Is the earth flat?

[Alpha]

Let’s concentrate on the pressure issue for a minute. You do agree that air pressure decreases as you go up in altitude, correct? It is a gradient, is it not? So extrapolate whatever altitude you’ve been to even further. Does the air pressure not approach zero? We’re talking gauge pressure here, by the way. Now, part of your issue is that you don’t believe space is a vacuum. But….. you don’t believe in space anyway, right? So what does it matter? What matters is that you’ve got quantifiable, repeatable, indisputable evidence that air pressure decreases as you go up in altitude. Now….. explain THAT without using gravity as a factor, because you don’t believe in gravity either. What is the cause for there to be gradually decreasing air pressure as you go up in altitude? You see….. the mere topic of atmospheric air pressure flies in the face of your flat Earth theories.

“Are you claiming our atmosphere is now water (liquid)?” Are you now putting words in my mouth? That is a definite no-no in an intelligent, mature argument. Show me where I said our atmosphere was water, and I’ll apologize and become a Flat Earther myself. What I DO claim however, is that both air and water are fluids. Are you going to dispute that? I’m not an astronomer, but I do have certain knowledge that will enable me to detect when you’re just ad libbing nonsense without any scientific proof to back it up.

Here’s a direct quote from you: “I can prove that gases need a container, and that if a higher pressure is next to a lower, then the higher pressure will move into the lower one.” Ok so how does that work with the air pressure gradient present in the atmosphere? No black magic, no voodoo….. a straight, coherent answer please. We’ve already established there’s a gradient. So technically you’ve got “higher pressure next to lower pressure” all throughout the continuum of the atmosphere. So the 64 thousand dollar question is…. wait for it…. why on Earth is there a gradient at all? Why isn’t the air pressure the same all throughout the atmosphere? Isn’t that what air does when you open a higher pressure container to a lower pressure one? If you’re gonna present an argument Alpha, it’s got to be ironclad.

On the transpolar trip, hey I’m game. Not much of a flier… but why miss the opportunity of a lifetime to fly over both poles (oops… I’m sorry… I know you don’t like those terms).

Yes I agree that the atmosphere pressure decreases as you rise in altitude, yes it's a gradient. There is a greater density of gases near the surface, and the atmosphere gradient is based on temperature. We have denser gases near the surface, making the temperature higher, higher energies will move to lower energies.

Now I don't believe in space. But it is relevant, because it's a claim of the globe model. If you have pressure, even at zero, as you claim, it will still be a higher energy than the negative of a vacuum. The claim of the globe is that we have our atmosphere (pressurized) beside a vacuum (negative in pressure). You are making claims that this vacuum is also a gradient, so you will need to provide a practical demonstration of this, or it's just a belief.

I did not put words in your mouth, I asked a question. You were asking about how pressure is created in water, but we were discussing our pressurized atmosphere. Yes water and air can both be defined as fluids, but they hold very different principles and properties. If we are talking about 1 thing, then we should stick to the substances, principles and properties of that thing, rather than trying to use another example of something that displays totally different principles properties.

I have explained that the gradient is based on temperature, and the higher energy is moving up into the lower energy. The pressure isn't the same all through the atmosphere continuum, because the energy is decreasing. But again, the pressure of our atmosphere will still hold a higher energy than the negative of a vacuum.

I'll agree to any terms for our trip, if you don't want to fly we can sail and trek, it will be much harder tho traveling by foot. I can get a legal document all drawn up if your serious. I can get an account set up where we can both deposit $10k, our initial deposits will be protected and only we will be able to withdraw our own deposit. We can get it set up as a joint authorization account, with these stipulations. Again you get all the authorizations, consents and approvals. Once that's all set we can raffle extra seats, I'm thinking between 4 to 6 of us. I will agree to cover all expenses for us to complete the journey from that point.

Again I am using real natural science to disprove the claims of the globe. All the globe has is beliefs and pseudoscience, nothing actually quantifiable, no practical demonstrations. All just assertions, assumptions.

[TitoFan]

Let’s concentrate on the pressure issue for a minute. You do agree that air pressure decreases as you go up in altitude, correct? It is a gradient, is it not? So extrapolate whatever altitude you’ve been to even further. Does the air pressure not approach zero? We’re talking gauge pressure here, by the way. Now, part of your issue is that you don’t believe space is a vacuum. But….. you don’t believe in space anyway, right? So what does it matter? What matters is that you’ve got quantifiable, repeatable, indisputable evidence that air pressure decreases as you go up in altitude. Now….. explain THAT without using gravity as a factor, because you don’t believe in gravity either. What is the cause for there to be gradually decreasing air pressure as you go up in altitude? You see….. the mere topic of atmospheric air pressure flies in the face of your flat Earth theories.

“Are you claiming our atmosphere is now water (liquid)?” Are you now putting words in my mouth? That is a definite no-no in an intelligent, mature argument. Show me where I said our atmosphere was water, and I’ll apologize and become a Flat Earther myself. What I DO claim however, is that both air and water are fluids. Are you going to dispute that? I’m not an astronomer, but I do have certain knowledge that will enable me to detect when you’re just ad libbing nonsense without any scientific proof to back it up.

Here’s a direct quote from you: “I can prove that gases need a container, and that if a higher pressure is next to a lower, then the higher pressure will move into the lower one.” Ok so how does that work with the air pressure gradient present in the atmosphere? No black magic, no voodoo….. a straight, coherent answer please. We’ve already established there’s a gradient. So technically you’ve got “higher pressure next to lower pressure” all throughout the continuum of the atmosphere. So the 64 thousand dollar question is…. wait for it…. why on Earth is there a gradient at all? Why isn’t the air pressure the same all throughout the atmosphere? Isn’t that what air does when you open a higher pressure container to a lower pressure one? If you’re gonna present an argument Alpha, it’s got to be ironclad.

On the transpolar trip, hey I’m game. Not much of a flier… but why miss the opportunity of a lifetime to fly over both poles (oops… I’m sorry… I know you don’t like those terms).

Yes I agree that the atmosphere pressure decreases as you rise in altitude, yes it's a gradient. There is a greater density of gases near the surface, and the atmosphere gradient is based on temperature. We have denser gases near the surface, making the temperature higher, higher energies will move to lower energies.

Now I don't believe in space. But it is relevant, because it's a claim of the globe model. If you have pressure, even at zero, as you claim, it will still be a higher energy than the negative of a vacuum. The claim of the globe is that we have our atmosphere (pressurized) beside a vacuum (negative in pressure). You are making claims that this vacuum is also a gradient, so you will need to provide a practical demonstration of this, or it's just a belief.

I did not put words in your mouth, I asked a question. You were asking about how pressure is created in water, but we were discussing our pressurized atmosphere. Yes water and air can both be defined as fluids, but they hold very different principles and properties. If we are talking about 1 thing, then we should stick to the substances, principles and properties of that thing, rather than trying to use another example of something that displays totally different principles properties.

I have explained that the gradient is based on temperature, and the higher energy is moving up into the lower energy. The pressure isn't the same all through the atmosphere continuum, because the energy is decreasing. But again, the pressure of our atmosphere will still hold a higher energy than the negative of a vacuum.

I'll agree to any terms for our trip, if you don't want to fly we can sail and trek, it will be much harder tho traveling by foot. I can get a legal document all drawn up if your serious. I can get an account set up where we can both deposit $10k, our initial deposits will be protected and only we will be able to withdraw our own deposit. We can get it set up as a joint authorization account, with these stipulations. Again you get all the authorizations, consents and approvals. Once that's all set we can raffle extra seats, I'm thinking between 4 to 6 of us. I will agree to cover all expenses for us to complete the journey from that point.

Again I am using real natural science to disprove the claims of the globe. All the globe has is beliefs and pseudoscience, nothing actually quantifiable, no practical demonstrations. All just assertions, assumptions.

Would you be able to put up with me during a transpolar sail/trek?

[Beanz]

Hang on..... You don't believe in space?

How old are you Alpha and where are you from? Have you always been very gullible? What is above you when you look up at night, Is it just a massive projection then? Do you believe in night, day, seasons, Solar and lunar eclipses?

[Beanz]

Also how do you explain maths, physics, technology and the entire way we model the world working so well to allow us to do everything you take for granted if it is all based on psuedo science? You are suggesting there is an international conspiracy lasting thousands of years where everyone from Aristotle to Stephen Hawkins, explorers, cartographers, scientists, and virtually everyone on earth have all been engaged in maintaining an illusion that also very conveniently explains natural phenomena and allows us to design aeroplanes and explain why trees grow upwards. What is their motivation?

[smashup]

To claim that space, stars, moon etc doesn't exist is insane.
So Alpha is claiming the entire planet (flat or round 😂) is covered by some huge kind of dome that simulates day (clouds/wind/sunshine/rain) and night (dark, moon, stars)
I'd like to see the construction company who built this dome/cover 😁 it's an engineering miracle really when you think it'd have had to be erected thousands or tens of thousands of years ago - before electricity was invented for instance, did they have hand operated work tools i wonder and I'd love to see the scaffold team that built upwards to get it up there 😁
Alpha your a knowledgeable boxing poster but your off your fucking nut if you seriously believe most of what your typing in this thread.

[Alpha]

To claim that space, stars, moon etc doesn't exist is insane.
So Alpha is claiming the entire planet (flat or round 😂) is covered by some huge kind of dome that simulates day (clouds/wind/sunshine/rain) and night (dark, moon, stars)
I'd like to see the construction company who built this dome/cover 😁 it's an engineering miracle really when you think it'd have had to be erected thousands or tens of thousands of years ago - before electricity was invented for instance, did they have hand operated work tools i wonder and I'd love to see the scaffold team that built upwards to get it up there 😁
Alpha your a knowledgeable boxing poster but your off your fucking nut if you seriously believe most of what your typing in this thread.

I have never claimed the stars, moon don't exist. But space as they are selling it to you, is fake. The term planet comes from The Greek term asters planetai meant "wandering stars". I have never been up there to do any experiments, or to move around 3 dimensionally, like we can on earth, but from my observations, from very good quality telescopes, the planets look more like pulsing light and not terra firma that you could land on. I'm not sure what keeps these luminaries on their circuits, but I could speculate that it is possible electro magnetism.

I have never claimed there is a dome. I am disputing the globe claim that we can have a pressurized gas particle atmosphere, without a barrier, membrane, container to create that pressure.

What's nuts is believing water can confirm to the exterior of a shape, without being able to provide a practical demonstrative of this. That's nuts.

What's nuts is believing you can create a pressurized gas atmosphere without some sort of barrier or container, again, without being able to provide a practical demonstration of this.

What's nuts is believing a pressurized gas atmosphere can exist right beside a vacuum (one we can't even recreate on earth), without the higher energy moving into the lower energy. Again without being able to provide a practical demonstration.

What's nuts is believing in curvature, that you can't see or measure.

What's nuts is believing that the earth is in motion, when no experiment has ever detected this motion.

What's nuts is believing in a magical force, one that you cannot observe anywhere in nature, or provide a practical experiment for.

Not one person here has been able to provide something quantifiable for the globe.

But you all continue to defend your beliefs, not realizing it's basically a religion.

[TitoFan]

@Alpha ....... where the hell you been, bro? I thought maybe you had gone off on that transpolar journey..... made it to the other side..... and drank yourself into a depressed stupor.