Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

I know why you have to agree. Because according to globe math you shouldn't see the chicago skyline from 40/50 miles away. And on top of that, the rob skiba video shows that curvature is not required to have the effect of something going beyond the horizon. So geometric evidence of "r" is refuted. Welcome to flat earth.

As I wrote:
Too bad you didn't bother to understand WHY I agreed with you in regard to seeing Chicago buildings at a distance.

Not sure what that means. Either earth is a ball and they shouldn't be seen, or earth is flat and you Can see that far if atmos conditions permit. No opinion required. I'm waiting to hear why you agree, beyond what I've outlined.

It means EXACTLY what I wrote. I am unhappy that you STILL have no clue as to why I agreed with you that I should NOT be able to see the tower from Kenosha.

You do NOT understand atmospheric lensing.

I've showns several videos that demonstrate lensing. And I've even done the experiment in my own flat table. No curvature is required for this effect. These another video of skunk bay that demonstrates what refraction/ lensing can do.

@34 sec
https://youtu.be/edlPGRQvw3g

Do you have an experiment that will show an image being projected over/ around a ball bending the water up equally at the way out to a flat horizon at the eye level?

You keep spewing multiple posts in response to my single posts.

You have again failed to address my point.

Repeating my claim:
You do NOT understand atmospheric lensing.

Both videos show what lensing does. So they are on point arguments. You haven't shown any experimental evidence to support the claim that refraction or lensing dies what you claim it does. So before you keep telling me what i know why don't you show some proof of claim before your next ad hom.

You wouldn't know an ad hominem if it bit you in the ass. So for your edification I will now ad hom you.
𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤 𝙛𝙪𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙥𝙞𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙢 𝙞𝙨.

📖 Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it. 📖

I will engage your claims in MY own way. But first I must convince you to engage regarding your claims without all your Gish Gallop shitty diapers thrown at the wall.

Just so you know, As far as I am concerned, your accusation of me ad homineming you is the same as you accusing me of libeling you.

📖 Defamation of character occurs when a person makes a published false, and harmful statement about someone. ...
There are a number of important defenses in a defamation lawsuit that could either eliminate the plaintiff's claim entirely or weaken it significantly.
Absolute Defenses
First and foremost, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit. If the statement that is the subject of the suit is true, and you can prove it, your attorney can move to have the plaintiff's claim dismissed. No one is punished for speaking the truth, even if it is an ugly truth.📖

You have again failed to address my point.

Repeating my claim:
You do NOT understand atmospheric lensing.

Proving the claim beyond a doubt requires interrogating you regarding what you know or think you know.

What causes light to bend?

Light bend when it enters a medium of different density.

Before we go further, do you have an experiment that qualifies your claim as to what refraction can and cannot do.

Why does the light bend when it enters a medium of different density?

In particle theory its because the speed the light travels is different in different mediums.

What is the difference between different mediums?

Water molecules are closer together than air molecules. Do you refuse to adress my question as to any evidence for refraction being able bring thousands of feet of water up over a phere to stop at the viewers eye level because there's no experimental evidence to support this notion?

Another Dale claim: You don't know what "eye level" means. Moving on.

You have NOT correctly answered the question.

The correct answer is "Density."

I already said density...

Do you have an answer to my question or is it just me with the burden answering questions here?

In deed... You did say "Density".

And attempting to address that "Density" as you believe atmospheric lensing works, you stated:
➽ Water molecules are closer together than air molecules.

This betrayed your lack of knowledge of lenses.

Your counter claim of the angles proving a not flat earth was a video of a VERY specific shape, Vidcap image of specific shape attached.

From my Nov 3 0921 post:
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...

What is the specific 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.

A graded-index lens is a flat object that focuses light by changing the refractive index of the material as you go from the lens' center to its edge. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.

What is the specific 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]

You said the angles don't work on a flat plain, i showed you they Could. Again anything above 72 miles is going to be speculation. 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. I say this because you refuse to answer the request for evidence for the ability to have air pressure next to vaccume without a barrier or without it equalizing. So how do you have air pressure next to vaccume? And is there an experiment that shows how you can see objects obscured by physical horizon that are bent up to to make a flat plain and the horizon remains at eye level? Those 2 questions i need answers. I've shown the proofs for my claims. I'm still waiting on yours.

And i also posted a video showing that the globe math for the sizes and distances to the sun don't work in auto cad. So again nothing has gone into the"only a globe" basket.

observing distant rays from the sun coming in parallel...lol

➽ You said the angles don't work on a flat plain, i showed you they Could.

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 have built your alleged disproof of the globe math on this SPECULATION.

➽ But because we know air pressure requires a container,

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

That is YOUR belief.

➽ 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.

That would be the container you are SPECULATING exists. You need this alleged container or you can't deny globe earth math.

➽ So how do you have air pressure next to vaccume?

Pressure gradients.

Another Dale claim: You don't know what causes pressure gradients.

➽ the horizon remains at eye level

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Repeat: Dale claim: You don't know what "eye level" means.

Oh... And you're Gish Galloping again.

pressure gradient is a word. How do you have air pressure with no container.

You need pressure to have pressure gradient. How do you have pressure next to vaccume with no barrier?

You seem to be having quite a problem understanding what a pressure gradient is.

Does it help you if instead a call it density layers?

Your having a problem answering a simple question as to how you achieve pressure without a physical barrier. And I've asked this at least 10 times now. A helium tank has a pressure gradient. But there is a barrier between the inside(high pressure) and the outside(low pressure) how do you achieve a pressure gradient without a container?

And there's the clue I needed to understand what's inside your brain-case.

📖 The meaning of GRADIENT is the rate of regular or graded ascent or descent : inclination.📖

White is high pressure. Black is low pressure.


BTW: Your "Flat Earth Facts" image is just another opinion.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
And another shitty Gish Gallop diaper thrown at the wall.

That's a cool picture. I'll ask again but read it slower. How do you achieve air/gas pressure without a barrier. There will be a gradient inside the helium tank. Denser at the bottom than at the top. How do you have any pressure without that physical barrier

You are still not comprehending what "gradient" means.

➽ There will be a gradient inside the helium tank. Denser at the bottom than at the top.

What creates this denser at the bottom than at the top "gradient"?

How would this gradient manifest?

Well without the container there is no pressure to create a gradient, first of all. But the molecules with the higher positive electrostatic potential will draw closer to the measurably negative charge of the earth. In going to ask one more time because you seem to not understand air/gas pressure. How do achieve air pressure without a physical barrier?

So you are claiming all the molecules of helium in the tank have different electostatic charges?

You are still telling me you don't understand what a gradient is.

You are also telling me you don't understand the physics of gaseous matter.

you're not answering the fucking question. Idk if you don't understand how air pressure works. Do you have any experiment that demonstrates high pressure next to no pressure without a physical barrier. The test of your argument is moot if you can't answer this fundamental question regarding air pressure.

So... You aced your high school physical science and chemistry classes didja?

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.

The globe has air pressure, next to the vaccume of space. How do you have air pressure next to a vaccume without a barrier? I could try asking in spanish.

If you don't have an answer just say "i don't know how that would be possible".

➽ The globe has air pressure, next to the vaccume of space.

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.

➽ I could try asking in spanish.

Or you could try understanding pressure gradients and density gradients.

Be glad to help you.
Why does gasoline or oil float on water?
Why does ice float on water?
Why does molten glass float on melted tin?

Why does hydrostatic lock fuck up a motor?

Why does hydrostatic lock fuck up a motor?

That's the globe model. Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi. Space is a vaccume 10-17 tore. No barrier. How is this possible? You do know the earth model right?

Your defecting the question for off point arguments.

[img]

Closed container*

➽ Your defecting the question for off point arguments.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I took a page from your playbook.

➽ Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi.

How do you know?

[Dale Eastman]

A barometer.

You're still deflecting. Do you have any evidence that you can have air pressure next to a vaccume?

➽ You're still deflecting.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I took a page from your playbook.

➽ Do you have any evidence that you can have air pressure next to a vaccume?

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

This is the THIRD time I have called you on your attempted straw man.

From the picture you provided... Are you going to claim the pressure at the top is the same as the pressure at the bottom?

THAT'S THE GLOBE MODEL

Air pressure next to vaccume is the model you subscribed to. So I'm asking how do you have air pressure next to a void?

The highlighted part is where i was drawing my point. No, obviously there's more pressure towards the bottom because electrostatics (not gravity) create the downward vector. But it says a container. You need a container to have pressure.

➽ THAT'S THE GLOBE MODEL

From the picture you provided... Are you going to claim the pressure at the top is the same as the pressure at the bottom?

No. And are you refusing to answer my question? Tacit procuration, or Silence is acquiescence. Are you agreeing that you can't have air pressure next to a vaccume without a physical barrier?

Why does the pressure decrease as elevation increases?

How do we have air pressure in the first place? I want an answer. You are tip-toeing around this question. How do we have air pressure next to a vaccume?

Density makes heavier molecules settle closer to earth while lighter, less dense (more positive electrostatic potential) gases like helium, zenon, etc, settle upward. But you can't have gas pressure without a container, right? We have to either agree or disagree on this point.

➽ 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.

➽ How do we have air pressure in the first place?

That is actually a very good question.
As I recall, you spewed some BS about electrostatic charge attraction. Which you just did again while I was typing this reply. That you are wrong is of no import at this moment.

What causes convection currents?

A differential in high and low pressure causes wind. That's what i mean by equalization. So we don't have a pressurized atmos? And space isn't a vaccume?

That's not your claim but that's the globe model. I'm asking if you agree with the globe model in earth having a pressure system next to the void of space.

You have not fully answered the question of what causes convection currents. Mea Culpa on the insufficient question.

What causes the differential in air pressure?

Several things but temperature and electromagnetic fields are main causes. You have not answered my question at all, so. Whether it's your claim or not, can you have a pressurized system next to a vaccume without a barrier? Or will it equalize and cause convection currents?

You keep demanding an answer you don't have the knowledge to understand.

So I am going to ignore your Gish Galloping and lead you by the hand, one Socratic Method question at a time.

How does temperature affect air pressure?

Fuck you telling me what i know. You can't answer this question without sounding like a fucking moron. In you ball globe model does your atmosphere sit adjacent to the vaccume of space? Yes or no? I'm not answering anything else until you have some clarity on the model your believe in.

How does temperature affect air pressure?

That's an answer you can Google. Is there an experiment that could demonstrate how earth's atmosphere (high pressure) can exist next to space (low/ no pressure) without a physical barrier?

You're asking about how i would suppose something containing the atmos, so I'm asking in your globe model how you can have air pressure next to a void.

I don't need to search for the answer. I know it. You apparently do not.

So re-asking a prior question you ignored:
Why does hydrostatic lock fuck up a motor?

[Dale Eastman]

I know what hydrolock is. I'm not answering shit until i get a definitive answer from you regarding your globe model. Can you have air pressure next to a vaccume without a barrier.

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.

How does temperature affect air pressure?

Cooler make something more dense. And as something gets warmer out becomes less dense. Creating high and low pressure. The equalization is where we get wind from. Now you are here to and you said definitely prove the globe so, your globe model has air pressure correct, both high and low pressure? Now your globe model is in space a vaccume, correct?

You do know the heliocentric model you ascribe to right?

maybe i need to ask in a different way. If i asked you for 1 pound of helium, could you give it to me without a container?

Why are commercial aircraft cabins pressurized?

Non sequitur. Are you refusing to answer this simple question i have about your model?

You keep demanding an answer you don't have the knowledge to understand.

So I am going to ignore your Gish Galloping and lead you by the hand, one Socratic Method question at a time.

Why are commercial aircraft cabins pressurized?

You keep saying i don't have certain knowledge, I'm taking that as another ad hom. Ive shown every proof of claim to back any and all my statements. I think you know that if you answer the question you'll may be made to look foolish, so you're avoiding answering it at all cost. I'm not the one with a positive claim so if you can't answer my question ill have to go to someone more qualified that can.

btw nothing has gone on the globe only basket, so maybe you've got the dunning Kruger going on.

Yes... I keep saying you are missing certain knowledge.
Because you are missing certain knowledge.

So I am going to ignore your Gish Galloping and lead you by the hand, one Socratic Method question at a time.

Do you think commercial aircraft cabins are pressurized because the higher the elevation, the less dense the air is?

Ok. If you make your point will you answer my question.

Yeah and the less o2 there would be. I know the globe model, ass. What's your point?

My point about density and pressure WILL answer your question.

Here's another Socratic question and its answer...

How does an altimeter work?

📖 Altitude can be determined based on the measurement of atmospheric pressure. The greater the altitude, the lower the pressure. When a barometer is supplied with a nonlinear calibration so as to indicate altitude, the instrument is called a pressure altimeter or barometric altimeter. A pressure altimeter is the altimeter found in most aircraft, and skydivers use wrist-mounted versions for similar purposes. Hikers and mountain climbers use wrist-mounted or hand-held altimeters, in addition to other navigational tools such as a map, magnetic compass, or GPS receiver.

The calibration of an altimeter follows the equation

    z = c T log ⁡ ( P o / P ) , z=c\;T\;\log(P_{o}/P),

where c is a constant, T is the absolute temperature, P is the pressure at altitude z, and Po is the pressure at sea level. The constant c depends on the acceleration of gravity and the molar mass of the air. However, one must be aware that this type of altimeter relies on "density altitude" and its readings can vary by hundreds of feet owing to a sudden change in air pressure, such as from a cold front, without any actual change in altitude.
[...]
In aircraft, an aneroid barometer measures the atmospheric pressure from a static port outside the aircraft. Air pressure decreases with an increase of altitude—approximately 100 hectopascals per 800 meters or one inch of mercury per 1000 feet or 1 hectopascals per 30 feet near sea level. 📖

Ok i follow. You could use "downward acceleration" in place of g, but i follow.

So if white is pressure, this image signifies and illustrates a pressure/density gradient.
I hope this informs you as to why I kept challenging your focus on "air pressure next to a void".
I'm done for tonight.

[Dale Eastman]

Is that box with the pressure gradient sealed? Like, is it representing air inside the box?

No.

And the image is not a box. You are still not understanding the answer you keep demanding about pressure next to a vacuum.

You admitted(?) posted:
➽ Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi. Space is a vaccume 10-17 tore.
10-17 tore equals 0.1933672 to 0.3287243 psi

As elevation increases, air pressure AND air density decrease.

You claimed:
➽ I know what hydrolock is.

So I will assume you understand that liquid is NOT compressible.

This does not mean that liquid can't be put under pressure. Brakes, automatic transmissions, and hydraulic equipment. Not a good image attached. Verson 300 ton press brake I worked on. 16 foot bed for dies, 30 hp electric motor. I rebuilt the hydraulic control system. Those valves and their electric controls are all my work.

Why are gasses, on the other hand, compressible?
dresume/scan0015.jpg

the molecules are not bonded like in a fluid.

Are you admitting that gaseous (air) molecules have space between them?

Yeah, that's not in contention. The reason i asked you about air pressure was to substantiate why we can assume there's something the sun gets lensed by but you went to an off point argument. I'm following what your saying and I'm hoping you'll answer my question once your point here is made.

Fair enough.

My point is not a left field topic. There are several interconnected points here. Air lensing requires differing density. I know you understand that point. Density change can be abrupt like at the air/glass boundary, or it can be gradual with a density gradient.

This text goes with the attached image:
📖 A graded-index lens is a flat object that focuses light by changing the refractive index of the material as you go from the lens' center to its edge. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.
📖

This variable density light bending is why I see half the Sears/Willis tower when the math says I should not. This is also why, and I'm repeating myself, celestial navigation demands no angles less than 20º. (I did not know this until this discussion's research brought this to my attention.)

This air distortion is also why Astronomy telescopes have been built on top of tall mountains. Less air between the scope and space.

I don't remember the density index being integrated when you were doing the elevation angles but yes we get bending and magnification when we went over this earlier and i thought i showed we get this bending and magnification on a flat plane also. Continue.

Magnification requires bending. Bending does not necessarily equate to magnification.

The light bending on the flat plane video was actually interesting to me.

But... Its flaw is that it required a specific shaped lens at a specific distance from the plane with an abrupt density change at the lens/air boundary. Its second flaw is that the "experiment" was not repeated with the light directly over one of the outer nails with the lens exactly where it was over the center nail.

Thus, it is an interesting oddity that does not invalidate the GE concept.

I'm referring to this one not requiring a curved surface

You did not tag me when you posted. It is only because I checked to make sure I didn't forget to post what I wrote.

As to that specific vid clip... It also has the same flaw as the one I thought you were referring to.

I'm not interested in digging through all the vids you posted to find the one that shows that... cough-ptooey... the flat lens between the camera and the ship analog. As I recall, the actual physical lens being used as a stand-in for the lensing of the gas is a flat fresnel lens. Attached image snagged of of Amazon.

This lens is of a specific shape. You've no causal mechanism to shape gas into the shape this lens is.

[Dale Eastman]

In other words the shape of the lens changes constantly depends on atmos conditions but the lensing effect cannot be denied.

As you stated, without any other considerations, I find your statement 100% accurate.

What the lensing affect is because of the shape and density of the gas is still in contention.
Likewise, the shape and density of the gas is still in contention.

I've had the attached image in my notes file for this discussion since October 20th.

Accompaning that image are these words:
📖 XEH is the true altitude from the observer’s height of eye.  However, due to refraction, the celestial body appears to be at Y and so YEH becomes the apparent altitude.

ET is a tangent from the observer’s eye to the Earth’s surface and so T1 should  mark the position of the horizon from E.

The theoretical angle of Dip is the angle HET; however, because refraction causes the horizon to appear to be in the direction of R, angle HER becomes the angle of dip.📖

These lensing affects have been known and understood by sailors using sails for hundreds of years. Definitely prior to Loran and GPS. GPS is another related sub-topic for later discussion.

Temperature gradients cause density (pressure) gradients.

Mirages if you will. The summertime appearance of what looks like water on a road at a distance from a viewpoint. In these specific cases, the line of sight bends up so the sky is being observed looking like water on the road.

Which kind of mirage? And do you have any experiment that can recreate something being projected over the bulge of a sphere to test at eye level?
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/mirages.jpg

The globe wasn't created to 1400's the flat earth maps have been dated back over a thousand years. So celestial navigation was done using a flat map long before the globe was imagined. Loran proves no curvature because line of sight is required.

Dip is to correct for hight above sea level to achieve a flat base line. I though we put this to rest already. Because an angle crossing two flat parallel base lines is going to generate the same angle. So on land you use an artificial horizon or bubble sextant and when on a boat it ship you correct for the observer hight and the optical horizon to creat a flat base line.

➽ Which kind of mirage?

The fact that the image you posted with that question shows you do know "something" about mirages. Regardless, your bias is presenting you as denying ALL mirages are the same in regard to gas lensing. To include, especially, the bottom frame errantly labelled "No mirage".

That claim does NOT invalidate any of the image and related text I just posted.

➽ And do you have any experiment that can recreate something being projected over the bulge of a sphere to test at eye level?

That would be the bottom frame of your image and why I agreed that according to the math I should not see any of the Sears/Willis tower from the Kenosha beach.

Because of this knowledge I have acquired because of our discussion, I am going to have to go to that beach at different times of season to observed changed sections of what is visible of the tower.

The globe wasn't created to 1400's the flat earth maps have been dated back over a thousand years.

I've been in 48 continental united States and 6 Canadian provinces. Guess what maps I used?

A stack of maps 3/4 inch thick depicting 5 million square miles.

How big of a globe would I have required to have the usable resolution I needed to navigate the U.S.-Canadian road systems?

➽ Loran proves no curvature because line of sight is required.

Why do you think I only stated GPS for further discussion? This is you attempting to D⁵ again.

And I know that the difference in radio energy velocity over land is different from over water. So let this be warning that I often know more than I present. I decline to follow your irrelevant red herring.

➽ Dip is to correct for hight above sea level to achieve a flat base line.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Your bias is causing you to make an error in regard to angular measure. Angular measure is an ANGLE.

I do not feel like counting pixels to show orientations other than what I can easily do with the M$ paint program.

Your fixation on this "base line" and its flatness makes no sense. A "flat base line" is NOT required to measure an angle.

➽ Because an angle crossing two flat parallel base lines is going to generate the same angle.

You understand that fact. Good.

➽ So on land you use an artificial horizon or bubble sextant and when on a boat it ship you correct for the observer hight and the optical horizon to creat a flat base line.

Are you claiming one does NOT use a bubble sextant on a ship?

Are you not aware that artificial horizons are perpendicular to the force of gravity. (I am aware of, and ignoring, your claim of electrostatic attraction in lieu of gravity. That's another future discussion point.)

Furthest north I have been is Edmonton, Saskatchewan, Canada. 53.6º North in the summer. It was interesting to observe that the northern glow of the sky at midnight local time was just like dusk at 43º north where I lived since the sun... Didn't conform to the FE claims of sunset. Arctic circle about 66.5º latitude. So only about 800 miles south, short of watching the sun not set.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/FlatGlobeMapArea.png

[Dale Eastman]

1. That's just an observation, there would need to be an experiment with an independent verifiable that can be manipulated to validate the hypothesis that that image is bending around a physical curve.
2. When on a ship using the natural horizon you would use the dip because your finding that flat- level base line in other to make that angle. If you have a self leveling sextant that's not necessary.
3. I don't know what the last statement means

did that example of gas/ air pressure make sense?

➽ 1. That's just an observation, there would need to be an experiment with an independent verifiable that can be manipulated to validate the hypothesis that that image is bending around a physical curve.

This is where your bias/belief and mine clash. You are choosing to ignore inconvenient facts that contradict your bias. Given the nature of this discussion, I should have worded my statement like this: You are choosing to ignore inconvenient information that contradict your bias.

You claim gas lensing. Said lensing bends light. Bending light can bend around an obstruction.

In my youth I could put enough spin on the Cue ball to give it a curved motion right around the other guy's solid to knock my stripe into the pocket. That's on the flat plane of the billiards (pool) table. I could also hit the cue ball so the curve was off the table's plane and over the other guy's ball.

You are refusing to admit to curved bending caused by density gradients. This is what causes the mirages shown in all four parts of your mirages image.

You applying a double standard to your own information. Turning this around, using your own point: there would need to be an experiment with an independent verifiable that can be manipulated to validate the hypothesis that the light is bending and causing the mirages shown in the top three parts of your mirages image.

You are ignoring the inconvenient information that astronomers want their telescopes as high up above the denser as possible because the affect of gas on light is known. I'm sure if I were to chase down certain information with a question, the professional astronomers will give an angle they will not look below when doing their astronomy.

➽ 3. I don't know what the last statement means

Because you are not good at communicating what you are actually referring to, I am forced to assume this is the last statement you don't understand:

Furthest north I have been is Edmonton, Saskatchewan, Canada. 53.6º North in the summer. It was interesting to observe that the northern glow of the sky at midnight local time was just like dusk at 43º north where I lived since the sun... Didn't conform to the FE claims of sunset. Arctic circle about 66.5º latitude. So only about 800 miles south, short of watching the sun not set.

My personal first hand knowledge confirms a globe earth. If I was 800 miles further north, the sun would not set.

➽ did that example of gas/ air pressure make sense?

Which example? You are again communicating poorly.

Putting spin on your que ball isn't an experiment for refraction bending light around an object and projecting it up to the eye level of an observer.
The midnight sun works on the gleasons map, so i don't know why you think that's gonna go in the globe only basket.

➽ Putting spin on your que ball isn't an experiment for refraction bending light around an object

The purpose of my billiards comment was to deny your bias that bendy things can't bend around some obstruction.

➽ and projecting it up to the eye level of an observer.

This is you admitting you don't understand optics because of your FE bias.

This is you admitting you don't understand level.
Simple Euclidean geometry.
The horizon does NOT rise to eye level. A level line of sight at eye level will NEVER view the horizon. In either FE or GE models or in actual reality (whichever model is actually reality). Can you comprehend this provable fact or do you want me to draw you a picture?

➽ The midnight sun works on the gleasons map,

Explain the motive mechanism by which this works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Do not forget to explain the seasonal changes of 24 hours of no sun in the winter as well as the 24 hours of sun.

i need you to stop telling me what o know. Optics of the eye make an apparent horizon at the observers eye level. Everything converges to a vanishing point. The globe requires a physical geographic horizon. A horizon that is a an actual position that's been refuted by several on my photos and videos. We'll get into season if you want. But you've still been dodging the question about pressure systems.

I've shown experimental evidence of how this is possible on a flat surface.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=471847798292766&reply_comment_id=509339147876964

But i haven't seen any experimental evidence that shows how this is possible on a shpere. Do you have that?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=471847798292766&reply_comment_id=509339394543606

More shitty diapers

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 it never gets far enough away to set for places like Alaska where they get the 24 hour sun, while the sun is to far away from Antarctica for the sun to rise(due to perspective). Jump forward six months the suns track is now at its outer-most circuit and is to far away from Alaska to get a sun rise. There is no 24 video of the 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica. There's like 2 videos and they are heavily edited. Antarctica can receive 24 hours of daylight(not sunlight) and there's experiments to show how that's possible. Now the big difference is when you look at the difference in biodiversity at equal latitudes north and south, where as in a ball the equal distances from the equator should experience similar phenomenon as far as plant and animal diversity and length of twilight before sunrise and sunset. 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)

https://youtu.be/zvVXxfkyX1Q

https://youtu.be/uISmQupt8po

Skiba moron.

➽ daylight(not sunlight)

Are you trying to get me to call you names?

You posted a load of D⁵: Attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.

I told you, I am archiving this discussion. I've spent a lot of time reading and rereading your FE claims.

I posted:
⇉ Explain the motive mechanism by which this works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Do not forget to explain the seasonal changes of 24 hours of no sun in the winter as well as the 24 hours of sun. ⇇

I am now copy-pasting-quoting your words that you imply answers my challenge.

➽ 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 it never gets far enough away to set for places like Alaska where they get the 24 hour sun, while the sun is to far away from Antarctica for the sun to rise(due to perspective). Jump forward six months the suns track is now at its outer-most circuit and is to far away from Alaska to get a sun rise.

➽ Antarctica can receive 24 hours of daylight(not sunlight) and there's experiments to show how that's possible.

Just like your video of a specific shaped lens at a specific altitude makes the trig math "possible" on a flat earth. My objection to that specific load of shit from you is the same as my objection to this specific claim.

ℙ𝕆𝕊𝕊𝕀𝔹𝕃𝔼 does not mean 𝕀𝕊.
Your flat earth bias double standard is showing... again.

➽ Now the big difference is when you look at the difference in biodiversity at equal latitudes north and south, where as in a ball the equal distances from the equator should experience similar phenomenon as far as plant and animal diversity

Thank you for admitting you don't know shit about what causes biodiversity.

➽ Now the big difference is when you look at the difference [...] at equal latitudes north and south, where as in a ball the equal distances from the equator should experience similar [...] length of twilight before sunrise and sunset. 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)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I challenged you to explain the mechanism of how 24 hour sunlight

Explain the motive mechanism by which this ➽ "midnight sun works on the gleasons map."

You have blatantly failed to do so. Instead, you made another claim:
➽ While the sun reaches its inner most track

So again, I question your FE claim. Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

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

Is this one of those two videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlQNicOeso

[Dale Eastman]

You are asking 6questions at a time and then getting mad when i try to adress all of them. I'm trying to understand the globe model before you can start to critique a flat model. Im Still waiting for an answer regarding air pressure.

Talking possibilities. Is it possible to have high pressure next to low pressure with out equalization or a physical barrier. Answering this will help substantiate my answers to a specific lens. Help me help you.

➽ You are asking 6questions at a time and then getting mad when i try to adress all of them.

October 2 18:42:
I have copied your 15:55 and 16:20 posts to my archive of our discussion. So I have a record to refer to so that I don't miss or ignore your points.
October 12 12:47:
I've got all your words saved in an archive of this discussion.
October 23 12:42
I am saving your words of this discussion to an archive. So even though I do not directly respond to your words, I've saved them for to (maybe?) respond later.
October 25 15:04:
I will remind you that I am copy pasting this discussion into an archive. There are claims you have made that I intend to examine.
October 29 1103:
As I said, I'm archiving this discussion so I can refer back to things written by both of us.
November 9 1327:
I told you I'm archiving this discussion as it happens. Makes it very easy to go back and search out phrases posted.
November 16 1317:
I told you, I am archiving this discussion. I've spent a lot of time reading and rereading your FE claims.

Here's the questions (and challenges counted as questions) to bolster your implication that I'm Gish Galloping like you have been doing from the beginning of this discussion. These are presented in inverse order from my 16 1317 post backwards in time:

November 16 1317:
❶ So again, I question your FE claim. Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
❷ Explain the motive mechanism by which this ➽ "midnight sun works on the gleasons map."
❸ Are you trying to get me to call you names?
November 16 1129:
❹ Explain the motive mechanism by which this works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
❺ Do not forget to explain the seasonal changes of 24 hours of no sun in the winter as well as the 24 hours of sun.
❻ Can you comprehend this provable fact or do you want me to draw you a picture?
November 16 0844:
❼ Which example?
November 15 1409:
❽ Are you not aware that artificial horizons are perpendicular to the force of gravity.
❾ Are you claiming one does NOT use a bubble sextant on a ship?
❿ Why do you think I only stated GPS for further discussion?
⓫ How big of a globe would I have required to have the usable resolution I needed to navigate the U.S.-Canadian road systems?
⓬ Guess what maps I used?

Which insult do you think you just earned? "You're full of shit", or "You're a fucking liar"?

➽ I'm trying to understand the globe model before you can start to critique a flat model.

Your FE bias is preventing you from understanding.

➽ Im Still waiting for an answer regarding air pressure.

I have given you that answer multiple times.

Ah yes... There's that air pressure question again.

➽ Is it possible to have high pressure next to low pressure with out equalization or a physical barrier.

I decline to follow this red herring of yours beyond the next four sentences:
There is no high pressure atmosphere next to the no pressure space. Pressure gradient is the reason why this is so. The higher in elevation, the lower the pressure... Until there is no pressure because there is no atmosphere.

Now back to the issue you are attempting to ignore...

You claimed:
➽ While the sun reaches its inner most track

Second inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works, else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Explain how you have a pressure system next to a vaccume without it equalizing.

There is no high pressure atmosphere next to the no pressure space. Pressure gradient is the reason why this is so. The higher in elevation, the lower the pressure... Until there is no pressure because there is no atmosphere.

White is high pressure. Black is low pressure.

My point is there can be no pressure gradient without pressure. You can't have pressure without a container. Where the container? What's keeping the pressurized air from equalizing into the vaccume.

is that box the container?

Why is sea level air pressure about 14.7 psi?

can you have pressure without a container? For the 30th time that you either will not or cannot answer?

The flat map isn't on trial the globe is the positive claim and i need an answer not a picture of shading from black to white

➽ can you have pressure without a container?

Yes. The air pressure of about 14.7 psi at sea level.
Why is sea level air pressure about 14.7 psi?

➽ i need an answer not a picture of shading from black to white

Nope. You need to understand the answer as depicted in a density/pressure map illustrating the non-digital, non-quantum, analog reality of what a density/pressure gradient or spectrum is.

you don't need a container to have air pressure, is your answer? Is there an experiment that can show air pressure next to vaccume without equalization?

Please attempt to address my question:
Why is sea level air pressure about 14.7 psi?

Can you provide one experiment as proof of this claim?

No. Show me your claim has something to back it

Your claim. Air pressure needs no container. Can you give me one experiment as proof of claim?

I want to beat the horse for a second

November 16 1146
➽ i need you to stop telling me what o know.

You are confused... Again...
You keep telling me what you don't know.
And I believe you when you tell me what you don't know.

There are many things you have told me you don't know.
There are many things you don't want to know.
That is my assessment from observing you move the goal posts.

So I'm again going to tell you what you don't know... History, technology, and science.

➽ Can you give me one experiment as proof of claim?

I can give you three...
But you'll find some way to deny them, to again show me your deliberate ignorance.

X-15, U-2, and SR-71.

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

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.
Third inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.

[Dale Eastman]

You don't have any evidence to support your claim that air doesn't require a container in order to have pressure?

I can give you three...
But you'll find some way to deny them, to again show me your deliberate ignorance.

X-15, U-2, and SR-71.

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

That's not an experiment showing air pressure next to vaccume without equalization or a physical barrier

Do you understand the question?

➽ That's not an experiment showing air pressure next to vaccume without equalization or a physical barrier

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

X-15... eXperimental project aircraft 15.

➽ Do you understand the question?

I understand the question.
I am fully aware of your brain glitch.
You are too flat earth biased to comprehend the answer.

To assist in explaining the answer...

In your own words, explain to me what a "pressure gradient" is.

To help me answer the question i need you to explain what gas pressure is. And how its measured. Fundamentals before we get ahead of ourselves.

Look, a container.
https://youtu.be/HNYCdbDKOhA

Air pressure gradient in a sealed container.
https://youtu.be/PXnaVvgaYY8

I want an experiment that shows a gradient without a container.

https://youtu.be/AH4WQtw6HJU

Excerpt.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Excerpt.jpg

➽ i need you to explain what gas pressure is.

If this is true, then why did you throw five shitty Gish Galloping diapers at the wall in an attempt to overwhelm me and an attempt to distract me...

This is YOU calling me by your maiden name:
16 1528
➽ You are asking 6questions at a time and then getting mad when i try to adress all of them.

Apparently, you still do not understand what Gish Galloping is... <shrug...> So I can't and don't expect you to cease your Gish Galloping.

➽ 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.

The attached image was taken from your video purporting to prove a container is required to have a pressure gradient.

➽ I want an experiment that shows a gradient without a container.

Take the water dish out of the tank and do the exact same thing while NOT in the fish tank container.

➽ Excerpt.

I'll be needing the link to the source of that excerpt.
Else, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

It's in a fucking container

That's why I'm asking you for an experiment of pressure gradients absent a container.

You can't have pressure gradients in fluid without lateral pressure. And you can't have pressure gradients in gases without a container. If you can, like you claim that requires evidence. That's what I'm waiting for.

Watch that 54min video when you get some free time.

Go conduct your own fucking experiment. Get a container of water, put it on a table, drop some dry ice in it to make fog. Observe the motion of the fog because of its denser, heavier properties as it flows out of the water dish onto the table and spreads out... Maybe even down on to the floor before the temp rise causes the vapor condensation to evaporate.

[Dale Eastman]

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.

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?

➽ 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.

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.

can you show me that you can have high pressure next to vacuum without a physical barrier?

➽ 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.

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.

Second i need to be able to observe verify and replicate an experiment that substantiatesc this globe model claim.

Image states:Gas pressure requires containment.

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.

➽ 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. 📖

[Dale Eastman]

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.

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?

➽ 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".

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?

➽ 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!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

➽ 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.

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.

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.

The human lungs cannot generate a torr 17 vaccume, like space is claimed to be. I don't know what your are comparing.

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

[Dale Eastman]

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.

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.

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.

➽ 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.

How many times would nasa have to be shown faking space before we can discredit Anthony they show?

Explain your presumptions.
Sixth inquiry:
Explain the motive force(s) mechanism(s) by which this inner and outer tracking works.

I can answer that definitely. That's just the observation. The effect, if you will

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.

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?

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!

https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxO1dOti43EqTrpbhTjAbccmsDlNcIpM-u
Experiment at -196°C, Quantum Levitation | Magnetic Games

https://youtu.be/pOAJeojbduA
The 7 Noble Gases Reacting to a Tesla Device Look Like The Colours of the Sky at Sunset/Sunrise

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

That's a shifting the burden fallacy

➽ 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?

Appeal to the crowd fallacy, Appeal to authority fallacy. And still shifting the burden of proof.

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.

[Dale Eastman]

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.

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.

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

[Dale Eastman]

Still waiting for experiment of vaccume next to pressure without a barrier or equalization.

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.

[Dale Eastman]

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.

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.