Put a flat earthier into space

[SYB_DC]

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.

Uh, non-jet airplanes also function.

 

[Dadsarmy73]

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.

This is just completely wrong

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Uh, non-jet airplanes also function.

Yep.

This is just completely wrong

Then I'm sure you can explain why and tell me what really happens...right?

 

[Kevj]

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

I am trying to get you to think for yourself. I’m not prepared to give you some information which you then dismiss out of hand.
So I politely ask again. What is your opinion of how we as the human race have decided a metric ton is a particular ‘weight’?

 

[Dadsarmy73]

Yep.

Then I'm sure you can explain why and tell me what really happens...right?

How Did the Wright brothers make the first heavier than air flight then???

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I am trying to get you to think for yourself. I’m not prepared to give you some information which you then dismiss out of hand.
So I politely ask again. What is your opinion of how we as the human race have decided a metric ton is a particular ‘weight’?

Don't you go with fictional gravity?
Am I close to what you think?

 

[legend7]

Tell me what's in the centre of your Earth and how you're sure of it.

I'm still waiting on your answer as to why you're sure its a crystal generator?
Are there any scientific papers you can point me in the direction of?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

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.

Strong claim, utterly lacking in any sort of supporting evidence.

Water level can.

Water level proves the globe and gravity. Your continued repetition of this as proof of a non-globe only demonstrates your unwillingness or inability to understand either.

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

Already did, but you refused to look at it, refused to accept it was my own, dismissed it as nonsense.

What have they proved?

Are they handed out as facts or theories?

Their purpose was not to prove, it was to explain. Their theories explain the facts. You could check their work for yourself if appealing to authority isn't your thing.

Learn from what?

The works of those more intelligent than yourself.

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.

But what is your problem with appeals to authority? Why is it such a thing for you? The key subject here is Spinning Globe or imaginary cell, not who can prove it for themselves without using any knowledge gained from others. If everyone had that attitude there'd be no progress.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How Did the Wright brothers make the first heavier than air flight then???

By using a light plane and propellers to push and compress air behind the propellers in order for the reaction of that compressed air to return that push forward and then the wings take over the atmospheric skimming along with that propeller action.

 

[Kevj]

Don't you go with fictional gravity?
Am I close to what you think?

It certainly is linked, but there are other facets which also link to other aspects of known science so one doesn’t work without the other.
We have taken that first delicate step. Please elaborate.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'm still waiting on your answer as to why you're sure its a crystal generator?
Are there any scientific papers you can point me in the direction of?

I'm not sure. If I was sure I'd offer it as fact and offer you a chance to verify it.
I can't do that and that's why I don't offer it as fact.

I believe it's a distinct possibility based on experiments and what we actually see happening right here on the ground with how we go about using materials in life.

Now then, about this centre of the spinning globe you adhere to.
How do you know what it's made up of.
I was told sound waves verify what it's made up of so can you explain that and how that works?

 

[DaveH]

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.

I do find this 'appeal to authority' an odd phrase.

To me, authority is 'in charge'. Who are we appealing to by looking up the diameter of the earth for example? Boris? The Queen?

He seems to say that unless you prove the existence of everything from first principals then it is somehow invalid. Being able to weigh evidence rationally does not come in to it. Take the whole argument that stars may not exist if we can not individually prove the distance to them and come up with the method of how to do that from scratch. That is saying that you need to be an expert in every field but start from a position of no education. Even basic equations of geometry is apparently appealing to authority.

Meanwhile he makes claims like molecules exist and apparently expand and compress, which chemists say no - the chemical bonds would fail if you did that. How does he know molecules exist, how does he know this happens? Did he invent his own tunnelling electron microscope? Basically he is happy to go with established knowledge when it suits.

We all have to admit that there are certain things we can prove ourselves completely, prove partially or not at all. The prove partially may be that we can only prove to a certain degree of accuracy. But with what we can not prove, there is the rational evidence analysis. Why would so many people fabricate this story or how can so many people be wrong? If it is a cover up, why and how to keep the truth with so many people involved? it all points to a pro-science lack of conspiracy view point to me.

The irony that all this is from someone who claims to be an expert in every field and has no education, is not lost on me.

 

[Kevj]

I
How do you know what it's made up of.
I was told sound waves verify what it's made up of so can you explain that and how that works?

The same as sonar detects submarines or GPR detects differing densities within the ground. But let’s not get too advanced until we can establish and agree the fundamentals.

 

[legend7]

I'm not sure. If I was sure I'd offer it as fact and offer you a chance to verify it.
I can't do that and that's why I don't offer it as fact.

I believe it's a distinct possibility based on experiments and what we actually see happening right here on the ground with how we go about using materials in life.

Now then, about this centre of the spinning globe you adhere to.
How do you know what it's made up of.
I was told sound waves verify what it's made up of so can you explain that and how that works?

Hold on we haven't finished, so what experiments made you think it was crystals pushing out all of this light/heat/pressure.
Why not just an energy source like fusion or a giant beam of light, or marshmallow.
Why crystals? I'm very interested in what experiments got you to come up with them, please share.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Water level proves the globe and gravity. Your continued repetition of this as proof of a non-globe only demonstrates your unwillingness or inability to understand either.

It's like saying a straight stick is proof of a bent stick.
The global explanation when looked at with logic, is utter nonsense.

But what is your problem with appeals to authority? Why is it such a thing for you?

Nothing as long as people who argue for facts are honest in showing that it's down to appeals to authority and not any direct proof from themselves.

The key subject here is Spinning Globe or imaginary cell, not who can prove it for themselves without using any knowledge gained from others. If everyone had that attitude there'd be no progress.

Progress can only be made when arguments gain an and product. In this case it's only facts that can create the end product and to get to the facts there has to be a lot of honest debate in acceptance of not having them but offering a potential for them until such a time where someone says " here you are, this is factual and we can go and prove this for ourselves."

The biggest problem is if everyone believes stories without proof. It means it offers no debate and offers no questioning of those stories put out as fact, without proof.

It certainly is linked, but there are other facets which also link to other aspects of known science so one doesn’t work without the other.
We have taken that first delicate step. Please elaborate.

How about I tell you how it works and then you can argue against me and you can elaborate.

Weight is a man made measurement of dense mass and can only be measured on a man made scale that measures that dense mass against what that mass displaces of atmosphere and uses that scale plate as the sprung foundation in order to measure that mass.
No fictional gravity needed.

 

[Kevj]

Progress can only be made when arguments gain an and product. In this case it's only facts that can create the end product and to get to the facts there has to be a lot of honest debate in acceptance of not having them but offering a potential for them until such a time where someone says " here you are, this is factual and we can go and prove this for ourselves."

The biggest problem is if everyone believes stories without proof. It means it offers no debate and offers no questioning of those stories put out as fact, without proof.

I agree with this statement. Please engage with my previous questions. And by that I mean don’t dismiss a statement or query on the basis you don’t at this time agree. Please open your mind to allow alternative thoughts in and even replicate some of the suggestions I make.

It's like saying a straight stick is proof of a bent stick.
The global explanation when looked at with logic, is utter nonsense.

Nothing as long as people who argue for facts are honest in showing that it's down to appeals to authority and not any direct proof from themselves.

Progress can only be made when arguments gain an and product. In this case it's only facts that can create the end product and to get to the facts there has to be a lot of honest debate in acceptance of not having them but offering a potential for them until such a time where someone says " here you are, this is factual and we can go and prove this for ourselves."

The biggest problem is if everyone believes stories without proof. It means it offers no debate and offers no questioning of those stories put out as fact, without proof.

How about I tell you how it works and then you can argue against me and you can elaborate.

Weight is a man made measurement of dense mass and can only be measured on a man made scale that measures that dense mass against what that mass displaces of atmosphere and uses that scale plate as the sprung foundation in order to measure that mass.
No fictional gravity needed.

Let’s for argument sake believe gravity is a variable. It’s not a fixed figure and as none of us can explain it to your satisfaction, I’m sure you’re able to accept that it’s a non-entity.

How is a metric ton defined.

 

[SYB_DC]

Yep.

Which shows why your explanation doesn’t wash. You can accelerate an an airplane to takeoff speed without using engine power at all, and indeed an airplane with a low enough stall speed can take off with the wheels completely stationary.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Let’s for argument sake believe gravity is a variable. It’s not a fixed figure and as none of us can explain it to your satisfaction, I’m sure you’re able to accept that it’s a non-entity.

How is a metric ton defined.

Going by mainstream it's apparently a unit of mass equal to 1000 kilograms.
Or do you want something else?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It's like saying a straight stick is proof of a bent stick.

No it isn't, it's like looking at the water and realising that although it may look flat to you, you are in fact very, very small beside a very gradual curve over a very, very large planet. Scale is key.

The global explanation when looked at with logic, is utter nonsense.

No, it appears as nonsense when you look at it without understanding

Nothing as long as people who argue for facts are honest in showing that it's down to appeals to authority and not any direct proof from themselves.

Bullshit! If that were the case this discussion would have ended months ago.

Progress can only be made when arguments gain an and product. In this case it's only facts that can create the end product and to get to the facts there has to be a lot of honest debate in acceptance of not having them but offering a potential for them until such a time where someone says " here you are, this is factual and we can go and prove this for ourselves."

I wasn't asking you how progress is made and I have no need for your word salad, I was telling you that if we all refused to accept anything not discovered for ourselves we would not progress.
"Want to know how I made my mud hut so you can put a roof over your head?"
"Fuck that for an appeal to authority, I'll sleep out in the forest if you don't mind"

The biggest problem is if everyone believes stories without proof. It means it offers no debate and offers no questioning of those stories put out as fact, without proof.

Like you believe in the non-globe Earth story without proof? Yeah I know, water level blah blah, like I said many pages ago, if you had one single scrap of faith in your 'theory' you'd have taken up the challenge to accurately measure some 'level water' or to learn about star maps, but you don't because they'd both wreck your cell world musings outright. No the biggest problem is not in believing without proof, it is in refusing to consider or accept proof when offered, when understanding that proof might mean you having to learn something first and re-evaluating your belief system afterwards.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Which shows why your explanation doesn’t wash. You can accelerate an an airplane to takeoff speed without using engine power at all, and indeed an airplane with a low enough stall speed can take off with the wheels completely stationary.

Yep with high pressure wind lift under the wings.
I thought this was about jet propulsion.