Put a flat earthier into space

[The Snockerty Friddle]

There may well be but you cannot prove there are any major flaws by using the global model you adhere to...without proof.
You cast what I say, aside because it doesn't fit the ideal model explanations you were given.

You cannot disprove the globe using the model you adhere to... for which you have no proof.
You cast aside what everyone else says because it doesn't fit the nonsensical cack you've been given by YouTube videos.

There is not one single piece of your claim that can be proved. There is not one single piece of your claim that cannot be disproved.
The only way you can keep insisting that it has not already been disproved is by your own insistence on "without appeal to authority" which is only a requirement in your head and serves only to preserve the stupidity.

If you're going to imply that people like Einstein and Newton were wrong you're going to need some pretty robust stuff to support your claims because it's not only those two, but every scientist since. No-one in a hundred years has come up with anything to better Einstein's theories and even though he may have replaced Newtons explanation of gravity, calculations based on Newtonian physics still work to this day. Few could have come up with it for themselves but anyone who cares to look at their work can understand and learn from it. If that makes it an appeal to authority then so be it, better than holding the world back in the 18th or 19th century just to appear more clever than you actually are.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It’s an iron core with impurities. We know this because or relative density and testing using sound waves.This has been retested and the results confirmed to correlate within an acceptable tolerance. Again, the fundamental science sitting behind this works for samples much smaller where irrefutable proof is achieved via testing. The same results are witnessed via testing on a much larger scale.

Sound waves?
How thick is the crust to the central core?

The only way everything in this world works is if all of the science correlates.

Nope.
The world works regardless of what scientists believe or put forward.
What you mean is the only way the spinning globe works is down to how the stories panned out to cater for what we see, however nonsensical they may seem.
It's like saying the only way the so called universe works is because of this big bang.
When asked how the big bang came about and what was it made of. The answer........Nothing.

Otherwise it’s speculation or supposition. As per your theories.

Let's be fair. It's massive speculation at best and utter nonsense at the other end of the scale.

They exist but you are unable to provide substantiation.
Where substantiation is provided by others, you chose to ignore it in full. Not once have you opened your mind to an alternative view.

There is no substantiation to what we're arguing. It's wild speculation at best and mis-info.

 

[Kevj]

Sound waves?
How thick is the crust to the central core?

Nope.
The world works regardless of what scientists believe or put forward.
What you mean is the only way the spinning globe works is down to how the stories panned out to cater for what we see, however nonsensical they may seem.
It's like saying the only way the so called universe works is because of this big bang.
When asked how the big bang came about and what was it made of. The answer........Nothing.


Let's be fair. It's massive speculation at best and utter nonsense at the other end of the scale.

There is no substantiation to what we're arguing. It's wild speculation at best and mis-info.

What is the basis of a metric ton?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

None of that addressed my question about why the air pushing back doesn't impact on airframe and engines or why jet blast behind the aircraft can be felt, it isn't restrained by your so called atmospheric barrier

The air does impact on the air frame when the aircraft is in motion but to get it into motion requires massive expansion of atmosphere and that massive expansion is created by a massive powerful thrusting burn.
When you expand the atmosphere from the engine burn the atmosphere is compressed away from that expansion burn. It immediately compresses back and forces the jet into motion because it now creates a barrier to the thrust and the wings then push into the atmosphere and also creating a low pressure above the wings and a higher pressure below, allowing it to skin that atmosphere.

 

[fyl2u]

The air does impact on the air frame when the aircraft is in motion but to get it into motion requires massive expansion of atmosphere and that massive expansion is created by a massive powerful thrusting burn.
When you expand the atmosphere from the engine burn the atmosphere is compressed away from that expansion burn. It immediately compresses back and forces the jet into motion because it now creates a barrier to the thrust and the wings then push into the atmosphere and also creating a low pressure above the wings and a higher pressure below, allowing it to skin that atmosphere.

What absolute drivel.

Bloke who can't even get his head around the most basic primary school geometry, pretending he knows how jet engines work and getting it horribly wrong. It's comical.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You cannot disprove the globe using the model you adhere to... for which you have no proof.

I don;t need any model to disprove the spinning globe. It's in our faces. Simple and easy to do. It's been explained so no need for me to go over it.

You cast aside what everyone else says because it doesn't fit the nonsensical cack you've been given by YouTube videos.

By all means you believe that. I'm more than fine with you thinking whatever you wish.

There is not one single piece of your claim that can be proved.

Water level can.

The only way you can keep insisting that it has not already been disproved is by your own insistence on "without appeal to authority" which is only a requirement in your head and serves only to preserve the stupidity.

Unless you can offer me proof from your very own self. Can you?

If you're going to imply that people like Einstein and Newton were wrong you're going to need some pretty robust stuff to support your claims because it's not only those two, but every scientist since.

What have they proved?

No-one in a hundred years has come up with anything to better Einstein's theories and even though he may have replaced Newtons explanation of gravity, calculations based on Newtonian physics still work to this day.

Are they handed out as facts or theories?

Few could have come up with it for themselves but anyone who cares to look at their work can understand and learn from it.

Learn from what?

If that makes it an appeal to authority then so be it, better than holding the world back in the 18th or 19th century just to appear more clever than you actually are.

It is appeals to authority and that's basically all I'm saying. You're offering it as your fact which is fine... but you know in your own mind that you are offering it on the adherence to people you are told are the expert authority without actually knowing the truth.

What is the basis of a metric ton?

What do you mean?

 

[What A Waster]

Imagine being an expert on so many different subjects. Knowing better than people who do this stuff for a living, or people who have spent years researching it.

Yet he won't even answer a question about what maths qualification he got. He says it's irrelevant when asked. Won't answer what level of education he reached as it's irrelevant. But it's quite relevant when one person knows more than everybody else in my opinion. To know all this stuff better than so called experts.

 

[Bobthebasted]

I see this thread has gone global

 

[Kevj]

What do you mean?

I want you to answer my question without deflection. What is the scientific basis of how we classify a metric ton.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What absolute drivel.

Bloke who can't even get his head around the most basic primary school geometry, pretending he knows how jet engines work and getting it horribly wrong. It's comical.

To understand how something works it's always best to take it right down to the simplest level and understand from that point.
It shows up a lot of so called science for what it is. Pseudo-science.

 

[Nobby]

What absolute drivel.

Bloke who can't even get his head around the most basic primary school geometry, pretending he knows how jet engines work and getting it horribly wrong. It's comical.

It was quite the explanation, unfortunately wrong in just about every way

 

[fyl2u]

To understand how something works it's always best to take it right down to the simplest level and understand from that point.
It shows up a lot of so called science for what it is. Pseudo-science.

No, it shows up your absolute drivel for what it is. Absolute drivel.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I want you to answer my question without deflection. What is the scientific basis of how we classify a metric ton.

Why don't you tell me.
If you want me to argue it then spit it out.

No, it shows up your absolute drivel for what it is. Absolute drivel.

Feel free to think that.

 

[Kevj]

Why don't you tell me.
If you want me to argue it then spit it out.

Feel free to think that.

I know what it is. I’m actually trying to engage with you. Please indulge.

 

[Nobby]

The air does impact on the air frame when the aircraft is in motion but to get it into motion requires massive expansion of atmosphere and that massive expansion is created by a massive powerful thrusting burn.
When you expand the atmosphere from the engine burn the atmosphere is compressed away from that expansion burn. It immediately compresses back and forces the jet into motion because it now creates a barrier to the thrust and the wings then push into the atmosphere and also creating a low pressure above the wings and a higher pressure below, allowing it to skin that atmosphere.

As the aircraft has started moving when the engines start why does the "atmosphere compressing back" push the airframe forward instead of just flowing over the airframe and overtaking it,

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I know what it is. I’m actually trying to engage with you. Please indulge.

Tell me what it is or what you think it is.

As the aircraft has started moving when the engines start why does the "atmosphere compressing back" push the airframe forward instead of just flowing over the airframe and overtaking it,

It's pushing back against the burning thrust.
It cannot overtake something that it's pushing against, only push against what is expanded against it.

 

[Kevj]

Tell me what it is or what you think it is.

I want you to answer my question without deflection.

For once. Have some self respect and integrity and answer a straight question.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

For once. Have some self respect and integrity and answer a straight question.

I have no clue what you're getting at so why don't you explain it to me and see if I agree.

 

[What A Waster]

For once. Have some self respect and integrity and answer a straight question.

He doesn't know, and without any elaboration from you has nothing to dispute or agree (ha!) with.

I have no clue what you're getting at so why don't you explain it to me and see if I agree.

House!

 

[legend7]

The air does impact on the air frame when the aircraft is in motion but to get it into motion requires massive expansion of atmosphere and that massive expansion is created by a massive powerful thrusting burn.
When you expand the atmosphere from the engine burn the atmosphere is compressed away from that expansion burn. It immediately compresses back and forces the jet into motion because it now creates a barrier to the thrust and the wings then push into the atmosphere and also creating a low pressure above the wings and a higher pressure below, allowing it to skin that atmosphere.