Put a flat earthier into space

[What A Waster]

Do you understand the set up is small incline towards the centre and towards the outer or north and south as you would perceive it to be.

What do you mean south as I would perceive it to be? Are you saying south doesn't exist now?

 

[fyl2u]

There's plenty out there but I'm not standing in anyone's way if they want to think water can conform to a spinning ball and simply stay looking like we observe it.

It's like going into the kitchen and getting a bowl to fill with water and someone saying " what are you doing with that bowl" and I say " filling it with water" and they say, " here....here's a ball, pour it all over that, that'll hold it all."

Nuts....but there it is. That's what we're coaxed into believing.

No it really isn't, because in your kitchen the ball isn't the main source of gravitational pull, the ground is, because the earth is massive and the ball is incredibly light in comparison.

What it is like is going into the kitchen and getting a bowl to fill with water and someone saying " what are you doing with that bowl" and I say " filling it with water" and they say, " here....here's a ball with a black hole inside it with a mass that is billions of times the mass of the earth, pour it all over that, that'll hold it all."

THAT's what we're "coaxed" into believing, not your bonkers version.

Literally NOBODY is saying that water should conform to a ball in your kitchen. NOBODY. You're "proving" a point against literally NOBODY with the example you used.

Bing fixated with a bath and denying spirit levels work is your issue, not mine.

Nobody is denying spirit levels work WITHIN A RANGE OF ACCURACY.

What everyone on the thread is trying to explain to you is that THAT RANGE OF ACCURACY WILL NOT TELL YOU WHETHER THE EXPECTED CURVATURE OF THE EARTH IS PRESENT OR NOT.

To prove that the curvature of the earth doesn't exist by using a bathtub, you will need a MUCH MORE ACCURATE PIECE OF APPARATUS.

Seriously, it's not hard for a child to understand. What I'm really struggling to understand is how someone that can't even grasp this unbelievably simple point somehow has the mental capacity to even use a device to access an internet forum.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yet again - this is part of what I do for a living I size and design vacuum protection systems so please don't come at me with your utter crud.

Vacuum protection systems?
What are they?

That looks to me like a classic steam / vapour collapse case the vessel is sealed and full of vapour then the vessel cools and the vapour condenses this leaves a large volume of "empty" space (1 kmol (or 18kg) of water vapour occupies approx 22.4 Nm3 at NTP and 1 kmol of liquid water occupies 0.018m3) so the pressure in the vessel drops as you have less vapour present and this causes an external pressure from the atmosphere to collapse the vessel (you can do it yourself with an old tin oil can) you only need a small external pressure on most vessels to collapse them a typical atmospheric stock tank you can suck in with 6 mbar of vacuum and you can do this with a foot pump. Go and read API 2000 or API 521 about vacuum relief. You literally have no clue what you are talking about please stop this utter charade as you look like a clown.

So you accept that atmospheric pressure crushes the tank...right?

The ocean is WATER if the tank was full of water could the atmosphere crush it?

Yes it can and that's what I've been trying to tell you.
Atmosphere is always trying to crush whatever is around it or under it and it's only the resistance of the dense matter which stops it being crushed.
If resistance of dense matter has an outlet it will be crushed or compressed. This is a classic case of the train car and also a classic case of ocean being compressed. It has to go somewhere, which it does. It's compressive relief is at the shoreline. We see it as tides.

 

[taipeisafc]

Vacuum protection systems?
What are they?


So you accept that atmospheric pressure crushes the tank...right?


Yes it can and that's what I've been trying to tell you.
Atmosphere is always trying to crush whatever is around it or under it and it's only the resistance of the dense matter which stops it being crushed.
If resistance of dense matter has an outlet it will be crushed or compressed. This is a classic case of the train car and also a classic case of ocean being compressed. It has to go somewhere, which it does. It's compressive relief is at the shoreline. We see it as tides.

No i cant there is no way atmospheric pressure can get high enough to crush flat a tank of water you utter.clown. You know nothing yet think you know it all

A vacuum protection system is an auto matic system which opens to allow a suitable gas to flow into a vessel to break a vacccum, typically a regulator, pressure vac valve, vac breaker or rupture disk.

 

[payne]

No i cant there is no way atmospheric pressure can get high enough to crush flat a tank of water you utter.clown. You know nothing yet think you know it all

A vacuum protection system is an auto matic system which opens to allow a suitable gas to flow into a vessel to break a vacccum, typically a regulator, pressure vac valve, vac breaker or rupture disk.

It's mad how people work with these things day in day out for their job yet he refutes they know what they are doing.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What do you mean south as I would perceive it to be? Are you saying south doesn't exist now?

Theoretically speaking, no.
You see, if we want to go down the rabbit hole, so to speak then north is down into the centre and south is up in the sky opposite that.
However there's 3 ways of trying to argue it from my point of view.
There's your global set up of north at the top and south underneath with east and west being the equator from each north or south position.
But then if we argue a circle or sort of circle we can view north as being towards the centre at any point around the circle or south being the outer circle at any point around that circle.

Then we have the the lemon squeezer as you like to use.
This has the gradual gradient towards the centre and the gradual gradient towards the outer well before it starts to go into a dome.
However, north and south differ on this set up with north and south being opposite to what people would thing, as I explained at the start of this post.

 

[What A Waster]

Theoretically speaking, no.
You see, if we want to go down the rabbit hole, so to speak then north is down into the centre and south is up in the sky opposite that.
However there's 3 ways of trying to argue it from my point of view.
There's your global set up of north at the top and south underneath with east and west being the equator from each north or south position.
But then if we argue a circle or sort of circle we can view north as being towards the centre at any point around the circle or south being the outer circle at any point around that circle.

Then we have the the lemon squeezer as you like to use.
This has the gradual gradient towards the centre and the gradual gradient towards the outer well before it starts to go into a dome.
However, north and south differ on this set up with north and south being opposite to what people would thing, as I explained at the start of this post.

So Scotland is south of Newcastle?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No it really isn't, because in your kitchen the ball isn't the main source of gravitational pull, the ground is, because the earth is massive and the ball is incredibly light in comparison.

How does the ground pull?
How does the ground pull on water to pull down a ships hull into the water enough for stable buoyancy or a piece of lead?
Let me ask you this.

If I were to jump into a hole from your north pole to your south pole, where do I stop or do I just fall right through the other side?
It doesn't matter whether it's impossible. Just picture a hole right through. What do you think should happen or what is said to happen if it was feasible?

What it is like is going into the kitchen and getting a bowl to fill with water and someone saying " what are you doing with that bowl" and I say " filling it with water" and they say, " here....here's a ball with a black hole inside it with a mass that is billions of times the mass of the earth, pour it all over that, that'll hold it all."

That makes absolutely no sense.

THAT's what we're "coaxed" into believing, not your bonkers version.

But that it an utter bonkers version. It's meaningless.

Literally NOBODY is saying that water should conform to a ball in your kitchen. NOBODY. You're "proving" a point against literally NOBODY with the example you used.

I think I'm proving a point to those that can see the utter silliness of water sticking to a globe but I understand I'm proving nothing to people who see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Nobody is denying spirit levels work WITHIN A RANGE OF ACCURACY.

And that accuracy is good enough to build skyscrapers. It's good enough to level ground.
It's good enough because it works on an Earth that absolutely is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.

What everyone on the thread is trying to explain to you is that THAT RANGE OF ACCURACY WILL NOT TELL YOU WHETHER THE EXPECTED CURVATURE OF THE EARTH IS PRESENT OR NOT.

Of course it won't, to those who believe a global curve, even though they will argue black and blue about a curve over a few miles that absolutely is not there.

To prove that the curvature of the earth doesn't exist by using a bathtub, you will need a MUCH MORE ACCURATE PIECE OF APPARATUS.

I don't need to prove it with a bathtub. That's just a basic observation and a simple experiment to start off water levelling off inside a container.
A bucket would suffice but any size container would show the same thing. A levelness and not a concave curve. Ponds or lakes or any water that is calm will show more than enough to prove there's no curvature.

Seriously, it's not hard for a child to understand.

Of course it isn't. Any child given the chance to argue for flat or curvature would opt for flat where water is concerned, as long as they were not under any peer pressure to do the opposite.
Why?
Because even a child know what their senses tell them just as adults do. Unfortunately when people are schooled, it's so easy to go with the flow, even if a square is said to be a circle.

What I'm really struggling to understand is how someone that can't even grasp this unbelievably simple point somehow has the mental capacity to even use a device to access an internet forum.

I don't struggle with that. I actually understand why people struggle with a simple point of water being flat and level when they're told it's curved around a ball.
It's massive peer pressure due to mass indoctrination.

No i cant there is no way atmospheric pressure can get high enough to crush flat a tank of water you utter.clown. You know nothing yet think you know it all

Who's talking about a tank of water?
I'm talking about the tank in the video.

A vacuum protection system is an auto matic system which opens to allow a suitable gas to flow into a vessel to break a vacccum, typically a regulator, pressure vac valve, vac breaker or rupture disk.

You mean like a HGV carrying chemicals and such. You mean vents that allow gases or liquids to move through the system.

Gases have to use atmospheric pressure in order to be what they are.
If you contain gases and your container is strong enough it will hold gases or liquids but to release those gases or liquids requires an external atmosphere to be released into.

If the container is feeble. Like this train car and gases are allowed to be evacuated via a pump, then the atmosphere will crush it, as we see.

The same would happen if you emptied water out of it without venting, via a pump.

Also heat can expand the gases inside and explode a container.
Or com pressing gases inside a sealed container can implode it b y atmospheric external crushing.

Change pressure and you create a change against any mass you alter pressure into.

So Scotland is south of Newcastle?

What are you looking at to come to this?

 

[What A Waster]

What are you looking at to come to this?

The bit in your quote i highlighted in bold.

 

[zwartekat]

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[What A Waster]

So today we've now learned ocean topography is wrong and compass points are wrong

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The bit in your quote i highlighted in bold.

If you look at it and understand what I said you'd see that I'm talking vertically, not up or down the coast.

 

[Nobby]

So today we've now learned ocean topography is wrong and compass points are wrong

And that fluids can be compressed (suddenly feeling a bit less confident about the brakes on my car)

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So today we've now learned ocean topography is wrong and compass points are wrong

The globe's certainly wrong so nothing would surprise me.

And that fluids can be compressed

They can.

 

[taipeisafc]

How does the ground pull?
How does the ground pull on water to pull down a ships hull into the water enough for stable buoyancy or a piece of lead?
Let me ask you this.

If I were to jump into a hole from your north pole to your south pole, where do I stop or do I just fall right through the other side?
It doesn't matter whether it's impossible. Just picture a hole right through. What do you think should happen or what is said to happen if it was feasible?




That makes absolutely no sense.

But that it an utter bonkers version. It's meaningless.

I think I'm proving a point to those that can see the utter silliness of water sticking to a globe but I understand I'm proving nothing to people who see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And that accuracy is good enough to build skyscrapers. It's good enough to level ground.
It's good enough because it works on an Earth that absolutely is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.


Of course it won't, to those who believe a global curve, even though they will argue black and blue about a curve over a few miles that absolutely is not there.

I don't need to prove it with a bathtub. That's just a basic observation and a simple experiment to start off water levelling off inside a container.
A bucket would suffice but any size container would show the same thing. A levelness and not a concave curve. Ponds or lakes or any water that is calm will show more than enough to prove there's no curvature.

Of course it isn't. Any child given the chance to argue for flat or curvature would opt for flat where water is concerned, as long as they were not under any peer pressure to do the opposite.
Why?
Because even a child know what their senses tell them just as adults do. Unfortunately when people are schooled, it's so easy to go with the flow, even if a square is said to be a circle.

I don't struggle with that. I actually understand why people struggle with a simple point of water being flat and level when they're told it's curved around a ball.
It's massive peer pressure due to mass indoctrination.


Who's talking about a tank of water?
I'm talking about the tank in the video.

You mean like a HGV carrying chemicals and such. You mean vents that allow gases or liquids to move through the system.

Gases have to use atmospheric pressure in order to be what they are.
If you contain gases and your container is strong enough it will hold gases or liquids but to release those gases or liquids requires an external atmosphere to be released into.

If the container is feeble. Like this train car and gases are allowed to be evacuated via a pump, then the atmosphere will crush it, as we see.

The same would happen if you emptied water out of it without venting, via a pump.

Also heat can expand the gases inside and explode a container.
Or com pressing gases inside a sealed container can implode it b y atmospheric external crushing.

Change pressure and you create a change against any mass you alter pressure into.

What are you looking at to come to this?

You don't half talk some crap

"Gases have to use atmospheric pressure in order to be what they are." - no they don't this is utter drivel

"If you contain gases and your container is strong enough it will hold gases or liquids but to release those gases or liquids requires an external atmosphere to be released into." no it doesn't it requires something at a lower pressure then the vessel connected to it

"If the container is feeble. Like this train car and gases are allowed to be evacuated via a pump, then the atmosphere will crush it, as we see" - containers are not feeble they are designed to withstand INTERNAL pressure as this can be hundreds of bar (tanks will typically be 3 to 5 barg) whereas vacuum is a maximum (read that twice) of 1 bar differential pressure - it can be quite expensive to design a vessel for vaccum so they put a vac breaker on

"The same would happen if you emptied water out of it without venting, via a pump" - depends on the temperature the water will boil as the pressure drops and potentially cavitate the pump

"Or com pressing gases inside a sealed container can implode it b y atmospheric external crushing." - NO IT CANNOT, compressing gases can only be accomplished by either crushing the vessel or putting more gas in in which the vessel will collapse. There is no possible way to collapse a vessel containing fixed volume of gas by simply compressing what is there you can pull vacuum by removing the gas from it hence dropping the pressure

"Change pressure and you create a change against any mass you alter pressure into" - this isn't even a sentence but pressure does NOT change mass you can only change mass by putting more mass into a vessel (Pressure x Volume = Number of moles (mass) of gas x Gas Constant x Temperature - you can increase pressure by adding more gas, increasing temperature or reducing volume whilst keeping the other constant).

So you got one thing sort of right and the rest completely wrong - there is a surprise. You keep digging yourself deeper into holes by spouting stuff you have no clue about

And as regards a tank car full of water :=

taipeisafc said:
The ocean is WATER if the tank was full of water could the atmosphere crush it?

And you answered - "Yes it can and that's what I've been trying to tell you.
Atmosphere is always trying to crush whatever is around it or under it and it's only the resistance of the dense matter which stops it being crushed.
If resistance of dense matter has an outlet it will be crushed or compressed. This is a classic case of the train car and also a classic case of ocean being compressed. It has to go somewhere, which it does. It's compressive relief is at the shoreline. We see it as tides."

You said a tank full of water can be crushed by atmospheric pressure - or have you changed your mind now? Or are you going to admit you know nothing about compression, pressure, gas behaviour, vacuum? Or you can keep spouting rubbish and I can keep pointing out your drivel

The globe's certainly wrong so nothing would surprise me.

They can.

So come on what is the compressiblity factor for water? How does the density change with pressure? And how does that compare to steam? - bear in mind I know all this so don't try and fob me off with your usual crap or deflection

 

[DaveH]

I said yep.
It doesn't mean I've went into any detail on it.

Bing fixated with a bath and denying spirit levels work is your issue, not mine.

Ok, forgot the bath. I wake up one morning on earth and think "hey, what shape is this planet". I nip up the shed and get a spirit level, what next?

I said yep.
It doesn't mean I've went into any detail on it.

Bing fixated with a bath and denying spirit levels work is your issue, not mine.

Ok, forgot the bath. I wake up one morning on earth and think "hey, what shape is this planet". I nip up the shed and get a spirit level, what next?

"They" are now lying about ocean depths.

That is one of the things I find about this conspiracy. The further you dig into it and how a fantasy shaped world will work, the more people who have to be in on it grows massively. This whole conspiracy is incredibly complicated and include many millions who know the truth.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You don't half talk some crap

"Gases have to use atmospheric pressure in order to be what they are." - no they don't this is utter drivel

No it's not utter drivel.

"If you contain gases and your container is strong enough it will hold gases or liquids but to release those gases or liquids requires an external atmosphere to be released into." no it doesn't it requires something at a lower pressure then the vessel connected to it

And that is atmosphere.

"If the container is feeble. Like this train car and gases are allowed to be evacuated via a pump, then the atmosphere will crush it, as we see" - containers are not feeble they are designed to withstand INTERNAL pressure as this can be hundreds of bar (tanks will typically be 3 to 5 barg) whereas vacuum is a maximum (read that twice) of 1 bar differential pressure - it can be quite expensive to design a vessel for vaccum so they put a vac breaker on

You missed the word "if"...

"The same would happen if you emptied water out of it without venting, via a pump" - depends on the temperature the water will boil as the pressure drops and potentially cavitate the pump

It doesn't matter if there's no vent.

"Or com pressing gases inside a sealed container can implode it b y atmospheric external crushing." - NO IT CANNOT, compressing gases can only be accomplished by either crushing the vessel or putting more gas in in which the vessel will collapse.

You're talking about externally compressing more gas into a container.
I'm talking about the gases already sealed into it and then cooled to such a degree where those gases inside compress by molecular density allowing the container to lack the resistive internal force against external crushing, hence the implosion.

There is no possible way to collapse a vessel containing fixed volume of gas by simply compressing what is there you can pull vacuum by removing the gas from it hence dropping the pressure

There is no removing it in this instance.

"Change pressure and you create a change against any mass you alter pressure into" - this isn't even a sentence but pressure does NOT change mass you can only change mass by putting more mass into a vessel (Pressure x Volume = Number of moles (mass) of gas x Gas Constant x Temperature - you can increase pressure by adding more gas, increasing temperature or reducing volume whilst keeping the other constant).

Molecular mass.

So you got one thing sort of right and the rest completely wrong - there is a surprise. You keep digging yourself deeper into holes by spouting stuff you have no clue about

I'm far from digging myself deeper into anything other than deeper into this topic.

And as regards a tank car full of water :=

You brought up the water but it still applies if you pump it out without venting.

And you answered - "Yes it can and that's what I've been trying to tell you.
Atmosphere is always trying to crush whatever is around it or under it and it's only the resistance of the dense matter which stops it being crushed.
If resistance of dense matter has an outlet it will be crushed or compressed. This is a classic case of the train car and also a classic case of ocean being compressed. It has to go somewhere, which it does. It's compressive relief is at the shoreline. We see it as tides."

You said a tank full of water can be crushed by atmospheric pressure - or have you changed your mind now?

I don't have to change my mind. I never said a tank full of water would be crushed. Go and get the quote if you think I did.

Or are you going to admit you know nothing about compression, pressure, gas behaviour, vacuum?

I'll admit you're struggling.

Or you can keep spouting rubbish and I can keep pointing out your drivel

You can spend as much time as you want trying to point out anything you wish to.

 

[ned_werby]

Theoretically speaking, no.
You see, if we want to go down the rabbit hole, so to speak then north is down into the centre and south is up in the sky opposite that.
However there's 3 ways of trying to argue it from my point of view.
There's your global set up of north at the top and south underneath with east and west being the equator from each north or south position.
But then if we argue a circle or sort of circle we can view north as being towards the centre at any point around the circle or south being the outer circle at any point around that circle.

Then we have the the lemon squeezer as you like to use.
This has the gradual gradient towards the centre and the gradual gradient towards the outer well before it starts to go into a dome.
However, north and south differ on this set up with north and south being opposite to what people would thing, as I explained at the start of this post.

What shape is your 'Sun'?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What shape is your 'Sun'?

What shape is a carbon arc?

 

[ned_werby]

What shape is a carbon arc?

So where are the two 'electrodes' in your 'Sun'?