- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Now who’s to say that’s not exactly how our earth works? Who’s to say that the reason we have varying pressures within our enclosed dome isn’t because of gas molecules behaving differently in different layers of electromagnetism?
The very term air pressure means more air molecules which in turn put more pressure on each other.
And whose to say that we are not all in the Matrix. Physical reality can be explained by math and laws and . hen gravity makes accurate predictions time and time again, this means there is truth there and enough to call it a law. These other forces like electromagnetism have their influences too. Gravity pulls the apple to the ground and electromagnetism stops apple from going any further than the ground.
Until you come up with a theory that makes equal to greater predictions, then you have nothing but conjecture.
And gravity doesn’t only explain our atmosphere concentration, it explains the other stuff like orbits and movement. You trust these laws in more ways than you realise.
And remember before you bag these laws, remember that God is the great law giver.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Lets face it guys. The snow globe doesn’t reveal God’s eternal power. The universe does however. We can’t see its end and neither can we see the limits of the micro-world. Men are without excuse and the more we see of the universe both macro and micro, the less we can excuse unbelief.
While a snow globe points to a creator just as a city does too, it doesn’t demonstrate a creator with eternal power. The universe certainly shows us that this God is eternal and beyond comprehension. The physical laws we understand also point to a law giver.
Laws don’t happen on their own and do not spring from nothing. Laws originate from a mind just the same way as judicial laws pertaining to morality originate from a mind.
The God of the commandments is the same God that made the universe. He is the great law giver. Being made in his image, we also set laws, but they should be based on God’s owm law.
Be careful to not speak evil of God’s laws. He spoke the universe into being by his word, but even angels who are greater than us would not dare accuse God through ignorance or defame his laws because they have a healthy fear for the majesty on high. The law of gravity and the law given through Moses both come from the same God.
Those who do not believe scripture should not quote it to others. You make the same mistake that Richard Dawkins does when he says if God created the eye it would have been a much better design, or when other atheists say if God created humans, we’d be able to fly like birds, and have a sense of smell superior to dogs and bears.
Not sure what you are talking about Mike since I believe that God created the cosmos, created man in his own image, and inspired scripture.
I asked you one time for your most compelling Flat Earth scripture and what you gave me didn’t in any way say the earth was flat. If that was the best one, then obviously one can believe scripture and not believe the Flat Earth at the same time.
Photos I took myself of the Antarctic Centre in Christchurch NZ.
This is the last stop to both the US and NZ bases in Antarctica.
And these pics are taken from the area that’s open to the public.
If the Antarctica continent exists, the Flat Earth theory falls flat.
If I was a Flat Earther, then I might think the whole fear of climate change is the ice melting at Antarctica and then the waters being swept over the edge or
people being able to sail to the edge of the dome. But I don’t believe in the Flat Earth, so I don’t believe that.T8: The very term air pressure means more air molecules which in turn put more pressure on each other.
No, the term air PRESSURE means there must be something for the air to PRESS against, ie: a container. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Remember, your car tire is the CONTAINER, within which you can PRESSURIZE the air because the container gives the air no place to run. But if you breach the container, then the air has an escape route, and will no longer remain pressurized within the tire. Think it out, T8… you don’t have pockets of pressurized air floating around in outer space, right? Why? Because in your version of space, there is no CONTAINER to restrain the air, ie: nothing for it to PRESS against. It’s also why we don’t worry about suffocating while chilling at home due to all the air in the room just pressurizing itself into one corner, leaving you nothing to breathe. Air will disperse evenly UNLESS there is something for it to PRESS against, causing the air molecules to squish together.
Now if we had a container big enough, are there other natural forces that would cause the entire pressurized system to have more pressure down low than up high – like electromagnetic forces? Obviously, since that is our world – a container in which we have pressurized air which is more pressurized closer to the ground than high up on a mountain. The point is that it can’t possibly be this made up force of gravity, since helium, hydrogen, methane and a bunch of other gasses will always rise – when the “law” of gravity says that they – having mass of their own – MUST descend to the source of the gravity. Do you at least understand that much? Helium – all by itself – destroys the very idea of gravity, which says that objects of mass, by means of their mass alone, must, by necessity, attract each other.
As for the Antarctic, nobody denies it exists. The question is whether it exists as a continent at the “bottom” of a ball earth. None of the unsubstantiated claims by people we don’t even know are real that you posted verify that there is a CONTINENT at the “bottom” of the earth. I don’t doubt that many people have been to, and can go to various points on the edge of the ice wall that encloses our earth. And calling it “the Antarctic” is perfectly fine. But when those people call it “Antarctica” – as if they’ve personally walked it from shore to shore and verified it is indeed a land mass surrounded on all sides by water – then they’re speaking out of school, because they’ve done no such thing. Nor has there ever been a plane or satellite that has shown real footage of this entire alleged continent. Heck, zoom in on Antarctica on Google Earth, and see what you find. In fact, zoom in on your home town first, and see that you’ll see cars and stores and trees that you can go outside and identify. Now zoom in on Antarctica, and see if that “painting” looks anything like REAL ice. Why is that, T8? Why can’t we zoom in on Antarctica and see REAL ice on every piece of the continent we zoom in on? It’s the same with the oceans. Pick a spot in the ocean out in the middle of nowhere, and zoom in on it. It’s an oil painting – not real water and waves. Why?
And finally, I already showed you a flat earth map where Antarctic IS a continent. So the existence of Antarctica as a water-locked piece of land does NOT contradict the flat earth in the least. Time to stop kicking this dead horse, because you cannot personally verify anything about it, and it wouldn’t hurt the flat earth even if it did exist.
No, the term air PRESSURE means there must be something for the air to PRESS against, ie: a container.
If you have one air molecule in a container then you don’t have pressure right? So the concentration of molecules creates the pressure and the container does just that, contains them. One molecule in a container is not going to cause pressure and pressure increases not by increasing the container, but the amount of molecules.
Yes a container will stop them from escaping for sure, but take the ocean as an example. Like air molecules, the further down you go the greater the pressure in this case, due to the weight of the water above.
The explanation for concentration of air molecules is gravity, and it would probably be at least partially true for water molecules.
My latest…
As for the Antarctic, nobody denies it exists. The question is whether it exists as a continent at the “bottom” of a ball earth. None of the unsubstantiated claims by people we don’t even know are real that you posted verify that there is a CONTINENT at the “bottom” of the earth. I don’t doubt that many people have been to, and can go to various points on the edge of the ice wall that encloses our earth. And calling it “the Antarctic” is perfectly fine. But when those people call it “Antarctica” – as if they’ve personally walked it from shore to shore and verified it is indeed a land mass surrounded on all sides by water – then they’re speaking out of school, because they’ve done no such thing. Nor has there ever been a plane or satellite that has shown real footage of this entire alleged continent.
This is true to perhaps a lesser extent with the Arctic, Mount Everest, and K2 and perhaps is akin to some of the ocean floor which too is not as detailed as most of the land is. The Antarctica is extremely isolated and has a population of hundreds I think. It is not exactly going to be serviced with Google and neither will there be many people or services that are going to cross right across it or circumnavigate it. In saying that though, there are likely some people and missions that have done these. This place is so inhospitable that it stops most people on the planet from every launching a mission there. Just as the ocean floor is out of reach for most, so is Antarctica.
In saying that however, there are ancient maps that have the Antarctic on them and with correct detail. These maps used older source maps that must have been drawn a very long time ago, at least before the whole thing was covered in ice. Either that, or someone took a wild guess at the shape and got it perfect. The basic shape of the Antarctic according to shockwaves sent through the ice is a huge island (or continent) with a group of large offshore islands that have a channel between them and the main island. This is exactly what appears on these ancient maps.
Today, these offshore islands are covered in ice and linked to the main landmass. I will see if I can find a video detailing this. Watched one yesterday, but it was within a longer video.
Mike, that video you posted up has a vacuum cleaner in it. That alone makes me think I will waste my time watching it. Convince me otherwise.
Okay, I watched some of the video that had foolishly had the vacuum cleaner as the thumbnail.
Off the top of my head so please forgive any blatant errors, but from what I saw, it was basically saying that the PSI between sea level and space is huge. Tons per square inch. My guess is the video then went on to state something along the lines of these spacecraft not being strong enough to withstand a vacuum. If this is correct, then here is a simple rebuttal for you to consider.
Sea level is around 14 to 15 PSI and a car tyre is around 32 PSI. That is more than double right?
So how come tyres do not explode? They do sometimes right? But obviously a tyre in good condition can contain that extra 18 PSI or so of pressure.
Conclusion: A spacecraft needs to be about as strong as a car tyre to withstand a vacuum. That doesn’t seem that daunting to me.
Yes, large vehicle tyres on earth need more PSI because of the weight of the vehicle and other factors. But how heavy is a vehicle in space compared to sea level and the air pressure is not trying to hold up a great weight anyway.
Anyway, I digress a little. The point is my car tyres have air pressure of 32 PSI and the difference is more than the pressure from sea level to a vacuum and are obviously strong enough to handle it right?
A spacecraft probably doesn’t need to be all that strong then IMO. My guess is more strength and shields are needed by going through the earth’s own atmosphere. If it can handle that, then space should be fine.
T8: …my car tyres have air pressure of 32 PSI and the difference is more than the pressure from sea level to a vacuum…
NASA built the strongest vacuum chamber in the world. The concrete and steel walls are 8 FEET thick, and had to have other airtight layers built into them during construction so the powerful vacuum wouldn’t suck air molecules right through the 8 feet of solid concrete. And the amount of vacuum NASA is able to generate in this chamber is orders of magnitude LESS than the vacuum of space! Getting the picture now? Do you think they would have built the chamber with 8 feet thick solid steel and concrete walls if car tires would have done the trick? The walls of the ISS would have to be steel and concrete thousands of feet thick to withstand the vastly greater pressure differential in space.
Btw, Myth Busters did an episode where they lifted a 3000 pound car with a regular everyday shop vac you can buy at the hardware store. It’s online if you want to see it. So the vacuum cleaner on the front of the video wouldn’t have thrown you for a loop if you knew the things the guy who made the video knows. But you are ignorant about these things – as we all were at one time. Let’s do a little test, T8… Without looking it up, can you tell me the radius of the earth right now? How about the circumference? How about the moon’s linear speed and it’s angular speed? How about the angular size of the sun? Or the sun’s diameter? Or it’s distance from the earth? Or how fast the earth is rotating? How fast is it orbiting the sun? What does the sun orbit, if anything? And how fast does it travel on that orbit?
These are things that most flat earthers can rattle off at the top of their heads, while the vast majority of staunch ball proponents can’t answer even one of them. I surely couldn’t answer even one of them until I started investigating the shape of the earth. So instead of thinking yourself superior to the flat earther who made the video with the vacuum cleaner on the thumbnail, you should rather humble yourself to his far superior knowledge of these things, shut up, and listen intently. Perhaps then YOU will know that of which you speak, instead of thinking the difference between sea level and space is the difference between sea level and a tire inflated to 32 psi.
And if it’s too humbling for you to learn from flat earthers who, let’s face it, know far more about these things than you do due to their diligent research into them, then do your own research. Look up the difference in pressure between sea level and outer space. Do your own conversions between pascals and torrs and tons per square meter. But if I were you and didn’t have a lot of time to invest, I’d just watch the 15 minute video and learn from someone who did invest the time and effort to study these matters. It’d be sort of like reaping what you did not sow – like in the Bible. 🙂
Here’s a chart from Wiki…
Note that “Extremely high vacuum” is still 5 orders of magnitude less than “Outer space”. And extremely high vacuums like ones created on earth by NASA and CERN require concrete and steel walls at least 8 feet thick. What does the ISS require, with a pressure differential 5 orders of magnitude greater than “Extremely high vacuum”? Hmm…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Even with the missing frames, this is proof of an ellipsoid planet. The shadows of the flags and the little igloo thing make a 3/4 arc at several points–that’s not possible on a flat earth. Don’t need a complete circle shadow to figure that out. Also, Travel to Antarctica is not forbidden in the least–multiple cruise ships visit there every summer season. If you want to go look for yourself, the average cost is about $13,000 USD.
All you have shown is some missing footage. The rest is pure conjecture and bad conjecture at that. Why don’t you produce real evidence? In fact you don’t have any because there isn’t any real evidence for a flat earth, yet there is a mountain of real evidence for a globe. Ridiculous.
You can actually go to Antartica and see for yourself… 15000 USD for about 3 weeks
GO TO Antarctica, you can apply for a permit. I have been there, the reason just not anyone can go there is humans throw trash everywhere just apply read the rules sign the wavers and go….. this is not hateful or anything. YOU REALLY CAN GO THERE YOUR SELF.
You guys know you can literally get a job at the south pole right? They are looking for Sous Chefs and line cooks ALL YEAR ROUND because no one wants to do it because it SUCKS there. I think you should go on google, look up south pole jobs, here’s one here: Currently seeking a Production Cook (South Pole Station) – Responsible for high quality, large volume food production as directed by Sous Chef; maintaining clean and sanitary work areas, equipment and tools in a professional manner; assisting the Sous Chef and others as necessary.
The sun above a flat earth would have to be visible throughout the entire day from ANYWHERE on the planet since it MUST essentially always travel in a plane ABOVE the plane of a hypothetical flat earth. Yet nowhere on the planet do we have a place where the sun does not descend below the horizon prior to night time. You seriously have to get yourself educated if you buy into this NASA conspiracy crap. FFS.
You state that the sun is moving in parallel with the shadows, not opposite, which proves lies. That bright light isn’t the sun, that bright light on the far horizon is the reflection back towards the camera off of the white snow from the sun. You can also clearly see it reflecting off of the silver building and some white land masses off of the horizon. Snow and ice are like mirrors, the sun is indeed behind the camera and the brightness in the background of the image is a reflection of light off of metal and snow surfaces. You also mentioned that the video’s are chopped and the emails perfectly explain this. The programmer wrote a script which omits frames below a certain brightness, as stated because relatively black frames are useless and waste precious bandwidth. The lack of dark frames does not prove a flat earth or the lack of 24 ~ hour days it only shows how exposure affects images.
So all of the people that have been to Antarctica are lying ? Lol