Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

I don't believe there is a vacuum. Lower pressure, certainly.

For perhaps the hundredth time a vaccum doesn't mean nothing - it is simply a measure of pressure approaching a theoretical limit (similar to absolute zero) you can get close to a total vacuum but to current knowledge not to it.

Exactly, it's all about low pressure whether it's mildly lower or extremely lower...but it all counts in determining the outcome of things placed into that environment as to what changes we see, because this impacts what is going on in that sky above and is on the same lines as the higher to lower pressures we are under at sea level and high in that sky.

NOBODY says space is an absolute vaccum.

Some say it's so close as to be so, barring some scattered molecules/matter just floating about in a nothingness, as we're told.

For a bell jar PV = nRT again, you remove n moles of gas from a fixed volume and as PV stays constant and the volume is fixed the pressure must fall as the remainder of the material left in the jar expands to fill the available space, this is how vacuum pumps and vacuum engines (which I use daily) work. Sits back and waits for the drivel about not removing stuff just the space between the atoms gets bigger and the same amount stays in the bell jar even though the weight reduces as you pump out the contents.

Do you believe the air is sucked out of a container or do you believe there is something else going on with the pump?
I'd be interested to see your answer to this and your explanation for whatever your answer is.

Can you explain how the air is evacuated?

 

[DaveH]

No.
Level/flat water means level/flat water.
The Earth terrain has nothing to do with it from my side.
You've been told this so many times. Maybe you overlook it but continue to argue it without reference.

I can't help you on that if you want to continue thinking I supposed a flat disc Earth, etc.

I'm just trying to work out what experiment you did, and what it proves, and what you would expect to see on a globe. I don't understand what you are saying when you keep repeating water conforms to the container it is in.

Take something big like a large lake (Ullswater is quite long). What would you expect to see on a flat earth, a globe earth and the earth of your shape which is still to be determined?

 

[taipeisafc]

Exactly, it's all about low pressure whether it's mildly lower or extremely lower...but it all counts in determining the outcome of things placed into that environment as to what changes we see, because this impacts what is going on in that sky above and is on the same lines as the higher to lower pressures we are under at sea level and high in that sky.


Some say it's so close as to be so, barring some scattered molecules/matter just floating about in a nothingness, as we're told.

Do you believe the air is sucked out of a container or do you believe there is something else going on with the pump?
I'd be interested to see your answer to this and your explanation for whatever your answer is.

Can you explain how the air is evacuated?

I know the gas is sucked out as we measure the flowrate, not belief knowledge try it sometime.

 

[SYB_DC]

How did that prove you were on a spinning globe?

Why don't you answer a question for a change: how is it simultaneously possible to fly around the world in one direction and have it get light and dark in different times in different places unless the world is round? And how does it get light and dark in different places at different times unless either (a) the world is round and spins or (b) the sun orbits the Earth? Which do you believe?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'm just trying to work out what experiment you did, and what it proves, and what you would expect to see on a globe. I don't understand what you are saying when you keep repeating water conforms to the container it is in.

Take something big like a large lake (Ullswater is quite long). What would you expect to see on a flat earth, a globe earth and the earth of your shape which is still to be determined?

It's got nothing to with what I'd expect to see on a flat Earth it's about what I'd expect to see with water sitting in a container. A container, whether it's a sink, bath, cup or saucer or even a lake.

What you see with them all is a gradient, concavely that holds that water and holds it so the water is level and flat on a calm day without hindrance.
What you never see and will never see is any large body of water conforming to a convex curve and creating any level.

The reason why we see and can test what we see, right now, is because it shows water is in that container and it shows we are not living on any globe, spinning or otherwise. In my opinion.

I know the gas is sucked out as we measure the flowrate, not belief knowledge try it sometime.

There is absolutely no way any gas can be sucked out of a container. Not a chance.
It is impossible.
The gas only leaves the container because it's allowed to expand out by the pump pushing back on the external atmosphere to allow that expansion or decompression of those molecules. This is why you can never fully evacuate any container.

Why don't you answer a question for a change:

I answer plenty of questions. You not liking the answer is not my issue.

how is it simultaneously possible to fly around the world in one direction and have it get light and dark in different times in different places unless the world is round?

First of all you can fly around a circle.

And how does it get light and dark in different places at different times unless either (a) the world is round and spins or (b) the sun orbits the Earth? Which do you believe?

The light from the sun to our eyes is not infinite so moving away from that light will create darkness because our eyes lose the ability to see through more dense atmosphere.
Just like you can see a torchlight closer and brighter and much less as that torchlight moves away into the distance, until it disappears to your own vision ability.

 

[SYB_DC]

First of all you can fly around a circle.




The light from the sun to our eyes is not infinite so moving away from that light will create darkness because our eyes lose the ability to see through more dense atmosphere.
Just like you can see a torchlight closer and brighter and much less as that torchlight moves away into the distance, until it disappears to your own vision ability.

1. No, you can't, not in the infinite combination of possibilities that exist to fly around the world in one direction and keep distance roughly equal. With a circle, you can fly around the rim, connecting approximately the same points every time, or you'll end up with a vastly shorter journey.

2. That is one of the silliest things I have ever seen posted by anyone, ever. Please explain how that model of motion means that it would get dark at different times in different places unless the sun revolves around the Earth in a low orbit.

 

[DaveH]

It's got nothing to with what I'd expect to see on a flat Earth it's about what I'd expect to see with water sitting in a container. A container, whether it's a sink, bath, cup or saucer or even a lake.

What you see with them all is a gradient, concavely that holds that water and holds it so the water is level and flat on a calm day without hindrance.
What you never see and will never see is any large body of water conforming to a convex curve and creating any level.

The reason why we see and can test what we see, right now, is because it shows water is in that container and it shows we are not living on any globe, spinning or otherwise. In my opinion.

Ok, so by putting a glass of water on a table you can determine that the world is not a globe because it looks level to the naked eye. But, you can't use this method to determine what shape the earth is and you are not saying it is flat?

Is this the reason why we can clearly see the coast of America from the west coast of Ireland and why ships never appear to disappear over the horizon from the bottom up?

 

[taipeisafc]

There is absolutely no way any gas can be sucked out of a container. Not a chance.
It is impossible.
The gas only leaves the container because it's allowed to expand out by the pump pushing back on the external atmosphere to allow that expansion or decompression of those molecules. This is why you can never fully evacuate any container.

So you are calling me a liar then? Along with every pump, fan, valve and compressor vendor and millions of engineers.

Instead we should follow a nonsensical piece of drivel from a clueless gonk on the internet. You are astoundingly ignorant.

 

[The Krankie Returns]

So you are calling me a liar then? Along with every pump, fan, valve and compressor vendor and millions of engineers.

Instead we should follow a nonsensical piece of drivel from a clueless gonk on the internet. You are astoundingly ignorant.

He’s drawing you in, just like countless others on this thread.

 

[taipeisafc]

He’s drawing you in, just like countless others on this thread.

I have been there before. Sadly i dont learn from my mistakes

 

[Roman maroni]

I'd love to see his explanation of the seasons on a flat earth, or the six months of daylight and daytime in Antarctica, it's easily explained on a globe but you'll never get an explanation of it on a flat earth model, nothing that would make any sense to a normal person.

 

[fyl2u]

I'm not talking about paint in a tin and whether there's another colour in it.
I'm talking about water and conforming to a container.
Using what you have as any argument, is....well.

It's called a metaphor. They teach you about them in secondary school. Judging by your grasp of physics and maths, I'm not surprised you didn't pay attention in your other classes either.

It doesn't push in a downwards direction, it pushes he atmosphere away from it whilst using a more dense foundation in order to resist the push back.

Of course it pushes in a downwards direction, otherwise the object would float or end up resting in whichever direction you last moved the sealed container. As would we, out in the open air.

No different to you being in a swimming pool and displacing your dense mass of water which has to come right back onto you by that same amount you displaced, plus the actual water in that's already in the pool.

What holds the water in the pool? Why doesn't it float off? Why does any liquid conform to a container if this force of pressure and difference in density is not in some way biased in the direction of the ground?

There's always atmospheric pressure in the container. It can never be emptied of atmosphere. No magic needed.

They don't magically fall to the ground unless energy is applied to them to push through the atmospheric pressure and to offer them no foundation to resist their push back, esulting in their dense mass plus the atmospheric squeeze above pushing them back down as their dense mass pushes through the resistance of atmosphere below.

The key word you used there is BELOW. I.E. DOWNWARDS.

So I ask you again. Why is DOWNWARDS the direction towards which the more dense things push?

More pressure at the bottom than the top.

Why? What causes there to be more pressure at the bottom than at the top?

As soon as you tell me why your space orbit works then I can explain it. It's pretty simple from my side and something anyone can do.
Me explaining it now when I don't know if you know how your orbits are working, would be pointless.

It's your experiment. You were completely adamant that it proves "the space orbit to be nonsense". Tell us how it does this.

At the moment we have a bell jar, a pump, a motor, a lid (undefined as to what it's a lid from) and a plastic bead, just sitting on the table motionless, not proving anything at all.

 

[SYB_DC]

I'd love to see his explanation of the seasons on a flat earth, or the six months of daylight and daytime in Antarctica, it's easily explained on a globe but you'll never get an explanation of it on a flat earth model, nothing that would make any sense to a normal person.

Or the entire science of astronomy.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

1. No, you can't, not in the infinite combination of possibilities that exist to fly around the world in one direction and keep distance roughly equal. With a circle, you can fly around the rim, connecting approximately the same points every time, or you'll end up with a vastly shorter journey.

With a circle you can fly around it using a point to point system, such as planes use.
This isn't about flying around rims.
With the global carry on we're asked to believe planes simple fly at a set height but also manage to follow a so called convex curvature.

2. That is one of the silliest things I have ever seen posted by anyone, ever. Please explain how that model of motion means that it would get dark at different times in different places unless the sun revolves around the Earth in a low orbit.

What do you mean by, revolves around the Earth in low orbit?

Isn't the Earth supposedly spinning and wobbling around this near 1 million mile diameter sun?
I'd say that's a million times more silly, but then again that's my own point of view just as you have yours.

 

[Roman maroni]

With a circle you can fly around it using a point to point system, such as planes use.
This isn't about flying around rims.
With the global carry on we're asked to believe planes simple fly at a set height but also manage to follow a so called convex curvature.


What do you mean by, revolves around the Earth in low orbit?

Isn't the Earth supposedly spinning and wobbling around this near 1 million mile diameter sun?
I'd say that's a million times more silly, but then again that's my own point of view just as you have yours.

It's not a point of view though is it, as its all been proven over many years with scientific research, the flat earth certainly hasn't.

 

[SYB_DC]

With a circle you can fly around it using a point to point system, such as planes use.
This isn't about flying around rims.
With the global carry on we're asked to believe planes simple fly at a set height but also manage to follow a so called convex curvature.


What do you mean by, revolves around the Earth in low orbit?

Isn't the Earth supposedly spinning and wobbling around this near 1 million mile diameter sun?
I'd say that's a million times more silly, but then again that's my own point of view just as you have yours.

(1) With a circle you can fly around it, but there's only one routing you can use that would produce the same distance. That's not factually true on this planet: a perfect circumnavigation of the Earth in any direction can be made of approximately the same distance. For example, if you fly due south from NCL airport and keep flying for approximately 25,000 miles, you will overfly NCL airport again. Similarly, if you fly a heading of 135 degrees (south-east), the same thing will happen. Fly a heading of 045 - northeast - same result. You can't reproduce that result on a flat earth.

(2) Please explain to me, geometrically and mathematically, how you produce the result of a sun fading in intensity unless you are in fact quite close to it: light fades according to an inverse-square law, (this is provable even with your flashlight) and so solar brightness would not change in an amount that is perceptible to the human eye in the degree that it is unless (a) the distance to the sun changes materially throughout the day - which is not possible unless it the sun is very close to the Earth, as in dozens of miles - or (b) a material amount of the sun's light is obscured by the curvature of the Earth. The math doesn't work any other way. So which is it?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ok, so by putting a glass of water on a table you can determine that the world is not a globe because it looks level to the naked eye. But, you can't use this method to determine what shape the earth is and you are not saying it is flat?

A glass of water proves nothing of a flat Earth, nor does it prove anything else.
A large body of water is what nails it against a globe.
We are asked to believe water can conform to a curve and be level.
If people want to believe that then they're obviously free to do so.
I believe it to be nonsense and basically shown what it is.

Is this the reason why we can clearly see the coast of America from the west coast of Ireland and why ships never appear to disappear over the horizon from the bottom up?

I you can see Ireland from America then this would be proof that the Earth is not globe, just like many distant views.
You're not going to be looking down any convex curve from that distance.

Ships don't disappear over any horizon.
The horizon is a theoretical line, not a real one.
The change in conditions from water to sky creates the theoretical line.
Denser to less dense atmosphere and ability for light to be omitted below and seen more above rendering any ship moving into that distance to lose the bottom by light whilst keeping that top part with more light upon it due to the angle.

The same applies if you were to stand on an incline to look out. You then bring the ship back into view by angle, except your angle is top to bottom rather than bottom to top.

So you are calling me a liar then? Along with every pump, fan, valve and compressor vendor and millions of engineers.

Instead we should follow a nonsensical piece of drivel from a clueless gonk on the internet. You are astoundingly ignorant.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying you are mistaken.
If you can tell me how you can suck air out of a container then explain it.

I'm not asking you to follow anything I say.
You're arguing your side and I totally disagree with it.
You seem to totally disagree with what I say.
That's about it.

 

[DaveH]

A glass of water proves nothing of a flat Earth, nor does it prove anything else.
A large body of water is what nails it against a globe.
We are asked to believe water can conform to a curve and be level.
If people want to believe that then they're obviously free to do so.
I believe it to be nonsense and basically shown what it is.

So what disproved the globe earth is that you can see one side of a lake from another (especially a long or large lake) or can fire a laser from one side, along the surface of the water and hit something at the same height at the other end?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'd love to see his explanation of the seasons on a flat earth, or the six months of daylight and daytime in Antarctica, it's easily explained on a globe but you'll never get an explanation of it on a flat earth model, nothing that would make any sense to a normal person.

It's not easily explained on a globe.
On my Earth musing it comes down to reflective dome angle as the dome expands and shrinks.

The globe requires a nice wobble around a big fiery sun that somehow manages an elliptical orbit and yet there's no reasoning for this wobbling that takes us from top to middle to bottom and back to cater for what we're told about 6 months of light and dark in so called poles.

Of c]oure a person can get a ball and walk around a ceiling light and go "look, this is what happens" and it looks ok to a first glance but when looked at logically, it fails.

 

[fyl2u]

It's not easily explained on a globe.
On my Earth musing it comes down to reflective dome angle as the dome expands and shrinks.

The globe requires a nice wobble around a big fiery sun that somehow manages an elliptical orbit and yet there's no reasoning for this wobbling that takes us from top to middle to bottom and back to cater for what we're told about 6 months of light and dark in so called poles.

Of c]oure a person can get a ball and walk around a ceiling light and go "look, this is what happens" and it looks ok to a first glance but when looked at logically, it fails.

Yet more proof that you don't even understand what you're arguing against.