Flat Earthers

[chunkyshanhawk53]

What’s more embarrassing?

1) covid denier
2) flat Earther
3) mag

tough one. When you’re all 3, it’s quite something

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Also, when you inhale would you not be considerably heavier than when you exhale?

When you inhale you are expanding your body, meaning what you take in just pushes and equalises that pressure.
Equal action and reaction.

I think I might have asked this before but I can’t remember if I got an answer so I’ll ask again, are ground and naval Artillery targeting procedures part of the conspiracy? As they has to calculate the curvature of the Earth for some of the longer range artillery pieces.

@Nukehasslefan

If you think of the atmosphere as a pressure and circular movement you could look at it as that pressure having some effect on projectiles.


One a globe they can't have it both ways when arguing that you don't feel any movement and you're always going with the atmosphere at the same speed of rotation and then try to use a coriolis effect to say artillery now decides to follow a path different from the so called spin.

 

[vinegar hill]

So when you look

If you went north you would go towards the centre. If you went south you would go towards the dome foundation/gradient. In my opinion.

Tell me about a helium balloon and why gravity leaves it alone.
Also an air filled balloon dropped off a building or just from head height.
9.8m/s/s? I think not.

So when you look up at the moon and see a sphere, look through a telescope at the planets and see sphere's that's apart from the numerous spacecrafts that's flown past them and photographed them as spheres, do you think the earth is different?
Why are all of those not flat?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So when you look

So when you look up at the moon and see a sphere, look through a telescope at the planets and see sphere's that's apart from the numerous spacecrafts that's flown past them and photographed them as spheres, do you think the earth is different?
Why are all of those not flat?

What are you really seeing?

You must be logged on to see media items

You are also relying on being told that space craft are doing this and that.

 

[Baloo]

When you inhale you are expanding your body, meaning what you take in just pushes and equalises that pressure.
Equal action and reaction.

Ah, you’re replying to me now. That’s good…

Nukehasslefan said:
Can you prove any of them?

Baloo said:
Can I prove that no flat earther has provided a to-scale map (or even better an actual photo of the whole flat world), and then proved it to be accurate by documenting their journey between two places on said map? Yes, because it has never been done.

Why haven’t I had a reply?

^

 

[vinegar hill]

What are you really seeing?

You must be logged on to see media items

You are also relying on being told that space craft are doing this and that.

So you also believe the Moon and Mars landings didn't happen?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ah, you’re replying to me now. That’s good…







^

What map do you use to navigate with?

So you also believe the Moon and Mars landings didn't happen?

Absolutely.

 

[vinegar hill]

What map do you use to navigate with?

Absolutely.

You need treatment mate.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You need treatment mate.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[Baloo]

What map do you use to navigate with?

Absolutely.

You’ve asked me to provide proof of something, I have, now you’re asking me about maps rather than acknowledging I’ve proven the point?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You’ve asked me to provide proof of something, I have, now you’re asking me about maps rather than acknowledging I’ve proven the point?

What have you provided?

 

[Baloo]

What have you provided?

Can I prove that no flat earther has provided a to-scale map (or even better an actual photo of the whole flat world), and then proved it to be accurate by documenting their journey between two places on said map? Yes, because it has never been done.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Can I prove that no flat earther has provided a to-scale map (or even better an actual photo of the whole flat world), and then proved it to be accurate by documenting their journey between two places on said map? Yes, because it has never been done.

How do you know it's never been done?

 

[vinegar hill]

Thanks for your advice.

I'm serious.

 

[cosmicchris00]

Not at all.
We are well equipped to deal with the pressure, as long as that pressure does not fluctuate too much .
Once the pressure becomes too dense or much less dense, we suffer because our bodies can't properly cope.

We simple use the ground as our foundation. Our leverage to push into the atmosphere.
No need for gravity we are all told about.

Ambient atmospheric pressure is accepted to be 1.

The human body - effectively a sack of fluid - is in a state of equilibrium at 1. The pressure generated if you calculated it as though tonnes of air were stacked on top each other - a fantasy situation by the way - would kill nearly every living creature

The fluid all around us (air) cannot be treated the same way water is as its not as dense.

That's why planes need wings, so that they can be driven through this fluid at speed thereby generating enough lift over the wings to overcome the opposing force of... gravity!

 

[Tadger]

If you think of the atmosphere as a pressure and circular movement you could look at it as that pressure having some effect on projectiles.


One a globe they can't have it both ways when arguing that you don't feel any movement and you're always going with the atmosphere at the same speed of rotation and then try to use a coriolis effect to say artillery now decides to follow a path different from the so called spin.

And it’s just a happy coincidence that it results in correct trajectory?

 

[Baloo]

How do you know it's never been done?

I know that it hasn’t.

If you have proof to the contrary, please provide it.

 

[DaveH]

A nice little proof people can do, is using certain types of telescope. One type of mount is an equatorial mount. These contain a very small telescope in the mount itself which you must align with Polaris in the crosshairs (actually slightly out as polaris is not exactly at the celestial north pole, but extremely close to the naked eye or unzoomed camera). To do that you have to angle your mount up or down, which gives you an accurate angle to polaris from the horizon (mounts also include a spirit level to ensure this). The further north you go, the higher angle you need.

If you start with pencil and paper then start drawing out light from polaris and a possible position of the observer, along with the angle measured, then you end up drawing one shape. A hemisphere. This does assume that polaris is really really far away. But, even if you change the position of polaris, for example to make it quite close (like painted on a dome), you can't make a working model that matches with observational evidence.

Flat earth people have so far not been able to provide a way this could work. Usually they wave their hands in the air and say refraction. But one issue with refraction is it depends on the density of air and we know (and can measure) that it changes with temperature. The angle to polaris does not change, at all. Certainly not connected to temperature and seasons.

So you also believe the Moon and Mars landings didn't happen?

He doesn't even believe the moon and mars (or the sun) exists, let alone have anyone landing on them.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ambient atmospheric pressure is accepted to be 1.

The human body - effectively a sack of fluid - is in a state of equilibrium at 1. The pressure generated if you calculated it as though tonnes of air were stacked on top each other - a fantasy situation by the way - would kill nearly every living creature

Does a skyscraper crush the foundations to rubble or do they hold up.
Why?
Because they're stacked with less and less dense material the higher up you go.
Atmosphere does the same thing.
It stacks less and less with each mm (as an example) all the way up. More dense to much less dense.

The fluid all around us (air) cannot be treated the same way water is as its not as dense.

It still works the same way, regardless.

That's why planes need wings, so that they can be driven through this fluid at speed thereby generating enough lift over the wings to overcome the opposing force of... gravity!

A speedboat can skim through the water.
A sub can skim through the sea.

The only difference is in the dense mass that needs to be pushed out of the way to keep each thing in motion.
It's all about the dense mass below you as opposed to above you.

And it’s just a happy coincidence that it results in correct trajectory?

Coincidence?

How about (if you feel you want to) you give me a scenario with artillery or whatever in any direction you wish to show and tell me how much deviation there is.

I know that it hasn’t.

If you have proof to the contrary, please provide it.

How do you know?

 

[cosmicchris00]

Does a skyscraper crush the foundations to rubble or do they hold up.
Why?
Because they're stacked with less and less dense material the higher up you go.
Atmosphere does the same thing.
It stacks less and less with each mm (as an example) all the way up. More dense to much less dense.

Some are built with less dense or narrower construction but some of them have large heavy plates of glass up there.

They use construction materials that are designed to work best in compression, thereby withstanding the huge forces.

Humans are not skyscrapers and would be squashed to strawberry jam if we had massive loads piled on top of us.