Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

Hm, perhaps i took it as an inference to the inabilityto achieve these shadowson a plane. However now that you see it is possible to achieve these types of angles on a flat surface. We have to start to understand that water on a sphere has to bend to the force of "gravity" yet all our testing shows water at rest lays flat. Now the presumption of a local light sorce comes from observation not speculation. Again neither of us knows what the atmosphere is or isn't, I'm just showing that threw actual experimentation. We can achieve the observable phenomena we see on earth. If we had 3 baskets, one for "works on a globe", one for "works on a plane", and one for "works on both". Nothing we've posted goes in the "only a globe" basket so far. Would you agree?

Now the bodies of water find level only goes in the flat basket. Evidenced by the laser experiments and long distance photography. Would you agree?

➽ However now that you see it is possible to achieve these types of angles on a flat surface.

Whoa there pardner. I ONLY see those angles ONLY under the VERY SPECIFIC environment set up to test for those angles...

A SPECIFIC shaped lens at a SPECIFIC location above the plane and the sun or light source at a very SPECIFIC location above that. I ONLY admit to what I see, ONLY when the conditions are exactly as the experiment SPECIFICALLY shows.

You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth. You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape at a the very specific elevation between the ground and the sun. I'm letting you slide on the very SPECIFIC distance to the sun since that is one of the facts in controversy...

Even though the vid creator and his test team failed to show what happens to the angles when the light is moved directly over one of the periphery nails to prove a claim the narrator made.

➽ We have to start to understand that water on a sphere has to bend to the force of "gravity"

Agreed.

➽ yet all our testing shows water at rest lays flat.

I most vehemently DO NOT AGREE with that specific claim of your opinion and belief.

Have you ever flown cross-country in a commercial aircraft? At say 35,000 to 37,000 feet?

➽ Now the presumption of a local light sorce comes from observation not speculation.

I reject the opinion you just spewed.

➽ Again neither of us knows what the atmosphere is or isn't,

I know that the higher the elevation, the less oxygen is available to breathe because the air pressure decreases.

I know I need to purchase an oxygen meter if I'm going to use my infra-red propane heater in my homebuilt recreational camper vehicle. I know that automotive EGR systems are for the purpose of diluting the pre-ignited air/fuel mixture to keep the combustion chamber temps below about 2,500 degrees F so the nitrogen in the air doesn't become a nitrogen oxide air pollutant.

I know carburated vehicles tuned for Chicago (800' above sea level) run poorly and overly rich spewing unburned black exhaust in Denver (5,280' above sea level).

So I do know a little bit about air density.

➽ Now the bodies of water find level only goes in the flat basket.

You are again spewing your opinion as if it is fact. I reject this opinion. Also, we are NOT done discussing this alleged lens in the sky. So you just Gish Galloped again.

What is the causal mechanism that holds camera satellites up so they can photograph earth's ground?

Which is it? Lens or perspective?

[Dale Eastman]

Again anything beyond where we can reach is going to be speculation. Again we don't observe parallel rays so I'll ask for an experiment to explain the divergent rays from a distant light sorce. Air pressure requires a container. You can't have high pressure next to low pressure without achieving equilibrium, much less next to a vaccume. 2nd rule or thermodynamics. Nasa's sataloon program. You know that >95%of your internet is done via under water cables.

In a helium tank, there is a pressure gradient, but it still needs a container.

https://youtu.be/rPHckG3o6NQ

Repeating... You make it very hard for me to respectfully interact with you.

➽ Again anything beyond where we can reach is going to be speculation.

Who is this "we"?

I have reached 35 -37,000 feet in a commercial airliner. Have you? I'm finding you have a bad habit of not answering questions. Have you ever flown in a commercial airliner?

For now I am ignoring test flights of experimental aircraft.

➽ Again we don't observe parallel rays

Who is this "we"?

➽ I'll ask for an experiment to explain the divergent rays from a distant light sorce.

The "experiment" shown in that video is good enough for me. I addressed that video and you have ignored what I addressed.

So here it is again:
You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth. You and the vid creator have failed to identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very SPECIFIC lens shape at a the very SPECIFIC elevation between the ground and the sun. I'm letting you slide on the very SPECIFIC distance to the sun since that is one of the facts in controversy...
Even though the vid creator and his test team failed to show what happens to the angles when the light is moved directly over one of the periphery nails to prove a claim the narrator made.

➽ Air pressure requires a container.

Prove the container you are ASSUMING exists to keep breathable atmoSPHERE on YOUR flat earth so life doesn't get asphyxiated.

➽ You can't have high pressure [...] next to a vaccume.

Tell me all about the container of atmoSPHERE that allows me to breath.

Tell me why that container doesn't keep folks from dying of hypoxia at high altitude.

➽ Nasa's sataloon program. You know that >95%of your internet is done via under water cables.

And yet another refusal on your part to address the topic.
What is the causal mechanism that holds camera satellites up so they can photograph earth's ground?

Internet channels have NOTHING to do with the question asked. What you posted is called a "non sequitur".

Which is it? Lens or perspective?
Solar Eclipse.

[Dale Eastman]

1. I've down from dc to Oregon.
2 If you have evidence of parallel sun rays i would like to see it.
3. Just like me, the video creator doesn't make positive claims in things that are speculation. We can speculate till the cows come home. But this is why many proponents of the fe consider a dome-like object that (biblically speaking) separates the waters above from the waters below. Also i feel that triangulation of the sun would be as difficult as triangulating a rainbow because it appears in an apparent position dependent on the observers position. Again speculation because you can't touch and physically measure the sun.
4. You're asking me to speculate on things that are beyond our reach. I don't have the positive claim, so you prove that gravity is the cause of atmosphere not being pulled into a vaccume, when just the low pressure of my lungs is strong enough to lift air and water through a straw at ground level where gravity is strongest compared to high altitude. But if you want evidence as to why there Must be a container, you just need to understand thermodynamics. The manuals will tell you you need a container to have pressure. Unless you have found an experiment where gravity keeps gasses contained in a vaccume environment, id like to see it. Have you seen the go- fast rocket video where it appears to hit something (something viscous and turns over and you can see the moon over new Zealand(the rocket was shot straight up in new Mexico) you the moon should have been on the other side of the ball; or other nasa rockets that apear to be skimming across an ocean above our heads? Pretty incredible if you haven't seen these i would recommend looking those up.
5. Did you look up nasa's sataloon program? They tell you they have high pressure helium ballons that expand to the size of some football stadiums, and they carry satellite equipment on them. I shouldn't have to spoon feed this to you. If you see i make a claim you should at least do a Google search(i know Google is making it more and more difficult to find good information) but due diligence.
5. Non sequitur is what's know in law as off point arguments. I'm sticking to the most relevant information as it pertains to your questions.

Do you agrees with using this three-baskets analogy?

➽ 1. I've down from dc to Oregon.

And you never looked out a window...

➽ 3. Just like me, the video creator doesn't make positive claims in things that are speculation.

Concave lens in the sky: SPECULATION.
Perfect distance above earth: SPECULATION.

➽ 4. You're asking me to speculate on things that are beyond our reach.

Dome-like object atmoSPHERE container: SPECULATION.
Your assumption that I don't understand thermodynamics: SPECULATION.
Your assumption that I don't understand pressure gradients: SPECULATION.

What is the maximum vacuum in inches of mercury or negative PSI that a vacuum pump can draw, and why?

Which is it? Lens or perspective?
Solar Eclipse.

[Dale Eastman]

1. Air plane windows have a concave to them.
2. There is a positive claim that gravity holds the water and air from escaping the earth into the vaccume.(globe model)
3. That's newton's 2nd law(my mistake) air needs a container to have pressure. So we do assume there to be something above us based on m newton's 2nd law regarding air pressure. That experiment helps to explain that there is some kind of physical barrier causing our pressurized system while simultaneously giving us the the angles of light we see. They kinda work in conjunction. Can you show any experiment where you have low pressure next to high pressure without a physical barrier? The lowest vaccume we've achieved is 10-12 torr. This is about 3x the hight of your average commercial flight. No curve, no convex window, no fish- eye camera.

What is the maximum vacuum in inches of mercury or negative PSI that a vacuum pump can draw, and why?

[Dale Eastman]

Well 10 torr is about 0.19psi. Why is that the lowest we can achieve on earth? And how do we know space is 1x10-17 torr?

➽ Why is that the lowest we can achieve on earth?

Tell me about you sucking liquid through a straw.

[Dale Eastman]

Well the "vaccume of space"is magnitudes stronger than the weak vaccume i can make with my lungs, yet i can pull air and water up defying gravity yet gravity can fight the incredible vacuum of space to keep the air and water on earth. How do you reconcile this problem?

What is atmoSPHERIC pressure and what creates it?

[Dale Eastman]

AIR pressure is the pressure is the weight air molecules press on its container. Without a container you can't have pressure.

That was a two part question.

I'll give you a pass on your failure to answer the first part since I did not ask it clearly.

What is THE atmoSPHERIC pressure measurement at sea level?

[Dale Eastman]

28 in/ mercury

What, specifically, is a "vacuum"?

[Dale Eastman]

Defined as low pressure

What is the difference between low or no pressure and say 14.7 psi?

[Dale Eastman]

That sum it up for you?

And people think this thing could withstand the "vaccume of space".

➽ That sum it up for you?

Nope.
I'll give you a hint:
Molecules.

Molecules per cm³.

Is there any experiment where you have high pressure next to low or no pressure without a physical barrier? Or would it equalize?

What is the difference between low or no pressure and say 14.7 psi?

You have NOT suitably explained pressure in terms of molecules.

[Dale Eastman]

Fewer molecules pressing on 1 cm³. Space is claimed to have a few as 5 molecules per cm³. But so are you claiming that gravity causes the high pressure system of earth to not be ducked away by the void of space?

I want an answer to this question. Do you know it's any experiment where you can have high pressure next to low or no pressure? Please.

Without equalization or a physical barrier?

You are demanding answers that you are not qualified to understand.

You have not shown me that you understand pressure in a way that will allow you do understand the answers to your question.

And you sure the fuck do not understand gravity.

You have NOT addressed these two points:

The causal mechanism to make the air into the very specific lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth.

The causal mechanism to make the air do this at the very specific elevation required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth.

[Dale Eastman]

Ad homs now?

Are you talking newtonian gravity or Einsteinian? And are you talking about gravity as a cause or asc the effect we observe?

I told you that those angles could be achieved in a flat surface. I'm not into speculation but i proved it could be done. Now I'm asking you to qualify the positive claims for the globe. Because i told you i have questions as to why you beleive you're on a spinning ball. So can i ask if you can qualify and quantify how you have air pressure next to a torr 17 vaccume with no physical barrier? Any experiment as proof of claim?

just to recap, nothing has gone into the "only works on a globe" basket so far.

➽ I told you that those angles could be achieved in a flat surface.

For the express purpose of denying that those figures prove a globe earth.

➽ I'm not into speculation but i proved it could be done.

That entire "proof" video: SPECULATION.
Concave lens in the sky: SPECULATION.
Perfect distance above earth: SPECULATION.
Airliner windows distort the horizon because of their shape: SPECULATION.
Gleason's map is accurate: SPECULATION.
Gravity isn't real and measurable: SPECULATION.

➽ Now I'm asking you to qualify the positive claims for the globe.

EVERY post I made about trig calculations was for that purpose.

➽ Because i told you i have questions as to why you beleive you're on a spinning ball.

And I told you: Trigonometry.

What I did not tell you is:
Coriolis Effect;
Counterclockwise motion of the stars around Polaris and clockwise motion around the southern pole center
Zillions of satellite images from circumpolar orbits;
Millions of Dish Network and Directv antennas pointed at fixed locations in the sky for reception;
Not quite so many Hughesnet antennas also pointed at fixed locations in the sky for reception;
Brownian motion;
Ideal Gas Law;
Plasma;
Your smart phone's GPS technology (You get a pass on Loran-C because that would work on a flat earth... If the navigation charts were correct (Non Gleason's maps));
Magnetic lines of force;
My knowledge and experience with PADS equipment;
Cavendish Experiment;
Spectral absorption lines and red-blue shifts;
Proton-neutron molecular weights as understood by present science and depicted on the periodic table of elements;
Covalent bonding (chemistry) that validates the periodic table;
Foucault's Pendulum even though PADS is a better measuring device;
The causal mechanism for the relative motion of the sun and the earth surface;
The causal mechanism for the sun's relative motion with the zodiac astarisms (seasonal parallax);
The reason big telescopes are built on top of mountains;
The mechanics of scaling and motion controls for aiming things needing to be aimed;
The reason the lit face of the moon changes shape during the lunar cycle;
Gravity and its formulas...

What is the causal mechanism that creates the relative motion of the sun and the earth surface?
What is the causal mechanism that creates the sun's relative motion with the zodiac astarisms (seasonal parallax).
What is the causal mechanism that creates the clockwise and counterclockwise appearance of star tracks north and south of the equator?

➽ i ask if you can qualify and quantify how you have air pressure next to a torr 17 vaccume with no physical barrier?

"GRAVITY".

Repeating what you chose to interpret as an ad hominem:
You are demanding answers that you are not qualified to understand.

17 16:57
➽ we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.

Must be magic that keeps you from floating into the sky.
Must be magic that will kill you if you jump off a tall building.
Must be magic that would drain the oceans if not for your antarctic ice wall.

[Dale Eastman]

What your calling speculation has actual experimental evidence to back it up.
You must have skipped this video of plugging in globe model numbers into autocad and refuting your globe math. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHckG3o6NQ&feature=youtu.be
Your trigonometry only works if you disregard the fact that sun rays have never been observed to be parallel from earth. We can get into coriolis effect, and the stars rotation going clockwise/counterclockwise looking at different directing(they all rise in the east and set in the west) the "zillions" of cgi images from nasa. We can also get into. Redshift has been refuted. Lol faucoults pendulum that works only sometimes(often goes backwards and or doesn't keep in time and many of them use electromagnets to keep them going) the theory of gravity that's never been proven. What is the casual mechanism for the universe... ok so nothing exploded and created everything, then this force called gravity(which needs 95% dark matter/ dark energy that's never been detected by has to be there otherwise gravity doesn't work) causes gas to fall in on itself and create burning balls of gas in a vaccume(cool story) then Lightning strikes creates an amoeba that turns into a fish that climbs on land turns into a monkey then two monkeys have a retarded baby called a human. None of these things have any scientific basis. It's a cool story you believe with no evidence. So far you haven't proven "r". You haven proven that the angles of elevation only work on a globe. You haven't proven what Causes the downward vector. And gravity is presupposed because we're on a ball yet you haven't qualified the ball. So when we say the globe is pseudoscience, you have to come up with arguments that are better than what we were hearing 8 years ago. So, where do you want to take this conversation next? You're saying i can't comprehend these things as an ad hom. Yet ive not seen anything that goes into the "only globe" basket. What topic would you like to go into that only works on a globe that could be considered tangible evidence.

Proud of claim about the red shift fallacy.
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/expansion.htm
https://www.ospublishers.com/The-Redshift-Blunder-has...

I feel you lack the prerequisite information. And if you have looked into the flat earth, you did a piss-poor job of it. I don't appreciate ad homs, and i would usually tell other people to get fucked, but i respect many of the things you post, yet the one government organization you seem to like is nasa.

size is earth SPECULATION, size of sun and moon, SPECULATION
Distance to sun and moon and anything else in space, SPECULATION.
Curvature,SPECULATION

➽ we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.

Must be magic that keeps you from floating into the sky.
Must be magic that will kill you if you jump off a tall building.
Must be magic that would drain the oceans if not for your antarctic ice wall.

[Dale Eastman]

It's electrostatics. And that's something we can test and measure.

Must be electrostatics that keeps you from floating into the sky.
Must be electrostatics that will kill you if you jump off a tall building.
Must be electrostatics that would drain the oceans if not for your antarctic ice wall.

[Dale Eastman]

https://youtu.be/kcFnoY0lVTI

https://youtu.be/I7YZgocBfHM

...

Experiment to evidence my claim.
https://youtu.be/i19R5HHpQFQ

WOW!

Your science can save the airlines a shitload of fuel expense.
No need for wings to create lift.
No need for wings creating drag.

Have you a name for this new business selling electrostatic devices to aircraft builders?