The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: ausGeoff on November 17, 2014, 08:03:10 AM
-
This is a 5 minute video from "Human Universe" on BBC2 in the UK which involves dropping a bowling ball and feathers in a near-perfect vacuum:
Brian Cox visits the world's biggest vacuum chamber (http://bit.ly/10TrUmt)
With the 30 tons, or 800,000ft3 of air removed—leaving only 2g—the feathers and ball fall at precisely the same rate, just as Galileo predicted and Newton showed mathematically. The bit at the end is referring to Einstein's equivalence principle.
-
I wonder why they didn't show the ball and feather dropping in the vacuum at full speed? What is the point of slowing the video down? To make it appear like they are falling slower in a vacuum?
If anything this video proves that even in a vacuum objects will fall at the same rate and not "float" like they have led us to believe in deep space. There's not some point in the atmosphere where you can "pop out" and float easily. If anything, it gets harder to gain altitude the higher up you go.
-
For all those people that are switched on in the head, I would like you to apply your common sense to this video.
They reckon that this place has been turned into a virtual vacuum. Now remember. These people are experts in this day and age of doing this stuff, apparently, right?
Nothing shocks them about vacuums, because...well, theya re just so used to knowing what they do against objects and such.
Having said that, before I decide to pick this absolute pile of crap apart, I'd like you to focus on the scientists who are viewing this slow motion experiment.
Go to 3:20 and watch the total amazement on their faces as they see the feather and bowling ball falling at the same time. They've never done this before. It must be the first ever time this system has been used. It has to be, judging by their almost kiddified amazed faces....in this day and age. Something that Newton supposedly done before breakfast. ;D
This is what I'm talking about when I say that we are being filled full of crap. Brian Cox is a rock star turned professor. Or shall I say: he's a rock star turned bullshit artist for the camera, actor.
Let's see if any of you good people can pick this crap apart.
I'll start off by asking you to look at the feathers when they bounce and spring back up.
There's just two oddities about it all.
Of course, the shills will pipe in with, " oh no, just because they look amazed, it's staged."
And all that flannel. ::)
(http://)
-
I wonder why they didn't show the ball and feather dropping in the vacuum at full speed? What is the point of slowing the video down? To make it appear like they are falling slower in a vacuum?
Because slow motion is awesome.
If anything this video proves that even in a vacuum objects will fall at the same rate and not "float" like they have led us to believe in deep space. There's not some point in the atmosphere where you can "pop out" and float easily. If anything, it gets harder to gain altitude the higher up you go.
This video doesn't really go into any detail about what happens in space. So what are you on about?
-
For all those people that are switched on in the head, I would like you to apply your common sense to this video.
They reckon that this place has been turned into a virtual vacuum. Now remember. These people are experts in this day and age of doing this stuff, apparently, right?
Nothing shocks them about vacuums, because...well, theya re just so used to knowing what they do against objects and such.
Having said that, before I decide to pick this absolute pile of crap apart, I'd like you to focus on the scientists who are viewing this slow motion experiment.
Go to 3:20 and watch the total amazement on their faces as they see the feather and bowling ball falling at the same time. They've never done this before. It must be the first ever time this system has been used. It has to be, judging by their almost kiddified amazed faces....in this day and age. Something that Newton supposedly done before breakfast. ;D
This is what I'm talking about when I say that we are being filled full of crap. Brian Cox is a rock star turned professor. Or shall I say: he's a rock star turned bullshit artist for the camera, actor.
Let's see if any of you good people can pick this crap apart.
I'll start off by asking you to look at the feathers when they bounce and spring back up.
There's just two oddities about it all.
Of course, the shills will pipe in with, " oh no, just because they look amazed, it's staged."
And all that flannel. ::)
(http://)
You really haven't picked anything apart. You just claim it is staged or fake yet you fail to show evidence of this.
-
I wonder why they didn't show the ball and feather dropping in the vacuum at full speed? What is the point of slowing the video down? To make it appear like they are falling slower in a vacuum?
If anything this video proves that even in a vacuum objects will fall at the same rate and not "float" like they have led us to believe in deep space. There's not some point in the atmosphere where you can "pop out" and float easily. If anything, it gets harder to gain altitude the higher up you go.
The video simply proves the existence of gravity. That objects are subject to gravity regardless of atmospheric pressure.
-
I wonder why they didn't show the ball and feather dropping in the vacuum at full speed? What is the point of slowing the video down? To make it appear like they are falling slower in a vacuum?
If anything this video proves that even in a vacuum objects will fall at the same rate and not "float" like they have led us to believe in deep space. There's not some point in the atmosphere where you can "pop out" and float easily. If anything, it gets harder to gain altitude the higher up you go.
The video simply proves the existence of gravity. That objects are subject to gravity regardless of atmospheric pressure.
The video proves nothing, except the same ability of people to bullshit the public.
-
If anything this video proves that even in a vacuum objects will fall at the same rate and not "float" like they have led us to believe in deep space. There's not some point in the atmosphere where you can "pop out" and float easily. If anything, it gets harder to gain altitude the higher up you go.
It sounds like you do not know the explanation for why people float when in orbit. He is a clue, it has to do with motion relative to the Earth.
-
I wonder why they didn't show the ball and feather dropping in the vacuum at full speed? What is the point of slowing the video down? To make it appear like they are falling slower in a vacuum?
If anything this video proves that even in a vacuum objects will fall at the same rate and not "float" like they have led us to believe in deep space. There's not some point in the atmosphere where you can "pop out" and float easily. If anything, it gets harder to gain altitude the higher up you go.
The video simply proves the existence of gravity. That objects are subject to gravity regardless of atmospheric pressure.
The video proves nothing, except the same ability of people to bullshit the public.
Again, you have zero evidence of this. The burden of proof is on you when you make such allegations.
-
You know, I fully expect a feather and a ball to drop at the same rate in a vacuum but it would still be amazing to watch simply because I don't intuitively expect it. I live on the earth where there is air resistance so I'm sure I'd be just as amazed as the guys in the video.
-
You know, I fully expect a feather and a ball to drop at the same rate in a vacuum but it would still be amazing to watch simply because I don't intuitively expect it. I live on the earth where there is air resistance so I'm sure I'd be just as amazed as the guys in the video.
It is amazing to see some great scientific theories proven right before your eyes! Of course, from lack of explanation the FE-ers will cry foul or fake and insist that is their "explanation".
-
It is a really cool clip, with such a long drop.
Big surprise on the responses - doesn't support fe? faaaaaaaake! conspiracy! chemtrails! ;D ;D
Response with "why don't they float" really takes the cake. It would make fe arguments so much more credible if they had the slightest understanding of what they're denying.
-
Still waiting for details of the brass and steel drop experiment.
-
Still... "like they have led us to believe", oh man, I can hardly breathe here ;D ;D ;D
-
Go to 3:20 and watch the total amazement on their faces as they see the feather and bowling ball falling at the same time. They've never done this before. It must be the first ever time this system has been used. It has to be, judging by their almost kiddified amazed faces....in this day and age. Something that Newton supposedly done before breakfast. ;D
It is a TV program. People going about their daily life is fucking boring so they have directors that encourage a larger than life reaction.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that we are being filled full of crap. Brian Cox is a rock star turned professor. Or shall I say: he's a rock star turned bullshit artist for the camera, actor.
Let's see if any of you good people can pick this crap apart.
I'll start off by asking you to look at the feathers when they bounce and spring back up.
I can't wait for your powerful insight. I am sure it will be filled with thoughts of such depth and magnitude that all will be helplessly compelled by them.
-
Anyone who accepts that as empirical proof of anything other than the existence of TV programs is a fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
-
Anyone who accepts that as empirical proof of anything other than the existence of TV programs is a fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
I am of the belief that dropping stuff to see how fast they fall counts as experiment and observation. Which appears to be the definition, so thanks for clearing that up.
-
For all those people that are switched on in the head, I would like you to apply your common sense to this video.
They reckon that this place has been turned into a virtual vacuum. Now remember. These people are experts in this day and age of doing this stuff, apparently, right?
Nothing shocks them about vacuums, because...well, theya re just so used to knowing what they do against objects and such.
Having said that, before I decide to pick this absolute pile of crap apart, I'd like you to focus on the scientists who are viewing this slow motion experiment.
Go to 3:20 and watch the total amazement on their faces as they see the feather and bowling ball falling at the same time. They've never done this before. It must be the first ever time this system has been used. It has to be, judging by their almost kiddified amazed faces....in this day and age. Something that Newton supposedly done before breakfast. ;D
This is what I'm talking about when I say that we are being filled full of crap. Brian Cox is a rock star turned professor. Or shall I say: he's a rock star turned bullshit artist for the camera, actor.
Let's see if any of you good people can pick this crap apart.
I'll start off by asking you to look at the feathers when they bounce and spring back up.
There's just two oddities about it all.
Of course, the shills will pipe in with, " oh no, just because they look amazed, it's staged."
And all that flannel. ::)
(http://)
you say oddities?
i say brian cox.
a more insidious and discomfiture inducing creature than any that walks or crawls. or slides along in his own copious mucus secretion by the look of it.
-
Anyone who accepts that as empirical proof of anything other than the existence of TV programs is a fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
I am of the belief that dropping stuff to see how fast they fall counts as experiment and observation. Which appears to be the definition, so thanks for clearing that up.
If that show counts as proof for you then that's great. Sad, but great.
-
For all those people that are switched on in the head, I would like you to apply your common sense to this video.
They reckon that this place has been turned into a virtual vacuum. Now remember. These people are experts in this day and age of doing this stuff, apparently, right?
Nothing shocks them about vacuums, because...well, theya re just so used to knowing what they do against objects and such.
Having said that, before I decide to pick this absolute pile of crap apart, I'd like you to focus on the scientists who are viewing this slow motion experiment.
Go to 3:20 and watch the total amazement on their faces as they see the feather and bowling ball falling at the same time. They've never done this before. It must be the first ever time this system has been used. It has to be, judging by their almost kiddified amazed faces....in this day and age. Something that Newton supposedly done before breakfast. ;D
This is what I'm talking about when I say that we are being filled full of crap. Brian Cox is a rock star turned professor. Or shall I say: he's a rock star turned bullshit artist for the camera, actor.
Let's see if any of you good people can pick this crap apart.
I'll start off by asking you to look at the feathers when they bounce and spring back up.
There's just two oddities about it all.
Of course, the shills will pipe in with, " oh no, just because they look amazed, it's staged."
And all that flannel. ::)
(http://)
you say oddities?
i say brian cox.
a more insidious and discomfiture inducing creature than any that walks or crawls. or slides along in his own copious mucus secretion by the look of it.
I agree. There's something about the little worm that makes my skin crawl.
-
and any dramatic effects, such as slo-mo, conclusively place effected material into the 'dramatic' genre.
surely science is devoid of emotion, so far as the process is concerned.
-
Anyone who accepts that as empirical proof of anything other than the existence of TV programs is a fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría).
I am of the belief that dropping stuff to see how fast they fall counts as experiment and observation. Which appears to be the definition, so thanks for clearing that up.
If that show counts as proof for you then that's great. Sad, but great.
Do you believe that two objects of different mass dropped simultaneously from an identical height, encountering identical drag will land on a surface equally distant for both of them simultaneously?
-
and any dramatic effects, such as slo-mo, conclusively place effected material into the 'dramatic' genre.
surely science is devoid of emotion, so far as the process is concerned.
Being a TV show does not negate the scientific principle they are demonstrating. If you believe it is a fraud you should just present your evidence. It is not as if the show is exploring a controversial phenomenon.
-
it negates it being in itself evidence by its nature.
the 'phenomenon' is, it would seem, experiencing some controversy.
evidence of fraud, made by thr bbc.
key words to focus upon: show, show, and show.
-
How about someone explain why they showed us slow motion, only?
How about someone explain why the feathers bounced upwards like they did?
How about explaianing how skinny Brian Cox was holding a bowling ball as if it was made of polystrene painted a pretty colour?
And most of all. Look at the doorways/openings in that supposed vacuum chamber. Vacuum chamber, my arse.
This video does prove one thing and it's a pretty big thing. It proves just how easy it is for these people to blatantly spin absolute lies.
If a crowd of people were to converge on that facility and ask them to perform various experiments whilst they tested this stuff to make sure it was being evacuated, those people would be dripping sweat and making al sorts of shit up as to why this has malfunctioned, etc.
Luckily they don't need to worry about that because the only people getting near it, are those that enjoy feeding the masses, bullshit.
They simply feed into the emotion of people in all manners to get their bullshit across, effectively and varied enough to cater for all.
Todays science requires it to pass off this charade, so what they do is, they use Stephen Hawking as an emotional tool...selling him as a theoretical genius.
They add Michio Kaku into that equation as a sort of Japanese Einstein.
Add to that, a rock star turned professor in Brian Cox and you cater for every tatse imaginable.
Bullshit does not seel itself, it needs very good sales-people. People that the average Joe can place their trust in.
I often wonder how these people sleep at night, I really do.
-
it negates it being in itself evidence by its nature.
No it does not. Something can objectively show a physical phenomenon and at the same time subjectively make it entertaining. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.
the 'phenomenon' is, it would seem, experiencing some controversy.
Not particularly. There are a bunch of people here crying foul with nothing to show that what was presented was not accurate or truthful. Indeed the experiences of most people having taken a high school physics course corroborates what was shown on this program.
evidence of fraud, made by thr bbc.
I assumed that that was where you found the evidence. Can you present your side of the case? What about the show was fraudulent? Feel free to explain in detail and try to present your case in an objective manner, of course allowing for your particular bias towards the conclusion that it is fraudulent. Convince me.
key words to focus upon: show, show, and show.
You have shown me no reason to take up your point of view.
-
How about someone explain why they showed us slow motion, only?
Rottingroom alread did. It is cool.
It also allows you to better perceive the rate at which the objects are falling as well as the simultaneity of their release and landing.
How about someone explain why the feathers bounced upwards like they did?
Bouncing downwards is difficult. In general the feathers bounced because in the absence of atmospheric drag it would behave as most streamline object do. The surface it struck absorbed part of the feathers kinetic energy and the remainder was transferred back in to the feather, but in the opposite direction, giving the feather enough energy to rise up in to the air again.
How about explaianing how skinny Brian Cox was holding a bowling ball as if it was made of polystrene painted a pretty colour?
He is stronger than he looks.
And most of all. Look at the doorways/openings in that supposed vacuum chamber. Vacuum chamber, my arse.
So nothing to say then. Thanks for your time.
<stock scepti rant>
tl;dr
-
How about someone explain why they showed us slow motion, only?
It's not as if it's terribly difficult to find similar videos at normal speed.
Feather and Ball Bearing Dropped in Vacuum (http://#)
-
How about someone explain why they showed us slow motion, only?
How about someone explain why the feathers bounced upwards like they did?
How about explaianing how skinny Brian Cox was holding a bowling ball as if it was made of polystrene painted a pretty colour?
And most of all. Look at the doorways/openings in that supposed vacuum chamber. Vacuum chamber, my arse.
This video does prove one thing and it's a pretty big thing. It proves just how easy it is for these people to blatantly spin absolute lies.
If a crowd of people were to converge on that facility and ask them to perform various experiments whilst they tested this stuff to make sure it was being evacuated, those people would be dripping sweat and making al sorts of shit up as to why this has malfunctioned, etc.
Luckily they don't need to worry about that because the only people getting near it, are those that enjoy feeding the masses, bullshit.
They simply feed into the emotion of people in all manners to get their bullshit across, effectively and varied enough to cater for all.
Todays science requires it to pass off this charade, so what they do is, they use Stephen Hawking as an emotional tool...selling him as a theoretical genius.
They add Michio Kaku into that equation as a sort of Japanese Einstein.
Add to that, a rock star turned professor in Brian Cox and you cater for every tatse imaginable.
Bullshit does not seel itself, it needs very good sales-people. People that the average Joe can place their trust in.
I often wonder how these people sleep at night, I really do.
Again this is not evidence. While it is okay to question what you see in the video, it by no means indicate that what you see is false. We want evidence that it is false. The burden of proof is on you. You accuse them of misleading us, you need to prove it.
-
I wonder why they didn't show the ball and feather dropping in the vacuum at full speed? What is the point of slowing the video down? To make it appear like they are falling slower in a vacuum?
If anything this video proves that even in a vacuum objects will fall at the same rate and not "float" like they have led us to believe in deep space. There's not some point in the atmosphere where you can "pop out" and float easily. If anything, it gets harder to gain altitude the higher up you go.
On Earth there is gravity so you aren't going to float even in a vacuum. By removing the air the objects are allowed to fall without resistance which is why the fall at the same rate. In space you aren't on Earth and there is no gravity which is why you float. It's really not that difficult to understand.
(http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/dont-worry-we-all-float-down-here.png)
-
1. How about someone explain why they showed us slow motion, only?
2. How about someone explain why the feathers bounced upwards like they did?
3. How about explaianing how skinny Brian Cox was holding a bowling ball as if it was made of polystrene painted a pretty colour?
1. For a moment they did show the ball and feathers at normal speed. What´s the problem with it being on slow motion?
2. I don´t see a problem with that. What did you expect them to do? There is no air resistance either so it makes even more sense. Feathers won´t bounce upwards outside of the vacuum, will they?
3. It´s not so heavy and you can´t even see his arms. The weight is not as important as the shape anyways, if the feather had the same weight as the bowling ball (Keeping the same shape), they would fall at different speeds out of the vacuum.
This is very basic physics.
-
Septic may have something. The vacuum in his head seems to stop the penny dropping.
-
For all those people that are switched on in the head, I would like you to apply your common sense to this video.
They reckon that this place has been turned into a virtual vacuum. Now remember. These people are experts in this day and age of doing this stuff, apparently, right?
Nothing shocks them about vacuums, because...well, they are just so used to knowing what they do against objects and such.
Having said that, before I decide to pick this absolute pile of crap apart, I'd like you to focus on the scientists who are viewing this slow motion experiment.
Go to 3:20 and watch the total amazement on their faces as they see the feather and bowling ball falling at the same time. They've never done this before. It must be the first ever time this system has been used. It has to be, judging by their almost kiddified amazed faces....in this day and age. Something that Newton supposedly done before breakfast. ;D
This is what I'm talking about when I say that we are being filled full of crap. Brian Cox is a rock star turned professor. Or shall I say: he's a rock star turned bullshit artist for the camera, actor.
Let's see if any of you good people can pick this crap apart.
I'll start off by asking you to look at the feathers when they bounce and spring back up.
There's just two oddities about it all.
Of course, the shills will pipe in with, " oh no, just because they look amazed, it's staged."
And all that flannel.
Much LULZ..... why am I not in the least bit surprised that the forum's resident intellectual midget would totally fail to grasp the scientific concepts of what we're seeing in this video? I'm guessing—on a good day—that even Bozo the Clown would've gleaned at least some tidbit of earth science from this demonstration.
It's kinda sad that sceptimatic doesn't share the wonderment (as I did) of Galileo's 400-year-old experiment actually being proven before our eyes. Then again, one of his favourite debating [sic] tactics is to throw around the ad hominem attacks when he's lost for an explanation of something that everybody else can grasp.
And as for his puerile attack on Professor Brian Cox, it's just another of sceptimatic's nonsensical, attempted putdowns. Cox has first-class B.Sc and M.Phil degrees in Physics, plus a Doctor of Philosophy, and has a Royal Society University Research Fellowship and an Honorary Science Doctorate from the University of Huddersfield.
On the other hand, sceptimatic has zero scientific qualifications, which makes his childish attack on Cox nothing more than an absolute joke (particularly since sceptimatic refuses to provide even one of his purported academic qualifications).
So... the bottom lime; we have sceptimatic's irellevant, unevidenced, incoherent, non-scientific babblings versus a world-renowned, multi-disciplined physicist and scientist.
Gee... who to believe? Ummm.....? ;D
-
I wonder why they didn't show the ball and feather dropping in the vacuum at full speed? What is the point of slowing the video down? To make it appear like they are falling slower in a vacuum?
This comment proves you haven't grasped the basic principles of what the video shows. The actual frame rate of the video footage is totally immaterial anyway. Its slowed down simply to give us long enough to observe the fall (rather than the couple of seconds it takes in real time). This slow-mo is more than common in experiments of a scientific nature—as you'd know if you weren't locked onto your 2,000-year-old book of pseudo-science. And both the feather and the ball fall faster in a vacuum, not slower as you're guessing LOL.
At any rate, we see them both falling at full speed in air, and in vacuo, at 1:28min and 4:16min respectively.