These make the truthers look sensible

Home Forum Chat Forum These make the truthers look sensible

Viewing 17 posts - 361 through 377 (of 377 total)
  • These make the truthers look sensible
  • Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Good idea for an experiment, but the reasoning on a) is wrong.

    The air density may have been even along the tube while it was on the ground, but the balloon was still less dense than that and wanted to go up.

    Sealing the tube and turning it vertically the air density inside doesn’t need to change, the balloon is still less dense and still goes up.

    there is nothing in his universe to create a density difference

    I suspect he’d argue, as Sasha did above, that there is a natural order. A “natural place of density” as Sasha put it.

    They usually don’t attempt to explain what causes this natural order (spoiler: it’s gravity)

    Murray
    Member

    @GrahamS – great video. I loved the solar system simulator too.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Yeah really good isn’t it. Covers a lot of ground in a pretty short video.

    Premier Icon rossburton
    Subscriber

    It’s all fake and wrong though, obviously.

    CountZero
    Member

    I’ve been following this thread and I’m learning all sorts of stuff that I was quite obviously misinformed about, like gravity.
    For most of my life I’ve been led to believe it was Sir Isaac Newton who discovered the principle of gravity, and now I find it was Einstein!
    The foundations of my world are being pulled out from under my feet, I don’t know what to think any more!

    GrahamS – Member
    Good idea for an experiment, but the reasoning on a) is wrong.

    The air density may have been even along the tube while it was on the ground, but the balloon was still less dense than that and wanted to go up.

    Sealing the tube and turning it vertically the air density inside doesn’t need to change, the balloon is still less dense and still goes up.

    there is nothing in his universe to create a density difference
    I suspect he’d argue, as Sasha did above, that there is a natural order. A “natural place of density” as Sasha put it.

    They usually don’t attempt to explain what causes this natural order (spoiler: it’s gravity)

    I see your point, but the fact is that (try not to take this personally) you’re thinking too much like a person who understands gravity.

    I considered the point that the balloon was less dense and would “rise anyway”.

    Outside the tube the balloon wants to go to somewhere less dense, and less dense is ‘up’ [for some reason beyond our understanding]…

    But the balloon only moves at all if there is a gradient to move along.

    Imagine a balloon in an area of equal density in all directions. Where is up?

    If theres no gravity to create a gradient and density is the equal in all directions. How does the balloon know where to ‘rise’ to?

    Conversely, if there is a density gradient (and the balloon follows it). Where did the gradient come from? And why does it consistently form as more dense near the large mass and less dense further away.

    Basically, if a gradient forms where there was none before, then there’s a force at play moving gas around the tube. This force moves things in such a way that the gas in the tube moves towards the big mass at the bottom of the tube (Earth). We call that force gravity.

    I realise that this may be too subtle an argument for your opponent.

    May be just easier to assume that Earth sucks.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    I realise that this may be too subtle an argument for your opponent.

    Nail. Head. 😀

    Gradients? Who needs gradients? Objects just seek out their natural place in the universe globe earthly realm based on their density.

    Except the sun and moon obviously.

    😆

    For your entertainment, another enlightening conversation with a FE’er yesterday:

    FE’er: Naturally and logically if the Earth was truly “spinning” there could be no water on its surface so then the excuse is given that the speed of the revolution or “slow spin” detracts from the absurdity ,which is just materialist anti theist imposition disguised as science?

    So standard Bible Literalist with a poor understanding of Newtonian forces.

    Me: Do an experiment: Get a wall clock with a smooth mechanism. Lay it flat with the face up and place a bead of water on the hour hand. Does that water come flying off with the spin? No.
    The globe Earth “model” says the Earth is spinning at half that speed and that it has gravity.?

    This was the comment that kicked off that side-quest with Sasha, but this guy went a different route when he eventually replied:

    FE’er: “Lay the wall clock flat with the face up”
    So the earth is horizontal spinning and flat??

    Me: It’s really not that hard to understand Don. You stated that “naturally and logically” water would be thrown off, even by a slow spin.
    This demonstrates that even when spinning twice as fast, that is not true. The centrifugal force at that speed is just not strong enough.?

    Really didn’t want to get into a discussion about centrifugal force being a pseudo modelling force to aid our understanding, but he just went for straight denial:

    FE’er: naturally and logically
    the example of the wall clock is not at all comparable to a spinning convex globe and does not at all even correlate with the subject matter?

    He keeps using those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

    Me: Your assertion was about spin. This experiment is about spin. Simple logical correlation.?

    FE’er:you cant tell the difference between a flat disc and a convex ball??

    Me: Can you explain why it makes a difference when considering spin??

    At this point he tried to change the subject. Sensing doubt I tried to keep him on this:

    Me: Let’s clarify the last topic first eh? Do you now accept that water is not thrown off by a very slow spin? And that this is not “anti theist” or “absurd”, but is a demonstrable fact.?

    FE’er: Let’s clarify the last topic first eh? Do you now accept that water is thrown off a convex ball by a very slow spin??

    Was I unclear in some way?

    Me: I do not accept that “water is thrown off a convex ball by a very slow spin” and I have demonstrated why that is not the case. Do you have a counter-demonstration that shows that it is thrown off by a very slow spin ??

    No answer.

    A day later he posted this:

    FE’er: Sasha, it is true the laser gyroscopic compasses are the most advanced device to determine the bearing of the aircraft and would not function unless the earth was stationary?

    No acknowledgement of my question. No come back. Just ignore that bit of failed “evidence” and move on to something else. Standard.

    Premier Icon richmtb
    Subscriber

    I love a good flat earth thread

    The whole thing just blows my mind, the effort they go to disbelieve something then re-reason the whole thing with total contradictory nonsense.

    Disappointed by the Glaswegian Flat Earther though, I thought we were better than that!

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Short but funny:

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ylYvNnP1rg[/video]

    Interviewer: “And who are ‘they'”?

    Flerfer: *starts list* “Well.. Satan..”

    Paul@RTW
    Member

    This is an interesting video. This guy is quite vocal and aggressive when it comes to promoting the flat earth ideas or rather arguing that the globe is a big conspiracy. Yet, he’s also taken on board various rebuttals of the flat earth ideas and seems to agree with them. However, he doesn’t take the next step and connect that the evidence which debunks the flat earth model also proves the globe, rather that the earth is flat but the model / map is wrong. Disappointingly he doesn’t suggest an alternative. Perhaps if he starts to focus his enthusiasm to a model which matches the observations he’s collected, he’ll end up with a …de duh derrrr…globe!

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvryGzjPpz8[/video]

    [quoteDisappointingly he doesn’t suggest an alternative. ][/quote]

    Maybe he’ll propose a compromise?

    The ‘lentil-shaped’ Earth? 😆

    Earth is really a complex organic cosmic lens through which God focuses all of his watchfulness.

    CountZero
    Member

    Maybe he’ll propose a compromise?

    How about a torus, just to make things interesting… 😉

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Yeah I’ve seen increasing numbers of Flerfers saying that the AE model (Azimuthal Equidistant) is now discredited/debunked.

    It seems that the enormous flaws with it became too much even for (some of) them.

    Naturally, Flerfers being what they are, I’ve seen a few claiming they never believed it and that it was a disinfo op by shills that was designed to discredit the movement 🙄
    (A similar thing happened with the “gravity is caused by Earth accelerating upwards” theory)

    But they still don’t think it’s a globe. They generally just say they don’t know what the real map looks like because no one has ever been able to do the work.

    Premier Icon jonnyboi
    Subscriber

    What if no one actually believes it, and you’re all just trolling each other in an eternal loop?

    Premier Icon jonnyboi
    Subscriber

    How does satellite TV work With a flat earth? Are those geo synchronous satellites actually just hovering there?

    CountZero
    Member

    Thought I’d resurrect this thread, having just read this:
    http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/09/flat-earther-saw-spacex-launch-brands-elaborate-hoax-7301195/
    The guy even travels by air, and says at 35,000 feet, the horizon is ruler straight, so the earth must be flat!
    I truly despair for the future of the human race.

Viewing 17 posts - 361 through 377 (of 377 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.