Put a flat earthier into space



Nukehasslefan said:
The answers I expect from people like yourself. You follow a set narrative of wording and offerings for your mass acceptance of perceived reality. Why would you think I was talking anything other than gibberish?
I wouldn't expect you to think anything different.

That depends on how you see a wavelength.
If you want to simplify it to actual visual you only need to look at water itself because that's all waves are and wavelengths are.
The thing is there's so many variations just as there's so many frequencies and so many strengths of force....etc.

It's all about simplifying. Reverse engineering if you like.


No, wrong way to think.

It doesn't get turned into light when it hits something. It is already light as it reflects through and off something.
Click to expand...
So is light sound or not? I know it is clearly not in the real world but in your unique universe, I'm struggling to understand.

What is it reflecting off as it travels through the air?

My calling it gibberish is not because of my mindset, it is because I know what wavelength is - a measurement of distance not an object to be travelled along. Full stop, that is liteally the definition. In terms of water, the wavelength is the distance between the crests of the wave. You don't get in a boat and sail along the wavelength. That is crazy talk.
taipeisafc said:
I proved his vacuum drivel wrong earlier in the thread he just ignored it
Click to expand...
Same as my post about light just giving up because of density and the following estimation that for light to reflect of the dome, the dome has to be really close, and hence the world really small. I think some discussions are a little to inconvenient.
 
Last edited:
TheDataGuy said:
When the object falls it is the air above that pushes the object down?
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't work just like that.
The object itself displaces its own dense mass of air and that air comes right back at it from all sides and what is directly above being pushed against, pushing back.
The only thing is the way now is the resistance below the object.

If there was no crush back force the object would stay where it is.

In a nutshell the crush back comes from everywhere in that stack the object displaces.
The very part of the stack where it sits is all the resistance to that crush.

The object cannot overcome that resistance alone, it has to overcome it by it's own dense mass of displacement.
 
Well we hit page 500, and still just a combination of "you are all wrong, you are brainwashed, there is no proof. Here is some word salad gibberish with science sounding words thrown in, that I have zero proof of, but you are all stupid for not following it".
 
Nukehasslefan said:
No. It doesn't work just like that.
The object itself displaces its own dense mass of air and that air comes right back at it from all sides and what is directly above being pushed against, pushing back.
The only thing is the way now is the resistance below the object.

If there was no crush back force the object would stay where it is.

In a nutshell the crush back comes from everywhere in that stack the object displaces.
The very part of the stack where it sits is all the resistance to that crush.

The object cannot overcome that resistance alone, it has to overcome it by it's own dense mass of displacement.
Click to expand...
So there is displaced air below the object so it will fall?
 
DaveH said:
So is light sound or not?
Click to expand...
Light is the result of vibration/friction and frequency of it. It's all a part of the same thing.
Without vibration/friction and frequency you do not get light.
DaveH said:
I know it is clearly not in the real world but in your unique universe, I'm struggling to understand.
Click to expand...
You struggle to understand because you won;t allow yourself to goo any further than what you are offered by mainstream.
They can't even decide if light is a particle or a wave so go with particle/wave duality.

You can choose to argue it or go with it. But what is it you're going with? The knowledge of it or the word spin?

DaveH said:
What is it reflecting off as it travels through the air?
Click to expand...
The air itself and any object it reflects off.
It never stops being light it just gets dissipated as long as there is energy as is (which is key) not as was..
DaveH said:
My calling it gibberish is not because of my mindset, it is because I know what wavelength is - a measurement of distance not an object to be travelled along. Full stop, that is liteally the definition.
Click to expand...
Light isn't an object.
DaveH said:
In terms of water, the wavelength is the distance between the crests of the wave. You don't get in a boat and sail along the wavelength. That is crazy talk.
Click to expand...
But you do. You sail along a crushing pressure and your boat becomes that wave maker.
It depends on how you want to view it.
DaveH said:
Same as my post about light just giving up because of density and the following estimation that for light to reflect of the dome, the dome has to be really close, and hence the world really small. I think some discussions are a little to inconvenient.
Click to expand...
The dome will be really close and the world is massive to us because we're minnows like everything else within it.
DaveH said:
Well we hit page 500, and still just a combination of "you are all wrong, you are brainwashed,there is no proof. Here is some word salad gibberish with science sounding words thrown in, that I have zero proof of, but you are all stupid for not following it".
Click to expand...
To be fair the stuff thrown out by mainstream to do with Earth and space and whatnot is utter gibberish and what you call word salad.
So you offering that towards me is acceptable because it goes against your grain.

I'm happy to accept that offering and the rest you've offered. I dine on it and then sit back and digest it then do what comes natural with it.
TheDataGuy said:
So there is displaced air below the object so it will fall?
Click to expand...
No.
There is only displaced air below it when potential energy is released as energy....or basically when the dense mass of the object is allowed to have reaction to its action.
Only then will it be crushed into the stacked layers below instead of resting on them.
As soon as that happens it becomes a crush on resistance to crush of the object and below matter, all the way to the ground, where the ground offers near complete resistance to the dense mass, leaving the atmospheric mass it lies within crushing it down but the ground now acting as the total resistance to it, meaning the object is clamped to the ground until something with energy can elevate it once again.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
You've proved nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes i did you moron, you just chose to ignore it. I showed evidence of a measured flow of gas leaving a vessel which was having its contents pumped out to reduce the pressure, it showed a high flowrate initially and a lower flowrate as the pressure in the suction vessel fell. This proves your horseshit about vacuum is utterly wrong. So am i lying? And where is your proof moron.
 

taipeisafc said:
I showed evidence of a measured flow of gas leaving a vessel which was having its contents pumped out to reduce the pressure, it showed a high flowrate initially and a lower flowrate as the pressure in the suction vessel fell. This proves your horseshit about vacuum is utterly wrong. So am i lying? And where is your proof moron.
Click to expand...
A high flow rate is obvious until a low flow rate becomes the norm.
Why?
Because at first you have equal pressure so the pump has less work to do to push away the atmosphere to allow the internal pressure to expand and flow into it.
The more that's pushed into the atmosphere the harder the pump has to work to keep adding to it from the internal expansion of gases.
There is still no suction. Never has been and never will because it cannot happen.

It goes against nature.
We simply use the words, suck and pull as merely an offering as visually showing pro and con.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
A high flow rate is obvious until a low flow rate becomes the norm.
Why?
Because at first you have equal pressure so the pump has less work to do to push away the atmosphere to allow the internal pressure to expand and flow into it.
The more that's pushed into the atmosphere the harder the pump has to work to keep adding to it from the internal expansion of gases.
There is still no suction. Never has been and never will because it cannot happen.

It goes against nature.
We simply use the words, suck and pull as merely an offering as visually showing pro and con.
Click to expand...

You said no flow came out of the vessel it does i proved this you are wrong yet again. And instead of admitting it you make up more idiotic crap which is utterly wrong. Moron
 
Nukehasslefan said:
No.
There is only displaced air below it when potential energy is released as energy....or basically when the dense mass of the object is allowed to have reaction to its action.
Only then will it be crushed into the stacked layers below instead of resting on them.
As soon as that happens it becomes a crush on resistance to crush of the object and below matter, all the way to the ground, where the ground offers near complete resistance to the dense mass, leaving the atmospheric mass it lies within crushing it down but the ground now acting as the total resistance to it, meaning the object is clamped to the ground until something with energy can elevate it once again.
Click to expand...
Ok so what is causing the crushing force?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Light is the result of vibration/friction and frequency of it. It's all a part of the same thing.
Without vibration/friction and frequency you do not get light.

You struggle to understand because you won;t allow yourself to goo any further than what you are offered by mainstream.
They can't even decide if light is a particle or a wave so go with particle/wave duality.

You can choose to argue it or go with it. But what is it you're going with? The knowledge of it or the word spin?


The air itself and any object it reflects off.
It never stops being light it just gets dissipated as long as there is energy as is (which is key) not as was..

Light isn't an object.

But you do. You sail along a crushing pressure and your boat becomes that wave maker.
It depends on how you want to view it.

The dome will be really close and the world is massive to us because we're minnows like everything else within it.

To be fair the stuff thrown out by mainstream to do with Earth and space and whatnot is utter gibberish and what you call word salad.
So you offering that towards me is acceptable because it goes against your grain.

I'm happy to accept that offering and the rest you've offered. I dine on it and then sit back and digest it then do what comes natural with it.

No.
There is only displaced air below it when potential energy is released as energy....or basically when the dense mass of the object is allowed to have reaction to its action.
Only then will it be crushed into the stacked layers below instead of resting on them.
As soon as that happens it becomes a crush on resistance to crush of the object and below matter, all the way to the ground, where the ground offers near complete resistance to the dense mass, leaving the atmospheric mass it lies within crushing it down but the ground now acting as the total resistance to it, meaning the object is clamped to the ground until something with energy can elevate it once again.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not understanding because of my mindset. That is a lovely cop out phrase to dismiss any challenge. It is because you are talking nonsense, badly stringing words together. And at the end of the day, you have no proof of this.

Can you prove that sound and light are effectively the same thing?

Now consider this. Light is a transverse wave, not a longitudinal wave the same as sound (which is caused by varying pressure). You can't polarise a longitudinal wave, polarisation has no meaning in that context, yet polarised light is talked about a lot. It should at least be familiar to people in the context of sun glasses. That is using a grating to filter out the direction of some of the waves of light, leaving light all of that direction. If you apply two polarisation filters at right angles (a real right angle) to each other then despite each one being see through, together they block all light. See:
Logon or register to see this image


This could not happen with what is essentially a wave of varying compressed air.

So many of the things that you just seem to have made up (this light has no wavelength of frequency seems new) seem to have no basis and are just easily disproved. Mostly with school level physics. I remember discovering the effects with a couple of broken calculators I took apart, probably when I was 11 or 12. LCD screens have a polarised filter on them and I noticed that as I turned two pressed together they went black. Not sure why I did that, but it felt like magic. The above diagram shows why.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Of course, because you're looking at light as something that just speed along for the hell of it.


Aye and light gets reflected along them which gives the impression that light itself is a wave.
But weirdly they can't just offer us that, they have to offer us particle/wave duality.

I know I know, it is what it is.

Reflect and rebound or deflect.
Reflect = light that is the product of what makes it which is vibration and frequency and wavelengths which comes down to frequency depending on energy/pressure applied.
The vibrations and wavelengths can be rebounded and deflected.

It all marries into what we perceive but light in itself is instant to the vision.
It does not offer no energy from the past but still offer vision in the future.
That's the fantasy sold because to not sell it that way would be to destroy the fantasy of space and what's supposedly in it.

It's clever but it's fantasy.

Matter. Atmosphere or liquids/fluids in low to high vibrations/frequencies by reflection.


Bold: No it won't.

Yep. A solid object will travel. It will have speed. As long as energy is offered to any object with enough force to overcome that objects resistance to that force, it will move.
Even if the force necessary to move the object visually is not enough the material make up of the object will still move to somn degree, although this is offering molecular and structural make up which just goes too far down the rabbit hole from here so we'll leave that for another time.

And applied energy plus resistance to it.
Light on the other hand is instant.

No matter how it's dressed up it has no speed. It does not carry on offering energy as light when the energy is shut down, except when a material offering it is dissipating it's own agitation created by that energy.

But that's back at the source not the reflection over distance.

So basically the light year stars are utter nonsense but a great fantasy story.

All you're doing is tying yourself up in knots with the way you're going on.
Let's deal with this one small portion at a time.
Don;t offer a few things, just offer one thing at a time and we'll deal with that. And you can reference the answers as we go. This way you know what I'm answering to.

You're getting mixed up with refusing to answer and me actually answering.
What you're saying is, you refuse to accept my answer and call it out as a non answer.
You can carry on doing this for as long as you feel you need to but please don't expect me to offer you answers that suit your stance.
Click to expand...
😂😂😂😂🤪🤪🤪
I think I'm on ignore actually as still no response to stacked atmosphere disruption at low altitude.
 

Back
Top