Gravity, space, time and other lies

Erfisflat

"Buoyancy also happens (and is used for enriching radioactive materials such as Plutonium) in centrifugal devices, and acts exactly the same way as buoyancy, say, in the ocean, except the Archimedes' force is directed away from the rotation center, and not the Earth center. It is the same effect, just in this case the force of Gravity is substituted with the Centrifugal force."

The assertion here is "(isotope seperation)...acts exactly the same way as buoyancy. Since you assume that gravity exists, it's easy to compare gravity with known or apparent forces.

"There is no buoyancy in space, ..."

How do you know? I must remember you think outer space is real and there is a point that man can reach where he would just float around. 

"...and there is no buoyancy on planes descending at just the right rate for the centrifugal force to compensate for the gravitational force."

As for parabolic dives,  the buoyancy is still there, only the plane is achieving critical density at the same rate as the people or objects inside.

@MayCaesar

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Actually this explains buoyancy." No, it doesn't. Slinkies aren't buoyant in air.

"Sir Isaak Newton has done a comprehensive report, wrote books on how and what objects do traveling through different mediums to their buoyancy point, and acting on one another." Irrelevant in this particular case.

"Wow, they both fell to the ground at the same time!?!?
 This means that #2 is a lie!" Wrong. It means without resistance both objects fall at almost exactly the same speed. The difference between them is too small to see in such a short distance.

Everything you said referring to a god or devil is pure speculation. There is no proof that either exist.

"let's talk about how gravity gets weaker and weaker as your rockets leave earth and dock with the ISS, yet is able to hold the moon in orbit at 238,900 miles away which mass NASA claims is 7.35 x 10^22 kg and on top of that, it is traveling at 2,288 m/p/h around your globe!?" Gravity is affected by both mass and distance.

"because the huge difference in mass between the feather and the bowling ball." The difference is nowhere near as huge as the planet in comparison.

"So, lets drop a huge solid rock the size of a house, and a bowling ball from the medium we call air, anywhere between heaven and the earth, where do you think they will go towards? They will go "down" and will continue till they both hit earth at the same time.
Why do they hit at the same time?" Not in air they wouldn't. The lighter rock would be affected more by air resistance.

"But if gravity existed in dense objects, after millions and billions of years you would have sand, and water accumulating on the sides of mountains" The gravity of the entire planet is vastly more powerful than a mountain. 

"Where do you think the huge Redwood will go towards once we remove the weights? You think gravity will help it go up to the surface of the water?" Gravity would pull the water down underneath the log, which would cause the water to push up the log. Water is more dense than wood. This actually is somewhere that buoyancy applies.

Evidence

Nope said:

Evidence
Gravity is often thought of curvature which causes acceleration at an equal rate for all things passing through space. The feather and bowling ball naturally move toward earth at the same rate. The bowling balls mass causes earth to naturally move toward the bowling ball and feather based on how much space is curved. Like you said the earth is so massive it does not move. The bowling balls mass does not speed up the acceleration of the bowling ball toward earth. I am un able to see how NASA science of gravity that you provided would lead to the conclusion that one object would accelerate faster.

Yes, the bowling ball and the feather, .. in a vacuum "naturally", meaning; as God has created it, and move towards, either up, or down to their predetermined place, where they reach their buoyancy. In this case since they are in a vacuum and are obviously more dense than the vacuum, they both head straight towards earth/down.
If gravity existed with its following rules:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

then the bowling ball which is far, far more massive than the feather would have almost 100% more gravity-force than the feather, thus would fall faster.
NASATAN's universal and galactic gravitational wave spacetime-fabric conundrum is needed for the existence of Satan's creation of heaven and earth, not Gods. Gods creation can all be naturally explained, and the Illuminati-Alchemist Newton did a fine job explaining it, .. until he added the word gravity to hold Lucifer's planets in sci-fi space.

The bowling ball does not have an amount of mass that would realy make a difference to the time taken for the earth and bowling ball to collide. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces but the earth is massive enough to create a rather faster acceleration even at the distance which the moon is at. The moon is massive enough that it does have a noticeable impact on earth. However the earth is massive enough that the center of orbit of the to objects is with the earth making the earth only appear to wobble. The moon does orbit quit fast but I don't see why that is relevant.

So going by the 11,000 lb. elephant and the 176,000 times smaller gravitational mass/force of the mouse would not make much of a difference if we used this same ratio on two objects in your Big-banged space, .. is that what you're saying? That after the holy-Priest George Lemaitre's Big-Bang, as those particles in Star Wars space started to collide, there could be tiny pebble sized clumps of matter sucking up 176,000 time more massive objects and making them its moons?
Better let NASA know about this before they make any bigger fool of themselves.

Evidence said: "But if gravity existed in dense objects, after millions and billions of years you would have sand, and water accumulating on the sides of mountains, and because as you said "gravity is weak", you would never have those imaginary planets orbiting the way you guys have it. Never, and computer simulations have proven this."

Nope - Like I said gravity is week. Mountains do not have the mass to cause sand and water to accumulate when the reast of earth is much more massive and has a net gravitation force at its center.

So now you're saying that it wouldn't matter if a mountain, or a grain of sand fell on you on earth, the gravitational force-effect between the two would not be noticeable??? That the gravitational force of a 25,000 foot mountain is not enough to draw even dust towards it? Is this why mountains are getting smaller over the millions and billions of years because they don't have the mas/gravity-force to hold even the dust on them!?

Hey @Nope I'm still up for the "bowling ball and feather drop in NASA's vacuum chamber" challenge!?

Evidence said - "Now let's take a huge log, .. like one of those cut down California Redwood trees, and let's put some massive stones on it and sink it way down in the ocean. Where do you think the huge Redwood will go towards once we remove the weights? You think gravity will help it go up to the surface of the water?"

-Gravity is also accelerating the water toward the earth. A greater amount of mass in the same space which is able to shape around less mass in the same space would cause one to force the other one up because they can't both occupy the same space. Gravity does a good job at explaining bouncy.

No, buoyance explains all that, gravity would screw everything up as I've shown over and over again.

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.


this is how earth would look from space after millions and billions of years if it was a globe. Actually, the millions and billions of years of gravitational wave-effect of the moon is not even considered here. There should be a beam made up of light particles with water and air reaching up to the moon, which the Astronauts missed completely.



instead, here is what the Astronauts drew as they were heading to the moon:




How could you keep saying that the gravitational-force of two objects, of which one is 176,000 times more massive is not a noticeable difference?



Why don't you show us with a simular above experiment, .. I'm sure @Erfisflat would like to see two balls, one 176,000 times larger just sit on that fabric with an equal dent as the smaller marble!?

Nope

Evidence
"then the bowling ball which is far, far more massive than the feather would have almost 100% more gravity-force than the feather, thus would fall faster."
-An object with more mass does not accelerate faster to another object then the object with less mass. An object with more mass makes the other object accelerate faster toward the object with more mass. That is what would happen if space time is curved. The earth is not going to noticeably accelerate faster to the bowling then the feather. But the bowling ball and feathers acceleration toward earth is only detemend by earths mass.

"So going by the 11,000 lb. elephant and the 176,000 times smaller gravitational mass/force of the mouse would not make much of a difference if we used this same ratio on two objects in your Big-banged space, .. is that what you're saying? That after the holy-Priest George Lemaitre's Big-Bang, as those particles in Star Wars space started to collide, there could be tiny pebble sized clumps of matter sucking up 176,000 time more massive objects and making them its moons?
Better let NASA know about this before they make any bigger fool of themselves."
-Where did you get that idea? It is not clear to me what you are trying to say.

"That the gravitational force of a 25,000 foot mountain is not enough to draw even dust towards it?"
-In order for the dust to be gravitational draw to a mountain first it would have to over come the wind blowing it away and it would be pulled toward the center of the earth which has a lot more mass then a mountain. If the mountain is in its way it would land on the mountain but the mountain cant draw other things around it to it because that object would have to over come friction and because the earth is not smooth also over come the much stronger gravity of earth.

"How could you keep saying that the gravitational-force of two objects, of which one is 176,000 times more massive is not a noticeable difference?"
-The object that is 176,000 times more massive then the first object nor the first objects can make the 5972000000000000000000000 more massive earth relay move. There for both their masses are negligible and the only mass that realy matters is that of the earth. 

Evidence

Nope said:

Evidence
"then the bowling ball which is far, far more massive than the feather would have almost 100% more gravity-force than the feather, thus would fall faster."
-An object with more mass does not accelerate faster to another object then the object with less mass. An object with more mass makes the other object accelerate faster toward the object with more mass. That is what would happen if space time is curved. The earth is not going to noticeably accelerate faster to the bowling then the feather. But the bowling ball and feathers acceleration toward earth is only detemend by earths mass.

@Nope
So what you're claiming that the following information is a lie:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

I copied and pasted these from science/physics sights on gravity.

Why do you insist on twisting things? Can you be honest at least ONCE when it comes to your Big-Bang creator gravity? How can you sit there and say bald faced fibs like: "But the bowling ball and feathers acceleration toward earth is only determined by earths mass." ? Are you saying that if a sun 176,000 times the mass of our sun, and a feather was in a collision course with the our sun, that this would not matter because the only thing matter is the mass/gravity of our sun? LOL

Learn about your gravity, .. it's a force. In physics, something that causes a change in the motion of an object. The most familiar unit of force is the pound.

So you're going to tell me that a 11,000 pound elephant has the same gravitational force as a 1oz. mouse?

No, like NASA, you lie to protect your gods like gravity, spacetime-fabric, Jupiter, Mars, ..  because you know I have debunked gravity, and right there you verify that; gravity of the falling objects don't matter even though your science books specifically say that gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force which pulls falling objects to the ground.
And this applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

But since you seen that both the bowling ball and the feather fell at the same rate, this proved that there is no "force" but only density and buoyancy, .. which means that mass as dense as 11,000 lbs. is void of gravitational force, which is why an elephant and a mouse will fall at the same rate.

Like when I went scuba diving, a rocket also needs a buoyancy compensator for it to leave the earth where it is sitting buoyant. Me, I had to swim up, or put more air in my vest from my tank, ..  but a rocket burns rocket fuel from its tanks to achieve and pass it's buoyancy of earth.

Se my friend @Erfisflat the truth shall make us free. So the NASA rockets are NOT breaking the gravitational force of earth, as they keep telling us over and over again, instead they are achieving buoyancy from fuel tanks burning the fuel creating thrust thus passing the rockets buoyancy on earth to keep going up and up. Just like a scuba diver inflating his vest to achieve buoyancy. Or the hot air balloons, can easily lift four people just by playing with the baskets buoyancy by heating up the air in the balloon.

LogicVault

@Evidence
You're not going to win any scientific debate using God, because there is no proof that one even exists.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
You're not going to win any scientific debate using God, because there is no proof that one even exists.

What are Big-bangers and Evolutionists looking for? They are looking for the "Creator" of heavens and the earth and everything and every creature that they observe in and on them. So how can I not win by "science" (observing the heavens and the world around me), .. How?

That would be like you telling me that using engineers to explain how planes, trains and automobiles were created will not help me just because I haven't seen any of those engineers!? Well I still believe that observing planes, trains and automobiles, and how they are so beautifully put together proves engineers exist, even if I never, ever seen one working on them.

As you can see that "gravity, BB-space vacuum, and Spacetime-Fabric don't exist", nor would they work in reality. They only work in science fiction fairytales, and we Flat Earthers have outgrown fairytales.

So why don't you join us, your Creator God who is your Heavenly Father is waiting for you with open arms. Let's all evolve, grow up and leave those childish things behind!

1 Corinthians 13:11  (KJV)

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

LogicVault

@Evidence
Comparing engineers to a god is a false equivalency. Engineers are easily proven to exist. A god is not. The only thing you have close to evidence for a god is literature and stories passed down by the people who created the religion in the first place. It's hearsay. Looking at the world and thinking it must have had a conscious designer is pure speculation. You do not have a single piece of physical evidence that a god created our world. Also, it was foolish for you to say anything like "observing the heavens and the world around me", because even according to your own religion, you can not observe heaven until after death. It is not a place that exists in our physical reality. Essentially, it's another dimension that the living can not see.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

Evidence
Comparing engineers to a god is a false equivalency. Engineers are easily proven to exist. A god is not. The only thing you have close to evidence for a god is literature and stories passed down by the people who created the religion in the first place. It's hearsay. Looking at the world and thinking it must have had a conscious designer is pure speculation. You do not have a single piece of physical evidence that a god created our world. 

@LogicVault , please tell me what evidence you have of anything in history before you were born other than: "literature and stories passed down by the people who created the stories in the first place"?
 And I'd say that; "looking at the world, especially us humans and thinking it must have had a conscious Designer is a (pretty good) speculation", wouldn't you agree?
I mean everything we create like; houses, cities, trains, planes and automobiles had a conscious designer, .. so accepting that the things that we didn't create that we need and use like the earth, rocks, water, the trees must have had a conscious designer only makes sense. You, me and the ground we walk on is the physical evidence.
Or what, claim that all this just popped out of nothing? Lol
c

LogicVault said:

Evidence
 Also, it was foolish for you to say anything like "observing the heavens and the world around me", because even according to your own religion, you can not observe heaven until after death. It is not a place that exists in our physical reality. Essentially, it's another dimension that the living can not see.

I said: "heavens", like in air, heaven where the birds fly and the heaven where the stars are, .. heavens, like that. The third Heaven is Gods throne of which we have historical records of people actually seeing it.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"please tell me what evidence you have of anything in history before you were born other than: "literature and stories passed down by the people who created the stories in the first place"?" One easily understandable example would be video. Cameras were invented before I was born.

" And I'd say that; "looking at the world, especially us humans and thinking it must have had a conscious Designer is a (pretty good) speculation", wouldn't you agree?" No. That's just an assumption and opinion.

"I mean everything we create like; houses, cities, trains, planes and automobiles had a conscious designer, .. so accepting that the things that we didn't create that we need and use like the earth, rocks, water, the trees must have had a conscious designer only makes sense." To you. But you also claim to not believe in gravity, so your beliefs aren't exactly trustworthy.

"You, me and the ground we walk on is the physical evidence." Evidence that we and it exists, not where it came from.

"I said: "heavens", like in air, heaven where the birds fly and the heaven where the stars are, .. heavens, like that." That's called the sky and space.

"The third Heaven is Gods throne of which we have historical records of people actually seeing it." You have people claiming it without any proof.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"please tell me what evidence you have of anything in history before you were born other than: "literature and stories passed down by the people who created the stories in the first place"?" One easily understandable example would be video. Cameras were invented before I was born.

" And I'd say that; "looking at the world, especially us humans and thinking it must have had a conscious Designer is a (pretty good) speculation", wouldn't you agree?" No. That's just an assumption and opinion.

"I mean everything we create like; houses, cities, trains, planes and automobiles had a conscious designer, .. so accepting that the things that we didn't create that we need and use like the earth, rocks, water, the trees must have had a conscious designer only makes sense." To you. But you also claim to not believe in gravity, so your beliefs aren't exactly trustworthy.

"You, me and the ground we walk on is the physical evidence." Evidence that we and it exists, not where it came from.

"I said: "heavens", like in air, heaven where the birds fly and the heaven where the stars are, .. heavens, like that." That's called the sky and space.

"The third Heaven is Gods throne of which we have historical records of people actually seeing it." You have people claiming it without any proof.

@LogicVault
what does video/movie cameras have to do to change peoples assumptions and opinions? Nothing, only made assumptions and opinions appear more like facts

"A man is coming towards us with a big knife!" - You could say no, that's just an assumption and opinion.

The only place that "gravity" is needed and used in is to keep the story of Big-Banged space vacuum alive.

"You, me and the ground we walk on is the physical evidence."
- Evidence that we and it exists, not where it came from.

That's how theories start. Any evidence of sub-atomic particles popping out of nothing, into nothing and "suddenly expanding with a big Bang!" ??

Yes, today we call it sky and space, because God, Bible, Heavens, Creation, Creator, male, female etc. are becoming taboo words, .. even considered "hate speech". Today words like; Big-Bang, Evolution is equated with the word "science". This is when Religion and "blind faith" become facts.

May you live long and prosper.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"what does video/movie cameras have to do to change peoples assumptions and opinions?" I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about provable facts.

""A man is coming towards us with a big knife!" - You could say no, that's just an assumption and opinion." Only a moron would see a man walking in their direction with a knife and think it's just an opinion that he's walking in their direction with a knife. 

"The only place that "gravity" is needed and used in is to keep the story of Big-Banged space vacuum alive." And make things fall to the Earth.

"Any evidence of sub-atomic particles popping out of nothing, into nothing and "suddenly expanding with a big Bang!" ??"  It's proven that the universe is expanding. Where all the matter came from is still a theory though.

"Yes, today we call it sky and space, because God, Bible, Heavens, Creation, Creator, male, female etc. are becoming taboo words" No, it's because language evolves. We needed a word that meant the sky specifically and not heaven.

"even considered "hate speech"." Only by those who hate religion.

"Today words like; Big-Bang, Evolution is equated with the word "science". This is when Religion and "blind faith" become facts." That made no sense. Religion is believing in a god or gods and is not a provable fact. Science is not religion. Science is the study of everything around us in order to determine facts from fiction.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

Evidence 

"what does video/movie cameras have to do to change peoples assumptions and opinions?"
I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about provable facts.

You mean like the cheap move made calling it "first moon landing" in '68 ?? How can you prove that you landed on the moon by that? I'll tell you how, by making people believe in NASA's opinions showing movies and sci-fi TV shows beforehand.

"A man is coming towards us with a big knife!" - You could say no, that's just an assumption and opinion."
Only a moron would see a man walking in their direction with a knife and think it's just an opinion that he's walking in their direction with a knife.

So NASA showing us cheap B&W films which were taken off a 1967 projection TV screen of guys in funny suits hoping along on a stage, with flags waving, multiple stage lights shining, and anyone not believe they are on the moon would be moronic?
NASA: "Did you see it, we put men on the moon, your non-German moronic opinions about it being a huge conspiracy don't count!"

"The only place that "gravity" is needed and used in is to keep the story of Big-Banged space vacuum alive."
And make things fall to the Earth.

Go ahead and say it, .. and make helium balloons fly up into the air, submerged logs, and 48,000 ton submarines surface to the top of the water is caused by the submarine and the earths gravity, right?
You know well that it's all about density and buoyancy, NOT gravity, just like I've shown you in the "feather and a 10 lb. bowling ball falling at the same time in a vacuum chamber", or the 11,000 lb. elephant falling at the same rate as a 1 oz. mouse science example. You keep forgetting about the Law of Gravity! Here let me post it again, maybe it will sink in??

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

So the 48,000 ton nuclear submarine is obviously not surfacing because of gravity, or some magical anti-gravity device, all one has to do to disprove gravity is do an experiment with a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum chamber, or we could even use the 48,000 ton submarine and a feather, because there is no gravity, there is no 'gravity force' on the mass/density of the 48,000 ton submarine as the laws on gravity 1-4 prescribe.

"Any evidence of sub-atomic particles popping out of nothing, into nothing and "suddenly expanding with a big Bang!" ??"
It's proven that the universe is expanding. Where all the matter came from is still a theory though.

Just because Cosmologist compare two firetrucks blowing their sirens, one coming towards them with it's headlights on, and the other moving away from them with the red taillights on, and measuring the Doppler effect on the sound of the sirens passing through air, does not mean the red stars that they see in the heavens are expanding space, or that light, which Einstein said travels at a constant is somehow stretching and contracting like sound traveling through air does!? Let me explain their confusion, maybe you can send an e-mail to NASA or 666CERN and explain this to them;

The red stars are red, it is how God created them, and they would be red if it was coming towards, or going away from them. They could have the Firetruck back up, and they could see that it's still red.
They associate the red tail lights of the firetruck that's moving away from them with the red stars. So because the truck is moving away and they see the red tail lights, they assume the star is moving away from them too. Then they see the headlights of the other firetruck coming towards them, here again they assume the white stars are coming towards them too. These are honest mistakes most 2nd graders might make.
But you know what, with the billions of dollars that NASA get a month, they really should hire more intelligent people, someone that has more than 2nd grade education.

"Yes, today we call it sky and space, because God, Bible, Heavens, Creation, Creator, male, female etc. are becoming taboo words"
No, it's because language evolves. We needed a word that meant the sky specifically and not heaven.

Look up into the heavens at night, and you see bats flying, and stars. Or look up in the sky and you see bats flying and stars, .. I don't see the need?

"even considered "hate speech"
Only by those who hate religion.

How do you associate our Heavenly Father and Creator God, a book like the Bible, our Heavens, Creation when we all contribute to technological advancement, Creator when we all create, male, female to Religion, especially when as I have shown so many times that both the serpent tongued NASA and Lord-Shiva worshipping 666CERN are such powerful Religious groups?

"Today words like; Big-Bang, Evolution is equated with the word "science". This is when Religion and "blind faith" become facts."
That made no sense. Religion is believing in a god or gods and is not a provable fact. Science is not religion. Science is the study of everything around us in order to determine facts from fiction.

I see, it's that Evolution thing again, where words evolve like if someone goes for a walk for an hour every morning at 6 AM religiously, they are today considered religious, maybe even religious fanatics!? So would you consider all Olympians Religious fanatics? I mean exercising 7 days a week, 6-8 hours a day, .. I guess we should have them on the cult-list and have them CIA watched!?

As for "science determining facts from fiction", that has been long gone. It started 500 years ago with the Christian-Jesuits putting religious idols like 'Globes' in school all over the world, and telling the children about magical cultic unexplainable things like gravity that can create, it can also suddenly expand (Big-bang), collapse (black holes) and hold imaginary planets orbiting each other but weak enough not to interfere with the gravitational force between a 11,000 lb. elephant and a 1 oz. mouse!

But what is even more disturbing about this new science-Religion is making our children accept that they are animals, apes, and that they should not accept their gender just because they were born as God meant them to be male or female. That one is really frightening, and I doubt too many people expected that to come along with Evolution and the Big-bang religions.

But we're in luck, our fellow debater @Erfisflat can help people get out of this cultic mind controlling Religion that claims to be science. He can take you from spinning in the vacuum of space, and feeling like an insignificant speck in an infinite, yet expanding nothing created by chaos and destruction, and put you right back on Gods beautiful Flat Earth.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"You mean like the cheap move made calling it "first moon landing" in '68 ??" Not the type of videos I'm talking about. I believe NASA faked that for the sake of the space race.

"So NASA showing us cheap B&W films which were taken off a 1967 projection TV screen of guys in funny suits hoping along on a stage, with flags waving, multiple stage lights shining, and anyone not believe they are on the moon would be moronic?" Not the same as seeing someone walking towards you in person. Video and real life witness is two different things.

"Go ahead and say it, .. and make helium balloons fly up into the air, submerged logs, and 48,000 ton submarines surface to the top of the water is caused by the submarine and the earths gravity, right?" It's caused by the weight different between the object and the amount of water or air it displaces. A submarine can control this by controlling what it's trim tanks are filled with. Air will make it float and water will make it sink.

"You know well that it's all about density and buoyancy, NOT gravity" Buoyancy relies on gravity. Without gravity, there is no buoyancy. There is a reason why only gases and liquids can make things float. Each individual molecule moves independently and with barely any friction by itself.  This allows many molecules to be pulled underneath lighter objects and build up, which would create pressure to push up on the lighter object.

"You keep forgetting about the Law of Gravity" No, I'm answering according to the laws of gravity. You are choosing to ignore how these laws apply in reality. You know very well that gravity exists and choose to pretend it doesn't in order to continue your trolling efforts.

"So the 48,000 ton nuclear submarine is obviously not surfacing because of gravity, or some magical anti-gravity device" This has been explained three responses ago in this post.

"all one has to do to disprove gravity is do an experiment with a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum chamber," That test did not disprove gravity. It proves the effect of air resistance.

"Just because Cosmologist compare two firetrucks blowing their sirens, one coming towards them with it's headlights on, and the other moving away from them with the red taillights on, and measuring the Doppler effect on the sound of the sirens passing through air, does not mean the red stars that they see in the heavens are expanding space" False equivalency. The speed of the object is important. Firetrucks do not move anywhere near the speed needed to cause an effect on how we perceive the color of their lights.

"The red stars are red, it is how God created them" Until you prove a god exists, leave that variable out of your responses. You do not know if one exists at all or not. Your belief (or pretend to believe) is based on pure speculation.

"They associate the red tail lights of the firetruck that's moving away from them with the red stars." Wrong. They are not even associated. The plastic or glass that covers the tail lights of vehicles include molecules that reflect the spectrum of light that we perceive as red. It's movement is irrelevant.

"Look up into the heavens at night, and you see bats flying, and stars. Or look up in the sky and you see bats flying and stars, .. I don't see the need?" I do. It sounds too spiritual or religious when you use the word 'heavens'. We want to refer to the sky without any reference to religion.

"How do you associate our Heavenly Father and Creator God, a book like the Bible, our Heavens, Creation when we all contribute to technological advancement, Creator when we all create, male, female to Religion, especially when as I have shown so many times that both the serpent tongued NASA and Lord-Shiva worshipping 666CERN are such powerful Religious groups?" Blah blah blah. More religious speak. Prove a god before you use one as a point to make. Also, I've already explained to you how you got the entire SHIVA thing wrong. This is how I know you're trolling. You repeat things that have already been explained to you how it's wrong. The SHIVA associated with NASA is a program, not a god. The word 'SHIVA' is an acronym for the program. I know trolling requires playing sometimes, but you take it too far.

"I see, it's that Evolution thing again, where words evolve like if someone goes for a walk for an hour every morning at 6 AM religiously, they are today considered religious, maybe even religious fanatics!?" No. When the word 'religiously' is used in that fashion it means the person does the action with consistent and conscientious regularity, just like religious people attend religious meetings. It's being used figuratively.

"As for "science determining facts from fiction", that has been long gone. It started 500 years ago with the Christian-Jesuits putting religious idols like 'Globes' in school all over the world, and telling the children about magical cultic unexplainable things like gravity that can create, it can also suddenly expand (Big-bang), collapse (black holes) and hold imaginary planets orbiting each other but weak enough not to interfere with the gravitational force between a 11,000 lb. elephant and a 1 oz. mouse!" First, science has been around for longer than that. Example: We have created houses out of different materials for thousands of years. Each time we first tried a new material was a test to see if it worked. Those tests were science. Second, religion is more like a cult than science enthusiasts. Third, planets are not imaginary. You can look at them yourself with a powerful enough telescope. Fourth, the distance between each object effects the gravitational force they have on each other. This is extremely important and requires math and physics skills to fully understand. I suspect you actually posses these, which returns to your obvious trolling.

"But what is even more disturbing about this new science-Religion is making our children accept that they are animals," First, stop playing so ignorant that you refer to science as religion. They are nowhere near the same concept. You're just being ridiculous. Second, we are technically animals. Animal: a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. The definition applies to humans.

"that they should not accept their gender just because they were born as God meant them to be male or female." I'm going to ignore the religious part you involved in this and just respond to the gender part. Men and women have differently working brains. This is proven. Even at infancy, males and females have different preferences, on average. One test shows males prefer to look at toys or mechanical devices. Females prefer to look at faces. The test shows this the vast majority of the time. A mistake in the development of a fetus can result in a male developing a brain designed as female or a female developing a brain designed as male. These people end up with mental characteristics of the other gender. I do not agree that they should reject what they actually are. But I have no problem with them living as what makes them comfortable as long as it does not interfere with others. Basically, if you want to be transgender, then fine, but do not attempt to force me to use the pronouns you prefer if they are different than what you biologically are and you do not even look like the gender you want to be referred to as.

"But we're in luck, our fellow debater @Erfisflat can help people get out of this cultic mind controlling Religion that claims to be science. He can take you from spinning in the vacuum of space, and feeling like an insignificant speck in an infinite, yet expanding nothing created by chaos and destruction, and put you right back on Gods beautiful Flat Earth." So many things wrong with those sentences. It's amazing. Not a single concept you indicated in that response was even close to being actual reality.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"You mean like the cheap move made calling it "first moon landing" in '68 ??" Not the type of videos I'm talking about. I believe NASA faked that for the sake of the space race.

"So NASA showing us cheap B&W films which were taken off a 1967 projection TV screen of guys in funny suits hoping along on a stage, with flags waving, multiple stage lights shining, and anyone not believe they are on the moon would be moronic?" Not the same as seeing someone walking towards you in person. Video and real life witness is two different things.

"Go ahead and say it, .. and make helium balloons fly up into the air, submerged logs, and 48,000 ton submarines surface to the top of the water is caused by the submarine and the earths gravity, right?" It's caused by the weight different between the object and the amount of water or air it displaces. A submarine can control this by controlling what it's trim tanks are filled with. Air will make it float and water will make it sink.

"You know well that it's all about density and buoyancy, NOT gravity" Buoyancy relies on gravity. Without gravity, there is no buoyancy. There is a reason why only gases and liquids can make things float. Each individual molecule moves independently and with barely any friction by itself.  This allows many molecules to be pulled underneath lighter objects and build up, which would create pressure to push up on the lighter object.

"You keep forgetting about the Law of Gravity" No, I'm answering according to the laws of gravity. You are choosing to ignore how these laws apply in reality. You know very well that gravity exists and choose to pretend it doesn't in order to continue your trolling efforts.

"So the 48,000 ton nuclear submarine is obviously not surfacing because of gravity, or some magical anti-gravity device" This has been explained three responses ago in this post.

"all one has to do to disprove gravity is do an experiment with a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum chamber," That test did not disprove gravity. It proves the effect of air resistance.

"Just because Cosmologist compare two firetrucks blowing their sirens, one coming towards them with it's headlights on, and the other moving away from them with the red taillights on, and measuring the Doppler effect on the sound of the sirens passing through air, does not mean the red stars that they see in the heavens are expanding space" False equivalency. The speed of the object is important. Firetrucks do not move anywhere near the speed needed to cause an effect on how we perceive the color of their lights.

"The red stars are red, it is how God created them" Until you prove a god exists, leave that variable out of your responses. You do not know if one exists at all or not. Your belief (or pretend to believe) is based on pure speculation.

"They associate the red tail lights of the firetruck that's moving away from them with the red stars." Wrong. They are not even associated. The plastic or glass that covers the tail lights of vehicles include molecules that reflect the spectrum of light that we perceive as red. It's movement is irrelevant.

"Look up into the heavens at night, and you see bats flying, and stars. Or look up in the sky and you see bats flying and stars, .. I don't see the need?" I do. It sounds too spiritual or religious when you use the word 'heavens'. We want to refer to the sky without any reference to religion.

"How do you associate our Heavenly Father and Creator God, a book like the Bible, our Heavens, Creation when we all contribute to technological advancement, Creator when we all create, male, female to Religion, especially when as I have shown so many times that both the serpent tongued NASA and Lord-Shiva worshipping 666CERN are such powerful Religious groups?" Blah blah blah. More religious speak. Prove a god before you use one as a point to make. Also, I've already explained to you how you got the entire SHIVA thing wrong. This is how I know you're trolling. You repeat things that have already been explained to you how it's wrong. The SHIVA associated with NASA is a program, not a god. The word 'SHIVA' is an acronym for the program. I know trolling requires playing sometimes, but you take it too far.

"I see, it's that Evolution thing again, where words evolve like if someone goes for a walk for an hour every morning at 6 AM religiously, they are today considered religious, maybe even religious fanatics!?" No. When the word 'religiously' is used in that fashion it means the person does the action with consistent and conscientious regularity, just like religious people attend religious meetings. It's being used figuratively.

"As for "science determining facts from fiction", that has been long gone. It started 500 years ago with the Christian-Jesuits putting religious idols like 'Globes' in school all over the world, and telling the children about magical cultic unexplainable things like gravity that can create, it can also suddenly expand (Big-bang), collapse (black holes) and hold imaginary planets orbiting each other but weak enough not to interfere with the gravitational force between a 11,000 lb. elephant and a 1 oz. mouse!" First, science has been around for longer than that. Example: We have created houses out of different materials for thousands of years. Each time we first tried a new material was a test to see if it worked. Those tests were science. Second, religion is more like a cult than science enthusiasts. Third, planets are not imaginary. You can look at them yourself with a powerful enough telescope. Fourth, the distance between each object effects the gravitational force they have on each other. This is extremely important and requires math and physics skills to fully understand. I suspect you actually posses these, which returns to your obvious trolling.

"But what is even more disturbing about this new science-Religion is making our children accept that they are animals," First, stop playing so ignorant that you refer to science as religion. They are nowhere near the same concept. You're just being ridiculous. Second, we are technically animals. Animal: a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. The definition applies to humans.

"that they should not accept their gender just because they were born as God meant them to be male or female." I'm going to ignore the religious part you involved in this and just respond to the gender part. Men and women have differently working brains. This is proven. Even at infancy, males and females have different preferences, on average. One test shows males prefer to look at toys or mechanical devices. Females prefer to look at faces. The test shows this the vast majority of the time. A mistake in the development of a fetus can result in a male developing a brain designed as female or a female developing a brain designed as male. These people end up with mental characteristics of the other gender. I do not agree that they should reject what they actually are. But I have no problem with them living as what makes them comfortable as long as it does not interfere with others. Basically, if you want to be transgender, then fine, but do not attempt to force me to use the pronouns you prefer if they are different than what you biologically are and you do not even look like the gender you want to be referred to as.

"But we're in luck, our fellow debater @Erfisflat can help people get out of this cultic mind controlling Religion that claims to be science. He can take you from spinning in the vacuum of space, and feeling like an insignificant speck in an infinite, yet expanding nothing created by chaos and destruction, and put you right back on Gods beautiful Flat Earth." So many things wrong with those sentences. It's amazing. Not a single concept you indicated in that response was even close to being actual reality.

You don't live in a reality, .. everything about your universe is fake, made up fairytales using pseudo science and dark-Religion.

@LogicVault It's caused by the weight different between the object and the amount of water or air it displaces. A submarine can control this by controlling what it's trim tanks are filled with. Air will make it float and water will make it sink.

Once again, thank you, .. and this is called what? Is it called anti-gravitation tanks, .. or buoyancy tanks? And please explain "weight difference"??  There is no such thing as weight, it's all buoyancy in different mediums. Like that big submarine, its 48,000 tons. above buoyancy in air. That is why objects are measured by how fast they travel to their point of buoyancy, and NOT by some kooky "gravity/weight". All objects travel towards their buoyancy in a vacuum at 9.807 m/s^2.

LogicVault - Buoyancy relies on gravity. Without gravity, there is no buoyancy. There is a reason why only gases and liquids can make things float. Each individual molecule moves independently and with barely any friction by itself.  This allows many molecules to be pulled underneath lighter objects and build up, which would create pressure to push up on the lighter object.

Yes, again thank you for explaining how buoyancy works on objects displaced between Heaven and earth. Only you still don't see it, or refuse to admit it that gravity has nothing to do with any of this, but it is all as you explained in the laws of density and buoyancy.

O.K. let's go back 13 billion years, should be easy, your Cosmologist examine stars billions of years in the past all the time! So please observe as your solar system was being created by Redshift-stardust gas. Now what brought your sun to rest right there, .. where it is in your universe/space today? Was it the force of gravity? Is gravity holding your sun there?
Any object in your NASA space is there, floating in a vacuum, not gravity holding it there. Try as you may to explain your gravity in space like with the elastic Spacefabric, where the sun, or any of your planets are sitting on this so called Spacetime Fabric pulled down on it by this magical gravity, as explained by this Sci-fi teacher:



But when this is questioned, Gravitards deny that gravity is pulling your planets down onto the fabric.

If you can imagine your Spacetime vacuum with your planets there NOT held down by gravity, then you should be able imagine our real Flat earth, .. it is here, nothing is holding it here, it's just here, and we call the density of earth as "down".
Between heaven (up) and earth there are all kinds of different mediums, and any-thing taken out of its buoyant resting place, goes either up, or down to where it once again becomes buoyant.

Gravity, if existed as with these laws:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

.. would greatly mess up the rules of density and buoyancy, and before you knew it, in matter of minutes your universe would explode in chaos with a Big-Bang!

So what will it be LogicVault, will you choose chaos through chaos aka Big bang to Big Crunch, ..  or The Way, The Truth and The Life, Jesus Christ?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Is it called anti-gravitation tanks, .. or buoyancy tanks?" Neither.

"There is no such thing as weight, it's all buoyancy in different mediums." Buoyancy depends on weight. For a medium to push up on an object, something must pull the medium down underneath the object. Once enough of the medium has built up enough pressure to overpower gravity, it pushes the object up.

"Only you still don't see it, or refuse to admit it that gravity has nothing to do with any of this, but it is all as you explained in the laws of density and buoyancy." A force is required to pull the molecules underneath the object and create buoyancy. It doesn't happen by magic.

"Now what brought your sun to rest right there" The sun isn't resting anywhere. It's technically moving. Our entire galaxy is moving away from the center of the universe.

"Any object in your NASA space is there, floating in a vacuum, not gravity holding it there." Everything is space is technically moving.

"Try as you may to explain your gravity in space like with the elastic Spacefabric, where the sun, or any of your planets are sitting on this so called Spacetime Fabric pulled down on it by this magical gravity, as explained by this Sci-fi teacher:" His explanation is not literal. It's a simplified example placed into a context designed to be more easily understandable for people of normal intelligence. If he explained specifically and literally how gravity works, he would confuse you.

"it is here, nothing is holding it here, it's just here" Nothing is just here. Everything is and happens for a reason.

"Gravity, if existed as with these laws:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

.. would greatly mess up the rules of density and buoyancy" Density and buoyancy obey these laws.

"So what will it be LogicVault, will you choose chaos through chaos aka Big bang to Big Crunch, ..  or The Way, The Truth and The Life, Jesus Christ?" I'm not going to follow a fictional character.

Evidence

@LogicVault ;
Evidence said: "There is no such thing as weight, it's all buoyancy in different mediums."
LogicVault said: Buoyancy depends on weight.

Again, there is no such thing as weight. If there was, a 11,000 lb. elephant would always be 11,000 lbs. and a 1 oz. mouse would always be 1 oz. because of these rules YOU Globetard's made:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

But as anyone can see by dropping a 10 lb. bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum, both start off slow, then they both fall faster and faster at the same rate till they both reach their buoyancy rate" of  9.807 m/s^2 (in a vacuum) A bowling ball pushes on a scale at ground level dependent on its density. If it pushes 10 lbs., it's not because of it's gravity, but its density trying to level out at ground level like water would.

Now if we were to drop this same denseness bowling ball that pushes 10lbs. at ground level, from a ten story building onto the same scale, what would it weigh LogicVault?
At the start, it weighs nothing, it just sits there for about a half a second.
So first it's 0.0 lbs. then as it falls at the rate of 9.807 m/s^2 the force of the mass would register something like 200lb. You are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, since it seems like I can't get a straight answer from Googling it, it's all diversions. They all just want to talk about different objects falling at the same rate as if it proves gravity, when in fact it actually proves; there is no gravity!

LogicVault - For a medium to push up on an object, something must pull the medium down underneath the object. Once enough of the medium has built up enough pressure to overpower gravity, it pushes the object up.

Nothing is "pulling" it down or up. Like water, the more there is, the denser it gets towards the denser medium beneath it like the earth. Like dunking, then releasing a block of wood under water, the denseness of the water is pushing it up, .. NOT gravity. There is no such thing as gravity!
The more water there is, the denser it is near where it touches something denser, in this case the earth.
Take rocks of the same denseness, and pile them up, they will push on the scale more each time, same as water, the more there is, the more they push.
The water is also held up by the denseness of the earth, and the earth is there right where God put it, .. below our feet. You could turn the heavens and the earth horizontally, you will still get the same effect.

How much does your globe weigh in your Space Vacuum?
0.0 lbs. .. or nothing, .. see?

So since the Earth is here under our feet, anything that is lighter in density like water, will be laying on it. Since there is no weigh determined by gravity (as hundreds of YouTube videos prove over and over again by dropping objects from different heights and them falling at the same rate), proves the Submarine has no gravity/weight/force either, it has a certain denseness determined what material it was made out of, .. and in water, it's denseness is regulated by air tanks, to change its buoyancy point, .. just like my buoyancy compensator on my diving suit that I adjust with my regulator.  Oh, and no one, absolutely No One has EVER called it "gravity compensator" because "gravity does NOT exist"!

Evidence

@Erfisflat here is what I would like to see done in a Zero-G plane dive; Take a big water balloon, and break it.
We know that the water forms a ball, right?
Now I would like to see someone push a pebble, .. a small round rock just below the surface of the ball of water.

Then, observe if the pebble is pushed to the middle of the ball of water? If it is (which I believe it would be), it would prove that the more water there is, it naturally becomes denser in the middle, which is why we have this order of density and buoyancy, no gravity needed!

This would also show that even if earth was a globe, no gravity would be needed, but only what we already have, the natural God created effect of density and buoyancy.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Again, there is no such thing as weight. If there was, a 11,000 lb. elephant would always be 11,000 lbs. and a 1 oz. mouse would always be 1 oz." Pounds and ounces are measurements of weight. You can't say there is no such thing as weight and proceed to use weight measurements. That's self contradictory.

"they both fall faster and faster at the same rate till they both reach their buoyancy rate" of  9.807 m/s^2 (in a vacuum" There is no buoyancy in a vacuum. Even you yourself admitted that you know buoyancy requires a medium. There is no medium (air) in a vacuum.

"Now if we were to drop this same denseness bowling ball that pushes 10lbs. at ground level, from a ten story building onto the same scale, what would it weigh LogicVault?" Still 10lbs. The impact from the momentum is not part of it's weight. A scale would read higher at the moment of impact due to the added force of momentum. It would register both weight and the impact from the momentum, which are two different forces.

"force of the mass would register something like 200lb." The mass has not changed. Momentum was added.

"You are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong" I've been doing that this entire time.

"They all just want to talk about different objects falling at the same rate as if it proves gravity, when in fact it actually proves; there is no gravity!" You either do not understand how it proves gravity or you are pretending to not understand for the purpose of your trolling.

"Nothing is "pulling" it down or up." You're half right. Nothing is pulling up. It's pushing due to pressure.

"Like water, the more there is, the denser it gets towards the denser medium beneath it like the earth." Water gets denser the farther down you go because of the weight of the water above it.

"Like dunking, then releasing a block of wood under water, the denseness of the water is pushing it up, .. NOT gravity." Wrong. The pressure of the water is what pushes it up. That pressure forms due to gravity.

"There is no such thing as gravity!" There is and you know there is. You can forfeit this trolling attempt any time you what. It will not work on anyone here anymore since I am correcting you and informing them of what you are doing. You have been outed, your scheme no longer has power here.

"The more water there is, the denser it is near where it touches something denser, in this case the earth." That's not how it works. If it did, then touching a gold block (which is very dense) to the top of the water would cause the water in contact with it to become denser, which it doesn't.

"Take rocks of the same denseness, and pile them up, they will push on the scale more each time" That's because you're adding more weight with each rock.

"same as water, the more there is, the more they push." Same as above. Adding more weight.

"How much does your globe weigh in your Space Vacuum?" Depends on the gravity pulling on it, which would come from our sun.

"Since there is no weigh determined by gravity (as hundreds of YouTube videos prove over and over again by dropping objects from different heights and them falling at the same rate)" That's not how physics work. It does not prove that gravity doesn't exist.

"proves the Submarine has no gravity/weight/force either, it has a certain denseness determined what material it was made out of, .. and in water, it's denseness is regulated by air tanks, to change its buoyancy point, .. just like my buoyancy compensator on my diving suit that I adjust with my regulator." That actually proves gravity does exist. Density has no effect without gravity.

"Oh, and no one, absolutely No One has EVER called it "gravity compensator" because "gravity does NOT exist"!" It doesn't matter what they call it, it still works based on the same physics. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

Evidence -

@LogicVault ;
Evidence
"Again, there is no such thing as weight. If there was, a 11,000 lb. elephant would always be 11,000 lbs. and a 1 oz. mouse would always be 1 oz."
Pounds and ounces are measurements of weight. You can't say there is no such thing as weight and proceed to use weight measurements. That's self contradictory.

That's my whole argument here, gravity, space and time are not real objects as Globe Earthers try use it, like the folding of Spacetime, or traveling back and forth on time. Like if I gave you 10-years, or a mile, or 10lbs. what could you use it for?
You didn't refute my comment, please read it again? You know well that a 11,000 lb. elephant on your moon which NASA landed on would not be 11,000 lbs. thus weight is not real.

Maybe this question (which goes hand in hand with my above statement) will help you: "Why don't  the best scientists in the world at NASA use the following to determine weight?"

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

Instead, every science paper I read on weight and gravity keep throwing the 11,000 lb. elephant on different planets, or the moon. Why?
If Gravity is a force that's determined by density/mass, then the elephant should have a set weight set by its density/mass, .. which is why I said: "Again, there is no such thing as weight. If there was, a 11,000 lb. elephant would always be 11,000 lbs. and a 1 oz. mouse would always be 1 oz."

Evidence - "they both fall faster and faster at the same rate till they both reach their buoyancy rate" of  9.807 m/s^2 (in a vacuum"
LogicVault - There is no buoyancy in a vacuum. Even you yourself admitted that you know buoyancy requires a medium. There is no medium (air) in a vacuum.

And again I will use your own words regarding a vacuum: "There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. Space is full of stuff like stars, planets, etc." (not verbatim) remember that? Well the same goes for my above comment, the vacuum we're talking about is just absent of air, which leaves all the other mediums, gases like radon, or x-rays, or whatever other "rays" that God created that's between His heavens and our Earth that's still in the vacuum. It's only missing air.

Evidence - "Now if we were to drop this same denseness bowling ball that pushes 10lbs. at ground level, from a ten story building onto the same scale, what would it weigh LogicVault?"
LogicVault - Still 10lbs.

See what I mean? Are you saying that the this object with certain mass/gravity as described by the above rules from 1-4 weighs 10lbs. .. no matter which of your planets you put it on?
You think because you guys convinced yourselves and about 90% of the world that we are animals, dumb apes, that you can fool evidence with substance, which is what real science is? Your Jedi minds tricks don't work on us Flat Earthers my friend, as I said:
"Again, there is no such thing as weight. If there was, then a 11,000 lb. elephant would always be 11,000 lbs. and a 1 oz. mouse would always be 1 oz." no matter where it was.

You know perfectly well that this bowling ball would weigh hundreds of lbs. when it hit the scale from that height, because weight, like miles, space and time is not something real. I can give you ten years, there is nothing you could do with it.

LogicVault - The impact from the momentum is not part of it's weight. A scale would read higher at the moment of impact due to the added force of momentum. It would register both weight and the impact from the momentum, which are two different forces.

Again, it's not "two different forces", it is the only force caused by the momentum determined by the objects density:
weight: a body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it, giving rise to a downward force - Google dictionary

Evidence - "force of the mass would register something like 200lb."
LogicVault - The mass has not changed. Momentum was added.

Again, momentum is what weight is, .. stop avoiding the Truth.

Evidence - "You are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong"
LogicVault - I've been doing that this entire time.

No my Debating friend, what you've been doing is trying to deceive me all this time, and you continue doing so. I asked you if; dropping a 10lb. bowling ball from a 10 story building would weigh 200lbs. or not, and NOT that; "would the bowling ball change its density". Again, "What would a 10lb. bowling ball weigh at the moment of impact with a scale dropped from a ten story building?"

Evidence - "They all just want to talk about different objects falling at the same rate as if it proves gravity, when in fact it actually proves; there is no gravity!"
LogicVault - You either do not understand how it proves gravity or you are pretending to not understand for the purpose of your trolling.

Wait, .. so either you really don't understand all the evidence I've been presenting you because of all the MK-Ultra indoctrinations you've been subjected to, or (which is what I believe from all the diversion tactics you've been using) that you are Trolling me!?

"Nothing is "pulling" it down or up." 
LogicVault - You're half right. Nothing is pulling up. It's pushing due to pressure.

I said "down or up", which you just verified, it's all due to pressure, and NOT gravity. The log, the helium balloon are both "pushed up" to their assigned buoyancy point.

"Like water, the more there is, the denser it gets towards the denser medium beneath it like the earth."
LogicVault - Water gets denser the farther down you go because of the weight of the water above it.

See, there you go again with weight, when it's pressure of all the added water molecules trying to reach their accumulated buoyancy! The more molecules, the denser the water becomes as you get closer to the ground 'below it', the ground is more dense than water. Again, gravity does not fit and would only create chaos and darkness when used on Gods creation between Heaven and Earth.

"Like dunking, then releasing a block of wood under water, the denseness of the water is pushing it up, .. NOT gravity."
LogicVault - Wrong. The pressure of the water is what pushes it up. That pressure forms due to gravity.

Read what I just said above, from the beginning of this post to here. There is no gravity, it's all as you keep admitting, density and buoyancy. The more there is of something, the more dense they become as they try to reach their buoyancy. The more water there is, the more dense they become at the point they reach something denser, in this case the bottom of the oceans. The water molecules above are all trying to reach their point of buoyancy, which in this case is the earth at the bottom.

Evidence - "There is no such thing as gravity!"
LogicVault - There is and you know there is. You can forfeit this trolling attempt any time you what. It will not work on anyone here anymore since I am correcting you and informing them of what you are doing. You have been outed, your scheme no longer has power here.

Evidence with substance says there is no gravity, and not just that there is no need for it, but as I shown you throughout this debate that 'gravity' according to these gravity laws:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

would create chaos in our daily work if it was ever used.
This is why when you Google; "gravity" we are right away taken to "Outer Space", the imaginary universe created by Satan himself, and ruled over by his minions like NASATAN and 666CERN.

Evidence - "The more water there is, the denser it is near where it touches something denser, in this case the earth."
LogicVault - That's not how it works. If it did, then touching a gold block (which is very dense) to the top of the water would cause the water in contact with it to become denser, which it doesn't.

I'm sorry but that is EXACTLY how it works:
Take fish tank full of water with an enclosed top. Then take one of NASATANS gold bars (since 'They' now have all the gold bars), and cut an opening on top of the tank exactly the size of NASA's gold bar, and then try to drop it.
It will not drop but float, because the water just became denser. So unless the water can escape, the gold bar will just float there on top of the water.
The only way the gold-bar will drop is if it's already in the water that's in the enclosed tank.

Evidence - "Take rocks of the same denseness, and pile them up, they will push on the scale more each time"
LogicVault - That's because you're adding more weight with each rock.

Yes, if mass had gravity as according to:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

.. then each rock would add to the weight, and the heavier objects would have a greater gravity-force and would fall faster than the lighter ones.

Evidence - "same as water, the more there is, the more they push."
LogicVault - Same as above. Adding more weight.

Exactly, .. same as above; "gravity does not exist" or the one with 'more weight' would have a greater force, .. which, just like in different sized engines in cars or trains, planes would travel faster.

Evidence - "How much does your globe weigh in your Space Vacuum?"
LogicVault - Depends on the gravity pulling on it, which would come from our sun.

Again, .. why the sun? If gravity existed as in:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

.. then it would not matter where it's at! In your imaginary space the weight of your Globe fluctuates depending which size sun it is near to, like your VY Canis Majoris which is supposedly 1,420 times that of our Sun. Does this mean that your Globe- earth changes its density  in each circumstance?

NASA claim the earth weighs 5.972 X 10^21 tons how is this calculated, by measuring its density, or laying it on a scale on another Globe-Earth? If so, then if you weighed your Globe on VY Canis Majoris, it can fluctuate from 5.972 X 10^21 tons, to 1,420 times that! How can the same mass with the same density fluctuate in weigh sooo much?
So either you Globe-Earthers stick with gravity, or just admit you're Trolling!?

Evidence - "Since there is no weigh determined by gravity (as hundreds of YouTube videos prove over and over again by dropping objects from different heights and them falling at the same rate)"
That's not how physics work. It does not prove that gravity doesn't exist.

Yes it does, proper physics PROVES gravity does not exist, and you Globe-Earthers keep proving this every time you drop two objects of different densities at the same time and they both reach their buoyancy, the ground at the same time!

Evidence - "proves the Submarine has no gravity/weight/force either, it has a certain denseness determined what material it was made out of, .. and in water, it's denseness is regulated by air tanks, to change its buoyancy point, .. just like my buoyancy compensator on my diving suit that I adjust with my regulator."
LogicVault - That actually proves gravity does exist. Density has no effect without gravity.

Come on LogicVault, stop Trolling. Are you actually saying that a few air tanks could float a 48,000 ton steel sub (which is what that sub would weigh at all times if gravity existed) .. above water?
Never. But because there is no gravity, we can change it's density (not weight) by filling air-tanks which is how we can achieve this!

Evidence - Oh, and no one, absolutely No One has EVER called it "gravity compensator" because "gravity" does NOT exist!
LogicVault - It doesn't matter what they call it, it still works based on the same physics. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

It's not just the name, according to Pseudoscience, gravity is this:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

And density has no weight, but is measured by it's velocity towards its point of buoyancy.
So as you can see; "gravity" is NOT a rose, but BM, and it stinks. Stop Trolling, .. You have been shown all the evidence, and all your claims of gravity have been refuted, so stop Trolling and admit that it does not exist!

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Stop Trolling" My exact thought for you. Anyone who reads this debate is aware of what you're doing since the indicators have been pointed out. A smart troll knows to jump ship once they've been outed. So which one are you going to do, foolishly continue or go try again somewhere else?

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"Stop Trolling" My exact thought for you. Anyone who reads this debate is aware of what you're doing since the indicators have been pointed out. A smart troll knows to jump ship once they've been outed. So which one are you going to do, foolishly continue or go try again somewhere else?

@LogicVault ;

Claiming something with no physical scientific evidence to back it up, .. actually as I shown you that all evidence point to gravity being a hoax, a con to keep NASATANS cold, dark, chaotic universe that came from chaos, and moving towards chaos, alive,  it does not exist.

Go somewhere else? Are you admitting that I'm done here?
I made and proved my point; Gravity, .. BB-space filled with planets, .. time as a fabric that you can travel back and forth on, .. are all lies!

LogicVault

@Evidence
"actually as I shown you that all evidence point to gravity being a hoax" Actually, everything you have shown still indicates gravity exists. You pretend to not understand the information and claim it proves otherwise. I refuse to believe you are enough to not comprehend even the information you have provided. That also proves gravity. Not only have you not proven your case in even the slightest, every piece of scientific evidence you do post or quote proves completely the opposite of the point you're attempting to make. You're either a troll or..... "special". And not in a good way.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"actually as I shown you that all evidence point to gravity being a hoax" Actually, everything you have shown still indicates gravity exists. You pretend to not understand the information and claim it proves otherwise. I refuse to believe you are enough to not comprehend even the information you have provided. That also proves gravity. Not only have you not proven your case in even the slightest, every piece of scientific evidence you do post or quote proves completely the opposite of the point you're attempting to make. You're either a troll or..... "special". And not in a good way.

@LogicVault ; all you have to do now is refute my claims using science, not the typical Globetard Ridicule technique used by BB-Evolutionists that you've become accustomed to.

You can start by proving that neither the 48,000 ton submarine, or the 11,000 lb. elephant has any gravity using the following NASA rules on mass:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

Go ahead, show how a feather, and a 48,000 ton submarine is the same when it comes to their mass/gravity, .. or that the difference is so insignificant, that it should not be even considered in calculating force, or lift by NASA scientists?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"all you have to do now is refute my claims using science" Already did that. Stop playing .

"not the typical Globetard Ridicule technique used by BB-Evolutionists that you've become accustomed to." I can say the same thing about your flatard trolling.

"You can start by proving that neither the 48,000 ton submarine, or the 11,000 lb. elephant has any gravity using the following NASA rules on mass:" That's not NASA's rules.The laws of physics existed way before NASA. The fact that you would blame NASA for those rules is a direct indication that you're trolling. You know very well that NASA didn't create those rules. And so does anyone that takes part in a scientific debate.

"Go ahead, show how a feather, and a 48,000 ton submarine is the same when it comes to their mass/gravity," Not even close to what has been being discussed. Their mass or gravity ISN'T the same. But they also aren't so different that their difference is comparable to an entire planet. You're comparing apples, oranges, and planets. None are the same, but two of them are pretty close when comparing to a PLANET. This gross exaggeration of comparison is another indicator of trolling. You can't be so that you think comparing the difference between two objects that are less than 1% the size of a planet to their difference to that planet is a smart idea. If you actually are, you are one Darwin award away from poetic justice.

We see you've made your choice. You choose to foolishly continue trolling. Perhaps you do not realize how foolish that choice is. I do not suspect you're generally , but I do suspect you're that bad at trolling. And you continue to prove that true.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"all you have to do now is refute my claims using science" Already did that. Stop playing .

"not the typical Globetard Ridicule technique used by BB-Evolutionists that you've become accustomed to." I can say the same thing about your flatard trolling.

"You can start by proving that neither the 48,000 ton submarine, or the 11,000 lb. elephant has any gravity using the following NASA rules on mass:" That's not NASA's rules.The laws of physics existed way before NASA. The fact that you would blame NASA for those rules is a direct indication that you're trolling. You know very well that NASA didn't create those rules. And so does anyone that takes part in a scientific debate.

"Go ahead, show how a feather, and a 48,000 ton submarine is the same when it comes to their mass/gravity," Not even close to what has been being discussed. Their mass or gravity ISN'T the same. But they also aren't so different that their difference is comparable to an entire planet. You're comparing apples, oranges, and planets. None are the same, but two of them are pretty close when comparing to a PLANET. This gross exaggeration of comparison is another indicator of trolling. You can't be so that you think comparing the difference between two objects that are less than 1% the size of a planet to their difference to that planet is a smart idea. If you actually are, you are one Darwin award away from poetic justice.

We see you've made your choice. You choose to foolishly continue trolling. Perhaps you do not realize how foolish that choice is. I Logicdo not suspect you're generally , but I do suspect you're that bad at trolling. And you continue to prove that true.

@LogicVault - Already did that. Stop playing .

No you haven't, unless you think calling me is a good explanation for anyone questioning obvious paradoxes in your "gravity theory"? Are you related to Richard Dawkins?



Evidence - "You can start by proving that neither the 48,000 ton submarine, or the 11,000 lb. elephant has any gravity using the following NASA rules on mass:"
LogicVault - That's not NASA's rules.The laws of physics existed way before NASA. The fact that you would blame NASA for those rules is a direct indication that you're trolling. You know very well that NASA didn't create those rules. And so does anyone that takes part in a scientific debate.


Does NASA follow these GRAVITY rules or not?

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

Do they calculate for the gravity of the moon into their landing, or not?
If they do, then how would landing on an object 176,000 times the mass of our moon not make any difference? That is what you are saying, that the difference in mass/gravity of a 1oz. mouse and a 176,000 times more massive elephant is insignificant, but using the same exact ratios on planets obviously would be, .. even NASA would agree on that.

LogicVault said: "Their mass or gravity ISN'T the same. *But they also aren't so different that their difference is comparable to an entire planet. You're comparing apples, oranges, and planets. None are the same, *but two of them are pretty close when comparing to a PLANET. This gross exaggeration of comparison is another indicator of trolling. You can't be so that you think comparing the difference between two objects that are less than 1% the size of a planet to their difference to that planet is a smart idea. If you actually are, you are one Darwin award away from poetic justice.

Free fall of any object, no matter what size and density difference there is between them, they will both float in the same position, as we can see in this next video.  the same buoyancy laws apply in a Zero-G plane as in a vacuum chamber dropping a feather and a bowling ball.



You see, that at free fall, everyone from a feather, a drop of water, to people, they all float in the same position. Why?
BECAUSE there is no gravity, it just doesn't exist, not according as mentioned in the Gravity-rules above. Now show some evidence on the contrary, .. like how two objects, let's use the moon as one, and another moon 176,000 times grater in mass, and show us how they both would orbit earth at the same distance where the 176,000 times more massive moon would not come crashing into earth?

If a 11,000lb. elephant and a 1 oz. mouse was in earths orbit, and you claim they would both have the same gravitational pull towards the earth (more force needed to pull the elephant then a mouse equals the rate of fall for both) then our moon and one 176,000 times the mass of our moon should have the same effect, .. thus they should both orbit earth at the same distance with no problems, .. for millions and billions of years!

Just answer yes, or no? Not how I am for asking it, because that doesn't work with us FE's any more.

LogicVault - We see you've made your choice. You choose to foolishly continue trolling. Perhaps you do not realize how foolish that choice is. I Logic do not suspect you're generally , but I do suspect you're that bad at trolling. And you continue to prove that true.

Yes, yes I'm and foolish and all that "ridicule if you can't answer" BB-Evolution stuff, yeah, .. yeah, .. now how about you stop stalling and answer my question: does the 11,000lb. elephant have 11,000 times the mass/gravity of a mouse, or not?
Would the same ratio used in my moon example, keep the 176,000 times the mass/gravity moon2 orbiting earth at the same distance as our moon, or not? (please refer to the above 1-4 rules on mass/gravity equivalence)

Polaris95

Your whole argument is destroyed by the fact that you're solution to supplant the idea of gravity, hinges on the existence of a god. Since the existence of a god cannot be proven, and has no evidence to back it we must render your argument false.

Erfisflat

Polaris95 said:

Your whole argument is destroyed by the fact that you're solution to supplant the idea of gravity, hinges on the existence of a god. Since the existence of a god cannot be proven, and has no evidence to back it we must render your argument false.

Hi,  welcome to debateisland! Would you like to see the existence of God proven? Formal or casual debate?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"No you haven't, unless you think calling me is a good explanation for anyone questioning obvious paradoxes in your "gravity theory"" I've explained in detail how your arguments are wrong. Also, I didn't call you , I said to stop "playing" . There's a difference. How do you expect to be clever enough to debate science when you don't know the difference between being and playing ?

"Does NASA follow these GRAVITY rules or not?" Everyone follows those rules. I didn't say NASA didn't follow them, I said they didn't create them. There's a difference.

"Free fall of any object, no matter what size and density difference there is between them, they will both float in the same position, as we can see in this next video."  Without gravity everything would float. The plane simulates a lack of gravity.

"the same buoyancy laws apply in a Zero-G plane as in a vacuum chamber dropping a feather and a bowling ball." Actually, that video disproves your statement. The liquids that normally do not mix and would set on top of each other end up swirling around each other once the plane simulates lack of gravity. This indicates that if you take away gravity, there is no buoyancy. Buoyancy depends on gravity.

"You see, that at free fall, everyone from a feather, a drop of water, to people, they all float in the same position. Why?" That depends on where the free fall is taking place. If in a vacuum, all would fall at the same speed due to having equal air resistance at 0%. In a zero-G plane, they would float around because the plane is taking all the air resistance for you.

"more force needed to pull the elephant then a mouse equals the rate of fall for both" Stronger force does not automatically equal faster speed. Just like you can pick up a piece of paper and a bowling ball at the same speed, but it still requires more force to lift the ball.

"Yes, yes I'm  and foolish and all that "ridicule if you can't answer" BB-Evolution stuff" I didn't say you were , I said you're "playing" . There's a difference. I did say foolish though. If a person keeps repeating the same action while expecting a different result, is that not foolish? Also, I have answered your arguments. You choose to ignore or dismiss my answers because they do not support your argument. The answers are there whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

"does the 11,000lb. elephant have 11,000 times the mass/gravity of a mouse, or not?" Duh. Though, in micro gravity situations, barely any difference in force can be seen with the naked eye.

"Would the same ratio used in my moon example, keep the 176,000 times the mass/gravity moon2 orbiting earth at the same distance as our moon, or not?" Any object can maintain the same distance as our moon. It depends on the speed at which they're moving. A larger object would have to travel at a faster speed to maintain the same distance as a smaller object. This is because it requires more force (momentum in this case) for larger objects to overcome gravity since gravity pulls harder on them. This is also why objects fall at different speeds when not in a vacuum. The air pressure (force) around a feather and a bowling ball is the same. Since the bowling ball is heavier, it would fall faster because it requires more force in order to fall at the same speed as a lighter object. The lighter object doesn't require much force to slow it down.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence ;

@LogicVault ;

Evidence - "No you haven't, unless you think calling me is a good explanation for anyone questioning obvious paradoxes in your "gravity theory""
LogicVault - I've explained in detail how your arguments are wrong. Also, I didn't call you , I said to stop "playing" . There's a difference. How do you expect to be clever enough to debate science when you don't know the difference between being and playing ?

So stop playing and show me where you explained to me why  ALL objects falling towards the earth, no matter the mass/size difference, still would have the same gravitational pull on them, specifically "the earths"?
I asked you many times, how could a 1 oz. mouse have the same mass/gravitational force as something 176,000 times more massive, .. like a 11,000 lb. elephant? Because that is what your science books say, .. that: "A 11,000 lb. elephant will fall to the ground at the same rate as a 1 oz. mouse", .. that is what they claim!
So then I said what?
I told you that this ignores the mass/gravity of the mouse and the elephant, which according to the laws of Gravity where:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

And how did you respond, .. and keep saying? You said that the size/mass difference between the mouse and the elephant is very insignificant compared to the size of your Globe.

So what did I say?

I said; Fine, let's take this comparison out into your BB-Space, and have our moon that's supposedly orbiting your globe as the mouse, and another moon 176,000 times more massive in the same orbit.
Then I asked you if the 176,000 times the mass moon would continue orbiting your globe in the same orbit with the smaller moon for millions and billions of years or not?

Evidence - "Does NASA follow these GRAVITY rules or not?"
LogicVault - Everyone follows those rules. I didn't say NASA didn't follow them, I said they didn't create them. There's a difference.

OK, .. and? If NASA follows those rules, yet in their; "dropping a bowling ball and a feather in their billion dollar vacuum chamber" experiment;



.. and having observed with a high speed movie camera that they both fell to the ground at the same time, instead of laughing at that they just proven gravity false, shouldn't that have raised an alarm about the rules of gravity? You know, instead of laughing as if they won the Nobel prize (time 2:20) proving gravity, why didn't they destroy the film which just obviously proven the opposite, .. that there is NO Gravity, .. and destroy the film along with the tens of thousands of supposed pictures and videos taken on the moon?

Evidence - "Free fall of any object, no matter what size and density difference there is between them, they will both float in the same position, as we can see in this next video."
LogicVault - Without gravity everything would float. The plane simulates a lack of gravity.

Yeah, .. nice try slick, you know well that with gravity, everything would sink! And besides, NASA has already proven in the vacuum chamber that it's all density and buoyancy.

The plane "simulates" buoyancy, which only seems like buoyancy in the plane, but in reality they are freefalling to their death! I mean you did know that, right? You know, just like the ISS videos that's done in the NASA Zero-G planes. And since all people and objects are actually in free-fall, and the heavier people are floating right along with the lighter objects, PROVES gravity doesn't exist. Would you like me to post those rules again after each paragraph so you would not keep ignoring it? 
* Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.
This would mean that the heavier people would not float with the lighter objects, but would be always lower since the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects, like your Globe earth.
So people in the plane are objects with more mass than what those trinkets they play with, .. so the 160 lb. people would be attracted faster towards the middle of your globe then those teddy-bears they took up with them.

Evidence - "the same buoyancy laws apply in a Zero-G plane as in a vacuum chamber dropping a feather and a bowling ball."
LogicVault - Actually, that video disproves your statement. The liquids that normally do not mix and would set on top of each other end up swirling around each other once the plane simulates lack of gravity. This indicates that if you take away gravity, there is no buoyancy. Buoyancy depends on gravity.

My screen name is Evidence, not '' as you continuously try to make me out to be. The liquids mix because they are in freefall, not because Captain Kirk turned off the artificial gravity in the plane. Come on, you can't seriously believe that free falling to your death is defying gravity LogicVault, can you?

If gravity existed, every planet, star, all your galaxies would be all in a huge clump in the middle of your universe. But to show you how TPTB have made us, instead of the obvious big clump, they tell us that gravity is actually expanding the vacuum universe .. exponentially, and not clumping things together like it did for millions and billions of years, but now gravity is keeping moons gently and VERY precisely orbiting planets, with a few adjustments by a wiggle here and a wiggle there, .. and keep all them planets orbiting suns, all while expanding Spacetime Fabric, which in a few more billion years, gravity will eventually slow the expanding vacuum down, and reverse it, until we'll hear a Big Crunch right smack in the middle of 'nothing' which is what I said would happen in the beginning as gravity was creating the planets. ( time 2:51 )



Hey @Erfisflat .. LogicVault here just invented anti-gravity, maybe he'll show us by jumping off a huge cliff, fold his arms as he lays back and say: "Look ma, I'm floating!"    lol.

Evidence - "You see, that at free fall, everyone from a feather, a drop of water, to people, they all float in the same position. Why?"
LogicVault - That depends on where the free fall is taking place. If in a vacuum, all would fall at the same speed due to having equal air resistance at 0%. In a zero-G plane, they would float around because the plane is taking all the air resistance for you.

The air is sealed inside the plane, and is free falling along with everyone and everything in it. Stop derailing the topic we're discussing. We are discussing your mass having gravity. The more the mass, the greater the gravity, and the NASA vacuum chamber experiment proved gravity does not exist!

Evidence - "more force needed to pull the elephant then a mouse equals the rate of fall for both"
LogicVault - Stronger force does not automatically equal faster speed. Just like you can pick up a piece of paper and a bowling ball at the same speed, but it still requires more force to lift the ball.

Again you are ignoring the imaginary force of your imaginary gravity of both objects. You really think you can twist me around by cherry-picking my statements? Remember that I use my mind to see things with, not just what my brain instructs me to say, like yourself, where all you got is what you've been taught. And I don't care how much schooling you had and stored in your brain, my mind can do circles around you, or any BB scientist, or quantum theorist with all that black hole to parallel universe garbage. Like I keep telling ya, .. your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me, I have Christ in me, I'm guided by the Holy Spirit buddy, not the spirit of deception.
We were talking about your gravity force that each object has, not what force I have to use to lift things from their buoyancy point. If your gravity existed, then the bigger, more massive the object, the more gravitational force it should have:  Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

Evidence - "Yes, yes I'm  and foolish and all that "ridicule if you can't answer" BB-Evolution stuff"
LogicVault -I didn't say you were , I said you're "playing" . There's a difference.

I can see that, so can you please stop playing ?

LogicVault - I did say foolish though. If a person keeps repeating the same action while expecting a different result, is that not foolish? Also, I have answered your arguments. You choose to ignore or dismiss my answers because they do not support your argument. The answers are there whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

Come on buddy, I'm sure you had a lot more schooling than I have, so you should know that just because you put your answers on your test paper, doesn't mean they are correct, right? And so far you have an "F" on proving gravity, so why don't you stop being so stubborn, go back to everything I taught you and try again. Because the way you're headed buddy on this subject of Gravity, you fail.

Evidence - "does the 11,000lb. elephant have 11,000 times the mass/gravity of a mouse, or not?"
LogicVault - Duh. Though, in micro gravity situations, barely any difference in force can be seen with the naked eye.

OK then, so you wouldn't mind having a helicopter from 50 feet drop the elephant on your head, and I'll take the mouse on mine. They are both in the micro gravity situation compared to the entire earth, barely any difference in force can be seen with the naked eye right? Both the elephant and the mouse just specks, .. "insignificant" as you keep saying. So any time buddy?

Evidence - "Would the same ratio used in my moon example, keep the 176,000 times the mass/gravity moon2 orbiting earth at the same distance as our moon, or not?"
LogicVault - Any object can maintain the same distance as our moon. It depends on the speed at which they're moving.

Nice try, .. the feather and the bowling ball weren't moving, and they were both at equal distance from the ground. That's what I was duplicating in your vacuum-space; our moon as you have it now, and another moon 176,000 times the mass of our moon next to it at the same distance from your Globe Earth. Now what would happen if we let them both go at the same time?

LogicVault - A larger object would have to travel at a faster speed to maintain the same distance as a smaller object. This is because it requires more force (momentum in this case) for larger objects to overcome gravity since gravity pulls harder on them.

There you go again back in your imaginary space trying to keep gravity alive. I know how the planets work in Star Trek space, I watched every episode. Come back down from space LogicVault, to Flat Earth where you supposed to be defending gravity here, and NOT in space. There are simulation programs out there besides what NASA has, and it proves your planets in your solar system would not last an hour with the orbiting calculations that NASA uses.
And, like I already said that if we went back in time like in the documentary above, your universe would consist of a huge lump of rock, sitting in nothing, for absolutely no reason. Can you show a scientific experiment on how a vacuum can expand exponentially for 14 billion years without tearing your suns and planets to itsy-bitsy quantum particles, let alone leave earths air exposed to the vacuum untouched for millions and billions of years!?

LogicVault - This is also why objects fall at different speeds when not in a vacuum. The air pressure (force) around a feather and a bowling ball is the same. Since the bowling ball is heavier, it would fall faster because it requires more force in order to fall at the same speed as a lighter object. The lighter object doesn't require much force to slow it down.

Come on man stop, .. enough with all the derailing attempts, .. we weren't talking about dropping a sheet of paper out the window along with a bowling ball to measure which will fall first? What's next, you're going to add the Doppler effect on the bowling ball? Leave that for the light traveling through the vacuum of your space, because along with gravity, you need all the redshift to keep your space surviving.
The Erath is Flat, and because of this awakening, Satan's Universe is dying. So the last option BB-Evolutionists have is: Agenda 21, 2030, total biological annihilation on earth. You got all the guns, ammo, bombs, and means to deliver the bombs you need.

Polaris95

@Erfisflat

Hundreds of millions of people have tried to prove the existence of a god and failed. I would be genuinely surprised if you have even a shred of evidence to back up your beliefs. Also, Casual would probably better than formal.

Erfisflat

Polaris95 said:

@Erfisflat

Hundreds of millions of people have tried to prove the existence of a god and failed. I would be genuinely surprised if you have even a shred of evidence to back up your beliefs. Also, Casual would probably better than formal.

Before we start, do you have even a shred of evidence that backs up your belief? Are you on board with the pseudoscientific claim that we all popped out of nothingness for no reason? Oh, by the way, there's not a doubt in my mind, if you can understand and are open minded, you will be genuinely surprised, to say the very least.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"So stop playing and show me where you explained to me why  ALL objects falling towards the earth, no matter the mass/size difference, still would have the same gravitational pull on them, specifically the earths?" I've already explained that to you in the post you're currently responding to. This is where you're playing . You pretend to not understand or recognize the explanations given to you. Also, it's childish to repeat accusations to others that were levied against yourself, especially without evidence to support your claim. You essentially just mimicked Peewee Herman when he says "I know you are but what am I".

"I asked you many times, how could a 1 oz. mouse have the same mass/gravitational force as something 176,000 times more massive" question, they don't.

"Because that is what your science books say, .. that: "A 11,000 lb. elephant will fall to the ground at the same rate as a 1 oz. mouse", .. that is what they claim!" Not the same thing. Speed and force are not the same thing. This was also explained to you in my previous post.

"And how did you respond, .. and keep saying? You said that the size/mass difference between the mouse and the elephant is very insignificant compared to the size of your Globe." That was a response to a different point you were attempting to make. You're conflating points.

"and having observed with a high speed movie camera that they both fell to the ground at the same time, instead of laughing at that they just proven gravity false, shouldn't that have raised an alarm about the rules of gravity?" No, because it does not violate the laws of gravity. The key detail you conveniently keep ignoring is air resistance. The main difference between this experiment done in a vacuum and in normal air is air resistance.

"Yeah, .. nice try slick, you know well that with gravity, everything would sink!" Pay close attention to what you just responded to. The plane simulates lack of gravity. Lack of gravity. Lack. Of. Gravity. Stop playing by ignoring key details.

"And besides, NASA has already proven in the vacuum chamber that it's all density and buoyancy." No, it proved the results of a lack of air resistance.

"The plane "simulates" buoyancy" Correction, lack of gravity.

"And since all people and objects are actually in free-fall, and the heavier people are floating right along with the lighter objects, PROVES gravity doesn't exist." No it doesn't. Once again, the plane simulates lack of gravity. It does this by descending at the same speed objects would fall without air resistance. The speed at which gravity pulls on objects at the same distance from the center of gravity is the same for each object regardless of their weight, because, once again, speed and force are not the same thing. Two objects can be pulled using different amounts of force but still be pulled at the same speed.

"Would you like me to post those rules again after each paragraph so you would not keep ignoring it?" The experiment is within the laws of gravity. You pretend it isn't by conflating terms, such as speed and force.

"This would mean that the heavier people would not float with the lighter objects" No, it doesn't. They aren't even technically floating. They are falling at the same speed, as all objects do when no resistance is present.

"My screen name is Evidence, not '' as you continuously try to make me out to be." You're doing that to yourself. I simply point it out. There's a difference.

"The liquids mix because they are in freefall" Which is also exactly why other objects of different weight appear to float the same during the experiment. The same thing that is happening to the liquids is happening to the people and the items they brought with them.

"Come on, you can't seriously believe that free falling to your death is defying gravity LogicVault, can you?" It's not defying gravity, it's simulating a lack of gravity. It's simulating, not defying.

"If gravity existed, every planet, star, all your galaxies would be all in a huge clump in the middle of your universe." Wrong. Everything is in motion and these motions provide resistance against the gravity of the object they are orbiting. This resistance is what results in their orbit.

"instead of the obvious big clump" What you call "obvious" is actually an assumption due to lack of information.

"they tell us that gravity is actually expanding the vacuum universe" Wrong. Gravity is not the force that is expanding the universe. Momentum is.

"and not clumping things together like it did for millions and billions of years" There are still objects in space that clash or clump together. It depends on many variables.

"but now gravity is keeping moons gently and VERY precisely orbiting planets" Only the ones moving at the right rate of speed according to it's distance from the planet, the planet's mass, and the moon's mass. As for the objects that did not meet the requirements for orbit, they either crashed to the planet or floated away.

"and keep all them planets orbiting suns" The same way moons are able to orbit planets, momentum.

"LogicVault here just invented anti-gravity" No one has invented anti-gravity. You are conflating simulating a lack of gravity with anti-gravity. They are not the same thing.

"Stop derailing the topic we're discussing." You're derailing it by conflating terms. You use words interchangeably that are not interchangeable.

"The more the mass, the greater the gravity, and the NASA vacuum chamber experiment proved gravity does not exist!" No, it doesn't. It proves the effect of air resistance. Greater gravity does not automatically equal more speed. If no resistance is present, both object fall at the same speed.

"You really think you can twist me around by cherry-picking my statements?" I'm pointing out the exact details you're getting wrong.

"Remember that I use my mind to see things with, not just what my brain instructs me to say, like yourself, where all you got is what you've been taught." Everyone uses their brains to see things with. You aren't special. Also, you've been taught about gravity as well. You pretend to not believe what you've been taught for the purpose of trolling. It's obvious when you constantly conflate terms even after it's been explained to you how you're conflating them and how you attempt to use variables (ie. buoyancy) that can not exist without certain other variables (ie gravity) that you claim don't exist.

"my mind can do circles around you" Lmaoooooooooooooooo. If that was true, you wouldn't have got caught trolling. Sorry, but at most you're only at the high end of average intelligence.

"We were talking about your gravity force that each object has, not what force I have to use to lift things from their buoyancy point." It's called an example. Just like how you like to keep attempting the mouse and elephant example. You're not the only one allowed to use examples. Don't start being a hypocrite now.

"If your gravity existed, then the bigger, more massive the object, the more gravitational force it should have" And it does. More force does not automatically equal more speed. Keep in mind, it requires more force to move bigger objects. So, the stronger force that gravity has on larger objects is equal to the requirement of more force needed to move it. It balances out so that without resistance, gravity pulls everything at the same speed even though at different levels of force.

"I can see that, so can you please stop playing ?" Peewee Herman again.

"Come on buddy, I'm sure you had a lot more schooling than I have, so you should know that just because you put your answers on your test paper, doesn't mean they are correct, right?" Doesn't mean they're wrong either. My response was to your accusation that I didn't give answers at all. The answers were given regardless of whether you acknowledge their accuracy or not. Also, if you haven't had much schooling, then you shouldn't debate with people.

"And so far you have an "F" on proving gravity" Well, you're not in any position to be grading papers. So, your F means nothing.

"go back to everything I taught you and try again. There's a difference between teach and spread false information. You've only accomplished the latter.

"Because the way you're headed buddy on this subject of Gravity, you fail." You're in no position to judge that. You do not know what the other people reading this debate is thinking. You do not know if I have convinced them of how you're wrong or not. No one is going to succeed at convincing you of gravity because you already know it exists. You're only pretending to not know.

"OK then, so you wouldn't mind having a helicopter from 50 feet drop the elephant on your head, and I'll take the mouse on mine." That has nothing to do with the speed at which they fall. The rate of falling was the point being discussed here. You're sidetracking again.

"They are both in the micro gravity situation compared to the entire earth, barely any difference in force can be seen with the naked eye right?" No, they are not. They are well within range of the planet to be experiencing significant gravity.

"Both the elephant and the mouse just specks, .. "insignificant" as you keep saying." Wrong. I said the difference between the mouse and elephant is insignificant compared to the difference between the planet and a mouse or elephant. The mouse and elephant are insignificant to the planet, not to each other.

"That's what I was duplicating in your vacuum-space; our moon as you have it now, and another moon 176,000 times the mass of our moon next to it at the same distance from your Globe Earth. Now what would happen if we let them both go at the same time?"  You're ignoring what makes them a moon. They have to be orbiting a planet to be a moon. Their momentum is what makes them orbit. So, they are moving. If they were being held stationary within Earth's reach and then released, they would both crash into the planet.

"Come back down from space LogicVault, to Flat Earth" I can't travel to a fictional location.

"you supposed to be defending gravity here, and NOT in space." Says the person who keeps bringing up objects in space floating around the planet. The moons example was yours, not mine.

"There are simulation programs out there besides what NASA has, and it proves your planets in your solar system would not last an hour with the orbiting calculations that NASA uses." Simulations are not 100% exact representations.

 "And, like I already said that if we went back in time like in the documentary above, your universe would consist of a huge lump of rock, sitting in nothing, for absolutely no reason." And like I already said, that's a false assumption.

"Can you show a scientific experiment on how a vacuum can expand exponentially for 14 billion years without tearing your suns and planets to itsy-bitsy quantum particles, let alone leave earths air exposed to the vacuum untouched for millions and billions of years!?" Yes, it's called reality. You're currently in the experiment yourself, just like everyone and everything else.

"Come on man stop, .. enough with all the derailing attempts" Stop playing . That is an explanation to exactly what you were talking about. You have no rebuttal, so you throw out accusation of derailing when in fact that's what you are doing by making accusations instead of providing a rebuttal. You are guilty of what you accuse by making the accusation in the first place.

"What's next, you're going to add the Doppler effect on the bowling ball? Leave that for the light traveling through the vacuum of your space, because along with gravity, you need all the redshift to keep your space surviving." And here is an example of typical derailing. You bring up variables that are virtually irrelevant to the scale of the experiment in question. Then accuse me of potentially bringing up those variables even though I never planned to. You have a habit of accusing people of what you're doing as you're doing it. That's simple troll tactics. You're going to have to do better than that.

"The Erath is Flat, and because of this awakening, Satan's Universe is dying. So the last option BB-Evolutionists have is: Agenda 21, 2030, total biological annihilation on earth. You got all the guns, ammo, bombs, and means to deliver the bombs you need." Sounds like the rantings of a lunatic. Just saying.

LogicVault

@Evidence
Care to keep going?

Polaris95

@Erfisflat
Here's some evidence for the big bang: https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

While the big bang may not have happened, it's the best theory we have, and has substantial evidence to support it. The idea the god created the entire universe relies on too much faith and no evidence.

Erfisflat

Polaris95 said:

@Erfisflat
Here's some evidence for the big bang: https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

While the big bang may not have happened, it's the best theory we have, and has substantial evidence to support it. The idea the god created the entire universe relies on too much faith and no evidence.

Would you care to ellaborate on those points, so that we are both on the same level of understanding? I mean you admit that it may not have happened, I have seen evidence that totally refutes it, yet you still seem pretty sure it did. Are there any experiments that we can perform, as scientists, to show any evidence for big bangism? Of course you know that experimental, empirical evidence trumps the theoretical evidence from that article, correct? It is my claim that your evidence is more faith based than mine.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"So stop playing and show me where you explained to me why  ALL objects falling towards the earth, no matter the mass/size difference, still would have the same gravitational pull on them, specifically the earths?" I've already explained that to you in the post you're currently responding to. This is where you're playing . You pretend to not understand or recognize the explanations given to you. Also, it's childish to repeat accusations to others that were levied against yourself, especially without evidence to support your claim. You essentially just mimicked Peewee Herman when he says "I know you are but what am I".

"I asked you many times, how could a 1 oz. mouse have the same mass/gravitational force as something 176,000 times more massive" question, they don't.

"Because that is what your science books say, .. that: "A 11,000 lb. elephant will fall to the ground at the same rate as a 1 oz. mouse", .. that is what they claim!" Not the same thing. Speed and force are not the same thing. This was also explained to you in my previous post.

"And how did you respond, .. and keep saying? You said that the size/mass difference between the mouse and the elephant is very insignificant compared to the size of your Globe." That was a response to a different point you were attempting to make. You're conflating points.

"and having observed with a high speed movie camera that they both fell to the ground at the same time, instead of laughing at that they just proven gravity false, shouldn't that have raised an alarm about the rules of gravity?" No, because it does not violate the laws of gravity. The key detail you conveniently keep ignoring is air resistance. The main difference between this experiment done in a vacuum and in normal air is air resistance.

"Yeah, .. nice try slick, you know well that with gravity, everything would sink!" Pay close attention to what you just responded to. The plane simulates lack of gravity. Lack of gravity. Lack. Of. Gravity. Stop playing by ignoring key details.

"And besides, NASA has already proven in the vacuum chamber that it's all density and buoyancy." No, it proved the results of a lack of air resistance.

"The plane "simulates" buoyancy" Correction, lack of gravity.

"And since all people and objects are actually in free-fall, and the heavier people are floating right along with the lighter objects, PROVES gravity doesn't exist." No it doesn't. Once again, the plane simulates lack of gravity. It does this by descending at the same speed objects would fall without air resistance. The speed at which gravity pulls on objects at the same distance from the center of gravity is the same for each object regardless of their weight, because, once again, speed and force are not the same thing. Two objects can be pulled using different amounts of force but still be pulled at the same speed.

"Would you like me to post those rules again after each paragraph so you would not keep ignoring it?" The experiment is within the laws of gravity. You pretend it isn't by conflating terms, such as speed and force.

"This would mean that the heavier people would not float with the lighter objects" No, it doesn't. They aren't even technically floating. They are falling at the same speed, as all objects do when no resistance is present.

"My screen name is Evidence, not '' as you continuously try to make me out to be." You're doing that to yourself. I simply point it out. There's a difference.

"The liquids mix because they are in freefall" Which is also exactly why other objects of different weight appear to float the same during the experiment. The same thing that is happening to the liquids is happening to the people and the items they brought with them.

"Come on, you can't seriously believe that free falling to your death is defying gravity LogicVault, can you?" It's not defying gravity, it's simulating a lack of gravity. It's simulating, not defying.

"If gravity existed, every planet, star, all your galaxies would be all in a huge clump in the middle of your universe." Wrong. Everything is in motion and these motions provide resistance against the gravity of the object they are orbiting. This resistance is what results in their orbit.

"instead of the obvious big clump" What you call "obvious" is actually an assumption due to lack of information.

"they tell us that gravity is actually expanding the vacuum universe" Wrong. Gravity is not the force that is expanding the universe. Momentum is.

"and not clumping things together like it did for millions and billions of years" There are still objects in space that clash or clump together. It depends on many variables.

"but now gravity is keeping moons gently and VERY precisely orbiting planets" Only the ones moving at the right rate of speed according to it's distance from the planet, the planet's mass, and the moon's mass. As for the objects that did not meet the requirements for orbit, they either crashed to the planet or floated away.

"and keep all them planets orbiting suns" The same way moons are able to orbit planets, momentum.

"LogicVault here just invented anti-gravity" No one has invented anti-gravity. You are conflating simulating a lack of gravity with anti-gravity. They are not the same thing.

"Stop derailing the topic we're discussing." You're derailing it by conflating terms. You use words interchangeably that are not interchangeable.

"The more the mass, the greater the gravity, and the NASA vacuum chamber experiment proved gravity does not exist!" No, it doesn't. It proves the effect of air resistance. Greater gravity does not automatically equal more speed. If no resistance is present, both object fall at the same speed.

"You really think you can twist me around by cherry-picking my statements?" I'm pointing out the exact details you're getting wrong.

"Remember that I use my mind to see things with, not just what my brain instructs me to say, like yourself, where all you got is what you've been taught." Everyone uses their brains to see things with. You aren't special. Also, you've been taught about gravity as well. You pretend to not believe what you've been taught for the purpose of trolling. It's obvious when you constantly conflate terms even after it's been explained to you how you're conflating them and how you attempt to use variables (ie. buoyancy) that can not exist without certain other variables (ie gravity) that you claim don't exist.

"my mind can do circles around you" Lmaoooooooooooooooo. If that was true, you wouldn't have got caught trolling. Sorry, but at most you're only at the high end of average intelligence.

"We were talking about your gravity force that each object has, not what force I have to use to lift things from their buoyancy point." It's called an example. Just like how you like to keep attempting the mouse and elephant example. You're not the only one allowed to use examples. Don't start being a hypocrite now.

"If your gravity existed, then the bigger, more massive the object, the more gravitational force it should have" And it does. More force does not automatically equal more speed. Keep in mind, it requires more force to move bigger objects. So, the stronger force that gravity has on larger objects is equal to the requirement of more force needed to move it. It balances out so that without resistance, gravity pulls everything at the same speed even though at different levels of force.

"I can see that, so can you please stop playing ?" Peewee Herman again.

"Come on buddy, I'm sure you had a lot more schooling than I have, so you should know that just because you put your answers on your test paper, doesn't mean they are correct, right?" Doesn't mean they're wrong either. My response was to your accusation that I didn't give answers at all. The answers were given regardless of whether you acknowledge their accuracy or not. Also, if you haven't had much schooling, then you shouldn't debate with people.

"And so far you have an "F" on proving gravity" Well, you're not in any position to be grading papers. So, your F means nothing.

"go back to everything I taught you and try again. There's a difference between teach and spread false information. You've only accomplished the latter.

"Because the way you're headed buddy on this subject of Gravity, you fail." You're in no position to judge that. You do not know what the other people reading this debate is thinking. You do not know if I have convinced them of how you're wrong or not. No one is going to succeed at convincing you of gravity because you already know it exists. You're only pretending to not know.

"OK then, so you wouldn't mind having a helicopter from 50 feet drop the elephant on your head, and I'll take the mouse on mine." That has nothing to do with the speed at which they fall. The rate of falling was the point being discussed here. You're sidetracking again.

"They are both in the micro gravity situation compared to the entire earth, barely any difference in force can be seen with the naked eye right?" No, they are not. They are well within range of the planet to be experiencing significant gravity.

"Both the elephant and the mouse just specks, .. "insignificant" as you keep saying." Wrong. I said the difference between the mouse and elephant is insignificant compared to the difference between the planet and a mouse or elephant. The mouse and elephant are insignificant to the planet, not to each other.

"That's what I was duplicating in your vacuum-space; our moon as you have it now, and another moon 176,000 times the mass of our moon next to it at the same distance from your Globe Earth. Now what would happen if we let them both go at the same time?"  You're ignoring what makes them a moon. They have to be orbiting a planet to be a moon. Their momentum is what makes them orbit. So, they are moving. If they were being held stationary within Earth's reach and then released, they would both crash into the planet.

"Come back down from space LogicVault, to Flat Earth" I can't travel to a fictional location.

"you supposed to be defending gravity here, and NOT in space." Says the person who keeps bringing up objects in space floating around the planet. The moons example was yours, not mine.

"There are simulation programs out there besides what NASA has, and it proves your planets in your solar system would not last an hour with the orbiting calculations that NASA uses." Simulations are not 100% exact representations.

 "And, like I already said that if we went back in time like in the documentary above, your universe would consist of a huge lump of rock, sitting in nothing, for absolutely no reason." And like I already said, that's a false assumption.

"Can you show a scientific experiment on how a vacuum can expand exponentially for 14 billion years without tearing your suns and planets to itsy-bitsy quantum particles, let alone leave earths air exposed to the vacuum untouched for millions and billions of years!?" Yes, it's called reality. You're currently in the experiment yourself, just like everyone and everything else.

"Come on man stop, .. enough with all the derailing attempts" Stop playing . That is an explanation to exactly what you were talking about. You have no rebuttal, so you throw out accusation of derailing when in fact that's what you are doing by making accusations instead of providing a rebuttal. You are guilty of what you accuse by making the accusation in the first place.

"What's next, you're going to add the Doppler effect on the bowling ball? Leave that for the light traveling through the vacuum of your space, because along with gravity, you need all the redshift to keep your space surviving." And here is an example of typical derailing. You bring up variables that are virtually irrelevant to the scale of the experiment in question. Then accuse me of potentially bringing up those variables even though I never planned to. You have a habit of accusing people of what you're doing as you're doing it. That's simple troll tactics. You're going to have to do better than that.

"The Erath is Flat, and because of this awakening, Satan's Universe is dying. So the last option BB-Evolutionists have is: Agenda 21, 2030, total biological annihilation on earth. You got all the guns, ammo, bombs, and means to deliver the bombs you need." Sounds like the rantings of a lunatic. Just saying.

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
Care to keep going?

Care to keep going where, .. what you meant was; "Care to keep seeing me avoid your questions Evidence?" 

Evidence - "The Erath is Flat, and because of this awakening, Satan's Universe is dying. So the last option BB-Evolutionists have is: Agenda 21, 2030, total biological annihilation on earth. You got all the guns, ammo, bombs, and means to deliver the bombs you need."
@LogicVault - Sounds like the rantings of a lunatic.

Oh really?

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication

You sure you don't mean; "An agenda created by lunatics, and the demonically possessed"? Trans-forming our world, one little boy and one little girl at a time::

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Care to keep going where, .. what you meant was; "Care to keep seeing me avoid your questions Evidence?"" Your questions were answered whether you accept the answers or not.

"You sure you don't mean; "An agenda created by lunatics, and the demonically possessed"? Trans-forming our world, one little boy and one little girl at a time" Sounds like more rantings.

Erfisflat

Polaris95 said:

@Erfisflat
Here's some evidence for the big bang: https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

While the big bang may not have happened, it's the best theory we have, and has substantial evidence to support it. The idea the god created the entire universe relies on too much faith and no evidence.

Uninterested?

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"Care to keep going where, .. what you meant was; "Care to keep seeing me avoid your questions Evidence?"" Your questions were answered whether you accept the answers or not.

"You sure you don't mean; "An agenda created by lunatics, and the demonically possessed"? Trans-forming our world, one little boy and one little girl at a time" Sounds like more rantings.

More ranting @LogicVault ? Why won't you answer my questions?

Well, .. it looks like we've achieved, .. well at least part of our purpose here buddy @Erfisflat .. we've proven that the 'Earth is Flat' and not a spinning pear, that 'gravity, BB-space, and time that Globalists can travel back and forth on' do not exist, so now on to re-learning just who our Creator God is, .. which was just about driven from our hearts souls and minds since the RCC taken over the writings of His Prophets and Apostles, and then TPTB lead by Satan-NASATAN however you want to spell it, encouraged the creation of tens of thousands of Religions, all the while pretending to hate Religion. Satan and his minions got to be the biggest hypocrites in the universe!

It's like we just woken up from some sci-fi, fairyland dream, into a nightmare, which is why I loved those "The Matrix" movies, it's so much like our reality. Like when Cypher went back into the Matrix to chose the artificial "good life" rather than fight for the truth! Isn't it just as we have it today? How we rather live in that artificial good life singing: "I owe, I owe, so off to work I go!"  not realizing that we're just feeding the Matrix/Lucifer and his imaginary universe, and if we don't wake up, we'll all end up loosing both our body and soul into hell.

Evidence

Polaris95 said:

@Erfisflat
Here's some evidence for the big bang: https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

While the big bang may not have happened, it's the best theory we have, and has substantial evidence to support it. The idea the god created the entire universe relies on too much faith and no evidence.

@Polaris95 ;
Here is a quote from that article - https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html
Space.com - At 13.8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had a temperature of over a trillion degrees.

Let's look at the claim: "size of a peach". Now where is Mr. Paul Sutter the astrophysicist at The Ohio State University and the chief scientist at COSI science center who also host of Ask a Spaceman and Space Radio, and who leads AstroTours around the world, and who contributed to this article  Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights .. standing that he was able to measure the universe when it was just the size of a peach?

When normal people make a comparison like that, for instance: "The watermelon was only the size of a peach!" .. we imagine this here on Flat Earth, and in the medium "air". So where was the astrophysicist of Ohio State University and chief scientist and leader of the AstroTours (notice how any person making BB-Evolution claims have these long credentials so no one having less would dare question their observations and claims!) anyways, where was this chief scientist standing, .. what medium was he observing the peach-size universe 13.8 billion years ago?

Next, it says: "Imagine for a moment that we lived in a perfectly infinite universe, both in time and space."
Well first of all, Infinite does not have either time, nor space, for Infinite is borderless, and by definition Infinite is also Eternal, or timeless.

Thank you, that's before we get to the "over a trillion degrees" part!?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Why won't you answer my questions?" I did.

"we've proven that the 'Earth is Flat' and not a spinning pear, that 'gravity, BB-space, and time that Globalists can travel back and forth on' do not exist" No, you didn't.

"so now on to re-learning just who our Creator God is" A fictional character.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
I see you either lied about muting me or unmuted me. Which a person who had a legitimate reason to mute someone wouldn't do. You're showing your true colors again and it's not a pretty color.

Erfisflat

@logicvault

I see you have no idea how the mute function works here. You can click on a muted user's argument space to see that particular argument (if there were one). I occasionally do that to see if you're doing anything other than trolling, and of course you aren't, Dan.

Erfisflat

@LogicVault

I haven't taken you off mute, and I probably already know the answer to this, but...

Out of pure curiosity, if a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, could you set aside your bias and accept the information, or would you dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm?

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"You can click on a muted user's argument space to see that particular argument" You're still electing to see what I say, which no person with a legitimate reason to mute someone would do.

"I occasionally do that to see if you're doing anything other than trolling, and of course you aren't" You're projecting. The only place I trolled you was in your little 1 on 1 thing, which I gave you fair warning ahead of time. Everything I say here is done so with sincerity. Though, you have been caught multiple times contradicting yourself in a fashion that indicates you know very well what you're saying is false.

"if a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, could you set aside your bias and accept the information" If that happened, I would accept the proof. But it is a sphere, so I'm not concerned with that hypothetical.

Erfisflat

"You're still electing to see what I say, which no person with a legitimate reason to mute someone would do."

Meh, call it boredom. Who cares?

"You're projecting. The only place I trolled you was in your little 1 on 1 thing, which I gave you fair warning ahead of time. Everything I say here is done so with sincerity. Though, you have been caught multiple times contradicting yourself in a fashion that indicates you know very well what you're saying is false."

All unsupported and nonsensical claims, Dan. 

"If that happened, I would accept the proof. But it is a sphere, so I'm not concerned with that hypothetical."

Who said it was a hypothetical? Did i mention that there is a great awakening going on right now?


http://convexearth.org


@LogicVault

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Meh, call it boredom. Who cares?" Incorrect. If you actually felt like someone was trolling you, at any point became no longer willing to tolerate it, and felt silencing the person was worth it, then you would not turn around and jump back in. The only reason you would return to reading what I say and responding is because you enjoy the drama. This is basic psychology. The only reason you chose to mute me or pretend to mute me is because I was able to call you out on every time you gave yourself away that you're just here to troll and argue, not discover truth or answers. Also, the people who care are the ones who care about the truth. The fact you respond with "who cares" indicates you do not care about the truth. You only care about your own agenda.

"All unsupported and nonsensical claims, Dan." Supported through psychology and sociology. It does make sense if you were educated in either field. Ask anyone who is. Also, that's twice you've called me by the same name. At first I suspected you chose one at random, but now it appears intentional. Was it a random name you are sticking with, a reference to someone named Dan that I remind you of, or do you think my real name is Dan? I'm curious.

"Who said it was a hypothetical?" Science does.

"Did i mention that there is a great awakening going on right now?" There's a great trolling going on. Being convinced of false information is being trolled. These people are not discovering truth, they're being scammed. The only people who argue for a flat Earth are trolls or people gullible enough to fall for the trolls' tricks. You seem average intelligence, so I don't think you're that easily fooled. Also, you contradict yourself occasionally in a manner that indicates you know what you're saying is false. Put 2 and 2 together and you get a troll.

On a side note: By now you should see that your tricks do not work on me. I am experienced with trolls as well as psychology and sociology. I can see each ploy you attempt and occasionally predict them. That's because on a scale from 1 to 10 on trolling, you're about a 6 or 7. You do not look into the finer details of things. I do. That's why I can spot the specific variables that give away what you're actually doing. You simply claim me to be a troll in this thread with no evidence other than the one time I did troll you (in a 1 on 1 thread) in return for your trolling, though I admitted to it before I even started it and gave specific reasons as to why. I have pointed out exact points in more than one thread of this same topic where you give yourself away as a troll that anyone of high end average intelligence and above can recognize and understand. You say things in response like "unsupported", though it's supported by psychology and sociology. I even point out the indicators that can be looked up in many psychology and sociology texts. So, by the fact that you give no specific reasoning as to why you claim I'm trolling you in this or any other thread other than the one I admitted before hand and that you have been caught many times before portraying troll behavior, it's evident that you're attempting to project onto me and claim I'm the troll in order to decrease other people's suspicion of your trollish behavior. My prediction: You will eventually become known on this website for your trollish behavior. You will either be removed by admins for being intentionally disruptive in spite of other people's plight to discover conclusions or other users will learn to simply ignore you until you don't have enough people left to troll, get bored, and go away. Or maybe you'll stick around to scrape the bottom of the barrel every now and then. Btw, I know you think you're trolling me too, but I know you're trolling and still respond in spite of it and for the sake of others. Think wisely before your next move.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"Meh, call it boredom. Who cares?" Incorrect. If you actually felt like someone was trolling you, at any point became no longer willing to tolerate it, and felt silencing the person was worth it, then you would not turn around and jump back in. The only reason you would return to reading what I say and responding is because you enjoy the drama. This is basic psychology. The only reason you chose to mute me or pretend to mute me is because I was able to call you out on every time you gave yourself away that you're just here to troll and argue, not discover truth or answers. Also, the people who care are the ones who care about the truth. The fact you respond with "who cares" indicates you do not care about the truth. You only care about your own agenda.

"All unsupported and nonsensical claims, Dan." Supported through psychology and sociology. It does make sense if you were educated in either field. Ask anyone who is. Also, that's twice you've called me by the same name. At first I suspected you chose one at random, but now it appears intentional. Was it a random name you are sticking with, a reference to someone named Dan that I remind you of, or do you think my real name is Dan? I'm curious.

"Who said it was a hypothetical?" Science does.

"Did i mention that there is a great awakening going on right now?" There's a great trolling going on. Being convinced of false information is being trolled. These people are not discovering truth, they're being scammed. The only people who argue for a flat Earth are trolls or people gullible enough to fall for the trolls' tricks. You seem average intelligence, so I don't think you're that easily fooled. Also, you contradict yourself occasionally in a manner that indicates you know what you're saying is false. Put 2 and 2 together and you get a troll.

On a side note: By now you should see that your tricks do not work on me. I am experienced with trolls as well as psychology and sociology. I can see each ploy you attempt and occasionally predict them. That's because on a scale from 1 to 10 on trolling, you're about a 6 or 7. You do not look into the finer details of things. I do. That's why I can spot the specific variables that give away what you're actually doing. You simply claim me to be a troll in this thread with no evidence other than the one time I did troll you (in a 1 on 1 thread) in return for your trolling, though I admitted to it before I even started it and gave specific reasons as to why. I have pointed out exact points in more than one thread of this same topic where you give yourself away as a troll that anyone of high end average intelligence and above can recognize and understand. You say things in response like "unsupported", though it's supported by psychology and sociology. I even point out the indicators that can be looked up in many psychology and sociology texts. So, by the fact that you give no specific reasoning as to why you claim I'm trolling you in this or any other thread other than the one I admitted before hand and that you have been caught many times before portraying troll behavior, it's evident that you're attempting to project onto me and claim I'm the troll in order to decrease other people's suspicion of your trollish behavior. My prediction: You will eventually become known on this website for your trollish behavior. You will either be removed by admins for being intentionally disruptive in spite of other people's plight to discover conclusions or other users will learn to simply ignore you until you don't have enough people left to troll, get bored, and go away. Or maybe you'll stick around to scrape the bottom of the barrel every now and then. Btw, I know you think you're trolling me too, but I know you're trolling and still respond in spite of it and for the sake of others. Think wisely before your next move.

So now you've intentionally misled me. My question to you was:
"Out of pure curiosity, if a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, could you set aside your bias and accept the information, or would you dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm?"

Your answer, along with the usual trollish gibberish, was: "If that happened, I would accept the proof..."

Instead, you've done just the opposite in the face of valid scientific evidence. If you had checked the link I provided, you'd have seen that the situation wasn't hypothetical. You've instead chosen the second option, to dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm. I now see why I muted the troll.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"So now you've intentionally misled me. My question to you was:"Out of pure curiosity, if a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, could you set aside your bias and accept the information, or would you dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm?""  I answered that question. I specifically said "If that happened, I would accept the proof. But it is a sphere, so I'm not concerned with that hypothetical." That is my answer. That is a copy and paste of my answer. Do not pretend I didn't answer you. It makes it apparent that you're trolling. You have absolutely no reason to think I didn't answer when I most certainly did and was specific enough to make it clear I was answering that exact question.

"Your answer, along with the usual trollish gibberish, was: "If that happened, I would accept the proof..."" How in the hell is that a troll behavior? You wanted me to say I'd agree and I honestly admitted I would under those circumstances. You pick an argument even when people say they'd agree. No matter what someone says, you turn it into a fight if it isn't exactly what you want them to say. That is a troll. You just want to argue, even if they agree with you.

"Instead, you've done just the opposite in the face of valid scientific evidence." Do something other than claim it. Say something that actually shows some indicators that support your claim.

"If you had checked the link I provided, you'd have seen that the situation wasn't hypothetical." Your link doesn't prove anything. It's just a bunch of pictures. If that site has something that proves anything, then link that page, not the general website. I'm not wasting my time going through a troll website to locate the exact page you're referring to. You link the exact page you think helps your case.

"You've instead chosen the second option, to dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm" I haven't dismissed anything you've said. I've counter argued it. There's a difference. You're not using the word "dismiss" correctly.

"I now see why I muted the troll." You ARE the troll. Stop projecting. I've pointed out many times how you are obviously trolling people on this site and within a generous amount of detail, but you just call me one with no explanation or examples. Another troll behavior. Call people what they call you in order to attempt to make them look as guilty as you. That's low level troll behavior. You're better than that. You were doing so good at it before I got here. Actually......... TheShaun called you out on it previously, now that I remember. Looks like he doesn't have the patience for it. I do. I'm on you til the sun never shines again. Go ahead, put me back on mute like any troll does when the troll buster comes around. You can't win with me and I'll only point out to people the indicators of what you're doing. You can't troll very well in any thread I take part in, because I will point out your contradictory behavior. Get smarter or get lost.

I see you quote my entire response yet skip over a lot of important details. Mainly:

1 "If you actually felt like someone was trolling you, at any point became no longer willing to tolerate it, and felt silencing the person was worth it, then you would not turn around and jump back in."

2  "The only reason you would return to reading what I say and responding is because you enjoy the drama."

3  "The only reason you chose to mute me or pretend to mute me is because I was able to call you out on every time you gave yourself away that you're just here to troll and argue, not discover truth or answers."

4 "The fact you respond with "who cares" indicates you do not care about the truth. You only care about your own agenda."

5 "Supported through psychology and sociology. It does make sense if you were educated in either field."

6 "I even point out the indicators that can be looked up in many psychology and sociology texts."

7 "So, by the fact that you give no specific reasoning as to why you claim I'm trolling you in this or any other thread other than the one I admitted before hand and that you have been caught many times before portraying troll behavior, it's evident that you're attempting to project onto me and claim I'm the troll in order to decrease other people's suspicion of your trollish behavior."

Try answering every one of those points without dismissing any of them. They are true and you know they are. Good luck there.

Also, you never answered the question about the name Dan. Please do because that's just weird to call someone by a human name that isn't theirs. I could understand if you called me Sparky, Junior, Jack Mehoff, etc. But a dull unfunny name like "Dan"? Boooooooring. Might as well call me John, Jack, Bill, Bob, Sam, Steve, or even Copernicus.