Put a flat earthier into space

[Kevj]

Going by mainstream it's apparently a unit of mass equal to 1000 kilograms.
Or do you want something else?

Correct. What is the basis of this?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No it isn't, it's like looking at the water and realising that although it may look flat to you, you are in fact very, very small beside a very gradual curve over a very, very large planet. Scale is key.

No. It's looking at water and knowing it finds its own level. It does not find any level on a curve unless there is a curve on the floor of a container the water sits atop of.

Correct. What is the basis of this?

Tell me.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

No. It's looking at water and knowing it finds its own level. It does not find any level on a curve unless there is a curve on the floor of a container the water sits atop of.

Except that it does. Visible, provable and if you don't dismiss gravity for your own reasons, it makes perfect sense that it should.

 

[Kevj]

No. It's looking at water and knowing it finds its own level. It does not find any level on a curve unless there is a curve on the floor of a container the water sits atop of.


Tell me.

No. I want you to think for yourself.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Except that it does. Visible, provable and if you don't dismiss gravity for your own reasons, it makes perfect sense that it should.

It makes no sense at all. Absolutely none.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It makes no sense at all. Absolutely none.

Again, it makes perfect sense unless you reject gravity.
You can see water curve around a surface but then you'd have to accept gravity, space, films taken in space, space stations and probably more things you refuse to accept in favour of a made up cell idea with no proof whatsoever.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No. I want you to think for yourself.

Not sure what you want to be fair.

Again, it makes perfect sense unless you reject gravity.

gravity is a fiction.

You can see water curve around a surface but then you'd have to accept gravity, space, films taken in space, space stations

Which I clearly do not.

 

[Nobby]

Tell me what it is or what you think it is.

It's pushing back against the burning thrust.
It cannot overtake something that it's pushing against, only push against what is expanded against it.

That makes no sense, the plume of gases expand so the so called pushing back would be a wider area than the area covered by the exhausts, so it would have to flow back over the airframe.

I think you are demonstrating quite well your grasp of how thrust works is flawed, it simply doesn't work in the real world

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

gravity is a fiction.

It clearly isn't, it's just the explanation for it that you question and the understanding of it that you lack.
It doesn't really matter if you appeal to the authority of Newton or Einstein to explain it, it exists.

Which I clearly do not.

Obviously, why would you when each of them proves the nonsense of your invented belief?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That makes no sense, the plume of gases expand so the so called pushing back would be a wider area than the area covered by the exhausts, so it would have to flow back over the airframe.

I think you are demonstrating quite well your grasp of how thrust works is flawed, it simply doesn't work in the real world

I think I demonstrate what really happens.

It clearly isn't, it's just the explanation for it that you question and the understanding of it that you lack.

Gravity is 100% fiction.
Atmospheric pressure is all that's required.
The problem with using atmospheric pressure upon dense mass is, it doesn't cater for fictional space and a spinning globe supposedly within it, so what to do? Think up a nonsense and pass it off as factual and offer anything that looks to fit a fictional story and an observation.

It doesn't really matter if you appeal to the authority of Newton or Einstein to explain it, it exists.

In your mind it will exist and the minds of many. I have no issue with that, I just don't believe in it.

 

[legend7]

No it isn't, it's like looking at the water and realising that although it may look flat to you, you are in fact very, very small beside a very gradual curve over a very, very large planet. Scale is key.

No, it appears as nonsense when you look at it without understanding

Bullshit! If that were the case this discussion would have ended months ago.


I wasn't asking you how progress is made and I have no need for your word salad, I was telling you that if we all refused to accept anything not discovered for ourselves we would not progress.
"Want to know how I made my mud hut so you can put a roof over your head?"
"Fuck that for an appeal to authority, I'll sleep out in the forest if you don't mind"

Like you believe in the non-globe Earth story without proof? Yeah I know, water level blah blah, like I said many pages ago, if you had one single scrap of faith in your 'theory' you'd have taken up the challenge to accurately measure some 'level water' or to learn about star maps, but you don't because they'd both wreck your cell world musings outright. No the biggest problem is not in believing without proof, it is in refusing to consider or accept proof when offered, when understanding that proof might mean you having to learn something first and re-evaluating your belief system afterwards.

Exactly, he could go to kielder and do a laser experiment.
Or he could actually go to the North Pole if he really wanted to check out how true his crystal source theory is.

 

[Nobby]

I think I demonstrate what really happens.

Except you don't, jet blast goes back behind the aircraft, there is no air movement heading toward the front of the airframe

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Except you don't, jet blast goes back behind the aircraft, there is no air movement heading toward the front of the airframe

So there's no intake of air then at the front? Is this what you think?

 

[Nobby]

So there's no intake of air then at the front? Is this what you think?

No, air is sucked into the jet engine from Infront and the jet blast goes out the back there is no airflow from behind the airframe to the front pushing anything

 

[Kevj]

Not sure what you want to be fair.

I want you to recognise science fact. But that’s not going to happen in a few posts.
On this basis, I ask how is a metric ton calculated. With repeatable results and what is the basis for the origin of this.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Gravity is 100% fiction.
Atmospheric pressure is all that's required.
The problem with using atmospheric pressure upon dense mass is, it doesn't cater for fictional space and a spinning globe supposedly within it, so what to do? Think up a nonsense and pass it off as factual and offer anything that looks to fit a fictional story and an observation.

In your mind it will exist and the minds of many. I have no issue with that, I just don't believe in it.

Utter nonsense. Gravity exists whether you think it's caused by atmospheric pressure or magic beans.
The problem with using atmospheric pressure on dense mass is that it doesn't work like that. Atmospheric pressure works in all directions, it does not define up or down no matter how many times you try to scamper down that little rabbit hole.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No, air is sucked into the jet engine from and the jet blast goes out the back there is no airflow from behind the airframe to the front pushing anything

I know air ins't sucked into the jet engine. It's pushed into it due to the extreme low pressure created within it and exterior to the engines. which causes the air it expands into to compress and react back onto the engine thrust as a compression barrier.

I want you to recognise science fact. But that’s not going to happen in a few posts.

Then take your time and offer me the facts or offer me what you believe are your facts and I'll debate it accordingly.

On this basis, I ask how is a metric ton calculated. With repeatable results and what is the basis for the origin of this.

I gave you mine so give me yours.

Utter nonsense. Gravity exists whether you think it's caused by atmospheric pressure or magic beans.

It simply does not exist. It's made up nonsense.

The problem with using atmospheric pressure on dense mass is that it doesn't work like that.

I believe it does,.

Atmospheric pressure works in all directions, it does not define up or down no matter how many times you try to scamper down that little rabbit hole.

I know it works in all directions.

 

[fyl2u]

I believe it's a distinct possibility based on experiments and what we actually see happening right here on the ground with how we go about using materials in life.

What experiments have you done that point you towards thinking it's a carbon arc lamp, not say, an electric light or a halogen lamp?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What experiments have you done that point you towards thinking it's a carbon arc lamp, not say, an electric light or a halogen lamp?

None that would interest you.

 

[Nobby]

I know air ins't sucked into the jet engine. It's pushed into it due to the extreme low pressure created within it and exterior to the engines. which causes the air it expands into to compress and react back onto the engine thrust as a compression barrier.

Then take your time and offer me the facts or offer me what you believe are your facts and I'll debate it accordingly.

I gave you mine so give me yours.

Air is sucked into jet engines by the fans. There is no so called atmospheric barrier behind the engines and there is nothing pushing the aircraft from behind. Watch the operations on an aircraft carrier deck to see the extreme precautions they take to avoid jest blast damage. They wouldn't need to do that if there was an atmospheric barrier.