[Closed] These make the truthers look sensible

Some people have to find conspiracy or some kind of drama in everything. Despite explaining why the 'troof' is just another way to describe the same principles described by the 'traditional' explanation he didn't want to let go of the 'they lied to you' flag. It wasn't about reality, just the excitement of the conspiracy.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just some world view you cling onto because of your inherent need for order? 🙂

Only kidding, it does seem as if some people have a clear psychological need to embrace something basically unproveable to the exclusion of any and all rational evidence. I suppose the existence of multiple religions which all follow the same basic non-evidenced format adds some weight to the theory that this may be a common human characteristic.

It is a totally pointless exercise arguing with zealots*, be they religious, diet and lifestyle, wheel size or whatever.

*well, not totally pointless, you're getting something out of it, and we are entertained by the results.

to a full on "everything 'they' taught you about planes is wrong"

oddly I do find that many folk have a pretty scanty knowledge of how planes fly TBH.

Forgive me, this will be a longish post, but is is worth it so you can marvel in full brilliance of his logic.

As you will recall, we left it last time with him basically saying that the Foucault Pendulum could only work at the poles of a ball earth and not in his state of Florida.

I tried to explain the observed behaviour at latitude points, because I wanted to see what wild explanation he'd go for on flat earth.

(Note: Unfortunately at this point there is another ball earther sheep called Zrips milling around who is a bit more antagonistic than me and risks scaring off my tame FE'er who is called "Christian" so I need to play gently)

[b]Me:[/b] Well on the axis points you get perfect rotation: each full pendulum rotation takes one sidereal day. On the equator you get no rotation of the pendulum swing. And at points in between the length of one full rotation depends on the latitude. Also the pendulum rotates in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere in the same manner.
They are indeed all around the world, as they are a pretty common exhibit in museums and science centres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums?

Many hours pass and no response. Zrips attempts to goad him into a reply..

[b]Zrips:[/b] I don't even know to admire your calmness when you try to explain basic things to Christian Jungerberg or to be sad that you are STILL trying to explain him basic things and he cant understand it...?

I try to keep a lid on it, but deploy some reverse psychology goading of my own:

[b]Me:[/b] I'm quite sure that Christian understands it Zrips. It is well documented and he is man interested in doing his research and seeking truth. It seems pretty clear evidence of a rotating globe to me so I'd be interested to hear an explanation for how this phenomenon works on a flat Earth, but he's certainly not obliged to supply it. I can't expect him to have all the answers.?

Like all good conspiracy theories, FE believers revel in the idea that they know more than the sheeple, so they hate not having answers.

Still no response though. After some hours Zrips tried some more goading and that got things moving. There was some back and forth between them. sensing I might lose the flattie I stepped in diplomatically:

[b]Me:[/b] Surely we can all discuss this in a civilised polite manner without needing to throw around insults? They really don't help either cause and just hold back a proper conversation.
Christian: you mentioned truth and research. The Foucault Pendulum is a good example of a true physical thing that happens. The rotating path of the pendulum and the direct link to latitude are exactly as we would expect on a spinning ball Earth. Do you wish to offer an explanation for how this phenomenon works on a flat Earth??

But he decided to ignore my question for some strange reason and instead went with this:

[b]Christian (FE):[/b] Zrips here's a picture of a plane breaking the sound barrier https://goo.gl/images/ktDeXF . That is visual proof that planes and jets push off the air to move forward. Since there's no air in space what does a space shuttle push off of, with they're mass combustion engine. Please explain with proof sir. I'll wait....?

Well that's nice. One more push to try for an answer, but also a get out clause to let him move onto this new subject..

[b]Me:[/b] I assume this means I'm not getting an explanation for the pendulum Christian? That's okay. I did say you were not obliged, but it might have been nice to at least acknowledge the question.
Regarding your rocket. The answer is simply that rockets don't work by pushing off air. They just obey Newton's 3rd Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." In other words, push something out in one direction and you get pushed along by the same force in the other.?

[b]Christian (FE):[/b] I already gave you one it is a b***** experiment it would only work at the axis if it was a ball, yeah you're telling me it would work in Florida maybe you should read how it works these conversations are going nowhere you 2 don't bring up anything that relates to how this reality works not one single thing.?

GrahamStw wow like I said you must be 12 years old. You can't generate lift without pushing against air buddy. Lmfao?

Okay, must not rise to it. Got to keep him focused. Deploy politeness (with just a hint of snark):

[b]Me:[/b] There is really no need for name calling and insults. I am conversing quite civilly with you.
Yes you explained why you don't think the pendulum actually does the thing you can observe it doing in 8 different places in your state. But you didn't offer an explanation for why it does this on a flat Earth. If you don't have one that is fine too.
Regarding rockets: have you ever fired a shotgun? Do you think that recoil was caused by those tiny pellets pushing against air? Do you think if you fired it in a vacuum then there would be no recoil??

[b]Christian (FE):[/b] here is a link to help you understand Newton's third law.. http://www.explainthatstuff.com/howplaneswork.html . I don't like people that lie their way through life I hope you're not one of those people and are just misunderstanding what you are trying to learn.?

Mmm okay maybe too much snark. 🙂 Increase politeness:

[b]Me:[/b] I certainly don't make a habit of lying and nothing I have said has been intended to deceive you.

That page you linked gives a good grounding on how planes fly. This bit is important to our discussion: "The force of the hot exhaust gas shooting backward from the jet engine pushes the plane forward"

That describes how the plane generates thrust and is exactly as I described: push something (hot exhaust gases) out in one direction and you will experience a force (thrust) pushing you in the other. The same reason that you get recoil from a gun.

As the article describes a plane uses forward thrust to make air pass quickly over the wings, which they push downwards to create lift .
A rocket has no wings, it flies by thrust alone, in the same way that a jump jet can take off and land vertically with no air passing over the wings.?

A comprehensive explanation with real physical metaphors I thought.
Bit tricky that. So time for him to up the lunacy level...

[b]Christian (FE):[/b] don't you get it there isn't a vehicle on Earth that works without air. It wouldn't be able to move. Car ,bike ,plane , helicopter, glider, even walking.?

Well this is new territory..

[b]Me:[/b] Okay now I am very confused. 🙂
How does a car, bicycle or walking involve pushing against air to move forwards??

[b]Christian (FE):[/b] I didn't say PUSH I said USE!! Maybe that's why you're confused. Everything USES AIR!!?

[b]Me:[/b] Sorry that doesn't make it any clearer for me Christian.
Can you explain how something simple like a skateboard, bicycle or walking requires air to move??

[b]Christian (FE):[/b] there are only two types of pressure in this reality. Do you know what they are??

[b]Me:[/b] Pressure? As in a force acting on an area? No sorry, please explain.?

And so he did, over a number of posts, and it is marvellous:

[b]Christian (FE):[/b] see the first thing you have to understand is there's no such thing as gravity we were both taught that there is but there is nothing that we can do to prove it. It's only a theory.?

you may think it's gravity holding you on the ground but it's really air pressure?

so it's the air pressure and the amount of air pressure that allows you to create the friction on the ground to push yourself forward on a skateboard?

This is a bit of a new one one me. FE'ers often deny gravity but usually they say it is actually "density" (with no attempt to explain how density knows which way is up) or they go with some mystical electromagnetic force (that seems to works equally on ferrous and non-ferrous materal).

But air pressure? That's new. Lets find out more.

[b]Me:[/b] okay, so what was the other pressure you mentioned?

[b]Christian (FE):[/b] water pressure is the other?

Anyway like I was saying air is the only thing that allows you to create the friction to move you can research friction and you'll find that to be true?

[b]Me:[/b] Thank you for your explanation Christian. Very interesting. As you can imagine I have quite a few questions, but it is nearly midnight here so I'll post them tomorrow if that is okay??

So it's 5am in Florida now, I reckon we have a couple of hours till he wakes up.

Anyone got any questions they'd like me to ask about his thesis?

I thought I'd start gentle and ask him if we weigh more on days of high air pressure. Then maybe work up to the issue that objects in a vacuum would be weightless.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just some world view you cling onto because of your inherent need for order?

Anyone got any questions they'd like me to ask about his thesis?

Not connected to air pressure but how do FE's get around the issue of there being an unlimited number of directions of "south"?

I mean, north obviously points to the north pole in the centre of the flat earth but south could be - well, any point on this mystical ice wall.
Surely the ultimate proof is to put people at half a dozen different points, tell them all to fly south and miraculously they'll all end up at the south pole. If the FE theory is true then they'll all end up at different points on the ice wall (or shot to pieces by the UN who continue to hide this ice wall for as-yet-undetermined reasons...)

Good effort, Graham. I admire your composure!

I'm trying to follow the logic and may have missed Christian's point but as you've stated, how does density know which way is up, surely the same point can be made about air pressure? Taking that a bit further, and assuming he believes the firmament idea (specifically a dome with highest point above the Arctic and meeting the ground somewhere beyond the ice wall) rather than an infinite plane; why does air pressure not get lower the closer to the ice wall you get or higher the closer to the Arctic? (based on the disc world maps previously cited)

When you die and go to Heaven, do you get issued with scuba gear?

...also, on a more serious note, how do the FE'ers explain the clearly visible satellites that can be seen by anyone with a bit of patience on a clear night tracking from horizon to horizon?

Are they being repeatedly launched from the ice wall on a regular schedule only to crash on the opposite site of the rim?

Surely the ultimate proof is to put people at half a dozen different points, tell them all to fly south and miraculously they'll all end up at the south pole. If the FE theory is true then they'll all end up at different points on the ice wall (or shot to pieces by the UN who continue to hide this ice wall for as-yet-undetermined reasons...)

The proof is easily available. That's the last thing they want. As above, the psychopathology suggests a requirement for an unprovable concept which is to be defended fiercely as a mark of individual superiority. This one is particularly extreme, but the 'conspiracy spectrum' has a broad range of topics from the merely improbable (various new age and health fad shite ) to the utterly batshit depending on your personal mental state.

The proof's available using a small boat on the Solent but proof denies faith.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"Oh," says man, "but the Babel fish is a dead give-away, isn't it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don't."
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Ah, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979), Chapter 6

why does air pressure not get lower the closer to the ice wall you get or higher the closer to the Arctic?

(quoting myself now!)
Scrub that, I'm over thinking this obviously. Why does air pressure reduce the higher you go in his model? So we weigh less the higher up a mountain we go?

Oh, this is silly, must do some work.

I'd suggest going with the air pressure thing and extrapolating the logic (assuming he accepts that air pressure reduces with height) all the way up to the firmament and so demonstrating that you don't need a glass dome to separate the atmosphere from space - which gets you onto the 'space isn't real nonsense'.

Then maybe work up to the issue that objects in a vacuum would be weightless.

That was my first thought. Stick an apple (appropriately) in a vacuum jar, suck the air out, give it a shake. Anti-gravity fruit!

So we weigh less the higher up a mountain we go?

I suppose the argument here could be that we do, but the firmament is so far away that climbing a mountain isn't high enough to make a noticeable difference.

We should be pretty weightless at the south 'pole' though.

Not connected to air pressure but how to FE's get around the issue of there being an unlimited number of directions of "south"?

Indeed. That's sort of what I was getting at with this pic. They all look "south" and see the same stars.

[img] [/img]

But apparently that's all explainable by refraction. Actually travelling south is easy because it is just the opposite of north. They'd never meet because it's a disk and they can't test it because ice walls and the UN.

how do the FE'ers explain the clearly visible satellites that can be seen by anyone with a bit of patience on a clear night tracking from horizon to horizon?

They are clear proof of the lie. Obviously.

How could you possibly see something so small from so far away?!?! [url= https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/a-comparison-of-the-iss ]NAStards say that International Satan Station is supposed to be the size of a football field[/url] and is 400km away. Can you see a football feild from that far away?!?

Clearly "satellites" are just high altitude spy planes and drones.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/935572279693516800

Elon Musk asking why is there no Flat Mars Society. If you scroll down a bit, the Flat Earthers get involved and one of them replies that "unlike, Earth, Mars has been observed to be round. Have a nice day!"

There aren't enough Facepalm memes on the internet to cope with stuff like that...

I've opened with this:

Thank you Christian. I am now well rested. Your explanation was very interesting but it is very new to me so, as you might expect, I have many questions. I know you've said you don't have all the answers and of course you are under no obligation to answer me, but if you could try to tackle as many as possible that would greatly help me understand your proposal. I'll number them to keep things easier.

1) is it fair to expand your definition a little to "gas pressure" and "liquid pressure"?

2) you mentioned those were the only types of pressure, but what about mechanical pressure?

3) I have a barometer hanging on the wall at home that tells me current air pressure. (We're at 1013mb at the moment) Should I expect objects to weigh more on high pressure days and less on low pressure days or does it not work like that?

4) you mentioned that air is the only thing that allows you to create friction. If I press my hand down hard against the desk in front of me and then try to slide it about then it is resisted by a force. Is that force not friction? If I press less hard then I can move my hand, though it does get warm, is that not friction? If not then what is it?

5) if we reduce the air pressure, for example by pumping out air from a sealed container, then will objects inside the container get lighter and begin to float?

I'm sure I have others but I don't want to swamp you with too many questions in one go. Thank you for your patience.?

Slight repetition of a theme, but there are only so many ways to prompt someone to explain obvious irrationality.

I await his response.

I'd ask him to explain how air pressure pushes us down onto the ground. What happens when you jump and the air pressure is acting on all sides? Or even how about throwing a ball, where it is clear that the air pressure acts equally on all sides (well strictly speaking as air pressure decreases with altitude there should be a very slight net upwards force due to air pressure 😆 )

he's clearly just stark raving bonkers though

You're going to struggle because you're thinking air is a gas, water is a liquid and air water pressure are the forces exerted by these things. It's not how the FEr means them. Air pressure = downward pressure, water pressure = buoyancy.

I wonder how this would all work if rather than flat, we were on the inside of a sphere...

Yeah I wondered about that aracer, but I'm 90% certain that he is conflating/confusing "air pressure" with density/bouyancy as that's the usual FE'er trope.

Typically something like "we are more dense than air so we sink to the ground, a helium balloon is less dense than air so it floats" which is half right, but ignores the fundamental problem of how density knows which way UP is.

(Edit: as dangeourbrain has picked up)

Which is why I added my last sentence - you can't defeat stark raving bonkers with logic. I suspect FEers might actually believe me when I give my stock answer to kids asking how I ride a unicycle "magic" 😉

but ignores the fundamental problem of how density knows which way UP

It doesn't, everything merely rises/sinks to it's own level. This is why weather balloons only reach a certain height etc. Assuming a density of 0 at the top of the dome and 1 at the bottom, everything with a density of 0.4 will rise above objects with a density of 0.5 but sink past objects with a density of 0.3

If you could form a vacuum and fill it with objects (say earth and rocks) of a single density, they'd form a disk, like the earth. If you then put air into the vacuum Thin air would gather at the top of what ever constrained it with denser air filling space between and so on... You'd see this if you climbed a mountain as the air would get thinner, things would be lighter etc.

I can see you've played this game before dangeourbrain 😀

Moi?

I think the GrahamS is missing the point here.

Your FEr is not looking for truth. He is looking for something he likes, as we all are.

Looking at that FE and Truther material I realise that there is a gullible market out there and a huge business opportunity.

Possibly nearly as big as the diet and cosmetics industries.

So to have a go at the pendulum...

The earth isn't actually flat - you only need to look out of your window to see that, it merely tends towards flat, (and were it gas/liquid would have managed it a long time ago). Sometimes we see this tendency in huge violent movements (earth quakes) but generally it manifests as "wobble" like a plate balanced on a stick. This is what causes tides, it's the water in the oceans sloshing around trying to maintain a constant level on the wobbling earth. This same wobble will produce a small but measurable movement on things like your pendulum, at the North pole this will be very nearly circular as the average wobble is very small but roughly equal in all directions. At points further from the North pole the oscillating will tend to a straight line.

Re the southern hemisphere, as stated, the world isn't actually completely flat, the equator sheeple* think of is actually a slightly raised ridge line,(if you could cut the world in section it would look like a very flat M with the South pole at the outside the equ3 at the peaks and the North pole at the centre)** the North and South slope away in opposing directions, because of this your pendulum will move "left to right" when stood north of the equator and "right to left" when stood South of it as a result of inertia, what you're actually seeing is the earth wobbling upward.

How did i do?

* i think this is the correct context.
**it might be a W, I'd have to think [s]harder[/s] about it to decide if the equator is denser and therefore lower than the pole or less dense and higher.

[img] https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FUKUXOHk2I9B44nAaEvkmruHw4_j2B3LlAJzBmUqYYyp6DP622Yhs9migqLVlt8wXQNXAuazt4iK2jQqhaj-RVbbKblzr1qwKl7W3kLFnMhxK88IpgglwjNT0iwipjuNrVlOGvurnQ [/img]

Seems weekwith my M i may have inadvertently solved the different stars thing, though it would have to wobble a lot to give the appearance of celestial rotation.

So all these theories as to what else it is other than round - is there any ideas to specifically refute the round hypothesis other than sticking it to the man?

The round hypothesis does fit ALL the observations after all.

DangerousBrain - that doesn't illustrate why those near the rim (rimwards in Discworld speak) see the same stars does it?

The round hypothesis does fit ALL the [s]observations[/s] [i]alternative facts made up by NASA to keep the population in line[/i] after all.

And of course it would, wouldn't it. You'd not make up observations and facts that disprove the story you're tying to sell would you?

DangerousBrain - that doesn't illustrate why those near the rim (rimwards in Discworld speak) see the same stars does it?

As i say, celestial rotation is a bit of a problem, unless you accept the dome rotates, then it's fine, rotation around the pole star, gives what you do see in the North, in the South the same stars would be visible to everyone as the dome moves around. If you could see the stars in the day they'd be different than the night time ones.

As FE theory goes i don't think I'm doing too badly for a [s]first timer.[/s] sheeple.

As FE theory goes i don't think I'm doing too badly...

Get that diagram and explanation thrown into some FE discussion groups, dangeourbrain and we can play the sweetcorn game.

Yeah not bad dangeourbrain. The tricky part with the star rotation is not just explaining why the south see rotation around a different point than the north but also explaining why they see it in the opposite direction.

For bonus points you can explain why the moon looks upside down in the south.

Or explain why, if the moon is actually really close to the Earth, why no one sees the back of it as it moves around.

in the South the same stars would be visible to everyone as the dome moves around

But not the same ones?

Everyone standing on the equator (on a mountain) could see Polaris, then turn around and see the southern celestial pole at the same time, surely? That would not be possible with a flat world.

If you want the long rambling insane answer to the stars riddle, mostly argued with memes and [i]unique[/i] physics then take a gander at:

https://thenarrowgateweb.com/2016/12/27/27-the-stars-declare-the-truth/

Be warned: you are peeking inside the Necronomicon here. Madness lies within.

That's... special. I particularly like how they've gone "clearly CGI!" discussing videos that are, erm, CGI "artist's impressions."

From that page:

This probably sounds like a bunch of big complex words, but rest assured that we aren’t going to be covering any complex equations here.

Phew!

holy cow, there's probably every single conspiracy buzzword in there, the Freemasons, Nazis, NASA, ancient Egypt...

Mad as a box of frogs

Everyone standing on the equator (on a mountain) could see Polaris, then turn around and see the southern celestial pole at the same time, surely? That would not be possible with a flat world.

Not quite. Polaris is at 90 dgrees latitude so when you're on 0 degree latitutde (equator) it's invisible. If you were on a Flat Earth then yes, it would be visible.
Wherever you are in the northern hemisphere, the North Star will be the same angle above the horizon as your latitude.

Stars are seasonal as well, certain constellations can only be seen in certain seasons depending on the angle of the earth to the sun.
Northern circumpolar constellations can be seen all year long in the night sky of the northern hemisphere, and appear to circle anticlockwise about the Pole star.

Gemini and Orion can only be seen during Northern hemisphere winter; Sagittarius and Scorpius can only be seen during Northern summer. That wouldn't happen with a flat earth. Although I'm sure there's some bonkers "explanation" about angles or God or refraction or NASA putting a big sheet up to hide them.

I'm liking this .GIF mind. Pretty cute.

[img] [/img]

I love his conclusion on that page:

Now then, what conclusions can we draw from the fact that the dome is reflective, and that the stars appear to be spinning in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres?

Well, the logical conclusion here is that the stars are being reflected on the dome as well…

Yeah that'll be it mate. You are looking at the reflections of stars that no one can see. Brilliant. 😆

If you feel the madness taking hold then this guy has a really nice page with a nice animated interactive model demonstrating why the horizon appears flat, and other perspective related nonsense that FE'ers like:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth

The other pages on that site are worth a look too.

15th Century geometry was more valuable that 20th Century geometry because it was taught outside! It all seems so obvious now!

Credit where it's due though, if you didn't know much about science or, well, anything, some of his questions could be pretty compelling arguments.

If you want the long rambling insane answer to the stars riddle, mostly argued with memes and unique physics then take a gander at:

https://thenarrowgateweb.com/2016/12/27/27-the-stars-declare-the-truth/

Be warned: you are peeking inside the Necronomicon here. Madness lies within.

Wow. That is really quite something. I lost count of the number of explanations that were simply skated over by 'but he said billions therefore he must be making it up'.

Hey Graham, I was thinking,

How does your Tame FEer explain eclipses?

How does your Tame FEer explain eclipses

Shadow Object innit.

Hm?

[img] [/img]

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

he said billions therefore he must be making it up

Yeah they don't like large numbers as they are unnatural. Basically it's the same as the common reaction you get to formulae.

Essentially "sciencing, maffs and bukes R hard therefore lies, masons, Satan etc"

How does your Tame FEer explain eclipses

Solar eclipses are "easy" because the sun and moon are the same size (which makes the size of the shadow a bit odd but okay). Lunar eclipses are more tricky. Some of them have bizarre theories about an extra Shadow Moon.

Not tackled that with my FE'er yet. Currently trying to process the response to my questions that he just offered:

[b]Him:[/b] I'll start by saying you are right about machanical pressure. But it can't exist without the use of air or water pressure. Air and water pressures are what cause Friction. If you didn't have the gap of air/water, gas/liquid, hydraulic / pneumatic. Things would simply fuse together,or bounce away from each other uncontrollably. Its friction that allows things to move in a controlled manner. The manipulation of the water and air pressures.?

you have the right idea about manipulating air to make things lighter. But it isn't the location of the pressure ( high and low). But the temperature of it (hot or cold. For example a hot air balloon.?

I... erm... I... whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?¿?!

Are you quite sure it's not HIM stringing YOU along?

I've gone for this response:

Thank you Christian. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Sorry if these are stupid questions but this theory is very new to me.

You mentioned that friction cannot exist without air/water, so if I pumped all the air out of a sealed tank then would that create a frictionless environment inside it?

You also said it was temperature that mattered for weight. I'm not sure I quite follow. A hot air balloon floats, yes, but so does a cold helium balloon. And wood floats on cold and hot water. What am I missing?

The wait begins.

And wood floats on cold and hot water.

[MontyPython]

What else floats on water?

[/MontyPython]

A DUCK?

Graham why do you do this ? genuine q but i assume you have never had an epiphany moment where they go oh yes all that stuff i thought is bollocks sorry and rejoin the ranks of the rational *

You are incredibly polite and patient

* not at all a dig like i could have a pop at someone for wasting time arguing with idiots on the internet

Honestly I don't really know Junkyard. It's oddly compelling and sometimes they question basic reality so much that I do learn things.

You do get small epiphanies sometimes on specific points. But they quickly talk themselves round with "but there is no curve".

Back to the game... Ahh rats. As I suspected he's switched tact from pressure and heat onto good ol' density/bouyancy.

[b]Christian:[/b] there's never a stupid question if you're trying to understand something. It all has to do with density. Does the hot/cold temperature make the air less dense/more dense then the air around it. If it's less dense it will float up, more dense it will fall down.?

I've just innocently played a standard rebuttal for now..

[b]Me:[/b] Aaaah now density I do understand (I think). It's just a measure of mass per volume.
But what is it that causes the less dense things to go up and more dense things to go down? Density itself doesn't have any kind of direction, so what force makes objects order themselves vertically by density??

That's a shame. I thought he was on a new and interesting flerfer theory there, but actually he is just awful at explaining it. 🙁

cheers for the explanation but i always think of

You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.

They are all just irrational nobbers IMHO

I guess a part of me does naively hope that if I can just plant the tiniest seed of doubt in their mind then one fine day it might germinate into a solitary rational flower in their garden of weeds.

But honestly I know they are lost causes. So I mostly just enjoy gently tugging at their half-assed theories to see what new idiocy falls out.

Junkyard's dead right. You are wasting your time. It's not possible to win here.

I mostly just enjoy gently tugging at their half-assed theories to see what new idiocy falls out.

molgrips - Member
Junkyard's dead right. You are wasting your time. It's not possible to win here

Are you new to the internet?

so what force makes objects order themselves vertically by density?

Natural order isn't it, it's what keeps the sun and clouds in the sky and dogs from walking on their hind legs and talking.

Is part of this about what sorts of people one knows?

I mean, I've made out with a girl whose doctoral research involved using satellite data to track tectonic plate movements. She wasn't a lizard, and she definitely believed in satellites orbiting the Ball Earth. I have no reason to doubt that what she spends her life doing is genuine.

I suppose my point is, not everyone has had this experience. If everyone you ever sleep with works in a call centre, maybe you start to think that the scientific community is mostly lizards and perfidious freemasons.

From the you-tubes I've seen most of these folk live in a Doublewide in a park, on the Florida Panhandle...I don't think you get to own/rent one of these pieces of prime real-estate by having a stella (no pun intended) academic career...

From the you-tubes I've seen most of these folk live in a Doublewide in a park, on the Florida Panhandle

In which case you'd imagine that they at least know someone who has actually seen a rocket or Space Shuttle launch.

Where do they imagine they go to when they fly straight up into the sky, trailing a huge plume of vapour and disappear from view?

Where do they imagine they go to when they fly straight up into the sky, trailing a huge plume of vapour and disappear from view?

Behind the ice wall. It's all part of NASAtards's clever plot to keep you believing.

Duh!

I had a read of some of that stars-declare-the-truth link last night and just gave up in despair. Basically it came down to "I don't understand astrophysics [whcih is fair enough] therefore it can't be true and also Google didn't give me an in-depth 4-year degree course in the space of a 0.005 second search"

Where do they imagine they go to when they fly straight up into the sky, trailing a huge plume of vapour and disappear from view?

Ah well, that one links up nicely with another nut job theory. Many of them repeat the explanation of the Bermuda Triangle. Basically, because you can see that they don't go straight up (where the sheeple are brainwashed to think space is - so why wouldn't you go straight up) and that they actually start to curve over to the East, they carry on curving over, NASA cuts the live camera feeds so that no-one gets to see them plummet to the sea in the Bermuda triangle - no people on ships have witnessed them hitting the sea because...the Bermuda triangle - people don't go there you see, because it's the Bermuda Triangle.
Obviously, that proves space is fake.

You might be surprised nickc. This guy claims to have a degree in maths and has been a practising attorney for 30 years, including jury trials. And he's no fool!

What mechanism creates a floating disc in space?

Why is this disc world concept round? Why no square earth theory?

yeah...he's also "met the Lord...." so all bets are off really aren't they. 😆

[quote=Paul@RTW ]Basically, because you can see that they don't go straight up (where the sheeple are brainwashed to think space is - so why wouldn't you go straight up)

As Graham suggests, one thing you get out of discussing things with these idiots is that you have to work out why things are like they are. In this case there is indeed a widespread misconception - when rockets go into space, the difficult bit isn't reaching the required altitude, it's reaching the required speed for orbit. You have to go really, really fast to stay in orbit.

Why no square earth theory?

Good question that. I guess they would argue that since the secret UN NWO security forces won't let them near the ice wall* then they don't know the actual shape. Some say it is an infinite plane.

* (note: adventure holidays to Antarctica and commercial flights over or near it are not real. If you book them then they will be cancelled. By NASA presumably)

yeah...he's also "met the Lord...."

So it's not just me that hears "before I met the Lord" and thinks "before I had my mental breakdown"

You have to go really, really fast to stay in orbit.

You know that I know that, right? Not sure if you misunderstood my point or are expanding on it, sorry!

Anyway, yeah, that's another thing that gets thrown around; the 'speed' of things and a total lack of misunderstanding of relative velocities. On one NASA post about the supply vessel docking with the ISS, a flerfer claimed it as proof that the ISS is fake since it is impossible to connect to something travelling at 17000 mph. There's also an element of the 'big number' effect in there as well probably. e.g. "look at the picture of this 'Astronot' supposedly in the ISS doing 17000mph - he's wearing shorts and a t-shirt and hasn't noticed / forgotten to pretend he's doing 17000 mph in front of a green screen! LOL!!!!"

Why wouldn't it be round?

Ever seen a flat bubble?

[quote=GrahamS ]* (note: adventure holidays to Antarctica and commercial flights over or near it are not real. If you book them then they will be cancelled. By NASA presumably)

Apparently the awkward Sydney to Santiago direct flight also isn't real, according to one of the websites linked here (I went looking to see how they addressed the most obvious evidence disproving their theories - the answer appears to be to claim that all the people who've been on such flights are stooges who are in on the deception).

What possesses these freaks to sit in front of a video camera and talk bollocks, then upload it for everyone to see/laugh at/rip apart? Why can't they just live happily knowing they're right and we're all wrong? (I know the answer and it's related to the last line in GrahamS's last post)

Somewhere I've got a list of six or seven flight numbers, with live flight radar links, that are basically impossible on a flat earth.

The general consensus seems to be that those flights are fictional and are just their to prop up the lie. Occasionally someone says "Oh yeah I've flown that route" and they are shouted down as a shill. 🙄

Update from my FE'er coming shortly...

[i]Previously on Flerfer Insanity..[/i] I'd put out the standard rebuttal expressing surprise that density has a direction.

Here's how that went:

[b]FE'er:[/b] Your right, but air pressure does. Thats what im trying to explain, air/ air pressure has a direction. This is what gives planes lift. Understand??

Still confusing air pressure and density? Ah well..

[b]Me:[/b] No, sorry not getting it 🙁 How/why does air pressure have a direction? Like if I blow into a party balloon then the air pressure pushes equally on all sides and makes it expand in all directions. And once inflated it doesn't change shape when I turn it upside down, which it would do if all the air pressure inside was only pushing one direction.?

[b]FE'er:[/b] don't forget there is air pressure on the outside of the balloon. Not only that, how did the air get in the balloon. Air was going one direction, then you manipulated it to go into another Direction. Once the balloon is blown up if you let go the air pressure will then push the balloon and all the air will come out in One Direction. Research how friction works and what you have to have in order to create it.?

people often forget that there is air pressure on them at all times that's why on a cloudy day sometimes you can get a headache or pressure in you head. Air pressure man?

Cloud headaches? Man, wait till he hears about wifi!

[b]Me:[/b] But the air will just come out wherever the hole is. If the pressure in the balloon was only pushing in one direction, then it wouldn't get out until the hole was in that direction. And if it only pushed in one direction then when you let go of the nozzle the balloon would only fly in one direction, instead off whizzing around randomly.?

[b]Me:[/b] Here's a nice short slow-motion video of a balloon popping:

In the first clip you can see air is blown out equally on all sides of the balloon because the pressure inside it was pushing equally on all sides.
In the second clip you can see him introducing a hole and the air rushes out that hole deflecting the smoke sideways.?

[b]FE'er:[/b] exactly now you're starting to understand air pressure and water pressure always flow to the easiest point. This is why water always flows level. This proves that so-called gravity isnt a force. Not only can you not duplicate gravity. No one can prove it's manipulation on anything. What's awesome is you just explain that without even knowing it.?

Ah yes, interpreting direct contradictions as proof. That's always fun. 🙄

[b]FE'er:[/b] the one thing you're going to have to understand is I can't teach you anything I can just show you things you're the only one that can teach you.?

[b]Me:[/b] I understand Christian. You did say you don't have all the answers and you've been very patient in answering my queries.
You presented me with a new interesting theory, so my instinct is to scrutinise it, see if it matches my observations and ask questions about it.
Thinking about practical real-world examples I can see no evidence to support the idea that density or air pressure have any inherent component that specifies direction.
I suggest that direction is imparted by some external force, possibly one that is stronger when objects have more mass.?

Hint hint

[b]FE'er:[/b] just because nobody believes the truth doesn't stop the truth from being the truth and just because everyone's brainwashed into believing a lie doesn't make that lie true. Until one will start looking at this world like a child and stop thinking one knows. One will be nothing more than a sheep in the flock.?

[b]Me:[/b] Absolutely. And I am all for examining things from first principles. I learn loads just by trying to explain things to my children because they always ask "Why?"
I value the truth as well. I told you I was not a deceiver. I considered your theory with an open mind, but the simple truth here is that my real-world observations just do not match the theory you describe. I'm sorry if that disappoints.?

To be continued...

(unless folk are bored of it now?)

More sarcasm needed

Oh dear he seems predictably cross that I'm not buying into this drivel.

[b]FE'er:[/b] I'm not saying you are a deceiver but it is amazing that my entire discussion on this video has only been two weeks so you're telling me that you have found what you consider truth or at least not true about what I'm saying in two weeks time. Not only that do I need to give you a website that will teach you how friction works because you haven't mentioned anything about it. Seems like you simply dismiss it without saying wow you're actually right you need air to have friction. It's fairly easy to see who wants to learn and who doesn't. Your opinion is your own sir.?

I'll be apologetic while pushing for concrete evidence or an excuse to post my own evidence:

[b]Me:[/b] Christian, not at all. All I am saying is that you have presented a theory to me regarding air pressure and density. I have scrutinised your theory and found that it conflicts with observable reality. With no explanation for this apparent conflict and no strong evidence to reinforce the theory I must consider it unproven.?

[b]FE'er:[/b] give me an example of it not matching what you experience in life please.?

Alright reversal it is then. This should be interesting.

[b]Me:[/b] Okay, I'll not retread the ones we've already discussed and try to suggest a new one:

Let's take two large solid boxes. They have identical volumes but one is very tall and narrow, while the other is very short but very wide.

If their weight was determined by directional air pressure pushing down on to them then we would expect the wide box to be the heaviest as it has a much larger top area to push on from above. A far larger column of air rests on it.

And yet place them on a balance scale and the boxes weigh the same.?

[quote=aracer ]More sarcasm needed

THIS Happy to help but I may bypass sarcasm and end up at derision and scorn.

exactly now you're starting to understand air pressure and water pressure always flow to the easiest point. This is why water always flows level.

He did say one true thing, he cannot teach you, I will give him that

This just popped up on FB.

http://www.iflscience.com/space/fat-earther-tries-so-very-hard-argue-astronaut-live-tv/

Surely a really simple experiment would be to have a container in vacuum and then do something involving friction. Object on a gentle slope that would slide down without friction or something.

Yeah I've not tackled his "friction needs air" argument yet, but that would be the thrust of it: stuff in a vacuum still has friction - if it didn't you'd be seeing vacuums used all over the place for friction-free bearings etc!

Imagine the improvements in electricity generation alone that could be made with true friction-free environments!

Oh, of course, that's part of the conspiracy too.

This just popped up on FB.

Aye Mark Sargent again. He's trying to set himself up as the UK's version of Eric Dubay.

Like Dubay I can't decide if he is a true believer or a cynical git trying to make money off the vulnerable and stupid.