Put a flat earthier into space

[taipeisafc]

The pressure is all over the oceans and the oceans are resisting that pressure and pressure change causing tides.
Your barometer will show fluctuations.



Both the same because both displace exactly the same amount of atmospheric.

Yep.

So what would be the magnitude of the fluctuations (for the fourth time). And as regards your second answer no.....the flat plate would displace a much larger column of atmosphere and hence in your world weight more. If you are claiming air pressure is the replacement for gravity then it acts in force per unit are acted upon - something with a small area would displace a smaller column of air above it and hence there would be less downforce hence it would "weigh" less if you are going to use volume as a figure then you can't use pressure as it acts in all directions at once hence the weight of something tall and thin would be different to something short and fat as less of the pressure would be acting downward and hence it would have to weight less.

You need to come up with better stuff to continue this pathetic windup.

 

[legend7]

Clearly not.

Well you said my sketch was a good representation of a section.
As you can see if the deepest parts need to follow the orange squeezer shape they are very very deep as left to right that's appx 9000 miles.
If you fill all of those deep bits in so you only have 6 miles of water at the top you lose the orange squeezer shape and the land mass is flat.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Sorry should've been more specific. From Alaska to the southernmost point of South America. All one land mass as well so the ses surrounding them will be considerably deeper in the south than in the north.

Not necessarily, no.

 

[Pancho]

@Nukehasslefan in your paradigm how do reconcile the phenomena known as aurora borealis and aurora australis?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So what would be the magnitude of the fluctuations (for the fourth time).

That depends. Good enough to pressure the seas over area.

And as regards your second answer no.....the flat plate would displace a much larger column of atmosphere and hence in your world weight more.

Nope. They displace exactly the same.

It's like you going to weigh scrap car whole, seeing the weight then deciding to take it away and come back after you've had it crushed to weigh it again. It's going to weigh the same because the entire car whole displaces the same atmosphere overall as the car when crushed into a block. It's just more dense mass per smaller area as opposed to less dense mass over a wider area. Same displacement on a scale plate..

If you are claiming air pressure is the replacement for gravity then it acts in force per unit are acted upon - something with a small area would displace a smaller column of air above it and hence there would be less downforce hence it would "weigh" less if you are going to use volume as a figure then you can't use pressure as it acts in all directions at once hence the weight of something tall and thin would be different to something short and fat as less of the pressure would be acting downward and hence it would have to weight less.

You need to come up with better stuff to continue this pathetic windup.

Volume doesn't come into it. Volume is the atmosphere the dense mass takes up. It's not to be counted.
It's the actual dense mass of the object displacing the atmosphere that counts.
It's all about porosity of the objects which determines how much atmosphere the actual structure will displace of atmosphere, minus what is already part of the porous make up in terms of atmospheric saturation..

Well you said my sketch was a good representation of a section.
As you can see if the deepest parts need to follow the orange squeezer shape they are very very deep as left to right that's appx 9000 miles.
If you fill all of those deep bits in so you only have 6 miles of water at the top you lose the orange squeezer shape and the land mass is flat.

I honestly don't know where you're getting this 9000 miles from.

@Nukehasslefan in your paradigm how do reconcile the phenomena known as aurora borealis and aurora australis?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[legend7]

I honestly don't know where you're getting this 9000 miles from.

The appx distance from your high point near alaska to the lower area which is south America.
I thought that was pretty obvious?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The appx distance from your high point near alaska to the lower area which is south America.
I thought that was pretty obvious?

Ahh I see what you're getting at.
You think the land is on a 9000 mile slope into the ocean, right?
You think Alaska is sitting on the ocean and the land to the opposite end of north America is just one big slope into the sea.

Am I right?

If so, you're not looking at it correctly.
You're forgetting to raise the land mass out of the water to the north American navigation from Alaska.

 

[taipeisafc]

That depends. Good enough to pressure the seas over area.


Nope. They displace exactly the same.

It's like you going to weigh scrap car whole, seeing the weight then deciding to take it away and come back after you've had it crushed to weigh it again. It's going to weigh the same because the entire car whole displaces the same atmosphere overall as the car when crushed into a block. It's just more dense mass per smaller area as opposed to less dense mass over a wider area. Same displacement on a scale plate..

Volume doesn't come into it. Volume is the atmosphere the dense mass takes up. It's not to be counted.
It's the actual dense mass of the object displacing the atmosphere that counts.
It's all about porosity of the objects which determines how much atmosphere the actual structure will displace of atmosphere, minus what is already part of the porous make up in terms of atmospheric saturation..

I honestly don't know where you're getting this 9000 miles from.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I give up complete and utter tripe if you arent on a wind up there is no hope

 

[Pancho]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I thought mine was a simple question.


Both the aurora borealis and aurora australis phenomena demonstrably exist as they can be viewed and recorded by the man in the street.

The two phenomena can also be easily explained if one subscribes to the conventional solar system model.

How do you explain/reconcile them in your unconventional model?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I give up complete and utter tripe if you arent on a wind up there is no hope

No problem.

I thought mine was a simple question.


Both the aurora borealis and aurora australis phenomena demonstrably exist as they can be viewed and recorded by the man in the street.

The two phenomena can also be easily explained if one subscribes to the conventional solar system model.

How do you explain/reconcile them in your unconventional model?

Ahh right, ok.
If you've been watching the thread you'll know my energy (the sun) emanates from the centre. The phenomenon simply comes from there which can be see from certain landmasses, including Australia or Norway...etc.

 

[legend7]

Ahh I see what you're getting at.
You think the land is on a 9000 mile slope into the ocean, right?
You think Alaska is sitting on the ocean and the land to the opposite end of north America is just one big slope into the sea.

Am I right?

If so, you're not looking at it correctly.
You're forgetting to raise the land mass out of the water to the north American navigation from Alaska.

No I posted a section that you said worked in your head, one side is where alaska is on your peeler map, the other is where South America is, appx 9000 miles away and down the slope.
If the "base" follows your pattern and the land breaks the sea at both ends then the seas have to be ridiculously deep near south America.
Why don't you sketch a section like I did.
Took me about 30 seconds

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No I posted a section that you said worked in your head, one side is where alaska is on your peeler map, the other is where South America is, appx 9000 miles away and down the slope.
If the "base" follows your pattern and the land breaks the sea at both ends then the seas have to be ridiculously deep near south America.
Why don't you sketch a section like I did.
Took me about 30 seconds

I still don't know where you're getting 9000 miles from.

 

[legend7]

I still don't know where you're getting 9000 miles from.

The left hand side of my sketch would be near alaska based on your raised centre map, the right hand side is south America.
Appx 9000 miles.
Orange peeler shape "base" from centre to one side which you agreed was a fair reflection.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The left hand side of my sketch would be near alaska based on your raised centre map, the right hand side is south America.
Appx 9000 miles.
Orange peeler shape "base" from centre to one side which you agreed was a fair reflection.

How is it 9000 miles?

 

[Pancho]

No problem.

Ahh right, ok.
If you've been watching the thread you'll know my energy (the sun) emanates from the centre. The phenomenon simply comes from there which can be see from certain landmasses, including Australia or Norway...etc.

Right.

Thank you.

In your model what are the relative locations of, to use your examples, Australia and Norway, in relation to themselves, and to your central power source?

Secondly, in your model is the presence of these phenomena entirely random or are they predictable events?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Right.

Thank you.

In your model what are the relative locations of, to use your examples, Australia and Norway, in relation to themselves, and to your central power source?

Australia would be sitting high in the bowl on one side and norway would be sitting high towards the centre of the mound on the opposite side to Australia..

Secondly, in your model is the presence of these phenomena entirely random or are they predictable events?

Pretty random, most likely.

 

[legend7]

How is it 9000 miles?

Well how far in your world Is alaska/North pole to the bottom of South America appx?

 

[SYB_DC]

Well how far in your world Is alaska/North pole to the bottom of South America appx?

Neither one exists in his world as he's never personally seen either and they don't fit in his bathtub.

 

[DaveH]

By all means argue it in any way you feel.
If you want to argue it from an oblate spheroid ideal then you'd need to calculate it based on that.
Maybe Dave can do it.
What's it going to change?

I'm open to anything if it shows a reality.
I'm arguing 8 inches per mile squared but I'm more than willing to argue another point of view as long as people understand that the point of view does not offer a reality on the so called global Earth scale...unless some actual reality can be shown from it...literally.

If you really want to argue for oblate, that would mean Your equator has to be a more severe curve than the sphere itself...right?
If I want to flatten the poles the rest of the ball has to curve a bit more severely.

It's not really doing you any favours to be fair.

Posted Saturday, a breakdown of why the square rule is wrong and what is the correct rule, graphing out the results to demonstrate why.

I've repeatedly said the water is flat.
I've repeatedly said the solid Earth is like an orange squeezer.
What is it you can't get?

No they wouldn't be thousands of miles deep. I'm not sure how you work that out unless you're using your spinning globe model as your yardstick, which, if you are, then you're never going to get it.

Give us a quick sketch then. I don’t think anyone understands how the land can rise up in the middle and the edges yes still hold oceans. Your descriptions are not making much sense to us, but a diagram can say more than 1000 words.

 

[legend7]

Give us a quick sketch then. I don’t think anyone understands how the land can rise up in the middle and the edges yes still hold oceans. Your descriptions are not making much sense to us, but a diagram can say more than 1000 words.

He said my sketch was a good representation but then said the seas don't need to be deep at South America

Can't wait to see his.