Put a flat earthier into space

[What A Waster]

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

Depends on atmospheric refraction due to post-curricular expeditionary transamplification bounced on the surface area of a bio shield of electrons

 

[Harry Angstrom]

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?

You asked for an explanation. It doesn’t matter if you agree or not.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But that means certain areas on the same ripple circumference would get the same tide times but they don't?

Well let's look at it from another angle.

A big pond.
A stone is thrown into it at the very centre. You get the ripples hitting every part of that outer pond edge.
If this was the case you'd have a perfect point.
But this isn't the case.
The sun and moon are moving around and over the circle not sitting in the centre of it.

So think of it like dropping a stone away from the middle. The ripples will be absorbed further away into the pond but will hit the portion of it.
However, to keep a pressure up you can't just have one pebble hit on a pond.
You have to have a pressure build.
The best way I can describe it is to think of it like dropping a bigger and bigger pebble into the water and think of it like each pebble being the atmospheric pressure build.

Each location will get slightly different hits of the ripple effect or tide which will be dependent on breaker system of land mass and shape.

Think on this.

 

[What A Waster]

Well let's look at it from another angle.

A big pond.
A stone is thrown into it at the very centre. You get the ripples hitting every part of that outer pond edge.
If this was the case you'd have a perfect point.
But this isn't the case.
The sun and moon are moving around and over the circle not sitting in the centre of it.

So think of it like dropping a stone away from the middle. The ripples will be absorbed further away into the pond but will hit the portion of it.
However, to keep a pressure up you can't just have one pebble hit on a pond.
You have to have a pressure build.
The best way I can describe it is to think of it like dropping a bigger and bigger pebble into the water and think of it like each pebble being the atmospheric pressure build.

Each location will get slightly different hits of the ripple effect or tide which will be dependent on breaker system of land mass and shape.

Think on this.

You said low pressure causes the tide to go out. I've shown you this isn't the case.
Taking shit again.

 

[legend7]

Well let's look at it from another angle.

A big pond.
A stone is thrown into it at the very centre. You get the ripples hitting every part of that outer pond edge.
If this was the case you'd have a perfect point.
But this isn't the case.
The sun and moon are moving around and over the circle not sitting in the centre of it.

So think of it like dropping a stone away from the middle. The ripples will be absorbed further away into the pond but will hit the portion of it.
However, to keep a pressure up you can't just have one pebble hit on a pond.
You have to have a pressure build.
The best way I can describe it is to think of it like dropping a bigger and bigger pebble into the water and think of it like each pebble being the atmospheric pressure build.

Each location will get slightly different hits of the ripple effect or tide which will be dependent on breaker system of land mass and shape.

Think on this.

Nope you said it ripples out from a pressure build up so 2 points at the same distance would see the same effect.
Proved yourself wrong once again.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You said low pressure causes the tide to go out. I've shown you this isn't the case.

No you haven't.

Nope you said it ripples out from a pressure build up so 2 points at the same distance would see the same effect.
Proved yourself wrong once again.

Two points at the same distance would if the pressure was exactly between those two distances.
We are not sitting in a water filled circular pond without landmass.

 

[legend7]

No you haven't.

Two point at the same distance would if the pressure was exactly between those two distances.
We are not sitting in a water filled circular pond without landmass.

Why don't we feel this pressure build up on land as clockwork as the tides if its to do with the sun reflections causing it, so you'd expect high/ low pressure twice a day where it is sunny/dark that's extremely predictable?

No you haven't.

Two points at the same distance would if the pressure was exactly between those two distances.
We are not sitting in a water filled circular pond without landmass.

They are the same distance from that point.
It wouldn't slow the tide by another hour and a half if the below sea landmass was higher, you would get a higher wave/tide that's all.

 

[payne]

Why don't we feel this pressure build up on land as clockwork as the tides if its to do with the sun reflections causing it, so you'd expect high/ low pressure twice a day where it is sunny/dark that's extremely predictable?

he's not presenting as fact so doesn't need any proof/prediction. Simple jumbled English words on a page will suffice.

 

[Nobby]

he's not presenting as fact so doesn't need any proof/prediction. Simple jumbled English words on a page will suffice.

TBF this time he is, he has said this is how tides work

 

[legend7]

Anyway you should be sketching the clock is ticking fella.......

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why don't we feel this pressure build up on land as clockwork as the tides if its to do with the sun reflections causing it, so you'd expect high/ low pressure twice a day where it is sunny/dark that's extremely predictable?

The pressure on land will be different but still felt. We can feel pressure we just don;t take much notice of it.
Barometers show pressure changes.
A simple glass and membrane will show pressure on that membrane by pushing down on it. Try it out.

But out to sea the pressures will hit as the sun and moon move over and around. Towards and away from each area.
This forces the oceans down and the closest pieces of land to that will receive the hit of the ripple effect/tides of that and some pieces of land will break that before it hits the next...and so on.

 

[payne]

TBF this time he is, he has said this is how tides work

It's just his opinion that he's not presenting as fact. Have you not read the playbook?

 

[What A Waster]

No you haven't.

I did.
Pressure out in the north sea is the same in Newcastle.
Tides unaffected by it.

You said low pressure causes the tides to go out. I've shown you the pressure in the north sea rising the same as "lAnD PressSUre"

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Anyway you should be sketching the clock is ticking fella.......

I'll sketch when I'm ready. And seeing how you think you can tell me what to do, you'll wait.

 

[payne]

I did.
Pressure out in the north sea is the same in Newcastle.
Tides unaffected by it.

You said low pressure causes the tides to go out. I've shown you the pressure in the north sea rising the same as "lAnD PressSUre"

not in the way that is being discussed. pay attention more

 

[Nobby]

I'll sketch when I'm ready. And seeing how you think you can tell me what to do, you'll wait.

And there we have the start of the no sketch discussion for the weekend

 

[payne]

And there we have the start of the no sketch discussion for the weekend

at this point I'm starting to think the sketch is just part of a narrative he's trying to school us with. There's no proof of it but we should just follow blindly.

 

[legend7]

The pressure on land will be different but still felt. We can feel pressure we just don;t take much notice of it.
Barometers show pressure changes.
A simple glass and membrane will show pressure on that membrane by pushing down on it. Try it out.

But out to sea the pressures will hit as the sun and moon move over and around. Towards and away from each area.
This forces the oceans down and the closest pieces of land to that will receive the hit of the ripple effect/tides of that and some pieces of land will break that before it hits the next...and so on.

So we should be able to measure the same regular twice a day pressure changes on land using a barometer.
Will be quite some pressure change to move a whole ocean.
This doesn't seem to bear out on land though?
And it's the same pressure as its coming from above unhindered be it over land or sea.
Can you explain this please?

I'll sketch when I'm ready. And seeing how you think you can tell me what to do, you'll wait.

You did say before the weekend, your credibility may fall even further if you have nothing to back up your musings, not even a 1 minute sketch.
We all really really want to understand but can't visualise it.

 

[fyl2u]

I don't change the model. I go on what the mainstream books tell us and argue it from that point.

No you don't, you make up some bollocks, say it's our point of view, and then argue against that.

You've proven time and time again on this thread that you haven't got a scooby what you're arguing against.

Because you don;t have a globe to stick a real sized bath on.
But....if you go on with a toy bath on a small globe then try that out and spin it.

You really are straight out of remedial class, aren't you?

The entire point of the experiment is to find out whether the earth is a globe or whether it isn't.

To do that, you have to imagine (as hard as that is for the lacking in brain cells) what the outcome of the experiment would be IF it were a globe, and what the outcome of the experiment would be IF it wasn't. The result of the experiment would then point you one way or the other to give you your conclusion.

In all your bizarre flawed experiments that you've proposed so far, you've come up with your conclusions before you've even come up with the experiments, and you refuse to even acknowledge that any other possibilities might be an outcome, leading you to create utter bollocks experiments that prove absolutely nothing because it's an experiment to prove that one possibility is true and no other possibilities even exist. That's not how science works.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Not surprising to any of us.

Yep we know this by what we see. Just not on a globe.

Yep, we know this by what we see. You can stop there, as the rest of the line is just you posturing your pseudo-conclusion again.

No.

Yes.

Twist it anyway you want but it doesn't aid you in any way.
Baths obviously exist, just not on a spinning global world. Why? Because we don't live on one.
Simple as that.

You really aren't vey clever are you?

He's talking about the difference in the results of your idiotic experiment depending on whether we're talking about "a bath on a cell world" and "a bath on a globe world", but you're too deficient to comprehend his question.

Repeating "we don't live on a globe, we don't live on a globe, we don't live on a globe" doesn't answer his question, it just reinforces what the rest of us already knew, that you're a raging buffoon who is unable to follow a simple mathematical analogy.

Correct I've never done it.
Try the toy one out you have and place it on a ball.

What are the criteria of this new experiment involving a toy bath and a ball? How would the results differ if this experiment were performed on a globe world compared with performing it on a cell world?

According to our globe world hypothesis, the water will fall out of the bath because the centrifugal force of the spinning ball is greater than the gravitational force of the ball.

In a cell world, would this be different?

If not, then both worlds would produce the same result, so what exactly are you trying to prove?

Ahhhh....but size, right?

Actually, mass. Size is irrelevant.

A ball is a ball regardless of size.

Not at all. This is yet another example of how you have absolutely no understanding of the thing you're arguing against.1

Water is water whatever container it is in, sitting on that ball.

Again, wrong.

Spin that ball and your container will no longer hold water nor hold the container if it's not anchored down or part of an indentation into the ball.

Not true at all.

Every body or object continues at its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless acted upon by a NET external force.

Any 12 year old could tell you that.

If the centrifugal force of the spin does not exceed the gravitational force acting upon it all from below the container, then the NET force is in the downward direction, therefore the water will stay in the container.

It's why if you hold a glass of water in your hand and raise it slowly, the water stays in the glass, but if you raise it quickly the water spills out of the glass.

NET force is the important factor.

If you don't know what the word "net" means in this context, it means that you take note of all the forces acting upon the glass of water , and whatever force is left over once you've cancelled out all the equal forces acting in opposite directions, the remainder is the one that will pull the water either down into the container or up into a spillage.

In the case of the planet and a bath, the gravitational force exceeds the centrifugal force, therefore the water stays in the bath.

Basically you get no level because you get no water staying on a ball.

Use the right variables as described above and you absolutely do get water staying on the ball.

Why?

Because PHYSICS

Because we do not live on a spinning globe.

Yes we do.

The reason why water is level is because we do not live on a spinning globe.

Water isn't level. No matter how many times you claim it is.

Your words, not mine.

No, it's yours. You are just yet again too thick to understand even this conversation, let alone the intricacies of physics and maths.

Absolutely not.

Absolutely yes.

By all means think this.

We all do.

On a globe. Don't forget the spinning globe.

QED, you just proved yet again that you're not even intelligent enough to follow a simple conversation, let alone rewrite the laws of physics.

You don't see two hemispheres. If you look up at the sky you see that visible sky and everything that moves over and around it from your point.

In one direction, depending on where you're standing. And if you go to the opposite hemisphere the lights are all moving in the opposite direction - clockwise instead of anticlockwise and vice versa, with no repeated stars or mirrored constellations - in a manner that mathematically can literally only be explained with a globe shape. To argue otherwise is to prove your mathematical illiteracy.

Do you see some of your star constellations at different orientations depending on where you are on Earth?.

You see a different set of constellations in the northern half of the planet to those you see at the southern half. No reflections, no repeats, no mirrored versions. Just completely constellations, rotating in the opposite directions in the north to the ones in the south - the way they would on a globe, but absolutely not the way they would on a cellworld where everything would rotate in the same direction.

A natural projector from the centre of Earth through crystals will sort that out easily.

No, it wouldn't.

Are you sure?

Yes, 100% absolutely sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Imagined as drawn on the inside of a globe.
Inside of a globe suggests concave.
The dome suggests concave.
The mindset of two hemispheres can be the mindset of one part of a concavity against another part. Not two hemispheres cupped together.

No, concave would only work to describe half of what is seen. If you ignore the night sky in the entire southern hemisphere then you might have an argument here, but unfortunately for you, Australia, Africa and South America actually do exist, and from those places if you look up at the night sky, everything is turning in the opposite direction to the way it turns up here in the UK, BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLOBE. If instead of being on the other side of a globe, they were actually just further out from the middle, then the stars wouldn't be turning in the opposite direction to the ones here in the UK.

As the reflected sun and moon moves over and around the Earth pressure changes happen with that movement. Above and below.
As that pressure hits seas it compresses those seas as it moves over them.
The compression on those seas causes the seas in that area to be pushed outwards from that pressure which eventually reaches shore and starts to raise higher and higher up the beaches, etc.
The closer the reflection gets to areas the more pressure is created to that area as the reflection moves over that area.
The more pressure build means the more compression on the seas.
The more compression means the more the water rises at the beaches.

Simple atmospheric pressure changes.

Strange that none of these pressure changes are measurable with any of the standard pressure-measuring devices that are used every day all over the world, and yet seem to have such a profound effect.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You did say before the weekend, your credibility may fall even further if you have nothing to back up your musings, not even a 1 minute sketch.
We all really really want to understand but can't visualise it.

I don't have any credibility so I have absolutely no worries about losing any.
Learn not to be so clever and pushy.