Jump to content

The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, amy G said:

 Okay, here there are too many assumptions that have never been proven to logically discuss that statement.

 

 

Rubbish. There are meteorites recorded every single day. You have a problem with a big bang and a fluke planet with life, but not with some magic cosmic Sky Wizard conjuring up all sorts of crapola and building a magic dome. GTFO!!

 

5 hours ago, amy G said:

Not near, but next to without some barrier to separate the two environments, not allowing for them to reach equilibrium.

 

In that sense, it can't. Physics does not allow for it.

 

The audacity of this bloke quoting physics. Physics exactly allows for it and explains it with perfection.

 

5 hours ago, amy G said:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics alone falsifies the idea that space exists in the way that freemasons have been pretending since they first began publishing sci-fi fantasies.

 

LMAO, he quoted fizzix again. What the hell is "enclosed" about the entire universe? It is sweet FA to do with "freebloodymasons". It is absurd for anyone to pigeon hole the entire community of cosmology and other sciences into the nod and wink "one trouser leg hoisted" society. 

 

5 hours ago, amy G said:

This thread has numerous posts on why a highly pressurized system like where we live cannot exist next to what amounts to a nearly empty space. Equilibrium must occur as it does everywhere in nature.

 

And it does. The atmosphere gets thinner and thinner as it reaches vacuum....all a product of gravity. Sea level is pressurised from the weight of air above, the higher you go the less pressure, until there is no weight above and no pressure. Progressive and simple.

 

You seem to be under some crazy impression that a vacuum sucks air in?! It doesn't. It is a matter of pressure. If you puncture a hole in a vacuum container, air pressure and air pressure alone will send molecules into the container. If the outside pressure is 5psi it will suck it in slower.The lower the pressure, the lower the flow rate. The higher the altitude the lower the pressure gets until the equilibrium of low pressure/ gravitational attraction and vacuum are as one.

 

Physics and you are not good friends. You know less than nothing about any of this. Your knowledge base relies on uninformed flat earth gossip.

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, amy G said:

  

Thank-you, I haven't... apology accepted.

 

I agree. And I know this is true of our Earth.

 

I don't know that, but I have never seen it and I have been spending many nights with my Nikon looking at the sky.

 

Okay, for that matter, who or what does the maintenance for any of our natural world? I now have an enormous problem with an explosion from several billion years ago creating such perfect balance between us and the heavenly bodies.

 

Okay, here there are too many assumptions that have never been proven to logically discuss that statement.

 

 

 

 

Not near, but next to without some barrier to separate the two environments, not allowing for them to reach equilibrium.

 

In that sense, it can't. Physics does not allow for it. As I wrote for your first point, I have become convinced that the big bang heliocentric model is impossible based on physical laws. The 2nd law of thermodynamics alone falsifies the idea that space exists in the way that freemasons have been pretending since they first began publishing sci-fi fantasies.

 

This thread has numerous posts on why a highly pressurized system like where we live cannot exist next to what amounts to a nearly empty space. Equilibrium must occur as it does everywhere in nature.

 

"Horror vacui," "nature abhors a vacuum"

--attributed to Aristotle

Contrary to popular belief a vacuum or pressure differential for that matter work in the same way just to different extents eg two containers side by side connected by a valve (this was used in the beginning as evidence for FE)  one with high pressure and the other with a near vacuum ,the assumption was that when the tap was open the vacuum would suck the high pressure gas into its container till the pressure equalized,and therefore the vacuum of space would suck the atmosphere from the earth. This is fundamentally a wrong assumption a vacuum doesn't suck , what is actually going on  is the hi pressure gas is applying more force, so the high pressure gas actually pushes it's way into the vacuum until the forces are equalized.

Now with regards to the atmosphere, at sea level the pressure is equal to 14lbs per square inch or 1 bar as you go higher the atmosphere  becomes thinner and thinner and we know this because above a certain height ,around 20,000ft the average person will start to require oxygen ,a few relevant  things are happening here   because the atmosphere is becoming thinner the force it can exert is becoming less and less also the relevant temperatures are dropping  and because of this the molecules of the respective gasses are slowing down.

Therefore when we get to the extreme outer edge of our atmosphere it is so thin it really can't exert any force on the vacuum of space so for all intents and purposes the pressure is equalized and the atmosphere stays exactly where it is due to gravity , I will grant you though that there is always gas molecules escaping into space at the boarder so to speak but this would be reduced due to the cold temperatures and therefore the reduced activity of the said molecules

Edited by peter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, peter said:

Contrary to popular belief a vacuum or pressure differential for that matter work in the same way just to different extents eg two containers side by side connected by a valve (this was used in the beginning as evidence for FE)  one with high pressure and the other with a near vacuum ,the assumption was that when the tap was open the vacuum would suck the high pressure gas into its container till the pressure equalized,and therefore the vacuum of space would suck the atmosphere from the earth. This is fundamentally a wrong assumption a vacuum doesn't suck , what is actually going on  is the hi pressure gas is applying more force, so the high pressure gas actually pushes it's way into the vacuum until the forces are equalized.

Now with regards to the atmosphere, at sea level the pressure is equal to 14lbs per square inch or 1 bar as you go higher the atmosphere  becomes thinner and thinner and we know this because above a certain height ,around 20,000ft the average person will start to require oxygen ,a few relevant  things are happening here   because the atmosphere is becoming thinner the force it can exert is becoming less and less also the relevant temperatures are dropping  and because of this the molecules of the respective gasses are slowing down.

Therefore when we get to the extreme outer edge of our atmosphere it is so thin it really can't exert any force on the vacuum of space so for all intents and purposes the pressure is equalized and the atmosphere stays exactly where it is due to gravity , I will grant you though that there is always gas molecules escaping into space at the boarder so to speak but this would be reduced due to the cold temperatures and therefore the reduced activity of the said molecules

Peter, this 22 second video does not do your post the complete justice it deserves, but check it out until I have time to get back to you and am able to clarify further.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, amy G said:

Peter, this 22 second video does not do your post the complete justice it deserves, but check it out until I have time to get back to you and am able to clarify further.

 

 

 

CAN YOU READ!!?

 

The pressure gets lower and lower and lower, like  a vanishing point until it is barely nothing next to a vacuum. The final parts of the almost zero pressure atoms are held gently in place by gravity. Learn something instead of this continued display of ignorance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, alexa said:

Astrolabe - Magnificent Computer used by the Ancients 2,000 years ago when they knew for a fact that the earth was flat.

 

 

Face palming stuff. The astrolabe was designed for a spherical Earth. Similar to a sextant.

 

An astrolabe consists of a disk, called the mater (mother), which is deep enough to hold one or more flat plates called tympans, or climates. A tympan is made for a specific latitude and is engraved with a stereographic projection of circles denoting azimuth and altitude and representing the portion of the celestial sphere above the local horizon. The rim of the mater is typically graduated into hours of time, degrees of arc, or both.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, amy G said:

Peter, this 22 second video does not do your post the complete justice it deserves, but check it out until I have time to get back to you and am able to clarify further.

 

what that video fails to mention is it will only fill that volume till the pressure equalizes, this is a prime example of why I put no credence in to videos either for or against , what I'm putting forward is just my thoughts and opinions with regards to this topic.

One other thing I didn't bring up at the very beginning was when you mentioned the second law of thermal dynamics with regards to the existence of space , the problem I see with quoting that law it was written ,like most other laws in physics with regards to a closed system, this is done to isolate a given subject and the associated variables to reduce the complexities  with regards to the math and understanding of that particular subject. There is only one problem with this view, there has never to my knowledge been a closed system  found in our physical reality, every single thing affects every other thing  . I know that is a very broad statement , however if you would like to discuss my reasons for that assumption at a latter date I would be more than willing to do so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@peter

I know the space story claims that the vacuum of space does not suck like a household vacuum cleaner which is why I referenced the teacher explaining how gasses behave. You have done a wonderful job explaining it I must say. My problem here is that there is simply no demonstrable evidence to support such a story. What's more awkward here is that the 2nd law is called a law for a reason.

 

We call them "laws" because countless observations and thousands of experiments have shown them to always predict what will happen....

 

Energy flows from a higher pressure to a lower pressure...

https://www.ftexploring.com/energy/2nd_Law.html

 

I guess I will stick with physical laws on this one because of all the actual experiments, but should demonstrable, replicable science ever come along that shows me how the top layer of our atmosphere in your example, which is right next to 'space' stays put, and then the layer under that and the layer under that, etc., I will certainly reconsider my position.

 

On 9/28/2020 at 11:48 AM, peter said:

6 there is a 1000 ft ice wall holding the oceans in

I have never been there, but like you I have seen the pictures. For this I defer to the writings of the explorers and common sense. You should read what men like James Cook (sailed a total of 60,000-70,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline, never found an inlet or any way through or around the wall), James Clark Ross, Charles Wilkes, James Weddell (all wrote of how far off from their reckoning they were each day) and General Adolphus Greely have to say as they have been.

“The ice-barrier, so frequently referred to in accounts of the Antarctic regions, is the fore-front of the enormous glacier-covering, or ice-cap, which, accumulating in vast, undulating fields from the heavy snowfall, and ultimately attaining hundreds, if not thousands, of feet in thickness, creeps from the continent of Antarctica into the polar sea. The ice-barrier, yet a part of the parent ice-cap, presents itself to the navigator who has boldness enough to approach its fearful front, as a solid, perpendicular wall of marble-like ice, ranging from one thousand to two thousand feet in thickness, of which from one hundred to two hundred feet rises above, and from eight hundred to eighteen hundred feet sinks below, the level of the sea."  

-Greely, General A. W. "Antarctica, or the Hypothetical Southern Continent."

 

As far as what my common sense tells me today? I know you know. 🙂

It just makes far more sense to me now that our ocean water is being contained by a barrier allowing it to fill its container as the physics of liquids predicts, when compared to the alternative that it simply sticks to the outside of a spheroid that is rotating at over mach 1, while it moves around the Sun at mach 86 while following the Sun at around mach 650, plus all the other speeds, directions and wobbles that is claimed we experience daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, amy G said:

@peter

I know the space story claims that the vacuum of space does not suck like a household vacuum cleaner which is why I referenced the teacher explaining how gasses behave. You have done a wonderful job explaining it I must say. My problem here is that there is simply no demonstrable evidence to support such a story. What's more awkward here is that the 2nd law is called a law for a reason.

 

We call them "laws" because countless observations and thousands of experiments have shown them to always predict what will happen....

 

Energy flows from a higher pressure to a lower pressure...

https://www.ftexploring.com/energy/2nd_Law.html

 

I guess I will stick with physical laws on this one because of all the actual experiments, but should demonstrable, replicable science ever come along that shows me how the top layer of our atmosphere in your example, which is right next to 'space' stays put, and then the layer under that and the layer under that, etc., I will certainly reconsider my position.

 

I have never been there, but like you I have seen the pictures. For this I defer to the writings of the explorers and common sense. You should read what men like James Cook (sailed a total of 60,000-70,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline, never found an inlet or any way through or around the wall), James Clark Ross, Charles Wilkes, James Weddell (all wrote of how far off from their reckoning they were each day) and General Adolphus Greely have to say as they have been.

“The ice-barrier, so frequently referred to in accounts of the Antarctic regions, is the fore-front of the enormous glacier-covering, or ice-cap, which, accumulating in vast, undulating fields from the heavy snowfall, and ultimately attaining hundreds, if not thousands, of feet in thickness, creeps from the continent of Antarctica into the polar sea. The ice-barrier, yet a part of the parent ice-cap, presents itself to the navigator who has boldness enough to approach its fearful front, as a solid, perpendicular wall of marble-like ice, ranging from one thousand to two thousand feet in thickness, of which from one hundred to two hundred feet rises above, and from eight hundred to eighteen hundred feet sinks below, the level of the sea."  

-Greely, General A. W. "Antarctica, or the Hypothetical Southern Continent."

 

As far as what my common sense tells me today? I know you know. 🙂

It just makes far more sense to me now that our ocean water is being contained by a barrier allowing it to fill its container as the physics of liquids predicts, when compared to the alternative that it simply sticks to the outside of a spheroid that is rotating at over mach 1, while it moves around the Sun at mach 86 while following the Sun at around mach 650, plus all the other speeds, directions and wobbles that is claimed we experience daily.

As far as what my common sense tells me today? I know you know.

 

Well as far as common sense goes, particularly with regards to this topic, depends completely on the the set of beliefs you firmly subscribe to

 

However I do agree on your summation of the icecap, it is just the shape of it I have issue with. If the earth is flat like you believe  we both agree there is a north pole ,we will leave the south alone for a moment and it is supposed to be in the dead center of the flat earth so if that were the case the question I would ask why would there be ice in the center of the flat earth as with the models I have seen for the obits of the sun as an explanation keep it fairly close to that region and as such why would ice actually form there as it would not be cold enough to do so, and I feel that would be the same for the antarctic as well .

 

Now with regards to the explores accounts , how close they got into the arctic circle with those relatively small sailing ships( if you have ever been on one their not big ) of the day would be determined by the season they went, however whatever season they did go in would eventually make no difference because an ice breaker their not  so  the fact they mentioned  an impenetrable ice wall in their respective ships logs to me is nothing out of the ordinary

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

I'm not sure how far off this point we should get, but this has been delightful, I'm learning more each day and I'd like to offer my thoughts.

 

32 minutes ago, peter said:

If the earth is flat like you believe  we both agree there is a north pole ,we will leave the south alone for a moment and it is supposed to be in the dead center of the flat earth so if that were the case the question I would ask why would there be ice in the center of the flat earth as with the models I have seen for the obits of the sun as an explanation keep it fairly close to that region and as such why would ice actually form there as it would not be cold enough to do so, and I feel that would be the same for the antarctic as well .

I have to refer back to Gleason's hated masterwork. It is the ultimate timepiece and patented for that. If you look at the bottom two corners, he explains and shows exactly what the Sun does over time. For half the year, her path is south of the equator, when she reaches the tropic of Capricorn she begins her journey back to the north until she reaches the tropic of Cancer where she begins her journey back to the south and on it goes.

 

39 minutes ago, peter said:

Now with regards to the explores accounts , how close they got into the arctic circle with those relatively small sailing ships( if you have ever been on one their not big ) of the day would be determined by the season they went, however whatever season they did go in would eventually make no difference because an ice breaker their not  so  the fact they mentioned  an impenetrable ice wall in their respective ships logs to me is nothing out of the ordinary

Captain Cook's 60-70,000 mile journey following that wall that went on for years makes no sense if you consider that the wall is the outside of a continent with an approximate coastline of 14,000 miles.

 

As far as the others and how far off their reckoning they would find themselves, this happens only in the southern hemisphere and gets more dramatic the farther south they would travel. I have to believe that this is because when they made our plane into a ball they had to shrink each line of latitude to make a southern hemisphere that would fit on a sphere. This also explains all the confusion about what Australia looks like on a globe or any of today's common maps.

 

On 9/28/2020 at 11:48 AM, peter said:

7 there is an extra unseen object causing a lunar eclipse

This I never said. I do not know what happens during a lunar eclipse, but the globe's story makes no sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peter said:

Be back later to discuss this ,off to the beach for the day

Fingers crossed you saw a ship disappearing from the bottom up while still seeing that the horizon was behind it. 🙂

 

2 hours ago, peter said:

8 The sun and the moon are the same distance away and therefore actually the same size

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. They appear to be the same size and distance. The only evidence I am aware of that this is not the case is from known liars. If you have anything else on this, I'm truly interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, amy G said:

Fingers crossed you saw a ship disappearing from the bottom up while still seeing that the horizon was behind it.

I actually did I saw 3, two container ships and one crane type contraption , but that's not why I went there, just to spend the day at the beach with the missus and take the new dog for a run it's 7 months old now and can't get enough of the water and surf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, amy G said:

I do not know what happens during a lunar eclipse, but the globe's story makes no sense at all.

 

You do not know basics that represent a hole in your understanding wider than the Globe! You have no idea how a frickin' colossal event like a Lunar eclipse occurs? REALLY???

 

Preliminary shortened - Dunno list

  • The altitude of the Sun  
  • The altitude of the Moon
  • The width of the Sun - very important
  • The cause of a bloody lunar Eclipse - duhhhhh.
  • You cannot supply an accurate map!
  • You don't know what a vanishing point is.
  • You don't know what propels the Sun magic spotlight on its journey.
  • You don't know what makes the Moon move.
  • You don't know how to debate honestly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, peter said:

I actually did I saw 3, two container ships and one crane type contraption , but that's not why I went there, just to spend the day at the beach with the missus and take the new dog for a run it's 7 months old now and can't get enough of the water and surf

That sounds awesome. Did you want to comment anymore on the moon's size and distance? I would love to know if you believe the moon to be nearly 1/4 million miles away and the sun to be 400 times larger and exactly that many times farther away and if there is any proof of any of that that can be relied upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, amy G said:

That sounds awesome. Did you want to comment anymore on the moon's size and distance? I would love to know if you believe the moon to be nearly 1/4 million miles away and the sun to be 400 times larger and exactly that many times farther away and if there is any proof of any of that that can be relied upon.

Yes I would however I want to leave that till tomorrow I've had a big day and I'm an old prick, however I would like to comment on your short video about about vacuums, something has been nagging at me since I saw it and I have just realized what it was   ,at the very beginning the fellow mentions containers of equal volume , and because of that someone may be able to formulate an argument  that states the atmosphere can't exist next to space because solely due to the differences in volume ( sneaky bastard) however pressure differentials only rely on force and the higher pressure will only flow towards the lower pressure until said pressures are equalized and the volume of one  container as apposed to the other has no bearing on the matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, peter said:

I actually did I saw 3, two container ships and one crane type contraption , but that's not why I went there, just to spend the day at the beach with the missus and take the new dog for a run it's 7 months old now and can't get enough of the water and surf

I missed your comment ,no there was no horizon behind the ships as they dissipated from the bottom up

I'm off to bed you got me on that one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

This is amusing. The big think thing was clearly intended for the under fives!!!

https://youtu.be/Ow2MoLQXJsQ

 

 

 

Not going to go through that on the grounds that it is the buffoon Eric Doyoubuy, but his first point mixes a variety of full images with composites and he wonders why they are different, plus the ranges of the components cause continent sizes to vary. His second point has been 100% fully debunked, it is a simple fade between two pieces of film evidenced by the items on the side being in different positions as he transits right. Just watch to the left and right just at the arm "fade" point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Comedy Time said:

 

 

 

Not going to go through that on the grounds that it is the buffoon Eric Doyoubuy, but his first point mixes a variety of full images with composites and he wonders why they are different, plus the ranges of the components cause continent sizes to vary. His second point has been 100% fully debunked, it is a simple fade between two pieces of film evidenced by the items on the side being in different positions as he transits right. Just watch to the left and right just at the arm "fade" point.

Really? Eric IS a shill but for other reasons. His FE stuff is pretty well researched although his voice is annoyingly monotonous.

 

Ok, please post the actual photograph of earth that YOU believe to be real so we can debate it. I'm assuming it's what you call a 'full image'.

 

Again why would one employ a movie technique on a documentary record type film. Why not just a simple edit? - I'd like to see the whole piece that that comes from. Doh! - trawling NASA archives ahead 😞

 

Lastly I don't have time yet to fully deconstruct the long ISS video but did you notice the ladies hair? Lots of hairspray.

Please agree that hair in zeroG behaves similarly to hair underwater, it is weightless and waves around freely. Her hair is almost completely stiff and stays in place with a little wobble here and there. Hairspray.

Edited by Nobby Noboddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

Really? Eric IS a shill but for other reasons. His FE stuff is pretty well researched although his voice is annoyingly monotonous.

 

Ok, please post the actual photograph of earth that YOU believe to be real so we can debate it. I'm assuming it's what you call a 'full image'.

 

Again why would one employ a movie technique on a documentary record type film. Why not just a simple edit?

 

Lastly I don't have time yet to fully deconstruct the long ISS video but did you notice the ladies hair? Lots of hairspray.

Please agree that hair in zeroG behaves similarly to hair underwater, it is weightless and waves around freely. Her hair is almost completely stiff and stays in place with a little wobble here and there. Hairspray.

 

Apollo 17 blue marble. Apollo 11 earth images.

 

It's a simple cross fade and it's something that whoever put it together wanted to do. Regardless of what they "should" do according to you or anyone...... the items on the edges show what they DID do. 

 

Hair gel not spray. Stops her hair dragging all over her face. In water it is even worse.

 

Doyoubuy's FE stuff shows appalling research. It took me 5 seconds to spot that cross fade. He is an imbecile who has not the slightest clue. 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...