Topic: Flat Earth - page 81. (Read 1095196 times)

Flat earth hoax perpetrators will continue to ignore 99.9% of science and stick to a few scientists and experiments that they themselves have not performed but simply believe they happened and prove what they claim they do.

So many globe trotters here.

Yet Flat earth lives on !

There's a famous quote stating that "nature abhors a vacuum", oddly enough its author is credited (by the perpetrators of the globe hoax) with discovering outer space IIRC.

A vacuum is forbidden, it does not and can not exist. You can remove all the atomic matter but aether is the finest possible material and it can't be removed, the lowest possible state is non-zero.

''Relativity/Gravity has been falsified by Sagnac and Dufour & Prunier, '' How do you know, though? You read it somewhere and believed it, why? Why are you so naive to believe anything you read or see? Did you perform the experiments yourself or do you have a degree in those areas?

> "the aether (a superfine gas-like material) that gets displaced in a vacuum and pushes on objects.",

What are the odds thou, that the aether pushes on the object in the exact same way, as the displaced atmosphere? To the point, if you have taken a 10,000 frame per second camera, and measured a ball dropping inside the vacuum, vs outside, that it results in the same 0.7003 seconds on both?
That this superfine gas-like material just happens to be fine-tuned to exactly the same parameters of the displaced atmosphere?

Don't you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

Gravity doesn't need 0.0000000001% coincidence or exact fine tuning just happen to be. It works in all situations, and perfectly as expected.

^^^ Relativity/Gravity has been falsified by Sagnac and Dufour & Prunier, the rug has been pulled out from under your counter-argument of muh grabity; you've got no valid explanation for why objects fall/sink. As a bonus Sagnac confirmed experimentally the existence of a static aether, it's this aether (a superfine gas-like material) that gets displaced in a vacuum and pushes on objects.

A compass works inside a Faraday cage so clearly it doesn't remove all electromagnetic influences.

Regarding: "What do you think of these experiments:
Place a non-conductive non-magnetic object inside a 1 meter tall evacuated container and apply a potential of 100V (opposite to the Earth's electric field) to plates at the top and the bottom. Hypothesis: The object will be weightless and float freely because the applied voltage counteracts the Earth's electric field.

Increase the applied voltage to 200V. Hypothesis: the object will accelerate upward at 9.8 m/s² because the field inside the container is equivalent though opposite to the Earth's field."

> What if you applied the same above experiment, but inside a vacuum chamber? So how exactly does the displaced atmosphere push you down? Simple answer, gravity is in force, and your explanations are rubbish.

Or putting a Faraday cage inside a vacuum chamber, both removing the electromagnetic influences and atmosphere displacement. And dropping the ball, So why does the object still fall?

^^^ Air and aether are interchangeable to some degree, the latter being the finer of the two.

---

NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST The Documentary By Edmund Matthews -- https://youtu.be/jo7Ytg9ckC0

Ok, sorry. Let me see if I'm getting this:

First, you keep saying "atmosphere", but you must mean "aether" because objects fall in a vacuum.

An object falls toward the Earth due to buoyancy in the aether. The pressure of the aether increases with the height, and an object that displaces aether would move down, in the direction of lower aether pressure (like a bubble rises in water).  Now, assuming that this is the case, then it implies that the force on the object is not related to the density of the object itself (as many people say) because the acceleration of an object is independent of its volume. Instead, it must be related to the amount of the aether that the object displaces, which must be proportional to its mass because the downward force on the object is proportional to the mass.

^^^ When they made the nuclear bombs and power plants, they used Relativity. They waited for Relativity before they went to work on nuclear. Why? Two reasons:
1. They didn't want to waste a lot of trouble and time and material on building things that wouldn't work;
2. They were fearful that nuclear reactions might be far more dangerous than they are. Relativity showed that nukes would be reasonably safe within certain parameters.

In other words, Relativity works. But it might not work everywhere in every way. That's why it remains a theory... until they find out that it is absolute. But it is absolute enough that they safely use it in bombs and power plants.

^^^ The Sagnac experiment demonstrates the existence of a static aether and the Dufour & Prunier replication falsifies relativity (gravity). I may be swimming in the deep end of the pool with my description thereof but at least I've got a model that uses already existing and testable science that hasn't been deep-sixed by experiment.

You want to claim I'm not palsying with a full deck but don't have an explanation for things that hasn't been falsified. The Earth is not a spinning globe and you sir are a hypocrite.


So what you're saying is that the Earth can't be flat because I seen cartoon picture of ball on TV?

You are so full of shit its hilarious.  And you know it too.
Only another 244 pages of pure unadulterated bullshit to go to hit 1000.
Then its flat earth nonsense party time...

My understanding of aether is that it's an incompressible superfine gas-like substance, the least dense material possible with the most kinetic energy. Particulate matter would be in this case an area of low density or expanded aether. The aether is still flowing through the matter as kinetic energy however the high pressure area has been displaced by a lower pressure system.

As for my opinion on the experiment you purpose, you're doing the same thing as af_newbie and attempting to strawman my argument with a loaded question. The Earth's electric field does not push on objects directly. It's is possible to counter the force pushing down on an object by levitating it with a high voltage field but that's not how the force pushing you down works; it's displaced atmosphere that's pushing you down.

Unfortunately Notbatman doesn't perform experiments himself, he only believes random guys on youtube, doing the experiments himself would be a sin. He only believes random scientists that support the flat earth but we are all idiots who believe anyone, he isn't.

That doesn't resolve the contradiction of aether being displaced by matter at the same time that it flows through matter with no resistance.

What do you think of these experiments:

Place a non-conductive non-magnetic object inside a 1 meter tall evacuated container and apply a potential of 100V (opposite to the Earth's electric field) to plates at the top and the bottom. Hypothesis: The object will be weightless and float freely because the applied voltage counteracts the Earth's electric field.

Increase the applied voltage to 200V. Hypothesis: the object will accelerate upward at 9.8 m/s² because the field inside the container is equivalent though opposite to the Earth's field.

^^^ Most of what you say doesn't have anything to do with gravity at all. You keep talking about all kinds of science things and saying other people are calling them gravity. But people aren't. They might have something to do with gravity, but they are something else... possibly gravity theory. Look at the simple definition of gravity:
None of this has to do with the earth's electric field, electric polarization, EM phenomenon, Sagnac, displaced atmosphere, aether flowing through matter (which is the opposite of what is really happening), or any of the junk you are talking about.

Gravity simply has to do with what we see and feel happening. It's a word we use to describe the force of gravity. It doesn't have anything to do with why gravity works like it does.

When gravity theorists talk about why and how gravity works, they use various other forces and laws of physics to explain gravity. That's all you are doing. You are using other forces to attempt to explain why and how gravity works.

If scientists wanted to talk about gravity by saying all their scientific definitions without using the word gravity, people would look at them in a puzzled way and say, "What are you talking about?" Then, after they repeated what they had said, people would start to say, "Oh, you mean gravity, right? Why didn't you simply say gravity?"

If you want to make or bring up theories about why and how gravity works, great. But if you continue to try to change the name of some natural phenomenon that we all have a common name for, you are simply using some form of semantics.

For example. You say that gravity is density. Then you talk about EM forces that make density work the way it does. So, you are not stating that gravity really is density. Rather, you are stating that it is density plus EM forces. But other people use "gravity" to explain the simple force, without having to break their explanation down into a bunch of scientific terms that would make it take all day to say what they could have said with the one word "gravity."

I know that you won't understand what I just said. You are too hung up on emphasizing that current, standard gravity theory is wrong. So what if gravity theory is wrong? That's why it is a theory. Make a new theory if you want. But trying to explain your new theory every time you want to tell people about what they call gravity, will only mix everything up until the people realize you are only talking about gravity.

Just because you are so against the logic of other people, you try to twist the world to a new language (which makes less sense than the standard language, btw), and are simply alienating yourself against the world. That's okay, of course. But realize what you are doing. And then tell us why you are doing it? Were you so hurt in childhood that you want to change everything? Did you get kicked out of science class in school? Are you doing a big psyops? Is this thread really only an April Fools thread?

^^^ You're an idiot, it's even in the quoted text that I state it's not the earth's electric field that's pushing but the displaced atmosphere. Perhaps the electric polarization that defines up & down might be better explained in terms of magnetic fields, but how would you know that unless you're a shill playing dumb? EM phenomenon can be derived from either magnetic or electric fields, the choice is arbitrary; two diffrrent ways of skinning the same cat.

Relativity and hence gravity have been falsified by the Sagnac experiment (1913) and the D&P replication (1939) that took rotating frames of reference into account. The static aether model has been confirmed and needs to be taken into consideration when explaining physical phenomenon. If your rebuttal to the electric model I'm describing is muh gravity and muh relativity then you need to take a seat.

However, your current argument seems to be strawmaning my model (you don't even have a model, it's been falsified), again I state it's not the electric field pushing directly but the displaced atmosphere.

@odolvlobo, what is matter? My understanding is that it's a mode of aether, like a whirlpool in a river.



The issue of aether flowing through matter is complex, however the resistance it encounters is clearly not. Electromagnetics is entirely based on fluid flow dynamics.

The "action" between the capacitor plates can be measured with an accelerometer, 9.8m/s^2. Earth's electric field can also be measured, 100V/m at sea level.

Faraday's cages block both static and non-static ELECTRIC fields.

You said the electric field is 'pushing' objects down.  Inside the Faraday's cage, there is no electric field, yet the objects weigh (pushed down) the same as outside of it.  Clearly, it is not the 'electric field' that is responsible for objects' weight.

I caught you red-handed, up to your knees in your own bullshit (aka 'notbatman's Earth's electric field theory).

Do you want to switch your 'theory of gravity' to magnetic fields now?  Let me know, I will fucking bury you in your own horseshit.

Isn't there a contradiction? If "aether flows through all matter with little to no resistance", then it isn't displaced by matter.

Let's assume that "aether flows through all matter with little to no resistance" is not true so that matter can displace aether as required by your claim that the displacement of aether causes objects to fall in a vacuum. Unfortunately, that causes other difficulties that I'm sure you must be aware, such light traveling through glass or water where there is no aether (because it has been displaced by the glass or water).


Can you explain why this "electrical action" is not detectable? You can measure the difference in voltage between the two plates of a capacitor, so you should be able to measure this "electrical action", right?.

I was completely unprepared for this thread lol. But my two cents is the world is in fact, a sphere. Too many physics and evidence pointing the same direction as well.