Put a flat earthier into space



legend7

Midfield
Convergence.
Hula hoop

Are we just typing random words now?
Have you ever tried to find a rabbit hole? They are tiny, not like the ones in "Alice in Wonderland" that have adequate headroom for a child on LSD.
Might have just been misty, they look f***ing massive on a clear day.
He's not going to give you a straight answer (if any) to that cos it sounds like you have spotted another flaw in his argument and you are walking him toward it
Is that a flaw in his argument or a floor.
We know he's not good with words.
 
Last edited:

BigPete

Striker
Are plants disrupted by atmospheric density.

If under the illusion of dilusion that the apple in the pigs mouth is round. You need to ask yoursel that before anything.

If not you are kidding yourself... we all know we are similar to swine. Until you understand that.. you won't get far.

I could explain it further but.. you wouldn't get it and think was crazy. I'll take the ridcule but you know deep down.. it doesn't make sense.

Test it for yourself and get back to me. Make sure you explain it own words though.. can't be having shite that's been schooled into you.
 

legend7

Midfield
Are plants disrupted by atmospheric density.

If under the illusion of dilusion that the apple in the pigs mouth is round. You need to ask yoursel that before anything.

If not you are kidding yourself... we all know we are similar to swine. Until you understand that.. you won't get far.

I could explain it further but.. you wouldn't get it and think was crazy. I'll take the ridcule but you know deep down.. it doesn't make sense.

Test it for yourself and get back to me. Make sure you explain it own words though.. can't be having shite that's been schooled into you.
Actually he never explained the video he posted the other day in his own words did he.
He mustn't understand it or it must be a lie.
 

TheDataGuy

Goalkeeper
It does move.
It's still instant.
So it has a velocity you are just suggesting the the velocity is infinity. Progress made.
Elaborate.
You said only our eyes can perceive and the camera can't perceive things. Therefore if I take a picture of a room and then turn off all lights, my eyes would now see a dark room, I think we can agree on this. If I look at the picture I have taken I can see the room as it was before I turned off the lights. How? I am seeing the dark room but see the image on my camera screen?
That's because it becomes a still. An image. Not a physical energy application.
But how can I see the image?? It's because light reflects of everything and that is what we see.
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
What do you mean nope? We don’t use equal strength light sources or we don’t see longer delays on our very long fibre runs?
You don't use equal strength light sources for short and long distance.
Just like you wouldn't use one Christmas tree light to light up a stage.
Just like you wouldn't use low water pressure to send water up a mountain.
And so on.
If you want to keep a pressure you have to add in the energy in order to do so.
Light is no different as the product of energy and vibration and frequency that makes it.

Seems an obscure thing to want to fake. Why bother.
What's being faked?
Probably on ignore, but never mind.

Is the dense mass of air the object displaces which then pushes the object downwards a temporary phenomenon until the object is prevented from moving further once it’s in the ground?
The object will always displace the atmosphere because it will always be somewhere.
If it is moved then it still displaces the atmosphere.
He's not going to give you a straight answer (if any) to that cos it sounds like you have spotted another flaw in his argument and you are walking him toward it
Wrong.
 
Last edited:

Nobby

Central Defender
You don't use equal strength light sources for short and long distance.
Just like you wouldn't use one Christmas tree light to light up a stage.
Just like you wouldn't use low water pressure to send water up a mountain.
And so on.
If you want to keep a pressure you have to add in the energy in order to do so.
Light is no different as the product of energy and vibration and frequency that makes it.


What's being faked?
So having spent months asking for personal proof of things, he just flat out rejects it when presented with it.

Bloke is just a deluded troll
 

fyl2u

Striker
You don't use equal strength light sources for short and long distance.
Just like you wouldn't use one Christmas tree light to light up a stage.
Just like you wouldn't use low water pressure to send water up a mountain.
And so on.
If you want to keep a pressure you have to add in the energy in order to do so.
Light is no different as the product of energy and vibration and frequency that makes it.


What's being faked?

The object will always displace the atmosphere because it will always be somewhere.
If it is moved then it still displaces the atmosphere.

Wrong.

Nope.
Once I get proved wrong I'll happily accept it. Just make sure it's proof and not mass back slapping.

Liar.
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
So it has a velocity you are just suggesting the the velocity is infinity. Progress made.
Nope.
The light is instant. The movement of it would be the object channeling it being moved.
If you hold out a stick, it's a stick. I has no speed but you can alter it movement. (analogy)

You said only our eyes can perceive and the camera can't perceive things.
Therefore if I take a picture of a room and then turn off all lights, my eyes would now see a dark room, I think we can agree on this.

Absolutely.
If I look at the picture I have taken I can see the room as it was before I turned off the lights.
Absolutely. You are seeing that light as a still, taken when energy was applied.
How? I am seeing the dark room but see the image on my camera screen?
You're not. If the room is dark then so will the picture be that you're looking at. It doesn't just light up because the light was once switched on when you took the picture of it.
But how can I see the image??
You can put the light back on and see the image or see it in better day light because you snapped that image when energy was applied to the light which you captured as a still.
It's because light reflects of everything and that is what we see.
Of course. The whole point in seeing the photograph is because of that.
Life works because of all that and is how our vision captures it.

What it doesn't do is catch light as energy from the past to the present as a travelling energy.
It's really fast too fast to detect by naked eye.. some say its the speed of light.

Surely that's just a coincidence though
It's not a coincidence, it's a nonsense.
Noted. So is the air pushing down on the object once it comes to rest by the equivalent volume of the object? In a permanent state?
The atmosphere is crushing the object whether it's at rest or in motion or hanging in the atmosphere on a cable or whatever.
 
Last edited:
The atmosphere is crushing the object whether it's at rest or in motion or hanging in the atmosphere on a cable or whatever.

I agree with that. The weight of one atmosphere at ground level is commonly known as 1atm which is extremely close to 1bar.

What I am interested in within your theory is the atmosphere pushes down on a given object. In the example provided by @DaveH this was a tennis ball.
Your explanation seems to loosely be how hydrostatic and buoyancy is calculated, but inverted for air.

If an object such as a tennis ball is moved to a position 2m above the ground, the stacked air is pushed out from that space and generates a pushing down motion on the tennis ball until it comes to rest on the ground.

Is that statement reflective of your theory?
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
Why are people still wasting their time with this clown?
Good question. I'm glad you've came on to ask why.
I agree with that. The weight of one atmosphere at ground level is commonly known as 1atm which is extremely close to 1bar.

What I am interested in within your theory is the atmosphere pushes down on a given object. In the example provided by @DaveH this was a tennis ball.
Your explanation seems to loosely be how hydrostatic and buoyancy is calculated, but inverted for air.

If an object such as a tennis ball is moved to a position 2m above the ground, the stacked air is pushed out from that space and generates a pushing down motion on the tennis ball until it comes to rest on the ground.

Is that statement reflective of your theory?
Ok let's go through this is stages and absorb it bit by bit. It's key.

To get a dense object from the ground into the air requires applied energy, meaning some energy has to overcome that dense mass of the object in order to have that object overcome the atmosphreic pressure that is trying to crush that object.

I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Ok. In order to keep that object in the air....let's say a few feet as an instance, something has to act as a foundation for it.
Let's assume that is you holding it.

Ok, so now your hand is the foundation for the ball but your had and the ball are also held by the foundation of your feet to the ground.

Your entire body and the addition of the ball is now under atmospheric crush upon all of that dense mass only....excluding the volume of the dense mass.

Ok, so now we want to leave loose of the ball and offer it no foundation and basically offer it a separation of your dense mass against atmospheric crush to the ball's dense mass against atmospheric crush.

You have to remember you gave that ball potential energy by picking it up in the first place and holding it.
Now that ball has to use its own dense mass to overcome the atmosphere you placed it into, minus any foundation which you have now taken away to allow that potential energy to now become a return energy of that mass (ball) against the resistance of the atmosphere below it by overcoming it via the atmospheric mass above and around it that aids in crushing it back down against that below resistance.

By all means nibble away at this and I'll be happy to carry on explaining to clarify.
 
Last edited:

TheDataGuy

Goalkeeper
Ok let's go through this is stages and absorb it bit by bit. It's key.

To get a dense object from the ground into the air requires applied energy, meaning some energy has to overcome that dense mass of the object in order to have that object overcome the atmosphreic pressure that is trying to crush that object.

I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Ok. In order to keep that object in the air....let's say a few feet as an instance, something has to act as a foundation for it.
Let's assume that is you holding it.

Ok, so now your hand is the foundation for the ball but your had and the ball are also held by the foundation of your feet to the ground.

Your entire body and the addition of the ball is now under atmospheric crush upon all of that dense mass only....excluding the volume of the dense mass.

Ok, so now we want to leave loose of the ball and offer it no foundation and basically offer it a separation of your dense mass against atmospheric crush to the ball's dense mass against atmospheric crush.

You have to remember you gave that ball potential energy by picking it up in the first place and holding it.
Now that ball has to use its own dense mass to overcome the atmosphere you placed it into, minus any foundation which you have now taken away to allow that potential energy to now become a return energy of that mass (ball) against the resistance of the atmosphere below it by overcoming it via the atmospheric mass above and around it that aids in crushing it back down against that below resistance.

By all means nibble away at this and I'll be happy to carry on explaining to clarify.
In theory if we created a vacuum, no air inside, would the object just float?
 

ned_werby

Striker
Can you elaborate a bit on this.
Yes. How deep are your layers of pressure.
Good question. I'm glad you've came on to ask why.

Ok let's go through this is stages and absorb it bit by bit. It's key.

To get a dense object from the ground into the air requires applied energy, meaning some energy has to overcome that dense mass of the object in order to have that object overcome the atmosphreic pressure that is trying to crush that object.

I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Ok. In order to keep that object in the air....let's say a few feet as an instance, something has to act as a foundation for it.
Let's assume that is you holding it.

Ok, so now your hand is the foundation for the ball but your had and the ball are also held by the foundation of your feet to the ground.

Your entire body and the addition of the ball is now under atmospheric crush upon all of that dense mass only....excluding the volume of the dense mass.

Ok, so now we want to leave loose of the ball and offer it no foundation and basically offer it a separation of your dense mass against atmospheric crush to the ball's dense mass against atmospheric crush.

You have to remember you gave that ball potential energy by picking it up in the first place and holding it.
Now that ball has to use its own dense mass to overcome the atmosphere you placed it into, minus any foundation which you have now taken away to allow that potential energy to now become a return energy of that mass (ball) against the resistance of the atmosphere below it by overcoming it via the atmospheric mass above and around it that aids in crushing it back down against that below resistance.

By all means nibble away at this and I'll be happy to carry on explaining to clarify.
Alt: gravity
 
Last edited:

Top