Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

Some sections of humanity are pushing on with questioning everything and ‘ intelligently ‘ debating everything to the point where fundamentals of the world proven by science are doubted, gravity, globe earth and wheres it gonna end

for me its all part of people who don't full leave the egocentric stage of development and can look the moon and stars and other globe planets and think for some reason ours would the odd one out ! Same kinda thinking develops the idea that there are 40,000 and gender a social construct overrides sex !

gonna end with the human race driving itself back into caves and the stone age at the rate its going and accepted !

Wow, of all the threads, I did NOT expect to see someone use this one for a transphobic rant.

 

[nahwee]

If you sit in a bath and smash your fist into the water you will move it away in all directions and it will come right back to equalise the area you forced away.
Why would you need a globe to do that?

If the story told is about an explosion and ripples that come back to the epicentre then that's what it is, whether true or not.

The point is, it has zero proof of any globe, as explained above.
Push water away from you and it comes right back to settle back.
Just like an epicentre.

All the talk of barometers brings me back to this.

The pressure wave from the Krakatoa explosion spread outwards in all directions, like the rings formed when you throw a stone into a pond, around the globe, reached its antipode in Honduras and returned to the epicenter.

In geography, the antipode of any spot on Earth is the point on Earth's surface diametrically opposite to it. A pair of points antipodal to each other are situated such that a straight line connecting the two would pass through Earth's center. Antipodal points are as far away from each other as possible.

As I said the wave was recorded, using barographs, by independent observers at various points on the earth. When the data was collected and collated it was seen that the wave converged at one point on the earth, Honduras, which was the antipode of the eruption, the epicentre.

One point on the earth. Not at several points around a continuous gradient that arcs up into the dome. Like the sides of your bath.

I can’nt explain or imagine how this could happen on any shape other than a sphere, can you?

Or, if the earth is not a globe, as Honduras is the farthest point from the epicentre the wave reached before it started on its return, Honduras must lie on a place where the continuous gradient that arcs up into the dome is.

This took place in 1883, as DaveH maintains, barographs have been around for some time.

You do believe that Krakatoa erupted and that the magnitude of the eruption created a pressure wave that was mapped as it travelled across the earth?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

All the talk of barometers brings me back to this.

The pressure wave from the Krakatoa explosion spread outwards in all directions, like the rings formed when you throw a stone into a pond, around the globe, reached its antipode in Honduras and returned to the epicenter.

In geography, the antipode of any spot on Earth is the point on Earth's surface diametrically opposite to it. A pair of points antipodal to each other are situated such that a straight line connecting the two would pass through Earth's center. Antipodal points are as far away from each other as possible.

As I said the wave was recorded, using barographs, by independent observers at various points on the earth. When the data was collected and collated it was seen that the wave converged at one point on the earth, Honduras, which was the antipode of the eruption, the epicentre.

One point on the earth. Not at several points around a continuous gradient that arcs up into the dome. Like the sides of your bath.

I can’nt explain or imagine how this could happen on any shape other than a sphere, can you?

Why would something that has an epicentre explosion end up at one point?
Unless you're trying to tell me that a spinning Earth ball is the reason.

If this is the case can you explain a bit further as to how this would be happening.

Let's put this into real perspective.

If I dropped a rock into a pond that rock immediately becomes the centre.
It becomes the centre because the water spans out circular and the waves from it span out until they dissipate on their own or by hitting a barrier/land.


If you think this wouldn't happen on your spinning globe then there has to be a reason. Can you give me this reason?

Or, if the earth is not a globe, as Honduras is the farthest point from the epicentre the wave reached before it started on its return, Honduras must lie on a place where the continuous gradient that arcs up into the dome is.

So can you tell me how this water managed to hit land and then return and not be dissipated at that point?

This took place in 1883, as DaveH maintains, barographs have been around for some time.

Whose word do we take for this?

You do believe that Krakatoa erupted and that the magnitude of the eruption created a pressure wave that was mapped as it travelled across the earth?

I've never looked it up and have no need to. It's just another piece of history that's added in as some kind of proof of a globe.

I'd like to know the full explanation for it. Can you obige?

 

[fyl2u]

I'd like to know the full explanation for it. Can you obige?

Well, just like in a pond, the ripple of pressure went out in a circle. For that circle to later come back while still in a circular shape and converge on a single point requires the "pond" shape to be either of two possibilities - a circle centred perfectly on the source of the ripple, or a spheroid.

If Krakatoa were hypothetically the centre of a circular world, then first of all that's where our compasses would point as "north" regardless of where we were on Earth, so we know that isn't the case (unless you're suggesting our compasses aren't pointing to the centre of your cell world but to a place elsewhere on the map). Secondly the circular pressure wave would have expanded outwards until it reached the circular boundary, after which it would have contracted as it made its way back towards Krakatoa via the same route in reverse. I.E. it would have made its way south in all directions from our hypothetical Krakatoa North Pole and then after hitting the boundary it would have bounced back north from all directions before converging back on its source, Krakatoa. We know this didn't happen because of the readings from all over the world that mapped the pattern of pressure changes.

If the pond were any other shape, the ripples couldn't have converged perfectly in a circle back to where they started, and there would have been interference patterns from the overlapping rebounds from the edges, just like you see in a ripple tank.

 

[DaveH]

Can you provide any recorded evidence anywhere for gravity being the cause of tides?

They don't fall at the same rate.
They may appear to do so from a short height but that's about it.
You see we're handed the story of objects falling at the same rate in a vacuum and we get shown all kinds of stuff that supposedly proves it.

Then we get told they do this in atmospheric conditions, also and then show us someone dropping two balls. One a football and one a tennis ball, or whatever.
They hit the ground at roughly the same time and that's classed as 9.8 m/s fall rate.

When other objects are dropped and don't land together it's told to us "oh that's just air resistance."
Of course it is because that's what it all is.

Gravity is a magical made up concept to make space a believable thing and to make Earth a spinning globe with tides that work because of this magical mystery.

Answer to your question, there is a bit of background reading at how the tides were discovered to be linked to the moon here:

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

But quite a few times you have failed to answer my question. Let me put it simply:
- There is absolutely zero evidence for a pressure wave sweeping over the planet on a 12 hour cycle causing the tides
- There is overwhelming evidence of no rhythmic cycle of pressure sweeping over the planet as pressure is something monitored massively world wide.
- We know pressure does change on a regular basis due to the weather, but if the weather creates a high pressure over an ocean we don't get an unexpected high tide when we should have had a low one.

Your 'musing' is a complete fantasy. Out of all the things you picked, this is simply provable as not true in any way shape or form.

So tracking back two days after mental theories, waffle and links to how to make your own barometer, someone asked can you explain tides on your earth. The answer is currently 'no'. Failed again I'm afraid.

 

[What A Waster]

It's responsible for pressure changes, so yes.

Hi, thanks for the response.
I'm replying before I read the rest of the thread, so forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat yourself.


So the dome wave is responsible for pressure changes which cause a high tide every 12 and a half hours.

Is this a different pressure system to one that causes the wind?

 

[DaveH]

Hi, thanks for the response.
I'm replying before I read the rest of the thread, so forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat yourself.


So the dome wave is responsible for pressure changes which cause a high tide every 12 and a half hours.

Is this a different pressure system to one that causes the wind?

They must be out of phase with each other. The same way that red light can pass through blue light and be broken apart again as they are on different EM wavelengths.

Oh but bollocks, light is not an EM wave though it is? Light is the end product of sound. The two are the same thing observed differently, which is why they travel at the same speed. Any difference (like the huge delays between thunder and lightening) is down to human perception.

Military jets that go over mach 1, actually go faster than the speed of light in that case.

Or am I getting made up theories overlapping and contradicting too much?

 

[Toronado]

Wow, of all the threads, I did NOT expect to see someone use this one for a transphobic rant.

there was no transphobic rant it was a comment against the idea of 100’s of genders and nothing more than that

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well, just like in a pond, the ripple of pressure went out in a circle. For that circle to later come back while still in a circular shape and converge on a single point requires the "pond" shape to be either of two possibilities - a circle centred perfectly on the source of the ripple, or a spheroid.

If Krakatoa were hypothetically the centre of a circular world, then first of all that's where our compasses would point as "north" regardless of where we were on Earth, so we know that isn't the case (unless you're suggesting our compasses aren't pointing to the centre of your cell world but to a place elsewhere on the map).

I'd expect the compass to point to the centre in all direction around a circle.

Secondly the circular pressure wave would have expanded outwards until it reached the circular boundary, after which it would have contracted as it made its way back towards Krakatoa via the same route in reverse. I.E. it would have made its way south in all directions from our hypothetical Krakatoa North Pole and then after hitting the boundary it would have bounced back north from all directions before converging back on its source, Krakatoa. We know this didn't happen because of the readings from all over the world that mapped the pattern of pressure changes.

I would expect any displacement of water to be immediately filled, which means any explosion or dropped rock or whatever dropped into water, becomes the epicentre.
The force from that would naturally cause a wave effect outwards until that wave effect dissipated by either losing energy all around or hitting shore/land.
If a pond or sea is not circular and the ripple spans out to shore, it'll hit the shortest piece of land first with the next shortest to follow...and so on.


If the explosion is so big that it actually hits shore with a massive wave effect like we see in rough seas then it will naturally recede but not all the way back to the centre.

No offence but this isn't an argument for any globe or other.

If the pond were any other shape, the ripples couldn't have converged perfectly in a circle back to where they started, and there would have been interference patterns from the overlapping rebounds from the edges, just like you see in a ripple tank.

Answer to your question, there is a bit of background reading at how the tides were discovered to be linked to the moon here:

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

But quite a few times you have failed to answer my question. Let me put it simply:
- There is absolutely zero evidence for a pressure wave sweeping over the planet on a 12 hour cycle causing the tides
- There is overwhelming evidence of no rhythmic cycle of pressure sweeping over the planet as pressure is something monitored massively world wide.
- We know pressure does change on a regular basis due to the weather, but if the weather creates a high pressure over an ocean we don't get an unexpected high tide when we should have had a low one.

Your 'musing' is a complete fantasy. Out of all the things you picked, this is simply provable as not true in any way shape or form.

So tracking back two days after mental theories, waffle and links to how to make your own barometer, someone asked can you explain tides on your earth. The answer is currently 'no'. Failed again I'm afraid.

I explained tides.
You tried to by offering some wiki stuff of a theory.
You then try to argue mine without the faintest idea of the set up, except to garner snippets and go from there, leaving you struggling.


Your arguments against mine are weak because you are reliant on appeals to authority.
By all means argue from that but it gives you no credence with me. It may give you it with some friends...but not me.

 

[DaveH]

I explained tides.
You tried to by offering some wiki stuff of a theory.
You then try to argue mine without the faintest idea of the set up, except to garner snippets and go from there, leaving you struggling.


Your arguments against mine are weak because you are reliant on appeals to authority.
By all means argue from that but it gives you no credence with me. It may give you it with some friends...but not me.

weak argument , have a look at yourself.

Deflection again, which is why I didn't put much effort in. It is what you always do when asked direct questions, don't answer yours and turn it round and say "I'm not going to answer your questions to defend my model, you defend yours". Your arguments against mine are as weak as possible as there is irrefutable evidence that what you say does not exist in any way shape or form.

You may as well have said tides are caused by the tails of giant sea monsters. At least that one which is unlikely has the credit of having no evidence for, but nothing direct against either.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Hi, thanks for the response.
I'm replying before I read the rest of the thread, so forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat yourself.


So the dome wave is responsible for pressure changes which cause a high tide every 12 and a half hours.

Is this a different pressure system to one that causes the wind?

Sort of, yes.
Basically the energy reflection over the dome which causes the dome to drop and gain pressure creates a direct push down.
Winds will come in from the actual vortex and what they hit outwards in terms of crashing into lower pressure.

This needs more explanation, obviously but the basics have to be teased out to get a better understanding for anyone interested.

 

[fyl2u]

there was no transphobic rant it was a comment against the idea of 100’s of genders and nothing more than that

...and how it's "gonna end with the human race driving itself back into caves and the stone age at the rate its going and accepted".

Yeah, definitely not a bigotted rant.

And also, how very on-topic.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They must be out of phase with each other. The same way that red light can pass through blue light and be broken apart again as they are on different EM wavelengths.

Oh but bollocks, light is not an EM wave though it is? Light is the end product of sound. The two are the same thing observed differently, which is why they travel at the same speed. Any difference (like the huge delays between thunder and lightening) is down to human perception.

Military jets that go over mach 1, actually go faster than the speed of light in that case.

Or am I getting made up theories overlapping and contradicting too much?

Maybe taking a bit more notice of why light is the end product of sound, might help.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Why would something that has an epicentre explosion end up at one point?
Unless you're trying to tell me that a spinning Earth ball is the reason.

If this is the case can you explain a bit further as to how this would be happening.

Let's put this into real perspective.

If I dropped a rock into a pond that rock immediately becomes the centre.
It becomes the centre because the water spans out circular and the waves from it span out until they dissipate on their own or by hitting a barrier/land.


If you think this wouldn't happen on your spinning globe then there has to be a reason. Can you give me this reason?






So can you tell me how this water managed to hit land and then return and not be dissipated at that point?


Whose word do we take for this?

I've never looked it up and have no need to. It's just another piece of history that's added in as some kind of proof of a globe.

I'd like to know the full explanation for it. Can you obige?

He's talking about shock waves which travel through both solids and liquids. You're talking about ocean waves, which dont.

 

[What A Waster]

Sort of, yes.
Basically the energy reflection over the dome which causes the dome to drop and gain pressure creates a direct push down.
Winds will come in from the actual vortex and what they hit outwards in terms of crashing into lower pressure.

This needs more explanation, obviously but the basics have to be teased out to get a better understanding for anyone interested.

I see.
So the wind pressure has no effect on the tidal pressure?
Also, is this different to the atmospheric pressure which creates gravity?

 

[payne]

How on earth can humans learn anything in his world view. Learning anything that was previously discovered is null and void for the next person. Appeals to authority and all that.

I think this is a case of a person not being intelligent enough to know they aren't intelligent.

I hope he doesn't use his not appealing to authority logic next time he's ill.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

weak argument , have a look at yourself.

I do look at myself and I understand that what I'm debating is just that. It's a debate that, up to now carries no stand out proof for those who don't or won't want to think on that. Which is fine because I do not offer it as factual. I offer it as my thoughts and my potentials against the global nonsense.
The same goes for you but the difference is you pass your stuff off as factual based entirely on massive appeals to authority.

This is why your arguments are weak.

Deflection again, which is why I didn't put much effort in.

You rarely do. You do put up plenty of psychology attempts and what not but they do not solve the debate.

It is what you always do when asked direct questions, don't answer yours and turn it round and say "I'm not going to answer your questions to defend my model, you defend yours".

I answer one hell of a lot of questions. You not liking the answers or trying to ridicule them is not a defence from your side.

Your arguments against mine are as weak as possible as there is irrefutable evidence that what you say does not exist in any way shape or form.

And yet you have no idea how to prove it, other than to appeal to authority.

You may as well have said tides are caused by the tails of giant sea monsters.

Or I could say it like I believe it may have the potential to be.

At least that one which is unlikely has the credit of having no evidence for, but nothing direct against either.

Ths one does. It just doesn't suit the one you go with.

He's talking about shock waves which travel through both solids and liquids. You're talking about ocean waves, which dont.

He's talking about a sea wave.

I see.
So the wind pressure has no effect on the tidal pressure?

Of course, in terms of added extra if the movement and wind vortex clash. It would likely add bigger tides on occasions, s well as the obvious roughness.

Also, is this different to the atmospheric pressure which creates gravity?

There is no gravity.

 

[legend7]

Maybe you forgot about the barometer.
It's not magic pressure it's well known pressure and it's quite evident.
The thing is though you expect it to show itself on a massive scale.
I already showed you the water in the bath and how it rises and falls with the video.

If you want to make something else of it then that's your choice.




Can you explain why this happens and do you have any proof of this? Your own words if you can.


You mean the sun sitting in a warped space with an Earth and moon and what not just spiralling around it and that's supposed to make sense, is it?
It all depends on what's deemed as batsheet crazy. You go along with this and I believe it's batsheet crazy so you're more than entitled to call anything alternate to it, batsheet crazy.
Just remember though, you're operating with zero proof and a massive reliance on authority. You may not like what I say but this is what it is.

I


That depends on what you deem as a weather system.
It would be a fast vortex towards the centre.
The mystical force is merely atmospheric pressure broken down into it's finer elements and feeding the energy with the so called exhausted energy put back into the Earth to carry on the cycle.

With a globe we have magical gravity and all the rest of the story, which I believe to
The reflection from the energy from the centre we see as the sun is also reflecting over the dome as the moon. The less energised reflection of a reflection.

The dome is absolutely scattered with a lot of reflections of light already mirrored..

Even though the sun looks absolutely nothing like the moon and you can see craters on the moon, surely if this was a reflection of the same energy source you wouldn't see static craters.
You still never came back to explain that if you (yes even you) looked at say Jupiter you'd be able to see it rotating.
Total wind up or one of the thickest people I know, and that's after a fair few have came out of the woodwork these last 18 months or so.

 

[payne]

Even though the sun looks absolutely nothing like the moon and you can see craters on the moon, surely if this was a reflection of the same energy source you wouldn't see static craters.
You still never came back to explain that if you (yes even you) looked at say Jupiter you'd be able to see it rotating.
Total wind up or one of the thickest people I know, and that's after a fair few have came out of the woodwork these last 18 months or so.

He's just smarter than every human that's ever lived and knows better than anyone who's ever existed on the nature of reality. But it's not presented as fact so that's fine! The opposite (actual reality) though he believes are lies and that's factual!

 

[legend7]

Maybe taking a bit more notice of why light is the end product of sound, might help.

So if was in a pitch black room and blasted some speakers I would see light?