2 significantly greater than r1, and so in your version of the experiment the liquid will obviously always be deeper at the edges than in the centre or spill out of the edges of the container.
.
This is why your version of this experiment is flawed and leads you to an incorrect conclusion that has helped to paint your incorrect view of the possible shape of the Earth. You've started with a mistake so it's no surprise your final conclusion that uses this as evidence is erroneous.

You've drawn a convex diagram and added in uniform water around it and are calling it legitimate.
Go and try it on anything you want to in real time and see if you get to see what you posted in your diagram.

Simple reality shows facts in this case and yours is based on nothing.

 

[Pancho]

You've got to hand it to NASA, they put a lot of detail into their spoof videos.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[payne]

You've got to hand it to NASA, they put a lot of detail into their spoof videos.

You must be logged on to see media items

the graphics are like 16k or summit

 

[fyl2u]

A bell jar and pump, plus a simple motor with an attached lid and a plastic bead will show the space orbit to be nonsense.

How?

You've drawn a convex diagram and added in uniform water around it and are calling it legitimate.
Go and try it on anything you want to in real time and see if you get to see what you posted in your diagram.

Ah I see, you looked at the picture, made incorrect assumptions, and didn't actually try to understand the post.

If you read the explanation that accompanies the diagram you'll find that whether or not the water is uniform in the container relies entirely on the values of r1, r2 and r3.

For this experiment to be performed using a container that looks exactly like the one in the diagram and has equal values for r1, r2 and r3, it would have to be the size of Russia.

To use a container that would fit in your home and has values for r1 and r3 that are equal to r2, you wouldn't be able to perceive the curve with the naked eye. It would look flat to you or I because of how far we are from the centre of the Earth (and therefore the net centre of gravity).

This is where your version of events fails.

You have visualised (and perhaps even performed) an experiment where a container that looks like the one in the diagram fits in the palm of your hand. Such a small container with such a large curve to it would have a much greater value of r2 than of r1 (dangle a plumbline or pendulum from the container in the middle and at the edges and measure the results if you don't believe me), therefore the liquid would of course be deeper at the edges than in the centre.

Find me a container where the values of r1, r2 and r3 are equal and I'll show you how it happily contains a uniform depth of liquid throughout.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How?



Ah I see, you looked at the picture, made incorrect assumptions, and didn't actually try to understand the post.

If you read the explanation that accompanies the diagram you'll find that whether or not the water is uniform in the container relies entirely on the values of r1, r2 and r3.

For this experiment to be performed using a container that looks exactly like the one in the diagram, it would have to be the size of Russia.

To use a container that would fit in your home and has values for r1 and r3 that are equal to r2, you wouldn't be able to perceive the curve with the naked eye. It would look flat to you or I because of how far we are from the centre of the Earth, and therefore the net centre of gravity.

This is where your version of events fails.

You have visualised (and perhaps even performed) an experiment where a container that looks like the one in the diagram fits in the palm of your hand. Such a small container with such a large curve to it would have a much greater value of r2 than of r1 (dangle a plumbline or pendulum from the container in the middle and at the edges and measure the results if you don't believe me), therefore the liquid would of course be deeper at the edges than in the centre.

Find me a container where the values of r1, r2 and r3 are equal and I'll show you how it happily contains a uniform depth of liquid throughout.

It doesn't matter how big or small the convex curvature is supposed to be, water will not conform to it, evenly.
Water will naturally flow to the lowest point without hindrance.
Your convexity offers no uniform level.
The only thing that keeps the minds of people accepting water on a globe is a mysterious so called force we're told of being gravity that somehow pulls water to the centre of the globe and managing to have it conform to it.

In your face experiments that anyone can do can show it to be nonsense.

 

[Pancho]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[The Krankie Returns]

You must be logged on to see media items

Mind, computer graphics have come a long way haven’t they? If I didn’t know any different I’d say that could be indistinguishable from the real thing. Or is the computer graphics the real thing? I’m confused.

 

[fyl2u]

It doesn't matter how big or small the convex curvature is supposed to be, water will not conform to it, evenly.
Water will naturally flow to the lowest point without hindrance.
Your convexity offers no uniform level.
The only thing that keeps the minds of people accepting water on a globe is a mysterious so called force we're told of being gravity that somehow pulls water to the centre of the globe and managing to have it conform to it.

In your face experiments that anyone can do can show it to be nonsense.

The experiment you're describing is fundamentally flawed. You're working with false starting conditions, so of course you're going to get wrong answers at the end, even if all the maths in between is impeccable.

It absolutely does matter how big or small the curvature is. Water will conform to it evenly as long as the values of r1 and r3 are equal to r2.

As for your assertion that it's air pressure and not gravity that keeps us stuck to the floor, how do explain objects inside completely sealed containers acting in exactly the same way they would in the open air?

Take a sealed bottle of water and turn it upside down. Why does the water still fall downwards inside the bottle when the atmoflatearthic pressure can't get to it to force it downwards?

Is there some mysterious magical force provided by the memory of once being exposed to atmoflatearthic pressure going on inside the bottle?

Try a similar experiment using one of your favoured bell jars and pumps:

Place a penny or any small object inside a bell jar, then pump all the air out so that it's a vacuum. Turn the jar upside down and observe what happens.

Gasp in amazement as the penny (or other object) falls downwards in exactly the same way it would out in the open air, despite there being no atmoflatearthic pressure in the bell jar to force it downwards.


Also, you still haven't explained how exactly "a bell jar and pump, plus a simple motor with an attached lid and a plastic bead will show the space orbit to be nonsense."

 

[Pancho]

Mind, computer graphics have come a long way haven’t they? If I didn’t know any different I’d say that could be indistinguishable from the real thing. Or is the computer graphics the real thing? I’m confused.

It's all part of an incredibly elaborate and centuries long conspiracy by a cabal of well, millions, to prevent the gullible from discovering that the earth is not in fact a spinning oblate spheroid.

Why 'they' have been lying to us all this time is less than clear.

 

[SYB_DC]

It doesn't matter how big or small the convex curvature is supposed to be, water will not conform to it, evenly.
Water will naturally flow to the lowest point without hindrance.
Your convexity offers no uniform level.
The only thing that keeps the minds of people accepting water on a globe is a mysterious so called force we're told of being gravity that somehow pulls water to the centre of the globe and managing to have it conform to it.

In your face experiments that anyone can do can show it to be nonsense.

The fact that you can't or won't attempt to comprehend physics on a scale larger than that perceptible to one human seems to be the chief problem here.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The experiment you're describing is fundamentally flawed. You're working with false starting conditions, so of course you're going to get wrong answers at the end, even if all the maths in between is impeccable.

There's no false starting positions. It's there for ll to see and test.

It absolutely does matter how big or small the curvature is. Water will conform to it evenly as long as the values of r1 and r3 are equal to r2.

It's never going to happen on a convex curvature. It is never going to be a container to create any evenness because without a container there is no conforming.

As for your assertion that it's air pressure and not gravity that keeps us stuck to the floor, how do explain objects inside completely sealed containers acting in exactly the same way they would in the open air?

Dense mass of the object pushing into the pressure inside the container and displacing it which is pushed right back onto the dense mass of pressure that dense mass displaced.
If you need me to elaborate, I will.

Take a sealed bottle of water and turn it upside down. Why does the water still fall downwards inside the bottle when the atmoflatearthic pressure can't get to it to force it downwards?

Because it is denser than the air trapped inside the bottle and pushes that air back up as the denser water takes takes it's place.

Is there some mysterious magical force provided by the memory of once being exposed to atmoflatearthic pressure going on inside the bottle?

Nope, just dense mass displacement of the less dense mass.

Try a similar experiment using one of your favoured bell jars and pumps:

Place a penny or any small object inside a bell jar, then pump all the air out so that it's a vacuum. Turn the jar upside down and observe what happens.

It cannot be done. You cannot create a vacuum. You can only allow evacuation a certain amount of air pressure from that container by the strength of the pump pushing external atmosphere away to allow the expansion.

Gasp in wonder as the penny (or other object) falls downwards in exactly the same way it would out in the open air, despite there being no atmoflatearthic pressure in the bell jar to force it downwards.

It comes right back down to dense mass (penny) against air pressure.

Also, you still haven't explained how exactly "a bell jar and pump, plus a simple motor with an attached lid and a plastic bead will show the space orbit to be nonsense."

Have you read into why orbits supposedly work in the mainstream ideal of a spinning globe and so called space vacuum?

If you have then let's see it from your side and I'll then explain why the bell jar evacuation and under full pressure shows it not to be feasible.
Anyone else can pipe in f they know the story of orbits as we're told.

The fact that you can't or won't attempt to comprehend physics on a scale larger than that perceptible to one human seems to be the chief problem here.

I don't see it as a problem.
And what physics am I not comprehending that you know for sure as factual?

 

[Roman maroni]

There's no false starting positions. It's there for ll to see and test.


It's never going to happen on a convex curvature. It is never going to be a container to create any evenness because without a container there is no conforming.

Dense mass of the object pushing into the pressure inside the container and displacing it which is pushed right back onto the dense mass of pressure that dense mass displaced.
If you need me to elaborate, I will.


Because it is denser than the air trapped inside the bottle and pushes that air back up as the denser water takes takes it's place.


Nope, just dense mass displacement of the less dense mass.



It cannot be done. You cannot create a vacuum. You can only allow evacuation a certain amount of air pressure from that container by the strength of the pump pushing external atmosphere away to allow the expansion.


It comes right back down to dense mass (penny) against air pressure.

Have you read into why orbits supposedly work in the mainstream ideal of a spinning globe and so called space vacuum?

If you have then let's see it from your side and I'll then explain why the bell jar evacuation and under full pressure shows it not to be feasible.
Anyone else can pipe in f they know the story of orbits as we're told.

I don't see it as a problem.
And what physics am I not comprehending that you know for sure as factual?

The absolute drivel you come out with, tell me, what do your friends and family think of your belief in the shape of the world?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The absolute drivel you come out with, tell me, what do your friends and family think of your belief in the shape of the world?

What do your family think about it?

 

[Roman maroni]

What do your family think about it?

Put it this way mate not one person I know believes that the earth is flat, encircled by an ice wall and covered by a dome, it is totally nonsensical and you know it.

 

[Northern Boarders]

Notice how he never any answers a straight question that's put to him.

 

[fyl2u]

There's no false starting positions. It's there for ll to see and test.

Of course there are false starting positions. If you're going to do an experiment to determine what happens when you mix blue and yellow paint together, but then you perform the experiment in a tin of red paint and completely ignore the fact that the tin is still half full of red paint, that's a false starting position that will lead you to a wrong answer at the end even if your process for mixing the blue and yellow paint together is flawless. The paint you get at the end is going to have a load of red in it.

That's exactly what you're doing here. You're ignoring all the "red paint" in your "tin" and then telling the world that mixing blue paint with yellow paint gives you brown paint.

It's never going to happen on a convex curvature. It is never going to be a container to create any evenness because without a container there is no conforming.

Can you translate this babble into English please? It seems to be just a random collection of unrelated words.

Dense mass of the object pushing into the pressure inside the container and displacing it which is pushed right back onto the dense mass of pressure that dense mass displaced.
If you need me to elaborate, I will.

OK, but what is making the "dense mass" push into the pressure inside the container? What makes it push in a downward direction? Why would density matter if there's no gravitational force acting upon it?

Because it is denser than the air trapped inside the bottle and pushes that air back up as the denser water takes takes it's place.

Again, if gravity doesn't exist and atmoflatearthic pressure can't get into the container, then what is causing the denser liquid to act differently to the less dense air, why is it directional, and why is that direction downwards?

Nope, just dense mass displacement of the less dense mass.

....despite there being no gravity to act upon the water or the air and force them in one direction or the other.

MAGIC

It's like an episode of Learn Physics with The Insane Clown Posse.

It cannot be done. You cannot create a vacuum. You can only allow evacuation a certain amount of air pressure from that container by the strength of the pump pushing external atmosphere away to allow the expansion.

What expansion? Who said anything about expansion?

According to your explanation above it wouldn't matter anyway, as denser objects magically fall towards the ground despite gravity not existing to act upon them.

Make your mind up, you're mixing up your trollsplanations.

It comes right back down to dense mass (penny) against air pressure.

...which brings us back to the questions "why downwards?" and "what is creating the force to push it downwards if the container is sealed and gravity doesn't exist?".

Have you read into why orbits supposedly work in the mainstream ideal of a spinning globe and so called space vacuum?

If you have then let's see it from your side and I'll then explain why the bell jar evacuation and under full pressure shows it not to be feasible.
Anyone else can pipe in f they know the story of orbits as we're told.

No, no. Don't deflect from this. You said "a bell jar and pump, plus a simple motor with an attached lid and a plastic bead will show the space orbit to be nonsense."

You're going to need to qualify this.

We can go about it scientifically if you like:

Tell us what you're trying to prove (Aim)
Tell us how you're going to use the equipment and how different results would mean different conclusions (Method)
Tell us what happens (Results)
Tell us what we have learned from this (Conclusion)

That's how a proper scientist would go about this.

 

[SYB_DC]

I don't see it as a problem.
And what physics am I not comprehending that you know for sure as factual?

Well, I've flown around the world in one direction, so there's that. I'm sure I could list a few more if I gave it any degree of thought.

 

[DaveH]

It proves there's no convex curvature.
Water level is there for all to observe. It's not hidden and is always repeatable.

I’m still not sure what you actually did and how you measured it, could you describe what you used?

But the result you got was no convex curvature, so what are you saying? Are you saying this proves the earth is completely flat?

 

[taipeisafc]

To anyone expecting coherent answers don't hold your breath. He is either a gibbering moron who believes all this utter drivel or a gibbering moron who is giggling at the hilarious wind up he continues to perpetrate. never have I seen so much utter drivel in one place as I have seen in some of his posts. And his drivel about vacuums is so fundamentally wrong it is scary.

I’m still not sure what you actually did and how you measured it, could you describe what you used?

But the result you got was no convex curvature, so what are you saying? Are you saying this proves the earth is completely flat?

He still avoids my comment from ages back that the curvature of a bath full of water would be not discernible to the naked eye so he couldn't prove it was flat without very accurate measurements (ignoring the fact that the water actually is curved and forms a meniscus due to surface tension anyway) - he then further compounded his drivel by adding a square to the height difference per unit length on earth for reasons he made up.

 

[The Krankie Returns]

To anyone expecting coherent answers don't hold your breath. He is either a gibbering moron who believes all this utter drivel or a gibbering moron who is giggling at the hilarious wind up he continues to perpetrate. never have I seen so much utter drivel in one place as I have seen in some of his posts. And his drivel about vacuums is so fundamentally wrong it is scary.


He still avoids my comment from ages back that the curvature of a bath full of water would be not discernible to the naked eye so he couldn't prove it was flat without very accurate measurements (ignoring the fact that the water actually is curved and forms a meniscus due to surface tension anyway) - he then further compounded his drivel by adding a square to the height difference per unit length on earth for reasons he made up.

If I could double highlight the the first three words in bold I would.
I’ve said it before on this thread that he is on a wind up which in his mind at least is utterly hilarious. I have an image of him as an unemployable overweight slob sitting in a dingy smelly bedsit somewhere in his underpants socks and a stained t shirt wanking himself into a stupor every day with used Kleenex all over the floor.