Put a flat earthier into space

[payne]

No, they just go with the magical maths made to fit around the stories we're told and sold. Think on it.

so all the maths works but actually describes his world and not the one is says it does?
look at the wankers in crystal control centre. Beaming an image onto the dome and telling stargazers it's an asteroid. tossers

A huge asteroid will fly safely by Earth today. Here's how to watch it live.

See the asteroid 1994 PC1 make its closest approach for the next 200 years as it passes 1 million miles from Earth.

www.space.com

 

[What A Waster]

so all the maths works but actually describes his world and not the one is says it does?
look at the wankers in crystal control centre. Beaming an image onto the dome and telling stargazers it's an asteroid. tossers

A huge asteroid will fly safely by Earth today. Here's how to watch it live.

See the asteroid 1994 PC1 make its closest approach for the next 200 years as it passes 1 million miles from Earth.

www.space.com

Must be trying out a new lens on the projector. Them lads like a challenge

 

[payne]

Must be trying out a new lens on the projector. Them lads like a challenge

I wonder how they recruit a load of the smartest people in the world. People who work in STEM fields specifically and so easily convert them into a bunch of con artists?

 

[DaveH]

Millions, maybe.

Start off rubbing a stick against stone and tell me what happens.

You proved absolutely nothing.
If you want to show me how suck works then explain something simple to show it.

That is your experiment? You get a blunt stick.

 

[payne]

national treasure.....no he's a liar. wasted his life

BBC One and David Attenborough to reveal the final day of the dinosaurs

Brand new film documents minute by minute what happened when the asteroid hit earth - with the fall of the dinosaurs brought to life in unprecedented detail 

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[tarfer]

The actual object itself displacing the atmospheric stacked layers.

No, you've given it energy from your very own energy and then the rock sits atop the water if you are still using your energy to hold its dense mass against atmospheric displacement of it and your hand.
Leave loose and you offer full rock displacement of atmosphere against the foundation of the water which is no match for crushing it back up against that dense mass against atmosphere crushing it down.

The potential energy of the rock is you holding it on the water. Once you let go you offer whatever energy you applied back to the atmospheric push/crush back down.

It does. Your hand is that energy and it's not nothing.

There is no need for any other force to be at at play.
Gravity is utter nonsense.

 

[DaveH]

What m

The actual object itself displacing the atmospheric stacked layers.

No, you've given it energy from your very own energy and then the rock sits atop the water if you are still using your energy to hold its dense mass against atmospheric displacement of it and your hand.
Leave loose and you offer full rock displacement of atmosphere against the foundation of the water which is no match for crushing it back up against that dense mass against atmosphere crushing it down.

The potential energy of the rock is you holding it on the water. Once you let go you offer whatever energy you applied back to the atmospheric push/crush back down.

It does. Your hand is that energy and it's not nothing.

There is no need for any other force to be at at play.
Gravity is utter nonsense.

What makes and maintains these stacked layers and why does wind not shake them up? Do they settle back out quickly?

If you have a foundation for an object it will displace. It may move minutely in terms of expansion and contraction but it obviously won't move to the naked eye.
To accelerate it, it requires energy for it to overcome the pressure holding it in place.

It's still a hemisphere.

Is the dome a perfect hemisphere? I.e. is the distance from the north poll/disc centre to the edge, the same as the distance to the very top of the dome?

 

[payne]

What m

What makes and maintains these stacked layers and why does wind not shake them up? Do they settle back out quickly?

Is the dome a perfect hemisphere? I.e. is the distance from the north poll/disc centre to the edge, the same as the distance to the very top of the dome?

maybe. i'm just giving possibilities of what it might be. i'm not presenting as fact, well expect when I state as fact all known science is false.

 

[legend7]

national treasure.....no he's a liar. wasted his life

BBC One and David Attenborough to reveal the final day of the dinosaurs

Brand new film documents minute by minute what happened when the asteroid hit earth - with the fall of the dinosaurs brought to life in unprecedented detail 

www.bbc.co.uk

Plus he's been to Antarctica which apparently doesn't exist.

 

[payne]

Plus he's been to Antarctica which apparently doesn't exist.

he thinks he has. he and the crew were just using the lying gps satellites, maps and normal navigation techniques.

 

[3.142]

Just taking the piss now surely

That's like saying that to understand gravity all you need to do is look at gravy!

 

[Kevj]

What m

What makes and maintains these stacked layers and why does wind not shake them up? Do they settle back out quickly?

Is the dome a perfect hemisphere? I.e. is the distance from the north poll/disc centre to the edge, the same as the distance to the very top of the dome?

I tried to pry this out of him over the weekend. If the atmosphere acts on an object of a particular size dense mass (his terminology), the resultant air pressure must be equal or greater than that object for it to move downwards if his theory is to work. In which case, the air pressure near a skyscraper must be significantly higher than the small waste bin on the path only a few metres away.

We all know that the atmosphere attempts to equalise air pressures (winds) due to differing pressures in different locations, so either high pressure air near a skyscraper is magically held in situ to maintain the air pressure equal to the dense mass of the structure which keeps it anchored to the ground, or @Nukehasslefan is talking absolute bollocks.

Also saw this earlier and thought it’s appropriate:

Logon or register to see this image

 

[taipeisafc]

No it shouldn't. This is why the atmosphere is crucial.
The water is a foundation to the atmosphere just as ground is.
The difference is in the dense make up of water against the dense make up of the ground.

Your rock has a lot of structural make up for it's dense mass against atmosphere.
Basically it uses the water as its foundation as it displaces atmosphere, minus volume (crucial) within it's structure.
If the atmospheric displacement is more than what the foundation is the rock will be pushed down by it's own resistance of dense mass against that atmosphere and the water will not fully hold it but will resist it and be overcome, meaning the rock sinks.

Utter shite

 

[BigPete]

The object itself must displace atmosphere by its own dense mass.

Why haven't you created your own word or have you?
Obviously Brains McGee so surely should have corrected it by now.

 

[fyl2u]

If you have a foundation for an object it will displace. It may move minutely in terms of expansion and contraction but it obviously won't move to the naked eye.
To accelerate it, it requires energy for it to overcome the pressure holding it in place.

It's still a hemisphere.

Presumably the dome above our heads is also a foundation? If there's no such thing as gravity, stacked pressure layers don't know which way is up and pressure pushes out in all directions not just downwards, then presumably if we fly to a certain height then the stacked pressure layers start pushing us upwards towards the dome foundation above us instead of down towards the ground?

In fact, even at ground level, the further we get from the north pole / centre of the world, the more the stacked pressure layers should push us outwards towards the edge rim due to there being fewer stacked layers pushing back from the edge than there are pushing outwards from the north pole.

So, someone in Australia, South Africa or Argentina must be constantly having to lean north to stop themselves falling over from all the extra stacked pressure layers pushing them outwards towards the outer rim dome wall foundation.
---

Just saw this photo of a bunch of folks standing in a bar in Argentina.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[taipeisafc]

The object itself must displace atmosphere by its own dense mass.
What it displaces of atmosphere will be added to that atmospheric crush back onto the dense mass of the object, pushing it down against the resistance of the water.

If the resistance of the water is more than the dense mass of the objects atmospheric crush, the object will only displace so much of the water and float, as we know it to.

For what must be the tenth time any object fully immersed in any fluid media (gas or liquid) will displace its own volume of the media - if the volume it displaces weighs less than the object it floats otherwise it sinks. An object cannot displace it's mass in a fluid (unless it is exactly the same density) unless that fluid knows how much the object weighs and thus displaces the right mass. You can test this with an archimedes jar (or even a cup) the volume of water displaced by a fully immersed object is the volume of that object irrespective of the weight or density of the object in fact this is an accepted method for calculating the density of irregularly shaped objects; air is the same you displace the VOLUME of air not the mass. Yet again you are utterly wrong.

You keep jabbering on about dense mass - it makes no sense at all as every mass has a density hence every mass is a "dense mass". Your whole utter ludicrous crap is full of so many holes it is breathtaking.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But what energy is stored? You said it falls due to displacement and that creates the crushing affect, so that only happens after it has moved.

No.
The crushing effect is always there.
The displacement of the objects mass of atmosphere causes the crush back against it.
Raising it by use of energy simply alters the foundation it sits on, until that foundation is taken away. Then the object is basically crushed back to the next foundation.

That is your experiment? You get a blunt stick.

I did say start primitive and I also said you wouldn't want to bother.

What makes and maintains these stacked layers

Matter/molecules or whatever you want to mind visualise them as.

and why does wind not shake them up?

Wind is them being shaken up. It's expansion and contraction and a knock on effect. To us it's high and low pressure.

Do they settle back out quickly?

That depends on the energy applied.
The atmosphere never fully settles. It's always vibrating due to pressures of the stacking system.

Is the dome a perfect hemisphere? I.e. is the distance from the north poll/disc centre to the edge, the same as the distance to the very top of the dome?

Doubtful it would be anything like perfect. It would always be moving due to pressure changes as the central energy reflected sun moves around and over it.

Why haven't you created your own word or have you?

No need.

For what must be the tenth time any object fully immersed in any fluid media (gas or liquid) will displace its own volume of the media

It will displace it's own mass...not volume.

- if the volume it displaces weighs less than the object it floats otherwise it sinks.

No such thing as weighing in that situation. It's a case of if it's mass displacement of atmosphere is greater than the water resisting it, it will sink. If not it will float or be crushed up.

An object cannot displace it's mass in a fluid (unless it is exactly the same density) unless that fluid knows how much the object weighs and thus displaces the right mass.

Weight is a person made scale to measure mass.
This is done by using a foundation on a spring or moving foundation to gauge the displacement of that mass against atmosphere and using that moving foundation down against its resistance to gain a set out measurement for it.
No gravity required.

You can test this with an archimedes jar (or even a cup) the volume of water displaced by a fully immersed object is the volume of that object irrespective of the weight or density of the object in fact this is an accepted method for calculating the density of irregularly shaped objects; air is the same you displace the VOLUME of air not the mass. Yet again you are utterly wrong.

Yep. It's just a case of understanding the reality against the fictional gravity added in to it and a slight change of a few things to get that reality.

You keep jabbering on about dense mass

I do so because it's what counts.

- it makes no sense at all as every mass has a density hence every mass is a "dense mass".

Absolutely correct. It also makes perfect sense when the dense mass of any object is looked at when placed against atmospheric pressure.

Your whole utter ludicrous crap is full of so many holes it is breathtaking.

There aren't any holes. It fits a reality. Something gravity does not.

 

[Nobby]

No.
The crushing effect is always there.
The displacement of the objects mass of atmosphere causes the crush back against it.
Raising it by use of energy simply alters the foundation it sits on, until that foundation is taken away. Then the object is basically crushed back to the next foundation.

I did say start primitive and I also said you wouldn't want to bother.

Matter/molecules or whatever you want to mind visualise them as.

Wind is them being shaken up. It's expansion and contraction and a knock on effect. To us it's high and low pressure.

That depends on the energy applied.
The atmosphere never fully settles. It's always vibrating due to pressures of the stacking system.

Doubtful it would be anything like perfect. It would always be moving due to pressure changes as the central energy reflected sun moves around and over it.

No need.


It will displace it's own mass...not volume.

No such thing as weighing in that situation. It's a case of if it's mass displacement of atmosphere is greater than the water resisting it, it will sink. If not it will float or be crushed up.

Weight is a person made scale to measure mass.
This is done by using a foundation on a spring or moving foundation to gauge the displacement of that mass against atmosphere and using that moving foundation down against its resistance to gain a set out measurement for it.
No gravity required.

Yep. It's just a case of understanding the reality against the fictional gravity added in to it and a slight change of a few things to get that reality.

I do so because it's what counts.


Absolutely correct. It also makes perfect sense when the dense mass of any object is looked at when placed against atmospheric pressure.

There aren't any holes. It fits a reality. Something gravity does not.

Made up bullshit

 

[taipeisafc]

No.
The crushing effect is always there.
The displacement of the objects mass of atmosphere causes the crush back against it.
Raising it by use of energy simply alters the foundation it sits on, until that foundation is taken away. Then the object is basically crushed back to the next foundation.

I did say start primitive and I also said you wouldn't want to bother.

Matter/molecules or whatever you want to mind visualise them as.

Wind is them being shaken up. It's expansion and contraction and a knock on effect. To us it's high and low pressure.

That depends on the energy applied.
The atmosphere never fully settles. It's always vibrating due to pressures of the stacking system.

Doubtful it would be anything like perfect. It would always be moving due to pressure changes as the central energy reflected sun moves around and over it.

No need.


It will displace it's own mass...not volume.

No such thing as weighing in that situation. It's a case of if it's mass displacement of atmosphere is greater than the water resisting it, it will sink. If not it will float or be crushed up.

Weight is a person made scale to measure mass.
This is done by using a foundation on a spring or moving foundation to gauge the displacement of that mass against atmosphere and using that moving foundation down against its resistance to gain a set out measurement for it.
No gravity required.

Yep. It's just a case of understanding the reality against the fictional gravity added in to it and a slight change of a few things to get that reality.

I do so because it's what counts.


Absolutely correct. It also makes perfect sense when the dense mass of any object is looked at when placed against atmospheric pressure.

There aren't any holes. It fits a reality. Something gravity does not.

Bloody hell you are thick, you can't have mass without gravity, mass is a function of gravity and doesn't exist without it. It will not displace it's mass you cretin it will displace it's volume. Get two identically sizes blocks of solid metal - one aluminium and one lead and drop both in identical completely full buckets of water - the spilled water will be identical for both items even though the lead is much heavier as YOU DISPLACE A VOLUME NOT A MASS YOU UTTER PLANK.

And then of course there is this nonsensical classic "Weight is a person made scale to measure mass.
This is done by using a foundation on a spring or moving foundation to gauge the displacement of that mass against atmosphere and using that moving foundation down against its resistance to gain a set out measurement for it.
No gravity required." - no it isn't in a constant gravitational field mass and weight are proportional, one is independent of gravity and the other is not. "MASS" is the measure of the amount of stuff in an object (very difficult to quantify) and "WEIGHT" is the force that the object offers in a gravitational field. Weight was not invented by anyone it is not "person made", the units of measurement are set by people so yet again you fail to understand even the simplest of concepts.

Mass versus weight - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheDataGuy]

No.
The crushing effect is always there.
The displacement of the objects mass of atmosphere causes the crush back against it.
Raising it by use of energy simply alters the foundation it sits on, until that foundation is taken away. Then the object is basically crushed back to the next foundation.

Let's go through this. If the crushing effect is the force that makes the object move and you have said that this crushing effect is from all sides why does the object not float? It should as the crushing force on the top of the object will equal the crushing force on the bottom. This has to be true true, it's the i-th law of dense mass.