It's not rocket science

[broadway]

Instead of that (which does follow logic in that it is demonstrable in the real world) you're choosing to go with an unproven force called gravity. You're choosing gravity over something that is physically demonstrable.

But there is no logical explanation of why up is up and down is down? Please explain logically.

[[XAP]Bob]

Instead of that (which does follow logic in that it is demonstrable in the real world) you're choosing to go with an unproven force called gravity. You're choosing gravity over something that is physically demonstrable.

But there is no logical explanation of why up is up and down is down? Please explain logically.

Just because

[kwackers]

Instead of that (which does follow logic in that it is demonstrable in the real world) you're choosing to go with an unproven force called gravity. You're choosing gravity over something that is physically demonstrable.

But there is no logical explanation of why up is up and down is down? Please explain logically.

Just because

I have a theory about why Manc is reticent to answer a lot of questions.
He re-posts what people have written here onto the flat earth sites and then waits for someone to answer them for him.

[Postboxer]

With the masses of the two objects being the only variable and them falling at different rates, we can safely conclude that it is the masses of the two balls that is the reason one falls faster than the other.

[[XAP]Bob]

With the masses of the two objects being the only variable and them falling at different rates, we can safely conclude that it is the masses of the two balls that is the reason one falls faster than the other.

Clearly it's their colour

[Manc33]

No drag can't be a control.
So why have you been claiming that it is?

I never have done.

This is from 6 months back so I'm not getting into it all again now but I have never said drag would or could be a control.

This is exactly what the various shills and trolls do, not that you are one (AFAIK), you're just replying the same way they do.

It normally starts with "So what you're saying is..." followed by a slight adaptation on what I really did say.

Or they say "We have answered that already" when it wasn't answered.

Not one single thing I detailed anywhere in this thread has been debunked or sorted out, for example you cannot have perfect engineering on a Foucault's Pendulum, so how can you say it precesses only because of Earth spinning? You'd need perfect engineering at the ball joint and we can't engineer that. If we could, the ball engineered would have to be handled with gloves and kept in a presentation case like near-perfect spheres are. Even if you can create that, it still isn't a perfect sphere.

So many dirty tricks going on in the Flat Earth scene right now.

Thats partly why I am not getting into it all here again but also because no one really cares anyway. I am of the mindset that people will find this stuff out themselves like I had to and anyone else doesn't deserve to know any of it.

[[XAP]Bob]

So you've posted to a six month old thread to say you don't care?

Your actions speak otherwise...

OK - if a heavy object falls faster than a light one then a heavier still object will fall faster?

So a Mass of A will fall slower than a larger mass of B, which will fall slower than a larger mass C?

So what if you make MassC by tying together masses A and B.

Why do they now fall faster than either would have done before. What would happen, under your regime, is that Mass B would fall faster, but be pulled up by MassA (which is falling slower) and the heaviest mass would fall at an intermediate speed.

Reductio ad absurdum

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Must be Scientologist

If you make a heavier object still, then won't it eventually be going at the speed of light

So [XAP]Bob is suggesting that Manc33 theory would go like this-

[XAP]Bop & NA jump out of a plane we hit ground at similar speeds.

But if we go back and jump holding hands then we will hit the ground earlier and fail to pull our cords

Bye bye {XAP]Bop & NA, some would say that's good

[roubaixtuesday]

The thread that refused to die...

[kwackers]

Wahoo! It's back...

One thing I was thinking about. Satellite TV works by having a geostationary satellite. We angle our sat dishes to point at it and it turns out if you take the angle from each satellite dish over (say Europe) and extrapolate them they all meet at the correct point (unsurprisingly).
However if the earth is flat they don't. They fall into a vertical scatter of points which makes no sense...

Did we ever explain what keeps the sun and moon up in the sky (yes, I know the moon is just a photo towed into place by the ancient Aztecs on firey chariots but it still has to stay up there and move around)

Is there any way we can add brexit to this thread? Cover all bases as it were...

[[XAP]Bob]

Obviously we can - those europeans are lying scum... so we can disregard their dish angles...

[roubaixtuesday]

Is there any way we can add brexit to this thread

Sure there is:

"Experts? We're sick of experts telling us about the scientific method. We voted Brexit to take control of our own space-time!"

[reohn2]

I'll bet Donald Trump knows how it all works

[[XAP]Bob]

I'll bet Donald Trump knows how it all works

Bravo


Although frankly I doubt he actually knows how his own derrière works

[Manc33]

Things have come a long way since this thread started but not for heliocentrism, that continues to be riddled with contradictions.

Around the start of this thread I said "It seems then to be some sort of enclosed system" and yes, we have gas pressure on the Earth and the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us you cannot have gas pressure without a container - that is, the gas pressure would equilibrate and press off into the vacuum of space if we had such a vacuum next to the atmosphere.

People have been asking about this for a few years now at least and, since any answer would need to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it remains unanswered.

Most of the time, argumentative clever clogs say "Gravity keeps the air on the Earth" but gravity is only said to act on mass, not on gas pressure, so that answer doesn't work. When told this answer doesn't work, the aforementioned clever clogs simply repeat it, not knowing what else to do. The gravity card may be pulled for other things and work to fob people off but not on this occasion. The gas pressure still has to keep pressing and the gases should be seeping off into space with eventually, no atmosphere left on the Earth. This is of course not the reality we live in where we enjoy breathing air every day. So, because we do live in an environment with gas pressure we can figure out from this that we cannot be living next to a vacuum as claimed, there's some sort of barrier or ceiling to it.