Put a flat earthier into space

[Deleted member 26533]

This nutter still going on

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Different kinds of pressure or something caused by something newly made up

You're thinking of fictional gravity.

absorption and reflection of pressure?

Of energy.

 

[DaveH]

You think there's no pressure rise or drop on the oceans/seas. No problem. You have some data and you don't see anything. Ok you go with that, naturally.

Let's move on.

This one really sum up the conspiracy theorist mentality.

A claim is made. The data is presented that doesn't back up the claim. It is then claimed it is there. The presenter says "no it isn't, look, it is right in front of your face".

Then there is a waffle claim that the person can just not see what is blatantly not there and a hurried attempt at moving on.

Why wash over this issue which clearly disproves the claim. If anything this thread has all been about proof. This shows both that there is no proof for your claim, but there is proof against it. Why move on?

If this theory is fundamentally flawed and can be disproven, why not anything else?

But conspiracy theorists can't see that and are determined to be right in the face of any evidence against it. And because they are right and the sum total of all human knowledge says otherwise, it is a conspiracy. Millions are in on a multi-faceted lie trying to trick you into believing something else when you have your own proof that has been arrived at with no experimental evidence or data. It really is not healthy.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You said atmospheric pressure though.
So surely if its high pressure near the shore that would push the seas back?

Nope. It's not how it would work. I knew you'd get it totally off track.
No wonder you're confused.

 

[payne]

This one really sum up the conspiracy theorist mentality.

A claim is made. The data is presented that doesn't back up the claim. It is then claimed it is there. The presenter says "no it isn't, look, it is right in front of your face".

Then there is a waffle claim that the person can just not see what is blatantly not there and a hurried attempt at moving on.

Why wash over this issue which clearly disproves the claim. If anything this thread has all been about proof. This shows both that there is no proof for your claim, but there is proof against it. Why move on?

If this theory is fundamentally flawed and can be disproven, why not anything else?

But conspiracy theorists can't see that and are determined to be right in the face of any evidence against it. And because they are right and the sum total of all human knowledge says otherwise, it is a conspiracy. Millions are in on a multi-faceted lie trying to trick you into believing something else when you have your own proof that has been arrived at with no experimental evidence or data. It really is not healthy.

It's a mental illness which seems there's no treatment.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

Can you explain how it works for tides?

Yes.

The earth spins. The moon causes a bulge in the oceans where it is nearest to the earth. the moon's gravity causes the body of water to be attracted towards the moon. There is a reason why the Med is tideless. It isn't big enough. That bulge is always where the moon is closest to the earth. The earth spins and the bulge subsides. Hence high tide. The bulge appears again as the earth spins. Hence low tide. these tides can be predicted very accurately from the orbit of the moon and the fact that the earth rotates once a day.

It is predicted with extreme accuracy.

 

[What A Waster]

You're thinking of fictional gravity.

Of energy.

Here you go

You must be logged on to see external links

56°N 2°E

That's where the pressure is in the link I gave you for marine weather.

"You're thinking of land pressure"

Clearly not.

So why doesn't it drop to affect the tides? That pressure should be up and down like a bride's nightie considering the various tide times down the east coast

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This one really sum up the conspiracy theorist mentality.

A claim is made. The data is presented that doesn't back up the claim. It is then claimed it is there. The presenter says "no it isn't, look, it is right in front of your face".

Then there is a waffle claim that the person can just not see what is blatantly not there and a hurried attempt at moving on.

This sounds more like the spinning globe model.

Why wash over this issue which clearly disproves the claim. If anything this thread has all been about proof.

And none has been presented from a spinning global perspective.

This shows both that there is no proof for your claim, but there is proof against it. Why move on?

Proof against what?

If this theory is fundamentally flawed and can be disproven, why not anything else?

How is it disproven?

But conspiracy theorists can't see that and are determined to be right in the face of any evidence against it. And because they are right and the sum total of all human knowledge says otherwise, it is a conspiracy.

Not a case of that. It's a case of not accepting stories that offer zero proof and because of that they're labelled CT's and all the rest of the gunk thrown out.

Millions are in on a multi-faceted lie trying to trick you into believing something else when you have your own proof that has been arrived at with no experimental evidence or data. It really is not healthy.

We've been through this. Millions don;t need to lie. They just need to accept the story and believe they're aiding in a truth and by mass peer pressure will go that way and argue for that way, without ever believing they could be mistaken or taken in.

 

[DaveH]

It's a mental illness which seems there's no treatment.

It is, which is why I'm careful not to mock on this thread. There is something deeply troubling about someone who has gone so far down the paranoid rabbit hole that now the level of stuff they can't admit to existing is massive. And that millions of people who need to be in on it are out to get them. It has to be a very worrying way to live.

How is it disproven?

Because you have had a graph of pressure slapped right in front of your face that doesn't show what you claim it should show. How much more concrete could the evidence be? Or is the evidence faked?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes.

The earth spins. The moon causes a bulge in the oceans where it is nearest to the earth. the moon's gravity causes the body of water to be attracted towards the moon. There is a reason why the Med is tideless. It isn't big enough. That bulge is always where the moon is closest to the earth. The earth spins and the bulge subsides. Hence high tide. The bulge appears again as the earth spins. Hence low tide. these tides can be predicted very accurately from the orbit of the moon and the fact that the earth rotates once a day.

It is predicted with extreme accuracy.

Ahhh, ok.
So a moon that's apparently 4 times smaller than Earth with 1/6th gravity, as we're told, and can overcome Earth's gravity to somehow pull oceans into a bulge.
Makes no logical sense at all.
What is this actual force they call gravity?

If it can pull oceans up why doesn't it pull anything else up?

 

[What A Waster]

It is, which is why I'm careful not to mock on this thread. There is something deeply troubling about someone who has gone so far down the paranoid rabbit hole that now the level of stuff they can't admit to existing is massive. And that millions of people who need to be in on it are out to get them. It has to be a very worrying way to live.

The other day he was asked how old he was when he started believing this flat earth stuff. He said "about 15 years ago".
Didn't give an age. However, the fact that it was about 15 years ago makes me think he's seen something on YouTube or maybe Facebook (possibly too early for Facebook but it is 'about' 15 years and we are dealing with the consummate Mr Vague)

 

[payne]

The other day he was asked how old he was when he started believing this flat earth stuff. He said "about 15 years ago".
Didn't give an age. However, the fact that it was about 15 years ago makes me think he's seen something on YouTube or maybe Facebook (possibly too early for Facebook but it is 'about' 15 years and we are dealing with the consummate Mr Vague)

youtube founded in 2005

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Here you go

You must be logged on to see external links

56°N 2°E

That's where the pressure is in the link I gave you for marine weather.

"You're thinking of land pressure"

Clearly not.

So why doesn't it drop to affect the tides? That pressure should be up and down like a bride's nightie considering the various tide times down the east coast

The pressure doesn't need to be up and down. It just needs to build out to sea at the area it moves over.
The sea itself does the rest by ripple effect.

If you place drop a stone in water you'll see ripples moving in all directions but you'll notice it takes a long time to hit certain areas.
Pressure upon water does the very same only as a slow build up at the central point rather than a stone thrown into a pool..
AT shore you see the effects of the ripples hitting it and moving back then hitting it and moving back, or vice versa.

 

[What A Waster]

The pressure doesn't need to be up and down. It just needs to build out to sea at the area it moves over.
The sea itself does the rest by ripple effect.

If you place drop a stone in water you'll see ripples moving in all directions but you'll notice it takes a long time to hit certain areas.
Pressure upon water does the very same only as a slow build up at the central point rather than a stone thrown into a pool..
AT shore you see the effects of the ripples hitting it and moving back then hitting it and moving back, or vice versa.

You said low pressure causes the tide to go out earlier.
Contradicting yourself now.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It is, which is why I'm careful not to mock on this thread.

Mock all you want. It didn't stop you last time and I gave full permission for you to try whatever you need to try if it makes you feel better.

There is something deeply troubling about someone who has gone so far down the paranoid rabbit hole that now the level of stuff they can't admit to existing is massive.

Offer proof and solve that issue.
None have done so yet.

And that millions of people who need to be in on it are out to get them.

It has to be a very worrying way to live.

Absolutely not. They're the words of people like yourself.

Because you have had a graph of pressure slapped right in front of your face that doesn't show what you claim it should show.

So a graph should show me what I'm talking about?
Nahhh.
Let's see the graph for moon gravity affecting oceans. Do you have one?

How much more concrete could the evidence be? Or is the evidence faked?

There is no concrete evidence for anything about a spinning globe.

You said low pressure causes the tide to go out earlier.
Contradicting yourself now.

Low pressure does but not from the shore.
All you're doing is confusing yourself further.

 

[DJP]

Nothing I say makes sense to you

TBF, you could post that on every thread you post on and we would all agree.

 

[payne]

It's not as awe inspiring to be in the presence of god as I thought it might be

TBF, you could post that on every thread you post on and we would all agree.

on another subject more harmful he'd be put in a mental institute.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

TBF, you could post that on every thread you post on and we would all agree.

And I have no problem with that.
I'd be shocked if the likes of people like you did agree.

 

[legend7]

The pressure doesn't need to be up and down. It just needs to build out to sea at the area it moves over.
The sea itself does the rest by ripple effect.

If you place drop a stone in water you'll see ripples moving in all directions but you'll notice it takes a long time to hit certain areas.
Pressure upon water does the very same only as a slow build up at the central point rather than a stone thrown into a pool..
AT shore you see the effects of the ripples hitting it and moving back then hitting it and moving back, or vice versa.

But that means certain areas on the same ripple circumference would get the same tide times but they don't?
So like the other example if the pressure was at this point then rippled out over the sea then Bridlington would have the same high and low tide times as Dundee pretty much based on distance.
Bridlington high tide 3.36am, Dundee 1.56am....

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[payne]

But that means certain areas on the same ripple circumference would get the same tide times but they don't?
So like the other example if the pressure was at this point then rippled out over the sea then Bridlington would have the same high and low tide times as Dundee pretty much based on distance.
Bridlington high tide 3.36am, Dundee 1.56am....

You must be logged on to see external links

you're trying to reason with the unreasonable.