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.
Pavaroti what is beautiful and awesome to you may not be that beautiful to others. For example I find helecentrism or globe earth to be ugly. To me infinite flat earth is beautiful and truly amazing
Image of Jupiter and one of it's moons
That image couldn't possibly be real in the RE context.
Here is the flux of gravitons paradox ((how a three body system cannot function given the attractive gravity scenario) - for a better visualization, use Sun - Jupiter - Io.
"OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that this interchange of gravitational particles again will seem to result in violations of conservation of energy. We will do this by demonstrating that, if matter is indeed influenced by gravitational particles, then, even under normal orbital conditions, gravity should decrease, due to a gravitational shadowing effect. This shadowing effect would violate conservation of energy.
Thought Experiment: IMAGINE THAT GRAVITONS BEHAVE LIKE PHOTONS
(for descriptive purposes only)
To better visualize how this partial gravitational influence might be encountered, let us describe gravity and gravitational interaction in terms of light, so that:
If gravitons exist, violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy will almost certainly occur.
Brilliance of light = gravitational attraction = (emission of gravitons)
Decreasing Transparency = Increasing Density and Mass
In this thought experiment, we will specify one sun, one earth and one moon. Each will be partially luminous, to simulate their 'output' of gravitons, and each will also be partially opaque, to indicate their 'capturing-of' or their 'reception-of' gravitons. We would then have the following description of the system.
In this imaginary system, the moon orbits the earth, and the earth-moon pair orbits the sun. Since glow will simulate gravity emitted, we could describe this sun as glowing brighter that this earth, and this earth as glowing brighter than the moon.
In addition, the moon would be more transparent than the earth, and the earth would be less transparent than the sun. This would simulate the increasing 'interception' of gravity, with an increase of both the density and mass from the moon, to the earth then to the sun in our imaginary example.
In this example, the light from the sun would 'attract' the earth and the moon (simulating the pull of gravity). The earth would glow less brilliantly than the sun, but still brighter than the moon. The moon would be attracted to both the earth and the sun, but would orbit the earth. The earth moon pair would then orbit the sun together.
In this example, the moon would spend more time in the earth's shadow, and the earth's shadow would be comparatively darker than the moon's shadow. Since the moon would be attracted to the sun only by the light from the sun, and the light emitted by the earth with the sun shining through the less transparent earth would be less than the light emitted by the sun directly, the moon would gain some amount of orbital distance from the sun every time the moon 'hid' in the earth's shadow.
This gain of gravitational energy, simulated in this example with light and transparency, {for visual purposes only}, would violate conservation of energy. If gravitons exist, they must self-condradictingly pass through nearer masses unaffected, so as not to decrease gravity for masses at a further distance, while still interacting with those closer masses at the same time.
Otherwise, we are left with the choice that masses at a distance will randomly gain some gravitational potential energy depending on whether randomly distributed nearer masses create a gravitational 'shadow' effect. We are once again led to the conclusion that gravitons, if they exist, must create violations of conservation of energy. This is hardly a reliable theoretical endorsement of gravitons, when conservation of energy must fall by the wayside in order to allow gravitons to exist. A much more logical conclusion is again, gravitons do not exist, and cannot exist. Some other method of explaining gravitational interactions must be needed."
The center of the Lagoon Nebula is a whirlwind of spectacular star formation
Well this topic certainly brought out the globalists in force.
Ok I'm still waiting for the genuine posters to come in and grasp what I'm saying. I can overlook the attempted ridicule by the usual suspects.
The 650 mph is relative to the ground.Nope. The globe is finished.
So if you were laid on the ground you would see the Typhoon fly over at 650 mph relative to you, in the opposite direction to the rotation of the earth.
Based on my research into ancient historical maps, this is what I think the map actually looks like (obviously not perfect lol)
Here are my explanations why I think this in a recent thread I started:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67263.0
Why ancient historical maps, it's meaningless?
Meaningless.... lol good one. Like the ancients put all that effort in for no meaning whatsoever.
Based on my research into ancient historical maps, this is what I think the map actually looks like (obviously not perfect lol)
Here are my explanations why I think this in a recent thread I started:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67263.0
Interesting read: http://ocw.usu.edu/physics/classical-mechanics/pdf_lectures/14.pdfIt's not weird, it's impossible. It relies on the background assumptions being true, but if that is a natural consequence they cannot be.
For a short time, mass can be created and annihilated. Quantum theory is weird.
For the other aspect: As I said, I am not qualified enough to discuss this right now.
Your "caloric" field is impossible. Photons are emitted when electrons return to a relaxed state, and the emission spectrum is unique to that element. Caloric creates countless problems, and solves absolutely nothing but your desire for attention.
Photons are emitted from what? From where? What creates a particle with no cause?
ectIf the search function on this site wasn't deliberately broken I could prove it, but memory will suffice for now.
ect
Hi BabyHighspeed!
You'e the only one round here who regularly mis-spells 'etc' as 'ect'...
If the search function on this site wasn't deliberately broken I could prove it, but memory will suffice for now.
Of course, you will not be banned for this, as you shills run the forum.
But still, lol at you being shit at your shit job.
You're a story teller and your stories must be told.Says the guy who claims he is a multiple millionaire inventor (of a "diving implement" amongst other things) who lives in a mansion and owns a helicopter and a Bugatti.
Not to mention you claim to be a North Korean dissident.
How's that scale model of your dome coming along?
A rocket will fly only if the centre of gravity is ahead of the centre of pressure far enough to allow air currents to cause a stabilising effect.
This is a fundamental aerodynamic principle.
And all Shpayze-seX's bullshit 'VTOL-rokkits' completely violate it.
Ergo, they are fraudulent.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
Space x speaks for itself. Go watch a landing one day. You might learn something.
It is not so easy. A launch is one thing. The rocket flies away and disappears in the sky and is normally never seen again. A rocket landing is completely different and only one (topic) has been performed so far ... in the middle of the dark night ... with any independent observers several miles away. Amateur video photographers only recorded a small fireball in the air ... far away ... slowly coming down. If it were a landing nobody knows. The trajectory of rocket from launch to landing is unfortunately secret and cannot be verified by outside experts. The US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 and company privacy rules prevent verifications.
I claim that you are a liar. Your post was made up and you have done no observation, whatsoever.
You are trolling, nothing more.
Prove us wrong.
