We should start a charity fund to send notbatman to the Moon once SpaceX opens up the first seats for public travel. 
And I will show you this goofy post of yours again in 2024 when nothing will happen.
Topic: Flat Earth - page 8. (Read 1095196 times)
And I will show you this goofy post of yours again in 2024 when nothing will happen.
I miss xempy. Hey batty, fire up your sock puppet, bro.
I need a bonus FE claptrap video /silly sky fairy meme belly laugh.
I need a bonus FE claptrap video /silly sky fairy meme belly laugh.
I'm back and the Flat earth truth awakening continues to grow, as I correctly proclaimed long ago.
Remember Flekkolek? Check his all fired up channel: https://www.facebook.com/pg/M.laposfold/posts/?ref=page_internal
I wonder what happened to his buddy Guido the globo(AKA Misklach). Can we expect Flat Earth Italia channel soon?
bonus:
2020 Superbowl commercial says: "Tell me something interesting - THE EARTH IS FLAT"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9t2rFmTVE
Research Biblical Cosmology AKA Flat Earth!
Quote
3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
The fact of the difference in water levels between the Pacific and the Gulf, as is shown by the need for a Panama Canal, shows that the idea of water-level as explained by FE people is wrong. After all, the Gulf and the Pacific are connected around the bottom tip of South America. So, there should be no difference in water levels... if water seeks its own level. Or is it that the earth isn't flat?
You can't see how it [Maxwell] applies because then you'd have to admit that the Coulomb Force is the mechanism behind buoyancy.
I would always be willing to consider the idea that the Coulomb Force is the mechanism behind buoyancy if you would be willing to explain how that mechanism works. I'm not here to shoot you down. I just want to try to understand how it works, whether or not it conflicts with my understanding (or misunderstanding).
While the electron is no doubt a mathematical abstraction, negative charges are definitely physical in nature. The smallest, lightest, least dense charges are emitted from the (-) cathode (ground/earth) and flow to the (+) anode (dome/firmament). These charges push (down) denser matter out of the way as they flow to the anode. This process creates a density gradient (fluid) such that denser material is forced down by a less dense material until layers form.
The ground and the firmament also form an asymmetric capacitor and displacement current (aetheric) flows between the electrodes.
such as the Nikon P900.
The P900 is the godwin's point of the FE
You can't see how it [Maxwell] applies because then you'd have to admit that the Coulomb Force is the mechanism behind buoyancy.
I would always be willing to consider the idea that the Coulomb Force is the mechanism behind buoyancy if you would be willing to explain how that mechanism works. I'm not here to shoot you down. I just want to try to understand how it works, whether or not it conflicts with my understanding (or misunderstanding).
@odolvlobo,
Buy a clue dude, the electron is a mathematical abstraction. The aether, a super-fine gas with a non-zero mass so small it can never be measured is all that exists, all that is "real", all that is "physical"; the aether is the canvas of reality.
You can't see how it [Maxwell] applies because then you'd have to admit that the Coulomb Force is the mechanism behind buoyancy. This exposes relativistic gravity as the experimentally falsified (D&P 1939) fraud it is, to which you seem to heavily invested.
Buy a clue dude, the electron is a mathematical abstraction. The aether, a super-fine gas with a non-zero mass so small it can never be measured is all that exists, all that is "real", all that is "physical"; the aether is the canvas of reality.
You can't see how it [Maxwell] applies because then you'd have to admit that the Coulomb Force is the mechanism behind buoyancy. This exposes relativistic gravity as the experimentally falsified (D&P 1939) fraud it is, to which you seem to heavily invested.
4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.
5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.
5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.
Just because FE people can't get it into their heads that gravity is a force towards the center of the earth...
If people in the United States are standing on a GE, it doesn't mean that people in China should be falling off the earth.
If you are going to mix talk about a FE and a GE without letting folks know what you are doing, all you are proving is that you are deceptive.
"Maxwell, the guy who wrote the book on electromagnetism, he didn't know what electricity was? You're joking right?"
By 1873, electricity was well studied, but the existence of the electron itself was not known until shortly after the book was written. Before that, the closest they got was that electricity was some kind of fluid with a charge.
"...And you got it, aether behaves as a superfine gas (a fluid). If you can't put two and two together and see that Maxwell's treatise describes electromagnetism in terms of fluid flow equations where the fluid is the aether, then you're in over your head buddy. All the forces involved with buoyancy are electromagnetic in nature; Coulomb's Law applies...."
Yes, Maxwell's treatise describes electromagnetism in terms of fluid flow equations where the fluid is the aether. However in this context, the only property of aether is that it transmits electromagnetism, and it has no other properties. Likewise, Coulomb's Law applies only to the electrical force between charged particles. I can't put two and two together because they don't seem to apply to buoyancy and you have yet to explain how they do.
"...P.S. Don't ever become an engineer."
Too late. I've worked as an engineer for more than 30 years. As for being "over my head", I'll admit that electromagnetism is not my area of expertise, but it is not beyond my ability to comprehend. What about you? Are you sure that you aren't in over your head?
By 1873, electricity was well studied, but the existence of the electron itself was not known until shortly after the book was written. Before that, the closest they got was that electricity was some kind of fluid with a charge.
"...And you got it, aether behaves as a superfine gas (a fluid). If you can't put two and two together and see that Maxwell's treatise describes electromagnetism in terms of fluid flow equations where the fluid is the aether, then you're in over your head buddy. All the forces involved with buoyancy are electromagnetic in nature; Coulomb's Law applies...."
Yes, Maxwell's treatise describes electromagnetism in terms of fluid flow equations where the fluid is the aether. However in this context, the only property of aether is that it transmits electromagnetism, and it has no other properties. Likewise, Coulomb's Law applies only to the electrical force between charged particles. I can't put two and two together because they don't seem to apply to buoyancy and you have yet to explain how they do.
"...P.S. Don't ever become an engineer."
Too late. I've worked as an engineer for more than 30 years. As for being "over my head", I'll admit that electromagnetism is not my area of expertise, but it is not beyond my ability to comprehend. What about you? Are you sure that you aren't in over your head?
15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
You missed the part about the center of gravity of the airplane. Airplanes are built to automatically adjust to their center of gravity. No dipping of the nose is necessary. Natural center of gravity causes the plane to follow the curvature of the earth.
@notbatman. You really should pay me for keeping you out of trouble with naive people who believe you. You can always come back to my posts and say, "You don't have any reason for believing me, because BADecker showed you the right answers to why the earth isn't flat."
So you really should pay me. Send some bitcoins to my Bitcoin address in my signature area. I'll thank you when I see them arrive.
@odolvlobo,
"...they still didn't know what electricity was at that point..."
Maxwell, the guy who wrote the book on electromagnetism, he didn't know what electricity was? You're joking right?
"...I asked for a technical explanation of buoyancy in the absence of air..."
And you got it, aether behaves as a superfine gas (a fluid).
If you can't put two and two together and see that Maxwell's treatise describes electromagnetism in terms of fluid flow equations where the fluid is the aether, then you're in over your head buddy.
All the forces involved with buoyancy are electromagnetic in nature; Coulomb's Law applies.
"...like the flywheel paper you previously linked, you gave me something that was not applicable..."
The paper I linked describes shear stress in regards to flywheels, the SHEAR STRESS on a flywheel thousands of miles wide would be absolutely catastrophic. A spinning globe just like pressurized gas in a vacuum, is physically impossible!
P.S.
Don't ever become an engineer.
"...they still didn't know what electricity was at that point..."
Maxwell, the guy who wrote the book on electromagnetism, he didn't know what electricity was? You're joking right?
"...I asked for a technical explanation of buoyancy in the absence of air..."
And you got it, aether behaves as a superfine gas (a fluid).
If you can't put two and two together and see that Maxwell's treatise describes electromagnetism in terms of fluid flow equations where the fluid is the aether, then you're in over your head buddy.
All the forces involved with buoyancy are electromagnetic in nature; Coulomb's Law applies.
"...like the flywheel paper you previously linked, you gave me something that was not applicable..."
The paper I linked describes shear stress in regards to flywheels, the SHEAR STRESS on a flywheel thousands of miles wide would be absolutely catastrophic. A spinning globe just like pressurized gas in a vacuum, is physically impossible!
P.S.
Don't ever become an engineer.
We should start a charity fund to send notbatman to the Moon once SpaceX opens up the first seats for public travel.
Do you really want to be intellectually responsible for the death of our fellow human? (debatable)
There are "flat" territories found on Earth, obviously. Take any given section of land in a salt level and you will find that it approximates a plane. Yet, on a lot bigger scales there are no genuinely planar surfaces on our planet.
The least complex model for the state of the Earth is a circle, and it would appear that one from a reasonable separation in space. In any case, when estimated precisely, it is seen as more like an oblate ellipsoid, with its equator a small amount of a percent fatter than its stature.
The least complex model for the state of the Earth is a circle, and it would appear that one from a reasonable separation in space. In any case, when estimated precisely, it is seen as more like an oblate ellipsoid, with its equator a small amount of a percent fatter than its stature.
^^^ I'm sorry but you're an idiot, now you're going to cry because Maxwell above your IQ level and you can't see how it relates to your question?
You asked for a technical explanation and you got it. It took me many weeks to read and understand that shit, I had to read them several times over. You didn't have time to read any of it.
Displacement of aether as I stated before is a macroscopic explanation for why objects fall in a vacuum, however electromagnetic forces are behind this phenomenon. If you want to understand the concept of aether and the forces at play Maxwell's calculus goes into details but, this is not a physics textbook for pre-schoolers that describes why shit falls.
You keep asking about aether displacement and I keep telling you about electromagnetic forces, I'm not avoiding the question I'm explaining what I understand is going on, capiche?
You asked for a technical explanation and you got it. It took me many weeks to read and understand that shit, I had to read them several times over. You didn't have time to read any of it.
Displacement of aether as I stated before is a macroscopic explanation for why objects fall in a vacuum, however electromagnetic forces are behind this phenomenon. If you want to understand the concept of aether and the forces at play Maxwell's calculus goes into details but, this is not a physics textbook for pre-schoolers that describes why shit falls.
You keep asking about aether displacement and I keep telling you about electromagnetic forces, I'm not avoiding the question I'm explaining what I understand is going on, capiche?
Well, I read the original 1873 edition -- at least, the electrostatics chapters, and I found it to be very basic, tedious and primitive (they still didn't know what electricity was at that point). I asked for a technical explanation of buoyancy in the absence of air, and again like the flywheel paper you previously linked, you gave me something that was not applicable.
I suspect that you pointed me to Maxwell because you truly feel that the "buoyancy" claim by flat-earthers is unsupportable, and you prefer an electrostatic attraction explanation. Is that right? I hope so. BTW, I ran across this relevant quote by Maxwell:
Quote
Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers. ... The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light.
We should start a charity fund to send notbatman to the Moon once SpaceX opens up the first seats for public travel.
^^^ Dubay (the author of that quote) is correct and you're an complete idiot, here's why:
The horizon (apparent) is created by the angular size limit of the eye or camera, this physical limit is the result of the aperture size and wavelength(s) of light. As objects recede into the distance they get smaller to a vanishing point (the size limit), the distance to this point is defined by the eye. The result of all objects in the field of view converging to a point is a vanishing line a.k.a. the horizon line.
The globe model's geometric horizon (physical) is complete nonsense and doesn't exist, this can be confirmed by the individual with modern optics such as the Nikon P900. The apparent horizon is an established part of science and has been a known optical effect for a long time.
Reference:
Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444511416.
Documentation:
Nikon P900 Distance to the Horizon Test -- https://youtu.be/U7GIW0vJcic
The horizon (apparent) is created by the angular size limit of the eye or camera, this physical limit is the result of the aperture size and wavelength(s) of light. As objects recede into the distance they get smaller to a vanishing point (the size limit), the distance to this point is defined by the eye. The result of all objects in the field of view converging to a point is a vanishing line a.k.a. the horizon line.
The globe model's geometric horizon (physical) is complete nonsense and doesn't exist, this can be confirmed by the individual with modern optics such as the Nikon P900. The apparent horizon is an established part of science and has been a known optical effect for a long time.
Reference:
Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444511416.
Documentation:
Nikon P900 Distance to the Horizon Test -- https://youtu.be/U7GIW0vJcic
You are quite good at directing us away from what is being talked about. But here is the answer.
Let's say that your eye is 6 feet above the ground. And let's say it is focused perfectly parallel to the ground. On a flat earth, all you have to do is follow the line of sight. Walk, if you must. Walk for miles and miles, perfectly parallel to the FE, in the line of sight. Walk for another couple of days. Walk 10,000 miles on the FE, always keeping to the eye height, which the eye is using... the 6 feet.
Let's say you only walked to the horizon that the eye sees. The eye is simply too weak and unable to distinguish you from other objects on the horizon... we're talking FE here. But the straight line that the eye is following is still 6 feet above the FE ground.
If your focus is on the fact that the eye has its limits, great. But the horizon never rises to meet the eye no matter where the horizon is... except in one place. Where is the one place that the horizon rises to meet the eye on a FE? In the mind of the observer. Camera, the same.
I don't really want to tell you what to do or say. But why not say what is factual? Your FE is a lie, but worse than that, the ways you try to explain it are a complete sham and deception. Why? Because everything you say doesn't have anything to do with FE or GE. You simply play on the standard thinking of people in ways that make them THINK that you are talking about the shape of the earth.
^^^ Dubay (the author of that quote) is correct and you're an complete idiot, here's why:
The horizon (apparent) is created by the angular size limit of the eye or camera, this physical limit is the result of the aperture size and wavelength(s) of light. As objects recede into the distance they get smaller to a vanishing point (the size limit), the distance to this point is defined by the eye. The result of all objects in the field of view converging to a point is a vanishing line a.k.a. the horizon line.
The globe model's geometric horizon (physical) is complete nonsense and doesn't exist, this can be confirmed by the individual with modern optics such as the Nikon P900. The apparent horizon is an established part of science and has been a known optical effect for a long time.
Reference:
Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444511416.
Documentation:
Nikon P900 Distance to the Horizon Test -- https://youtu.be/U7GIW0vJcic
The horizon (apparent) is created by the angular size limit of the eye or camera, this physical limit is the result of the aperture size and wavelength(s) of light. As objects recede into the distance they get smaller to a vanishing point (the size limit), the distance to this point is defined by the eye. The result of all objects in the field of view converging to a point is a vanishing line a.k.a. the horizon line.
The globe model's geometric horizon (physical) is complete nonsense and doesn't exist, this can be confirmed by the individual with modern optics such as the Nikon P900. The apparent horizon is an established part of science and has been a known optical effect for a long time.
Reference:
Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444511416.
Documentation:
Nikon P900 Distance to the Horizon Test -- https://youtu.be/U7GIW0vJcic
2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
Deceptive speaking^^. If the earth were flat, anybody looking straight ahead, parallel to the earth, would never see the horizon in his line of sight. His line of sight would always remain at the same height above the horizon as his eye/camera was above the ground.
The only time the horizon would rise to meet his eye would be if the earth were curved upward, like on the inside of a hollow earth. But then it wouldn't be a horizon. It would only be the ground.
So we see that this point doesn't have anything to do with proving FE or GE.
Hey Batty, did you by any chance suffer an EMP when you were a baby?
^^^ I'm sorry but you're an idiot, now you're going to cry because Maxwell above your IQ level and you can't see how it relates to your question?
You asked for a technical explanation and you got it. It took me many weeks to read and understand that shit, I had to read them several times over. You didn't have time to read any of it.
Displacement of aether as I stated before is a macroscopic explanation for why objects fall in a vacuum, however electromagnetic forces are behind this phenomenon. If you want to understand the concept of aether and the forces at play Maxwell's calculus goes into details but, this is not a physics textbook for pre-schoolers that describes why shit falls.
You keep asking about aether displacement and I keep telling you about electromagnetic forces, I'm not avoiding the question I'm explaining what I understand is going on, capiche?
edit:
There's a few things I should mention, for one there's original copies of the treatise available. Any copies linked from Google or academia will be censored versions. Also the equations touted as "Maxwell's Equations" by academia are not from Maxwell, these equations are crippled versions of his original quaternions.
Second, the aether can be regarded as a superfine gas however, it's what matter is made of. Let me explain with an analogy:
Say we have air, water, a whirlpool and a boat. We can talk about buoyancy with the boat displacing the water or the water displacing the air but, what does the whirlpool displace? It displaces the water creating a funnel shaped void of air and, it's made of water, and water is flowing through it.
Do you see the difficulty in describing the whirlpool using buoyancy and the displacement of water? You need to use fluid dynamics to describe it properly. Maxwell's original equations are all based on fluid flow mechanics.
You asked for a technical explanation and you got it. It took me many weeks to read and understand that shit, I had to read them several times over. You didn't have time to read any of it.
Displacement of aether as I stated before is a macroscopic explanation for why objects fall in a vacuum, however electromagnetic forces are behind this phenomenon. If you want to understand the concept of aether and the forces at play Maxwell's calculus goes into details but, this is not a physics textbook for pre-schoolers that describes why shit falls.
You keep asking about aether displacement and I keep telling you about electromagnetic forces, I'm not avoiding the question I'm explaining what I understand is going on, capiche?
edit:
There's a few things I should mention, for one there's original copies of the treatise available. Any copies linked from Google or academia will be censored versions. Also the equations touted as "Maxwell's Equations" by academia are not from Maxwell, these equations are crippled versions of his original quaternions.
Second, the aether can be regarded as a superfine gas however, it's what matter is made of. Let me explain with an analogy:
Say we have air, water, a whirlpool and a boat. We can talk about buoyancy with the boat displacing the water or the water displacing the air but, what does the whirlpool displace? It displaces the water creating a funnel shaped void of air and, it's made of water, and water is flowing through it.
Do you see the difficulty in describing the whirlpool using buoyancy and the displacement of water? You need to use fluid dynamics to describe it properly. Maxwell's original equations are all based on fluid flow mechanics.
Jump to: