Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

What is the fabric of spacetime?

A stretchy polyester/latex blend. Similar to the stuff they make football shirts out of nowadays.

To have a force you need something to offer as a force to accelerate a mass.

Ah, I see you've finally decided to acknowledge Newton's THIRD law, "Every object will remain at a state of rest (or uniform motion in a straight line) unless acted upon by a net external force".

What is it and how does it work?

It is gravity, and it works in the way I just described.

How?

That's how.

But not great enough to stop a helium balloon from rising above, right?

The helium balloon is lighter than air, so when you release it what happens is that the gravity of the planet has a greater pull on the air above it and around it than it does on the balloon itself (in exactly the same way gravity has a greater pull on water than it does on a bubble of air travelling through the water), and so the air rushes down and past the balloon, forcing the balloon upwards (in exactly the same way as the water rushes downwards past the bubble of air, forcing the bubble upwards).

Your ball cannot offer a foundation for the atmosphere. It's unworkable.

My ball doesn't need atmosphere. Gravity doesn't require atmosphere; it works in exactly the same way regardless of whether atmosphere is present or not.

Towards the floor on a globe would be to fall off.
To fall towards the floor on my Earth is to fall into a container and find its level. Simple.

Not if your container is a ball.

Pour water onto a ball while standing on a globe earth, and gravity will pull the water off the ball onto the floor.
Pour water onto a ball while standing on your lemon-squeezer earth, and atmospheric stacking will force the water off the ball onto the floor.

In both cases, the water falls off the ball and onto the floor.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Just use a football or even a space hopper or any sized ball and see what happens when you pour water on it.
A clue: It won't make a level pool but it will make a waterfall.

You do realise (what am I saying? Of course you don't) that even once the water had inevitably fallen off the football thanks to your old friend gravity, the ball would still be wet and if scaled up to the size of the Earth it would be holding much the same amount of water. Yes, even if you gave it one revolution in 24 hours.

That could be very possible. But also it's possible they see the original offering as basic garbage and easily debunked with simple science.

so easy you've utterly failed to do it in 700+ pages.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You might recall me mentioning it but for the sky to appear as it very definitely does, but as the result of a projector, that projector would simply have to be at the dead centre of a sphere with nothing blocking its line of sight to that sphere. Nothing to cast shadows, therefore nothing for you to stand on.

I'm seriously not sure what you're getting at with this.
Can you elaborate on this?

I should really take a leaf from your book and just direct you back to this very thread where it has been said already, but you need to look at the "apparent motion" of the stars and planets and the Sun. You already gave up didn't you?

Whatever you think.

The first is entirely made up without any supporting evidence plus lots of evidence against. The second is only relevant because you insist on bringing it up at every opportunity.

The sea.

Finds its level.

Rain.

Finds its level.

Those drops of piss you probably leave all over your bog seat.

Will finally find a level.

These -

You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see media items

You offered me this as an argument for water curving. I'm smiling.

And of course those ships disappearing bottom first.

Just the vanishing (theoretical) line of the horizon.

Firstly I wasn't talking about a bubble and secondly no it does not in any way kill off Earths centre of gravity. There is no contradiction between bubbles and gravity.

Yep, there is.
Your gravity would pull the bubble into the centre of Earth as you mention but the bubble stays put at times.

Like what? Money to put towards a spirit level a mile long?

No need for any mile-long spirit level. It's good to come at me with this, it does give me a smile because I sit back and see how weak the attempts are when you have everything at your fingertips.

 

[jedi_toaster]

It depends on what you mean by many.
It would certainly involve quite a few spread out but then again we also have to look at the many reasons why many would cover up and why they would be on the low end of the scale as opposed to those at the top.


That could be very possible. But also it's possible they see the original offering as basic garbage and easily debunked with simple science.

It could also be that. I suppose you get a mixture of people thinking so many things.
It could also be that a person may believe they go with a better explanation and feel they are rid of the indoctrinated belief system forced on them for a spinning globe.

Lots of stuff.
And also applying Occam's razor is not as straightforward as it appears when people are siding strongly with a mass majority and fear going against it will incur severe ridicule, which would put many people off from actually taking an alternative view or at least not making it obvious they are.

But it’s not ‘simple science’ to pour water over a football and go ‘there….proof that water cannot stick to a globe’. It’s incorrect science.

I appreciate your attempts to defend your beliefs, but am ducking out of this conversation as it’s like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. More power to you

 

[fyl2u]

Newton's THIRD law

Oops, schoolboy error, that's Newton's first law. Let's see if Nukey picks up on it.

No need for any mile-long spirit level. It's good to come at me with this, it does give me a smile because I sit back and see how weak the attempts are when you have everything at your fingertips.

There absolutely IS a need for a spirit level that big, unless you have a very very powerful microscope that would allow you to measure the proposed fraction-of-a-fraction-of-a-fraction-of-a-millimetre of curvature that science predicts would be visible below a standard-length spirit-level.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I'm seriously not sure what you're getting at with this.
Can you elaborate on this?

Yes but as it would be something like the fourth time and it's so f***ing simple I dont think I will right now. You need to do some of your thinking yourself.

Whatever you think.

Finds its level.

Yes and it will be curved.

Finds its level.

Raindrops are level now?

Will finally find a level.

Little golden droplets, flat on the bottom, curved on top.

You offered me this as an argument for water curving. I'm smiling.

Glad to put a smile on your face

Just the vanishing (theoretical) line of the horizon.

Yes the horizon which is a result of and simultaneously proof of a curve.

Yep, there is.
Your gravity would pull the bubble into the centre of Earth as you mention but the bubble stays put at times.

Yes it would if there were not other much heavier things for it to pull on surrounding it. It's a bit like your atmospheric stacking only it works.

No need for any mile-long spirit level. It's good to come at me with this, it does give me a smile because I sit back and see how weak the attempts are when you have everything at your fingertips.

I honestly can't believe that after all this time you still think you'd be able to detect the curve of that size with your eyes and a normal spirit level.

 

[fyl2u]

But it’s not ‘simple science’ to pour water over a football and go ‘there….proof that water cannot stick to a globe’. It’s incorrect science.

I appreciate your attempts to defend your beliefs, but am ducking out of this conversation as it’s like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. More power to you

Don't gooooooooooo!

 

[Nukehasslefan]

A stretchy polyester/latex blend. Similar to the stuff they make football shirts out of nowadays.

Ahh, ok, I wondered what it was.
It doesn't seem to make much sense for what you mention but, well, never mind.

Ah, I see you've finally decided to acknowledge Newton's THIRD law, "Every object will remain at a state of rest (or uniform motion in a straight line) unless acted upon by a net external force".

No such law exists.
The supposed law cannot exist because what it mentions cannot happen.
To get any object into motion you must apply a force and that applied force can only happen if you use resistance in order to apply it. Then you have to overcome resistance to that applied force externally which means keeping a movement you have to apply equal force against unequal resistance to it, meaning you lose any uniform motion.

The only way it can work is in fantasy. Sci-fi where you somehow offer a force by using some kind of resistance to get it into motion and then offer zero reactionary force against the object, meaning you're talking about a fantasy space vacuum.
That so-called third law is nothing more than a fantasy.

There are only two laws attributed to Newton which are correct but those two laws are basically just one law offered as two, so realistically there is only one basic law that offers reality.

It is gravity, and it works in the way I just described.

You haven't described how it works.

The helium balloon is lighter than air, so when you release it what happens is that the gravity of the planet has a greater pull on the air above it and around it than it does on the balloon itself (in exactly the same way gravity has a greater pull on water than it does on a bubble of air travelling through the water), and so the air rushes down and past the balloon, forcing the balloon upwards (in exactly the same way as the water rushes downwards past the bubble of air, forcing the bubble upwards).

It's a good story but nonsensical.

My ball doesn't need atmosphere. Gravity doesn't require atmosphere; it works in exactly the same way regardless of whether atmosphere is present or not.

Of course. It's so magical and that's why people get duped into the wonderful stories of spinning Earths and blazing millions/billions/trillions/quadrillions/gazillions of miles away suns millions of miles in diameter and so on and so on and so on. It gets more nonsensical as it goes on.

Not if your container is a ball.

There you go.

Pour water onto a ball while standing on a globe earth, and gravity will pull the water off the ball onto the floor.

Aye. It will pull it off whilst the moon pulls the water from the oceans. It's so contradictory and silly but it is a good old funny story, I will admit that.

Pour water onto a ball while standing on your lemon-squeezer earth, and atmospheric stacking will force the water off the ball onto the floor.

Aye, just like we see.

In both cases, the water falls off the ball and onto the floor.

In one case, not both. We don't live on a spinning globe.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

No such law exists.
The supposed law cannot exist because what it mentions cannot happen.
To get any object into motion you must apply a force and that applied force can only happen if you use resistance in order to apply it. Then you have to overcome resistance to that applied force externally which means keeping a movement you have to apply equal force against unequal resistance to it, meaning you lose any uniform motion.

That's why it say "unless acted upon by an external force" or did you not read that far?

 

[nahwee]

Says me.

Yes, but how can you say that with such conviction?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You do realise (what am I saying? Of course you don't) that even once the water had inevitably fallen off the football thanks to your old friend gravity, the ball would still be wet and if scaled up to the size of the Earth it would be holding much the same amount of water. Yes, even if you gave it one revolution in 24 hours.

Correct water would still be on the ball depending on how pockmarked the ball is and how much the atmosphere holds it.
The main would fall right off, especially if you spin it.
Your Earth holds oceans and yet you think it's a ball. A spinning ball and also you think a small moon in a vacuum can pull that ocean up and Earth just pulls it down, allegedly.
The story is nonsensical.

so easy you've utterly failed to do it in 700+ pages.

I'd say the other way around.

But it’s not ‘simple science’ to pour water over a football and go ‘there….proof that water cannot stick to a globe’. It’s incorrect science.

It's basic logic and real science to show the idiocy of a spinning globe.

I appreciate your attempts to defend your beliefs, but am ducking out of this conversation as it’s like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. More power to you

No problem.

 

[fyl2u]

Oops, schoolboy error, that's Newton's first law. Let's see if Nukey picks up on it.

And our survey says....?

No, he did not.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Oops, schoolboy error, that's Newton's first law. Let's see if Nukey picks up on it.

There's only one law anyway so there's no picking up on anything with it.

There absolutely IS a need for a spirit level that big, unless you have a very very powerful microscope that would allow you to measure the proposed fraction-of-a-fraction-of-a-fraction-of-a-millimetre of curvature that science predicts would be visible below a standard-length spirit-level.

No.

Yes the horizon which is a result of and simultaneously proof of a curve.

The word horizon gives it away.

Yes it would if there were not other much heavier things for it to pull on surrounding it. It's a bit like your atmospheric stacking only it works.

Atmospheric stacking does work. It's clear to me how and why it works in the main.

I honestly can't believe that after all this time you still think you'd be able to detect the curve of that size with your eyes and a normal spirit level.

I can't detect any global curvature because none exists.

 

[payne]

I wonder how one can get recruited into Fake Industries Inc. and gain the knowledge of the real maths and science. To find out the real equations that tell us about atmospheric stacking and light packing in at the horizon? There must be a class vetting process as they must require the smartest most dedicated people who understand the globe stuff but simultaneously are potential mass liars who will jump ship and perpetuate falsehoods for their entire lives.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That's why it say "unless acted upon by an external force" or did you not read that far?

It's always acted upon by an external force so it will never be in constant motion.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Correct water would still be on the ball depending on how pockmarked the ball is and how much the atmosphere holds it.
The main would fall right off, especially if you spin it.
Your Earth holds oceans and yet you think it's a ball.

Yes, because I know there's this thing called gravity.
Even if someone else said it first.
Even if someone explained it.
Even if I didn't understand it or believe in it, it doesn't care and just keeps on being there, sticking things to globes like a sneaky little git.

A spinning ball

Yes because while if there was only Earth and the Sun it would be impossible to determine which was actually moving, there are more than just those two things and it gives the game away if you're prepared to look.

and also you think a small moon in a vacuum can pull that ocean up and Earth just pulls it down, allegedly.
The story is nonsensical.

Are you just listing the things you think I do or don't know/believe in now? Have you any actual proof that this is all nonsense or is it still just the false water level claim and your profound lack of understanding?

I'd say the other way around.

Yeah it was the profound lack of understanding.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes, but how can you say that with such conviction?

Arrogance, maybe.

I wonder how one can get recruited into Fake Industries Inc. and gain the knowledge of the real maths and science. To find out the real equations that tell us about atmospheric stacking and light packing in at the horizon? There must be a class vetting process as they must require the smartest most dedicated people who understand the globe stuff but simultaneously are potential mass liars who will jump ship and perpetuate falsehoods for their entire lives.

You're doing it and you're doing it without realising it. You are doing it based on your honesty most likely but those who originally planted it are far from it, in my opinion.

Yes, because I know there's this thing called gravity.

No, you don't. It's a theory and nobody can actually describe what it is. For obvious reasons of course.

Yes because while if there was only Earth and the Sun it would be impossible to determine which was actually moving, there are more than just those two things and it gives the game away if you're prepared to look.

The game's already been given away so many times to show Earth is not a spinning globe.

Are you just listing the things you think I do or don't know/believe in now? Have you any actual proof that this is all nonsense or is it still just the false water level claim and your profound lack of understanding?

My proof is worthless to you and many like you. You have to do your own research to offer you your reality, or do not and stick to what you believe you know. This is what it's all about.

Yeah it was the profound lack of understanding.

You're not alone.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

The word horizon gives it away.

Are you suggesting that horizon or horizontal means not curved? Because it doesn't.

Atmospheric stacking does work. It's clear to me how and why it works in the main.

If by "in the main" you mean in your own head.

I can't detect any global curvature because none exists.

You can't detect any global curvature because your cult tells you it's not there and your intelligence doesn't allow you to prove otherwise.

 

[payne]

Arrogance, maybe.

You're doing it and you're doing it without realising it. You are doing it based on your honesty most likely but those who originally planted it are far from it, in my opinion.

I want to know how to get a job in the area of earth that only they can visit. I want to be employed at projection central where I can look in their library at the real science and maths books. I'm not considering by being a roaming husk of a human going along with the earth gobbledygook that I'm employed by them. I'm more in the unknowing slave role at the moment.

Are you suggesting that horizon or horizontal means not curved? Because it doesn't.

If by "in the main" you mean in your own head.

You can't detect any global curvature because your cult tells you it's not there and your intelligence doesn't allow you to prove otherwise.

I just wish he would for once use his immense knowledge of the real world and actually present a paper on the stacking

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Are you suggesting that horizon or horizontal means not curved? Because it doesn't.

Not to you, I know.

If by "in the main" you mean in your own head.

In the main.

You can't detect any global curvature because your cult tells you it's not there and your intelligence doesn't allow you to prove otherwise.

My own sense tells me it's not there. No need for a cult.
The biggest cult is the global, one but most are just riding it because it's the official in-crowd.

I just wish he would for once use his immense knowledge of the real world and actually present a paper on the stacking

I've offered plenty on stacking and simple diagrams but if people don't want to try and do the jigsaw then it becomes pointless for them. As for me, it matters not. I still know the setup of it.