Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: cooperton

Of course not. Plasma is a state of matter. Water when it gets to certain conditions, behaves like plasma and it dissociates into its monovalent ions: H+ and O+

If it is no longer H2O, it's not water. Plasma is a 4th state of matter. Water is a liquid is not plasma. Water vapour is a still H2O.

The diagram shows exactly what I am saying. If you look at the upper right portion you will see that H+, and O+ concentrations are off the charts, and therefore the most prevalent constituent of this layer. Again, this is clearly indicative of plasma water.

No it doesn't and no it isn't. They are not "off the charts", they are positioned at a very specific part of the chart. You need to also be paying attention to the altitude. How do you think those concentrations compare with atmospheric molecules at ground level, or with liquid water?

You gotta start thinking for yourself. He gave us the data, now it is our job to interpret it. Water in its plasma state dissociates into its monovalent ions: O+ and H+, which is shown most abundantly in the ionosphere.

The data were given. It is not your role to make the data say things other than that which is presented. You are assuming rhat the O+ and H+ ions have come from water and behave like water. They are not "abundant" in the ionosphere, they form the dominant ion species in specific parts of the ionosphere.

It's not a brief twinkle, it is enduring. The researchers found that the sonoluminescence is due to water being turned to its plasma state - another connection that fits the idea I am putting forth.

Define "enduring". And no, that is not what the researchers found. You are using a crowbar to force their data to fit your preconceptions, just like you're using a crowbar to get your pet theory into this thread. It is caused by the collapse of a gas bubble encased within a liquid medium caused by an acoustic standing wave. No mention of plasma is given in your video.

My guess would be that it is a sort of Hawking radiation. This would begin to apply Einstein's relativity theory to earth. This is a big step.

Your guess means nothing. You are not going to re-write physics no matter how hard you try.

Yikes your condescending attitude might be able to trick some people, but this is just really dumb. Saying plasma water is an oxymoron is like saying water vapor is an oxymoron.

Diddums. Plasma is an ionised gas. Water vapor is a well understood term with a specific meaning. Plasma water is something you're trying hard to invent so that you can make your pet theory work.

I clearly claimed a couple posts prior that I think the earth is a 4D spacetime construct and shouldn't be limited to 3D definitions. Come up a dimension bro.

Claiming something doesn't make it true.

It's really no more crazy than supposing that a bunch of floating spheres of mass are in such perfect equilibrium that we never see any variation in constellations. If they really are flinging around at super fast speeds super far away we would not see them orbiting like clockwork around our humble little earthly abode.

We do see variation in constellations, they have been recorded changing over time. They are not orbiting like clockwork around us, we are moving relative to them. You need to come up a dimension bro.

Your pet theory about how stars are produced in the ionosphere by sonluminescence is just as ridiculous and lacking in evidence as the tripe turbonium pukes up evey week. Sonoluminescence requires an acoustic input through a liquid medium. You have provided no evidence for the medium, or for the acoustic source, and your 'model' can not even begin to explain stars that remain in the same position overnight, night after night, or planets, or nebulae, or how these things are photographed from positions above the ionosphere.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I guess you used / listed too many facts?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo


If it is no longer H2O, it's not water.

If water is heated to plasma temperatures, it will make H+ and O+ ions along with electrons. True.

In that chart, the most abundant ions in the ionosphere is clearly H+ and O+ ions. True.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo


If it is no longer H2O, it's not water.

If water is heated to plasma temperatures, it will make H+ and O+ ions along with electrons. True.

In that chart, the most abundant ions in the ionosphere is clearly H+ and O+ ions. True.

Elements in gaseous form excited to the plasma state means what to the flat earth lie? The atmosphere has what, 21 percent oxygen? Are you saying we are breathing water using your logic?

a reply to: cooperton

Going to answer the question?


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: cooperton

Why shouldn’t the mountains be seen. Please use elevations as listed on a topographic map and the view point. And take in account the atmosphere does bend light rays.

Atmospheric Refraction

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

The phenomenon of refraction is responsible for our ability to focus images with a lens or our eye. The refraction, or bending of light, depends upon the index of refraction of the transmitting medium. The amount of bending can be very large at the surface of a lens because of its large index of refraction, typically about n= 1.5.

A number of refraction phenomena can be observed in the atmosphere, but the conditions are quite different because the index of refraction of the air is very small, it being a nearly transparent medium. The index of refraction of air at standard temperature and pressure (STP) is n= 1.00029 compared to exactly 1 for a vacuum. The interesting observations of refraction effects in the atmosphere arise from the fact that the index of refraction varies with temperature and pressure, and the fact that distances for observation can be very large so that a small amount of refraction produces observable effects. Refraction leads to bending of the light rays toward the slower medium at an interface, so in air the light will tend to bend toward the area of greater pressure since the light speed decreases with increasing pressure. It will also tend to bend toward the area of lower temperature since the light speed will be slightly lower.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo


If it is no longer H2O, it's not water.

If water is heated to plasma temperatures, it will make H+ and O+ ions along with electrons. True.

In that chart, the most abundant ions in the ionosphere is clearly H+ and O+ ions. True.

In that chart, at specific altitudes, H+, and then O+ ions form the dominant species. They are not the dominant species throughout the entire ionosphere, nor are they they only ions present. Sonoluminescence requires a gas bubble suspended in a liquid medium and acoustic excitation. Neither water, nor it's consitutent molecules, need to be involved at any point, but a liquid medium and acoustic excitation certainly do. These latter two features do not exist in the ionosphere, the conditions to create perfectly consistent continuously shining stars do not exist, and those stars are demonstrably not in the ionosphere.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

In that chart, at specific altitudes, H+, and then O+ ions form the dominant species. They are not the dominant species throughout the entire ionosphere

You need to analyze the graph better then:



Notice in the upper right corner the bolded line that represents O+ and H+ go off the chart to the right... this means they are even higher quantities towards the lower layers of the ionosphere. You seem very stubborn to accept data, so here's another chart that shows O+ and H+ concentrations at lower levels of the ionosphere:



Notice the predominant ions H+ and O+ extend to even higher concentrations in the lower ionospheric layers.

, nor are they they only ions present. Sonoluminescence requires a gas bubble suspended in a liquid medium and acoustic excitation. Neither water, nor it's consitutent molecules, need to be involved at any point, but a liquid medium and acoustic excitation certainly do. These latter two features do not exist in the ionosphere, the conditions to create perfectly consistent continuously shining stars do not exist, and those stars are demonstrably not in the ionosphere.

The sonoluminescence effect that emulates starlight is due to the molecules breaking down into an ionic plasma... This is exactly what is going on in the ionosphere.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: jimmyx
can't we get this thread closed?......jesus, 22 pages arguing the obvious...what next?...humans need oxygen to live?

Ouch bro. Honestly with Einsteinian physics there's 3 solutions: flat, curved, or concave. Many of which would have overlapping features. The guy v-sauce did a cool video on how there could be multiple solutions (similar to the dualistic behavior of a photon):

It wrongly assumes 'gravity' exists, that's the main problem.

We can argue ANYTHING from a false assumption, it's totally ridiculous.

originally posted by: turbonium1

It wrongly assumes 'gravity' exists, that's the main problem.

We can argue ANYTHING from a false assumption, it's totally ridiculous.

The 9.8m/s^2 acceleration of all objects towards earth is an undeniable force. What causes it is still up for consideration.

a reply to: cooperton

We've been through the gravity thing for pages in the other thread...

he doesn't get it... you're wasting your time

a reply to: cooperton

Wow you are so misunderstanding what the charts are telling you hard to know where to begin.

So lets start with a science lesson i guess. The upper reaches of our planet's atmosphere are exposed to ultraviolet light from the Sun, and they are ionized with electrons that are freed from neutral atmospheric particles. The results are electrically charged negative and positive particles. The negative particles are electrons, and the positive particles are now called ions. If the density of these particles is low enough, this electrically charged gas behaves differently than it would if it were neutral. Now this gas is called plasma. The atmospheric gas density becomes low enough to support the conditions for a plasma around earth at about 90 kilometers above Earth's surface. Notice the pressure has to lower but heres the problem with sonoluminescence you need to increase the pressure on an inert gas. Notice i didnt say ionized gas as that wouldnt work do to the extra electrons.

So bottom line not only do you not understand what your talking about but you want it to work exactly oppisite of reality. Then there is a problem on what would supply the energy source for this to even occur??

and to even get the plasma to form in the first place you have to conceded the sun produced energized partices and the earth being round trapped them in the magnitosphere. A flat earth the magnitsphere would not trap particles but instad would just send them into space. Flat earth would not have the northern and sountern lights either.

We know that 'gravity' cannot exist, based on real forces that DO exist, from actual EVIDENCE, and REPEATABILITY, and DEMONSTRATION of them, proves that they DO exist as actual forces.

Magnetic force is a perfect example of an actual force. A magnet holds another object by magnetic force within the magnet, for example. if a magnet had no RESISTANCE against an opposing force, it would NOT be an actual force, just like 'gravity' isn't an actual force.

How can we know if any actual force exists at all, unless an opposing force(s) is acting on it, or 'appears' to act against a force, which is - it must show RESISTANCE against opposite forces, to either VALIDATE the claim, or to FALSIFY this claim, that another, unknown, unseen, unproven force may exist, within all objects, and a larger object like Earth, has far more of this 'force' than most objects, and 'holds' the smaller objects down to it's surface, and 'pulls down' objects that are above the surface, as well, because of this 'force' within Earth.

Your claim is that without a 'force' holding and pulling everything down to Earth, everyone, everything on Earth would simply 'float' and 'drift' around in 'space', because you assume something called 'space' - is some massive place around the Earth, which has NO 'gravity' at all, because we have 'gone' into 'space', of course, which showed there's no 'gravity' out in 'space', and we've all seen them 'float' in 'outer space', over and over again!

No floating people, this is purely an illusion, a fairy tale, and nothing else.

Why wouldn't anyone see or film a rocket for more than the first 3-4 minutes? How could anyone think a rocket wouldn't be seen or filmed throughout it's flight, upward, until it's a mere SPECK in the skies above, and finally goes high enough, to not be seen, even with magnification?

We would always see it, if rockets DID fly into orbit', or 'space'. So they make up excuses for why we don't see it.
They created 'safe zones' out in the ocean, that cover an area of hundreds of miles around, but invite everyone to the launch sites to see their rockets blast off, and shreds their 'safety' crap. Most failures/fires/crashes....happen at the launch sites, or near to the launch sites, as we all know.

The excuse about 'safe zones' is utter bs. If it was about being 'safe', launch sites would always have been 'off-limits', to the public, before any other areas.

They make up 'safe zones' that prevent us from seeing, and filming rockets, because they all CRASH into the ocean, within those 'safe zones', where NOBODY CAN SEE OR FILM THEM, and never WILL see or film them, either!

If anyone here believes we've seen and/or filmed a rocket, from 100 miles out, or from 200 miles out, look again, because nobody has done so, and nobody ever WILL.... which is sad, indeed.

This would show - without a doubt - whether or not rockets really DO fly into 'orbit'. And BEFORE it even GOES into 'orbit', this would still prove that rockets CAN fly into 'orbit', or 'space', without a doubt.

That's how easy it SHOULD be, to see and film a rocket as a speck in the sky above us, on Earth. In fact, this should already have been filmed many, many times, before. But when it's NEVER been filmed, as a small speck in the sky, from anywhere on Earth, ever, that doesn't make sense, if they DO fly into 'orbit'.

It only makes sense, if they do NOT fly into 'orbit', obviously. That's why we've never seen or filmed a rocket as a little speck in the sky, and never WILL see or film it, either!


We all agree that before any rocket has reached 'orbit', it would be seen -from Earth - as a small 'speck', in the sky, on many daylight launches, if it's in clear skies.

So why would we not have film of this, then? You claim it is true, you have no excuses it's never been filmed, and yet, you cannot admit it's a fraud, or even question it.

originally posted by: turbonium1
We know that 'gravity' cannot exist, based on real forces that DO exist, from actual EVIDENCE, and REPEATABILITY, and DEMONSTRATION of them, proves that they DO exist as actual forces.

Magnetic force is a perfect example of an actual force. A magnet holds another object by magnetic force within the magnet, for example. if a magnet had no RESISTANCE against an opposing force, it would NOT be an actual force, just like 'gravity' isn't an actual force.

How can we know if any actual force exists at all, unless an opposing force(s) is acting on it, or 'appears' to act against a force, which is - it must show RESISTANCE against opposite forces, to either VALIDATE the claim, or to FALSIFY this claim, that another, unknown, unseen, unproven force may exist, within all objects, and a larger object like Earth, has far more of this 'force' than most objects, and 'holds' the smaller objects down to it's surface, and 'pulls down' objects that are above the surface, as well, because of this 'force' within Earth.

Your claim is that without a 'force' holding and pulling everything down to Earth, everyone, everything on Earth would simply 'float' and 'drift' around in 'space', because you assume something called 'space' - is some massive place around the Earth, which has NO 'gravity' at all, because we have 'gone' into 'space', of course, which showed there's no 'gravity' out in 'space', and we've all seen them 'float' in 'outer space', over and over again!

No floating people, this is purely an illusion, a fairy tale, and nothing else.

Jump off a building. Let us know how you get on. I can calculate how long it would take for you to hit the ground thanks to knowing what the acceleration due to gravity is.

Why wouldn't anyone see or film a rocket for more than the first 3-4 minutes? How could anyone think a rocket wouldn't be seen or filmed throughout it's flight, upward, until it's a mere SPECK in the skies above, and finally goes high enough, to not be seen, even with magnification?

It has been seen and filmed. You've been shown this. Don't lie and claim you haven't.

We would always see it, if rockets DID fly into orbit', or 'space'. So they make up excuses for why we don't see it.
They created 'safe zones' out in the ocean, that cover an area of hundreds of miles around, but invite everyone to the launch sites to see their rockets blast off, and shreds their 'safety' crap. Most failures/fires/crashes....happen at the launch sites, or near to the launch sites, as we all know.

The excuse about 'safe zones' is utter bs. If it was about being 'safe', launch sites would always have been 'off-limits', to the public, before any other areas.

Launch sites are off limits. Observers of the actual launches are a very safe distance away because rockets can, and have, explode. Camera filming the launch from up close are positioned there well before the actual launch.

They make up 'safe zones' that prevent us from seeing, and filming rockets, because they all CRASH into the ocean, within those 'safe zones', where NOBODY CAN SEE OR FILM THEM, and never WILL see or film them, either!

False, not true. You know this not to be true, so that maks you a liar. the safe zones are to stop bits of rocket landing on you. What's hilarious here is that the only reason you know about the safe zones is because you were told about them as proof that rocket trajectories were publicised in advance - something you deny happened.

They do not crash into the ocean, your claim is unsupported by evidence and completely false. You obviously failed to understand this image:

Rockets crashing into the sea would not be visible by me later.

If anyone here believes we've seen and/or filmed a rocket, from 100 miles out, or from 200 miles out, look again, because nobody has done so, and nobody ever WILL.... which is sad, indeed.

Once again a lie. You've been shown this, you know this claim of yours to be false.

This would show - without a doubt - whether or not rockets really DO fly into 'orbit'. And BEFORE it even GOES into 'orbit', this would still prove that rockets CAN fly into 'orbit', or 'space', without a doubt.

That's how easy it SHOULD be, to see and film a rocket as a speck in the sky above us, on Earth. In fact, this should already have been filmed many, many times, before. But when it's NEVER been filmed, as a small speck in the sky, from anywhere on Earth, ever, that doesn't make sense, if they DO fly into 'orbit'.

It only makes sense, if they do NOT fly into 'orbit', obviously. That's why we've never seen or filmed a rocket as a little speck in the sky, and never WILL see or film it, either!

False, not true. You know this because you've been shown it multiple times.

We all agree that before any rocket has reached 'orbit', it would be seen -from Earth - as a small 'speck', in the sky, on many daylight launches, if it's in clear skies.

So why would we not have film of this, then? You claim it is true, you have no excuses it's never been filmed, and yet, you cannot admit it's a fraud, or even question it.

You mean apart from the photos you've been shown of this - including ones taken by me? Apart form the multiple witness testimonies you've been given, like this:

honeysucklecreek.net...

As Apollo 13 passed over Perth on the first orbit, we had just had sunset and it passed directly overhead, illuminated by the setting sun. We had just barely arrived from our harrowing departure from Cocos Island, and were just settling into our hotel rooms. From the balcony of my hotel room I had a ringside seat to watch Apollo 13 pass overhead – spectacular.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat these false and completely unsubstantiated claims, burying the evidence in walls of spam hoping that people forget about it, you have been proven wrong multiple times and you will never be right. You have never once provided a single piece of evidence to substantiate this nonsense and you never will, because you can't. The world is a sphere and everyone thinks flat earthers are stupid. Get a different hobby. Buy a telescope maybe?

a reply to: turbonium1

Then why does the earth have a molten core?

We all agree that before any rocket has reached 'orbit', it would be seen -from Earth - as a small 'speck', in the sky, on many daylight launches, if it's in clear skies

Comets travel about the solar system. Orbit the sun, some even orbit large planets. Comets do sometimes crash into the sun, or a planet.

Now. Why cannot rockets travel about the solar system like comets.

If there is no gravity, how do comets travel about the solar system.

a reply to: turbonium1

Forgot this old argument.

If you throw a brick straight up into the air, what force acts on it to slow it down faster than what is accounted for by friction with the atmosphere. What force causes it to change direction, and fall back to earth.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: turbonium1

It wrongly assumes 'gravity' exists, that's the main problem.

We can argue ANYTHING from a false assumption, it's totally ridiculous.

The 9.8m/s^2 acceleration of all objects towards earth is an undeniable force. What causes it is still up for consideration.

A constant rate of acceleration is 'proof' of a force?

What do you base that claim on? What about magnetic force? It does not have a constant rate of attraction, or repulsion, yet is an 'undeniable force'!

Why would you suggest that constant rates of something must be due to a force, and only, ever, is due to a force?


Your 'force' is called 'gravity'. What makes it a 'constant' force? Why would your force be constant, when it's source is supposedly within Earth, or Earth's 'core'? What about other forces? They often are stronger, when nearer to their sources, weaker when further away from sources. They aren't constant forces, they vary in strength, or in acting as a force.

What is constant within your force, to apply equal force at all heights, far away from the source, or near the source, which defines it as an actual 'force'?


The constant is air. While falling objects will vary in size, mass, and height in air, they all fall through air, at a constant rate of acceleration.

If a force within Earth caused this, objects far up, are further away from the source of a force within Earth, than lower objects, which would be much closer to the source.

Your arguing that a constant rate of acceleration is due to a force, when forces aren't a constant, first of all!

Yet here is the one, and only force, you claim is constant, no matter how far away, or how near, objects are from the actual SOURCE of this truly 'magical' force!


Your 'force' is always constant, no matter where the source is, so a constant rate of acceleration is from a constant force, which doesn't exist.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Forgot this old argument.

If you throw a brick straight up into the air, what force acts on it to slow it down faster than what is accounted for by friction with the atmosphere. What force causes it to change direction, and fall back to earth.

Throwing is the force, causing the brick to fly upward, into the air.

And then, the force you applied in throwing the brick dies out, and the brick stops going upward in air, because the force dies out.

At THIS point, all there is left is a heavy brick, in air, so the brick's mass, being greater than the mass of air, causes the brick to fall through the air, until it hits the solid ground below.


There is NO force causing the brick to slow down in air, or fall through air, to the ground. The brick's mass, being greater than the mass of air, is what causes the brick to fall through air, to the ground.


Simple as that.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
It has been seen and filmed. You've been shown this. Don't lie and claim you haven't.

Don't lie and claim you've shown it on film, nobody has filmed it as a small speck in the blue sky.

That's the reality here. I'd love to see films of it, so you just go on bs'ing, about you showing it.

Get serious.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Wow you are so misunderstanding what the charts are telling you hard to know where to begin.
The negative particles are electrons, and the positive particles are now called ions. If the density of these particles is low enough, this electrically charged gas behaves differently than it would if it were neutral. Now this gas is called plasma.

Hilarious you're going to lecture me on plasma when I've been describing what it is and how it works for the past 2 pages

The atmospheric gas density becomes low enough to support the conditions for a plasma around earth at about 90 kilometers above Earth's surface. Notice the pressure has to lower but heres the problem with sonoluminescence you need to increase the pressure on an inert gas.

An interesting thought, but there is an explanation. The high pressure is only needed at room temperature, whereas at the high temperatures in the ionosphere it would not be necessary to have high pressure. If you remember Gay-lussac's law, an increase in temperature is concordant with an increase in pressure.

not only do you not understand what your talking about

Not only do you not understand what you're* talking about.

Then there is a problem on what would supply the energy source for this to even occur??

Ahh yes now that's a real question! thank you. You see? This can be fun if we investigate together looking for the objective truth of the matter. I believe it is linked to the sun. A form of Hawking Radiation perhaps. The model that I would present would require a hefty addendum to some of the missing pieces in astronomy... it would fit all the old observations while corralling in some new. Probably the biggest hint is that the celestial sphere coordinate system has not change in known history. Stellar motion is therefore very constant and predictable.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Your 'force' is always constant, no matter where the source is, so a constant rate of acceleration is from a constant force, which doesn't exist.

Trust me i'm not an enemy. I am also looking for empirical truth that makes a more cohesive picture of the world we live in. Scientific investigation should be fun, otherwise it will begin to drain you. I have actually found another way to calculate gravity's 9.8m/s^2 acceleration from empirical well-known measurements and without the use of the gravitational constant. The units match and everything. message me if you're interested.

a reply to: turbonium1

I did. I'm bored of presenting evidence to you and then you deny it exists. I see no value in doing it yet again.

Prove what you say happens happens or shut up.

Get a telescope.