Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: turbonium1

You can do this at home give it a shot

So you obviously don't know this is an old parlor trick, first named 'the Cavendish Experiment', who ALSO used LEAD balls, to 'prove' that 'gravity' exists, back in 1797-8! I'm sure it never occurred to him, either, that it should be replicated with other, NON-METALLIC objects, right?

It's supposed to work with ANY objects, of ANY material, but for some reason, they always use LEAD! I've heard the excuse about how other materials have much less mass, being harder to use in tests. How would it be harder, when it's based on their RELATIVE mass, not size to mass ratios, or minimum mass of the objects, which means ANY material, of ANY mass, with the same relative mass of the two objects, would work the same way.

Even if it WAS 'harder' to do, that's a BS excuse for not ever doing it, for over 100 years, that's for sure!

Of course, your side will NEVER attempt it, because they all KNOW it would fail miserably. So they just claim it would be harder to 'measure', than with lead balls, while they NEVER have attempted it once, or more likely, HAVE tried to do it, and always failed, but they've never mentioned it.

Those who actually HAVE tried the same experiment, using other materials, specifically NON-METALLIC materials....and I'm very sure that MANY have tried this before......have NEVER mentioned they tried it with other materials.

Which means, either it's never once been attempted, in over 100 years, or it HAS been attempted, over and over again, most likely by the same people who claimed it 'proved' that 'gravity' existed, and many other people, as well.

I'm sure it's been attempted many, many times, with other materials, right?

But they've NEVER mentioned it, never showed such tests on video, nothing at all....it's like nobody has ever done it, but who would believe nobody has ever TRIED it, over 100 years, right?


Anyway, this is a con, a sham, a trick, a ruse, that's been used for over 100 years, and STILL is, sadly.


What kind of argument tries to invent magical, non-existent 'forces', and use carny tricks to support them? And perform the same trick, for over 100 years, to new generations of 'suckers' who've not see it before?



So when you told me....

"You can do this at home give it a shot"

Please go right ahead, and follow your own advice, but with OTHER material, which is NOT metal, doesn't have metal, has no magnetic properties at all.....or show me some tests others have done, with other materials used, not metal, no magnetic properties......


Do you now understand this? They've always used LEAD objects, because it only works with METAL objects, with MAGNETIC properties, and attract to one another, by magnetic force, or EM force, which IS an actual force that exists!

That's why they always use metal objects, which have magnetic properties, and attract to one another by EM force, while they spew about it being 'gravitational' force!

One more point - why use LEAD, all the time? Because most people don't think lead has any magnetic properties, and is considered to be 'not magnetic'. That's all most people know about lead, as a non-magnetic metal.

Most people do NOT know that lead actually DOES have magnetic properties, can attract or react to magnets, and to magnetic fields, but Cavendish knew that, and so do these clowns today. Or else, they're complete morons, or parrots, or whatever. They know what they're doing, I'm sure.

Open your eyes, think about what they're doing, what they're NOT doing, and WHY they're doing it.....nothing nice about all this, but it's all true - accept it, or not, it's your choice.

a reply to: turbonium1

Here we go again, trying to run the zoo, trying to dictate which evidence is allowed, and proving your lack of understanding about the outside world.

Lead does not have magnetic properties. It is used because you get a lot of mass for your money. Is gold magnetic?

www.techexplorist.com...

Do the masses attract or not? A simple yes will suffice.

originally posted by: neutronflux

What is level flight. Jets tend to fly with a slight up angle?

You get that flight is a balance of forces, thrust, lift, and gravity. Oh, there is that word again. Gravity. Why does an airplane need lift, if there is no gravity on your delusion.

As they noted, because of less air, flying at such altitudes, the plane has to ADJUST for it.

When there is less air DENSITY, a plane must change it's pitch, to stay at LEVEL flight. Otherwise, it will DESCEND, and NOT be in LEVEL flight anymore. So it must change it's pitch, at the nose, to stay LEVEL in flight.


So once again, you've proven my argument. This shows, as all other things show, that there is NO magical, non-existent 'force'.

Planes adjust for level flight, based on the air density, air pressure, at the time. When in less dense air, planes adjust pitch, nose upward, to MAINTAIN level flight, unlike at lower altitudes, with more air density, where they don't need to constantly pitch upwards to maintain level flight.

Planes don't use any magical, non-existent force, they use air pressure, and air density, for level flight, over the flat Earth.

Planes don't dip down in air, CLOSER to Earth, where your magical force supposedly resides within. No, planes dip down HIGHER than that, FURTHER AWAY from your magical force, which 'pulls things down to Earth' from above! It seems to act the very OPPOSITE of what you claim it does. Because it doesn't EXIST at all.

a reply to: turbonium1

Why is the air less dense at altitude?

originally posted by: neutronflux
Why would the jet not maintain its altitude on a curved earth if the air pressure is essential the same all around the globe at 36,000 feet. And the way to increased altitude is to increase power and change control surfaces for less dense air? And what instrument should be measuring curved surface?

Because planes in air, above Earth, measure for level by air pressure, and density, which varies at different altitudes, so they adjust for it, to maintain level flight. Every one of these adjustments, is about air density, and pressure, during flights. Planes dip down in less dense air, with no magical force involved. Planes adjust for less air density, to maintain level flight.

How would planes dip down because of less air density, which causes it to descend, which is NOT level, so they change the plane's pitch, upward, to correct it's flight, back to level?

Do you see anything of your magical force in play, anywhere? The worst part, is that planes dip down at HIGHER altitudes, not at lower altitudes, which confirms it is due to air density and pressure, NOT your magical force, which would make planes dip at low altitudes, if it existed at all, not only at higher altitudes!


The only way you can make your argument, at all, is to twist the term 'level', into your ball Earth story, use your made up magical force, and say it makes all our instruments measure level, as something that supports your magical 'curvature', of the ball Earth lie.

Every one of our instruments that measure for level, on the ground, in the oceans, and in air above Earth, measure level as a straight, flat line, or surface, or in air. They use different instruments, in air, on the ground, and within our waters.

They measure level over an inch, or less. Level is straight, and flat across, and always is. There's simply no magical force making instruments measure 'level to Earth's curvature'. What does a magical force know about the shape of the Earth being a ball, and what superpower does it have, to alter all instruments of Earth, to measure it's 'curved surface' as 'level' to it?

Unless you can prove this magical force even EXISTS, in the first place, you certainly can't claim it makes our instruments measure level, as 'level to Earth's curvature'.... that's for sure.

It's a pile of nonsense, stacked together, and nothing else. All of it starts with your magical force, which doesn't exist, no proof it exists, and all of the proof shows that it does NOT exist, in fact.

Just try the same test these clowns did to 'prove' that 'gravity' exists, with other objects, not of metal. That's YOUR test that you claim proves 'gravity' exists, so other tests using other materials, will either confirm it exists, or confirm it does NOT exist, would you agree?

Sure, you cannot claim it exists by using only lead objects, you must use other objects, not of metal, to confirm it isn't just a parlor trick, right?

But it IS a parlor trick, and if you did the same tests, with objects not of metal, you would fail miserably, and prove 'gravity' doesn't exist, at all.


The most basic thing is having proof of claims, not making them up, and using parlor tricks to support them as genuine. That's all you have ever done here, and all you will ever do, and it's totally worthless to even say you have an argument. It's just a fairy tale, built on lies, tricks, and hiding what IS true, from being known.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Why is the air less dense at altitude?

Because God created it that way. He created Earth, for life on Earth, air above Earth to breathe, the air at altitude is thin, not to breathe, but for us to fly craft within.

But your magical force would 'pull down' ALL the air, to the surface, not leave some of it at 60,000 feet above Earth, it would 'pull down' ALL the air, if it actually existed. 'Gravity' is the most twisted, contradictory, worthless 'force' of all invention. Holds all things to Earth, but birds and insects, which 'overcome' it, with microscopic sized wings. It can't make any objects on Earth 'attract' to one another, except if they're made of LEAD! So 'gravity' is only in LEAD objects, right?

What an insane argument you have. Nothing is true, nothing makes sense, it's all made up, start to finish.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Here we go again, trying to run the zoo, trying to dictate which evidence is allowed, and proving your lack of understanding about the outside world.

Lead does not have magnetic properties. It is used because you get a lot of mass for your money. Is gold magnetic?

www.techexplorist.com...

Do the masses attract or not? A simple yes will suffice.

Prove it by using other objects not of metal, instead of making up BS excuses for not doing it!

'A lot of mass for your money', that's a good one! Now go and prove your claim, and stop the BS for once...


You won't, of course. You can't. All you can do, is make BS excuses for it. Great argument you have there!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Why is the air less dense at altitude?

Because God created it that way. He created Earth, for life on Earth, air above Earth to breathe, the air at altitude is thin, not to breathe, but for us to fly craft within.

Uh-huh. So God specifically created air at lower density at altitude so we can fly planes in it. How does it keep thin?

But your magical force would 'pull down' ALL the air, to the surface, not leave some of it at 60,000 feet above Earth, it would 'pull down' ALL the air, if it actually existed. 'Gravity' is the most twisted, contradictory, worthless 'force' of all invention. Holds all things to Earth, but birds and insects, which 'overcome' it, with microscopic sized wings. It can't make any objects on Earth 'attract' to one another, except if they're made of LEAD! So 'gravity' is only in LEAD objects, right?

The mass of Earth attracts the mass of air, not squashes it flat. It's more dense at the base for the same reason water at the ocean bottom is more compressed - because of the mass of material above it. Why is that? Why does a column of not very dense air push up a very dense column of mercury turbo? You never got round to answering that one.

What an insane argument you have. Nothing is true, nothing makes sense, it's all made up, start to finish.

Yo're the one reltying on "a magical sky fairy said so" here. Don't presume to lecture people on what sounds made up when that's your fall back position..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Here we go again, trying to run the zoo, trying to dictate which evidence is allowed, and proving your lack of understanding about the outside world.

Lead does not have magnetic properties. It is used because you get a lot of mass for your money. Is gold magnetic?

www.techexplorist.com...

Do the masses attract or not? A simple yes will suffice.

Prove it by using other objects not of metal, instead of making up BS excuses for not doing it!

No, you do it. Prove the masses aren't attracting. Funny how it suddenly has to be non-metal when gold got mentioned. Goal-posts moving again...

'A lot of mass for your money', that's a good one! Now go and prove your claim, and stop the BS for once...

It's a good one. It's good because it's true. The proof is in the video you handwaved away. Prove it wrong.

You won't, of course. You can't. All you can do, is make BS excuses for it. Great argument you have there!

I don't have to, because I've already shown you evidence for what I'm claiming. You haven't. It's up to you to provide proof of your claim. You won't, because you can't, because there isn't any.

Suspend two chunks of oak, or whatever, of the same mass as the lead objects, at equal distance from one another, and see if they 'attract' to each other, or not.

You won't do that? You have no excuse NOT to do it, and it's to YOU, to confirm your claim is true, and not total BS.


By refusing to prove your claim, you've only proven that it IS total BS.

And it destroys your argument, once and for all.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I don't have to, because I've already shown you evidence for what I'm claiming. You haven't. It's up to you to provide proof of your claim. You won't, because you can't, because there isn't any.

You haven't proven anything at all. You refuse to test other objects, not of metal, to confirm your claim is not a parlor trick. What are you afraid of? The truth, obviously.

It's a fact that lead has magnetic properties, and you know that. So if it is NOT based on magnetic force, the only way YOU can prove it, is testing other objects, NOT with magnetic properties. That's why you have no proof it is true, because you've fixed the tests with metal objects, which have MAGNETIC attraction to one another, and that's why it is nothing but a parlor trick.

I could claim all objects have magnetic force within them, and show you a magnet pulling a piece of metal to it, then say to you "I've proven my claim, with these objects. So it's up to you to prove that it is NOT true!"


My claim would ALREADY be better than YOUR claim is, in fact! I have many objects to show you that attract to one another, than YOU do! I've won without even TRYING to, that tells you what YOUR argument is worth!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I don't have to, because I've already shown you evidence for what I'm claiming. You haven't. It's up to you to provide proof of your claim. You won't, because you can't, because there isn't any.

You haven't proven anything at all. You refuse to test other objects, not of metal, to confirm your claim is not a parlor trick. What are you afraid of? The truth, obviously.

It's a fact that lead has magnetic properties, and you know that. So if it is NOT based on magnetic force, the only way YOU can prove it, is testing other objects, NOT with magnetic properties. That's why you have no proof it is true, because you've fixed the tests with metal objects, which have MAGNETIC attraction to one another, and that's why it is nothing but a parlor trick.

I could claim all objects have magnetic force within them, and show you a magnet pulling a piece of metal to it, then say to you "I've proven my claim, with these objects. So it's up to you to prove that it is NOT true!"


My claim would ALREADY be better than YOUR claim is, in fact! I have many more objects to show you that attract to one another, than YOU do! I've won without even TRYING to, that tells you what YOUR argument is worth!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I don't have to, because I've already shown you evidence for what I'm claiming. You haven't. It's up to you to provide proof of your claim. You won't, because you can't, because there isn't any.

You haven't proven anything at all. You refuse to test other objects, not of metal, to confirm your claim is not a parlor trick. What are you afraid of? The truth, obviously.

I repeat - it's not up to me to ask "how high?" when you say jump. It's up to you to prove what's been posted doesn't work, not just demand a different proof because you don't like it. You and truth are compelte strangers, you do not speak for it.

It's a fact that lead has magnetic properties, and you know that. So if it is NOT based on magnetic force, the only way YOU can prove it, is testing other objects, NOT with magnetic properties. That's why you have no proof it is true, because you've fixed the tests with metal objects, which have MAGNETIC attraction to one another, and that's why it is nothing but a parlor trick.

It is not a fact that lead has magnetic properties, neither does gold. The two pieces of lead are not attracted magnetically. Even if they were, how would two spheres attract each other in that way? Provide your workings.

I could claim all objects have magnetic force within them, and show you a magnet pulling a piece of metal to it, then say to you "I've proven my claim, with these objects. So it's up to you to prove that it is NOT true!"

You could claim that, but it wouldn't be true, and you'd just be a lying troll.

My claim would ALREADY be better than YOUR claim is, in fact! I have many objects to show you that attract to one another, than YOU do! I've won without even TRYING to, that tells you what YOUR argument is worth!

It wouldn't, because it would have no evidence and you'd be lying. I have evidence. Experimentally verifiable and repeatable evidence. You don't.

a reply to: turbonium1

metal is used because of the density of the material...

Basically the more tightly compact the material is the more gravity it has...

this has been demonstrated in space in zero gravity... which you don't believe in except we can replicate it on earth as well

Objects with mass attract smaller objects and clump up...

Wood has very little density... so the result of using it would be pointless...

a reply to: turbonium1

What are you babbling about. Answer the freaking questions.

And your list just grew…

Stop changing the subject and address what is posted…

Evidently the earths curvature can be measured and used to make a scale model called a “globe”


Man. You just look more ignorant than ever. And your list has grown.

Now….

Answer the question turbo, why is the most accurate way to map the distances and relative positions of points / places on the earth is by a spherical globe.

Why would the jet not maintain its altitude on a curved earth if the air pressure is essential the same all around the globe at 36,000 feet. And the way to increased altitude is to increase power and change control surfaces for less dense air? And what instrument should be measuring curved surface?

If there is no gravity, why does a jet have to create the force of lift to fly?

——New item to list because you keep digging yourself into a deeper hole.


But hang a piece of steel from a steel spring hanging scale, the force of gravity pulls on the piece of steel to cause the spring to stretch in accordance with Hooke’s law which needs a force like gravity to work on the spring. in your model when one mass meets another mass, it simply stops.

What more do you want from Sputnik being in earth’s orbit. Launch and success verified by countries that would have very much liked to discredit the USSR. It was taken as a military threat. The rocket was pictured in its travel for placing the satellite into orbit. Amateurs verified that Sputnik and a rocket stage was added to the visible night sky. The signal from Sputnik was actually tracked by scores of individuals that verified Sputnik was in orbit.

Man’s first step to travel the paths of comets.

a reply to: turbonium1

Dude… you just look stupid. And act like a trapped rat on a sinking ship.

a reply to: turbonium1

And yet, you can’t explain how a hanging spring scale works in accordance with Hooke’s law without a force like gravity. And how a metal spring can be used to obtain the weight of less dense objects like a bag of feathers or a block of foam. In fact it contradicts and invalidates your world view. While other peoples arguments you falsely claim as lies works nicely in the overall explanation and documented effects of gravity. With examples like Hooke’s law and why airplanes need to create a force labeled lift.

Stop the semi-confrontation

a reply to: tachyonator9

Stop the blatant lies first...

a reply to: tachyonator9

When we get a post that consists of logical constructed and evidence supported ideas instead of regurgitated, repetitive rants devoid of anything like the proof that turbo demands other people provide for him (and which he then studiously ignores when he's given it), then maybe things might seem a little less heated.