IFERS - Exposing the 'Global' Conspiracy From Atlantis to Zion
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

+9
Scoutpi1
King Cosmic 12
Lightning_Peasant
nowhereelsetogo
Nym
TyrannicalSawdustRex
DJ BROWNIE UK™©
Admin
Shmack_1
13 posters

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by RileySlowWave Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:55 am

Alpha wrote:
RileySlowWave wrote:
Alpha wrote:
TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:You said that "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary " .

Stationary earth is self evident until you or "science" can provide proof of movement . It's what mankind has always experienced . It is not an assumption. No one has to provide proof of what is self evident . Oxymoronic that.

You can provide evidence of a rotating or orbiting earth for scrutiny if you wish.

Neither is it an assumption that we are at the centre of what we observe as our universe.

What science says ours is an infinite universe ( an assumption) ,but the celestial dome visibly rotates above our heads never changing . Self evident . We know the celestial coordinates of stars, galaxies ,nebulae etc . Positions of these objects don't change.

The planets and other bodies wander about beneath the dome.

What's outside our universe we don't know , maybe science knows but doesn't like to tell us.

We know we live within an electromagnetic field. My assumption is it is a toroidal field that encompasses all that we observe . North pole at the centre towards the pole star , ice wall at the edges.

No one knows everything - except maybe the creator .

Peace

Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

How have you verified that we are at the centre and what do you mean by universe?

What does the lights above your head have to do with you verifying where and how this plane remains stationary?

It's interesting you use the word planets and then also promote a dome.

I'm not interested in assumptions.

Would you be able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using an electromagnetic field? Because that would be interesting.

Were you not able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion?

i would suggest reading more/thinking for yourself

this repeated notion of a “horizontal density gradient” seems of minimal importance(?) if even a valid concept — curious why it’s worth fixating on so much here — other than distracting from better ideas

parallax is a good, fairly obvious tell that we’re stationary in regards to the turning celestial bodies: if we were doing the sun-through-space orbit trick the constellations would be wonky & hardly “fixed;” same w/ those glorious circular star-trails people capture using exposure techniques: clearly showing patterns that would be baffling-if-impossible to explain using a heliocentric model

I haven't made any claims about earth's movement, never said anything about sun-through-space orbit or anything about the heliocentric model.

Could you please demonstrate for me how the level plane remains stationary?

I can come back to density gradients.

i hope you’re seeking to educate yourself, which is why i suggest further reading/putting some thought into it: i learned about FE around November 2022 & can conjecture pretty effectively based on the information already available: IFERS is a great resource for this; also Mr. Dubay’s videos & books, which are thorough(!) & comprehensive

demonstrating how the level plane remains stationary: 😵💫 i guess put something heavy on the ground & watch it stay there; then do the same by putting an object on a river & notice how it travels, at least until resting in the dirt… notice how the things above the ground are basically in motion; then refer back to the ground… it’s staying put

i sincerely recommend watching startrail videos to get a feel for the shape & behavior of celestial objects: they move pretty circularly; clockwise(!)

placing a motion-detecting device on dirt or rocks ought to give another indication of its relative stillness: perhaps if you’re stomping around near it something may wiggle…

curious your motives asking these questions

density & buoyancy within a medium is a phrase that pops up often around here: worth considering(!)

you may actually be flying
RileySlowWave
RileySlowWave

Posts : 80
Points : 586
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2023-02-20
Location : N. America

http://flateartheducation.com

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by TyrannicalSawdustRex Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:33 am

Alpha , why do you insist that Eric requires assumptions regarding the truth of a stationary earth .

Self evident truths are based on what we observe measure and experience. No assumptions involved , just conclusions reached without prejudice .

Yourself posted on another thread that the level plane is self evident .No-one made the stupid statement that you must divulge your assumptions . I can find it again for you if you wish .  

So what makes you think the level plane is self evident (which it is) but you state that Eric makes assumptions concerning the self evident stationary plane.

You cast doubt on Erics integrity ,"I'm concerned about Eric",  by insisting he has to have assumptions for the self evident stationary Earth. That's the nub of the matter .

It's why you are squirming around very shill like .

About the pressure gradients, if they were not parallel to the plane then objects would not fall in a in a predictable downward motion. Objects would be deflected from a perpendicular drop. Use some logic .


TyrannicalSawdustRex

Posts : 79
Points : 601
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2023-01-14

Admin, notdownunder and chimaira92 like this post

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Alpha Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:12 pm

RileySlowWave wrote:
Alpha wrote:
RileySlowWave wrote:
Alpha wrote:
TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:You said that "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary " .

Stationary earth is self evident until you or "science" can provide proof of movement . It's what mankind has always experienced . It is not an assumption. No one has to provide proof of what is self evident . Oxymoronic that.

You can provide evidence of a rotating or orbiting earth for scrutiny if you wish.

Neither is it an assumption that we are at the centre of what we observe as our universe.

What science says ours is an infinite universe ( an assumption) ,but the celestial dome visibly rotates above our heads never changing . Self evident . We know the celestial coordinates of stars, galaxies ,nebulae etc . Positions of these objects don't change.

The planets and other bodies wander about beneath the dome.

What's outside our universe we don't know , maybe science knows but doesn't like to tell us.

We know we live within an electromagnetic field. My assumption is it is a toroidal field that encompasses all that we observe . North pole at the centre towards the pole star , ice wall at the edges.

No one knows everything - except maybe the creator .

Peace

Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

How have you verified that we are at the centre and what do you mean by universe?

What does the lights above your head have to do with you verifying where and how this plane remains stationary?

It's interesting you use the word planets and then also promote a dome.

I'm not interested in assumptions.

Would you be able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using an electromagnetic field? Because that would be interesting.

Were you not able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion?

i would suggest reading more/thinking for yourself

this repeated notion of a “horizontal density gradient” seems of minimal importance(?) if even a valid concept — curious why it’s worth fixating on so much here — other than distracting from better ideas

parallax is a good, fairly obvious tell that we’re stationary in regards to the turning celestial bodies: if we were doing the sun-through-space orbit trick the constellations would be wonky & hardly “fixed;” same w/ those glorious circular star-trails people capture using exposure techniques: clearly showing patterns that would be baffling-if-impossible to explain using a heliocentric model

I haven't made any claims about earth's movement, never said anything about sun-through-space orbit or anything about the heliocentric model.

Could you please demonstrate for me how the level plane remains stationary?

I can come back to density gradients.

demonstrating how the level plane remains stationary: 😵💫 i guess put something heavy on the ground & watch it stay there; then do the same by putting an object on a river & notice how it travels, at least until resting in the dirt… notice how the things above the ground are basically in motion; then refer back to the ground… it’s staying put

i sincerely recommend watching startrail videos to get a feel for the shape & behavior of celestial objects: they move pretty circularly; clockwise(!)

placing a motion-detecting device on dirt or rocks ought to give another indication of its relative stillness: perhaps if you’re stomping around near it something may wiggle…

curious your motives asking these questions

density & buoyancy within a medium is a phrase that pops up often around here: worth considering(!)

Putting something on the ground and observing things in the sky is not you demonstrating how a level plane remains stationary.

By claiming a stationary earth you have to make assumptions about where it is and how it remains stationary. Is that not true?

What claims have I made to do with density and buoyancy?

Alpha

Posts : 126
Points : 2212
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2018-11-15
Location : New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by RileySlowWave Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:33 pm

Alpha wrote:
RileySlowWave wrote:
Alpha wrote:
RileySlowWave wrote:
Alpha wrote:
TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:You said that "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary " .

Stationary earth is self evident until you or "science" can provide proof of movement . It's what mankind has always experienced . It is not an assumption. No one has to provide proof of what is self evident . Oxymoronic that.

You can provide evidence of a rotating or orbiting earth for scrutiny if you wish.

Neither is it an assumption that we are at the centre of what we observe as our universe.

What science says ours is an infinite universe ( an assumption) ,but the celestial dome visibly rotates above our heads never changing . Self evident . We know the celestial coordinates of stars, galaxies ,nebulae etc . Positions of these objects don't change.

The planets and other bodies wander about beneath the dome.

What's outside our universe we don't know , maybe science knows but doesn't like to tell us.

We know we live within an electromagnetic field. My assumption is it is a toroidal field that encompasses all that we observe . North pole at the centre towards the pole star , ice wall at the edges.

No one knows everything - except maybe the creator .

Peace

Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

How have you verified that we are at the centre and what do you mean by universe?

What does the lights above your head have to do with you verifying where and how this plane remains stationary?

It's interesting you use the word planets and then also promote a dome.

I'm not interested in assumptions.

Would you be able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using an electromagnetic field? Because that would be interesting.

Were you not able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion?

i would suggest reading more/thinking for yourself

this repeated notion of a “horizontal density gradient” seems of minimal importance(?) if even a valid concept — curious why it’s worth fixating on so much here — other than distracting from better ideas

parallax is a good, fairly obvious tell that we’re stationary in regards to the turning celestial bodies: if we were doing the sun-through-space orbit trick the constellations would be wonky & hardly “fixed;” same w/ those glorious circular star-trails people capture using exposure techniques: clearly showing patterns that would be baffling-if-impossible to explain using a heliocentric model

I haven't made any claims about earth's movement, never said anything about sun-through-space orbit or anything about the heliocentric model.

Could you please demonstrate for me how the level plane remains stationary?

I can come back to density gradients.

demonstrating how the level plane remains stationary: 😵💫 i guess put something heavy on the ground & watch it stay there; then do the same by putting an object on a river & notice how it travels, at least until resting in the dirt… notice how the things above the ground are basically in motion; then refer back to the ground… it’s staying put

i sincerely recommend watching startrail videos to get a feel for the shape & behavior of celestial objects: they move pretty circularly; clockwise(!)

placing a motion-detecting device on dirt or rocks ought to give another indication of its relative stillness: perhaps if you’re stomping around near it something may wiggle…

curious your motives asking these questions

density & buoyancy within a medium is a phrase that pops up often around here: worth considering(!)  

Putting something on the ground and observing things in the sky is not you demonstrating how a level plane remains stationary.

By claiming a stationary earth you have to make assumptions about where it is and how it remains stationary. Is that not true?

What claims have I made to do with density and buoyancy?

i’ll leave you to your own thoughts
RileySlowWave
RileySlowWave

Posts : 80
Points : 586
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2023-02-20
Location : N. America

http://flateartheducation.com

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Alpha Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:45 pm

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Alpha , why do you insist that Eric requires assumptions regarding the truth of a stationary earth .

Self evident truths are based on what we observe measure and experience. No assumptions involved , just conclusions reached without prejudice .

Yourself posted on another thread that the level plane is self evident .No-one made the stupid statement that you must divulge your assumptions .  I can find it again for you if you wish .  

So what makes you think the level plane is self evident (which it is) but you state that Eric makes assumptions concerning the self evident stationary plane.

You cast doubt on Erics integrity ,"I'm concerned about Eric",  by insisting he has to have assumptions for the self evident stationary Earth. That's the nub of the matter .

It's why you are squirming around very shill like .

About the pressure gradients, if they were not parallel to the plane then objects would not fall in a in a predictable downward motion. Objects would be deflected from a perpendicular drop. Use some logic .


Eric has to make assumptions to claim a stationary earth because he has to assume where the level plane is and how it remains stationary.

If it's self evident how come you can't demonstrate how the level plane stays stationary? It's because you have to assume where & how those things are.

Water demonstrates that earth is level. It is not an assumption.

Eric assumes we live on a stationary level plane. I am asking him to demonstrate how that level plane remains stationary or is he just assuming how that works?

I haven't cast doubt on Eric's integrity. I said I was concerned with Eric's behaviour in a recent chat.

Can you be specific on how I am squirming around very shill like? I've only made a true statement and asked questions.

I haven't said anything about pressure gradients not being parallel to the plane. I'm asking if you can demonstrate a directional density gradient preferably in a horizontal direction but any direction you like other than up and down, demonstrated with something stationary.


Alpha

Posts : 126
Points : 2212
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2018-11-15
Location : New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Alpha Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:49 pm

RileySlowWave wrote:
Alpha wrote:
RileySlowWave wrote:
Alpha wrote:
RileySlowWave wrote:
Alpha wrote:
TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:You said that "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary " .

Stationary earth is self evident until you or "science" can provide proof of movement . It's what mankind has always experienced . It is not an assumption. No one has to provide proof of what is self evident . Oxymoronic that.

You can provide evidence of a rotating or orbiting earth for scrutiny if you wish.

Neither is it an assumption that we are at the centre of what we observe as our universe.

What science says ours is an infinite universe ( an assumption) ,but the celestial dome visibly rotates above our heads never changing . Self evident . We know the celestial coordinates of stars, galaxies ,nebulae etc . Positions of these objects don't change.

The planets and other bodies wander about beneath the dome.

What's outside our universe we don't know , maybe science knows but doesn't like to tell us.

We know we live within an electromagnetic field. My assumption is it is a toroidal field that encompasses all that we observe . North pole at the centre towards the pole star , ice wall at the edges.

No one knows everything - except maybe the creator .

Peace

Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

How have you verified that we are at the centre and what do you mean by universe?

What does the lights above your head have to do with you verifying where and how this plane remains stationary?

It's interesting you use the word planets and then also promote a dome.

I'm not interested in assumptions.

Would you be able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using an electromagnetic field? Because that would be interesting.

Were you not able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion?

i would suggest reading more/thinking for yourself

this repeated notion of a “horizontal density gradient” seems of minimal importance(?) if even a valid concept — curious why it’s worth fixating on so much here — other than distracting from better ideas

parallax is a good, fairly obvious tell that we’re stationary in regards to the turning celestial bodies: if we were doing the sun-through-space orbit trick the constellations would be wonky & hardly “fixed;” same w/ those glorious circular star-trails people capture using exposure techniques: clearly showing patterns that would be baffling-if-impossible to explain using a heliocentric model

I haven't made any claims about earth's movement, never said anything about sun-through-space orbit or anything about the heliocentric model.

Could you please demonstrate for me how the level plane remains stationary?

I can come back to density gradients.

demonstrating how the level plane remains stationary: 😵💫 i guess put something heavy on the ground & watch it stay there; then do the same by putting an object on a river & notice how it travels, at least until resting in the dirt… notice how the things above the ground are basically in motion; then refer back to the ground… it’s staying put

i sincerely recommend watching startrail videos to get a feel for the shape & behavior of celestial objects: they move pretty circularly; clockwise(!)

placing a motion-detecting device on dirt or rocks ought to give another indication of its relative stillness: perhaps if you’re stomping around near it something may wiggle…

curious your motives asking these questions

density & buoyancy within a medium is a phrase that pops up often around here: worth considering(!)  

Putting something on the ground and observing things in the sky is not you demonstrating how a level plane remains stationary.

By claiming a stationary earth you have to make assumptions about where it is and how it remains stationary. Is that not true?

What claims have I made to do with density and buoyancy?

i’ll leave you to your own thoughts

Do you assume where and how earth remains stationary or can you demonstrate it?

Alpha

Posts : 126
Points : 2212
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2018-11-15
Location : New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by chimaira92 Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:09 pm

I am getting concerned for Del. In his latest video with the slinky, he is attacking a strawman and never mentions or factors in the reality that when you drop a slinky, the bottom will "float" until the rest of the slinky catches up, then continues it's fall.

chimaira92

Posts : 16
Points : 675
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2022-08-29

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by TyrannicalSawdustRex Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:26 am

Do you assume where and how earth remains stationary or can you demonstrate it?[/quote]

Neither action is required since it is self evident . Allow yourself the experience .


TyrannicalSawdustRex

Posts : 79
Points : 601
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2023-01-14

chimaira92 likes this post

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by RileySlowWave Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:28 pm

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Do you assume where and how earth remains stationary or can you demonstrate it?

Neither action is required since it is self evident . Allow yourself the experience .

[/quote]
the Earth is clearly rising aggressively toward outer space, w/ the ground pushing things upward; the water flowing upward; bubbles moving downward; the constellations scattering wildly

when NASA landed all those admirable fellows on the moon, they played golf(!!!) such an achievement; making it look easy

here we are on this Pale Blue Dot: that’s us, a tiny speck

if i had $1,000,000 i’d give it all to space agencies, since they’re the leaders — as seen by their clear photographs of planets & galaxies(!!!)

i’ve given all trust to E. Musk & his Mars mission(!) choo-choo(!); he’s the man w/ his Roadster in orbit(!) huh huh huh
RileySlowWave
RileySlowWave

Posts : 80
Points : 586
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2023-02-20
Location : N. America

http://flateartheducation.com

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Alpha Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:37 am

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Do you assume where and how earth remains stationary or can you demonstrate it?

Neither action is required since it is self evident . Allow yourself the experience .

[/quote]

It's not self evident because you have to make assumptions about where the earth is and how it remains stationary.

I'm not interested in your subjective ideas, only what you can demonstrate to be true.

Can you please demonstrate how earth remains stationary?

Alpha

Posts : 126
Points : 2212
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2018-11-15
Location : New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by TyrannicalSawdustRex Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:35 pm

Am a bit concerned for you Alpha .If you are not experiencing a stationary earth then maybe you should seek medical aid. Could be a case of vertigo.

Have you messaged Eric about you concerns for him - you can ask him about his "assumption" for the self evidence . Your original silly request wasn't it?

I am a little bit interested in your inability to accept the meaning of the term "self evident" , but not much .

TyrannicalSawdustRex

Posts : 79
Points : 601
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2023-01-14

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Russian Blue Cat Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:45 am

All current experiments prove a stationary earth
Of course we have to guess where earth is situated because we aren't allowed to explore the earth.
Nor is it necessary to know where earth is situated to know the earth is stationary.
The samething could be said in reverse: if you don't know where earth is situated then you can't say it's moving especially when no current experiments show it to be moving.

So alpha if you have a problem with people saying earth is stationary and you're not saying earth is moving, what is your view then? what exactly are you trying to put forward other than "unless we know where earth is, you can't know anything"
Russian Blue Cat
Russian Blue Cat

Posts : 267
Points : 2662
Reputation : 95
Join date : 2018-02-28

Admin, tycho_brahe, chimaira92 and TyrannicalSawdustRex like this post

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Alpha Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:19 am

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Am a bit concerned for you Alpha .If you are not experiencing a stationary earth then maybe you should seek medical aid. Could be a case of vertigo.

Have you messaged Eric about you concerns for him - you can ask him about his "assumption" for the self evidence . Your original silly request wasn't it?

I am a little bit interested in your inability to accept the meaning of the term "self evident" , but not much .

I had no silly little requests. I stated that "Eric makes his own assumptions about earth being stationary"

That statement is totally true. I'm sorry you don't like it but Eric has to assume where earth is and how it remains stationary.

You keep claiming something is self evident but haven't been able to demonstrate your claim. Can you please demonstrate how earth remains stationary? Or are you able to admit that you have to assume these things?

Alpha

Posts : 126
Points : 2212
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2018-11-15
Location : New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Alpha Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:37 am

Russian Blue Cat wrote:All current experiments prove a stationary earth
Of course we have to guess where earth is situated because we aren't allowed to explore the earth.
Nor is it necessary to know where earth is situated to know the earth is stationary.
The samething could be said in reverse: if you don't know where earth is situated then you can't say it's moving especially when no current experiments show it to be moving.

So alpha if you have a problem with people saying earth is stationary and you're not saying earth is moving, what is your view then? what exactly are you trying to put forward other than "unless we know where earth is, you can't know anything"

I haven't suggested earth is moving.

So by guessing where earth is situated, you would agree that we have to make assumptions about where and how that works?

If you are guessing where earth is situated then how do you know how it remains stationary and are you able to demomstrate this for me to verify for myself?

I haven't made any claims about earths motion

I haven't got a problem with people saying earth is stationary, my issue with that is people saying earth is stationary but failing to see that they must make assumptions about earth being stationary, about where it is and how it remains stationary.

My view is that by having to making these assumptions about where earth is and how it remains stationary, it becomes a problem when we need to demonstrate how we have directionality.


Alpha

Posts : 126
Points : 2212
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2018-11-15
Location : New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by chimaira92 Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:49 am

Alpha wrote:
Russian Blue Cat wrote:All current experiments prove a stationary earth
Of course we have to guess where earth is situated because we aren't allowed to explore the earth.
Nor is it necessary to know where earth is situated to know the earth is stationary.
The samething could be said in reverse: if you don't know where earth is situated then you can't say it's moving especially when no current experiments show it to be moving.

So alpha if you have a problem with people saying earth is stationary and you're not saying earth is moving, what is your view then? what exactly are you trying to put forward other than "unless we know where earth is, you can't know anything"

I haven't suggested earth is moving.

So by guessing where earth is situated, you would agree that we have to make assumptions about where and how that works?

If you are guessing where earth is situated then how do you know how it remains stationary and are you able to demomstrate this for me to verify for myself?

I haven't made any claims about earths motion

I haven't got a problem with people saying earth is stationary, my issue with that is people saying earth is stationary but failing to see that they must make assumptions about earth being stationary, about where it is and how it remains stationary.

My view is that by having to making these assumptions about where earth is and how it remains stationary, it becomes a problem when we need to demonstrate how we have directionality.


We don't need to know where Earth is and it isn't an assumption. It is a fact that Earth is stationary as every single attempt to test for motion of the Earth fails.

We only know of the surface of Earth. The deepest depths of the oceans are an unknown yet it holds one fact. That there is more land beneath the oceans, at the floor of the ocean. Hence the landmass of Earth is the largest and densest object that we objectively know, dense objects are seeking their equilibrium and if these objects weigh more than the air which on average at ground level is 14.6 psi then they will travel towards the densest object which happens to be below our feet, downwards. If they fall into the oceans then the archimedese principal takes over.

If we want to find out where the Earth is on a philosophical level, how do you determine that without first leaving Earth or without exploring all of it?

chimaira92

Posts : 16
Points : 675
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2022-08-29

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Alpha Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:39 am

chimaira92 wrote:
Alpha wrote:
Russian Blue Cat wrote:All current experiments prove a stationary earth
Of course we have to guess where earth is situated because we aren't allowed to explore the earth.
Nor is it necessary to know where earth is situated to know the earth is stationary.
The samething could be said in reverse: if you don't know where earth is situated then you can't say it's moving especially when no current experiments show it to be moving.

So alpha if you have a problem with people saying earth is stationary and you're not saying earth is moving, what is your view then? what exactly are you trying to put forward other than "unless we know where earth is, you can't know anything"

I haven't suggested earth is moving.

So by guessing where earth is situated, you would agree that we have to make assumptions about where and how that works?

If you are guessing where earth is situated then how do you know how it remains stationary and are you able to demomstrate this for me to verify for myself?

I haven't made any claims about earths motion

I haven't got a problem with people saying earth is stationary, my issue with that is people saying earth is stationary but failing to see that they must make assumptions about earth being stationary, about where it is and how it remains stationary.

My view is that by having to making these assumptions about where earth is and how it remains stationary, it becomes a problem when we need to demonstrate how we have directionality.


We don't need to know where Earth is and it isn't an assumption. It is a fact that Earth is stationary as every single attempt to test for motion of the Earth fails.

We only know of the surface of Earth. The deepest depths of the oceans are an unknown yet it holds one fact. That there is more land beneath the oceans, at the floor of the ocean. Hence the landmass of Earth is the largest and densest object that we objectively know, dense objects are seeking their equilibrium and if these objects weigh more than the air which on average at ground level is 14.6 psi then they will travel towards the densest object which happens to be below our feet, downwards. If they fall into the oceans then the archimedese principal takes over.

If we want to find out where the Earth is on a philosophical level, how do you determine that without first leaving Earth or without exploring all of it?

I never said we need to know where the earth is. We have to assume where it is. We have to make assumptions about how earth remains stationary.

Can you practically demonstrate your claim of objects or gases travelling towards a stationary densest object? In a horizontal direction? Creating a density gradient?

I agree that we should be exploring to try and find out where we are.

Alpha

Posts : 126
Points : 2212
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2018-11-15
Location : New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by chimaira92 Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:14 am

Alpha wrote:
chimaira92 wrote:
Alpha wrote:
Russian Blue Cat wrote:All current experiments prove a stationary earth
Of course we have to guess where earth is situated because we aren't allowed to explore the earth.
Nor is it necessary to know where earth is situated to know the earth is stationary.
The samething could be said in reverse: if you don't know where earth is situated then you can't say it's moving especially when no current experiments show it to be moving.

So alpha if you have a problem with people saying earth is stationary and you're not saying earth is moving, what is your view then? what exactly are you trying to put forward other than "unless we know where earth is, you can't know anything"

I haven't suggested earth is moving.

So by guessing where earth is situated, you would agree that we have to make assumptions about where and how that works?

If you are guessing where earth is situated then how do you know how it remains stationary and are you able to demomstrate this for me to verify for myself?

I haven't made any claims about earths motion

I haven't got a problem with people saying earth is stationary, my issue with that is people saying earth is stationary but failing to see that they must make assumptions about earth being stationary, about where it is and how it remains stationary.

My view is that by having to making these assumptions about where earth is and how it remains stationary, it becomes a problem when we need to demonstrate how we have directionality.


We don't need to know where Earth is and it isn't an assumption. It is a fact that Earth is stationary as every single attempt to test for motion of the Earth fails.

We only know of the surface of Earth. The deepest depths of the oceans are an unknown yet it holds one fact. That there is more land beneath the oceans, at the floor of the ocean. Hence the landmass of Earth is the largest and densest object that we objectively know, dense objects are seeking their equilibrium and if these objects weigh more than the air which on average at ground level is 14.6 psi then they will travel towards the densest object which happens to be below our feet, downwards. If they fall into the oceans then the archimedese principal takes over.

If we want to find out where the Earth is on a philosophical level, how do you determine that without first leaving Earth or without exploring all of it?

I never said we need to know where the earth is. We have to assume where it is. We have to make assumptions about how earth remains stationary.

Can you practically demonstrate your claim of objects or gases travelling towards a stationary densest object? In a horizontal direction? Creating a density gradient?

I agree that we should be exploring to try and find out where we are.

I can not showcase objects or gases travelling towards a stationary object horizontally because the earth beneath us is downwards, not sideways. An attempt to showcase this would be futile because we can not leave the reference frame of Earth. On a similar note, any demonstrations using a vacuum chamber do not represent how we experience earth, there are no natural vacuum chambers created in nature.

chimaira92

Posts : 16
Points : 675
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2022-08-29

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Alpha Sat Apr 01, 2023 1:44 am

chimaira92 wrote:
Alpha wrote:
chimaira92 wrote:
Alpha wrote:
Russian Blue Cat wrote:All current experiments prove a stationary earth
Of course we have to guess where earth is situated because we aren't allowed to explore the earth.
Nor is it necessary to know where earth is situated to know the earth is stationary.
The samething could be said in reverse: if you don't know where earth is situated then you can't say it's moving especially when no current experiments show it to be moving.

So alpha if you have a problem with people saying earth is stationary and you're not saying earth is moving, what is your view then? what exactly are you trying to put forward other than "unless we know where earth is, you can't know anything"

I haven't suggested earth is moving.

So by guessing where earth is situated, you would agree that we have to make assumptions about where and how that works?

If you are guessing where earth is situated then how do you know how it remains stationary and are you able to demomstrate this for me to verify for myself?

I haven't made any claims about earths motion

I haven't got a problem with people saying earth is stationary, my issue with that is people saying earth is stationary but failing to see that they must make assumptions about earth being stationary, about where it is and how it remains stationary.

My view is that by having to making these assumptions about where earth is and how it remains stationary, it becomes a problem when we need to demonstrate how we have directionality.


We don't need to know where Earth is and it isn't an assumption. It is a fact that Earth is stationary as every single attempt to test for motion of the Earth fails.

We only know of the surface of Earth. The deepest depths of the oceans are an unknown yet it holds one fact. That there is more land beneath the oceans, at the floor of the ocean. Hence the landmass of Earth is the largest and densest object that we objectively know, dense objects are seeking their equilibrium and if these objects weigh more than the air which on average at ground level is 14.6 psi then they will travel towards the densest object which happens to be below our feet, downwards. If they fall into the oceans then the archimedese principal takes over.

If we want to find out where the Earth is on a philosophical level, how do you determine that without first leaving Earth or without exploring all of it?

I never said we need to know where the earth is. We have to assume where it is. We have to make assumptions about how earth remains stationary.

Can you practically demonstrate your claim of objects or gases travelling towards a stationary densest object? In a horizontal direction? Creating a density gradient?

I agree that we should be exploring to try and find out where we are.

I can not showcase objects or gases travelling towards a stationary object horizontally because the earth beneath us is downwards, not sideways. An attempt to showcase this would be futile because we can not leave the reference frame of Earth. On a similar note, any demonstrations using a vacuum chamber do not represent how we experience earth, there are no natural vacuum chambers created in nature.

Thank you for your honesty and the discussion. Then how do you demonstrate your claim of objects (or gases) travelling towards a stationary densest object outside of the reference frame already established (up and down)? To demonstrate what you claim is making this happen is true? It seems like a begging the question fallacy where you're assuming the truth of that claim, rather than demonstrating it.

I haven't mentioned vacuum chambers, so I don't see a need to introduce them to the discussion at this stage, unless you feel they help with your demonstration?

Alpha

Posts : 126
Points : 2212
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2018-11-15
Location : New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Admin Thu May 11, 2023 5:48 pm

Is the Flat Earth Stationary or Constantly Rising Upwards?



For many years the Flat Earth community at large was in agreement that the world is a level motionless plane as evidenced by our common sense, everyday experience, and countless scientific experiments including the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Sagnac, Airy's Failure, and observable realities such as perfectly circular star trails around a stationary Pole Star, and the constellations remaining in their relative positions to one another for all of recorded history. Recently, however, a few Flat Earthers have revived Leo Ferrari's old Flat Earth Society claim that the world is not in fact a level motionless plane, but rather a constantly upwards rising plane. These people cite experiments such as a helium balloon moving forward in an accelerating car, or a cork inside a dropped bottle of water momentarily ceasing its descent while mid-air as proof positive that Earth cannot be a stationary plane. They claim the only possible way to explain these results is to assume Earth to be constantly rising at 9.8 meters per second or approximately 22 miles per hour straight upwards. There is some debate amongst them regarding whether this upward motion is a constant velocity or an acceleration, but these new "upward rising Earthers" have all recently come into agreement that our flat Earth can no longer be stationary.

These "upward rising Earthers" begin their inquiry innocently enough by asking questions about the directional vector of dropped objects and why dense objects fall downwards rather than upwards or sideways for example. To this question, I would give the answer that there is a pressure gradient formed by the amount of stacked air/water/land over you in a column which increases the pressure/weight/density the farther down you go and that defines direction, while things like helium balloons fall up, not down, proving there is no downward directional bias. Unsatisfied with this answer, "upward rising Earthers" continue their inquiry by asking why then does Earth have a pressure gradient stacked in this particular fashion with the densest layer at the bottom rather than the top or sides? Now, at this point, I would say such a line of questioning is tantamount to asking why is water wet or why is fire hot? It is like asking why don't we walk upside-down on the sky and look up to the ground? It is similar to asking why don't our arms grow out of our pelvis and legs grow out of our torso? As anyone who has spent significant time with a 4 year-old knows, the question of "but why" if asked long enough eventually leads to an infinite regress of explanations that can only be ended with the true, but potentially unsatisfying metaphysical answer of, "it is that way, because that's how it was created to be."

Rather than accept that Earth was simply created to have the particular arrangement of density layering that it does, "upward rising Earthers" instead claim that Earth must be a constantly upwards rising plane and that this constant vertical motion is the only thing that can explain the directional vector. Now, while this could make for interesting speculation, the fact of the matter is that dropping a water bottle with a cork in it, or watching a helium balloon go forward in a moving car, are NOT demonstrations of the Earth constantly rising upwards. At best these demonstrations provide tangential evidence for their line of questioning, but in no way prove their assumption that Earth is a constantly rising plane. In fact, "upward rising Earthers" are forced to pile assumption upon assumption in order to defend their new dogma.

Assumption #1 - The Constantly Upwards Rising Earth: Their first assumption, in order to answer the question of directional vector, going against all common sense, our everyday experience, and countless scientific experiments proving earth to be completely motionless, they make the grand assumption that Earth is constantly rising upwards 9.8 meters per second

Assumption #2 - Infinite Empty Space Above the Rising Earth: In order to have a world that constantly rises upwards forever, they are now forced to make a second assumption which is that there exists an infinite expanse of empty space above our Flat Earth for the constantly rising world to rise into

Assumption #3 - Atmosphere and Objects Within Rise Perfectly Along with Rising Earth: Next they are forced to assume that the entire atmosphere is somehow fixed like glue to rise perfectly along with the upward rising Earth, because otherwise, the upward rising Earth would constantly be crashing up into the bottoms of birds, planes, helicopters and everything else in flight above the forever upwards rising Earth

Assumption #4 - The Sun, Moon, and Stars Also Constantly Rise Upwards: Finally, they are forced to assume that the Sun, Moon, and stars are also all constantly rising 9.8 meters per second somehow fixed along with the rising atmosphere, otherwise of course the upward rising Earth would crash into them as well

So, rather than accept the order of density layering on Earth to simply be as it is, "upward rising Earthers" prefer to ignore their common sense, everyday experience and countless scientific experiments proving a stationary Earth, in order to make assumption, upon assumption, upon assumption, upon assumption, 4-fold in an attempt to answer their inquiry. Since "upward rising Earthers" claim the Earth, the luminaries, the atmosphere and everything in it are all constantly rising together, there is no way for an experimenter to actually step outside this reference frame to confirm or deny their supposition. And this shows the ultimate futility of the "upward rising Earthers" entire argument: since no one can escape Earth's reference frame in order to observe or measure this supposed vertical movement of the Earth, its atmosphere and all the luminaries, there is no way verify or falsify the hypothesis! Therefore, when questioning the directional vector of density layering on our flat Earth, you can pile assumption upon assumption to arrive at this speculative and unprovable conclusion, or you can simply allow reality to be as it is.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1911
Points : 9024
Reputation : 3803
Join date : 2015-12-30

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com

CajunPie, Russian Blue Cat and TyrannicalSawdustRex like this post

Back to top Go down

Dels experiments concerning the directional vector - Page 3 Empty Re: Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum