Put a flat earthier into space

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
In theory if we created a vacuum, no air inside, would the object just float?
Let's get our heads around it.

Let's look at a few scenarios relating to what we're told of a vacuum.
1. We're told a vacuum is the absence of particles, almost. But it has a few scattered one's.
And then it has gas planets and rocky planets and ice and rock asteroids and meteors...etc...etc.

2. We're told that although there's no particles, you can float forever as long as you have propulsion, which in itself is a direct contradiction of what it tries to offer.

3. We get told the vacuum of space is dark. It's the absence of light because it offers no reflective properties....unless light hits a reflective property and that light can travel through something that our own sense know as a blackness that absorbs all light in the first place.

And so on. Lots of other stuff but let's move on and look at fantasy and how we differentiate from it.

Ok.
So let's go with a true vacuum as we're told cannot every be, yet it can when it suits.


A vacuum is the absence of anything. Those simple words offer nothing.

And I mean NOTHING.

Basically a vacuum in what we're told to be a true vacuum cannot ever be because it offers nothing as a word to a reality.
It means none existence of anything because for anything to actually be something it has to be something and cannot be anything in a true vacuum.

I know I know....but.
Let's look down the fantasy route.
A vacuum being a true vacuum would offer us darkness. A true black or a deep black as we're told.
It would offer us suspended animation, sort of. In fantasy.

What does this mean?
It would mean if we put a person in it (assuming the fantasy) then that person stays put.
No arm waving of feet kicking will offer any change. I mean a person couldn't survive anyway but we're looking at the fantasy.
A Stewie and Brian (family guy) mindset.


But the space we're offered is akin to this fantasy only we're offered a few little nibbles to whet our space appetites, such as tiny scattered particles of one or another at random areas in free space or the actual true vacuum they tell us does not exist but they're offering us just that in between the scattered particles.

The silliness is off the scale.

So put a rocket in this space and somehow it can offer a burn which will offer it propulsion opposite to that burn.

Why burn anything in a vacuum? What is it burning against?

And this is where the arguments get worse but become a person's reality when the argument gets put out as (it's not the burn outside that propels the craft it's happening inside the craft/rocket."

But apart from that offering it also gets thrown out as, once you propel you go on forever because there's no resistance to to the craft but yet that resistance was found to propel it.

How?
I'm well aware of people arguing for it but it really doesn't take a lot to actually see through the nonsense of it for anyone allowing themselves the opportunity to actually sieve through the fantasy in order to leave the reality or at least to see the fantasy for what it is.
 


taipeisafc

Striker
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.

Utter gibberish
 
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.

Using your terms. Once the ball is on its foundation (the ground) for the ball experience a localised additional pressure above it equal or greater to the itself?
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
Utter gibberish
Of course. Why would you think anything else.
Say it as many times as you wish.
Using your terms. Once the ball is on its foundation (the ground) for the ball experience a localised additional pressure above it equal or greater to the itself?
The pressure is greater than the ball itself because the pressure is exactly what the actual dense mass of the ball is already in, plus the actual full dense mass of the ball itself displacing it.
 
Last edited:
Of course. Why would you think anything else.
Say it as many times as you wish.

The pressure is greater than the ball itself because the pressure is exactly what the actual dense mass of the ball is already in, plus the actual full dense mass of the ball itself displacing it.

Okay. By your logic, we could have an area which has undergone significant development over a period of day 100 years. There are examples of this in the Middle East where it was predominantly desert and now it’s a vibrant city with varying sized buildings all the way up to skyscrapers.

In this case, 100 years ago, the air pressure bearing down in the ground would be air pressure only.

Now, we have a situation whereby the buildings have moved air (I refuse to use your terminology) out of this volume and this has been displaced and now pushes back onto this building at the foundation thought the structure of the building.

Is this what you are saying?
 
Once I get proved wrong I'll happily accept it. Just make sure it's proof and not mass back slapping.
Or something that involves you having to go and actually do anything, because you wont.
Let's get our heads around it.

Let's look at a few scenarios relating to what we're told of a vacuum.
1. We're told a vacuum is the absence of particles, almost. But it has a few scattered one's.
And then it has gas planets and rocky planets and ice and rock asteroids and meteors...etc...etc.

2. We're told that although there's no particles, you can float forever as long as you have propulsion, which in itself is a direct contradiction of what it tries to offer.

3. We get told the vacuum of space is dark. It's the absence of light because it offers no reflective properties....unless light hits a reflective property and that light can travel through something that our own sense know as a blackness that absorbs all light in the first place.

And so on. Lots of other stuff but let's move on and look at fantasy and how we differentiate from it.

Ok.
So let's go with a true vacuum as we're told cannot every be, yet it can when it suits.


A vacuum is the absence of anything. Those simple words offer nothing.

And I mean NOTHING.

Basically a vacuum in what we're told to be a true vacuum cannot ever be because it offers nothing as a word to a reality.
It means none existence of anything because for anything to actually be something it has to be something and cannot be anything in a true vacuum.

I know I know....but.
Let's look down the fantasy route.
A vacuum being a true vacuum would offer us darkness. A true black or a deep black as we're told.
It would offer us suspended animation, sort of. In fantasy.

What does this mean?
It would mean if we put a person in it (assuming the fantasy) then that person stays put.
No arm waving of feet kicking will offer any change. I mean a person couldn't survive anyway but we're looking at the fantasy.
A Stewie and Brian (family guy) mindset.


But the space we're offered is akin to this fantasy only we're offered a few little nibbles to whet our space appetites, such as tiny scattered particles of one or another at random areas in free space or the actual true vacuum they tell us does not exist but they're offering us just that in between the scattered particles.

The silliness is off the scale.

So put a rocket in this space and somehow it can offer a burn which will offer it propulsion opposite to that burn.

Why burn anything in a vacuum? What is it burning against?

And this is where the arguments get worse but become a person's reality when the argument gets put out as (it's not the burn outside that propels the craft it's happening inside the craft/rocket."

But apart from that offering it also gets thrown out as, once you propel you go on forever because there's no resistance to to the craft but yet that resistance was found to propel it.

How?
I'm well aware of people arguing for it but it really doesn't take a lot to actually see through the nonsense of it for anyone allowing themselves the opportunity to actually sieve through the fantasy in order to leave the reality or at least to see the fantasy for what it is.
555 words without answering what was basically a yes or no question...
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
Okay. By your logic, we could have an area which has undergone significant development over a period of day 100 years. There are examples of this in the Middle East where it was predominantly desert and now it’s a vibrant city with varying sized buildings all the way up to skyscrapers.

In this case, 100 years ago, the air pressure bearing down in the ground would be air pressure only.

Now, we have a situation whereby the buildings have moved air (I refuse to use your terminology) out of this volume and this has been displaced and now pushes back onto this building at the foundation thought the structure of the building.

Is this what you are saying?
If you want a better picture of what you're getting at then let's use a swimming pool with a lot of stacked bricks in it.
Ok by that thought we can use this to picture the scenario of the buildings in the air and those buildings displacing the air by their own dense make up, minus the volume already part of the dense make up of structure of the materials that built them.

We can use this same scenario for the bricks in the swimming pool and understanding the dense mass of the brick, the structure displaces the water but also knowing that the water already in the brick structure is not displaced water, it is part of the water.

Ok, what we now know is, the bricks displace the atmosphere/water.
We also know that no atmosphere/water is lost. It is all still there, only displaced.

So now we move the buildings or the bricks to another part of the area or swimming pool and place them in another location.

The very second we remove some dense mass the air or water takes that place where it once was.
So basically if the buildings were moved to another area to leave the original area empty of buildings then the air or water now covers that empty area and now the buildings/bricks dense mass is now displacing the air/water at the other area. Nothing is lost, just altered.
Or something that involves you having to go and actually do anything, because you wont.

555 words without answering what was basically a yes or no question...
Your frustration will end up offering you no choice but to get more frustrated with words like this. It doesn't help you in any way.
 
Last edited:
If you want a better picture of what you're getting at then let's use a swimming pool with a lot of stacked bricks bricks in it.
Ok by that thought we can sue this to picture the scenario of the buildings in the air and those buildings displacing the air by their own dense make up, minus the volume already part of the dense make up of structure of the materials that built them.

We can use this same scenario for the bricks in the swimming pool and understanding the dense mass of the brick, the structure displaces the water but also knowing that the water already in the brick structure is not displaced water, it is part of the water.

Ok, what we now know is, the bricks displace the atmosphere/water.
We also know that no atmosphere/water is lost. It is all still there, only displaced.

So now we move the buildings or the bricks to another part of the area or swimming pool and place them in another location.

The very second we remove some dense mass the air or water takes that place where it once was.
So basically if the buildings were moved to another area to leave the original area empty of buildings then the air or water now covers that empty area and now the buildings/bricks dense mass is now displacing the air/water at the other area. Nothing is lost, just altered.

Your frustration will end up offering you no choice but to get more frustrated with words like this. It doesn't help you in any way.

You’re not answering the question I ask.

Is the load (pressure) still exerted onto any object once it is at foundation level?
 

fyl2u

Striker
Let's get our heads around it.

Let's look at a few scenarios relating to what we're told of a vacuum.
1. We're told a vacuum is the absence of particles, almost. But it has a few scattered one's.
And then it has gas planets and rocky planets and ice and rock asteroids and meteors...etc...etc.

2. We're told that although there's no particles, you can float forever as long as you have propulsion, which in itself is a direct contradiction of what it tries to offer.

3. We get told the vacuum of space is dark. It's the absence of light because it offers no reflective properties....unless light hits a reflective property and that light can travel through something that our own sense know as a blackness that absorbs all light in the first place.

And so on. Lots of other stuff but let's move on and look at fantasy and how we differentiate from it.

Ok.
So let's go with a true vacuum as we're told cannot every be, yet it can when it suits.


A vacuum is the absence of anything. Those simple words offer nothing.

And I mean NOTHING.

Basically a vacuum in what we're told to be a true vacuum cannot ever be because it offers nothing as a word to a reality.
It means none existence of anything because for anything to actually be something it has to be something and cannot be anything in a true vacuum.

I know I know....but.
Let's look down the fantasy route.
A vacuum being a true vacuum would offer us darkness. A true black or a deep black as we're told.
It would offer us suspended animation, sort of. In fantasy.

What does this mean?
It would mean if we put a person in it (assuming the fantasy) then that person stays put.
No arm waving of feet kicking will offer any change. I mean a person couldn't survive anyway but we're looking at the fantasy.
A Stewie and Brian (family guy) mindset.


But the space we're offered is akin to this fantasy only we're offered a few little nibbles to whet our space appetites, such as tiny scattered particles of one or another at random areas in free space or the actual true vacuum they tell us does not exist but they're offering us just that in between the scattered particles.

The silliness is off the scale.

So put a rocket in this space and somehow it can offer a burn which will offer it propulsion opposite to that burn.

Why burn anything in a vacuum? What is it burning against?

And this is where the arguments get worse but become a person's reality when the argument gets put out as (it's not the burn outside that propels the craft it's happening inside the craft/rocket."

But apart from that offering it also gets thrown out as, once you propel you go on forever because there's no resistance to to the craft but yet that resistance was found to propel it.

How?
I'm well aware of people arguing for it but it really doesn't take a lot to actually see through the nonsense of it for anyone allowing themselves the opportunity to actually sieve through the fantasy in order to leave the reality or at least to see the fantasy for what it is.

That's an awfully big post to not answer the question posed.
 

nahwee

Winger
Let's get our heads around it.

Let's look at a few scenarios relating to what we're told of a vacuum.
1. We're told a vacuum is the absence of particles, almost. But it has a few scattered one's.
And then it has gas planets and rocky planets and ice and rock asteroids and meteors...etc...etc.

2. We're told that although there's no particles, you can float forever as long as you have propulsion, which in itself is a direct contradiction of what it tries to offer.

3. We get told the vacuum of space is dark. It's the absence of light because it offers no reflective properties....unless light hits a reflective property and that light can travel through something that our own sense know as a blackness that absorbs all light in the first place.

And so on. Lots of other stuff but let's move on and look at fantasy and how we differentiate from it.

Ok.
So let's go with a true vacuum as we're told cannot every be, yet it can when it suits.


A vacuum is the absence of anything. Those simple words offer nothing.

And I mean NOTHING.

Basically a vacuum in what we're told to be a true vacuum cannot ever be because it offers nothing as a word to a reality.
It means none existence of anything because for anything to actually be something it has to be something and cannot be anything in a true vacuum.

I know I know....but.
Let's look down the fantasy route.
A vacuum being a true vacuum would offer us darkness. A true black or a deep black as we're told.
It would offer us suspended animation, sort of. In fantasy.

What does this mean?
It would mean if we put a person in it (assuming the fantasy) then that person stays put.
No arm waving of feet kicking will offer any change. I mean a person couldn't survive anyway but we're looking at the fantasy.
A Stewie and Brian (family guy) mindset.


But the space we're offered is akin to this fantasy only we're offered a few little nibbles to whet our space appetites, such as tiny scattered particles of one or another at random areas in free space or the actual true vacuum they tell us does not exist but they're offering us just that in between the scattered particles.

The silliness is off the scale.

So put a rocket in this space and somehow it can offer a burn which will offer it propulsion opposite to that burn.

Why burn anything in a vacuum? What is it burning against?

And this is where the arguments get worse but become a person's reality when the argument gets put out as (it's not the burn outside that propels the craft it's happening inside the craft/rocket."

But apart from that offering it also gets thrown out as, once you propel you go on forever because there's no resistance to to the craft but yet that resistance was found to propel it.

How?
I'm well aware of people arguing for it but it really doesn't take a lot to actually see through the nonsense of it for anyone allowing themselves the opportunity to actually sieve through the fantasy in order to leave the reality or at least to see the fantasy for what it is.
If you want a better picture of what you're getting at then let's use a swimming pool with a lot of stacked bricks bricks in it.
Ok by that thought we can sue this to picture the scenario of the buildings in the air and those buildings displacing the air by their own dense make up, minus the volume already part of the dense make up of structure of the materials that built them.

We can use this same scenario for the bricks in the swimming pool and understanding the dense mass of the brick, the structure displaces the water but also knowing that the water already in the brick structure is not displaced water, it is part of the water.

Ok, what we now know is, the bricks displace the atmosphere/water.
We also know that no atmosphere/water is lost. It is all still there, only displaced.

So now we move the buildings or the bricks to another part of the area or swimming pool and place them in another location.

The very second we remove some dense mass the air or water takes that place where it once was.
So basically if the buildings were moved to another area to leave the original area empty of buildings then the air or water now covers that empty area and now the buildings/bricks dense mass is now displacing the air/water at the other area. Nothing is lost, just altered.

Your frustration will end up offering you no choice but to get more frustrated with words like this. It doesn't help you in any way.

Nukey desperately seeking an audience.
 

fyl2u

Striker

What makes the "foundation" of your cell world be the ground beneath us?

If there's no gravity and the air pressure doesn't know which way is up, then why can't the foundation be the inside edge of the dome above us, i.e. why do unhindered dense objects always get displaced downwards rather than in another direction?
 

Top