payne
Striker
Ah that makes perfect sense then. It's all about connecting the dots and looking deeper after all. I
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
Nukehasslefan
Winger
The egg is pushed into the bottle is a perfect example of why there's no suction.
The egg in the bottle being used as if the bottle can suck it in should offer people massive food (pardon the pun) for thought.
If you lower the resistance inside the bottle against a higher pressure to it externally then you get your egg pushed into that bottle.
The egg in the bottle being used as if the bottle can suck it in should offer people massive food (pardon the pun) for thought.
If you lower the resistance inside the bottle against a higher pressure to it externally then you get your egg pushed into that bottle.
Only if heading north. It pushes it in every other direction.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Nope, it's all push.
DaveH
Striker
It is a conspiracy theorist trait and something seen on many forums and many types. Deep down many just want attention, some go to more lengths than others.
Look at the other CT, parm on here. Always just a one or two liner, alluding to something such as "they really went to the moon in that?". It is 8 words that take a few seconds to type but is really saying "Go on, I've only hinted that I don't believe it and I'm not putting up anything to say why, only suggesting that it doesn't meet my personal expectation of a space craft so please can multiple people write quite lengthy bits of text for me to then dismiss with another one liner".
A couple of days ago I listed a few suggestions for a Conspiracy Theorist playbook and in it was "do some homework". Otherwise known as feeding the troll. People seem to get a kick out of making others do a huge amount of work, only to then resort to the other classic "nah bollocks". This dismisses all this work and evidence out of hand usually for no reason with no analysis or discussion of the finer points. It doesn't hold the result they wanted, not interested, must be a lie. Though occasionally it may be followed with a "do some more homework" or "I'm going to ask the same question again to see if you will do the same work again but reword it all".
Being aware of that, I'm careful about what this thread prompts me to do and what it doesn't. I've provided large bulks of information but always at the back of it is 'does it trigger something in the back of my mind that gets me thinking and wants to work it out'. The silly square rule is an example. For personal interest I wanted to work out what the correct rule should be so started with blank paper and drew a circle, then went from there. Comparing the results to the broken rule, they were surprisingly close for the first 50km. This peaked my interest so I was happy to graph it out and then it only took 10 minutes to do a write up, so I didn't mind and thought others would find it interesting. Other things have been asked for or I talked the other day about using calculus to work out how much atmosphere you look through from a cliff top compared to being on the ground. But that is a lot of work and fundamentally it is modelling a fantasy land and the retort will be "nah bollocks, maths doesn't prove or tell us anything", so I just can't be arsed. At heart I like a puzzle to be worked out.
What I do find curious is the lack of critical thinking applied to most. Invent something new yourself, don't appeal to "authority" (nobody has said what authority actually is, but hey). What is never asked, even about something basic is "can I prove this is true of false" or "what evidence do we have to support, what was the motivation of the writer?". For the second part a great example would be why do almost all world governments and many private companies pretend to partake in space programs, and how to they get the hundreds of satellites up there we can all see? Why has astronomers been saying it is a globe since the 3rd centaury BC? Why do so many other branches of science and travel then conform to this idea? How can you make a conspiracy so large spanning centuries without anyone saying "hey, I've just had my induction and .....". Not even spilled on their death bed.
When I studied history at school, this was a key part. We can never prove conclusively historical events so you have accounts. Who wrote it and when. If it was written by the church for the church 400 years after the event, went against evidence written at the time and supported an already supported belief, then you have reason to be skeptical. If both sides of a battle recorded the same thing at the same time, likely it is fairly accurate.
For the first bit about the most basics being dismissed. We have gone to the lowest levels and when it comes to some of the maths or basic physics it can be proven from first principals and that is covered in most school courses.
But if you dismiss everything learned by the entire history of humanity then any fantasy alternative is therefor on an equal footing and it is "up to the individual to decide". Usually their world has been created without experiment and proof too. In the end I think it becomes both a way of justifying their beliefs by ignoring anything to the contrary and deflecting from their lack of truth by setting a challenger homework to do, to feed their need for attention.
So if a carriage pushes a train, why is the engine needed?
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan
Winger
To push the train.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
The atmosphere will try to equalise the pressures inside and outside. Being sucked in by the lower pressure is exactly the same as being pushed in by the higher pressure.
The bottle does not suck and no-one claims it does.
If you took your own advice there, the conversation would have been over months ago.
So who wins in a tug of war?
payne
Striker
the one who pushes the atmosphere behind them most. easy that one
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Nope. No such thing as being sucked in.
Higher pressure will overcome a lower pressure by push. Lower pressure can not do anything other than allowing that push against its lesser resistance to it.
So do you accept the egg is pushed into the bottle due to weak resistance to that push?
What advice is that?
Whoever pushes hardest against the resistance push of the other.
Which team moves North
payne
Striker
the one who adjusts his compass the point that way best
Utter gibberish.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
As I said, they are the same thing.
No. The atmosphere equalises. Describe that as pushing in from outside or pulling in from inside, it makes no difference. It's one and the same thing.
To go back and read what you have missed.
Ok, so it's a push of war now is it?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
That's how it can appear and is why people use suck or suction or pull or whatever.
The reality when looked at deeper is, not anything like it.
Push, compression and expansion is what goes on.
Lower pressure is caused by the push of molecules outside of the bottle in terms of the lit match. This gets trapped outside by the egg as it acts like a stopper but also has the extra atmospheric push by expansion coming back onto the egg along with the already external atmosphere and the egg is slowly forced into the bottle from above.
All push.
It is a push-of-war when looked at deeper.
We all use the words pull or drag or suck or suction and whatnot to describe something we see at face value as an alternative to a push but none of it offers a reality when actually looked deeper into.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
You're just pushing my leg
A similar ridiculous claim was made about how his atmospheric stacking was selective which is his replacement theory for gravity acting on structures on the ground.
A small building has less intensive atmosphere stacking than a larger or more dense building.
No explanation on how the atmosphere can recognise the differences between these buildings and could also not provide a reasonable explanation on why a plane flying low over a city isn’t subject to massive turbulence/ effects of varying atmospheric stacking as it flies over varying height buildings.
