Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
yea, and also i remember seeing that generators are more easily made for ac, not dc as wellOhm's Law kids... V=IRthis.
To get the same current capacity as a standard AC source (~120V) you would need to produce a 120VDC source. Since DC does not work with transformers this severely limits your options.
my understanding was the entire reason we us AC is it is much easier to up or lower the voltage. this way you can send it through power lines at high voltage then lower it back down when it gets where it needs to be. granted I could be wrong but that is my basic understanding of the subject.
same place mass comes fromWhere does the DE come from?
Where does gravity come from?
yeah,The centre of the universe is what is known as "the Cold Jerusalem", a.k.a., the Arctic or North Pole, wherein a vast, icy tidal ocean surrounds a central frozen isle. Polaris, the North Star, marks the centre of the universe. It is around this point that the movements of the Heavens occur.Except when you are south of the equator - then the centre of the universe is the Antarctic, or South Pole, wherein lies a vast frozen wasteland. Polarissima Australis, marks the centre of the universe. It is around this point that the movements of the Heavens occur.
Berny
I mean really - did you just state that Cold Jerusalem is part of Canada?
hey, are you still thinking of making big ben?About 90% of them are alts.
Stop revealing my secrets.
do you know how much the property value on one of the 6 corners is. i'm looking for a new place of residence.
well, if everything is moving at exactly the same speed, and in the same direction, then no, how would there be? but if there is a difference in veliocity, then yes, there will be a colour shift.
however, this then raises the question of how all these different objects of different size and mass are being accelerated at the same speed and rate of acceleration as each other, despite the driving force being universal.
I see you're confused; I never claimed to be a scientist, not once. I am an analytical chemist by trade, and that is not a scientist, so I hope that's cleared that up for you. Also, I have not defined acceleration anywhere, perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else. And finally, I didn't suggest that a scientist hadn't thought of the halbach array, as they clearly have, my point was that a modern physicist, someone who studies earths magnetism as part of their position, would surely have noticed that the earth’s magnetic field was comprised of a special arrangement of permanent magnets that augments the magnetic field on one side of the array while cancelling the field to the rear? that nature had somehow managed to arrange in exactly the fashion as required to get around the FE hypothesis on magnetic poles, and that the idea wasn’t just one produced by a random internet forum user?a globe's magnetic field shape is different from the disc's. i dont really see why a scientist would investigate a flat earth magnetic field
I hope you're suitably enlightened.
and to add to this, velocity changing is accelerationturning is a change in velocity
you cannot be seriously proposing this as true, if you are, then I implore you to read some good modern physics books. turning is a change in direction, velocity, or, directional momentum, doesn't change
I don't quite follow, but to continue your logic, if a person was scaled down equivalently, they would find just as many flat expanses on the surface of the scaled down earth as they would do in 1:1 scale, given the incredibly huge difference in size between us and the earth, no?he is just stating that he has heard the earth itself, if scaled to a billard ball, would be just as smooth, due to the hieght of all the topographical features
QuoteHe talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.
Wait, where did I say anything on the first page about the path of the eclipse being predictable? I said that the pattern of when it would occur was predictable.
You're the one who brought up the prediction of the eclipse's path, seemingly out of your own petard.QuoteTo show that it's possible in a FE system. Is that really an unreasonable request?
Yes, it is an unreasonable request. Do I need to draw a bird in the sky to convey the idea that birds exist? Do I need to draw a picture of a witch to convey the idea that people once believed in the existence of witches?
Your imagination is good enough to visualize simple ideas.
heavy elements cannot be made on earth, that is a fact, simply because we cannot contain the reaction in any container, it would just react with it, so it must be held in a suspended state, which we cannot do as we can't control gravity, but stars can do quite well given the zero gravity atmosphere. this is the Holy grail of physics, and could potentially be the earths energy solution, but we just can't do it, and the only way it can be done is through enormous pressure, the kind only known to exist in massive starsi think elements 95-118 disagree you that they cannot me made on earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_element
lrn2 know what your are talking about analytical chemist
lol, have you even read your own link? do you actually know what heavy elements are? Elements heavier than iron (up to and including bismuth) are created in the star's core by neutron capture. The heavier elements (up to and including uranium) are created in the heavy energy flux of supernovae. try and avoid 'Synthetic' in the topic so we're on the same page.
read here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
and here; http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=345
and here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
try again.
heavy elements cannot be made on earth, that is a fact, simply because we cannot contain the reaction in any container, it would just react with it, so it must be held in a suspended state, which we cannot do as we can't control gravity, but stars can do quite well given the zero gravity atmosphere. this is the Holy grail of physics, and could potentially be the earths energy solution, but we just can't do it, and the only way it can be done is through enormous pressure, the kind only known to exist in massive starsi think elements 95-118 disagree you that they cannot me made on earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_element
lrn2 know what your are talking about analytical chemist
lol, have you even read your own link? do you actually know what heavy elements are? Elements heavier than iron (up to and including bismuth) are created in the star's core by neutron capture. The heavier elements (up to and including uranium) are created in the heavy energy flux of supernovae. try and avoid 'Synthetic' in the topic so we're on the same page.
read here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
and here; http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=345
and here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
try again.
At the speeds you're proposing the Earth is travelling, any increase of decrease in acceleration would produce shift in the visible spectrum for all other objects. This is not present, therefore this can't be happening.if the sun is accelerating upwards at the same rate, it is not accelerating upwards reletive to you, and hence, light shouldn't have redshift right?
I was an analytical chemist from 1992 to 2007 when I swithced to software consultancy, Ali is a qualified vet with his own practice, and I couldn't care less whether you accept that or not, it matters nothing to me. However, I fail to see what this has to do with the context of your post? I can’t read it very well, it makes no sense and you don’t seem to be saying anything. Please re-read and formulate a coherent and relevant reply, but please don't suggest nature didn't make the earth or I will ignore you going forward.
we aren't talking about all the rocks in the universe, just the ones in the metaphorThe rocks in the metaphor were "rocks". Are you claiming that a rock in the universe is something else but a rock? Considering the amount of meaningful content in your previous posts, you probably do. Anyway, two rocks fitting together are not evidence of anything. As for eight rocks, let's see.
Two rocks fit together, therefore they once were one rock.
Two rocks composed of two smaller rocks each (four rocks) fit together, therefore they once were one rock.
Two rocks composed of the aforementioned rocks (eight rocks) fit together, therefore they once were one rock.
Eight rocks fitting together are in no way more evidence than two of them. In fact, they're the exact same situation, and since the amount of variations of how we can try to fit the rocks together rises exponentially, the probability of you finding a matching combination is raised as well. Thus, it can be concluded that it's actually a lesser or equal (assuming it's quantifiable) form of evidence to that provided by two rocks.
Of course, the only numbers that will make logical sense in this case are 0 and 0.
EDIT: In case this explanation does not satisfy you, here's a simpler one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
You epitomise stupid, or pedantic. I will explain it to you in simple to understand terms. When I say we aren't talking about all the rocks in the universe, just the ones in the metaphor, we’re referring to quantity, ie, the 8 rocks in the metaphor we are discussing. There was no comparison of these rocks to any other rocks nor was there a suggestion that they were not rocks. See, a metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. In this case, the rocks represented the continents. Do you see?
I hope this clears things up and makes you look and feel suitably stupid as seems to be your prerogative
in FE theory, gravity is not a property of matterI am not sure... but just to be on the safe side,
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FLAT EARTH!!!
Really? By avoiding answering the questions? Doesn't the shallowness of the victory, in an argument over semantics, make it remarkably hollow? None of the questions over gravity have been answered. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how a body that you claim measures 678584013 cubic kilometres could possess no mass, make no dent in the space/time fabric and possess no gravity?
heavy elements cannot be made on earth, that is a fact, simply because we cannot contain the reaction in any container, it would just react with it, so it must be held in a suspended state, which we cannot do as we can't control gravity, but stars can do quite well given the zero gravity atmosphere. this is the Holy grail of physics, and could potentially be the earths energy solution, but we just can't do it, and the only way it can be done is through enormous pressure, the kind only known to exist in massive starsi think elements 95-118 disagree you that they cannot me made on earth
lolturning is a change in velocity
you cannot be seriously proposing this as true, if you are, then I implore you to read some good modern physics books. turning is a change in direction, velocity, or, directional momentum, doesn't change
Does it make you sad vhu when you see fellow RE'ers making a mockery of RET?
I think about that a lot. This must be the only place on the internet where the idiots are the ones who believe that the earth is round.
If there is gravity where do compasses point to?
I know exactly what it means, I’m an analytical chemist. Empirical evidence can be extremely subjective, ie, James’ dreams are called empirical evidence of moon shrimp, when in fact they are empirical evidence of a dream he had about moon shrimp, nothing else, so please put your assertion into context. How is Empirical evidence more exact than evidence?have i stated emirical evidence was more exact than evidence?