The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: wise on January 24, 2017, 10:58:42 PM
-
Hello guys,
We are together again with debunking a fucking lie of graviters.
There is a video comparing two objects which one of them heavy and other one is light. One of them is a ball and second one is a down. First they are compered with free falling and ball falled first. They connect it to "air friction". The second test in no air vacuum and they fallen with same time. Is it really? No. We'll learn in another topic that obcejts falling time connected with their weights and gravity is a lie. But first, we should to debunk this fucking experiment.
Lets watch now.
Everything seems like okey ha? Gravity is proven. Is it really? Take a look more carefully.
Come to: 4:16 Catch that picture:
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2ymcbar.png)
Objects start about same point.
Come to finish line, 4:30
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2v30gmf.png)
The distances of them aren't changed in fallen time. So they moved together. And this situation proves the gravity. Is it real? No. Come back to 4:14 and move the video slowly again.
Now come to: 4:16 and catch this image:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/10gjlh2.png)
Where is ball?
Ball is faster and made significant difference in only 1st second.
So the difference of them must increase according to The usual continuation of their movements.
But falls in same time:
(http://i63.tinypic.com/xbajus.png)
Fake. Debunked. I don't accept appeals because everything is clear.
So this man, Brian Cox is a liar, a dishonest, dishonored one !
Proffssor ha professor! Professor of shit !
PS. Before "real time experiment", there is some "slow motion showings before it but they are all fake and cartoon. Only the experiment in 4:16-4:30 is real time experiment and we proven it is fake. Added to my working sector .
This fake experiment proves how graviters are dishonest, dishonored ones!
-
Now come to: 4:16 and catch this image:
(http://4.1m.yt/CC0Rmy.png)
Where is ball?
Ball is faster and made significant difference in only 1st second.
You're right. The frames at 4:15-4:17 are from the drop when the air was in the chamber. This can be seen from the way the feathers move.
So, poor editing on their part.
-
Now come to: 4:16 and catch this image:
(http://4.1m.yt/CC0Rmy.png)
Where is ball?
Ball is faster and made significant difference in only 1st second.
You're right. The frames at 4:15-4:17 are from the drop when the air was in the chamber. This can be seen from the way the feathers move.
So, poor editing on their part.
No poor editing involved...more like dishonest posting on the part of the Turk who lies.
Go back and look at the video! Intikam is a deceitful and deliberately dishonest clown.
-
Now come to: 4:16 and catch this image:
(http://4.1m.yt/CC0Rmy.png)
Where is ball?
Ball is faster and made significant difference in only 1st second.
You're right. The frames at 4:15-4:17 are from the drop when the air was in the chamber. This can be seen from the way the feathers move.
So, poor editing on their part.
No poor editing involved...more like dishonest posting on the part of the Turk who lies.
Go back and look at the video! Intikam is a deceitful and deliberately dishonest clown.
Well, in my opinion it's poor editing. The sequence from 4:15 to 4:35 starts out with some frames from the drop with air in the chamber, then cuts to the drop in the vacuum. I'm not saying it matters much, but they could have been consistent.
-
If you all want to see what a total liar this person is go and watch this...
In this case it's not down to opinion it's wether you choose to believe the dishonest lies of Intikam or the honest truth.....
-
Now come to: 4:16 and catch this image:
(http://4.1m.yt/CC0Rmy.png)
Where is ball?
Ball is faster and made significant difference in only 1st second.
You're right. The frames at 4:15-4:17 are from the drop when the air was in the chamber. This can be seen from the way the feathers move.
So, poor editing on their part.
No poor editing involved...more like dishonest posting on the part of the Turk who lies.
Go back and look at the video! Intikam is a deceitful and deliberately dishonest clown.
Well, in my opinion it's poor editing. The sequence from 4:15 to 4:35 starts out with some frames from the drop with air in the chamber, then cuts to the drop in the vacuum. I'm not saying it matters much, but they could have been consistent.
Why don't you go and watch the real and un-doctored version then comment on that.
-
Hello guys,
We are together again with debunking a fucking lie of graviters.
There is a video comparing two objects which one of them heavy and other one is light. One of them is a ball and second one is a down. First they are compered with free falling and ball falled first. They connect it to "air friction". The second test in no air vacuum and they fallen with same time. Is it really? No. We'll learn in another topic that obcejts falling time connected with their weights and gravity is a lie. But first, we should to debunk this fucking experiment.
Lets watch now.
Everything seems like okey ha? Gravity is proven. Is it really? Take a look more carefully.
Come to: 4:16 Catch that picture:
(http://2.1m.yt/F2IKECe.png)
Objects start about same point.
Come to finish line, 4:30
(http://2.1m.yt/zLQCuOI.png)
The distances of them aren't changed in fallen time. So they moved together. And this situation proves the gravity. Is it real? No. Come back to 4:14 and move the video slowly again.
Now come to: 4:16 and catch this image:
(http://4.1m.yt/CC0Rmy.png)
Where is ball?
Ball is faster and made significant difference in only 1st second.
So the difference of them must increase according to The usual continuation of their movements.
But falls in same time:
(http://2.1m.yt/E_msrRH.png)
Fake. Debunked. I don't accept appeals because everything is clear.
(http://2.1m.yt/cnje-zW.png)
So this man, Brian Cox is a liar, a dishonest, dishonored one !
Proffssor ha professor! Professor of being a son of whore !
PS. Before "real time experiment", there is some "slow motion showings before it but they are all fake and cartoon. Only the experiment in 4:16-4:30 is real time experiment and we proven it is fake. Added to my working sector .
This fake experiment proves how graviters are dishonest, dishonored ones!
I have seen the original tv show and doesn't mach with the shown here.
This means that someone malevolently edited the video.
So this flato is lying. As usual.
He his dishonoured and needs to be in the list.
-
Sorry I forgot to say something:
Now the time is gravitiers to start to crying.
Ready, go ! :)
-
Now come to: 4:16 and catch this image:
(http://4.1m.yt/CC0Rmy.png)
Where is ball?
Ball is faster and made significant difference in only 1st second.
You're right. The frames at 4:15-4:17 are from the drop when the air was in the chamber. This can be seen from the way the feathers move.
So, poor editing on their part.
No poor editing involved...more like dishonest posting on the part of the Turk who lies.
Go back and look at the video! Intikam is a deceitful and deliberately dishonest clown.
Well, in my opinion it's poor editing. The sequence from 4:15 to 4:35 starts out with some frames from the drop with air in the chamber, then cuts to the drop in the vacuum. I'm not saying it matters much, but they could have been consistent.
Why don't you go and watch the real and un-doctored version then comment on that.
I don't know what your problem is. Have YOU watched it?
The sequence from 4:15 to 4:35 starts out with some frames from the drop with air in the chamber. This is clear from the movement of the feathers. It then cuts to the drop in the vacuum. This, in my opinion, is poor editing as they could have been more consistent. You may have a different opinion, but please stop suggesting I haven't watched it.
-
Here are stills from the un-doctored BBC film showing what actually happened during the experiment.
Intikam effort at deceitful lies is a really pathetic attempt at distorting the truth.
(http://i.imgur.com/ICbFqOS.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/eSMRjM4.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/dXcY0Zg.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/D1kTUdl.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/h6dVZcC.png)
It can be seen quite clearly from the real un-doctored stills that both objects, ball and feathers fell as predicted by the law of gravity.
-
If you are still wondering what the truth of the matter is try it yourself,.
The truth is out there, and the moral of this thread is don't believe the deceitful and underhand lies of Intikam.
-
Here are stills from the un-doctored BBC film showing what actually happened during the experiment.
Intikam effort at deceitful lies is a really pathetic attempt at distorting the truth.
It can be seen quite clearly from the real un-doctored stills that both objects, ball and feathers fell as predicted by the law of gravity.
Come to 4:14 my baby, don't cry !
Your images coming from a "slow motion cartoon". 4:14-4:30 is real time experiment don't overlap with your slow motion images. Play it from 4:14 to 4:17 step by step. stop-forward-stop-forward. You can find out that img.
(http://4.1m.yt/CC0Rmy.png)
-
We started with two images and a ruler.
(http://3.1m.yt/TFjt7oR.png)
We calculated their first distance to the bar as 10 and 11 "unit".
After 1 seconds, we measured same distances as 40 and 69. So the difference increased about 28 units.
(http://3.1m.yt/O3mc7vT.png)
feather is running slowly and ball is moving forward. Maybe there is a hurry. :)
<Got it now?
-
The video you posted is no the original...its been faked.
Here is the original......
-
The video you posted is no the original...its been faked.
Here is the original......
Again bad editing of the video if that is the original.
Frames at 4.15 show the feather falling in air as mentioned earlier....
-
You of course can prove anything by dishonestly, doctoring a video like you or someone else has done here proves nothing other than what a dishonest individual you really are.
You have dishonestly taken frames from the shot when the ball and feather fell under normal conditions and cut them into the sequence when the chamber was under vacuum.
You can put up as many images and rulers as you wish but the basic facts are you are a liar.
I'm curious as to why you are accusing Intikam of doctoring the video when the video that you have linked to (and claimed to be the original) shows the same sequence of frames that Intikam is referring to.
It's like you just haven't bothered to watch it yourself.
There's a bad edit. The sequence from 4:15 starts with the drop in air and cuts to the drop in a vacuum. Go watch it.
-
As CK has mentioned you can see the drag on the feather barbs as it starts falling. The shaft goes but the barbs seem to lift at the very begging of the fall. It is a fake vacuum, and fake result.
-
Does the entire video show the cannonball and feather falling at the same rate in a way that would be impossible in an atmosphere?
Simple yes or no.
And he is not a 'so-called Professor', he is one.
-
And here's the video showing the release of the ball and feather in the vacuum:
Go to around 2:55
The only movement is a slight response to inertial change.
-
And here's the video showing the release of the ball and feather in the vacuum:
Go to around 2:55
The only movement is a slight response to inertial change.
Slight response to inertial change shows that there is not a vacuum in there.
-
Slight response to inertial change shows that there is not a vacuum in there.
Watch. The. Video.
Inertia does not need an atmosphere.
Gravity does not need an atmosphere.
The video clearly shows that the images intikam has been drooling over are not the ones from the vacuum release. The video clearly shows the two objects behave totally differently in atmosphere and vacuum.
-
The video you posted is no the original...its been faked.
Here is the original......
Your said "original video" is not different than my bringed video here. It published in 2014 and viewed before I debunked it 14.million times. I think it shouldn't be a fake video okey?
I act completely honestly. Everybody can see with come to 4:14 and watch the video till 4:30. Video in the link you gave is the same. And that video I suggest viewed, I'm saying again, more than 14.000.000. Did everybody forget this "lie video" or I'm not a liar but you are clearly a slanderer. You weak. You loser.
-
The video you posted is no the original...its been faked.
Here is the original......
Okey I'm click to play till 4:14
(http://2.1m.yt/xzu4iSO.png)
Now you take this:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/41/c9/bb/41c9bb9d0b51c10438c0893e3888b656.jpg)
-
Your said "original video" is not different than my bringed video here. It published in 2014 and viewed before I debunked it 14.million times. I think it shouldn't be a fake video okey?
Then you'll be happy to admit that in the video you posted the first time the ball & feather are shown dropping in the vacuum is not the same as the footage you are using at 4 minutes plus.
-
Your said "original video" is not different than my bringed video here. It published in 2014 and viewed before I debunked it 14.million times. I think it shouldn't be a fake video okey?
Then you'll be happy to admit that in the video you posted the first time the ball & feather are shown dropping in the vacuum is not the same as the footage you are using at 4 minutes plus.
The img still at there. There is already only one video. Play video with 1/4 speed by "stop-play-stop-play" and see yourself.
-
Hello guys,
We are together again with debunking a fucking lie of graviters.
I see you are continuing with your "honest unshameful, non-swearing refutations"[/sarcasm]
There is a video comparing two objects which one of them heavy and other one is light. One of them is a ball and second one is a down. First they are compered with free falling and ball falled first. They connect it to "air friction". The second test in no air vacuum and they fallen with same time. Is it really? No. We'll learn in another topic that obcejts falling time connected with their weights and gravity is a lie. But first, we should to debunk this fucking experiment.
Or to make it more understandable:
The first test is done in the presence of the atmosphere, which results in significant effects due to air resistance.
The second test was done without this interference and resulted in them falling at the same rate.
This indicates that gravity accelerates objects (at the same location released together) at the same rate regardless of their density or mass or volume or whatever and results which indicate they don't will have some outside influence effecting them.
I will skip the watching part and go to your "debunking"
Come to: 4:16 Catch that picture:
Objects start about same point.
Come to finish line, 4:30
The distances of them aren't changed in fallen time. So they moved together. And this situation proves the gravity. Is it real? No. Come back to 4:14 and move the video slowly again.
Now come to: 4:16 and catch this image:
Where is ball?
Ball is faster and made significant difference in only 1st second.
So the difference of them must increase according to The usual continuation of their movements.
But falls in same time:
[4:30 again]
Or how about we view them during the tests?
That way we can also tell what test it is.
Note the specific position of the feathers here.
This matches what is observed in the main tests at 1:40.
Shortly after this your "debunking" part comes in, at roughly 1:42.
This is the test where air is present.
In this test, the bowling ball falls significantly faster due to the air resistance.
Now lets do the same for the non-air test.
2:52, they start at the same spot.
2:59, they fell at the same rate, both leaving the frame at the same time.
3:19, they land together.
So in the test where there was no significant amount of air, they fall at the same rate.
Fake. Debunked. I don't accept appeals because everything is clear.
Nope. Not fake. Not debunked.
You don't accept appeals because it shows your argument to be fake and debunked.
Everything is quite clear.
So this man, Brian Cox is a liar, a dishonest, dishonored one !
Nope. Once again, that is you.
Proffssor ha professor! Professor of being a son of whore !
I see you are continuing with your "insult free arguments"[/sarcasm]
PS. Before "real time experiment", there is some "slow motion showings before it but they are all fake and cartoon. Only the experiment in 4:16-4:30 is real time experiment and we proven it is fake. Added to my working sector .
No. Those slow mo experiments are real. They aren't fake or cartoons.
You can even see part of the feather and ball falling in a vacuum in real time in that 4:16-4:30 window.
This fake experiment proves how graviters are dishonest, dishonored ones!
Nope. This real experiment and your dishonest refutation filled with insults shows you are are dishonest one, not those accepting the fact of gravity.
-
Why don't you go and watch the real and un-doctored version then comment on that.
It has the same editing mistake. It is the same video.
Go and look at what the links are.
Go and watch it from 4:15.
It starts out with the initial drop from the air scene then switches to the long drop for the vacuum.
-
Slight response to inertial change shows that there is not a vacuum in there.
No.
In one the feathers are hanging, and the weight is supported by the rod.
Then, once released, they accelerate due to gravity.
It is akin to holding a slinky and dropping it.
As CK has mentioned you can see the drag on the feather barbs as it starts falling. The shaft goes but the barbs seem to lift at the very begging of the fall. It is a fake vacuum, and fake result.
No. In that case it wasn't a vacuum, and it was a real result in air.
In the vacuum case, it was a real vacuum (although not perfect) and a real result showing objects fall at the same rate when external influences are removed.
-
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?
Or are you conveniently not seeing that?
-
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?
Or are you conveniently not seeing that?
They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.
There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".
-
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?
Or are you conveniently not seeing that?
They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.
There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".
Last example is bad editing.
Both examples are shown earlier in the video.
Immediately after the one that you think is faked they show the descent in vacuum. The feather and ball are falling at the same rate and land together.
Explain this.
Prof Cox is a genuine professor. He's been outside his basement and everything. You abuse him in your OP, but he also has some choice words for people like you.
He has a twitter account. Why not contact him @ProfBrianCox
-
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?
Or are you conveniently not seeing that?
They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.
There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".
Last example is bad editing.
Both examples are shown earlier in the video.
Immediately after the one that you think is faked they show the descent in vacuum. The feather and ball are falling at the same rate and land together.
Explain this.
Prof Cox is a genuine professor. He's been outside his basement and everything. You abuse him in your OP, but he also has some choice words for people like you.
He has a twitter account. Why not contact him @ProfBrianCox
I show everything by clearly.
The video created by method of "cut-paste". If you don't believe to my debunking, you free to think it as 4:16 started with ordinary experiment, 4:17 turned to in vacuum experiment. This situation should be an evidence for you it is a "cut-past" created video. So there is something here is "dishonest". It must be an experiment show the experiment in vacuum "real time, start to end" but there is no experiment like this. there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.
I saw his videos from Zero Gravity plane. Also I saw that he supported many different nasa topics. This proves he is a slave, a dog from NASA. He is Poisoning people with lies as a snake.
I haven't a twitter adress. I used it one time in several years ago but they closed it by nonsence. I don't trust twitter. They are sons of satan.
-
there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.
Where did you debunk that?
-
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?
Or are you conveniently not seeing that?
They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.
There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".
Last example is bad editing.
Both examples are shown earlier in the video.
Immediately after the one that you think is faked they show the descent in vacuum. The feather and ball are falling at the same rate and land together.
Explain this.
Prof Cox is a genuine professor. He's been outside his basement and everything. You abuse him in your OP, but he also has some choice words for people like you.
He has a twitter account. Why not contact him @ProfBrianCox
I show everything by clearly.
The video created by method of "cut-paste". If you don't believe to my debunking, you free to think it as 4:16 started with ordinary experiment, 4:17 turned to in vacuum experiment. This situation should be an evidence for you it is a "cut-past" created video. So there is something here is "dishonest". It must be an experiment show the experiment in vacuum "real time, start to end" but there is no experiment like this. there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.
I saw his videos from Zero Gravity plane. Also I saw that he supported many different nasa topics. This proves he is a slave, a dog from NASA. He is Poisoning people with lies as a snake.
I haven't a twitter adress. I used it one time in several years ago but they closed it by nonsence. I don't trust twitter. They are sons of satan.
Congratulations on finding the editing mistake in the video. It was poorly edited.
However, there is enough intact footage to demonstrate that both items fell at the same rate in a vacuum.
-
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?
Or are you conveniently not seeing that?
They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.
There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".
No. The last "example" is a combination of the prior 2 experiments. The screwed up the editing. You can see that exact footage earlier in the video.
The prior 2 experiments were done in real time, but recorded with a high speed camera (I assume) to allow smoother playback.
You being ignorant of gravity and relativity isn't a mistake. It is you being ignorant.
So I take it the number of examples of your dishonesty shall increase.
The simple fact is that this shows that gravity (or some other force or phenomenon) accelerates objects the same while they are in a vacuum and it is external forces like air resistance and buoyancy that results in apparent differences.
I show everything by clearly.
The video created by method of "cut-paste". If you don't believe to my debunking, you free to think it as 4:16 started with ordinary experiment, 4:17 turned to in vacuum experiment. This situation should be an evidence for you it is a "cut-past" created video. So there is something here is "dishonest". It must be an experiment show the experiment in vacuum "real time, start to end" but there is no experiment like this. there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.
No. You intentionally misrepresent it.
All videos like this are done by "cut-paste". Do you think the camera magically changed position?
There is no evidence of dishonesty.
They most likely made an editing mistake, where they screwed up and put the wrong start footage for the experiment.
However I have come to realise that may be an error on my part.
They could have meant to put that there to show the difference, and show that in air, the bowling ball appears to move much faster, while in a vacuum they fall together.
The only dishonesty is your analysis of the video.
Why do you want an experiment which shows the vacuum drop in real time?
If you want that, look at the moon landing video. They dropped a hammer and feather.
There are plenty of other experiments on you-tube.
Like this one:
With real-time, it is all over far too quickly, and people miss it.
The slow motion makes it quite easy for people to take it in.
I saw his videos from Zero Gravity plane. Also I saw that he supported many different nasa topics. This proves he is a slave, a dog from NASA. He is Poisoning people with lies as a snake.
No. It doesn't.
However this debate tactic of yours shows how dishonest you are and how you have no rational argument.
Rather than rationally concluding he is a liar and that Earth is flat and gravity isn't real, you start from the assumption that Earth is flat, and gravity isn't real and then "conclude" anyone that doesn't agree and instead promotes a round Earth like NASA must be lying and controlled by Satan, and then anyone linked to them must be as well.
Quit with your slander and disrespecting people. Start trying to act like a rational adult.
I haven't a twitter adress. I used it one time in several years ago but they closed it by nonsence. I don't trust twitter. They are sons of satan.
Was it because you kept spouting abuse at people for no reason, or spamming that you were ignoring them?
Why not trust sons of Satan, Satan is the good one in the Abrahamic faiths.
-
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?
Or are you conveniently not seeing that?
They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.
There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".
Last example is bad editing.
Both examples are shown earlier in the video.
Immediately after the one that you think is faked they show the descent in vacuum. The feather and ball are falling at the same rate and land together.
Explain this.
Prof Cox is a genuine professor. He's been outside his basement and everything. You abuse him in your OP, but he also has some choice words for people like you.
He has a twitter account. Why not contact him @ProfBrianCox
I show everything by clearly.
The video created by method of "cut-paste". If you don't believe to my debunking, you free to think it as 4:16 started with ordinary experiment, 4:17 turned to in vacuum experiment. This situation should be an evidence for you it is a "cut-past" created video. So there is something here is "dishonest". It must be an experiment show the experiment in vacuum "real time, start to end" but there is no experiment like this. there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.
I saw his videos from Zero Gravity plane. Also I saw that he supported many different nasa topics. This proves he is a slave, a dog from NASA. He is Poisoning people with lies as a snake.
I haven't a twitter adress. I used it one time in several years ago but they closed it by nonsence. I don't trust twitter. They are sons of satan.
Congratulations on finding the editing mistake in the video. It was poorly edited.
However, there is enough intact footage to demonstrate that both items fell at the same rate in a vacuum.
My finding enuogh to believe the video is fake. There is also no need to work anymore on it.
-
One thing and nothing more, why they changed the camera 🎥
-
Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that
he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.
This is what we call as "shill".
Anyway.
Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.
I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.
-
I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.
Tying a parachutist to a feather does not make the parachutist lighter. :)
But thank you, “parachute” is the right word. We all agree, that an adult parachutist weighs more than a bowling ball, even without parachute. Why does the bowling ball falls faster than the parachutist with deployed parachute?
Or the parachutist without deployed parachute faster than with deployed parachute?
PS: Back in school, we made the same experiment in physics with a feather and a coin, one time with air and another with (almost) no air. The drop was only 3 meters, but you could see that without air both the feather and the coin fall with the same acceleration. It was also filmed on video for confirmation, because the drop took less than a second.
-
The attempts at debunking that clip are some of the worst I have read on this forum. It makes me wonder why I joined this board.
-
It's a demonstration, not an experiment.
-
Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that
he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.
This is what we call as "shill".
Anyway.
Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.
I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.
I missed your question because or intensive floods by regular trolls/shills of this forum. The parachutes works because they are forcing to holding the air inside. After a while downing, inside of the parachute fills with air. When it continue due downing, but the air inside of the parachute becomes heavier than the air the outside. Because you are forcing the air to be jam. In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside. So that, another force happens in the edges of the parachute to the outside. Upper side, edges and the bottom of the parachute has more heavier air than the outside. The air in the bottom can flee. But the air in the edges and upper side can't flee the out. So a force happens to parachute to towards the sides and up. This force slows down the parachute.
Shortly,
The mechanism of the parachut is related the ratio of the parachut catch the air. If it missed to catch air, doesn't work. Whatever an object has a "orange peel effect", but can't hold the air, neverdessly slows down. But only does it with if it holds the jammed air inside.
-
Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that
he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.
This is what we call as "shill".
Anyway.
Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.
I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.
I missed your question because or intensive floods by regular trolls/shills of this forum. The parachutes works because they are forcing to holding the air inside. After a while downing, inside of the parachute fills with air. When it continue due downing, but the air inside of the parachute becomes heavier than the air the outside. Because you are forcing the air to be jam. In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside. So that, another force happens in the edges of the parachute to the outside. Upper side, edges and the bottom of the parachute has more heavier air than the outside. The air in the bottom can flee. But the air in the edges and upper side can't flee the out. So a force happens to parachute to towards the sides and up. This force slows down the parachute.
Shortly,
The mechanism of the parachut is related the ratio of the parachut catch the air. If it missed to catch air, doesn't work. Whatever an object has a "orange peel effect", but can't hold the air, neverdessly slows down. But only does it with if it holds the jammed air inside.
Okay, then by all means, could you explain why certain types of parachutes have holes in them?
(https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/dome-parachute.jpg)
Surely, that would cause the rammed air to flow out, no?
Parachutes work because of drag. That’s it. Full explanation here: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-parachutes-work.html
-
Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that
he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.
This is what we call as "shill".
Anyway.
Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.
I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.
I missed your question because or intensive floods by regular trolls/shills of this forum. The parachutes works because they are forcing to holding the air inside. After a while downing, inside of the parachute fills with air. When it continue due downing, but the air inside of the parachute becomes heavier than the air the outside. Because you are forcing the air to be jam. In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside. So that, another force happens in the edges of the parachute to the outside. Upper side, edges and the bottom of the parachute has more heavier air than the outside. The air in the bottom can flee. But the air in the edges and upper side can't flee the out. So a force happens to parachute to towards the sides and up. This force slows down the parachute.
Shortly,
The mechanism of the parachut is related the ratio of the parachut catch the air. If it missed to catch air, doesn't work. Whatever an object has a "orange peel effect", but can't hold the air, neverdessly slows down. But only does it with if it holds the jammed air inside.
Hang on. Is he saying the heavier air trapped inside the parachute falls slower than the lighter air on the outside?
Or is he saying the escaping air at the edges of the parachute create a slowing down force on the chute?
I am not understanding
-
In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside.
If the air inside was heavier it should fall faster.
-
Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that
he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.
This is what we call as "shill".
Anyway.
Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.
I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.
I missed your question because or intensive floods by regular trolls/shills of this forum. The parachutes works because they are forcing to holding the air inside. After a while downing, inside of the parachute fills with air. When it continue due downing, but the air inside of the parachute becomes heavier than the air the outside. Because you are forcing the air to be jam. In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside. So that, another force happens in the edges of the parachute to the outside. Upper side, edges and the bottom of the parachute has more heavier air than the outside. The air in the bottom can flee. But the air in the edges and upper side can't flee the out. So a force happens to parachute to towards the sides and up. This force slows down the parachute.
Shortly,
The mechanism of the parachut is related the ratio of the parachut catch the air. If it missed to catch air, doesn't work. Whatever an object has a "orange peel effect", but can't hold the air, neverdessly slows down. But only does it with if it holds the jammed air inside.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm still thinking about how jammed/heavier air makes a force on the edges and upper side but I think it makes sense.
-
The whole story here is to try to convince people that heavier objects fall faster.
In that case I have to ask again:
Choose height H (for example 2 meters) fo all experiments the same, and drop all objects below from the same height H.
Drop 100 grams clay ball.
Measure the time T1.
Drop two 100 grams clay bals.
Measure the time T2.
Stick together the same two 100 grams clay balls and drop.
Measure the T3.
Will two 100 grams clay balls fall at same or different rate with or withour being stuck together?
Should T2 be the same as T1?
Should T3 be the same as T2?
If yes, why?
If not, why?
Drop two 100 grams woodden sticks and measure T4.
Tie thin thread from one stick to another and then drop them again, measure T5.
Glue the two sticks together and drop them again. Measure T6.
Should T5 be the same as T4?
Should T6 be the same as T5?
If yes, why?
If no, why?
Drop metal bar, measure T7.
Cut the bar into two halves and drop halves together, measure T8.
Drop just one half, measure T9.
Compare times T7, T8 and T9.
Should they be the same?
Why?
If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?
-
If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?
Sit down, zero.
-
If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?
Sit down, zero.
See?
You are beginning to understand where is your mistake.
There is still hope for you.
So, will two bals of 100 grams fall faster or slower than one ball of 200 grams?
Why?
-
If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?
Sit down, zero.
See?
You are beginning to understand where is your mistake.
There is still hope for you.
So, will two bals of 100 grams fall faster or slower than one ball of 200 grams?
Why?
I've already writed the equation about it.
a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)
I have pre agreed K as 9,811 but new tests show it may be more than 9,811. Anyway, we'll use it as this value for now.
a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)
Volume of the ball is important. I'll take them two equal to a voleyball ball.
R preagreed as: 25 cms. (pre acceptance, maybe wrong)
Volume: pixr^3/4= 25x25x25x3,14/4= 49062/4 =~12.000cm^3 = 0,01 m^3
Air weight for this volume>>
Air specific weight= 1,225kg/m^3
Air weight for this volume= 1,225*0,01= 0,01 kg.
First object: 0,20kgs.
Second object: 0,10kgs.
Remind a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)
accelerate 1 (for object 200 gram)= 9,811 * (0,2-0,01)/0,2 = 9,32 m/sn^2
accelerate 2 (for object 100 gram)= 9,811 * (0,1-0,01)/0,1 = 8,83 m/sn^2
As a result, ball object has 200 grs weight falls 5% faster than object 100 grs.
You may test it with two balls has equal volume and one of them 200 gram and the other one 100 gram. You'll see the first one falls first. But not so so. In 2 metres you maybe don't see the difference but it is more effective in a high more than 10 metres.
-
I've already writed the equation about it.
a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)
Which you got wrong.
It isn't a case of m1 and m2, it is a case of rho1 and rho2.
They are the density of the object and medium respectively.
This is gravity.
You have no justification for your formula other than gravity.
Until you provide a justification, you are just using gravity and pretending it is something else.
It also completely ignores drag.
-
a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)
I have pre agreed K as 9,811 but new tests show it may be more than 9,811. Anyway, we'll use it as this value for now.
a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)
And your equation proves that both the ball and the feather accelerate downwards at 9.811 m/s2 in a vacuum, so Brian Cox is correct!
-
After reading some of the comments here I wonder if one or two of the contributors never went to school. Regardless of the shape of the earth how objects with different masses fall in a near vacuum can be easily tested and is done so possibly millions of times every year in schools/colleges/universities around the world. Its not something open for debate as the answer will allways be the same and can’t suddenly be anything else. All things irrespective of mass will fall at the same rate in a vacuum. If you find this hatd to accept, just go and see the experiment being carried out. There is no conspiracy involved in this one, trying to fabricate or pretend there is another answer is just an excersise in futility.
-
If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?
Sit down, zero.
See?
You are beginning to understand where is your mistake.
There is still hope for you.
So, will two bals of 100 grams fall faster or slower than one ball of 200 grams?
Why?
I've already writed the equation about it.
a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)
I have pre agreed K as 9,811 but new tests show it may be more than 9,811. Anyway, we'll use it as this value for now.
a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)
Volume of the ball is important. I'll take them two equal to a voleyball ball.
R preagreed as: 25 cms. (pre acceptance, maybe wrong)
Volume: pixr^3/4= 25x25x25x3,14/4= 49062/4 =~12.000cm^3 = 0,01 m^3
Air weight for this volume>>
Air specific weight= 1,225kg/m^3
Air weight for this volume= 1,225*0,01= 0,01 kg.
First object: 0,20kgs.
Second object: 0,10kgs.
Remind a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)
accelerate 1 (for object 200 gram)= 9,811 * (0,2-0,01)/0,2 = 9,32 m/sn^2
accelerate 2 (for object 100 gram)= 9,811 * (0,1-0,01)/0,1 = 8,83 m/sn^2
As a result, ball object has 200 grs weight falls 5% faster than object 100 grs.
You may test it with two balls has equal volume and one of them 200 gram and the other one 100 gram. You'll see the first one falls first. But not so so. In 2 metres you maybe don't see the difference but it is more effective in a high more than 10 metres.
First of all, even the simplest thing like volume you did wrong.
V = 4/3 Pi r3 and not Pi r3 / 4
Logically, required radius for projected volume will be r = (3V / 4Pi)1/3 (third root). Diameter D = 2 r .
Second, if you use iron, it is 7300 kg/m3 and air is 1.225 kg/m3.
Obviously, iron is 5959 times more massive than air for the same volume.
So, iron ball of 100 grams (0.1 kg) will have volume of 1 / 73000 m3, which is ball with diameter of 0.03 m (3 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.00001678 kg (0.01678 g).
Iron ball of 200 grams (0.2 kg) will have volume of 1 / 36500 m3, which is ball with diameter of 0.037 m (3.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.00003356 kg (0.03356 g).
Acceleration g in Ankara is 9.8024 m/s2.
Acceleration g in Istanbul is 9.808 m/s2.
Distance d = v0 t + a t2 / 2 , while v0 = 0 , so t = SQRT(2d / g).
From height of 2 meters in Istanbul:
First ball will fall SQRT(2 * 2m / 9.808) = 0.638 seconds.
Second ball will fall SQRT(2 * 2m / 9.808) = 0.638 seconds.
Now take different balls from different ball bearings and drop them together from your wardrobe to your carpet.
Do something real.
(Others can do the same thing, so watch your mouth.)
(http://www.physics.montana.edu/demonstrations/video/1_mechanics/demos/pics/localgravitychart.jpg)
EDIT: If you want to work with wet clay, it is 1826 kg / m3
100 g ball is 1 / 18 260 m3
200 g ball is 1 / 9 130 m3
-
If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?
Sit down, zero.
See?
You are beginning to understand where is your mistake.
There is still hope for you.
So, will two bals of 100 grams fall faster or slower than one ball of 200 grams?
Why?
I've already writed the equation about it.
a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)
I have pre agreed K as 9,811 but new tests show it may be more than 9,811. Anyway, we'll use it as this value for now.
a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)
Volume of the ball is important. I'll take them two equal to a voleyball ball.
R preagreed as: 25 cms. (pre acceptance, maybe wrong)
Volume: pixr^3/4= 25x25x25x3,14/4= 49062/4 =~12.000cm^3 = 0,01 m^3
Air weight for this volume>>
Air specific weight= 1,225kg/m^3
Air weight for this volume= 1,225*0,01= 0,01 kg.
First object: 0,20kgs.
Second object: 0,10kgs.
Remind a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)
accelerate 1 (for object 200 gram)= 9,811 * (0,2-0,01)/0,2 = 9,32 m/sn^2
accelerate 2 (for object 100 gram)= 9,811 * (0,1-0,01)/0,1 = 8,83 m/sn^2
As a result, ball object has 200 grs weight falls 5% faster than object 100 grs.
You may test it with two balls has equal volume and one of them 200 gram and the other one 100 gram. You'll see the first one falls first. But not so so. In 2 metres you maybe don't see the difference but it is more effective in a high more than 10 metres.
First of all, even the simplest thing like volume you did wrong.
V = 4/3 Pi r3 and not Pi r3 / 4
Logically, required radius for projected volume will be r = (3V / 4Pi)1/3 (third root). Diameter D = 2 r .
Second, if you use iron, it is 7300 kg/m3 and air is 1.225 kg/m3.
Obviously, iron is 5959 times more massive than air for the same volume.
So, iron ball of 100 grams (0.1 kg) will have volume of 1 / 73000 m3, which is ball with diameter of 0.03 m (3 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.00001678 kg (0.01678 g).
Iron ball of 200 grams (0.2 kg) will have volume of 1 / 36500 m3, which is ball with diameter of 0.037 m (3.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.00003356 kg (0.03356 g).
Acceleration g in Ankara is 9.8024 m/s2.
Acceleration g in Istanbul is 9.808 m/s2.
Distance d = v0 t + a t2 / 2 , while v0 = 0 , so t = SQRT(2d / g).
From height of 2 meters in Istanbul:
First ball will fall SQRT(2 * 2m / 9.808) = 0.638 seconds.
Second ball will fall SQRT(2 * 2m / 9.808) = 0.638 seconds.
Now take different balls from different ball bearings and drop them together from your wardrobe to your carpet.
Do something real.
(Others can do the same thing, so watch your mouth.)
(http://www.physics.montana.edu/demonstrations/video/1_mechanics/demos/pics/localgravitychart.jpg)
Firstly, I did not look the book for volumes. But it can't the result of my calculation because both experiments are affected by same mistake.
Secondly, you were talking about balls, and turned to a iron ball. I don't recommend you to use the iron ball.
Thirdly, you did not your own experiment. These are a result of a working of a dishonest liar like Brian Cox, all are fraud and lie. None of these measurements are made.
Either do your own experiment, or don't put forward others frauds.
Yeah, I was made a calculation error, but at least, it was my working, you got it? I was not stealed that working from anywhere.
-
Secondly, you were talking about balls, and turned to a iron ball. I don't recommend you to use the iron ball.
Wet clay is 1826 kg / m3, 1491 times more massive than air.
Ball of 100 grams has volume of 1 / 18260 m3, which is in diameter 0.047 m (4.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000067 kg (0.067 g).
Ball of 200 grams has volume of 1 / 9130 m3, which is in diameter 0.059 m (5.9 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000134 kg (0.134 g).
Thirdly, you did not your own experiment. These are a result of a working of a dishonest liar like Brian Cox, all are fraud and lie. None of these measurements are made.
Either do your own experiment, or don't put forward others frauds.
Calling me "dishonest" is just your dirty mouth.
What makes you think I didn't make my own experiments?
I'm 57 years old physicist, with enough experience to know exactly what I'm talking about.
Next to my Faculty, building to building, is Institute of Physics.
During my study we did all kind of experiments there, with well calibrated equipment.
(Even before my faculty, I was doing different experiments. That's why I studied physics.)
Later, while worked in Electro Technical School, I also did many experiments together with my students.
I was working in that school for 11 years.
Be careful who you call "liar".
Yeah, I was made a calculation error, but at least, it was my working, you got it? I was not stealed that working from anywhere.
No, you've made conceptual error, with no connection to reality.
That's why I told you to do it by your own hands.
EDIT:
Take two chunks of clay, 100 grams each, and third chunk of 200 grams.
Drop them all together from the same height and see.
Do you expect 200 grams of clay to fall faster as one chunk, than same 200 grams divided in two chunks of 100 grams each?
Try it.
-
tl, tr.
-
Secondly, you were talking about balls, and turned to a iron ball. I don't recommend you to use the iron ball.
Wet clay is 1826 kg / m3, 1491 times more massive than air.
Ball of 100 grams has volume of 1 / 18260 m3, which is in diameter 0.047 m (4.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000067 kg (0.067 g).
Ball of 200 grams has volume of 1 / 9130 m3, which is in diameter 0.059 m (5.9 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000134 kg (0.134 g).
Thirdly, you did not your own experiment. These are a result of a working of a dishonest liar like Brian Cox, all are fraud and lie. None of these measurements are made.
Either do your own experiment, or don't put forward others frauds.
Calling me "dishonest" is just your dirty mouth.
What makes you think I didn't make my own experiments?
I'm 57 years old physicist, with enough experience to know exactly what I'm talking about.
Next to my Faculty, building to building, is Institute of Physics.
During my study we did all kind of experiments there, with well calibrated equipment.
(Even before my faculty, I was doing different experiments. That's why I studied physics.)
Later, while worked in Electro Technical School, I also did many experiments together with my students.
I was working in that school for 11 years.
Be careful who you call "liar".
Yeah, I was made a calculation error, but at least, it was my working, you got it? I was not stealed that working from anywhere.
No, you've made conceptual error, with no connection to reality.
That's why I told you to do it by your own hands.
EDIT:
Take two chunks of clay, 100 grams each, and third chunk of 200 grams.
Drop them all together from the same height and see.
Do you expect 200 grams of clay to fall faster as one chunk, than same 200 grams divided in two chunks of 100 grams each?
Try it.
You're ignorant about basic phsics. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about "spesific mass". These are different things. 100 grams and 200 grams clay downs together, because spesific mass are same. We are talking completely different things.
before you learn basic phsics, I deny to discuss with you in this issue.
-
Secondly, you were talking about balls, and turned to a iron ball. I don't recommend you to use the iron ball.
Wet clay is 1826 kg / m3, 1491 times more massive than air.
Ball of 100 grams has volume of 1 / 18260 m3, which is in diameter 0.047 m (4.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000067 kg (0.067 g).
Ball of 200 grams has volume of 1 / 9130 m3, which is in diameter 0.059 m (5.9 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000134 kg (0.134 g).
Thirdly, you did not your own experiment. These are a result of a working of a dishonest liar like Brian Cox, all are fraud and lie. None of these measurements are made.
Either do your own experiment, or don't put forward others frauds.
Calling me "dishonest" is just your dirty mouth.
What makes you think I didn't make my own experiments?
I'm 57 years old physicist, with enough experience to know exactly what I'm talking about.
Next to my Faculty, building to building, is Institute of Physics.
During my study we did all kind of experiments there, with well calibrated equipment.
(Even before my faculty, I was doing different experiments. That's why I studied physics.)
Later, while worked in Electro Technical School, I also did many experiments together with my students.
I was working in that school for 11 years.
Be careful who you call "liar".
Yeah, I was made a calculation error, but at least, it was my working, you got it? I was not stealed that working from anywhere.
No, you've made conceptual error, with no connection to reality.
That's why I told you to do it by your own hands.
EDIT:
Take two chunks of clay, 100 grams each, and third chunk of 200 grams.
Drop them all together from the same height and see.
Do you expect 200 grams of clay to fall faster as one chunk, than same 200 grams divided in two chunks of 100 grams each?
Try it.
You're ignorant about basic phsics. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about "spesific mass". These are different things. 100 grams and 200 grams clay downs together, because spesific mass are same. We are talking completely different things.
before you learn basic phsics, I deny to discuss with you in this issue.
Your understanding of physics is so abysmal you don't even know it when you see it.
I could easily follow his example, and I believe in his background. What he explained was physics, with clear numbers to back it up. And we can use those physics to calculate and predict exactly how objects will move through air with gravity. We can predict exactly what we will observe.
-
You're ignorant about basic phsics. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about "spesific mass". These are different things. 100 grams and 200 grams clay downs together, because spesific mass are same. We are talking completely different things.
before you learn basic phsics, I deny to discuss with you in this issue.
What is your point? That objects of different mass but the same volume will fall at different rates outside of a vacuum. Simple physics. Reasons why: Force vs Resistance. Perform the experiment in a vacuum chamber and you will see them fall at the same rate. Their specific mass will mean squat. The same result occurs in a vacuum chamber if they have the same mass, but different volumes.
-
You can't achieve anything by entering with clone accounts for insult me and cause me ignore you. This is just a childish behaviour childinoz.
Grow, grow, grow.
I have clearly debunked the liar but you are acting like Brian Cock's bad hats.
-
You're ignorant about basic phsics. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about "spesific mass".
You are talking about density. That was pointed out to you before, but you ignore it.
The variable m is used for mass, not density. Density is represented by the greek letter rho, often replaced by a p.
As for being ignorant of basic physics, that would be you, not knowing what symbols mean what and completely ignorant of gravity, with the formula you have (when written correctly) is that for gravitational acceleration in a medium.
Perhaps you should go learn basic physics before attacking others?
Regardless, this has nothing to do with the experiment.
The feather didn't fall slower because of its lower density. It fell slower because of air resistance, something your formula doesn't bother with.
You can't achieve anything by entering with clone accounts for insult me and cause me ignore you. This is just a childish behaviour childinoz.
Grow, grow, grow.
I have clearly debunked the liar but you are acting like Brian Cock's bad hats.
You are the one with extremely pathetic and childish behavior here.
There is no reason to think they are clone accounts, and you repeatedly ignoring people shows you know you cannot justify your claims.
You have debunked no one.
You lying about and ignoring what people say is not debunking.
To debunk them you actually need to respond to what they say.
You are yet to do this.
-
You can't achieve anything by entering with clone accounts for insult me and cause me ignore you. This is just a childish behaviour childinoz.
That is why we do not have any "clone accounts" and if you claim otherwise you, Mr Brotherhood of the Deceivers are lying!
Get the message!
-
You're ignorant about basic phsics. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about "spesific mass". These are different things. 100 grams and 200 grams clay downs together, because spesific mass are same. We are talking completely different things.
before you learn basic phsics, I deny to discuss with you in this issue.
Mixing "wrong buoyancy" with "insignifficant air resistance at low speeds" won't help you.
Drop clay and steel ball together from the same height.
Or don't.
If it will shatter your illusions then just remain in the domain of your own wishful thinking. :)
-
You can't achieve anything by entering with clone accounts for insult me and cause me ignore you. This is just a childish behaviour childinoz.
Grow, grow, grow.
I have clearly debunked the liar but you are acting like Brian Cock's bad hats.
Do you know whats childish behaviour? Ignorance. Do you know what ignorance is? Watching one video, not asking any questions, not trying to do the experiments yourself and coming to the conclusion "Fake. Debunked. I don't accept appeals because everything is clear."
... but lets go back to Topic. I read your initial post and see the point you have:
- 4:13 - 4:16 shows a faster fall of the ball
- 4:17 - 4:30 shows the objects falling at the same speed
So i did what i had to do and was looking for other videos of the same BBC documentation on Youtube and guess what i found...
- 0:36 - 0:39 describes the behavior when air is present. To me it looks exactly the same scene as you described at 4:13 - 4:16 in your video??
- 1:48 - 1:54 shows the objects falling in vacuum at exactly the same speed, followed by
- 1:54 - end of video how the two objects fall to the ground
So for some reason, the version you posted has a different arrangement of the cut scenes. I will not call one or the other video as fake but it is very obvious that the cut scenes are differently arranged and that your video is missing the scene that is shown in the video i posted above. You should take the following into consideration:
The fall of objects in vacuum is a very often described Experiment. There are also many other videos about this topic. If you do not trust this videos and you still think they are fake you can also buy a glass tubing and a vacuum pump yourself. Put a feather and a coin inside to test the behavior of falling objects instead of screaming "fake" "liars" "dishonesty" and if you still observe something different you would have at least evidence to proof your point.
Other video showing objects in vacuum that fall at the same speed:
-
snj37825, thanks for that second video, it's always cool to watch how a feather falls in a vacuum. I did this when I was in high school as well.
This experiment has been repeated many times for many years. How many high schools in the US have similar equipment sitting around in a closet in a lab? The equipment get pulled out yearly to run the experiment for the next group of students. Millions of people have seen this with their own eyes first hand. Not on a video, not just through reading a book. In real life.
This is such a well documented phenomenon, it's a high bar to attempt to dismiss just because someone dislikes or distrusts one particular presenter or group.
There's a good collection of videos on YouTube doing the same experiment.
-
Case is already closed. So called experiment is debunked.
There is no need I post anything furthermore. But you globists are free to discuss between yourselves.
-
Case is already closed. So called experiment is debunked.
There is no need I post anything furthermore. But you globists are free to discuss between yourselves.
debunked only in your head. How sad that you are unable to actually look at evidence.
-
Case is already closed. So called experiment is debunked.
There is no need I post anything furthermore. But you globists are free to discuss between yourselves.
The one thing you are forgetting is that your posts are quite possibly the most vacuous ever written.
-
Case is already closed. So called experiment is debunked.
No, your ass has been handed to you repeatedly.
If you want to close the case, that is fine, you can do so, with the experiment remaining valid/true.
You have failed to debunk it.
P.S. even with your BS "I'm going to pretend this isn't gravity" formula, you would still expect the results in the video.
So if you did debunk it, you would have debunked yourself.
-
Folks still try to argue with a lost cause of the magnitude of Intikam? ;D
-
The video you posted is no the original...its been faked.
Here is the original......
Again bad editing of the video if that is the original.
Frames at 4.15 show the feather falling in air as mentioned earlier....
Not really. It shows the 2 different drops and if you listen to the guy, he is talking about how we have assumed the feathers weren’t falling at the same rate of acceleration because it looks they aren’t. It is meant to highlight the differences in the drops.
Also, why are these people who are arguing against gravity only using the part of video at 4:15? What about the rest of the video where it shows both drops individually?
-
Folks Shills/clones still try to argue with a lost won cause of the magnitude of Intikam? ;D
Corrected.
-
The video you posted is no the original...its been faked.
Here is the original......
Again bad editing of the video if that is the original.
Frames at 4.15 show the feather falling in air as mentioned earlier....
Not really. It shows the 2 different drops and if you listen to the guy, he is talking about how we have assumed the feathers weren’t falling at the same rate of acceleration because it looks they aren’t. It is meant to highlight the differences in the drops.
Also, why are these people who are arguing against gravity only using the part of video at 4:15? What about the rest of the video where it shows both drops individually?
There is no real time experiment. So that this experiment is not valid, can not be an evidence.
-
The video you posted is no the original...its been faked.
Here is the original......
Again bad editing of the video if that is the original.
Frames at 4.15 show the feather falling in air as mentioned earlier....
Not really. It shows the 2 different drops and if you listen to the guy, he is talking about how we have assumed the feathers weren’t falling at the same rate of acceleration because it looks they aren’t. It is meant to highlight the differences in the drops.
Also, why are these people who are arguing against gravity only using the part of video at 4:15? What about the rest of the video where it shows both drops individually?
There is no real time experiment. So that this experiment is not valid, can not be an evidence.
There is no real flat earth experiment. So that any flat earth experiment is not valid, can not be an evidence.
-
Case is already closed. So called experiment is debunked.
There is no need I post anything furthermore. But you globists are free to discuss between yourselves.
Actually it is not closed and the only thing that is debunked is your initial post. ;)
When you do not watch the original video and make your initial claim on a faked version of the video that is one thing. When we show you the correct video and you just ignore this fact and still hold on your initial claim this clearly shows everyone here who is the real liar. This has btw. nothing to do with globalists, a sphere shaped earth or the concept of gravity. Its just about honesty and you clearly have none. Fun fact is that everyone is capable to see it expect for yourself, ouch... :o
To come back to the topic and for the purpose of a clear illustration. Once again, just for you and debunk your first post again;
with air
(https://i.imgur.com/uqPiQLP.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/QVGpRfW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8Y0IX9j.jpg)
without air
(https://i.imgur.com/elGCOHL.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/iolfrmd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/snPw487.jpg)
Enjoy the rabbit hole princess.
-
Corrected.
You mean blatantly lied about with your delusional fantasies as that seems to be all you are capable of.
There is no real time experiment. So that this experiment is not valid, can not be an evidence.
There is no logical connection between those 2 statements.
This video not being real time in no way makes it invalid.
Speeding up or slowing down the footage won't magically change the result.
Plenty of people have had this done in right in front of them.
Again, this result is predicted by you "let's pretend it's not gravity" formula.
So you are arguing with yourself.
If what is shown in this video is fake and something else should happen instead, then your formula is wrong and you are wrong.
-
splitted post has been not considered
Do not split my posts or you never take a reply. Keep your shits away to me.
-
...
tl,tr
-
There is no real flat earth experiment. So that any flat earth experiment is not valid, can not be an evidence.
Nope. There it is.
ADVANCED PHYSICS OF THE FLAT EARTH THEORY 3
Calculating the gravity G constant and disproving the gravity:
We'll use for it a burst of weather ballon. This is our source of the video, as a proof.
In 1:57, balloon starts to burst. After that, with a bit air resistance, we may agree the object as free falling.
Lets notice the time-altitude values:
Before corrections:
Time from 0 (will be corrected from 1:57) / altitude as feets (will be corrected as meters)
1:57 112.466
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2dazhba.png)
2:07 110535
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2vmzjmo.png)
2:17 108659
(http://i65.tinypic.com/25sbzar.png)
2:27 106802
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2evrmm1.png)
2:37 104933
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2e0msts.png)
2:47 103020
(http://i66.tinypic.com/24yu745.png)
There was some advertisements on the video. But I chosed it for trust it better than a free video. Because there may be legal problems with no-advertising videos. I hope there is probably no legal problem with that.
Lets start to calculate:
Time (x-1:57) as seconds / Distance (112.466-y) as feets
0- 0
10- 1931
20- 3807
30- 5664
40- 7533
50- 9446
Time gap / distance gap
0-0
10-1931
10-1876
10-1857
10-1869
10-1913
Time gap (seconds) /distance gap (converted to meters)
0-0
10 secs -588 mt
10 secs- 571 mt
10 secs- 566 mt
10 secs- 570 mt
10 secs- 583 mt
Where is accelerate? There is no accelerate after 10 seconds.
If you have a video that all we have measurement and calculate on it for prove the gravity and its factors, you can claim it as an evidence. But we still will be the right to appeal some points.
-
...
tl,tr
You know, my post was not even to convince you but now everyone knows that you are out of arguments. Thanks for taking the bait. GG. ;) ;) ;)
-
Do not split my posts or you never take a reply. Keep your shits away to me.
No.
You have no ground to demand such a thing.
You replace what people say, lying in the process.
I will continue to point out your bullshit and cut your posts up however I see fit.
I didn't even split your posts this time.
Instead I cut out your blatant lie of a quote, and another quote you had in a post.
In case you don't know, you aren't mean to keep a massive quote chain in your posts.
Respect is a 2 way street.
If you want people to start putting in effort by keeping your posts whole, start treating others with respect.
If you don't want to address the argument, don't. The excuses you make are pathetic and are worse than just saying nothing.
Everyone can see you repeatedly ignoring posts and lying about the people. They can see you have no rational argument or defence of your position.
Nope. There it is.
Nope. There it isn't.
That would be evidence showing a clear curve.
You clearly don't understand how things fall or have any idea about things like terminal velocity.
-
crap is deleted.
Do not split my posts or you'll get a nah instead of reply. 8)
-
...
tl,tr
You know, my post was not even to convince you but now everyone knows that you are out of arguments. Thanks for taking the bait. GG. ;) ;) ;)
If your main aim is fishing, sounds like you are good for do it. But we are here to reveal the truth and teach the truth to the newcomers. So that your so called achievements do not get my interest. Go on to do what you do, it doesn't matter.
-
crap is deleted.
Do not split my posts or you'll get a nah instead of reply. 8)
That's all we get anyway. You have nothing. You are firing blanks.
-
Do not split my posts or you'll get a nah instead of reply. 8)
But that is all you are capable of providing.
Like I said, perhaps when you start showing some respect for others, others will start showing you some respect. Currently you deserve none.
-
Do not split my posts or you'll get a nah instead of reply. 8)
But that is all you are capable of providing.
Like I said, perhaps when you start showing some respect for others, others will start showing you some respect. Currently you deserve none.
I don't expect your respect, especially you and a few more. But you are saying lie. Because you are respect me. If you don't respect me, so you don't reply my posts. You are forcing to yourself to follow my posts, because of you respect me. I'm the light of your life. You can't live without me.
-
Case is already closed. So called experiment is debunked.
There is no need I post anything furthermore. But you globists are free to discuss between yourselves.
Actually it is not closed and the only thing that is debunked is your initial post. ;)
When you do not watch the original video and make your initial claim on a faked version of the video that is one thing. When we show you the correct video and you just ignore this fact and still hold on your initial claim this clearly shows everyone here who is the real liar.
There's no 'faked version'. The original video is badly edited in the sequence from 4:15. It splices together the fall in air with the fall in vacuum.
-
...
tl,tr
You know, my post was not even to convince you but now everyone knows that you are out of arguments. Thanks for taking the bait. GG. ;) ;) ;)
If your main aim is fishing, sounds like you are good for do it. But we are here to reveal the truth and teach the truth to the newcomers. So that your so called achievements do not get my interest. Go on to do what you do, it doesn't matter.
Of course it was not only about fishing but mainly to (thanks once again for your reliable cooperation! second post was not even about fishing but you played yourself somehow...) "reveal the truth and teach the truth to the newcomers". Together we were able to show all our newcomers authentically that you made claims on a obviously badly/wrong edited video. There is nothing debunked yet so instead of driving the discussion sideways we should come back to the initial topic again. :)
-
There is no real flat earth experiment. So that any flat earth experiment is not valid, can not be an evidence.
Nope. There it is.
ADVANCED PHYSICS OF THE FLAT EARTH THEORY 3
Calculating the gravity G constant and disproving the gravity:
We'll use for it a burst of weather ballon. This is our source of the video, as a proof.
In 1:57, balloon starts to burst. After that, with a bit air resistance, we may agree the object as free falling.
Lets notice the time-altitude values:
Before corrections:
Time from 0 (will be corrected from 1:57) / altitude as feets (will be corrected as meters)
1:57 112.466
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2dazhba.png)
2:07 110535
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2vmzjmo.png)
2:17 108659
(http://i65.tinypic.com/25sbzar.png)
2:27 106802
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2evrmm1.png)
2:37 104933
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2e0msts.png)
2:47 103020
(http://i66.tinypic.com/24yu745.png)
There was some advertisements on the video. But I chosed it for trust it better than a free video. Because there may be legal problems with no-advertising videos. I hope there is probably no legal problem with that.
Lets start to calculate:
Time (x-1:57) as seconds / Distance (112.466-y) as feets
0- 0
10- 1931
20- 3807
30- 5664
40- 7533
50- 9446
Time gap / distance gap
0-0
10-1931
10-1876
10-1857
10-1869
10-1913
Time gap (seconds) /distance gap (converted to meters)
0-0
10 secs -588 mt
10 secs- 571 mt
10 secs- 566 mt
10 secs- 570 mt
10 secs- 583 mt
Where is accelerate? There is no accelerate after 10 seconds.
If you have a video that all we have measurement and calculate on it for prove the gravity and its factors, you can claim it as an evidence. But we still will be the right to appeal some points.
We don't need a video for that. There is math and things that you can easily observe without getting out of your chair. Like for example, you being able to sit in a chair.
You don't get to "close a case" because you don't like the evidence. That automatically means you lose the argument and are wrong regardless of your opinion on the matter. Every single argument you have tried to make on this forum is destroyed easily by real, actual observable facts.
-
We don't need a video for that. There is math and things that you can easily observe without getting out of your chair. Like for example, you being able to sit in a chair.
You already think don't need anything, except your blinkers.
Math is working for my calculations well. But math, debunks the gravity in example examined above. But you are denying the science, in the name of acting scientific. What an irony, what a joke, what a pathetic man!
-
But you are saying lie. Because you are respect me. If you don't respect me, so you don't reply my posts.
No, I'm not lying.
I have little to no respect for you because of your actions.
Me replying to your lies and bullshit does not mean I respect you.
Now how about you address the fact that the key part of the experiment you object to agrees with the formula you provided and thus if it is fake, so is your formula?
Math is working for my calculations well. But math, debunks the gravity in example examined above. But you are denying the science, in the name of acting scientific. What an irony, what a joke, what a pathetic man!
Nope. The one denying science here is you.
You act like gravity is the only factor when in reality there are several.
But you say things should fall according to your formula, which directly matches gravity alone.
So that would mean your formula is wrong as well, but you don't seem to comment on that.
-
Many people have seen the feather/coin in a vacuum experiment in person with their own eyes. It is a very high bar to suggest people have not seen it with their own eyes. It happens often in high school science classes, it happened in my high school science class. I listed several videos from several sources demonstrating it.
Let's completely ignore the Brian Cox for discussion sake. There are still many examples of this experiment happening.
To continue to claim that gravity does not exist and that it's air pressure and buoyancy forcing things down, something must be offered to explain the feather/coin in a vacuum experiment.
Calling the case closed doesn't actually close the case. Offer an explanation, lets have a discussion about it, reason through the points, try some other experiments. I'm up for that. Until that happens, this experiment stands as very strong evidence for gravity.
-
We don't need a video for that. There is math and things that you can easily observe without getting out of your chair. Like for example, you being able to sit in a chair.
You already think don't need anything, except your blinkers.
Math is working for my calculations well. But math, debunks the gravity in example examined above. But you are denying the science, in the name of acting scientific. What an irony, what a joke, what a pathetic man!
No, math does not debunk gravity in the example examined above. You don't seem to understand that when you say something, that doesn't create truth. The truth already exists regardless of your opinion. YOU are the ultimate denier of science, truth, and reason. You have clearly been exposed as the fool of fools on this site, but as is natural for a fool, you are too foolish to realize it. Not even the flat earth community here acknowledges your bullshit...you literally have no purpose, anywhere.
-
A new video how Brian Cox has caught while escaping the questions and is a hoax:
A clear evidence.
-
A new video how Brian Cox has caught while escaping the questions and is a hoax:
A clear evidence.
Not quite.
Part of clear evidence of the dishonesty of the FEers.
His question is still there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v08l3/
Cox only stayed on for a few hours and there were hundreds of questions. He isn't going to be able to answer them all or even notice them all.
The question he is focusing on was posted quite late into it and it wasn't deleted.
After posting about his question getting removed (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v1kjb/), Cox responded (yet he didn't bother including that in the video). He only then reposted the question in response over an hour after Cox left. And he deleted his own post.
Elsewhere Cox even posted why he thinks it is pointless to discuss things with FEers.
And it isn't surprising that Cox feels that way especially as it is quite clear the poster is blatantly lying.
He is asking the same old refuted nonsense.
As a quick recap:
1 - No barrier is needed, just like you can have water sitting below no water. A pressure gradient will exist in all mediums, as is clearly observed with all fluids, even the atmosphere with the pressure decreasing with elevation. This means that no barrier is needed.
2 - There is no clear boundary. A vacuum is not devoid of all matter, it just has a very low amount of matter, significantly lower than air.
3 - By joining the pieces together. Appealing to speed just shows wilful ignorance of inertia. Why should it be left behind? Only a perfectly circular orbit would be a tightrope, and the 2 sides of it aren't falling to Earth or flying off to space, they would be 2 elliptical orbits, one with that point as perigee, the other with it as apogee.
4 - The same way they work in atmosphere, and you can think about it in 2 ways. The simplest is gas is ejected out the back of the rocket which will necessarily result in the rocket being pushed the other way.
5 - Are you lifting the entire ocean? No. Instead you are just lifting a tiny portion.
It is clear from the post that he isn't interested in the truth as if he actually bothered looking the first is done quite easily, with easy measurable, repeatable, observable experiments which he is choosing to ignore.
-
A new video how Brian Cox has caught while escaping the questions and is a hoax:
A clear evidence.
Not quite.
Part of clear evidence of the dishonesty of the FEers.
His question is still there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v08l3/
Cox only stayed on for a few hours and there were hundreds of questions. He isn't going to be able to answer them all or even notice them all.
The question he is focusing on was posted quite late into it and it wasn't deleted.
After posting about his question getting removed (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v1kjb/), Cox responded (yet he didn't bother including that in the video). He only then reposted the question in response over an hour after Cox left. And he deleted his own post.
Elsewhere Cox even posted why he thinks it is pointless to discuss things with FEers.
And it isn't surprising that Cox feels that way especially as it is quite clear the poster is blatantly lying.
He is asking the same old refuted nonsense.
As a quick recap:
1 - No barrier is needed, just like you can have water sitting below no water. A pressure gradient will exist in all mediums, as is clearly observed with all fluids, even the atmosphere with the pressure decreasing with elevation. This means that no barrier is needed.
2 - There is no clear boundary. A vacuum is not devoid of all matter, it just has a very low amount of matter, significantly lower than air.
3 - By joining the pieces together. Appealing to speed just shows wilful ignorance of inertia. Why should it be left behind? Only a perfectly circular orbit would be a tightrope, and the 2 sides of it aren't falling to Earth or flying off to space, they would be 2 elliptical orbits, one with that point as perigee, the other with it as apogee.
4 - The same way they work in atmosphere, and you can think about it in 2 ways. The simplest is gas is ejected out the back of the rocket which will necessarily result in the rocket being pushed the other way.
5 - Are you lifting the entire ocean? No. Instead you are just lifting a tiny portion.
It is clear from the post that he isn't interested in the truth as if he actually bothered looking the first is done quite easily, with easy measurable, repeatable, observable experiments which he is choosing to ignore.
Because he has renewed his question. But as far as we see that Cox could not answered it. You are not Brian Cox mister. You have no right to answer them. And your answers are already wrong that no need to mention.
His question was upside of the question of nessimez:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/
But new post is under of it. It means, Cox has wanted to delete it then gone without answer. It is clear, he has escaped. Do not defend someone who is a liar and coward.
-
A new video how Brian Cox has caught while escaping the questions and is a hoax:
A clear evidence.
I wouldn't go so far as escaping, I would say discounting and disregarding. Rightfully so.
Do you really think those 5 questions were so hard hitting, flummoxing, absolutely detrimental and a worrying cause of exposing the globe earth theory as a fraud if he dared near them? Oh my.
My goodness, we deal with those inane questions here everyday of the week. Childsplay.
Keep digging. This is the lamest unearthing to try and "expose" someone I've seen in a long time. Downright disappointing.
-
Because he has renewed his question.
No. He didn't renew it. We can tell based upon the timestamps.
His comment was posted at 17:45, and was posted "3 minutes ago" for the video, bringing the time to 17:48.
The comment clearly visible in the thread was posted at 16:54. That would make it roughly "54 minutes ago", which when you include rounding for the seconds, matches quite well to the "55 minutes ago" in the video.
He is blatantly lying.
For his next post, we can go to https://www.removeddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v1kjb/ to clearly see who made the comment (he did).
We can then go to the normal reddit link, https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v1kjb/ and we can clearly see "Comment deleted by user"
So he deleted that post, not anyone else.
Again, he is blatantly lying.
You have no right to answer them.
It was a question asked on a public forum. I have every right to answer.
And your answers are already wrong that no need to mention.
If they were you would be able to explain why they were wrong, rather than just dismiss them.
The fact you have just dismissed them shows you likely have no answer.
His question was upside of the question of nessimez:
Yes, as he just posted it and that is where your post appears after you post it, for you.
It doesn't magically remain there.
It means, Cox has wanted to delete it
Stop lying.
It is clear that no one deleted it. The post is still there. You can tell based upon the time stamps.
Or are you going to claim that the other comment was recreated before that post at just the right time?
Do not defend someone who is a liar and coward.
I'm not the one defending a liar.
-
I just looked up the AMA:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/
Here's the guy's questions on page 3:
(https://i.imgur.com/AWDaXHk.png)
What's the problem again? He asked questions in a Reddit AMA and they weren't addressed? Lawdy me! CONSPIRACY!
I kinda think the next guy's question was far more fascinating.
-
...warning...
So you have splitted my post. Are you ready to big dominator? :)
-
What's the problem again? He asked questions in a Reddit AMA and they weren't addressed? Lawdy me! CONSPIRACY!
He could just type them into Google and get the correct answers pretty quickly...
-
"As a budding astronomer and hobby astrophysicist"
Oh, really?
-
So you have splitted my post.
Yes, as I typically do.
I notice you didn't bother attempting to respond, just like you ignored a large part of the last post.
Why is that?
Is it because you know you can't?
Again, it is quite clear he is lying.
You can easily find answers for at least his first question, complete with experiments which can be conducted which meet his requirements (i.e. measurable, etc). So he hasn't made any attempt to and the end of his post is an outright lie.
You can easily find his original post, and compare it to the time stamps to confirm it was not deleted like he claims.
You can easily find his second post, and find out that it was deleted by him, not others like he claims.
As far as I can tell, he never posted his last comment (which isn't surprising considering he shows it before it is submitted).
So are you ready to defend his lies?
-
So you have splitted my post.
Yes, as I typically do.
I notice you didn't bother attempting to respond, just like you ignored a large part of the last post.
Why is that?
Is it because you know you can't?
Again, it is quite clear he is lying.
You can easily find answers for at least his first question, complete with experiments which can be conducted which meet his requirements (i.e. measurable, etc). So he hasn't made any attempt to and the end of his post is an outright lie.
You can easily find his original post, and compare it to the time stamps to confirm it was not deleted like he claims.
You can easily find his second post, and find out that it was deleted by him, not others like he claims.
As far as I can tell, he never posted his last comment (which isn't surprising considering he shows it before it is submitted).
So are you ready to defend his lies?
I just wondered are you ready to I splitting your post too. Because when I did it last time, you were crying and ignored most of statements.
Because you are liar and agree the earth's being flat by not answering all the statements.
Either do not cry, or do not do anything cause you to cry.
-
Here you all argue and argue. And then tell me why the feather did not fly to the ball, if it flew so briskly to the ground? I do not think that there is an adequate explanation for this.
Everything falls to the ground and why it is not clear exactly.
-
I just wondered are you ready to I splitting your post too. Because when I did it last time, you were crying and ignored most of statements.
No, I didn't ignore them, I responded to them, but at times I Responded to multiple statements. Then when you just kept repeating the same pathetic dismissals with absolutely nothing backing them up, I stopped responding to them.
Meanwhile, you have already started to ignore my statements, or not respond to them. This shows splitting up your posts does nothing. Even without them split up you still ignore things.
Now quit with the childish games and defend your claims/the claims of the video.
Again, it is quite easy to find his post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v08l3/
Based upon the timestamps, and the timestamp of the other post shown in the video (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8uwfs0/), it is easy to confirm that his original post still exists and was not deleted at all.
We can use removed reddit (https://www.removeddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v1kjb/) to find his other post, and then compare it to that on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9tb6jh/im_brian_cox_professor_of_physics_author_host_of/e8v1kjb/) to clearly see that this second comment of his was removed by himself. We can also see in that same location that Cox responded to him and he only reposted his question after Cox had already left.
If we look at the thread we can see that hundreds of questions were asked so it is insane to expect Cox to respond to them. We can also find plenty he didn't respond to, such as:
What books are on your shelf?
What do you think of Elon Musk & SpaceX raising the profile of space exploration? Good publicity for the community or just a marketing ploy?
Why do males have nipples?
I can post loads more.
The vast majority of the questions asked were not responded to. That is just the nature of how these AMAs work.
So his question not getting answered can simply mean Cox never saw it or never got around to answering it.
We also see a post by Cox explaining his position on engaging FEers:
"I honestly think it's a lost cause. There is no logical pattern to it, so you can't argue with it! It's like arguing with a random number generator."
It is also abundantly clear that the poster is lying. His very first question is easily answered, with answers which are measurable, repeatable, observable. All he would have to do is a simple google search. So that shows he either doesn't care about the answers (and thus is not a hobby astrophysicist), or is blatantly lying when he says that he is yet to find any explanations.
So you have a video filled with lies to attack Cox.
I have also provided answers to all 5 questions, as they are very simple questions, yet you just dismiss them as wrong, without any rational justification for that dismissal.
-
Here you all argue and argue. And then tell me why the feather did not fly to the ball, if it flew so briskly to the ground? I do not think that there is an adequate explanation for this.
Everything falls to the ground and why it is not clear exactly.
Earth has a mass of roughly 5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. It is located roughly 6,371,000 m away from the feather.
This means the feather will accelerate towards Earth at a rate of roughly 9.82 m/s^2.
Assuming they are using the full height of the ~37 m tower (they are using less) this fall would take 2.75 seconds.
The bowling ball, being generous and overestimating the acceleration from that by making it heavier than the heavy end of allowed masses with a mass of 10 kg, with a separation of a mere 0.1 m (meaning the feather would be partially inside the ball), would result in an acceleration of 0.00000007 m/s^2.
Over the 2.75 second fall, that would result in a displacement of 0.00000025 m. That is far too small to notice and would be smaller than a single pixel.
To put it simply, the gravitational attraction to Earth makes the gravitational attraction to the ball indistinguishable from noise.
You would need to counteract the pull from Earth to notice the attraction between the ball and feather.
-
YackBlack - bravo! You are the best :) :) :)