Put a flat earthier into space

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You already know the answer and so do I and it has no point.

It shows your pouring water on a ball experiment is nonsensical. Other than demonstrating the very gravity you hoped it would disprove. That's a point.

I won't waste any more time on this. I'll leave that with you and I won't argue it any further.

Because that also demonstrates how wrong you are. So we'll take that no further?

 

[safcforever]

How would you easily explain a lunar eclipse then with that horse shit?


That also means the sun would have increase and decrease its speed depending on the time of year and where you were in the world.

Correct, the speed alternates depending on where it’s at on the spiral.

The lunar eclipse would be explained by visibility of the moon to the sun. Like I said they aren’t on the same spiral. The moon would be slightly closer to the ground than the sun. So every now and then, they line up opposite ends and the visible line of light towards to moon from the sun isn’t enough to reflect the light as normal. So it’s a very shaded/blood moon/lunar eclipse. This theory is the sun isn’t an unlimited ray of light covering the earth. It has a limit

 

[payne]

Correct, the speed alternates depending on where it’s at on the spiral.

The lunar eclipse would be explained by visibility of the moon to the sun. Like I said they aren’t on the same spiral. The moon would be slightly closer to the ground than the sun. So every now and then, they line up opposite ends and the visible line of light towards to moon from the sun isn’t enough to reflect the light as normal. So it’s a very shaded/blood moon/lunar eclipse. This theory is the sun isn’t an unlimited ray of light covering the earth. It has a limit

hypothesis

 

[What A Waster]

Correct, the speed alternates depending on where it’s at on the spiral.

The lunar eclipse would be explained by visibility of the moon to the sun. Like I said they aren’t on the same spiral. The moon would be slightly closer to the ground than the sun. So every now and then, they line up opposite ends and the visible line of light towards to moon from the sun isn’t enough to reflect the light as normal. So it’s a very shaded/blood moon/lunar eclipse. This theory is the sun isn’t an unlimited ray of light covering the earth. It has a limit

 

[DPTT]

So you admit you can't make known distances make on your flat world.
Good lad

There’s nothing on you tube or his flat earth forums about this so he cannot copy and paste anything. He knows his completely stumped so will just choose to ignore

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What a load of drivel. And this vortex added to try and explain it. A completely undetectable vortex.

It's not undetectable.

None of this explains the example I give of a ball bearing in a gas cylinder with a pressure gauge, where you can prove the pressure is equal no matter what direction you hold the cylinder, but the ball still falls to the lowest point. If the cylinder was not sealed it would depressurise.

If the ball bearing is lead in a container and falls to the bottom then how do you have gravity account for that?
Does this magical gravity supposedly pull the ball bearing down or something through the thick metal skin?

It is pure fantasy with no evidence and not a single experiment to demonstrate any of it, yet it is so easy to disprove.

It's certainly not easy to disprove.

But the crushing molecules bit. Pressure at sea level is not sufficient to crush and compress at the molecular level.

It's already been done which is why they sit in a stacked layering system.
It's under regular change due to energy equalling vibration and frequency of it.

We would not exist if it were. Even at higher pressures under water, molecules are not crushed to be super dense.

They are crushed and so are we, even now.
We are simply acclimatised to the pressures. Our bodies are denser than the atmosphere they displace.

The difference in pressure between the surface and the 35m floor for recreational diving is far greater than say the difference between sea level and 500m in the air. The human body or any other object is not massively compacted.

Below the sea, the body is under more compression. Above sea the body is still under compression but less. At this point, you can argue it expands after compression.
At sea and then elevated from that point, you can then say the body decompresses more. And so on and so on.

It's all about what the body displaces of whatever it is in and what dense mass of that displaced matter reacts back against the body.

There is no vortex

I disagree.

and atmospheric stacks do not force objects from low pressure to high pressure.

Atmospheric stacks don't force anything. A stack is exactly what it says.
It's what dense mass is pushed into those stacked layers that determine where they end up, whether thats' compressed back to the deck or squeezed up into a higher stacking system based on the density of the molecular makeup.

There is zero evidence to suggest this.

In your mind, maybe and that's fine by me.

 

[DaveH]

Take 3 mins to use strips of paper like I described.
Can prove your world could work.
It doesn't work though

Strips of paper is a much better idea. I was suggesting using small balls, sticks and blutac. Quick and easy to prove that when you try to apply distances between cities to something physical it get pulled into a 3d object, not a 2d object.

 

[What A Waster]

Imagine completely making something up then believing it so strongly.
Then thinking everything else is a lie.

Absolutely bizarre

 

[nahwee]

Nukey, you mention molecules a lot, what’s your definition of a molecule, and how did you arrive at this definition?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It shows your pouring water on a ball experiment is nonsensical.

It actually shows reality. Far from nonsensical.
It actually shows the spinning globe to be utterly nonsensical.

Other than demonstrating the very gravity you hoped it would disprove. That's a point.

It's demonstrated what happens when you offer dense mass into a reactionary pressure. As in offering water into the atmosphere. The water displaces the atmosphere by its own dense mass and that displacement is pushed right back onto the water which allows it to overcome the resistance of the atmosphere below it.

Because that also demonstrates how wrong you are. So we'll take that no further?

We'll agree to disagree and I agree we'll take it no further.

 

[payne]

Imagine completely making something up then believing it so strongly.
Then thinking everything else is a lie.

Absolutely bizarre

He's put a spirit level in a bath which proves it all correct

 

[DaveH]

It's not undetectable.

How do you detect the presence of this magic vortex then?

If the ball bearing is lead in a container and falls to the bottom then how do you have gravity account for that?
Does this magical gravity supposedly pull the ball bearing down or something through the thick metal skin?

Yes, it is called gravity, that is exactly how gravity works. It doesn't matter what substance the ball bearing is made from.

How does it work in your fantasy land?

 

[safcforever]

hypothesis

Same as all theories at the start

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nukey, you mention molecules a lot, what’s your definition of a molecule, and how did you arrive at this definition?

I explained it with simple analogies earlier in the thread. The gobstopper is a great analogy of super dense molecules and stripped layers that offer changes in dense makeup of materials we see and use everywhere.

 

[What A Waster]

We'll agree to disagree and I agree we'll take it no further.

"I can't obfuscate and lie my way out of this one so i won't discuss it".

What's your bombastic statement gonna be to distract attention somewhere else today?

Remember when you said not all right angles are 90°, or the denial of a field of vision. Must have something up your sleeve

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How do you detect the presence of this magic vortex then?

Like you would a magnet. Pressurised movement.

Yes, it is called gravity, that is exactly how gravity works. It doesn't matter what substance the ball bearing is made from.

It's called magic. Gravity is utter nonsense to cater to a spinning ball, suns and space, and all the rest of the gunk.

How does it work in your fantasy land?

Stacked layering.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

"I can't obfuscate and lie my way out of this one so i won't discuss it".

What's your bombastic statement gonna be to distract attention somewhere else today?

Remember when you said not all right angles are 90°, or the denial of a field of vision. Must have something up your sleeve

No such thing as pulling...check
No such thing as a horizon...check
No such thing as South....check
No such thing as gravity...check
No such thing as conservation of momentum...check

At this rate it's going to be no such thing as Tuesdays

 

[payne]

Same as all theories at the start

nope

 

[DaveH]

Imagine completely making something up then believing it so strongly.
Then thinking everything else is a lie.

Absolutely bizarre

It is what fascinates me about conspiracy theorists. They go so far down the rabbit hole and you see the fantasy land emerge slowly to explain gaps pointed out by people.

It starts with "I don't understand this, and someone has said it is a lie. Well if I don't understand it, it must be a lie and that is why I can't possibly understand it. CONSPIRACY! Millions are telling me lies and trying to control my life. Right now I'll replace it with this. Phew, I feel safe with this and now other people ask me question about it. I'm smart. I'm a hero now, a bastion of the knowledge THEY want to keep from the masses following the narrative. Oh hang on, that is a valid question someone asked, that doesn't work in the fantasy I invented to keep this going. Better invent a bit more."

Take this atmospheric stacking bollocks. It has rumbled through the thread for over a year, but it has only been recently where me and a few others have really started digging into how it just would not work. In the past the retort has been to explain how you can demonstrate gravity. You have things in low pressure being squeezed into high pressure, massive forces crushing molecules to be densely packed together (but gas remains gas only with smaller molecules, go figure that one) and initially the reason for the stacks was they essentially create themselves. But when pushed on the absurdity of this, it was pointed out that you need an external force to make the stacks and guess what that force is. After being pressed on this one for a while, the concept of a vortex has just appeared. And there is this vortex sitting sucking everything off a high atmospheric stack. A central vortex has been brought up before, but that would pull everything to the north pole, not down. Do a quick search in this thread only. All of a sudden everything is vortex.

Like you would a magnet. Pressurised movement.

It's called magic. Gravity is utter nonsense to cater to a spinning ball, suns and space, and all the rest of the gunk.

Stacked layering.

What would you use to detect the vortex, and rule out that it is not something else? Describe and experiment. Have you done an experiment or have you just made this up?

 

[nahwee]

I explained it with simple analogies earlier in the thread. The gobstopper is a great analogy of super dense molecules and stripped layers that offer changes in dense makeup of materials we see and use everywhere.

But what is your definition of a molecule?
Sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread.