Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

So have you accepted yet that the "8 feet per mile squared" learned formula that you've been parroting since the start is not actually true because an oblate spheroidal earth is a different thing to a parabola?

By all means argue it in any way you feel.
If you want to argue it from an oblate spheroid ideal then you'd need to calculate it based on that.
Maybe Dave can do it.
What's it going to change?

Or are you still clinging to something that is absolutely clearly inarguably wrong because you learned it and refuse to "open your mind" to the possibility that this formula you learned from a long-dead fruitloop authority figure is incorrect?

I'm open to anything if it shows a reality.
I'm arguing 8 inches per mile squared but I'm more than willing to argue another point of view as long as people understand that the point of view does not offer a reality on the so called global Earth scale...unless some actual reality can be shown from it...literally.

If you really want to argue for oblate, that would mean Your equator has to be a more severe curve than the sphere itself...right?
If I want to flatten the poles the rest of the ball has to curve a bit more severely.

It's not really doing you any favours to be fair.

 

[fyl2u]

And some more cells...

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The hammer and feather experiment shows the effect of drag and air resistance not gravity - the pull on each item is the same and in a very low pressure environment they hit the ground at the same time due to the lack of effective air resistance. Galileo even did experiments in the 16th century to show this (although some say they were thought experiments)

You must be logged on to see external links

Air resistance.
Exactly.
Lack of.
The less resistance to a dense mass the more the dense mass will overcome it, as long as there is a squeeze from above.

But you see, gravity is argued at being a drop of 9.8m/s/s with zero air resistance, as we're told. On any mass.
The contradictions are off the scale with this global spinning Earth.

 

[fyl2u]

By all means argue it in any way you feel.
If you want to argue it from an oblate spheroid ideal then you'd need to calculate it based on that.
Maybe Dave can do it.
What's it going to change?

I'm open to anything if it shows a reality.
I'm arguing 8 inches per mile squared but I'm more than willing to argue another point of view as long as people understand that the point of view does not offer a reality on the so called global Earth scale...unless some actual reality can be shown from it...literally.

If you really want to argue for oblate, that would mean Your equator has to be a more severe curve than the sphere itself...right?
If I want to flatten the poles the rest of the ball has to curve a bit more severely.

It's not really doing you any favours to be fair.

You're arguing 8 inches per mile squared because you heard it on some flat earth video or read it on a flat earth forum or you read it in the original text, a flat earth manual from 200 years ago. Whichever source you learned it from, it's wrong.

8 inches per mile squared describes a parabola.

Nobody believes the Earth is a parabola.

An oblate spheroid is not a parabola.

8 inches per mile squared does not describe the shape of an oblate spheroidal Earth.


It doesn't matter how you dress it up, you've learned it whether directly or indirectly from the flat earth manual from 200 years ago, and it is wrong. Utterly wrong. Provably wrong. Inarguably wrong.

If you're still clinging to it, then you're trying to say that a sphere is the same thing as a parabola, which is wrong.

 

[taipeisafc]

By all means argue it in any way you feel.
If you want to argue it from an oblate spheroid ideal then you'd need to calculate it based on that.
Maybe Dave can do it.
What's it going to change?

I'm open to anything if it shows a reality.
I'm arguing 8 inches per mile squared but I'm more than willing to argue another point of view as long as people understand that the point of view does not offer a reality on the so called global Earth scale...unless some actual reality can be shown from it...literally.

If you really want to argue for oblate, that would mean Your equator has to be a more severe curve than the sphere itself...right?
If I want to flatten the poles the rest of the ball has to curve a bit more severely.

It's not really doing you any favours to be fair.

Yet again more misinformation - the difference between the polar and equatorial circumferences is about 41 miles so the changes in the curve would be barely noticeable (0.16% if my maths is right)

You must be logged on to see external links 40,075 km (24,901 mi) You must be logged on to see external links 40,009 km (24,860 mi)

 

[Nukehasslefan]

A cell, absolutely.

Logon or register to see this image

You haven't. Maybe nobody's ever told you this, but you're horrible at explaining things.

Maybe I do explain horribly.
I have every faith in your intelligence to decipher whatever you feel you can.

Half the time your sentences are a jumbled mess of words that don't work together as a sentence and half of the rest of the time you're leaving out key parts of it as if you're assuming everyone can read your mind and will just automatically know what you mean.

Maybe we can set up a pm and you could give me English lessons on how to write if you are finding it extremely difficult to understand me.

You put the map up not me.

You wanted an idea so I gave you the idea.

You describe it as being like an orange squuezer (which you said on flatty forums).

Yep and the map clearly shows what I described which is why I used it.

You said it curves up towards the centre with a gradual gradient.

Yep. A gradual gradient.

This means the water in the southern atlantic ocean is gonna be hundreds of miles deeper than the north if south america is not to be submerged.

Not at all.

 

[taipeisafc]

Air resistance.
Exactly.
Lack of.
The less resistance to a dense mass the more the dense mass will overcome it, as long as there is a squeeze from above.

But you see, gravity is argued at being a drop of 9.8m/s/s with zero air resistance, as we're told. On any mass.
The contradictions are off the scale with this global spinning Earth.

No gravity is nothing to do with air resistance at all you really don't understand this. Air resistance acts against a falling object which is being pulled towards the mass by gravity, this causes the object to have a relative acceleration less than the gravitational constant due to balance of forces (hence people have a terminal velocity when sky diving) you can calculate all this and then test is using experiments which closely match the calculations (projectile theory being a good example) . Your utter misunderstanding of the concepts of mass, density, air pressure do you no favours at all - air resistance acts of the area of an object hence a pointed object falls faster as it offers less area for resistance that is how parachutes work by offer a large "sail" type object to increase air resistance and overcome the force of gravity. In your demented world a parachute would either collapse completely due to the dense air pushing down on it or make you fall faster by providing a larger area for the density to work on.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The thing is and I cannot speak for everyone obviously I have tried to imagine and in some ways think that’s you maybe correct on if not everything but at least a few things.
But I cannot, not because I am a sheep but nothing what you say makes sense matey

That's absolutely fine. I don't expect you to. Not because I don;t think you're intelligent or anything, it's because I have my own thoughts and would not expect anyone to simply walk right into them and accept anything as a potential against something they are well versed on.

The biggest things for me are your energy source in a hole in the earth and how it’s reflected with whatever. Now even you have to admit someone somewhere would have evidence of this huge hole.

Maybe they do.

Secondly is the cover up, this would have started thousands of years ago involving literally every scientific individual or group going, sorry but someone would have blown this cover?

How do you know people haven't tried?

Am all for questioning stuff matey

Good for you. Keep it up. Nobody says you have to believe anything alternate to what you feel comfortable with but you can still ponder/question.

 

[DPTT]

That's absolutely fine. I don't expect you to. Not because I don;t think you're intelligent or anything, it's because I have my own thoughts and would not expect anyone to simply walk right into them and accept anything as a potential against something they are well versed on.


Maybe they do.



How do you know people haven't tried?


Good for you. Keep it up. Nobody says you have to believe anything alternate to what you feel comfortable with but you can still ponder/question.

Do you know if people have tried or have evidence of this hole

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You're arguing 8 inches per mile squared because you heard it on some flat earth video or read it on a flat earth forum or you read it in the original text, a flat earth manual from 200 years ago. Whichever source you learned it from, it's wrong.

8 inches per mile squared describes a parabola.

Nobody believes the Earth is a parabola.

An oblate spheroid is not a parabola.

8 inches per mile squared does not describe the shape of an oblate spheroidal Earth.


It doesn't matter how you dress it up, you've learned it whether directly or indirectly from the flat earth manual from 200 years ago, and it is wrong. Utterly wrong. Provably wrong. Inarguably wrong.

If you're still clinging to it, then you're trying to say that a sphere is the same thing as a parabola, which is wrong.

I won't dress it up.
Any idea what your parabola is over distance?

 

[fyl2u]

Yep. A gradual gradient.

Where does this gradient start? Do we need to already be deep into the territory of the North Pole before we start to see the gradient or are you saying it starts further away from the middle, like Greenland, Norway, Britain or even the equator or further "south", or all the way from the very outer rim to the very middle?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I won't dress it up.
Any idea what your globe is over distance?

 

[fyl2u]

I won't dress it up.
Any idea what your parabola is over distance?

It's your parabola, not mine.

I'm saying the earth ISN'T a parabola.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yet again more misinformation - the difference between the polar and equatorial circumferences is about 41 miles so the changes in the curve would be barely noticeable (0.16% if my maths is right)

You must be logged on to see external links 40,075 km (24,901 mi) You must be logged on to see external links 40,009 km (24,860 mi)

Ok. So it's not pear shaped after all....right?
NDT says it is.

You must be logged on to see media items

No gravity is nothing to do with air resistance at all you really don't understand this.

Of course I don't. Gravity doesn't exist so how can I understand it?

Air resistance acts against a falling object which is being pulled towards the mass by gravity, this causes the object to have a relative acceleration less than the gravitational constant due to balance of forces (hence people have a terminal velocity when sky diving) you can calculate all this and then test is using experiments which closely match the calculations (projectile theory being a good example) . Your utter misunderstanding of the concepts of mass, density, air pressure do you no favours at all - air resistance acts of the area of an object hence a pointed object falls faster as it offers less area for resistance that is how parachutes work by offer a large "sail" type object to increase air resistance and overcome the force of gravity. In your demented world a parachute would either collapse completely due to the dense air pushing down on it or make you fall faster by providing a larger area for the density to work on.

It's all atmospheric pressure against any dense mass. No gravity involved.
Gravity is complete and utter nonsense which was made up to hide the reality of the simple observation of atmospheric pressure we are under and which we can test.
Take away gravity and you take away the globe and space vacuums...etc...etc.
It's plainly obvious why the magical fantasy is used.

Do you know if people have tried or have evidence of this hole

Nope.

Where does this gradient start?

Under water.

Do we need to already be deep into the territory of the North Pole before we start to see the gradient or are you saying it starts further away from the middle

This.

 

[taipeisafc]

Ok. So it's not pear shaped after all....right?
NDT says it is.

You must be logged on to see media items

Of course I don't. Gravity doesn't exist so how can I understand it?

It's all atmospheric pressure against any dense mass. No gravity involved.
Gravity is complete and utter nonsense which was made up to hide the reality of the simple observation of atmospheric pressure we are under and which we can test.
Take away gravity and you take away the globe and space vacuums...etc...etc.
It's plainly obvious why the magical fantasy is used.

Nope.

You have the video straight out of flat earth websites

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It's your parabola, not mine.

I'm saying the earth ISN'T a parabola.

Yeah, I changed the quote above but you were too fast in already quoting me.

 

[taipeisafc]

You have the video straight out of flat earth websites

You must be logged on to see external links

And i measure atmospheric pressure every 15 seconds tell me what changes i will see and i will check for them (frequency and magnitude) and what effects these will have

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You have the video straight out of flat earth websites

You must be logged on to see external links

It doesn't matter where the video comes from. Is that NDT and is he saying Earth is pear shaped?

 

[fyl2u]

Yeah, I changed the quote above but you were too fast in already quoting me.

You'll need to reword the question or explain what you mean then, because the sentence you posted doesn't make sense.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And i measure atmospheric pressure every 15 seconds tell me what changes i will see and i will check for them (frequency and magnitude) and what effects these will have

You'll always see fluctuation in pressure. From a barometer to whatever dense mass you place into an area.

You'll need to reword the question or explain what you mean then, because the sentence you posted doesn't make sense.

It does. I'm sure you understand what I've said but by all means overlook it.