Flat Earthers

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

 

[DaveH]

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.

Brownian motion basically says that due to movement of particles everything will get mixed up eventually. Like putting a drop of milk in tea without stirring. I'm greatly simplifying here.

Take a day like today (where I am), it is pretty windy. If I released a small feather into the wind, I'd see it buffeted about, rising and falling over a height of a few meters. That shows the 'layers' of atmosphere are being mixed up by wind and other air currents. If falling objects are caused by less dense layers at the top, squeezing objects down into more dense layers (which doesn't make sense in itself, surely it would be the other way round??), then when wind and air currents jumble them up, first of all we shouldn't see objects fall and second of all, if they settle back in their layers, what mechanism sorts the layers out again?

 

[cosmicchris00]

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.

Eeek - made up science alert!

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Brownian motion basically says that due to movement of particles everything will get mixed up eventually. Like putting a drop of milk in tea without stirring. I'm greatly simplifying here.

Take a day like today (where I am), it is pretty windy. If I released a small feather into the wind, I'd see it buffeted about, rising and falling over a height of a few meters. That shows the 'layers' of atmosphere are being mixed up by wind and other air currents.

Of course. Hot and cold caused by atmospheric friction creating high and low pressures.
Brownian motion changes nothing.

If falling objects are caused by less dense layers at the top, squeezing objects down into more dense layers (which doesn't make sense in itself, surely it would be the other way round??),

Maybe you can elaborate on this.
Falling objects have two things that allow that.
1. Their own dense mass of atmospheric displacement.

2. The above atmosphere as the push and the below atmosphere as the resistance to it, which determines the rate of fall, as we perceive it.

then when wind and air currents jumble them up, first of all we shouldn't see objects fall and second of all, if they settle back in their layers, what mechanism sorts the layers out again?

All you need to do is to fill a glass with various liquids and seal it, then shake it about and eventually those liquids will take their place as stacks of dense to less dense.
I'm sure you've done this before or seen it.
The very same goes for dry matter in various forms that will take their place in a stack if vibrated.

The atmosphere is doing the same thing all of the time.
It's always under vibration/friction.


I don't see any issue.

 

[DaveH]

Of course. Hot and cold caused by atmospheric friction creating high and low pressures.
Brownian motion changes nothing.



Maybe you can elaborate on this.
Falling objects have two things that allow that.
1. Their own dense mass of atmospheric displacement.

2. The above atmosphere as the push and the below atmosphere as the resistance to it, which determines the rate of fall, as we perceive it.


All you need to do is to fill a glass with various liquids and seal it, then shake it about and eventually those liquids will take their place as stacks of dense to less dense.
I'm sure you've done this before or seen it.
The very same goes for dry matter in various forms that will take their place in a stack if vibrated.

The atmosphere is doing the same thing all of the time.
It's always under vibration/friction.


I don't see any issue.

So what makes those liquids stack?

The other things, I'm afraid I don't have the ability to explain any further.

Basically I'm asking in the atmosphere, what makes it most dense at the bottom and to stay most dense at the bottom?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So what makes those liquids stack?

Their dense make up.

The other things, I'm afraid I don't have the ability to explain any further.

Fair enough.

Basically I'm asking in the atmosphere, what makes it most dense at the bottom and to stay most dense at the bottom?

The stacking.

Just like us. If we start to climb our cells start to expand and our body with it because the stacking is more expanded higher up. Less molecules per area.
This gets less and less molecules per area as you ascend.
The same goes for the stacking of the molecules of atmosphere.

Below, on the deck and just above us, etc, it's more dense because the molecules above and below are resisting each other's mass.
Each molecule is levering off the next, above and below.
Below at the bottom the molecules are pushed into by other molecules making each one more dense and also more compressed meaning there are more per area at sea level.

We are simple a host of cells/molecules/matter as one attached unit that is being squeezed by those molecules and we simply resist them and push them away from us as they push back.

This keeps our own cells compressed in the way we were acclimatised/born into the set up.

 

[payne]

So what makes those liquids stack?

The other things, I'm afraid I don't have the ability to explain any further.

Basically I'm asking in the atmosphere, what makes it most dense at the bottom and to stay most dense at the bottom?

Gravity?

 

[DaveH]

Their dense make up.


Fair enough.


The stacking.

Just like us. If we start to climb our cells start to expand and our body with it because the stacking is more expanded higher up. Less molecules per area.
This gets less and less molecules per area as you ascend.
The same goes for the stacking of the molecules of atmosphere.

Below, on the deck and just above us, etc, it's more dense because the molecules above and below are resisting each other's mass.
Each molecule is levering off the next, above and below.
Below at the bottom the molecules are pushed into by other molecules making each one more dense and also more compressed meaning there are more per area at sea level.

We are simple a host of cells/molecules/matter as one attached unit that is being squeezed by those molecules and we simply resist them and push them away from us as they push back.

This keeps our own cells compressed in the way we were acclimatised/born into the set up.

Wow, that is quite special.

Gravity?

Ssssshhhh

 

[payne]

Do the inanimate objects know what the bottom is?

 

[fyl2u]

The scary thing is that folks like this are allowed to vote, and are occasionally called up for jury duty.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I watched 'Beyond the Curve' and the comments about some people desperately seeking evidence that supports their own unscientific theories, and the Dunning- Krueger effect displayed by flat-earthers, led me to look into some historical investigations which I present here as a simple story.
The Greeks worked out 2500 years ago that the earth is a sphere, because they looked up. In the day there was a round sun and at night there was a 'round' moon that looked 3D, and very occasionally the shadow of the earth showed as an outline on the moon. Simple deduction told them that the earth was a sphere like the sun and moon, but we had to wait until Galileo and his telescope 2000 years later to work out we were not at the centre. This is the '500 years' that flat-earthers often quote in their deranged conspiracy rants, but inconvenient facts don't change closed minds.
2250 years ago, a Greek called Eratosthenes looked down a well in southern Egypt at mid-day on the summer solstice, and saw the sun reflected in the water below, so he sussed that the sun was directly overhead. Next midsummer he was in Alexandria, so he plonked a stick vertically on the ground and measured the length of its shadow. Knowing the length of the stick, he was able to work out the angle of the sun at about 7.2 degrees, or about one 50th of a circle. He had paid attention in geometry class! Erato knew it was about 500 miles from the well at Aswan to Alexandria, so he calculated 50x500 = 25,000 miles which turned out to be a pretty accurate stab it the circumference of the world.
There were some clever buggers around all that time ago. We have known this stuff for over two millennia, which is a long time to keep a conspiracy going!

This is such a good point. Basically some Bronze Age gadgy not only established that the Earth is spherical, but worked out its circumference to within 5%. He even explained how the axial tilt causes the seasons.

So someone in Ancient Greece over 3,000 years ago armed with nothing more than a stick, a hole in the ground and the ability to reason was far more advanced in his thinking than is claimed* to be possessed by some people with the entire history of scientific method and human thought at their disposal.


*I say "claimed" because I've long been of the opinion that people who deny reality to that extent must just be zany types on a wind-up. But then that just implies that a poster is putting in an extraordinary amount of time and effort into convincing a bunch of strangers on a message board that he's immensely stupid, which seems equally implausible. The only remaining alternative is some sort of mental illness.

 

[Boris Bear]

This is such a good point. Basically some Bronze Age gadgy not only established that the Earth is spherical, but worked out its circumference to within 5%. He even explained how the axial tilt causes the seasons.

So someone in Ancient Greece over 3,000 years ago armed with nothing more than a stick, a hole in the ground and the ability to reason was far more advanced in his thinking than is claimed* to be possessed by some people with the entire history of scientific method and human thought at their disposal.


*I say "claimed" because I've long been of the opinion that people who deny reality to that extent must just be zany types on a wind-up. But then that just implies that a poster is putting in an extraordinary amount of time and effort into convincing a bunch of strangers on a message board that he's immensely stupid, which seems equally implausible. The only remaining alternative is some sort of mental illness.

Some Bronze Age gadgy > @Nukehasslefan

 

[Nobby]

Their dense make up.


Fair enough.


The stacking.

Just like us. If we start to climb our cells start to expand and our body with it because the stacking is more expanded higher up. Less molecules per area.
This gets less and less molecules per area as you ascend.
The same goes for the stacking of the molecules of atmosphere.

Below, on the deck and just above us, etc, it's more dense because the molecules above and below are resisting each other's mass.
Each molecule is levering off the next, above and below.
Below at the bottom the molecules are pushed into by other molecules making each one more dense and also more compressed meaning there are more per area at sea level.

We are simple a host of cells/molecules/matter as one attached unit that is being squeezed by those molecules and we simply resist them and push them away from us as they push back.

This keeps our own cells compressed in the way we were acclimatised/born into the set up.

You lost me at molecules per area. I think you meant volume but obviously don't know the difference between volume and area.

I'll just judge the rest of what say through that lens

 

[DaveH]

You lost me at molecules per area. I think you meant volume but obviously don't know the difference between volume and area.

I'll just judge the rest of what say through that lens

There is no volume, only area, everything is flat

 

[Boris Bear]

Their dense make up.


Fair enough.


The stacking.

Just like us. If we start to climb our cells start to expand and our body with it because the stacking is more expanded higher up. Less molecules per area.
This gets less and less molecules per area as you ascend.
The same goes for the stacking of the molecules of atmosphere.

Below, on the deck and just above us, etc, it's more dense because the molecules above and below are resisting each other's mass.
Each molecule is levering off the next, above and below.
Below at the bottom the molecules are pushed into by other molecules making each one more dense and also more compressed meaning there are more per area at sea level.

We are simple a host of cells/molecules/matter as one attached unit that is being squeezed by those molecules and we simply resist them and push them away from us as they push back.

This keeps our own cells compressed in the way we were acclimatised/born into the set up.

Your molecules are the densest I’ve encountered

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This is such a good point. Basically some Bronze Age gadgy not only established that the Earth is spherical, but worked out its circumference to within 5%. He even explained how the axial tilt causes the seasons.

So someone in Ancient Greece over 3,000 years ago armed with nothing more than a stick, a hole in the ground and the ability to reason was far more advanced in his thinking than is claimed* to be possessed by some people with the entire history of scientific method and human thought at their disposal.

Where can I find his original writings?

You lost me at molecules per area. I think you meant volume but obviously don't know the difference between volume and area.

I'll just judge the rest of what say through that lens

No, I meant area.

 

[payne]

I can't wait to see what weird and wonderful directions this thread takes today. Makes my work day more colourful.

Where can I find his original writings?



No, I meant area.

It must be fake if the original scroll isn't available.

 

[Nobby]

No, I meant area.

How can you measure the number of objects in a 2D area, without considering the third dimension?

If you had a field 10m sq you could maybe get 10 cows in it if you had at least 1.5m vertical space.

If you had 1.5cm vertical space you could fit 1 very squashed cow in the same area.

Without the third dimension the area is meaningless.

And before you ask, I haven't tried this myself but it is not a difficult concept to visualise

 

[Boris Bear]

How can you measure the number of objects in a 2D area, without considering the third dimension?

If you had a field 10m sq you could maybe get 10 cows in it if you had at least 1.5m vertical space.

If you had 1.5cm vertical space you could fit 1 very squashed cow in the same area.

Without the third dimension the area is meaningless.

And before you ask, I haven't tried this myself but it is not a difficult concept to visualise

The earth is less of a dartboard and more of a DVD

 

[Baloo]

You lost me at molecules per area. I think you meant volume but obviously don't know the difference between volume and area.

I'll just judge the rest of what say through that lens

That is your opinion.