The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: avesta on February 18, 2015, 06:29:51 PM
-
Hello,
I became a flat earth believer 2 days ago and I've been so many research the past couple of days. I've been thinking about all day these past 2 days.
I don't know if anyone has discussed this thought before or not but I was thinking today that according to Nasa the earth is rotating at a speed of 1670 kilometers/hour ( 1037 miles/hr). I'm in New York so that means if I go up in an air ballon or helicopter for 1 hour and make sure the ballon or helicopter is not going to the left or right and is still in the air for 1 hour, I should be in St Louis in Missouri.
This test can be done and it's not going to cost a lots of money. I'm sure we can rent a private helicopter for $1000 or less and film it and proof it to everyone that earth is not rotating.
What are your thoughts?
-
The air, and everything else on earth is moving with the earth at a speed of 1037 mph.
-
If the air was moving at a speed of 1037 MPH there would be storms up in the air and the airplanes couldn't even fly.
The distance of New York to Los Angeles is 2800 Miles. If the earth is rotating at a speed of 1037 and a commercial airplane flying at a speed of 600mph that means we should get there in 1 hour and 30 minutes and not 5 hours.
These are really simple facts and it's right in our face but we seem to ignore it and believe whatever we have been told.
-
I don't know if anyone has discussed this thought before or not ...
More than you might think.
Anyway, the air is also moving with the surface more or less, and in New York, the surface rotational speed is less than the equatorial speed of 1037mph. 6-700mph perhaps. I'd have to research it.
-
Hello,
I became a flat earth believer 2 days ago and I've been so many research the past couple of days. I've been thinking about all day these past 2 days.
I don't know if anyone has discussed this thought before or not but I was thinking today that according to Nasa the earth is rotating at a speed of 1670 kilometers/hour ( 1037 miles/hr). I'm in New York so that means if I go up in an air ballon or helicopter for 1 hour and make sure the ballon or helicopter is not going to the left or right and is still in the air for 1 hour, I should be in St Louis in Missouri.
This test can be done and it's not going to cost a lots of money. I'm sure we can rent a private helicopter for $1000 or less and film it and proof it to everyone that earth is not rotating.
What are your thoughts?
Welcome to the forum, avesta.
That 1037 mi/hr figure is true at the equator but diminishes to zero at the poles. At NY's latitude it would be roughly 3/4 of that.
That may still seem pretty big, but helicopters and balloons and such move against the air around them, and the atmosphere itself is for the most part traveling right along with the ground; any difference between ground and air movement is called "wind". If there were no wind, taking a balloon straight up and straight down with no induced lateral movement would put you back at the same spot.
If you think about it, if what you suggest were true, you wouldn't even need a helicopter ride to see what you propose. That steady 800 mi/hr easterly gale would be a sign of something.
-
If the air was moving at a speed of 1037 MPH there would be storms up in the air and the airplanes couldn't even fly.
As 29silloutte said, wind is simply a difference in the speed the air is moving relative to the ground.
Think about being in an airplane. You are moving at a hundred miles per our, but the air inside the airplane is moving with you, so you don't feel a difference,
-
This settles the matter:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480)
-
Really now?
First your ZIG ZAG argument was shown to be a lack of understanding on your part by many people in many ways. It is completely not what happens on a round or flat earth model, stop bringing it up and then trying to use it as proof. It isn't.
You have never once tried to consider the fact that you may be wrong in your assumptions and when someone does offer a viable set of arguments to counter your claims you either smother us with copy pasta or you go into a tirade about religion and/or insults.
You my friend Ciklijamas are exactly what you like to call everyone else. An Idiot.
-
@ Mickey Mouse, i've got something for you:
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.
Explanation No 1:
If the Earth rotated, first half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from LEFT TO RIGHT, and when you reached the Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNSET (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly start to go back in opposite direction, that is to say, second half of a Polar Day you would see the Sun apparently moving from RIGHT TO LEFT, then when you reached the next Turning Point (that is the moment of SUNRISE (in lower latitudes)), the Sun would suddenly change direction of it's path in the sky in opposite direction and start to move again from LEFT TO RIGHT beginning new Polar Day...
Imagine that you are able to see through the Earth, what would you see from your latitude (wherever it is) during the second part of a day (while there is a NIGHT) if you observed the Sun through the Earth from the other side of the Earth?
In which direction would the Sun apparently move?
From LEFT TO RIGHT (as it is the case during the day) or from RIGHT TO LEFT?
@ Mickey Mouse, would you be so kind to answer to the question above?
Explanation No 2:
If the Sun circles around and above you, then you are within a circle which Sun draws traveling above and around you.
This is the only way how traveling-Sun (not traveling-Earth) can continually draw (without changing it's "apparent direction of journey") it's path (above and around you) as an unbroken - 24 hours a day - circle, which you could continually - 24 hours a day - observe (during northern summer) if you were placed within the "arctic circle".
On the other hand, if you are on a spinning globe, and the Sun is many millions of miles far away from you, you are completely out of a circle which i have described above. In this hypothetical case you are on merry go round. Now, all you have to do is to imagine yourself on merry go round, observing some immovable light which is placed, let's say 100 meters away from you.
What kind of a phenomena you will have to notice (by necessity) by continually observing immovable light in front of you while you are on merry go round?
You will witness exactly what i have described in my ZIGZAG argument!
Explanation No 3:
When our observer within arctic circle passes turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, his motion in opposite direction lasts one half of a day (12 hours), so the point is this that whenever our observer reaches a turning point, he begins to move in opposite direction, and that motion lasts one half of a day.
So, during first half of a day our observer goes from left to right, what he sees? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (right to left)!
After he pass turning point, that is, during second half of a day our observer goes from right to left, what he sees now? - He sees apparent motion of the sun which apparently goes in opposite direction (left to right).
Once our observer in arctic circle changes his direction of motion, he keeps going in that direction for next 12 hours, all the way up until he reaches his next turning point.
On top of that:
What Mikeman's video animation actually depicts is what i was trying to point out to, in my argument No 1, here:
http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html (http://72.52.145.132/257076-post83.html)
However, i have to make one little correction concerning my argument No 1:
Our northern house (placed directly on Potato's axis) would make ONE VERY SLOW rotation per day, although we could loosen the camera on the roof of our northern house, so that it is always directed towards the sun, that is how absolute orientation of our camera would never change, and what our northern camera would record, if the Earth were a globe (better to say : a Potato) and spun on it's axis, would be something very similar to what Mikeman's video animation shows.
Now, we have to put this question:
If the Earth rotated on it's axis, and if Earth-Sun dimensions-ratio and Earth-Sun distances-ratio were in accordance with HC theory, how far away from the North Pole we should have to go, in order to notice ZIGZAG phenomena, and stop to notice phenomena "NO 1" (about which i am talking in my argument NO 1)???
You will better understand the meaning of the question above after watching this video: "ZIGZAG demonstration" :
(http://)
This problem raises misunderstandings and questions like this:
@ Mikeman, according to you, people who live in Greenland can not see any apparent motion of the Sun across the sky? The Sun is immovable spot in the sky not only for the hypothetical observer who stands directly at the North Pole (which scenario nobody ever saw, and never will be able to see in the future), but, according to you, the Sun should be immovable spot in the sky even for people who live thousands of miles away from the North Pole, also???
This is the so called "small effect" problem that Alpha2Omega and Rottingroom have talked about.
They didn't even deny ZIGZAG phenomena, they just have pointed out that because of that "small effect" our observer in Arctic wouldn't be able to notice it.
Do you sense now, what all the wonders (wonderful flaws) HC pandora's box hides???
The point is this:
If the Earth rotates there is a parallax (the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky in two different directions) which is a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion, and even if we can not notice it at a very close distance from the North Pole, we should be able to measure it with advanced instruments. But at enough great distances from the North Pole we should be able to notice this parallax easily with naked eyes.
If the Earth is at rest, there is no such parallax (as a consequence of Earth's independent rotational motion), which means that there aren't two different directions of the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky because there aren't two directions of Earth's rotational daily motion. In another words, the Sun's apparent daily motion across the sky is one directional closed loop below which is placed our hypothetical observer within Arctic circle.
Should i be more clear?
(http://i.imgur.com/k2xdCw5.jpg)
If the Earth rotated on it's axis even in lower latitudes (in summer time (principally)) we could see Sun's ZIGING and ZAGING, that is to say, we would be able to watch as the Sun goes in oposite direction every day:
1. Before 6 AM
2. After 6 PM
What is it exactly that you don't understand here?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZgrymUp.jpg)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480)
ZIGZAG VIDEO : (http://)
-
Hello,
I became a flat earth believer 2 days ago and I've been so many research the past couple of days. I've been thinking about all day these past 2 days.
I don't know if anyone has discussed this thought before or not but I was thinking today that according to Nasa the earth is rotating at a speed of 1670 kilometers/hour ( 1037 miles/hr). I'm in New York so that means if I go up in an air ballon or helicopter for 1 hour and make sure the ballon or helicopter is not going to the left or right and is still in the air for 1 hour, I should be in St Louis in Missouri.
This test can be done and it's not going to cost a lots of money. I'm sure we can rent a private helicopter for $1000 or less and film it and proof it to everyone that earth is not rotating.
What are your thoughts?
This is a very common misconception. First of all, it's not according to NASA. The speed that a point on the equator is moving at is calculated by dividing the circumference of the Earth by the number of hours in a day. The circumference of the Earth has been known for centuries and it has been known for a fairly long time that there are 24 hours in a day.
The principle of relativity, which goes back to Galileo, states that there is no preferred frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, speed is a relative measurement. Any observer not accelerating can claim to be stationary in their own frame of reference. This is elementary physics. A person on the Earth is accelerating very slightly becasue they are moving in a circle. But, since the angular velocity of the Earth is so slow this acceleration is not noticeable. As has been pointed out, the atmosphere is moving with you so there is no reason to suppose you would have any sense of movement or that a ball thrown up in the air should fly off at 1000mph.
I've often heard flat Earth proponents say things like, "if the Earth was rapidly spinning we would feel it". Well, to get a feel for how rapidly the Earth is spinning stand and stare at the hour hand on a clock. The Earth is spinning round at half the angular velocity of that. It turns through 15° in an hour. That's painfully slow.
-
Hello,
I became a flat earth believer 2 days ago and I've been so many research the past couple of days. I've been thinking about all day these past 2 days.
I don't know if anyone has discussed this thought before or not but I was thinking today that according to Nasa the earth is rotating at a speed of 1670 kilometers/hour ( 1037 miles/hr). I'm in New York so that means if I go up in an air ballon or helicopter for 1 hour and make sure the ballon or helicopter is not going to the left or right and is still in the air for 1 hour, I should be in St Louis in Missouri.
This test can be done and it's not going to cost a lots of money. I'm sure we can rent a private helicopter for $1000 or less and film it and proof it to everyone that earth is not rotating.
What are your thoughts?
Of course, you are correct on this. I mean, you display the logical common sense that other human beings should display, yet somehow can't bring themselves to do, because it destroys their fantasy of what is told about the Earth and all it's happenings.
The reality is, no helicopter or even high flying balloon is needed to realise that the atmosphere does not spin with the Earth.
However, as you clearly see, there are always answers to this simple thing. The answers are ludicrous, as we know - but the thing is, the reliance on magic has to come to the fore-front with mainstream science, otherwise their model is killed, stone dead.
However: because we are outnumbered by scientists and the wider public - we have to find a more concrete solution to make people wake up.
It's difficult, because if they can't grasp this concept, they won't grasp any, it appears.
I can honestly say with a fairly sure mind, that if the science world told the population that real life stuffed teddy bears have been found living on mars and showed a video of them - most people would believe it, as long as there was an explanation as to how it appeared. All it needs is a bit of gobbledegook so called scientific explanations of their make up and - BINGO - they become real. Martian Teddyites.
You see, if a helicopter hovers, we are told that it's simply carried along with the rotation of the Earth because it was already going that speed.
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Of course, we know this doesn't happen and for good reason. It's because the Earth is stationary and flatish. It is not a rotating globe sat in a vacuum of space.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Depends on friction and whether the pick up truck is accelerating or not.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Depends on friction and whether the pick up truck is accelerating or not.
So you reckon a pick up truck doing 70 mph constant speed will not leave a person laid in the road after that person jumped up in the air from the back of it?
Let me know your findings when you try this. Or at least let someone else witness you do this, so they can come back and tell me, whilst you are either laid in hospital looking like a mummy or brown bread.
-
Let me know your findings when you try this. Or at least let someone else witness you do this, so they can come back and tell me, whilst you are either laid in hospital looking like a mummy or brown bread.
Why don't you get on a train and when it's moving at a constant speed try jumping up and down. Let us know if you fly down the train and smash into the door at the end of the carriage.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
-
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Exactly. When you are on the back of a truck; if you do fall off when you jump in the air it is because the air is moving relative to the truck. You are blow off. If it was due to the movement alone then you would fly around in an airplane when you jumped in the air.
Please, take a course in elementary physics.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
I said centre of gravity. That's the point that an object will rotate around. I wasn't implying that gravity itself had anything to do with it. Don't even attempt to patronise me you ignorant fool. Most of my objections to what you say you simply ignore, when you do reply it's to make a childish remark. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have no understanding of basic science. You have shown you have no grasp of the argument I was making.
If what I said was wrong then prove it. When people talk garbage on here, which is a lot, I take the time to explain why it's garbage. I try to remain as respectful and polite as is possible in the face of such absurdity as one encounters here.
You're a ridiculous obnoxious idiot. Either explain in detail why I am wrong or don't speak to me.
-
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Exactly. When you are on the back of a truck; if you do fall off when you jump in the air it is because the air is moving relative to the truck. You are blow off. If it was due to the movement alone then you would fly around in an airplane when you jumped in the air.
Please, take a course in elementary physics.
I don't need to take a course in anything. You need to take a course in common sense and logic and stop hanging onto silliness by using aeroplanes as your reason why people move with your Earth when off the ground, hovering.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
I said centre of gravity. That's the point that an object will rotate around. I wasn't implying that gravity itself had anything to do with it. Don't even attempt to patronise me you ignorant fool. Most of my objections to what you say you simply ignore, when you do reply it's to make a childish remark. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have no understanding of basic science. You have shown you have no grasp of the argument I was making.
If what I said was wrong then prove it. When people talk garbage on here, which is a lot, I take the time to explain why it's garbage. I try to remain as respectful and polite as is possible in the face of such absurdity as one encounters here.
You're a ridiculous obnoxious idiot. Either explain in detail why I am wrong or don't speak to me.
Come back to me when you decide to add some common sense and logic to that rotting brain of yours.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
I said centre of gravity. That's the point that an object will rotate around. I wasn't implying that gravity itself had anything to do with it. Don't even attempt to patronise me you ignorant fool. Most of my objections to what you say you simply ignore, when you do reply it's to make a childish remark. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have no understanding of basic science. You have shown you have no grasp of the argument I was making.
If what I said was wrong then prove it. When people talk garbage on here, which is a lot, I take the time to explain why it's garbage. I try to remain as respectful and polite as is possible in the face of such absurdity as one encounters here.
You're a ridiculous obnoxious idiot. Either explain in detail why I am wrong or don't speak to me.
Come back to me when you decide to add some common sense and logic to that rotting brain of yours.
He does have common sense, it's just that common sense is not so common that you have it. If something doesn't make sense to you then you immediately classify it as wrong, and if you have ever had any experience with computers then you would know that the obvious answer is often not the right answer.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
Same thing. It's pressurised.
-
He does have common sense, it's just that common sense is not so common that you have it. If something doesn't make sense to you then you immediately classify it as wrong, and if you have ever had any experience with computers then you would know that the obvious answer is often not the right answer.
I classify it wrong because it is wrong.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
Same thing. It's pressurised.
To what pressure?
-
He does have common sense, it's just that common sense is not so common that you have it. If something doesn't make sense to you then you immediately classify it as wrong, and if you have ever had any experience with computers then you would know that the obvious answer is often not the right answer.
I classify it wrong because it is wrong.
That would only possible if you were an all knowing entity like God. News flash: you don't know everything. Here is proof of that:
What did I have for breakfast this morning?
I am willing to bet that you have no idea, so therefore you don't know everything and you can't use "I classify it wrong because it is wrong." as an excuse to classify something as wrong. The more you know, the dumber you feel because you realize how little you really know compared to what there is to know, if you think you know everything then you know nothing.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
I said centre of gravity. That's the point that an object will rotate around. I wasn't implying that gravity itself had anything to do with it. Don't even attempt to patronise me you ignorant fool. Most of my objections to what you say you simply ignore, when you do reply it's to make a childish remark. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have no understanding of basic science. You have shown you have no grasp of the argument I was making.
If what I said was wrong then prove it. When people talk garbage on here, which is a lot, I take the time to explain why it's garbage. I try to remain as respectful and polite as is possible in the face of such absurdity as one encounters here.
You're a ridiculous obnoxious idiot. Either explain in detail why I am wrong or don't speak to me.
Come back to me when you decide to add some common sense and logic to that rotting brain of yours.
Come back to me when you have learned some elementary science. Come back to me when you can explain to me in an adult fashion why you disagree with me. Come back to me when you stop resorting to childish antagonism when you don't know how to respond.
You didn't even know what centre of gravity meant. You clearly have no grasp of the relevant issues and yet persist in having an opinion.
Rotting brain? Do you even have a brain you fucking idiot?
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
Same thing. It's pressurised.
You are seriously claiming that buses, and trains for that matter, are pressurised inside?
Im guessing that the open doors and windows somehow don't affect this pressurisation then?
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
Same thing. It's pressurised.
You are seriously claiming that buses, and trains for that matter, are pressurised inside?
Im guessing that the open doors and windows somehow don't affect this pressurisation then?
Of course they're pressurised inside.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
Same thing. It's pressurised.
You are seriously claiming that buses, and trains for that matter, are pressurised inside?
Im guessing that the open doors and windows somehow don't affect this pressurisation then?
Of course they're pressurised inside.
How, typical amount please.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
Same thing. It's pressurised.
You are seriously claiming that buses, and trains for that matter, are pressurised inside?
Im guessing that the open doors and windows somehow don't affect this pressurisation then?
Of course they're pressurised inside.
How, typical amount please.
A typical amount at rest is around 14.7 psi - same as outside on a calm day.
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
Same thing. It's pressurised.
You are seriously claiming that buses, and trains for that matter, are pressurised inside?
Im guessing that the open doors and windows somehow don't affect this pressurisation then?
Of course they're pressurised inside.
please explain why they have windows that can open.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2812/9092443781_1381312034_z.jpg)
(https://vinandsarah.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/20120805-004827.jpg)
-
Why do some people have an obsession with NASA?
If I jump up in the air do I land on the same spot?
yes you do, if you're doing it vertically from the ground. And thus proving a stationary Earth. Simple.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Try jumping up and down in an airplane. You land where you started, right? Same goes for the earth
You are in a sealed tin can in an aeroplane. It's pressurised.
Or a bus.
Same thing. It's pressurised.
You are seriously claiming that buses, and trains for that matter, are pressurised inside?
Im guessing that the open doors and windows somehow don't affect this pressurisation then?
Of course they're pressurised inside.
please explain why they have windows that can open.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2812/9092443781_1381312034_z.jpg)
(https://vinandsarah.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/20120805-004827.jpg)
To allow air to circulate.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
By simply being in atmospheric pressure. Or do you mean how do they maintain a constant pressure?
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
1. I sure hope so.
2. I sure hope so.
It would suck to be in a vacuum.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
I've left you stumped. This happens because you have no ability to think logically.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
Yep, he did.
High five on crushing him again!
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
1. I sure hope so.
2. I sure hope so.
It would suck to be in a vacuum.
Vacuums don't suck so forgive me if I don't pardon your attempted pun.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
I've left you stumped. This happens because you have no ability to think logically.
Citation needed, thank you. You are no one to simply state your opinion as a fact. If you are going to offend me, be prepared to receive retaliations.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
Yep, he did.
High five on crushing him again!
;D..this is desperate. Fell at the first hurdle. One day, try and use your brain. You do have one. It's not just for following pre-programs.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
Velocity is velocity at whatever constant speed.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
Velocity is velocity at whatever constant speed.
Your reply doesn't answer what he asked.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
I've left you stumped. This happens because you have no ability to think logically.
Citation needed, thank you. You are no one to simply state your opinion as a fact. If you are going to offend me, be prepared to receive retaliations.
If you can get offended on here then you shouldn't be on here. Learn to use your basic logic and you'll do fine. You pretend scientists are a laugh a minute.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
Velocity is velocity at whatever constant speed.
Your reply doesn't answer what he asked.
There isn't anything else to answer. The answer is simply what I put.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
Velocity is velocity at whatever constant speed.
What is velocity if you are not at a constant speed? Does velocity vanish? You should adjust the rules on your spam-bot, this construct is used far to often (Say(X is X); Say(bullshit)).
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Yes and yes. How you figure out how much pressure is in a bus is inside pressure minus outside pressure, and both pressures are the same so the bus is not a presurized environment. 14.7 psi is a measurement of standard air pressure relative to a vacuum. The reason why the equasion is what it is is because it outputs a force that is the net force that will be on the wall separating the two regions in question, which in this case are the inside of the bus and the outside of the bus. The bus may contain air pressure, but it's not pressurized.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
Yep, he did.
High five on crushing him again!
;D..this is desperate. Fell at the first hurdle. One day, try and use your brain. You do have one. It's not just for following pre-programs.
So is using semantics in a debate kiddo. Better luck next time.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
Velocity is velocity at whatever constant speed.
What is velocity if you are not at a constant speed? Does velocity vanish? You should adjust the rules on your spam-bot, this construct is used far to often (Say(X is X); Say(bullshit)).
Velocity is just distance covered in whatever direction. What are you trying to prove here?
What has this got to do with a pressurised bus?
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Yes and yes. How you figure out how much pressure is in a bus is inside pressure minus outside pressure, and both pressures are the same so the bus is not a presurized environment. 14.7 psi is a measurement of standard air pressure relative to a vacuum. The reason why the equasion is what it is is because it outputs a force that is the net force that will be on the wall separating the two regions in question, which in this case are the inside of the bus and the outside of the bus. The bus may contain air pressure, but it's not pressurized.
The bus is equally pressurised at rest. This is what I've been telling you. Inside and out are equalised. This is the only time it will be like this.
The bus is still pressurised in a pressurised environment.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Seriously, if Sceptimatic resorts to some sort of personal attack or that we use "common sense and logic" to the bus windows example, I rest my case and really believe that scepti lost again.
Yep, he did.
High five on crushing him again!
;D..this is desperate. Fell at the first hurdle. One day, try and use your brain. You do have one. It's not just for following pre-programs.
So is using semantics in a debate kiddo. Better luck next time.
I'd like to say nice effort but you've been extremely weak. Try again later. Take a back seat and let your pals have a go.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Yes and yes. How you figure out how much pressure is in a bus is inside pressure minus outside pressure, and both pressures are the same so the bus is not a presurized environment. 14.7 psi is a measurement of standard air pressure relative to a vacuum. The reason why the equasion is what it is is because it outputs a force that is the net force that will be on the wall separating the two regions in question, which in this case are the inside of the bus and the outside of the bus. The bus may contain air pressure, but it's not pressurized.
The bus is equally pressurised at rest. This is what I've been telling you. Inside and out are equalised. This is the only time it will be like this.
The bus is still pressurised in a pressurised environment.
Dictionary definition of presurized:
Brought to and maintained at an atmospheric pressure higher than that of the surroundings.
So no, a bus is not pressurized.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Yes and yes. How you figure out how much pressure is in a bus is inside pressure minus outside pressure, and both pressures are the same so the bus is not a presurized environment. 14.7 psi is a measurement of standard air pressure relative to a vacuum. The reason why the equasion is what it is is because it outputs a force that is the net force that will be on the wall separating the two regions in question, which in this case are the inside of the bus and the outside of the bus. The bus may contain air pressure, but it's not pressurized.
The bus is equally pressurised at rest. This is what I've been telling you. Inside and out are equalised. This is the only time it will be like this.
The bus is still pressurised in a pressurised environment.
Dictionary definition of presurized:
Brought to and maintained at an atmospheric pressure higher than that of the surroundings.
So no, a bus is not pressurized.
You must try and learn to read and absorb what I say. It will be helpful to you. I'll say this once more, so you don't have to keep running to the aid of dictionary help and such.
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Once in motion, this changes and the bus becomes your dictionary answer.
Read and understand this and we can move on.
-
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Make up your mind - is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You've just said it is both.
-
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Make up your mind - is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You've just said it is both.
And how does it maintain its pressurization with its windows open.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
Velocity is velocity at whatever constant speed.
You have confirmed my suspicions that you are scientifically illiterate. You do not comprehend the relevant issues. If you can't grasp the difference between velocity being either a relative or absolute measurement then you are not in a position to talk about this. That much is apparent from the muddled and contradictory statements you are making.
-
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Make up your mind - is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You've just said it is both.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
You simply had no idea what I was talking about here so you threw your toys out your pram. You should stop digging yourself deeper and deeper. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.
-
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Make up your mind - is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You've just said it is both.
And how does it maintain its pressurization with its windows open.
By the motion of it's body against the atmosphere it pushes against.
-
And how do they maintain a pressurized cabin if their windows are open?
I think that scepti thinks "pressurized" means that it contains air inside of it regardless of the relative pressure between the outside and the inside.
Here's two questions. Answer only yes or no to both.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment right now?
2. If you sit on a bus are you in a pressurised environment?
Oh, you're being semantic. The last great bastion of Flat Earthers. At least we know we won this debate now that you are playing word games.
Actually you've won nothing. If you think you have, then show me by stumping me on what I'm saying. I've only just started with the ultimate basics that people like you cannot comprehend because your head is rammed too far inbetween mainstream science's buttocks.
Answer a simple question. Do you believe that velocity is measured relative to the observer or is an absolute measurement?
Velocity is velocity at whatever constant speed.
You have confirmed my suspicions that you are scientifically illiterate. You do not comprehend the relevant issues. If you can't grasp the difference between velocity being either a relative or absolute measurement then you are not in a position to talk about this. That much is apparent from the muddled and contradictory statements you are making.
I'm in a perfect position to talk about anything I wish. I'm here doing it. Silly words from some dense clown does not change that. Go and make yourself a cup of tea and relax.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
You simply had no idea what I was talking about here so you threw your toys out your pram. You should stop digging yourself deeper and deeper. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.
It's fairly clear that you don't have a clue. Merely reading up on velocity does not mean you know what you're talking about. That's clear when I'm talking about a bus and pressure. What's your velocity got to do with it.
Explain or sit back and put your slippered feet up and watch a genius at work who will wipe the floor with your globalist friends.
-
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Make up your mind - is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You've just said it is both.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
I read your contradictory sentence, which is precisely why I asked you to clarify. When a bus is at rest is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You just said both, which doesn't make any sense.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
You simply had no idea what I was talking about here so you threw your toys out your pram. You should stop digging yourself deeper and deeper. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.
It's fairly clear that you don't have a clue. Merely reading up on velocity does not mean you know what you're talking about. That's clear when I'm talking about a bus and pressure. What's your velocity got to do with it.
Explain or sit back and put your slippered feet up and watch a genius at work who will wipe the floor with your globalist friends.
You say this as if it was some sort of weight. You are saying contradictory concepts about pressure and you think you are a genius? What a little flaw there to miss and leave the "genius" part behind.
-
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Make up your mind - is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You've just said it is both.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
I read your contradictory sentence, which is precisely why I asked you to clarify. When a bus is at rest is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You just said both, which doesn't make any sense.
Try reading it again. This is why you people never actually learn anything. This is why you people simply copy and paste all of your work.
Try using your own brain and logic to understand stuff instead of merely jumping in and acting like you don't have a brain at all. I know you do have one, so get it switched on or take a back seat in the bus.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
You simply had no idea what I was talking about here so you threw your toys out your pram. You should stop digging yourself deeper and deeper. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.
It's fairly clear that you don't have a clue. Merely reading up on velocity does not mean you know what you're talking about. That's clear when I'm talking about a bus and pressure. What's your velocity got to do with it.
Explain or sit back and put your slippered feet up and watch a genius at work who will wipe the floor with your globalist friends.
You say this as if it was some sort of weight. You are saying contradictory concepts about pressure and you think you are a genius? What a little flaw there to miss and leave the "genius" part behind.
There's nothing contradictory. Your failure to understand it or your deliberate attempt to swerve it is not my concern and by no means changes my stance.
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
-
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Make up your mind - is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You've just said it is both.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
I read your contradictory sentence, which is precisely why I asked you to clarify. When a bus is at rest is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You just said both, which doesn't make any sense.
Try reading it again.
Try answering, rather than avoiding the question. You should really grow some balls one day.
This is what you said:
"The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest."
It makes no sense. To be pressurised means to be at pressure greater than the environment around it. Yet your saying it is pressurised [band[/b] "EQUAL to the environment outside of it". This is contradictory - I'm just trying to get you to clarify what you actually mean.
-
Try reading it again. This is why you people never actually learn anything. This is why you people simply copy and paste all of your work.
Try using your own brain and logic to understand stuff instead of merely jumping in and acting like you don't have a brain at all. I know you do have one, so get it switched on or take a back seat in the bus.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
You must try and learn to read and absorb what I say. It will be helpful to you. I'll say this once more, so you don't have to keep running to the aid of dictionary help and such... ...Read and understand this and we can move on.
hmmmm
try to read. i've explained all of that. you're just too dense to see.
we know gps is not made by satellites, as satellites do not exist. we can then see that this is how they work. all pretty obvious stuff. i refer you to every post i have made in this thread.
nope. try reading. if you're going to respond, don't make shit up.
it's easy for old records to be faked (the government rewrites history, common knowledge, deal with it), and nasa only deal with some stars to maintain the illusion.
please try reading. i've never said every star is faked. some are just not visible when they should be, so nasa compensates.
stars exist: they are, like the sun and moon, spotlights, and fade with distance. i've no idea what you're trying to get at.
-
The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest.
Make up your mind - is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You've just said it is both.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
I read your contradictory sentence, which is precisely why I asked you to clarify. When a bus is at rest is it pressurized or is it equal to it's surroundings? You just said both, which doesn't make any sense.
Try reading it again.
Try answering, rather than avoiding the question. You should really grow some balls one day.
This is what you said:
"The bus is in a pressurised environment at rest - EQUAL to the environment outside of it - when it is at rest."
It makes no sense. To be pressurised means to be at pressure greater than the environment around it. Yet your saying it is pressurised [band[/b] "EQUAL to the environment outside of it". This is contradictory - I'm just trying to get you to clarify what you actually mean.
Answer these three questions with a yes or a no answer.
1. Are you in a pressurised environment?
2. If you are in a bus, are you in a pressurised environment?
3. Is that bus and yourself in a pressurised environment at rest that is equal to the environment outside of that bus, at rest?
Yes or no.
If no, then explain yourself.
If yes to all, then get your nut around it and stop being so dense.
-
Try reading it again. This is why you people never actually learn anything. This is why you people simply copy and paste all of your work.
Try using your own brain and logic to understand stuff instead of merely jumping in and acting like you don't have a brain at all. I know you do have one, so get it switched on or take a back seat in the bus.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
You must try and learn to read and absorb what I say. It will be helpful to you. I'll say this once more, so you don't have to keep running to the aid of dictionary help and such... ...Read and understand this and we can move on.
hmmmm
try to read. i've explained all of that. you're just too dense to see.
we know gps is not made by satellites, as satellites do not exist. we can then see that this is how they work. all pretty obvious stuff. i refer you to every post i have made in this thread.
nope. try reading. if you're going to respond, don't make shit up.
it's easy for old records to be faked (the government rewrites history, common knowledge, deal with it), and nasa only deal with some stars to maintain the illusion.
please try reading. i've never said every star is faked. some are just not visible when they should be, so nasa compensates.
stars exist: they are, like the sun and moon, spotlights, and fade with distance. i've no idea what you're trying to get at.
So...what job are you looking for now - now that you failed your detective training. ;D
-
Try reading it again. This is why you people never actually learn anything. This is why you people simply copy and paste all of your work.
Try using your own brain and logic to understand stuff instead of merely jumping in and acting like you don't have a brain at all. I know you do have one, so get it switched on or take a back seat in the bus.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
You must try and learn to read and absorb what I say. It will be helpful to you. I'll say this once more, so you don't have to keep running to the aid of dictionary help and such... ...Read and understand this and we can move on.
hmmmm
try to read. i've explained all of that. you're just too dense to see.
we know gps is not made by satellites, as satellites do not exist. we can then see that this is how they work. all pretty obvious stuff. i refer you to every post i have made in this thread.
nope. try reading. if you're going to respond, don't make shit up.
it's easy for old records to be faked (the government rewrites history, common knowledge, deal with it), and nasa only deal with some stars to maintain the illusion.
please try reading. i've never said every star is faked. some are just not visible when they should be, so nasa compensates.
stars exist: they are, like the sun and moon, spotlights, and fade with distance. i've no idea what you're trying to get at.
So...what job are you looking for now - now that you failed your detective training. ;D
Nah, just interesting that both of you only in the last 24 hours (well less than really) started opening every response with a variation of the same phrase, please try reading.
If you are going to alt hop at least try and be original when you post as them.
-
Try reading it again. This is why you people never actually learn anything. This is why you people simply copy and paste all of your work.
Try using your own brain and logic to understand stuff instead of merely jumping in and acting like you don't have a brain at all. I know you do have one, so get it switched on or take a back seat in the bus.
Learn to read and absorb it. It's a common trait among you people to do neither.
You must try and learn to read and absorb what I say. It will be helpful to you. I'll say this once more, so you don't have to keep running to the aid of dictionary help and such... ...Read and understand this and we can move on.
hmmmm
try to read. i've explained all of that. you're just too dense to see.
we know gps is not made by satellites, as satellites do not exist. we can then see that this is how they work. all pretty obvious stuff. i refer you to every post i have made in this thread.
nope. try reading. if you're going to respond, don't make shit up.
it's easy for old records to be faked (the government rewrites history, common knowledge, deal with it), and nasa only deal with some stars to maintain the illusion.
please try reading. i've never said every star is faked. some are just not visible when they should be, so nasa compensates.
stars exist: they are, like the sun and moon, spotlights, and fade with distance. i've no idea what you're trying to get at.
So...what job are you looking for now - now that you failed your detective training. ;D
Nah, just interesting that both of you only in the last 24 hours (well less than really) started opening every response with a variation of the same phrase, please try reading.
If you are going to alt hop at least try and be original when you post as them.
So...what job are you looking for now?
Lemmiwinks: a failed 1st year student detective.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: Crispex stay cripsy in milk and The Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones.
Fixed
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: Crispex are awful and The Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles.
Fixed
Fixed
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: Crispex are awful and The Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles.
Fixed
Fixed
touche
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
But you're an idiot scepti, this statement doesn't make any sense at all.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
But you're an idiot scepti, this statement doesn't make any sense at all.
I don't expect anything would make sense to you unless it's from your masters. Keep consulting your hand me down notes given to you on a plate by pretend scientists.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
But you're an idiot scepti, this statement doesn't make any sense at all.
I don't expect anything would make sense to you unless it's from your masters. Keep consulting your hand me down notes given to you on a plate by pretend scientists.
If by hand me down notes you mean trigonometry, geometry and physics then okie dokie.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
I am willing to bet $100 that I am better at math then you and know more about RET then you. No kidding.
-
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Now try and jump up in the air on the back of a speeding pick up truck and tell me where you land and where that pick up truck is when you land.
One place you won't be is on the back of it when you do land.
Oh boy. As I've said before, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. However, I shall I take you at your word.
Your arguments all assume that there is an absolute rest frame of reference. Or, to put it another way, that there is a speed which can be defined as absolute zero. There is no known physical way of defining such a thing. Any non accelerating observer can claim to be at rest in their own frame of reference. When an airplane takes off its speed is measured relative to the airport it took off from, regardless of what direction it's travelling in. Its speed relative to the centre of gravity of the entire Earth doesn't mean a thing. You seem to think that the centre of gravity of the entire Earth is at absolute rest and that all moving objects will eventually slow down of their own volition until they are at absolute rest as well. People thought that in the dark ages.
You should have saved yourself the bother typing this garbage. And don't assume I'm thinking anything about gravity, when if you took notice, you'd know I don't believe in it.
Now address what I said in a basic way without using stupidity and we can deal with it. If not, then take a back seat.
You simply had no idea what I was talking about here so you threw your toys out your pram. You should stop digging yourself deeper and deeper. Seriously, you are making a total fool of yourself.
It's fairly clear that you don't have a clue. Merely reading up on velocity does not mean you know what you're talking about. That's clear when I'm talking about a bus and pressure. What's your velocity got to do with it.
Explain or sit back and put your slippered feet up and watch a genius at work who will wipe the floor with your globalist friends.
I flatter myself that I have done more than "read up" on velocity, I have a degree in physics. Pressure has nothing to do with it. You don't understand the simple concept that velocity can only ever be measured relative to another non accelerating observer. Acceleration on the other hand is an absolute measurement. In other words, it doesn't depend on the motion of the observer. This is why when you are in a train moving at a constant speed you feel stationary. However, if the train speeds up or slows down you can feel it. An airport on Earth is almost in a non accelerating reference frame, it is accelerating slightly due to the Earth's slow rotation. When a plane takes off it is moving away from the airport. Just as if you were on a train and took a walk you would be moving away from your seat. In the reference frame of the train you would measure the speed you were walking at relative to your seat, or the whole train. You wouldn't measure how fast you are walking relative to the Earth. It wouldn't matter if you walk up or down the train.
If you don't understand this, you pretend not to or you make a childish remark feel free to stick your head up your ass. I suspect it may already be there.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
I am willing to bet $100 that I am better at math then you and know more about RET then you. No kidding.
I'm willing to bet 1k that you are in your infancy compared to me on all matters like this.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
I am willing to bet $100 that I am better at math then you and know more about RET then you. No kidding.
I'm willing to bet 1k that you are in your infancy compared to me on all matters like this.
Scepti, you've have difficulty with basic arithmetic that any child could easily understand. You have no claim to be any smarter than...well, anyone.
-
I flatter myself that I have done more than "read up" on velocity, I have a degree in physics. Pressure has nothing to do with it.
Pressure has everything to do with it. You can't have velocity without having pressure.
You don't understand the simple concept that velocity can only ever be measured relative to another non accelerating observer.
I'm talking about being inside a bus or a plane, not being in your apsce looking in or outside of your plane/bus looking into it. Understand this before you start tripping up over your own shoe laces.
Acceleration on the other hand is an absolute measurement. In other words, it doesn't depend on the motion of the observer.
Same thing, it's still pressure, only this pressure is never constant, as long as acceleration is evident.
This is why when you are in a train moving at a constant speed you feel stationary.
You may feel stationary inside of it but you are still under pressure, which is what we are dealing with.
However, if the train speeds up or slows down you can feel it.
Yes you can feel it because the train becomes more pressurised due to more acceleration and that pressurisation will only become constant, once the train stops accelerating.
An airport on Earth is almost in a non accelerating reference frame, it is accelerating slightly due to the Earth's slow rotation.
It's not accelerating at all. It's as still as the ground you walk on now, as long as their are no bombs going off in your vicinity or Earthquakes, etc. Nothing is rotating like you believe.
When a plane takes off it is moving away from the airport. Just as if you were on a train and took a walk you would be moving away from your seat.
It's moving away from your sight. That's not what we are dealing with. You've took this road for whatever reason. Maybe because you don't understand reality.
In the reference frame of the train you would measure the speed you were walking at relative to your seat, or the whole train. You wouldn't measure how fast you are walking relative to the Earth. It wouldn't matter if you walk up or down the train.
If the train is in constant motion then your body goes with that in that pressure.
If you don't understand this, you pretend not to or you make a childish remark feel free to stick your head up your ass. I suspect it may already be there.
I understand perfectly what I'm talking about. It's you that is twisting things to suit whatever needs you want it to suit, which has nothing to do with what I'm trying to educate you with.
Calm down and stop appearing vulnerable.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
I am willing to bet $100 that I am better at math then you and know more about RET then you. No kidding.
I'm willing to bet 1k that you are in your infancy compared to me on all matters like this.
Scepti, you've have difficulty with basic arithmetic that any child could easily understand. You have no claim to be any smarter than...well, anyone.
Do you have anything to say or is this the best you can come up with?
Oh - hands out. Here's your rattle back - try not to throw it out in a tantrum.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
I am willing to bet $100 that I am better at math then you and know more about RET then you. No kidding.
I'm willing to bet 1k that you are in your infancy compared to me on all matters like this.
Scepti, you've have difficulty with basic arithmetic that any child could easily understand. You have no claim to be any smarter than...well, anyone.
Do you have anything to say or is this the best you can come up with?
Oh - hands out. Here's your rattle back - try not to throw it out in a tantrum.
Scepti, you repeatedly have shown to not understand the basic formulas that millions, and I mean millions, of people use everyday in tangible, measurable ways, including velocity, acceleration, pressure, etc.
They teach these things to children. Yet you either ignore them completely, or use them so incorrectly as to be comical.
So no, I will bet you the entire GDP of America that any member of this website knows more about math than you, including mikeman.
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
I am willing to bet $100 that I am better at math then you and know more about RET then you. No kidding.
I'm willing to bet 1k that you are in your infancy compared to me on all matters like this.
Scepti, you've have difficulty with basic arithmetic that any child could easily understand. You have no claim to be any smarter than...well, anyone.
Do you have anything to say or is this the best you can come up with?
Oh - hands out. Here's your rattle back - try not to throw it out in a tantrum.
Scepti, you repeatedly have shown to not understand the basic formulas that millions, and I mean millions, of people use everyday in tangible, measurable ways, including velocity, acceleration, pressure, etc.
They teach these things to children. Yet you either ignore them completely, or use them so incorrectly as to be comical.
So no, I will bet you the entire GDP of America that any member of this website knows more about math than you, including mikeman.
I take it that you are a child. Am I right?
-
Try harder when dealing with a person of my superb genius logic.
The smarter you are the dumber you feel because you realize how much you don't know, scepti seems to think that he's the smartest man who ever lived which should say something about how smart he actually is. I have seen scepti claim that the reason he believes what he does is because it's right, but the fact is that the only reason anyone believes anything is because they think it's right, that's what the word "believe" means regardless of weather it's right or not. I would be willing to bet my life on the truthfulness of my beliefs like that the Earth is round and that the Mormon religion is true, but these things are debatable and I am sure that scepti is equity as confident that he is right about FET. Confidence can not be considered evidence.
The only things' I'm absolutely correct about, 100% are: the Earth is not a globe and gravity is a lie.
And I am 100% sure that the Earth is round and that gravity is real, so clearly your certainly is not proof that you are right sense I am just as certain that you are wrong.
Yes but you don't count when you're up against me. You're not as smart and never will be. I can't even help you out. You are just too naive and gullible.
When you grow up again - "maybe" (and I say that more in jest than hope) something will hit home and make you realise just how naive you are. The only person that can help you is yourself - or someone at the top comes clean and spills the beans about the lies you've hung onto all your lives.
I am willing to bet $100 that I am better at math then you and know more about RET then you. No kidding.
I'm willing to bet 1k that you are in your infancy compared to me on all matters like this.
Scepti, you've have difficulty with basic arithmetic that any child could easily understand. You have no claim to be any smarter than...well, anyone.
Do you have anything to say or is this the best you can come up with?
Oh - hands out. Here's your rattle back - try not to throw it out in a tantrum.
Scepti, you repeatedly have shown to not understand the basic formulas that millions, and I mean millions, of people use everyday in tangible, measurable ways, including velocity, acceleration, pressure, etc.
They teach these things to children. Yet you either ignore them completely, or use them so incorrectly as to be comical.
So no, I will bet you the entire GDP of America that any member of this website knows more about math than you, including mikeman.
I take it that you are a child. Am I right?
I learned math when I was a child, yes.
Let me take a wild guess. You were homeschooled?
-
I flatter myself that I have done more than "read up" on velocity, I have a degree in physics. Pressure has nothing to do with it.
Pressure has everything to do with it. You can't have velocity without having pressure.
You don't understand the simple concept that velocity can only ever be measured relative to another non accelerating observer.
I'm talking about being inside a bus or a plane, not being in your apsce looking in or outside of your plane/bus looking into it. Understand this before you start tripping up over your own shoe laces.
Acceleration on the other hand is an absolute measurement. In other words, it doesn't depend on the motion of the observer.
Same thing, it's still pressure, only this pressure is never constant, as long as acceleration is evident.
This is why when you are in a train moving at a constant speed you feel stationary.
You may feel stationary inside of it but you are still under pressure, which is what we are dealing with.
However, if the train speeds up or slows down you can feel it.
Yes you can feel it because the train becomes more pressurised due to more acceleration and that pressurisation will only become constant, once the train stops accelerating.
An airport on Earth is almost in a non accelerating reference frame, it is accelerating slightly due to the Earth's slow rotation.
It's not accelerating at all. It's as still as the ground you walk on now, as long as their are no bombs going off in your vicinity or Earthquakes, etc. Nothing is rotating like you believe.
When a plane takes off it is moving away from the airport. Just as if you were on a train and took a walk you would be moving away from your seat.
It's moving away from your sight. That's not what we are dealing with. You've took this road for whatever reason. Maybe because you don't understand reality.
In the reference frame of the train you would measure the speed you were walking at relative to your seat, or the whole train. You wouldn't measure how fast you are walking relative to the Earth. It wouldn't matter if you walk up or down the train.
If the train is in constant motion then your body goes with that in that pressure.
If you don't understand this, you pretend not to or you make a childish remark feel free to stick your head up your ass. I suspect it may already be there.
I understand perfectly what I'm talking about. It's you that is twisting things to suit whatever needs you want it to suit, which has nothing to do with what I'm trying to educate you with.
Calm down and stop appearing vulnerable.
Either you genuinely believe the shit you are talking or you come here just to act like an idiot for fun. Either way you really are a fucking idiot. I wash my hands of you. I'm not dignifying the incoherent garbage you just spouted with a response. Are you genuinely proud of what you do in this place? I'm not responding to you in the future. You are one seriously fucked up individual.
-
I flatter myself that I have done more than "read up" on velocity, I have a degree in physics. Pressure has nothing to do with it.
Pressure has everything to do with it. You can't have velocity without having pressure.
You don't understand the simple concept that velocity can only ever be measured relative to another non accelerating observer.
I'm talking about being inside a bus or a plane, not being in your apsce looking in or outside of your plane/bus looking into it. Understand this before you start tripping up over your own shoe laces.
Acceleration on the other hand is an absolute measurement. In other words, it doesn't depend on the motion of the observer.
Same thing, it's still pressure, only this pressure is never constant, as long as acceleration is evident.
This is why when you are in a train moving at a constant speed you feel stationary.
You may feel stationary inside of it but you are still under pressure, which is what we are dealing with.
However, if the train speeds up or slows down you can feel it.
Yes you can feel it because the train becomes more pressurised due to more acceleration and that pressurisation will only become constant, once the train stops accelerating.
An airport on Earth is almost in a non accelerating reference frame, it is accelerating slightly due to the Earth's slow rotation.
It's not accelerating at all. It's as still as the ground you walk on now, as long as their are no bombs going off in your vicinity or Earthquakes, etc. Nothing is rotating like you believe.
When a plane takes off it is moving away from the airport. Just as if you were on a train and took a walk you would be moving away from your seat.
It's moving away from your sight. That's not what we are dealing with. You've took this road for whatever reason. Maybe because you don't understand reality.
In the reference frame of the train you would measure the speed you were walking at relative to your seat, or the whole train. You wouldn't measure how fast you are walking relative to the Earth. It wouldn't matter if you walk up or down the train.
If the train is in constant motion then your body goes with that in that pressure.
If you don't understand this, you pretend not to or you make a childish remark feel free to stick your head up your ass. I suspect it may already be there.
I understand perfectly what I'm talking about. It's you that is twisting things to suit whatever needs you want it to suit, which has nothing to do with what I'm trying to educate you with.
Calm down and stop appearing vulnerable.
Either you genuinely believe the shit you are talking or you come here just to act like an idiot for fun. Either way you really are a fucking idiot. I wash my hands of you. I'm not dignifying the incoherent garbage you just spouted with a response. Are you genuinely proud of what you do in this place? I'm not responding to you in the future. You are one seriously fucked up individual.
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now. ;)
-
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now. ;)
I think this is definitive evidence that sceptimatic is a sociopath. What a dick. Sure makes him look really weak when falling back into emotional attacks. Maybe one day he'll realize how much of a failure all of his attempts at proving a baseless delusion was.
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
-
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now. ;)
I think this is definitive evidence that sceptimatic is a sociopath. What a dick. Sure makes him look really weak when falling back into emotional attacks. Maybe one day he'll realize how much of a failure all of his attempts at proving a baseless delusion was.
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
It astounds me he still believes he is on higher ground because of his arrogance. A genuine genius doesn't need to spout everyone that he is indeed a genious.
-
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now. ;)
I think this is definitive evidence that sceptimatic is a sociopath. What a dick. Sure makes him look really weak when falling back into emotional attacks. Maybe one day he'll realize how much of a failure all of his attempts at proving a baseless delusion was.
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
It astounds me he still believes he is on higher ground because of his arrogance. A genuine genius doesn't need to spout everyone that he is indeed a genious.
Well, let's be fair. I'm not dealing with intelligent people in the main. Some of you have a little bit of intelligence. Some of you can sometimes think of a few words that are actually from your own heads. Most of what you people type is simply google perusing - copy and paste. It gets tedious.
My genius deserves much better. I try to deal with those who have a thinking brain. You and your friends are being lapped in that department by those that can think.
-
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now. ;)
I think this is definitive evidence that sceptimatic is a sociopath. What a dick. Sure makes him look really weak when falling back into emotional attacks. Maybe one day he'll realize how much of a failure all of his attempts at proving a baseless delusion was.
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
It astounds me he still believes he is on higher ground because of his arrogance. A genuine genius doesn't need to spout everyone that he is indeed a genious.
Well, let's be fair. I'm not dealing with intelligent people in the main. Some of you have a little bit of intelligence. Some of you can sometimes think of a few words that are actually from your own heads. Most of what you people type is simply google perusing - copy and paste. It gets tedious.
My genius deserves much better. I try to deal with those who have a thinking brain. You and your friends are being lapped in that department by those that can think.
Lol!
Sorry mods, I will get back on topic...
LOL!
-
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now. ;)
I think this is definitive evidence that sceptimatic is a sociopath. What a dick. Sure makes him look really weak when falling back into emotional attacks. Maybe one day he'll realize how much of a failure all of his attempts at proving a baseless delusion was.
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
It astounds me he still believes he is on higher ground because of his arrogance. A genuine genius doesn't need to spout everyone that he is indeed a genious.
Well, let's be fair. I'm not dealing with intelligent people in the main. Some of you have a little bit of intelligence. Some of you can sometimes think of a few words that are actually from your own heads. Most of what you people type is simply google perusing - copy and paste. It gets tedious.
My genius deserves much better. I try to deal with those who have a thinking brain. You and your friends are being lapped in that department by those that can think.
If someone didn't know you at all, and just read this statement, they would have figured that you are institutionalized.
After you die, you will be forgotten. All of your "work" will be disregarded. You will never be mentioned ever again. Someone may think of you, but then only chuckle at the magnitude of your delusion. If you open so much as a pinhole into the thick walls that you rationalize around your mind, you might actually learn something.
You know, inside, that we won.
We too can play your silly little games.
-
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now. ;)
I think this is definitive evidence that sceptimatic is a sociopath. What a dick. Sure makes him look really weak when falling back into emotional attacks. Maybe one day he'll realize how much of a failure all of his attempts at proving a baseless delusion was.
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
It astounds me he still believes he is on higher ground because of his arrogance. A genuine genius doesn't need to spout everyone that he is indeed a genious.
Well, let's be fair. I'm not dealing with intelligent people in the main. Some of you have a little bit of intelligence. Some of you can sometimes think of a few words that are actually from your own heads. Most of what you people type is simply google perusing - copy and paste. It gets tedious.
My genius deserves much better. I try to deal with those who have a thinking brain. You and your friends are being lapped in that department by those that can think.
If someone didn't know you at all, and just read this statement, they would have figured that you are institutionalized.
After you die, you will be forgotten. All of your "work" will be disregarded. You will never be mentioned ever again. Someone may think of you, but then only chuckle at the magnitude of your delusion. If you open so much as a pinhole into the thick walls that you rationalize around your mind, you might actually learn something.
You know, inside, that we won.
We too can play your silly little games.
I don't know why the Doctors who look after him let him loose on the internet. Maybe they think it will help him to work through his delusions.
-
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
It's ciao, not chau. Idiot. ;)
-
Good for you. I'm far too strong for the likes of you. You tried, I'll give you that. Don't respond to this, even though you will feel you have to. Try and stick to your principles. Never deal with people who you think are idiots because you will believe they will only drag you down to their level.
If you respond to this it means I control you. Don't show your weakness any further.
Nice chatting with you. In future try and learn stuff and maybe we can debate. Chow for now. ;)
I think this is definitive evidence that sceptimatic is a sociopath. What a dick. Sure makes him look really weak when falling back into emotional attacks. Maybe one day he'll realize how much of a failure all of his attempts at proving a baseless delusion was.
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
It astounds me he still believes he is on higher ground because of his arrogance. A genuine genius doesn't need to spout everyone that he is indeed a genious.
Well, let's be fair. I'm not dealing with intelligent people in the main. Some of you have a little bit of intelligence. Some of you can sometimes think of a few words that are actually from your own heads. Most of what you people type is simply google perusing - copy and paste. It gets tedious.
My genius deserves much better. I try to deal with those who have a thinking brain. You and your friends are being lapped in that department by those that can think.
Genius?
Don't make me laugh. You're a halfwit who barely understands basic science and engineering.
You've dodged questions on basic matter and pressure, or just plain got them wrong. Not once have you demonstrated any evidential understanding of anything of note.
-
And it's chau, not chow. Idiot. ;)
It's ciao, not chau. Idiot. ;)
Depends on where you're from though. Either way it isn't chow.
-
I'll talk to you people a bit later. Chow for now and don't expend too much of your time figuring out what it means. ;D
The earth does not rotate. It is stationary. Try and understand this and a whole new world will open up for you.
-
I'll talk to you people a bit later. Chow for now and don't expend too much of your time figuring out what it means. ;D
The earth does not rotate. It is stationary. Try and understand this and a whole new world will open up for you.
(http://)
-
The earth does not rotate. It is stationary.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
I mean, I'd also like an explanation for hurricanes, geostrophic flow... but we can start small.
-
I'll talk to you people a bit later. Chow for now and don't expend too much of your time figuring out what it means. ;D
The earth does not rotate. It is stationary. Try and understand this and a whole new world will open up for you.
Would that be the world of scientific illiteracy and failure......?
-
I'll talk to you people a bit later. Chow for now and don't expend too much of your time figuring out what it means. ;D
The earth does not rotate. It is stationary. Try and understand this and a whole new world will open up for you.
This point of view only holds if you don't want to actually do anything. If, however, someone is expected to produce some sort of prediction about the world, say weather forecasting, then you bet it rotates. There is no measurable effect on a mug of beer is it is raised from the bar top to ones lips.
-
I'll talk to you people a bit later. Chow for now and don't expend too much of your time figuring out what it means.
It always amuses me whenever sceptimatic makes a grammatical blunder (as he often does) and then tries desperately to cover it up by making out it's us who've misinterpreted what he said.
"Chow for now"? LOL. How about "Ciao for now" Chow is food sceptimatic. Duh. Ciao is Italian for goodbye.
The earth does not rotate. It is stationary. Try and understand this and a whole new world will open up for you.
I always love these little pearls of wisdom, and paternalistic advice; "try and understand". What a pity sceptimatic doesn't more often follow the advice he so freely offers to others on every one of these forums.
It's difficult to imagine that a guy who possesses thirteen academic qualifications, authored a dozen books, and holds numerous patents can be so ignorant of the basics of geophysics and astrophysics. Not that we'll ever know what those alleged qualifications are, or the titles of any of the books, or what devices he's invented.
Why? Because they all exist only in his fertile imagination. And he's been unable to prove me wrong repeatedly LOL.
-
You are the latter, Scepti:
True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
You're so full of projection it is all rather sad to watch (though still very entertaining). You project your own failings at understanding science and the world around you onto others and make them out to be the idiots.
Your own shortcomings are obviously far too painful to admit to, thus your ridiculous assertions about being a genius who understands everything once you 'thought about it'.
Anyway, hopefully you'll admit your numerous erroneous assertions in this thread and bow out graciously (something I've only seen you do once before, despite it being a necessity with nearly every single post you make).
-
You are the latter, Scepti:
True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
You're so full of projection it is all rather sad to watch (though still very entertaining). You project your own failings at understanding science and the world around you onto others and make them out to be the idiots.
Your own shortcomings are obviously far too painful to admit to, thus your ridiculous assertions about being a genius who understands everything once you 'thought about it'.
Anyway, hopefully you'll admit your numerous erroneous assertions in this thread and bow out graciously (something I've only seen you do once before, despite it being a necessity with nearly every single post you make).
You're entitled to waffle on as you wish. What you say does not change my thoughts in any way. As long as you always remember this, then everything is fine.
I don't know everything. I don't profess to know everything. My arguments are not about me knowing I'm correct on all I say about my theories. My arguments are about knowing for sure that the theories that you abide by are erronous at best and downright blatant lies at worst.
Anything from this point on is about figuring out the truth from the errors and the blatant lies. Not an easy thing to do but that's the game.
-
You are the latter, Scepti:
True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
You're so full of projection it is all rather sad to watch (though still very entertaining). You project your own failings at understanding science and the world around you onto others and make them out to be the idiots.
Your own shortcomings are obviously far too painful to admit to, thus your ridiculous assertions about being a genius who understands everything once you 'thought about it'.
Anyway, hopefully you'll admit your numerous erroneous assertions in this thread and bow out graciously (something I've only seen you do once before, despite it being a necessity with nearly every single post you make).
You're entitled to waffle on as you wish. What you say does not change my thoughts in any way. As long as you always remember this, then everything is fine.
I don't know everything. I don't profess to know everything. My arguments are nopt about me knowing I'm correct on all I say about my theories. My arguments are about knowing for sure that the theories that you abide by are erronous at best and downright blatant lies at worst.
Anything from this point on is about figuring out the truth from the errors and the blatant lies. Not an easy thing to do but that's the game.
Why as an ultimate genius now say this? Weren't you 100% sure everything is a lie? Now you are doubting your own arguments? Why the sudden shift of proving us wrong but never proving your own stuff right? Shouldn't you as a super-minded genius find simple ways to prove their theories right? In one thread you profess to know for certain what you say, then here you profess to not knowing everything.
-
You are the latter, Scepti:
True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
You're so full of projection it is all rather sad to watch (though still very entertaining). You project your own failings at understanding science and the world around you onto others and make them out to be the idiots.
Your own shortcomings are obviously far too painful to admit to, thus your ridiculous assertions about being a genius who understands everything once you 'thought about it'.
Anyway, hopefully you'll admit your numerous erroneous assertions in this thread and bow out graciously (something I've only seen you do once before, despite it being a necessity with nearly every single post you make).
You're entitled to waffle on as you wish. What you say does not change my thoughts in any way. As long as you always remember this, then everything is fine.
I don't know everything. I don't profess to know everything. My arguments are nopt about me knowing I'm correct on all I say about my theories. My arguments are about knowing for sure that the theories that you abide by are erronous at best and downright blatant lies at worst.
Anything from this point on is about figuring out the truth from the errors and the blatant lies. Not an easy thing to do but that's the game.
Why as an ultimate genius now say this? Weren't you 100% sure everything is a lie? Now you are doubting your own arguments? Why the sudden shift of proving us wrong but never proving your own stuff right? Shouldn't you as a super-minded genius find simple ways to prove their theories right? In one thread you profess to know for certain what you say, then here you profess to not knowing everything.
Nobody knows everything, stop being silly. Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.
I've proved you people wrong as have many others. It matters not that you kick and scream and say we haven't.
Also, I never ever said everything is a lie. I said I believe nothing and question everything and there are a lot of lies out there.
-
You are the latter, Scepti:
True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
You're so full of projection it is all rather sad to watch (though still very entertaining). You project your own failings at understanding science and the world around you onto others and make them out to be the idiots.
Your own shortcomings are obviously far too painful to admit to, thus your ridiculous assertions about being a genius who understands everything once you 'thought about it'.
Anyway, hopefully you'll admit your numerous erroneous assertions in this thread and bow out graciously (something I've only seen you do once before, despite it being a necessity with nearly every single post you make).
You're entitled to waffle on as you wish. What you say does not change my thoughts in any way. As long as you always remember this, then everything is fine.
I don't know everything. I don't profess to know everything. My arguments are nopt about me knowing I'm correct on all I say about my theories. My arguments are about knowing for sure that the theories that you abide by are erronous at best and downright blatant lies at worst.
Anything from this point on is about figuring out the truth from the errors and the blatant lies. Not an easy thing to do but that's the game.
Why as an ultimate genius now say this? Weren't you 100% sure everything is a lie? Now you are doubting your own arguments? Why the sudden shift of proving us wrong but never proving your own stuff right? Shouldn't you as a super-minded genius find simple ways to prove their theories right? In one thread you profess to know for certain what you say, then here you profess to not knowing everything.
Nobody knows everything, stop being silly. Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.
I've proved you people wrong as have many others. It matters not that you kick and scream and say we haven't.
Also, I never ever said everything is a lie. I said I believe nothing and question everything and there are a lot of lies out there.
Please, I'd love to see one post where you proved one aspect of REF wrong.
-
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.
This is now my signature.
-
I don't know everything. I don't profess to know everything. My arguments are not about me knowing I'm correct on all I say about my theories. My arguments are about knowing for sure that the theories that you abide by are erronous at best and downright blatant lies at worst.
Oh, thank goodness! Does that mean we can dismiss denpressure and your ice dome theory as the fantasy-derived excrement that it really is? Phew, really glad to hear it, because I don't think anyone could really take another +50 page thread where all your assertions and pseudoscientific drivel are proven wrong again but you being either too stupid to see it or too proud to admit it.
Now that all your absurd 'theories' are done given now that you profess to not knowing they're correct, can you please now just to stick to attempting to debunk real scientific theories? By extension, that should cut out of all your lectures about 'thinking for yourself' and 'use your own logic/common sense' which should mean your posts from now on will be significantly shorter (or perhaps even absent altogether).
I think a round of applause for scepti is in order! Wooohooooo ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't know everything. I don't profess to know everything. My arguments are not about me knowing I'm correct on all I say about my theories. My arguments are about knowing for sure that the theories that you abide by are erroneous at best and downright blatant lies at worst.
So sceptimatic now admits he "doesn't know everything"? Conversely, that of course means there's things he doesn't know—like quite possibly that the earth is an oblate spheroid? He also may not know about the scientific principles of gravity, velocity, mass, weight, pressure, and force. Or even a lot of other things related to geophysics and astrophysics?
But... at the same time he's claimed to be a "scientific researcher" and a "genius". How then can it be possibly be that—by his own admission—he's unaware of many things? Wouldn't a true genius have all the options covered? And remember that the term genius is used to define a person with an IQ of at least 160, and upwards to 200 using the most common WAIS-IV (2008) measurement. And sceptimatic has never confirmed by which scale his IQ has been verified (maybe he's just guessing, or... lying).
So, having said all that, and effectively demolishing half of sceptimatic's absurd claims, he now also admits that his arguments are based entirely on "knowing for sure" that the spherical earth model is bogus, and that round earthers are blatant liars!
No evidence of his own that the earth is purportedly not rotating—just a "knowledge" that all our theories that it is are wrong!
—Wow! sceptimatic. Great argument. Well done. ;D
-
Don't let 'Foucault pendulum' fool you! A solar eclipse seems to effect the pendulum, and that has nothing to do with a rotation of the earth. Rounder bellies love to claim fp is absolute proof! really?
-
A solar eclipse seems to effect the pendulum, and that has nothing to do with a rotation of the earth.
No it doesn't. Citation needed. Personal opinions are not deemed empirical evidence.
-
Hello,
I became a flat earth believer 2 days ago and I've been so many research the past couple of days. I've been thinking about all day these past 2 days.
I don't know if anyone has discussed this thought before or not but I was thinking today that according to Nasa the earth is rotating at a speed of 1670 kilometers/hour ( 1037 miles/hr). I'm in New York so that means if I go up in an air ballon or helicopter for 1 hour and make sure the ballon or helicopter is not going to the left or right and is still in the air for 1 hour, I should be in St Louis in Missouri.
This test can be done and it's not going to cost a lots of money. I'm sure we can rent a private helicopter for $1000 or less and film it and proof it to everyone that earth is not rotating.
What are your thoughts?
Of course, you are correct on this. I mean, you display the logical common sense that other human beings should display, yet somehow can't bring themselves to do, because it destroys their fantasy of what is told about the Earth and all it's happenings.
The reality is, no helicopter or even high flying balloon is needed to realise that the atmosphere does not spin with the Earth.
However, as you clearly see, there are always answers to this simple thing. The answers are ludicrous, as we know - but the thing is, the reliance on magic has to come to the fore-front with mainstream science, otherwise their model is killed, stone dead.
However: because we are outnumbered by scientists and the wider public - we have to find a more concrete solution to make people wake up.
It's difficult, because if they can't grasp this concept, they won't grasp any, it appears.
I can honestly say with a fairly sure mind, that if the science world told the population that real life stuffed teddy bears have been found living on mars and showed a video of them - most people would believe it, as long as there was an explanation as to how it appeared. All it needs is a bit of gobbledegook so called scientific explanations of their make up and - BINGO - they become real. Martian Teddyites.
You see, if a helicopter hovers, we are told that it's simply carried along with the rotation of the Earth because it was already going that speed.
The problem of it can be solved by simply having a plane flying 1000mph opposite the rotation and so negating that 1000 mph atmosphere. So now the Earth would be spinning 1000 mph one way and not dragging the plane with it because the plane has negated that.
Now if the plane kept the 1000 mph up, then realistically, it would be hovering above the Earth, yet showing a speed of 1000mph on it's clock.
Of course, we know this doesn't happen and for good reason. It's because the Earth is stationary and flatish. It is not a rotating globe sat in a vacuum of space.
That is a pretty unfair accusation considering all the zaratans, whale men, firmaments, ice walls, aether, denpressure, bendy light, roving suns and shadow objects brought forward by FE-ers.
-
Hello,
I became a flat earth believer 2 days ago and I've been so many research the past couple of days. I've been thinking about all day these past 2 days.
I don't know if anyone has discussed this thought before or not but I was thinking today that according to Nasa the earth is rotating at a speed of 1670 kilometers/hour ( 1037 miles/hr). I'm in New York so that means if I go up in an air ballon or helicopter for 1 hour and make sure the ballon or helicopter is not going to the left or right and is still in the air for 1 hour, I should be in St Louis in Missouri.
This test can be done and it's not going to cost a lots of money. I'm sure we can rent a private helicopter for $1000 or less and film it and proof it to everyone that earth is not rotating.
What are your thoughts?
Oh my, you are so dumb. Just like this famous muslim. The air is rotating with the surface. If air weren't rotating, we would have massive storms because of a friction between static (lol) and moving surface. Just think.
-
Nobody knows everything, stop being silly. Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.
Really? How much do you know about RET and math? You have to know about the model you are rejecting and math is something that any genius should know.
I've proved you people wrong as have many others. It matters not that you kick and scream and say we haven't.
Quote yourself proving anything to anyone, I bet you can't.
-
Nobody knows everything, stop being silly. Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.
Really? How much do you know about RET and math? You have to know about the model you are rejecting and math is something that any genius should know.
sceptimatic must know something in order to have obtained thirteen academic qualifications, authored a dozen books, and patented numerous devices we all use in our homes every day surely? He also has pilot's licenses for both his private jet and his helicopter, so he can't be nearly as stupid as his comments would indicate. My guess is that he just plays dumb on these forums to get cheap laughs.
-
"I said I believe nothing and question everything and there are a lot of lies out there." Skeptics
I am liking this guy. I certainly consider him intelligent. I am a inventor (designer) myself, so am very interested about the claim he has patented numerous devices. Sarcasm, or is that true? It does help to have an open mind, to think of new ideas. Really, most of us can't think beyond how we have been trained to view the world.
-
... so am very interested about the claim he has patented numerous devices.
This is a claim he made a couple of times last year. Although we all considered it to be the product of an over-fertile imagination rather than fertile scientific logic and ingenuity.
You can ask sceptimatic what those devices are specifically, but I can guarantee he won't tell you. He also won't name any of the books he's allegedly written either. It's most people's considered opinion here that the guy is full of bovine excrement.
-
Why you hold to the strange opinion that a solar eclipse does not effect a faulcolt pendulum? Could you explain?
Thanks
-
Why you hold to the strange opinion that a solar eclipse does not effect a faulcolt pendulum? Could you explain?
Thanks
Evidence makes it quite clear that solar eclipses effect Foucault pendulums, it's just that nobody knows why. Most flat earthers will probably just say that the aether does it, but at least round earthers admit when we don't know things.
-
... but you must know that something other than the rotation of the earth, can effect the pendulum. This is a considerable admission.
-
... but you must know that something other than the rotation of the earth, can effect the pendulum. This is a considerable admission.
Yes, but pendulums usually behave in a way that can be predicted assuming a round Earth. Also there are things like gyroscopes and the Coriolis effect that prove that the Earth rotates.
-
... or it could be the weight of the stars that move a Foucault pendulum, and also creates the Coriolis force. Yes, ether is a lovely scientific theory.
-
... or it could be the weight of the stars that move a Foucault pendulum, and also creates the Coriolis force. Yes, ether is a lovely scientific theory.
Yeah, it could be, but that doesn't mean that it does. Flat earthers can just explain away anything by saying "the aether does it", that's hardly science.
I suggest you check out the video in this thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63090.0#.VQJI7-HgyPX).
-
Why apply a double standard? Cosmology is philosophy, not science. Hardly anything has been absolutely proven.
The great 19th century scientist Alexander von Humboldt confessed:
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Donʼt rush into the waspsʼ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I donʼt feel the courage.
How many people assume Copernicus gave indisputable evidence for his cosmology?
The International Encyclopedia of Astronomy comments: “At no time did Copernicus have any “proof” of his new cosmology. No available observation could have distinguished between the ancient geocentric scheme and the new heliocentric pattern.”
Many great scientists have believed in the existence of the ether. It is not a strange concept. Don't make it sound like it is.
-
Why apply a double standard? Cosmology is philosophy, not science. Hardly anything has been absolutely proven.
The great 19th century scientist Alexander von Humboldt confessed:
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Donʼt rush into the waspsʼ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I donʼt feel the courage.
How many people assume Copernicus gave indisputable evidence for his cosmology?
The International Encyclopedia of Astronomy comments: “At no time did Copernicus have any “proof” of his new cosmology. No available observation could have distinguished between the ancient geocentric scheme and the new heliocentric pattern.”
Many great scientists have believed in the existence of the ether. It is not a strange concept. Don't make it sound like it is.
Did you watch the video I linked you to yet?
Of course not, because you are still a flat earther.
-
Many great scientists have believed in the existence of the ether. It is not a strange concept. Don't make it sound like it is.
the aether being used here does not equal the ether or aether that was used by some scientists in the past. It was used like Dark matter/energy is used today. As something unknown to fill a gap in the current theory. They then went about trying to figure out why the observations didn't 100% match with their mathematical formulas. Understand that once scientists believed that electromagnetic waves (which act more like particles at higher frequencies than waves) where the same thing as sound waves. Sound waves need matter to propagate through, like air. Electromagnetic "waves" do not. This was a misconception that required something to fill the apparent void of space, someone somewhere proposed ether. Then people in the paranormal field started using it for anything and everything from proof of how ghosts should be able to materialize to a substance/energy used to communicate with the dead. Once they figured out how electromagnetic "waves" actually behaved they didn't need the ether anymore as part of their equations. Now however aether is being used much the same way as ether was used in the paranormal field did once before. It was a buzzword type thing, "oh science uses this unknown thing, therefore it sounds more realistic for us to use it for our ideas". Aether is used as some unknown thing/energy/force to fill in for whatever is needed to fill any holes in this FE idea. It has so many properties, it can bend time, space, and light. It acts like a force, a barrier, and as matter in solid, liquid (maybe) and gases forms. It has to be intelligent to bend light in just the right way as to make anyone looking up to think the Earth is round. It also scatters light enough and in just the right way to give the illusion of things disappearing bottom up from the horizon. For one it acts as the air, the building blocks of all matter, a matter transportation device, and as a form of gravity. It is a quick plug in "stuff" that is used to describe anything that science has theorized, tested, and produced mountains of evidence. It is used to discredit anything that is contrary to the FE idea.
Now am I poking fun at these people for thinking this way, a little bit honestly. They are entitled to their own opinions. I have fostered a possible friendship with a couple of these FEers and enjoy finding out more about their ideas. Actually caring about their thoughts on the matter helps me to debate them in a better manner. I try not to automatically think they are ignorant, or dismiss their explanations without trying to see it from their viewpoint. But there are others that claim to be FEers that are rude, dishonest, and dismissive.
Now as for the OP, I think its been answered before but Ill try to explain how that will not work. Samuel Shenton (the founder of the modern FE society) once believed in a round Earth, he claimed to have invented a way to travel around the world much easier by using a large hot air balloon to go up high enough to let the Earth rotate below him and then just lower the balloon back down. This was in the 1920's or so. He went with his theory and tried to get support to build his Balloon. He was laughed at by the scientific community and decided that the only reason his design wouldn't work was if the Earth was flat and they were hiding it from everyone. The irony is that his original concept would work if you could leave the atmosphere and remain stationary without the gravity of Earth pulling you back down. The atmosphere is relatively rotating with the ground so for that concept to work you would have to get outside the atmosphere. Since a balloon floats in air as long as the density of the air high enough, much like an air bubble floats to the top of the water, you cannot leave the atmosphere on a balloon. Airplanes, birds, ect. actually fly through the air using pretty much the same characteristics as submarines, fish, etc. swim through the water. So anything floating on/in the air is going to travel with the air.
-
Why apply a double standard? Cosmology is philosophy, not science. Hardly anything has been absolutely proven.
The great 19th century scientist Alexander von Humboldt confessed:
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Donʼt rush into the waspsʼ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I donʼt feel the courage.
How many people assume Copernicus gave indisputable evidence for his cosmology?
The International Encyclopedia of Astronomy comments: “At no time did Copernicus have any “proof” of his new cosmology. No available observation could have distinguished between the ancient geocentric scheme and the new heliocentric pattern.”
Many great scientists have believed in the existence of the ether. It is not a strange concept. Don't make it sound like it is.
Yes, few scientists believed in aether, but different of your perspective. They believed it's a substance that's filling the world up, not a all-powerful thing that causes planes to fly and jumping from 1 hemisphere to second.
-
Thank you for all your replies, especially the well written article by lovzballs. I respect the time you took to explain your perspective. I didn't know anything about Shenton's hot air ballon. I know little about the growing movement. I respect the fact that you seem to be a nice person. Intelligent people can hold to many different beliefs, but in our politically correct world, we are expected to either conform or be considered an idiot. I have lost at least one friendship lately, because of my belief in a stationary earth, and must accept the fact that I am a misfit, and will probably have a lonely life. So thank you for your kind reply.
I have no interest in paranormal activity, but do gravitate to a luminiferous Ether. I have trouble with all these 'failed experiments' such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. They seem (to me) to indicate the earth is not orbiting around the sun, and the resulting explanation's are ad hoc, because the scientific community can't change their mind. They would be too traumatized. Scientists did go to their graves still believing in the lumiferous ether, did they not? I think even Michelson and Morley. (one or both) Can't remember!
I don't think I have made any outrageous claims about ether.
-
Thank you for all your replies, especially the well written article by lovzballs. I respect the time you took to explain your perspective. I didn't know anything about Shenton's hot air ballon. I know little about the growing movement. I respect the fact that you seem to be a nice person. Intelligent people can hold to many different beliefs, but in our politically correct world, we are expected to either conform or be considered an idiot. I have lost at least one friendship lately, because of my belief in a stationary earth, and must accept the fact that I am a misfit, and will probably have a lonely life. So thank you for your kind reply.
I have no interest in paranormal activity, but do gravitate to a luminiferous Ether. I have trouble with all these 'failed experiments' such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. They seem (to me) to indicate the earth is not orbiting around the sun, and the resulting explanation's are ad hoc, because the scientific community can't change their mind. They would be too traumatized. Scientists did go to their graves still believing in the lumiferous ether, did they not? I think even Michelson and Morley. (one or both) Can't remember!
I don't think I have made any outrageous claims about ether.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63090.0#.VQMijeHgyPU (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63090.0#.VQMijeHgyPU)
-
The beginning of the video seemed condescending.
-
The beginning of the video seemed condescending.
Watch it all the way through, I dare you.
-
What do I have to be afraid about? I would love to become 'standardized' You think it is somehow fun, to be treated like a 'nut'?
-
The 3 minute video? It is insulting.
-
To be honest it's hard to objectively look at FET without being insulting, it's like if someone started a "computers are not real" forum and insisted that computers don't exist, just as flat earthers insist that the round Earth they are standing on is flat. The reason I said I dare you to watch it as if there is something to fear is because I honestly don't know how anyone can watch that video and still believe that the Earth is flat.
Warning: that video contains math that requires at least a high school education to understand and it might be more complex then most flat earthers can handle.
-
Samuel Shenton (the founder of the modern FE society) once believed in a round Earth, he claimed to have invented a way to travel around the world much easier by using a large hot air balloon to go up high enough to let the Earth rotate below him and then just lower the balloon back down. This was in the 1920's or so. He went with his theory and tried to get support to build his Balloon. He was laughed at by the scientific community and decided that the only reason his design wouldn't work was if the Earth was flat and they were hiding it from everyone. The irony is that his original concept would work if you could leave the atmosphere and remain stationary without the gravity of Earth pulling you back down. The atmosphere is relatively rotating with the ground so for that concept to work you would have to get outside the atmosphere. Since a balloon floats in air as long as the density of the air high enough, much like an air bubble floats to the top of the water, you cannot leave the atmosphere on a balloon. Airplanes, birds, ect. actually fly through the air using pretty much the same characteristics as submarines, fish, etc. swim through the water. So anything floating on/in the air is going to travel with the air.
So from this we can conclude that the founder of the FES was a thick idiot who had no grasp of physics. I see nothing has changed.
-
So from this we can conclude that the founder of the FES was a thick idiot who had no grasp of physics. I see nothing has changed.
Being called a "flat earther" is considered an insult for a reason.
-
The great 19th century scientist Alexander von Humboldt confessed:
“I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Donʼt rush into the waspsʼ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of - I donʼt feel the courage".
Why is it that so many flat earthers rely solely on scientific theories that were propounded hundreds of years ago in support of their cause?
And why is it that flat earthers seldom cite scientific evidence from the last 50 years or so? And never from the 21st century?
-
Why is it that so many flat earthers rely solely on scientific theories that were propounded hundreds of years ago in support of their cause?
And why is it that flat earthers seldom cite scientific evidence from the last 50 years or so? And never from the 21st century?
Because the Earth is not flat.
-
Interesting that despite earth is a stage being on the forum today, he didn't—or couldn't— address the point I raised about obsolete scientific "evidence" a couple of days ago.
So I'll await patiently for him to cite some references from 21st century astrophysical/astronomical observations that support his flat earth claim.
—Although I suspect I'll be waiting in vain LOL. ::)
-
I have trouble with all these 'failed experiments' such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. They seem (to me) to indicate the earth is not orbiting around the sun, and the resulting explanation's are ad hoc, because the scientific community can't change their mind. They would be too traumatized. Scientists did go to their graves still believing in the lumiferous ether, did they not? I think even Michelson and Morley. (one or both) Can't remember!
The Michelson-Morley experiment did cause the scientific community to change its mind. The earlier model had both a luminiferous aether and and the Earth moving through it. The MMX, if valid, indicated that both could not be true. The experiment was repeated and consistently failed to show the expected effect of traveling through the aether, so at least one of those parts of the model had to be modified or discarded. There was much better evidence for the moving Earth than for the aether. In fact, for the aether there was no direct evidence at all, only the belief that something had to be there to allow the transmission of light. Contemporaneously, the work of Maxwell, et al. was providing a mechanism for transmission of light through a vacuum, so the necessity for the aether was no longer supportable at the time an experiment to detect it directly failed to do so. The failure of the MMX helped usher in a model for the transmission of light that much better explains the observations and provided a mathematical basis for all electromagnetic radiation, not just light, that produces useful explanations and predictions that are used all the time. It was traumatic for some.