Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 02, 2023, 08:25:03 AM »

Quote from: 1 20:22
get fucked. You haven't substantiate one claim of the globe. And nothing so far has been placed into the globe only basket. I'm out. Maybe flat earth just isn't for you. Have fun on your imaginary spinny space rock in your endless vacuum. Maybe one day you'll have the eyes to see.
Quote from: 2 0924
Have a nice life.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 01, 2023, 12:37:17 PM »

Quote from: 29 1549 direct message:
I like how you like that people are talking shit while I'm banned for simply repeating the ad hom that was given to me, especially since you haven't substantiated. I'll be back in two days so you can elaborate on the claims of how you have air/ gas pressure without a container or how gravity is able to hold air/ gas in a density gradient. I expect an experiment to substantiate the claim,  you've had 30 days.
Quote
Quote from: 29 1549 direct message:

I like how you like that people are talking shit while I'm banned for simply repeating the ad hom that was given to me, especially since you haven't substantiated. I'll be back in two days so you can elaborate on the claims of how you have air/ gas pressure without a container or how gravity is able to hold air/ gas in a density gradient. I expect an experiment to substantiate the claim,  you've had 30 days.

With mixed emotions of both contempt and sadness, I decline to interact with your mindless parroting presentations. I have decided to NOT delete your comments on FE in this FE / GE discussion thread. I have also decided to not delete any of your non-FE comments anywhere else.

I have more important things to present. This cold civil war that is going on in the U.S. and the world could become a hot war with people being killed... That is, with people being killed in addition to the people being killed by governments around the world daily.

When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

cc: tim lance
Quote from: 1 1333
Dale Eastman yeah all your ad homs don't constitute evidence of anything except a failure to make an intelligent argument. So now that I'm out of banishment for simply dishing out what i had received, do any of you have evidence of gas/air pressure absent a container, or if your claim is gravity holds the gas/air pressure to the earth i would like an experiment demonstrating such behavior. I've already shown an experiment demonstrating a gas/air pressure gradient within a container i will repost it if necessary.
Quote from: 1 1336
When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.
Quote from: 1 1343
no. YOU invoked the pressure gradient and i would like evidence that supports the claim. Or you can concede that you have no evidence that refutes the fact that gas/air pressure requires a container, and this a gas/air pressure gradient requires a container. If you can concede you we can get to the logical deduction of why a lens of some sort could be envoked in explaining how the sun apears in an apparent location and why the experiment of the flat table with a light source observed through a lens is plausible and viable.
Quote from: 1 1351
You have been given MY terms for continuing this discussion.

Else:
Quote
Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use
Quote from: 1 1405
so you concede, then. Ok. We shall go over the moon phases. The sun circles the above the earth once every 24 hours and between the two tropics yearly, the moon moves between the tropics monthly, but circles the earth at a slower pace than the sun, whereby, the sun laps the moon once every 28 days. We used to have 13 months(moonths) of 28 days. So when the moon is closest to the sun we have a "new moon". No one sees the new moon, not even with ir cameras (interesting). When the moon is farthest from the sun (on opposite sides of the earth) we get our full moon. The moon is its own light sorce, but it's phases are dependent on its position relative to the sun. Why do i say the moon is its own light sorce? Because of the inverse square law of light. On a full moon night, where the moon casts a shadow on the ground, and we are very modest, say we could call that one lumin, it's like more but if we call it just one lumin, and we have the distance to the moon its 4 lumins(as the inverse square law of light dictates) half that distance again and were at 8 lumin, and you do this all the way till your 100 miles from the moon, in the globe model, the brightness it would have to be is multitudes brighter than we see the sun from here on earth. Now speaking of moon phases, have you heard of the "impossible eclipse" or the seleninlion eclipse?
Quote from: 1 1415
so you concede, then. Ok. We shall go over the moon phases. The sun circles the above the earth once every 24 hours and between the two tropics yearly, the moon moves between the tropics monthly, but circles the earth at a slower pace than the sun, whereby, the sun laps the moon once every 28 days. We used to have 13 months(moonths) of 28 days. So when the moon is closest to the sun we have a "new moon". No one sees the new moon, not even with ir cameras (interesting). When the moon is farthest from the sun (on opposite sides of the earth) we get our full moon. The moon is its own light sorce, but it's phases are dependent on its position relative to the sun. Why do i say the moon is its own light sorce? Because of the inverse square law of light. On a full moon night, where the moon casts a shadow on the ground, and we are very modest, say we could call that one lumin, it's like more but if we call it just one lumin, and we have the distance to the moon its 4 lumins(as the inverse square law of light dictates) half that distance again and were at 8 lumin, and you do this all the way till your 100 miles from the moon, in the globe model, the brightness it would have to be is multitudes brighter than we see the sun from here on earth. Now speaking of moon phases, have you heard of the "impossible eclipse" or the seleninlion eclipse?

◎ All of the above
◎ Some of the above
◉ None of the above
Quote from: 1 1415
https://youtu.be/4q1f0fQizyc
Quote from: 1 1424
https://youtu.be/x0Cr_VUtY08
Quote from: 1 1452
https://youtu.be/9US3oaEZ8dI
Quote from: 1 1459
https://youtu.be/3vL3JCssBl4
Quote from: 1 1514
I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/0001/No%20Delusion%20Duty.png
Quote from: 1 1528
you clearly cannot refute what I've put forward regarding gas/air pressure and claiming gravity creates a gradient with no evidence to support this claim, and by your silence and refusal to answer it is acceptance by acquiescence, another one for the flat-basket. I've moved on to the moon phases and eclipses with several videos as my proofs of claim. A ball casting a shadow on a ball creates an elliptical shadow contrary to what's observed. The shadow of a lunar eclipse will come in from the opposite side of the direction of how the earth is said to move in relation to the moon, in the globe model (i observed this myself with the last lunar eclipse. The seleninlion eclipse can't work on the ball as both moon and sun are both above the horizon. A shadow cannot be smaller than the object casting the shadow, the solar eclipse is refuted, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Can you provide or produce evidence of an object casting a shadow smaller than the object itself?
Quote from: 1 1529
https://youtu.be/dJbU4tSpsAY
Quote from: 1 1727
I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.
Quote from: 1 1730
you're right but if you're claiming you can prove your claim you would show evidence, otherwise its an acceptance by acquiescence. So I've moved on to moon phases like you requested.
Quote from: 1 1743
Repeating what I wrote:
When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

You have NOT correctly explained the phases of the moon.
You have posted crap vids that do NOT explain the phases of the moon...
Your vids are NOT YOU explaining.
You are not even smart enough to understand that this discussion is over.
Keep shitting last words in the conversation, I will block you. I'm tired of the work required to archive your delusional posts.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: December 06, 2022, 07:02:43 AM »

Quote from:
Private Message 1 1748 I got a restriction for fishing out what i received. Let's keep it even and fair. I can ad hom with the worst of them,  but I'm trying to have this discussion in good faith, but there's a limit when it comes to personal attacks.
Quote from:
Private Message 1 2044 Dishing*
Quote
Quoting my wife:
Dear Dale,
you are dealing with a brainless fucking idiot.


Dear Kitty,
Yes. I know.

As you are aware, monkeys can be trapped very easily. All that is needed is a chained container with a hole just big enough for the monkey to reach in and grab the bait. Once the monkey grabs the bait, making a fist, the monkey can not withdraw their hand. The monkey is not smart enough to let go of that which it is so fixated on, so it gets captured.

I have seen many a mind get captured thusly because that mind refuses to give up a belief.

In the instance of this monkey minded flat earth believer, The reason this discussion has been going on since September 30, 2022 is because of my curiosity and attempt to understand the peanut his mind has grabbed and refuses to let go of. As you had focused, so do I... Pressure/density gradients.

On November 6 @ 0734 hrs, Monkey-brain posted:
i don't beleive there's such a thing as "the vaccume of space"

Quite obvious to me, monkey-brain can not conceptualize "infinity".

If I was actually in a mood to continue interacting with his monkeyness, (which I am not because I've wasted entirely too much time interacting with him), I would ask him to discuss the concepts of looking straight up at night. Since any volume of space, that is, any three dimensional area, with nothing in it is by definition, a vacuum. His monkeyness implies his belief that he can see no further straight up than where air ceases to be... Because he doesn't believe in the nothingness beyond that edge of air.

Just as obvious to me, with his constant whining about pressure requires a container, that he believes there must be an atmospheric container at the edge of the air.

12 1207
But because we know air pressure requires a container, it is simple to think whatever the container is and its shape could cause the light rays we see to make the angles we measure. Since you haven't shown how you can have air pressure next to a vaccume without it equalizing or without a physical barrier this just adds credence to the notion of a structure, either physical or energetic, above us.

Oh SNAP!
What's on the other side of that containing structure?

6 0734
We have air pressure here in earth. Do you have an experiment that demonstrates high pressure next to low or no pressure without equalization or a physical barrier?

Monkey brain can't even recognize when he contradicts his own words.

The above words have been in the can since Thursday December 1rst.

These words were composed Tuesday December 6th.

After watching several episodes of "Mighty Ships" on the Smithsonian channel, the thought occurs to me that his monkeyness has no fucking clue about navigation.


By his religiously addled brain, every navigator of aircraft and ships MUST be in on the "globe earth conspiracy". Every one of those navigators MUST be making a public show of using globe earth navigation tools and procedures, while hiding flat earth tools and procedures.



Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: December 01, 2022, 11:18:14 AM »

Quote from: Kitty Eastman 30 1849

Dear Dale,
you are dealing with a brainless fucking idiot. Either push him off a tall building to prove gravity is real (put him in a rubber suit first) or stop engaging with this moron.
Love, your family and friends
Quote from: 30 1859
No one denies the EFFECT of gravity. Whats disputed is the CAUSE of gravity. I posted how a manipulating the independent veriable of the electrostatic charge of something using a vidergraph generator will cause an object to either rise or fall. Ulinke dale, here, i actually show experimental evidence to support my claims. Unless you can show me how space/time is bent, your beleive in pseudoscience.

30 1859 No one denies the EFFECT of gravity. Whats disputed is the CAUSE of gravity.

Quote from: 30 2105
you post pseudo science crap that proves nothing! Most of your nonsense ONLY works under very specific conditions and CAN NOT be repeated. Maybe you should study the differences between scientific LAW and scientific THEORY
Quote from: 30 2113
Neither you nor Dale have posted anything that's observable, verifiable, and repeatable, which the scientific method requires. I understand the difference between scientific law and scientific theory, what causes the effect we see and call gravity is a theory, hence theoretical physics. If you spent more time studying the experimental evidence instead of regurgitating what's in the Rockefeller school books you could provide the evidence needed to substantiate the claims being proposed instead of just ad homing, and reifying you deeply held but erroneous beliefs because it's too hard to accept that maybe you've been duped. So no ad homs, do you have evidence that Dale can't provide or are you just triggered?
Quote from: 30 2124
Pot, kettle, black. None of your alleged evidence is observable, repeatable, verifiable.
Quote from: 30 2131
Again so far nothing dale has provided goes in the "globe only" basket. Maybe you're better at providing evidence than dale so I'll ask you, then. Do you have or can you provide an experiment that shows air pressure next to vacuum without equalization or a physical barrier? Or if you contend that gravity nullifies this LAW of thermodynamics, can you provide an experiment whereby gravity can defy the force of a vacuum?
Quote from: 30 2133
get this through your thick stupid skull. Pressure gradients!!! Apparently you do NOT understand Gradients. Hint: figure out what GRADUAL means
Quote from: 30 2137
again, in order to have air pressure a container is required. Do you have evidence of air pressure absent a container? Providing this could shut me up for good.
Quote from: 30 2145
gas/air pressure requires a container.
Quote from: 30 2150
Again- ignoring the key word GRADIENT as in GRADUAL; figure that out first. I will NOT waste my time on more of your BS until YOU can prove you understand what GRADUAL means
Quote from: 30 2157
again I've already shown that pressure gradients exist within a container. Can you show air/gas pressure period without a container? You listen worse than dale.
Quote
pressure gradient existing within a container. Do you have evidence of pressure gradients absent a container, with out begging the question, and reification?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnaVvgaYY8
Quote from: 30 2205
You still do not understand what gradual means. Let’s try this is the air pressure in Chicago. The same as it is I need Evans Colorado?
Quote from: 30 2225
Your begging the question. Your presuming that you're not in a contained system. That's why I'm asking a prerequisite question of whether it's possible to have air pressure without a container in the first place.

30 2225 Your presuming that you're not in a contained system.

Quote from: 30 2229
YOU prove your bullshit first. Without throwing more bullshit videos that do NoT answer a single question. Also go back and read you own words. You contradict yourself in nearly every post
Quote from: 30 2231
i just did, air and gas pressure requires a container. I just showed 4 screen shots and a video as proof of my claim. Now stop shifting the burden of proof and show me where you can have air pressure without a container.
Quote from: 1 0101
All garbage and does not prove anything. Now you get your head out of your rectum and prove you understand what gradients and gradual mean
Quote from: 1 0737
at sea level relative air pressure is 14.7 the higher the altitude the lower the air pressure gets. That's the gradient. Density and buoyancy can account for this as the denser air is settled at the bottom. Now can you show me air pressure without a container? Can you show cacuum without a container? Can you show high pressure next to low pressure without equalization or a physical barrier? I've been asking Dale this for a month now and he can't seem to answer without a logical fallacy of being the question fallacy or a reification fallacy, or an ad hom. Is there an experiment you can site that demonstrates either of those things.
Quote from: 1 0752
Now I understand what Robert Heinlein meant when he said, never try to teach a pig to sing.
Quote from: 1 0920
gradient isn't an answer to the question. Gradients exist within containers. I'm asking for evidence of a air pressure with our without a gradient without containment. Do you have evidence or just now ad homs?
Quote from: 1 1257
Sing, Piggy, come on sing!
Quote from: 1 1258
ad homs, cool. I didn't think I'd get an intelligent answer from you.
Quote from: 1 1259
Kitty Eastman you do realize you're projecting right now. You're the pig that can't learn to sing.
Quote from: 1 1300
every flat earther used to beleive in the globe they were indoctrinated to believe. Then upon closer examination we actually humbled ourselves and admitting we were wrong.
Quote from: 1 1307
you’re own words right back at you
Quote from: 1 1308
so you have no evidence for what you're claiming either? Why did you even chime in?
Quote from: 1 1308
are you saying believing in your nonsense is a 12 step program?
Quote from: 1 1309
More ad homs. Why don't you go fuck yourself.
Quote from: 1 1645
Fecalbook deleted this. I'm putting it back.
It is my intent to present you as you present yourself.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/MonkeyBrain.png
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 30, 2022, 11:15:57 AM »

Quote from: 30 1208
You have no way to prove that tho. There was no uncut uninterrupted feed of the whole this from stay to finish. For all you know it's a fucking movie. But the cgi was trash and all the breif scenes of waitlessness can be filmed in a zero-g plane. It was a cheap movie production at best. And cannot constitute evidence. Now can you answer my question or are you going to defer to another of point argument.
Quote from: 30 1215
Eppur si muove.
Quote from: 30 1245
Deflation. Can you provide proof of claim that gravity can defy vacuum? Or do you concede?
Quote from: 30 1248
Eppur si muove.
Quote from: 30 1253
Deflation. Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Quote from: 30 1257
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Quote from: 30 1311
I've posted evidence for every claim, you are failing to proving evidence for your claim. Now do you have evidence of gravity defying vacuum, or is it pseudoscience?
Quote from: 30 1317
Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use
Quote from: 30 1321
You haven't shown evidence that gravity can defy vacuum. You showed a picture that fades from black to white. Now that might be sufficient for you but that's not scientific in any way is there an experiment that can demonstrate what you're claiming?
Quote from: 30 1324
Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use
Quote from: 30 1327
If i missed it then please resubmit it.
Quote from: 30 1342
Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use
Quote from: 30 1354
i scrolled, the only thing i see is the picture of black fading to white called a gradient. But that isn't evidence that there's no container, nor that the supposed force called gravity can defy a vacuum. That is why i keep asking for evidence to support your claims. I explained that I've seen an "experiment" of a gradient within the tallest building in Dubai, however that experiment is a reification fallacy because it doesnt refute the notion that air pressure requires a container to begin with. So specifically i am still looking for experimental evidence that air pressure does not require a container, and your claim is that gravity is the reason air pressure does not require a container then i am looking for an experiment whereby gravity is shown to defy the force of a vacuum. Your seemingly inability to provide these proofs of claim is partly why there are so many people denying the globe model.
Quote from: 30 1357
Laugh emogis are considered ad hom.
Quote from: 30 1358
Are you conceding, or is there evidence for your claim?
Quote from: 30 1325
I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.
Quote from: 30 1440
I thought this would be a good faith conversation. You clearly have been presented a contradiction in your logic, in witch you either have to acknowledge that you have no evidence to support your claim, and that a stupid half-wit flerfer has you stumped. By your silence, and refusal to answer you are agreeing that there actually is no scientific evidence to support the claim that gravity is somehow able to defy the 2nd law of physics, and your hardened ego will not allow you to admit that. Do this is one more thing that cannot go into the "globe only" basket. What's your next peice of evidence that supports your notion that you live on a spinny water rock in an infinite void?
Quote from: 30 1621
It was good faith until you willfully ignored evidence and used personal incredulity as your reason for doing so.
Quote from: 30 1738
What evidence? The picture that's just a fade from black to white? Im serious, what evidence are you referring to that satisfies my question about air pressure?
Quote from: 30 1753
You have willfully ignored the purpose and intent of that fade image.
That image is an analog showing a white color gradient.
Quote from: 30 1805
Right. Because that's not experimental evidence. That's a picture that looks like it was done in ms paint. It's there any experiment that can qualify what that gradient is attempting to demonstrate?
✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳ ✴ ✵ ✶ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 30, 2022, 10:50:04 AM »

Quote from: 30 1129
you are refusing to answer and provide evidence to a simple question, and using fallacious arguments. Like that appeal to authority you just used. Galileo a man you don't even know whether he existef or not. So can you provide the evidence for the claim that gravity can defy the force of a vacuum, or do you concede that there is no evidence that gravity can hold atmos in defiance of a vacuum?
Quote from: 30 1130
I've provided evidence for every claim I've made thus far, I'm asking you extend me the same courtesy.
Quote from: 30 1149
I've provided evidence for every claim I've made thus far, <SNIP>
You mean a recording studio?
⇉ I am reading that comment as if you openly stated Virgin Galactic doesn't launch folks into and above the upper atmosphere.
Present 𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓪𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 of this claim.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 30, 2022, 10:27:45 AM »

Quote from: 29 1348
You don't understand that the positive claim is that virgin sent a rocket to space. Can you prove that it actually went up with people in it and that it actually landed back safe. Did you have an uncut/ unedit feed or was it cut edited and could be totally staged. If that's real i guess starwars was all real too. Again you can choose to believe they did that but to know(gnosis) means to know first hand. You have a great appeal to authority complex for someone who deems himself an anarchist/voluntryist. You have way more faith in the religion of government and propaganda than I. Again i used to beleive all the rocket launches and cgi, but that's only evidence of how easy it is to fool people who want their programming to be true.
Quote from: 29 1349
I'm just waiting for you to substantiate the claim that gravity can defy a vacuum. Im not going farther till this can be observed, verified, and repeated, you know, like the scientific method demands.
Quote from: 29 1356
now, I've seen an experiment where a guy takes a barometer in that tall building in Dubai and shows that there's a difference in pressure from the bottom floor and the top floor, but that's a begging the question fallacy and a reification fallacy, and doesn't refute the notion that air pressure requires a container. As I've shown that pressure gradients exist in containers. That experiment presupposes that the earth system isn't contained. Is there an experiment of a pressure gradient with no container that isn't fallacious?
Quote from: 30 1124
idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high

📖 Because you found something difficult to understand,
or are unaware of how it works,
you made out like it's probably not true.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity📖

You are willfully ignoring the data I have placed in front of you...
Just like the Holy Roman Catlick Church refused to look through Galileo's Telescope.

Eppur si muove.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=510919904385555&reply_comment_id=520046980139514

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/519284680215744/?comment_id=519950840149128&reply_comment_id=520048103472735
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 29, 2022, 12:01:08 PM »

Quote from: 29 1056
You mean a recording studio? See this is how science works if there's a claim you need evidence to support it. If there were actual evidence, there wouldn't be any globe deniers. Saying gravity can hold water and air to the earth needs something to back it. When i can easily demonstrate the minute amount of low pressure from my mouth and lungs and easly defeat gravity and pull water and air away from the earth, but you can't show me one experiment where this magical gravity can defy the low pressure of space. If you can't validate this notion of gravity must have to understand you have pseudoscience and a dogmatic religious belief.
Quote from: 29 1100
still nothing has gone on the "globe only" basket.
Quote from: 29 1351
Sign up and book a flight to take your delusional ass to the edge of space.

You mean a recording studio?

I am reading that comment as if you openly stated Virgin Galactic doesn't launch folks into and above the upper atmosphere.

Present verifiable evidence of this claim. Absolute proof is the only way to make your claim not libelous.

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 28, 2022, 06:38:48 PM »

Quote from: 28 1817
Keeping this conversation alive. By your silence are you agreeing that there's no experimental evidence to support the notion of a pressure system next to vacuum or extreme low pressure absent a physical barrier? And if your aren't going to concede and are instead contending that gravity (something unproven) is able to overpower a vacuum, would you provide the evidence that can demonstrate gravity defeating vacuum in an experiment? Im not going to move past this point until you concede or are able to rebutte.
Quote from: 29 1033
By your silence are you agreeing <SNIP!>

With friends and family who say I've just been wasting my time by interacting with you.

would you provide the evidence that can demonstrate gravity defeating vacuum in an experiment?

You have been WILLFULLY ignoring the evidence that I have placed in front of you.

https://www.virgingalactic.com/sign-up

Sign up and book a flight to take your delusional ass to the edge of space.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-19-13%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png


https://videos.ctfassets.net/vsp83h9pnr7f/6iJRCQM2wxGRjCdk8Ay8EP/d90967a345551f5d308783c4cd954510/U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-18-17%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Screenshot%202022-11-29%20at%2010-19-46%20U22_WEBSITE_EDIT_FINAL_MK_2022-02-08_1.mp4.png
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 25, 2022, 08:39:53 AM »

Quote from: 23 0943
Then wtf is earth's air pressure contained by next to the vaccume of space. If you say gravity I'm going to need to see an experiment of gravity defying the force of vaccume in an experiment otherwise its pseudoscience. Do you understand that? I'm looking for an experiment that substantiates that claim.
Quote
First read: November 25 @ 09:36 hrs.
Second read: November 25 @ 12:31hrs.

Quit willfully ignoring the facts I placed in front of you.

23 0933
I'm waiting for you to quit willfully ignoring facts placed in front of you.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 23, 2022, 08:33:41 AM »

Quote from: 22 1505
Still waiting for experiment of vaccume next to pressure without a barrier or equalization.
Quote from: 23 0933
I'm waiting for you to quit willfully ignoring facts placed in front of you.

If challenged on my claim that you are willfully ignoring facts placed in front of you, I would be forced to admit that you willfully ignoring facts is only my opinion... Because the alternative is you are too fucking stupid to understand the facts I have continually placed in front of you.

There is NO VACUUM next to pressure... Except in your delusional mind.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 19, 2022, 07:05:32 AM »

Quote from: 22 1412
Part 1

November 18 1235
That's what this whole conversation was stated for, definitive proof of the globe, you said you have.

The only reason this conversation has continued as long as it has is because YOU managed to actually become the topic of MY study.

I had become curious about what mental contortions and mental gyrations you will go through to protect your magical thinking magical beliefs.

Noticeable is your selective memory.

September 30 11:14 you posted:
I know you don't like to discuss the notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but

That half sentence informs me that at some point you did read my September 8 1635 post:

⇉ If I find flat earth beliefs in your posts in my feed, I am going to pretend I am new to the earth and ask you questions. If you do not engage with me and my questions honestly, I'll remove you as a friend. ⇇
https://www.facebook.com/dale.eastman.75/posts/pfbid035NxqrAjWMRG2yWNDgJUuhis8PdXH9Jhni82Zyc73cxLBQtv1vbsodMJJaeDmKyZWl

In view of those two hard facts, I find your subtle attempt to spin the words of this discussion to support your magical belief dishonest, arrogant, and disrespectful. And not subtle enough for me to miss your attempts to control the narrative, topics, and discussion.

You have accused me of:
November 18 1234
still shifting the burden of proof.

Which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do with this claim:

November 18 1235
this whole conversation was stated for, definitive proof of the globe,

WOE UNTO ME... Alas, my dilemma... Was his statement a dishonest attempt to control the discussion, or just his being selectively forgetful?

November 16 1146
But you've still been dodging the question about pressure systems.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Stating your opinion does not make your opinion reality.

I have continually been answering your question about pressure.

You have continually denied my answer in a manner that makes me wonder if you are too stupid to understand my answer or if you are so emotionally invested in your magical belief that you will deny anything that denies your magical belief. (I'm willing to bet you didn't believe your parents when they told you there's no monsters in the closet or under your bed. (Yes, that was an ad hominem where I attacked your brain-power.))

idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high

𝓣hat is your magical thinking. 𝓣hat is your magical belief. 𝓣hat is why I call you a historic and technical illiterate.
𝓣hat is why you refuse to understand my answer and keep spewing shit about pressure near vacuum.

𝓨ou refuse to accept that the further above earth something is, the less air pressure there is.
𝓨ou are telling me, via implication, that you don't believe barometric altimeters, the things that measure air pressure at elevation, are real.
𝓨ou are telling me that you don't believe the X-15, U-2, and SR-71 are real.
𝓨ou are telling me that you refuse to believe the altimeters until you personally get a ride in any sub-orbital machine.

Air pressure / air density is directly connected to the concept of atmospheric bending of light.

On November 3 @ 1439 you claimed:
1. Air plane windows have a concave to them.

𝓣his is your attempt to deny that I saw what I saw all those times I was a commercial airline passenger. My job was national field service. I flew a lot. So a got to look out a variety of airliner windows.
𝓣his is you telling me that you are willfully ignoring observations that prove a globe earth.
𝓣his  is you telling me that you are not a critical thinker and not able to critically examine information in your sight.

I will now critically examine your errant, biased belief that bent airliner windows cause the appearance of a curved earth on the horizon of a flat earth.

Your choice of calling the windows "concave" is you failing to address that from the other side the windows are convex. So you only focused on the part you believe bolsters your belief.

The webpage you cherry picked your curved windows proof from, to support your errant claim of a curved window causing a curved "looking" horizon, also stated:
📖 The outer panes are thicker at approximately 0.4” thick and carry the pressure loads for the life of the window, 📖

You willfully ignored from my quote of your chosen page: 📖 The outer panes [...] carry the pressure loads for the life of the window,📖 You willfully ignored the data that supports: higher elevation = less pressure, which supports different air pressure = air density GRADIENTS.

A majority of of the length of any passenger aircraft is a uniform radius tube. This means ANY window in that section of the tube will also be a uniform radius from front to back (left to right or right to left from the passenger seat) Therefore any bending you errantly assume would be different from front to back simply can not be. In order for the alleged flat horizon to bend down, the windows can NOT be uniform dimensions from front to back. This is you telling me that you did not apply any critical thought to this particular shit you threw at the wall to see if it would stick. It doesn't.

You willfully ignored when I pointed out these windows are of a uniform thickness, just like the windows on my car. And the side windows on my car are also curved just like the image from your article shows.

📖 For observers near sea level, the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is imperceptible to the unaided eye. However, for someone on a 1,000 m (3,300 ft) hill looking out across the sea, the true horizon will be about a degree below a horizontal line. 📖

No bent airliner window required.

Testing your bent window bullshit is as easy as looking out the window at a horizontal edge of something like the terminal building and seeing the same bend as the horizon. Did I mention I've looked out a lot of airliner windows?

I claimed, "you are also totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work" and you implied you understand how lenses work when you posted:
October 19 14:07 you replied:
it bends toward the denser medium.

I challenged your understanding when I posted: "Why does the light bend when it enters a medium of different density?" and you  again implied you understand how lenses work when you posted:
November 12 1117
In particle theory its because the speed the light travels is different in different mediums.

If the edges of the denser medium are parallel, the light leaves at the same angle it entered, though offset due to the thickness of the transparent medium.

So you have again told me what you don't know. Using your errant logic, anything horizontal I look at through my car's side windows should appear bent also.

You again fail at logic and critical thinking.
Quote from: 22 1420
Part 2

November 9 0726
the horizon is still at eye level
November 12 1207
the horizon remains at eye level
November 16 0933
projecting it up to the eye level of an observer.
November 16 1146
Optics of the eye make an apparent horizon at the observers eye level.

Horizon:
📖 the line at the farthest place that you can see, where the sky seems to touch the land or sea📖
📖 the place in the distance where the earth and sky seem to meet📖

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Horizons.svg

As shown in the Wikipedia linked image, "eye level" does not see the horizon.
"Eye level' is depicted by the horizontal line of the astronomical horizon shown in this image.
This astronomical horizon line of sight is parallel to the tangent of the surface where the observer stands.
Parallel lines, or parallel plains NEVER intersect.
So even on the alleged plane of the flat earth you errantly believe you stand on, and the horizontal, eye level, line of sight will never intersect the plane of the flat earth. One must look at an angle down to even see the horizon.

Therefore as a point of logic and critical analysis, your claims of horizons and eye level's is just you proudly claiming how willfully uninformed you are about geometry.

This discussion started with you asking on September 30 12:10:
how earth's proposed size is known

To which I answered:
Trigonometry.

October 27 15:11
If the math doesn't describe reality its bad math.

𝓦hat you really said was, If the math doesn't describe flat earth magical thinking, it's bad math.
𝓦hat you really said was, I don't believe in the math of trigonometry.
𝓦hat you implied was, Trigonometry is bad math.

You implied Trig is bad math by posting anything you could to deny that Trig is how the size of the globe earth was measured.

You even posted a video of how a flat earth ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻 have angles of shadows matching the angles of a globe earth.
ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻 does NOT mean 𝕀𝕊.
In order for "ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻" to be "𝕀𝕊" a VERY SPECIFIC LENS SHAPE IS REQUIRED.
Your own video proved this.
You willfully ignored these points in favor of your magical thinking.
You built your alleged disproof of the trigonometry on this magical thinking.

You even went so far with your magical thinking, to attempt to deny gravity. Your October 30 post is you not even being consistent in your magical thinking claim.

October 17 16:57
we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.
October 30 1758
gravity hasn't been "proven"(in taking about the causality not the effect)
November 4 1050
the theory of gravity that's never been proven
November 4 1050
And gravity is presupposed because we're on a ball yet you haven't qualified the ball
November 18 0854
You claim gravity but theres no experimental evidence to support the claim of gravity.

Gravity is presupposed because you don't float off the ground.

So you double down on your magical thinking spewing your denial of gravity with "electrostatics" thereby telling me you do NOT understand electrostatics.

November 5 1034
Are they defying gravity or repelling the earth's measurable negative charge?
November 5 1144
Just by changing the positive electrostatic potential it repells earth measurable negative charge.
November 8 1127
What we have done is experiment on somethings positive/ negative charge and we can cause an object to "defy gravity" just by changing its charge potential.
November 12 1349
But the molecules with the higher positive electrostatic potential will draw closer to the measurably negative charge of the earth.
November 12 1533
obviously there's more pressure towards the bottom because electrostatics (not gravity) create the downward vector.
November 12 1637
Density makes heavier molecules settle closer to earth while lighter, less dense (more positive electrostatic potential) gases like helium, zenon, etc, settle upward.
Quote from: 22 1421
Part 3

ELECTROSTATICS:
Opposite charges attract. Like charges repel.
You contradict your own words. Thus you have proven you don't even proof read the crap you post.
After re-reading your magical thinking claims, I doubt you understand what causes electrostatic charges.

For all your claims of pressure "equalization" I wonder why you don't understand that differential charges will transfer electrons until charge is equalized.
This magical thinking, willful ignorance claim of static charges instead of gravity is you admitting you don't understand lightening strikes.

October 8 16:31
3. Eddy currents are subject to heat because of the cury point magnets lose their magnetism, so how is a presumed molten core presumed to have any magnetism?
November 18 0854
You claim earth has a molten magnetic core, but magnets lose their magnetism at the curey point.
November 18 1111
You mentioned earth's magnetic field yet you have no evidence of a magnet retaining is magnetism beyond the curey point.

This is you proudly telling me that you don't understand electro-magnetics.

November 18 1207
So when you can't substate the model you beleive in you attack the patchwork model of the fe?

I do agree with your claim that your flat earth magical thinking is a "patchwork" model. Your magical belief patchwork is inconsistent. Your "patchwork" model is INCOMPLETE. You admitted this when you posted:
November 18 0854
i can say i don't know the causality of the motions of the celestial bodies.

Your magical belief patchwork requires the imagining (making shit up) of a specific shaped lens at a specific distance. This magical lens requires a magical force to shape it and hold it in a specific position for the FE angles to match the GE measurements. You have built your alleged disproof of the globe math on this magical thinking.

The globe earth model is self consistent, is not a patchwork, incorporates all the physical science you deny with your magical thinking.

November 12 1438
Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi. Space is a vaccume 10-17 tore.

17 torr = 0.32872517psi

Changing the units. Dishonest.
Or you did not learn negative numbers in math class.

November 16 1203
There is no 24 video of the 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica. There's like 2 videos and they are heavily edited.

You willfully ignored this question:
November 16 1317
Is this one of those two videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlQNicOeso

I found your rectal-cranial inversion.
November 6 0927
rather than the center of an intelligently dedigned relm
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 18, 2022, 07:29:27 AM »

Quote from: 18 0839
September 30 14:08
But what I'm saying is neither one proves anything. But one of them requires two presumptions. Does that make sense?

📖 Occam's razor
It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. 📖

Your FE presumptions are many. I am focused on this set of presumptions particularly at this time:

November 16 1203
Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track[...] But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)

Explain your presumptions.
Fourth inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.
Quote from: 18 0845
how could anyone know for sure, especially since idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high. I'm still working on your model because your model cousins such a thing as having air bubbles in a vacuum, yet you can't quantify this claim.
Quote from: 18 0854
i can say i don't know the causality of the motions of the celestial bodies. What i do know is many claims if the globe model have no evidence to support them. That's why I'm trying to understand how there's gas balls in a vacuum. You claim gravity but theres no experimental evidence to support the claim of gravity. You claim earth has a molten magnetic core, but magnets lose their magnetism at the curey point. You claim you can have a pressure system next to a vacuum but have no experimental evidence to support that claim.
Quote from: 18 0927
idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high

Just because YOU don't believe anybody has been over 72 miles high doesn't mean nobody has ever been over 72 miles high.

Your belief, your opinion, your claim...
is presented without proof.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Your opinion is dismissed just as easily. 𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖆𝖗𝖊 𝖜𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖌.

November 18 0854
i can say i don't know the causality of the motions of the celestial bodies

You have presented as your belief, your opinion, your claim:

November 16 1203
Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track[...] But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)

I have specifically requested you to explain this particular belief-opinion-claim.

Not only does this claim have no proof, you have failed to even attempt to explain the mechanics and forces that could or would make the sun move as you claim.

Your failure to give a credible explanation is fatal to your attempt to prove a flat earth.

Explain your presumptions.
Fifth inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.
Quote from: 18 0929
How many times would nasa have to be shown faking space before we can discredit Anthony they show?
Quote from: 18 0932
Explain your presumptions.
Sixth inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.
Quote from: 19 0932
I can answer that definitely. That's just the observation. The effect, if you will
Quote from: 18 0937
It could be done kind of super conductor or tesla,coil type of function. But we could speculate on what it is all day. But before we can discredit these speculations, i want to finish trying to substantiate the model you subscribe to. So i still wait for an experiment that demonstrates air pressure next to vacuum without equalization. Magnets that retain magnetism beyond the curey point, and something to substantiate gravity.
Quote from: 19 0945
18 0937
It could be done kind of super conductor or tesla,coil type of function.

How would a super conductor or a tesla coil cause the observed motion?
Quote from: 18 1004
well since i understand that you can't have air pressure without containment and you can't seem to refute it. I have to assume we're in a closed system. So have you seen a tesla coil flouress noble gasses like would be in the lower pressure side of the gradient the higher you go up?
https://youtu.be/nYWP4Djqj18

Watch the noble gases light up!
Quote from: 18 1004
https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxO1dOti43EqTrpbhTjAbccmsDlNcIpM-u
Experiment at -196°C, Quantum Levitation | Magnetic Games
Quote from: 18 1026
https://youtu.be/pOAJeojbduA
The 7 Noble Gases Reacting to a Tesla Device Look Like The Colours of the Sky at Sunset/Sunrise
Quote from: 18 1028
Again this is just speculation. But i still want to finish beating the horse over having a pressure system next to vacuum without equalization. Is there a way to demonstrate gravity holding onto air molecules so a vacuum can't pull them away?
Quote from: 18 1104
I did NOT ask you for your opinion as to what makes the sun produce light.

Show me a prism breaking the light of each of those gasses and comparing the spectrum with that of actual sunlight.

That makes your first response with the video titled "Watch the noble gases light up!" and your third response with the video titled "The 7 Noble Gases Reacting to a Tesla Device Look Like The Colours of the Sky at Sunset/Sunrise" just some more of your Gish Gallop bullshit.

Your second video titled "Experiment at -196°C, Quantum Levitation | Magnetic Games" is recognized as your attempt to address How would a super conductor or a tesla coil cause the observed motion?

Though the video is a plausible attempt to explain the sun keeping its elevation above a flat earth, the plausibility fails when one observes that the earth's magnetic lines of force do not support the weight of the superconductor as shown in the vid. Also, as shown in the vid, the elevating force only holds the superconductor a few inches above the manufactured magnets with their magnetic lines of force being much stronger than the earth's.

The video does NOT show the lines of force. Something easily shown with iron filings. Magnetic lines of force have vector, that is azimuth and elevation. Earth's very weak magnetic force has both an azimuth vector and an inclination vector.

This video fails to explain the motive force mechanism. The superconductor did NOT move around the magnet track until that hand applied a physical force to make the superconductor move.

What force defines the inner and outer track you allege exists per the track required and shown in your video?
What force makes/made the sun move around the alleged inner and outer track?
Quote from: 18 1111
You wanted speculation. You haven't quantified or qualified how the heliocentric model works. So while i have some ideas they are not clsimed to be believed out right. You haven't substantiated the model you believe in yet. So can we finish substantiating how the heliocentric model is even possible? So far we are waiting to see how air pressure can work next to a vacuum. You claimed gravity, but don't have any experiment to substantiate this. You mentioned earth's magnetic field yet you have no evidence of a magnet retaining is magnetism beyond the curey point. Again So far nothing has gone on the globe only basket.
Quote from: 18 1205
18 1111 ➽ You wanted speculation.

Yes. I did. Yes I do.

I am NOT interested in your Gish Galloping bullshit. I am not interested in chasing your moving goal posts.

My intent right now is to determine if your speculation is credible and plausible.
If your speculation is not credible and plausible, then neither is your claim:

November 16 1203
Season work because the sun as it goes around the earth plane moves from the inner north at the tropic of Cancer to the outer south to the tropic of Capricorn every six months in and six mints back out. While the sun reaches its inner most track[...] But twilight is very brief in the southern latitudes due to the fact that the linier speed of the sun is increased (not its angular speed)

You have attempted to explain the mechanics and forces that could or would make the sun move as you claim.

I will continue to point out the flaws in your claims and question your claims.

These questions have not been addressed:

What force defines the inner and outer track you allege exists per the track required and shown in your video?
What force makes/made the sun move around the alleged inner and outer track?
Quote from: 18 1207
So when you can't substate the model you beleive in you attack the patchwork model of the fe?
Quote from: 18 1208
That's a shifting the burden fallacy
Quote from: 18 1231
So when you can't substate the model you beleive in you attack the patchwork model of the fe?

I am not going to chase your moving goal posts.

That's a shifting the burden fallacy

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Your claim is dismissed just as easily as you made it. 𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖆𝖗𝖊 𝖜𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖌.

The burden of proof is on you historical, technical, scientific illiterates claiming established astronomical science is all a conspiracy.

Cui bono?
Quote from: 18 1234
Appeal to the crowd fallacy, Appeal to authority fallacy. And still shifting the burden of proof.
Quote from: 18 1235
So we need to substantiate the positive claims of the globe model. That's what this whole conversation was stated for, definitive proof of the globe, you said you have.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 17, 2022, 01:20:54 PM »

Quote from: 17 1409
Based on the nature of air pressure you are either presupposing that you don't need a container for air pressure, or that something is keeping the atmos from escaping into space. An altimeter is evidence of pressure/ density gradients that's not in dispute. What's in dispute is the ability to have a pressure system with gradients therein, without a physical barrier containing them.
Quote from: 17 1414
That doesn't prove the gas isn't contained. There is no experiment that can demonstrate a sealed box, in a vacuum, being opened up(removing the physical barrier) and it not equalizing. How does the earth maintain its atmos without it equalizing into space?
Quote from: 17 1420
How does the earth maintain its atmos without it equalizing into space?

That would be the "something" ... "keeping the atmos from escaping into space"

something is keeping the atmos from escaping into space

Huzzah!

That "something" is what is causing the pressure density gradients.
That "something" has everything to do with what is called "down".
Quote from: 17 1424
Gravity! Why could you not have said that sooner? So gravity is pulling the water and air towards the center of the earth and the vacuum of space isn't able to over power it?
Quote from: 17 1504
Gravity! Why could you not have said that sooner?

October 17 16:57
we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time
October 30 1758
gravity hasn't been "proven"(in taking about the causality not the effect)
November 4 1050
the theory of gravity that's never been proven
November 5 1144
I'll wait for an experiment to qualify and quantify gravity.
November 12 1533
No, obviously there's more pressure towards the bottom because electrostatics (not gravity) create the downward vector.

So gravity is pulling the water and air towards the center of the earth and the vacuum of space isn't able to over power it?

Huzzah!
Quote from: 17 1511
ok let me see if i understand this correctly. The weak low pressure i can generate with my cheeks and lungs can pull air and water up away from the earth though a drinking straw effortlessly, yet the more powerful tore 17 vacuum of space can't?
Quote from: 17 1526
So we either need an experiment to show that two pressure systems can exist without a barrier or equalization. Or we need an experiment where we can have a bowl in a vaccume chamber and the chamber pumped out through the bottom leaving a pocket of air in the bowl because gravity is holding it in place? I would hypothesize that ask the air would be ducked out because the bowl isn't a container. Would you hypothesize that gravity would hold some air in the bowl?
Quote from: 17 1551
Your are NOT vacuuming anything up that straw. Assuming you are creating a perfect vacuum, it is the approximate 14.7 psi PUSHING the drink up the straw. This is why the development of a perfect vacuum on one side of a "U" shaped tube will NEVER draw more than 29.929503666738164 inches of mercury.

Do the same thing with a "U" tube of water, the water on the vacuum side of the tube will boil. If not for the low pressure causing a boil, you could get 407.8 inches of water. Inverse affect of a pressure cooking pot, and the reason why high elevation cooking requires more time to cook.

Fill your sink with water. Dip a glass and let the air bubble out. Tip the glass upside down. Pull the glass, bottom first, out of the sink. The glass of water will remain in the glass until the lip breaks the seal with the sink's water surface, at which time the air will rush to the top of the glass releasing the vacuum and the hold on the water in the upside down glass.

See the vid I will attempt to upload next.
Quote from: 17 1618
The vacuum in the glass is contained when you broke the seal(the container) it equalized. That's not evidence of high pressure next to low without equalization or a physical barrier. That's a physical barrier being removed and then equalization happens.
Quote from: 17 1630
I'm not creating vacuum in creating low pressure high pressure moves to low pressure the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be. Yet the weak force of low pressure i can create cannot be negated by gravity. How is my weak low pressure able to do this yet the void of space cannot?
Quote from: 17 1638
the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be

Which vacuum is greater? Vacuum A @ 0.000 psi or Vacuum B @ 0.000 psi.
Quote from: 17 1642
those are the same numbers? That doesn't answer the question. Your claiming that gravity, a force you can't validate is responsible for holding on to the water and air against the extreme low pressure, that you can't validate, of space. When in thermodynamics we know that gases need a container in order to achieve pressure. You the burden of proof is on you to validate these claims.
Quote from: 17 1645
Yes. Those are the same numbers. Now address what you claimed:
the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be

Which vacuum is greater? Vacuum A @ 0.000 psi or Vacuum B @ 0.000 psi.
Quote from: 17 1647
The human lungs cannot generate a torr 17 vaccume, like space is claimed to be. I don't know what your are comparing.
Quote from: 17 1650
If the weak low pressure i can generate with my lungs Is strong enough to lift water and air up away, defeating gravity, what mechanism is keeping the air from being equalized into space and preventing the water from boiling off?

17 torr = 0.32872517psi
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 17, 2022, 12:01:57 PM »

Quote from: 17 1251
It's in a container and they pressurized the tank. A container, something your model doesn't have. I understand gas pressure requires a container or it will equalize. Your model has no barrier between the pressure system and the vacuum. And you claim that a container is not required. I'm asking you for proof of this claim. Abscet that it's pseudoscience.
Quote from: 17 1254
The nature of air pressure is that high pressure flow to low pressure as equalization. Your model has high pressure next to no pressure without a physical barrier, and no equalization. Can this be replicated? Do you know the experiment i can see that would be proof of this claim?
Quote from: 17 1300
Your model has no barrier between the pressure system and the vacuum.

Your model has high pressure next to no pressure without a physical barrier, and no equalization.

That is a straw man. You are being deliberately ignorant.

Now post ten more Gish Galloping posts that have nothing to do with what I just accused you of doing.
Quote from: 17 1302
what's the strawman? That's the heliocentric globe model. At sea level air pressure is 14.7 there's no physical barrier and this should move to equalize to the super low pressure space vacuum.
Quote from: 17 1304
can you show me that you can have high pressure next to vacuum without a physical barrier?
Quote from: 17 1332
what's the strawman? That's the heliocentric globe model. At sea level air pressure is 14.7 there's no physical barrier and this should move to equalize to the super low pressure space vacuum.

Your straw man is claiming there is 14.7 psi of air at the edge of space.

I never said that. The model doesn't claim that. That bullshit is all yours.

November 12 2115:
You are the one ASSUMING the globe model has "air pressure next to a void".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

November 12 1643:
air pressure next to a vaccume?
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.
What is it now? Four or five times I've challenged you on your assumption... Almost to the point of an out right straw man.

November 12 1511:
You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "air pressure next to a vaccume?".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

November 12 1429:
You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "The globe has air pressure, next to the vaccume of space.".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.

November 12 1406:
You are the one CLUELESSLY claiming "high pressure next to no pressure".
I have NOT claimed any such bullshit. That's ALL yours.
Repeat: You don't know what causes pressure gradients.

I have called you on that bullshit straw man multiple times.

I can only assume your ignorance is deliberate or you have a cognitive malfunction.

Because I'm still required to call you on the bullshit you are making up. To wit:
can you show me that you can have high pressure next to vacuum without a physical barrier?

So now I'm going to attempt to drag your Gish Galloping ass back to the topic that explains this to rational folks...

i need you to explain what gas pressure is.

Gas pressure is the kinetic contact of the gas molecules bouncing off of each other, and the walls of a container WHEN the gas is in a container. The analog visualization is the pool balls after the break shot. Brownian motion or movement is another look at the kinetic contact of gas molecules.
Quote from: 17 1335
I need you to take a breath. I said at see level there's 14.7. I said your model doesn't have a barrier between atmos and the vacuum of space.
Quote from: 17 1336
Second i need to be able to observe verify and replicate an experiment that substantiatesc this globe model claim.
Quote from: 17 1337
Image states:Gas pressure requires containment.
Quote from: 17 1338
You claim you can have air/ gas pressure with no container. You haven't shown anything to substantiate this claim. Airplanes in the sky isn't evidence. So either we can test this claim or it's pseudoscience.
Quote from: 17 1402
You claim you can have air/ gas pressure with no container.

Again, you are making shit up and attempting to straw man because your FE bias won't allow you to understand the point you are steadfastly refusing to look at... Just like the Holy Roman Catlick Church refused to look through Galileo's Telescope. Eppur si muove.

Airplanes in the sky isn't evidence.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

In this instance though:
Barometric altimeters are evidence of pressure/density gradients.

The higher one goes, the closer to space one gets, the less the pressure becomes.

So either we can test this claim or[...]

It has been tested you historical technical illiterate.

X-15, Walker, 19 April 1962, the only pilot to fly past the Kármán line.

📖 As the X-15 also had to be controlled in an environment where there was too little air for aerodynamic flight control surfaces, it had a reaction control system (RCS) that used rocket thrusters. 📖