Flat Earthers

[Baloo]

How do you know?

I know that it hasn’t.

I’m not sure what else you want me to say?

 

[Roker Mackem]

What’s more embarrassing?

1) covid denier
2) flat Earther
3) mag

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

I know a Mag covid denier. He's close....

 

[cosmicchris00]

It still works the same way, regardless

It doesn't and has to be modelled.

The key parameter in the model is density

 

[taipeisafc]

You need treatment mate.

There isnt any known treatment for morons he is a hopeless case

 

[Prefab]

He's just your common or garden flat earther. No understanding of maths or science and lacking the humility to admit it or seek to remedy it by getting an education.

 

[cosmicchris00]

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.

The sub is a good analogy.

The buoyancy control is subject to many variables and when the sub is stationary it can be overcome by gravity or the upward force of buoyancy. The effect is the sub begins to sink or rise

The equilibrium has been broken down and buoyancy or gravity wins

 

[taipeisafc]

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.

Every time I see one of your new ludicrously stupid posts I think "he can't top that" and then you do. So Skyscrapers don't crush down on themselves as they build less densely as they go up....what complete and utter twaddle and shows your utter ignorance. Have a look at Taipei 101 which has a massive steel weight suspended near the top or the hotel in Singapore with the swimming pool on top - how can someone be so utterly ignorant of the world around them and yet so confident. You also still haven't answered the question as to why planes have wings....if there is no gravity and it is all air pressure then having a larger surface area (i.e. wings) would make it more difficult for something to leave the ground.

 

[payne]

Every time I see one of your new ludicrously stupid posts I think "he can't top that" and then you do. So Skyscrapers don't crush down on themselves as they build less densely as they go up....what complete and utter twaddle and shows your utter ignorance. Have a look at Taipei 101 which has a massive steel weight suspended near the top or the hotel in Singapore with the swimming pool on top - how can someone be so utterly ignorant of the world around them and yet so confident. You also still haven't answered the question as to why planes have wings....if there is no gravity and it is all air pressure then having a larger surface area (i.e. wings) would make it more difficult for something to leave the ground.

Ignorance is bliss

 

[Baloo]

Every time I see one of your new ludicrously stupid posts I think "he can't top that" and then you do. So Skyscrapers don't crush down on themselves as they build less densely as they go up....what complete and utter twaddle and shows your utter ignorance. Have a look at Taipei 101 which has a massive steel weight suspended near the top or the hotel in Singapore with the swimming pool on top - how can someone be so utterly ignorant of the world around them and yet so confident. You also still haven't answered the question as to why planes have wings....if there is no gravity and it is all air pressure then having a larger surface area (i.e. wings) would make it more difficult for something to leave the ground.

Wonder if he believes in yield strength.

 

[DaveH]

Every time I see one of your new ludicrously stupid posts I think "he can't top that" and then you do. So Skyscrapers don't crush down on themselves as they build less densely as they go up....what complete and utter twaddle and shows your utter ignorance. Have a look at Taipei 101 which has a massive steel weight suspended near the top or the hotel in Singapore with the swimming pool on top - how can someone be so utterly ignorant of the world around them and yet so confident. You also still haven't answered the question as to why planes have wings....if there is no gravity and it is all air pressure then having a larger surface area (i.e. wings) would make it more difficult for something to leave the ground.

And without any other force, brownian motion would mix the stacked atmosphere. Take gravity out the equation and a stacked atmosphere fails because there is nothing to maintain the stack.

Then you have to consider, what if you removed air pressure, perhaps in a vacuum chamber, then objects would float. We have been down this line of reasoning. Vacuum chambers dont exist of course.

 

[taipeisafc]

And without any other force, brownian motion would mix the stacked atmosphere. Take gravity out the equation and a stacked atmosphere fails because there is nothing to maintain the stack.

Then you have to consider, what if you removed air pressure, perhaps in a vacuum chamber, then objects would float. We have been down this line of reasoning. Vacuum chambers dont exist of course.

Yeah we have been round the vaccuum loop before, then when i pointed out i use vacuum systems every day at work he started implying he meant absolute vacuum.

 

[niknak_123]

The fact that this thread is 41 pages long points to the fact that's it's possibly not a straight yes/no answer

 

[Sabre Mag]

If you think the Earth is flat then you are an absolute f***ing moron. That should just about sort this thread out. As if these people are allowed to vote and stuff!

 

[Baloo]

The fact that this thread is 41 pages long points to the fact that's it's possibly not a straight yes/no answer

 

[RedAndWhiteJeff]

The fact that this thread is 41 pages long points to the fact that's it's possibly not a straight yes/no answer

It points to the fact that some people are impossibly stupid.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

We have a pressure upon and around us and we withstand it because we are much denser.

I know that it hasn’t.

I’m not sure what else you want me to say?

Nothing. If you know then that's your mindset.

 

[DaveH]

The fact that this thread is 41 pages long points to the fact that's it's possibly not a straight yes/no answer

What, you mean it is not straight forward if the world is flat or not? It either is or isn't. You can't have both.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It doesn't and has to be modelled.

The key parameter in the model is density

It's all about density.

The sub is a good analogy.

The buoyancy control is subject to many variables and when the sub is stationary it can be overcome by gravity or the upward force of buoyancy. The effect is the sub begins to sink or rise

The equilibrium has been broken down and buoyancy or gravity wins

The sub simply gets crushed up if it is holding enough atmosphere/air.
Take out the atmosphere and it is pushed down by the amount it pushes back into the atmosphere by the pressure on the water it takes into its tanks.
No gravity needed.

Every time I see one of your new ludicrously stupid posts I think "he can't top that" and then you do. So Skyscrapers don't crush down on themselves as they build less densely as they go up....what complete and utter twaddle and shows your utter ignorance.

Maybe you can read what I said and then come back.

Have a look at Taipei 101 which has a massive steel weight suspended near the top or the hotel in Singapore with the swimming pool on top - how can someone be so utterly ignorant of the world around them and yet so confident.

So you think a pool adds up to more than the dense mass under it? Or A suspended mass?

You also still haven't answered the question as to why planes have wings

I did but you must've overlooked it.

....if there is no gravity and it is all air pressure then having a larger surface area (i.e. wings) would make it more difficult for something to leave the ground.

Not if that surface area is used to skim/slice through the atmosphere.

Wonder if he believes in yield strength.

Maybe explain what you're getting at.

And without any other force, brownian motion would mix the stacked atmosphere.

What does Brownian motion do to go against what I'm saying?

Take gravity out the equation and a stacked atmosphere fails because there is nothing to maintain the stack.

A stack is exactly that. Stacked matter.
The more you stack the more dense the stack below holding the above and the more pressure below.
No need for unexplainable gravity.

Then you have to consider, what if you removed air pressure, perhaps in a vacuum chamber, then objects would float.

You can only remove so much and you're left with a chamber that is still full of less dense matter, yet still matter all the same, just under less pressure, which is basically a break down of condensed molecules into more expanded.

We have been down this line of reasoning. Vacuum chambers dont exist of course.

Lower pressure.

 

[Prefab]

The fact there's 41 pages is testament to the inability of some people to accept objective reality because they are as thick as whale spunk.

 

[taipeisafc]

It's all about density.

The sub simply gets crushed up if it is holding enough atmosphere/air.
Take out the atmosphere and it is pushed down by the amount it pushes back into the atmosphere by the pressure on the water it takes into its tanks.
No gravity needed.

Maybe you can read what I said and then come back.



So you think a pool adds up to more than the dense mass under it? Or A suspended mass?




I did but you must've overlooked it.


Not if that surface area is used to skim/slice through the atmosphere.

Maybe explain what you're getting at.

What does Brownian motion do to go against what I'm saying?



A stack is exactly that. Stacked matter.
The more you stack the more dense the stack below holding the above and the more pressure below.
No need for unexplainable gravity.



You can only remove so much and you're left with a chamber that is still full of less dense matter, yet still matter all the same, just under less pressure, which is basically a break down of condensed molecules into more expanded.


Lower pressure.

Complete and utter drivel, so absolutely wrong from start to finish. You are an ignorant moron and can no longer be arsed to reply properly. Utter shite and utterly wrong on every level.