The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: mikeman7918 on January 08, 2015, 09:26:40 AM

Title: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 08, 2015, 09:26:40 AM
About a week ago, Heiwa informed me of his €1,000,000 challenge (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm) on his website, not the one about proving that the 9/11 incident was done by terrorists but the second one at the bottom of the page about the Apollo missions.  This is it:
Quote
The Anders Björkman Challenge 2 is first to calculate using first principles the amount of fuel (or energy) required to complete a manned Moon and/or planet Mars return trip after being ejected into space from Earth towards the Moon and/or planet Mars by external rockets, second to describe the space ship incl. its masses before/after the various maneuvers of the trip, any heat shield(s), if fitted, the engines and fuel tanks that can carry the amount of fuel using 1960 or 2015 technology, the accommodation for the persons aboard and finally to show that it is actually feasable to do the trip. Please do not present dreams and fantasies.
How I won was I showed him a simulator (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/) that when paired with a mod (http://www.acsoft.ch/AMSO/amso.html) can simulate the Apollo missions, and I even offered to check the config files for realism.  As for the reentry part, I drew a diagram that illustrates how reentry capsules control their orientation and trajectory.  I have been presenting all this to Heiwa via PM's and he has not responded in almost a day now after I said "If I'm not mistaken, you owe me some money", so I figured that I might as well mention this on the forum to get the word out and to force him to not make the trademark flat earther move of ignoring my victory.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: 29silhouette on January 08, 2015, 09:35:24 AM
Nice.  You get to buy everyone a round when you get the money.  (if you get it)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 08, 2015, 09:38:20 AM
Pint of Thatchers Gold please!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 08, 2015, 09:47:32 AM
I don't drink, so I'll just take a cherry coke. :P
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Cartesian on January 08, 2015, 09:59:47 AM
After verifying the OP's result myself, I must concur that Heiwa definitely needs to award you the prize now. Congratulations !!!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 08, 2015, 10:03:33 AM
Just having a beer for you. Best I send you the empty, that's better than Hewee will do.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 08, 2015, 10:42:51 AM
If I get the money then I plan on using some of it to go to space and see for myself how round the Earth is.  There are some relatively cheap rides into sub orbit available commercially.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Cartesian on January 08, 2015, 10:44:11 AM
If I get the money then I plan on using some of it to go to space and see for myself how round the Earth is.  There are some relatively cheap rides into sub orbit available commercially.

Bring scepti with you too please.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on January 08, 2015, 01:05:45 PM
If I get the money then I plan on using some of it to go to space and see for myself how round the Earth is.  There are some relatively cheap rides into sub orbit available commercially.

Bring scepti with you too please.

And leave him there.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Arith on January 08, 2015, 02:38:56 PM
I wait with bated breath to where Anders will move the goalposts this time.

By the way, Anders. I get about as much traffic to my server as you do. Except my box is smart enough to flag the bulk of them being scanners from pretty much all countries. My server is about as popular as yours, except mine is SUPPOSED be used by like 3 people.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 08, 2015, 08:54:07 PM
Speaking of Heiwa, when was the last time anyone heard from him?  It seems he went silent after I won his challenge, the last I heard of him was a PM saying that I had lost the challenge that came right before I won the challenge.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Cartesian on January 08, 2015, 11:33:55 PM
I believe you have to claim it in person to the following address:

Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea
Anders Björkman
6, rue Victor Hugo
F 06 240 Beausoleil
France
Tel. +33(0)4 93784590,
Mobile +33(0)661725424
email: anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 08, 2015, 11:51:15 PM
I haven't seen any results of any simulations of any kind so far. To win my Challenge you must show that your figures and descriptions are complete and realistic.
If the simulations, e.g. include a 357.5 seconds blast to produce 97 400 N thrust, burning 10 898 kg of fuel, to get backwards into orbit around the fast moving Moon (in order not to crash on it or miss it) that orbits Earth that orbits the Sun at great speed, the description must also include in what direction the thrust was applied, by whom it was done and how, etc. How was the steering jets controlled so that the rocket thrust was applied in exactly the right direction. I am also interested in how the fuel pump was driven to pump 31 kg/s fuel to the rocket engine. Electric?  From where? Batteries? And at what pressure was the fuel injected? It seems quite complicated to manually steer a spacecraft into Moon orbit and I haven't seen, as said above, any realistic simulations or descriptions of it. The 1969 NASA + Buzz descriptions are a little vague, to say the least. You have to perform better to win my Challenge.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Cartesian on January 08, 2015, 11:59:12 PM
And yet, you still haven't shown that you have the money :P
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 09, 2015, 12:22:16 AM
No money so move the goal post's. Seen that before I think.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 09, 2015, 05:47:35 AM
And yet, you still haven't shown that you have the money :P

Of course Björkman doesn't have the money; and he never has.  It's just a bluff of his which he seems to think—mistakenly—that adds veracity to his nonsensical "computations" about the collapse of the WTC towers. He's only a glorified boat mechanic FFS.  He has zero qualifications in the structural engineering design of multistory buildings.  End of story.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 09, 2015, 07:33:31 AM
I haven't seen any results of any simulations of any kind so far. To win my Challenge you must show that your figures and descriptions are complete and realistic.
If the simulations, e.g. include a 357.5 seconds blast to produce 97 400 N thrust, burning 10 898 kg of fuel, to get backwards into orbit around the fast moving Moon (in order not to crash on it or miss it) that orbits Earth that orbits the Sun at great speed, the description must also include in what direction the thrust was applied, by whom it was done and how, etc. How was the steering jets controlled so that the rocket thrust was applied in exactly the right direction. I am also interested in how the fuel pump was driven to pump 31 kg/s fuel to the rocket engine. Electric?  From where? Batteries? And at what pressure was the fuel injected? It seems quite complicated to manually steer a spacecraft into Moon orbit and I haven't seen, as said above, any realistic simulations or descriptions of it. The 1969 NASA + Buzz descriptions are a little vague, to say the least. You have to perform better to win my Challenge.

Sense when did the challenge include describing every nut and bolt of the Saturn V and it's payload?  I have completed the challenge as detailed in your website and your website clearly says that completion of the challenge as detailed in your website would make you €1,000,000 richer.  I have completed the challenge alas detailed in your website and now you are not holding up your end of the deal.  How about we have a community vote as to if I won the challenge or not.  Sound fair?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 09, 2015, 07:35:07 AM
Since I trust both Mike and Cartesian but have not seen the results, I can only assume that this is all Heiwa moving the goalposts here. Oh wells. It was expected, I guess I'll have to buy my own cherry coke.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:03:16 AM
I have completed the challenge alas detailed in your website and now you are not holding up your end of the deal.  How about we have a community vote as to if I won the challenge or not.  Sound fair?
LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm) . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
I have completed the challenge alas detailed in your website and now you are not holding up your end of the deal.  How about we have a community vote as to if I won the challenge or not.  Sound fair?
LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!
How about you rewrite the page without the silly multiple fonts,colors, sizes, bolds, italics.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 09, 2015, 10:18:25 AM
I have completed the challenge alas detailed in your website and now you are not holding up your end of the deal.  How about we have a community vote as to if I won the challenge or not.  Sound fair?
LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/chall.htm) . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

(http://blogs.vso.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 09, 2015, 11:10:29 AM
I have completed the challenge alas detailed in your website and now you are not holding up your end of the deal.  How about we have a community vote as to if I won the challenge or not.  Sound fair?
LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

Why does it matter how I present the information to you?  I offered to check the source code of the simulator and mod for you so you didn't have to just trust that it was accurate, it's not my fault that you just decided to take my word for it and change the topic to reentry, which I then showed you a diagram showing how reentry pods are stable, plus I forgot to mention that they are bottom heavy which causes the heat shield to face in the direction of travel.  Do you want me to check the code Heiwa?  Would that be enough to win the challenge?  If not then how can I win the challenge by doing anything short of delivering an operational Saturn V to your door step?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 09, 2015, 10:35:49 PM
Found a paper that hewee may like about gravitational slingshot's. Bit of a read but I will try.

http://www2.esm.vt.edu/~sdross/papers/JeJuRo_CNSNS.pdf (http://www2.esm.vt.edu/~sdross/papers/JeJuRo_CNSNS.pdf)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:36:37 PM
I have completed the challenge alas detailed in your website and now you are not holding up your end of the deal.  How about we have a community vote as to if I won the challenge or not.  Sound fair?
LOL! Please read the requirements of the Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) . Can you read? If not, learn to read or ask your mother/father/legal person to read for you.
In order to complete the Challenge you must submit your complete report to me. Not just refer to some Mickey Mouse Disney moon travel software. Good luck!

Why does it matter how I present the information to you?  I offered to check the source code of the simulator and mod for you so you didn't have to just trust that it was accurate, it's not my fault that you just decided to take my word for it and change the topic to reentry, which I then showed you a diagram showing how reentry pods are stable, plus I forgot to mention that they are bottom heavy which causes the heat shield to face in the direction of travel.  Do you want me to check the code Heiwa?  Would that be enough to win the challenge?  If not then how can I win the challenge by doing anything short of delivering an operational Saturn V to your door step?
Hm, you (anonymous, using a stupid pseudonym) copied a link to me and suggested using that link my Challenge would be solved. I checked the link and found it was a toys for boys (babies) to play space wars with. When I told you that you apparently wetted and shitted your pants, etc., starting this thread. Good PR for me but bad, wet, shitty for you and all your anonymous, obnoxious colleagues here.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 09, 2015, 10:45:04 PM
Found a paper that hewee may like about gravitational slingshot's. Bit of a read but I will try.

http://www2.esm.vt.edu/~sdross/papers/JeJuRo_CNSNS.pdf (http://www2.esm.vt.edu/~sdross/papers/JeJuRo_CNSNS.pdf)

It is a fantastic paper:
In this paper, we consider a spacecraft initially in a large orbit around Jupiter. Our goal is to use small impulsive controls
to direct the spacecraft into a capture orbit about Callisto, the furthest planet-sized moon of Jupiter.


So one way or another a spacecraft is considered orbiting Jupiter and it is considered it meets head on Callisto, a moon of Jupiter, and a second way or another a gravitational slingshot is considered to take place, blah, blah. As I always say, astrophysics is 100% pseudoscience. The paper is just one example of it. Thanks.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Arith on January 10, 2015, 04:05:01 AM

Hm, you (anonymous, using a stupid pseudonym) [...] Good PR for me but bad, wet, shitty for you and all your anonymous, obnoxious colleagues here.

I love how when Anders gets backed into a corner, he does mental gymnastics to make this seem like it's his advantage. Also, what is this seemingly absolute hatred about anonymity? I would rather be known as Arith, obscure forum poster, than Anders, a well known crackpot laughed at by engineers and laymen globally.

If you want to talk about obnoxious, how about offering a challenge whose goalposts are always shifting with no proof that the prize money is even in your possession?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 10, 2015, 05:34:58 AM

I love how when Anders gets backed into a corner, he does mental gymnastics to make this seem like it's his advantage. Also, what is this seemingly absolute hatred about anonymity? I would rather be known as Arith, obscure forum poster, than Anders, a well known crackpot laughed at by engineers and laymen globally.


At least knowing that the pseudonym [sic] Heiwa = Anders Björkman is advantageous.  As you suggest, it makes it so much easier for genuine scientists and engineers—and us—to have a good laugh at his expense.  His web pages would have to be some of the most crudely designed I've seen since the days of Win 3.1 and certainly reflect the technical "quality" of their contents.

In fact, considering we've called his bluff so many times here, I often wonder why he's still bothering to post his schoolboy crap—although he tends to do that, and has done, on many other forums until he gets banned permanently.  He probably thinks he'll never be banned here because he's discovered a cave-full of fellow scientific neanderthals with like-minded beliefs LOL.

I've shot him down several time myself now, and the best defence he could muster were juvenile ad hominems—the surest sign of a loser.
 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on January 10, 2015, 05:56:47 AM
The sheer extent of the attacks on Heiwa prove one thing to me. No ordinary person/s would go to so much trouble to attack him whilst attempting to ridicule a well set out web page that he has put up, with a lot of clear thought.
This doesn't mean I agree with it all but that's not the point. The point is, only clearly paid shills would take this amount of time to continuously attack him to the point of making topics designed to wear him down to stop him posting his thoughts.

I trust nobody as a rule, including Heiwa - sorry Heiwa, it's nothing personal - but having said this - I can clearly see who is 100% untrustworthy and are either literally being paid or have a vested interest in stopping their fantasies being dissolved.

Heiwa; if you have any sense, you will simply post up your thoughts and clearly understand that most of those who are opposing you, are only doing so because they fear you, nothing more.
The bully only feels confident among bullies. The lead bully loves control over the weaker bullies who follow, as each give the other a sense of control.
In terms of forums, mass ridicule can have the desired effect against one person if that person shows any sign of weakness against the onslaught.

Geoffrey is the lead bully. The good thing against him is, there are many people who think like him, that dislike him for being a bully.
He can't be bullied back because he runs crying to the mods, as he has done on numerous occasions when I've took him on. I've had to ignore him to save the mods the pain of having to deal with his constant complaints, or this is how it's made to appear. Who knows what is going on.

Most of the others you can debate with. My advice to you is to smile at Geoffrey or bypass his posts and keep up the good work.
Don't think people on here aren't reading your thoughts. There will be many. All people like Geoffrey are doing is trying to poison the free thinking persons minds and those who have the potential to see through the lies of what people like Geoffrey, spew.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 10, 2015, 05:57:28 AM
I've shot him down several time myself now, and the best defence he could muster were juvenile ad hominems—the surest sign of a loser.

Please do no start missing the point or pissing in the wind using latin. You have already proven several times you are a nobody.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 10, 2015, 06:31:29 AM
Geoffrey is the lead bully. The good thing against him is, there are many people who think like him, that dislike him for being a bully.
He can't be bullied back because he runs crying to the mods, as he has done on numerous occasions when I've took him on. I've had to ignore him to save the mods the pain of having to deal with his constant complaints, or this is how it's made to appear. Who knows what is going on.

Most of the others you can debate with. My advice to you is to smile at Geoffrey or bypass his posts and keep up the good work.
Don't think people on here aren't reading your thoughts. There will be many. All people like Geoffrey are doing is trying to poison the free thinking persons minds and those who have the potential to see through the lies of what people like Geoffrey, spew.

And this proves once again my suspicion that sceptimatic IS in fact still reading each and every one of my comments LOL.

I had him backed into so many corners that he ended up allegedly adding me to his IGNORE listing, but it's pretty obvious that this was simply another of his many, many lies.  The reason he claimed for ignoring me was in reality connected with my ripping apart every one of his absurd pseudo-scientific claims.  Eventually I buried him under a sea of empirical, viable, credible scientific facts and figures.

I'm guessing the most embarrassing episode for the guy was when I kept raising the points about him being unable to define his ludicrous fairy tale about "denpressure", and he was lost for words—literally.  The same for his lies about his purported thirteen academic credentials and his 12 books, and his multiple patents.  All blatant lies.  And whatever happened to the results of his research with the special laser and the 2km sheet of flat ice that was gonna revolutionise the way we looked at the shape of the planet?  Again, the whole thing was just another blatant lie.

And it never cease to amuse me that sceptimatic is like a moth to the flame with every whack-job—such as Björkman—who joins this forum.  In fact, the more loony tunes they are, the quicker poor old sceptimatic will endeavour to befriend them with gushing praise for their opinions, and at the same time get the boots into all the round earthers here.

Still, his comedic efforts don't go totally unwasted.  His stuff is fresher than Bozo the Clown's, plus you don't have to pay for a circus entry ticket!

   ;D    ;D    ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 10, 2015, 06:36:52 AM
Please do no start missing the point or pissing in the wind using latin. You have already proven several times you are a nobody.

I'm pleased to note that I'm still getting under Björkman's skin LOL.  One has to ask why he repeatedly replies to every comment from a "nobody"?  Desperate for friends maybe?  Angered by exposure as a fraudster—again?  Fearful the "nobody" has made a fool of him?

    ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 10, 2015, 06:43:56 AM
Here you go hewee prove how good you are.

In the following, u, v, w represent small displacements in the x, y, z directions (or as stated); σ, є represent direct stress and strain, and τ, γ shear stress and strain; E, G, ν are Young’s modulus, shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio; l, m, n are direction cosines and ψ a stress function; ρ is mass density. M, T are moment and torque; I is second moment or product moment of area; ω is a rotation unless otherwise stated.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-9314-9_5 (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-9314-9_5)

Tell me all about that stuff. It can't be hard I am just a dumb hippy.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 10, 2015, 06:50:41 AM
Come on Mr boat mechanic try this. It should be easy for a marine engineer.


Gravitational Slingshot
 
Interplanetary space probes often make use of the "gravitational slingshot" effect to propel them to high velocities. For example, Voyager 2 performed a close flyby of Saturn on the 27th of August in 1981, which had the effect of slinging it toward its flyby of Uranus on the 30th of January in 1986. Since gravity is a conservative force, it may seem strange that an object can achieve a net gain in speed due to a close encounter with a large gravitating mass. We might imagine that the speed it gains while approaching the planet would be lost when receding from the planet. However, this is not the case, as we can see from simple consideration of the kinetic energy and momentum, which shows how a planet can transfer kinetic energy to the spacecraft.
 
An extreme form of the maneuver would be to approach a planet head-on at a speed v while the planet is moving directly toward us at a speed U (both speeds defined relative to the "fixed" Solar frame). If we aim just right we can loop around behind the planet in an extremely eccentric hyperbolic orbit, making a virtual 180-degree turn, as illustrated below.
 

 
The net effect is almost as if we "bounced" off the front of the planet. From the planet's perspective we approached at the speed U+v, and therefore we will also recede at the speed U+v relative to the planet, but the planet is still moving at (virtually) the speed U, so we will be moving at speed 2U+v. This is just like a very small billiard ball bouncing off a very large one.
 
To be a little more precise, conservation of kinetic energy and momentum before and after the interaction requires
 

 
where subscripts 1 and 2 denote before and after, respectively. We eliminate U2 and solve for v2 to give the result
 

 
Since m/M is virtually zero (the probe has negligible mass compared with the planet), this reduces to our previous estimate of v2 = v1 + 2U1.
 
Of course, most planetary fly-bys are not simple head-on reversals, but the same principles apply for any angle of interaction. Let's take the planet's direction of motion as the x axis, and the perpendicular direction (in the orbital plane) as the y axis. The probe is initially moving with a speed v relative to the solar reference frame, in a direction approaching the oncoming planet at an angle theta. Two views of this are shown below, one with respect to the planet's rest frame, and the other with respect to the solar reference frame.
 

 
By drawing a simple parallogram of speeds for the probe and planet intersecting at an arbitrary angle q, and assuming we arrange for a hyperbolic orbit symmetrical about the x axis (with respect to the planet's rest frame), the probe's initial velocity vector with respect to the Sun's rest frame is
 

 
and its final velocity vector is
 

 
Thus its initial magnitude is v1, and its final magnitude is
 

 
For example, suppose the initial speeds of the probe and the planet happen to be exactly the same (i.e., v1 = U). In this case the above relation reduces to
 

 
which confirms that when q = 0 we have v2 = 3v1, which is our head-on reversal case. On the other hand, when q = p we have v2 = v1, which stands to reason, because in this case the probe and planet are going in the same direction at the same speed. For a more realistic case, we can have the probe approach nearly perpendicular to the planet's path (i.e., q = p/2) and swing just behind it. In that case the probe gets deflected in the direction of the planet's travel, at an angle given by the above formulas, and it's final speed is the square root of 5 (i.e., about 2.23) times its original speed.
 
If the planets were point particles, then according to classical physics it would be theoretically possible (in some rather contrived solar systems) for an object to acquire infinite speed in finite time by looping repeatedly around a set of planets. Of course, in practice the external gravitational field of a planet would not be strong enough to "grab" the spaceship once it was traveling above a certain speed. The limit is how fast you can loop around a planet without dipping into its atmosphere too deeply (let alone crashing into it). Some NASA missions have repeatedly skimmed the upper atmospheres of Venus and the Earth in their maneuvers (cross- pollinating the environments?).
 
Conceivably, if we (or someone else) ever found a star system consisting of multiple black holes orbiting each other, it might be possible to apply this scheme to achieve relativistic speeds, by looping around from one to the other. In this situation the achievable speed limit would depend on how close a spaceship could pass without being destroyed by tidal forces. Still, if the black holes were large enough, the tidal forces even at the event horizon would be tolerable, although it probably wouldn't be possible to have a controllable hyperbolic orbit pass closer than, say 3m. Also, stopping the vehicle at the destination would be difficult.
 
Return to MathPages Main Menu
 

have a go at that hewee
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 10, 2015, 08:20:15 AM
The sheer extent of the attacks on Heiwa prove one thing to me. No ordinary person/s would go to so much trouble to attack him whilst attempting to ridicule a well set out web page that he has put up, with a lot of clear thought.
This doesn't mean I agree with it all but that's not the point. The point is, only clearly paid shills would take this amount of time to continuously attack him to the point of making topics designed to wear him down to stop him posting his thoughts.

I trust nobody as a rule, including Heiwa - sorry Heiwa, it's nothing personal - but having said this - I can clearly see who is 100% untrustworthy and are either literally being paid or have a vested interest in stopping their fantasies being dissolved.

Heiwa; if you have any sense, you will simply post up your thoughts and clearly understand that most of those who are opposing you, are only doing so because they fear you, nothing more.
The bully only feels confident among bullies. The lead bully loves control over the weaker bullies who follow, as each give the other a sense of control.
In terms of forums, mass ridicule can have the desired effect against one person if that person shows any sign of weakness against the onslaught.

Geoffrey is the lead bully. The good thing against him is, there are many people who think like him, that dislike him for being a bully.
He can't be bullied back because he runs crying to the mods, as he has done on numerous occasions when I've took him on. I've had to ignore him to save the mods the pain of having to deal with his constant complaints, or this is how it's made to appear. Who knows what is going on.

Most of the others you can debate with. My advice to you is to smile at Geoffrey or bypass his posts and keep up the good work.
Don't think people on here aren't reading your thoughts. There will be many. All people like Geoffrey are doing is trying to poison the free thinking persons minds and those who have the potential to see through the lies of what people like Geoffrey, spew.

I actually am being paid, but by Heiwa (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm).  I have won his challenge as detailed on his site and now he has to hold up his end.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 10, 2015, 08:26:10 AM
Good luck. better to put your bucks on a horse and most of them only run on drugs.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 10, 2015, 09:08:12 AM
Come on Mr boat mechanic try this. It should be easy for a marine engineer.


Gravitational Slingshot
 
Interplanetary space probes often make use of the "gravitational slingshot" effect to propel them to high velocities. For example, Voyager 2 performed a close flyby of Saturn on the 27th of August in 1981, which had the effect of slinging it toward its flyby of Uranus on the 30th of January in 1986. Since gravity is a conservative force, it may seem strange that an object can achieve a net gain in speed due to a close encounter with a large gravitating mass. We might imagine that the speed it gains while approaching the planet would be lost when receding from the planet. However, this is not the case, as we can see from simple consideration of the kinetic energy and momentum, which shows how a planet can transfer kinetic energy to the spacecraft.
 
An extreme form of the maneuver would be to approach a planet head-on at a speed v while the planet is moving directly toward us at a speed U (both speeds defined relative to the "fixed" Solar frame). If we aim just right we can loop around behind the planet in an extremely eccentric hyperbolic orbit, making a virtual 180-degree turn, as illustrated below.
 

 
The net effect is almost as if we "bounced" off the front of the planet. From the planet's perspective we approached at the speed U+v, and therefore we will also recede at the speed U+v relative to the planet, but the planet is still moving at (virtually) the speed U, so we will be moving at speed 2U+v. This is just like a very small billiard ball bouncing off a very large one.
 
To be a little more precise, conservation of kinetic energy and momentum before and after the interaction requires
 

 
where subscripts 1 and 2 denote before and after, respectively. We eliminate U2 and solve for v2 to give the result
 

 
Since m/M is virtually zero (the probe has negligible mass compared with the planet), this reduces to our previous estimate of v2 = v1 + 2U1.
 
Of course, most planetary fly-bys are not simple head-on reversals, but the same principles apply for any angle of interaction. Let's take the planet's direction of motion as the x axis, and the perpendicular direction (in the orbital plane) as the y axis. The probe is initially moving with a speed v relative to the solar reference frame, in a direction approaching the oncoming planet at an angle theta. Two views of this are shown below, one with respect to the planet's rest frame, and the other with respect to the solar reference frame.
 

 
By drawing a simple parallogram of speeds for the probe and planet intersecting at an arbitrary angle q, and assuming we arrange for a hyperbolic orbit symmetrical about the x axis (with respect to the planet's rest frame), the probe's initial velocity vector with respect to the Sun's rest frame is
 

 
and its final velocity vector is
 

 
Thus its initial magnitude is v1, and its final magnitude is
 

 
For example, suppose the initial speeds of the probe and the planet happen to be exactly the same (i.e., v1 = U). In this case the above relation reduces to
 

 
which confirms that when q = 0 we have v2 = 3v1, which is our head-on reversal case. On the other hand, when q = p we have v2 = v1, which stands to reason, because in this case the probe and planet are going in the same direction at the same speed. For a more realistic case, we can have the probe approach nearly perpendicular to the planet's path (i.e., q = p/2) and swing just behind it. In that case the probe gets deflected in the direction of the planet's travel, at an angle given by the above formulas, and it's final speed is the square root of 5 (i.e., about 2.23) times its original speed.
 
If the planets were point particles, then according to classical physics it would be theoretically possible (in some rather contrived solar systems) for an object to acquire infinite speed in finite time by looping repeatedly around a set of planets. Of course, in practice the external gravitational field of a planet would not be strong enough to "grab" the spaceship once it was traveling above a certain speed. The limit is how fast you can loop around a planet without dipping into its atmosphere too deeply (let alone crashing into it). Some NASA missions have repeatedly skimmed the upper atmospheres of Venus and the Earth in their maneuvers (cross- pollinating the environments?).
 
Conceivably, if we (or someone else) ever found a star system consisting of multiple black holes orbiting each other, it might be possible to apply this scheme to achieve relativistic speeds, by looping around from one to the other. In this situation the achievable speed limit would depend on how close a spaceship could pass without being destroyed by tidal forces. Still, if the black holes were large enough, the tidal forces even at the event horizon would be tolerable, although it probably wouldn't be possible to have a controllable hyperbolic orbit pass closer than, say 3m. Also, stopping the vehicle at the destination would be difficult.
 
Return to MathPages Main Menu
 

have a go at that hewee
absurd garbage. The shit you scumbags dribble out to fleece hardworking people & their tax dollars is incredible. Geoff post the temperature variants in the atmosphere on anther thread. Did you not see the temperature clime in the stratosphere ,going from bellow -0 temps. How gullible do you think people are to believe this prob nonsense . The majority  of people know it's a total crock of fabricated shit & just get on with life because it's easier just to ignore it ,then copping the hostility that comes with confronting the lying scamming corporate scum. Sling shot lol what a joke.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 11:38:34 AM
So space travel is fake because temps can't go below 0?  Should tell that to my thermometer a few days ago when the temp reached a high of -10 F.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on January 10, 2015, 12:17:46 PM
So space travel is fake because temps can't go below 0?  Should tell that to my thermometer a few days ago when the temp reached a high of -10 F.
Temperature reading requires molecules. No molecules, no temperature reading.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 03:36:33 PM
So space travel is fake because temps can't go below 0?  Should tell that to my thermometer a few days ago when the temp reached a high of -10 F.
Temperature reading requires molecules. No molecules, no temperature reading.
So there are no molecules in the stratosphere now?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 10, 2015, 07:54:01 PM
So space travel is fake because temps can't go below 0?  Should tell that to my thermometer a few days ago when the temp reached a high of -10 F.
use your brain . What accelerated velocity is the rocket carrying the prob supposed to be travelling at.Now check the temperature variation through the layers of atmosphere. You claim to know all about molecules. I'd say you clowns don't know jack shit about molecules. Or you wouldn't believe in such piffle being sold to you.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 08:08:20 PM
So space travel is fake because temps can't go below 0?  Should tell that to my thermometer a few days ago when the temp reached a high of -10 F.
use your brain . What accelerated velocity is the rocket carrying the prob supposed to be travelling at.Now check the temperature variation through the layers of atmosphere. You claim to know all about molecules. I'd say you clowns don't know jack shit about molecules. Or you wouldn't believe in such piffle being sold to you.
1) What is an accelerated velocity?
2) How did we get to molecules from talking about temperatures?
3) Never claimed that I know all about molecules.
4) Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't make it fake.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 10, 2015, 08:10:30 PM
I bet you confirmed batciulars just can't wait for NASA to probe Uranus. 😄
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 10, 2015, 08:21:36 PM
I bet you confirmed batciulars just can't wait for NASA to probe Uranus. 😄

This is a perfect example of flat earther intelligence.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 10, 2015, 09:23:05 PM
The sheer extent of the attacks on Heiwa prove one thing to me. No ordinary person/s would go to so much trouble to attack him whilst attempting to ridicule a well set out web page that he has put up, with a lot of clear thought.
This doesn't mean I agree with it all but that's not the point. The point is, only clearly paid shills would take this amount of time to continuously attack him to the point of making topics designed to wear him down to stop him posting his thoughts.

I trust nobody as a rule, including Heiwa - sorry Heiwa, it's nothing personal - but having said this - I can clearly see who is 100% untrustworthy and are either literally being paid or have a vested interest in stopping their fantasies being dissolved.

Heiwa; if you have any sense, you will simply post up your thoughts and clearly understand that most of those who are opposing you, are only doing so because they fear you, nothing more.
The bully only feels confident among bullies. The lead bully loves control over the weaker bullies who follow, as each give the other a sense of control.
In terms of forums, mass ridicule can have the desired effect against one person if that person shows any sign of weakness against the onslaught.

Geoffrey is the lead bully. The good thing against him is, there are many people who think like him, that dislike him for being a bully.
He can't be bullied back because he runs crying to the mods, as he has done on numerous occasions when I've took him on. I've had to ignore him to save the mods the pain of having to deal with his constant complaints, or this is how it's made to appear. Who knows what is going on.

Most of the others you can debate with. My advice to you is to smile at Geoffrey or bypass his posts and keep up the good work.
Don't think people on here aren't reading your thoughts. There will be many. All people like Geoffrey are doing is trying to poison the free thinking persons minds and those who have the potential to see through the lies of what people like Geoffrey, spew.

Thanks! I am only here because somebody linked to my popular web page about human space travel on the FES forum some monthes back. Human space travel is evidently impossible for physical reasons as explained there. But human space travel is also big business by plenty mafia style people supported by media, so it cannot be discussed in a friendly manner. Therefore all these off topic personal attacks on me (by anonymous pseudonyms). Happens all the time. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 10, 2015, 10:04:11 PM
Anders, the guy you keep saying is using a Pseudonym is named Mikeman... his name is Mike... Good lord man.

Besides which, if you decide that a computer model can't win your challenge then Mike is right, you obviously want to have a fully working Saturn V delivered to you. Might as well preface your challenge with "I WILL MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN!".
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 10, 2015, 10:16:11 PM
Anders, the guy you keep saying is using a Pseudonym is named Mikeman... his name is Mike... Good lord man.

Besides which, if you decide that a computer model can't win your challenge then Mike is right, you obviously want to have a fully working Saturn V delivered to you. Might as well preface your challenge with "I WILL MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN!".

My name is actually not Mike, that's just my screen name.  My real name is Parker, I don't remember how I came up with that username but you are certainly not the first person to call me Mike.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 10, 2015, 10:41:24 PM
I bet you confirmed batciulars just can't wait for NASA to probe Uranus. 😄

You are making me look literate again Charlie. How can I hide as a dumb hippie if you keep this up?.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 10, 2015, 10:43:28 PM
Anders, the guy you keep saying is using a Pseudonym is named Mikeman... his name is Mike... Good lord man.

Besides which, if you decide that a computer model can't win your challenge then Mike is right, you obviously want to have a fully working Saturn V delivered to you. Might as well preface your challenge with "I WILL MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN!".

My name is actually not Mike, that's just my screen name.  My real name is Parker, I don't remember how I came up with that username but you are certainly not the first person to call me Mike.

Well dammit Mike, way to make me look like an ass. :P Also Anders my name is John. Howdy.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 10, 2015, 10:47:20 PM
And my name is guv, can I call him a used car salesman now?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 11, 2015, 01:42:25 AM
Anders, the guy you keep saying is using a Pseudonym is named Mikeman... his name is Mike... Good lord man.

Besides which, if you decide that a computer model can't win your challenge then Mike is right, you obviously want to have a fully working Saturn V delivered to you. Might as well preface your challenge with "I WILL MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN!".

I am in shipping. To execute a voyage I need a description of the ship, crew and fuel used, etc. Not a computer model. Same applies to my Challenges. My Challenges are difficult and probably impossible that's why I offer €1M to win them. My Challenges are just an invitation to see who is smarter and stronger than me ... everybody has failed so far. I am not surprised.

Re the human space travel Challenge it is easy. Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax. It is not possible for a human to leave planet Earth. Basic. Anyone believing you can fly to the Moon or Mars is an idiot! It is not their fault - media/schools say you can fly to the Moon but ... April fool!
Try my other Challenge! A weak top bit C of a structure shall crash the stronger bottom part A keeping C up. Many US experts of all kind say it is possible! Has only happened twice, but anyway. They say it to support terrorism. Imagine that! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 11, 2015, 02:10:37 AM
Anders, the guy you keep saying is using a Pseudonym is named Mikeman... his name is Mike... Good lord man.

Besides which, if you decide that a computer model can't win your challenge then Mike is right, you obviously want to have a fully working Saturn V delivered to you. Might as well preface your challenge with "I WILL MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN!".

I am in shipping. To execute a voyage I need a description of the ship, crew and fuel used, etc. Not a computer model. Same applies to my Challenges. My Challenges are difficult and probably impossible that's why I offer €1M to win them. My Challenges are just an invitation to see who is smarter and stronger than me ... everybody has failed so far. I am not surprised.

Re the human space travel Challenge it is easy. Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax. It is not possible for a human to leave planet Earth. Basic. Anyone believing you can fly to the Moon or Mars is an idiot! It is not their fault - media/schools say you can fly to the Moon but ... April fool!
Try my other Challenge! A weak top bit C of a structure shall crash the stronger bottom part A keeping C up. Many US experts of all kind say it is possible! Has only happened twice, but anyway. They say it to support terrorism. Imagine that! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
 
Why has neither claim been peer reviewed?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 11, 2015, 02:33:56 AM
I am in shipping.
You are not.  You are in internet jabbering.  All day long: jibber jabber on the internet.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 11, 2015, 08:25:10 AM
Anders, the guy you keep saying is using a Pseudonym is named Mikeman... his name is Mike... Good lord man.

Besides which, if you decide that a computer model can't win your challenge then Mike is right, you obviously want to have a fully working Saturn V delivered to you. Might as well preface your challenge with "I WILL MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN!".

I am in shipping. To execute a voyage I need a description of the ship, crew and fuel used, etc. Not a computer model. Same applies to my Challenges. My Challenges are difficult and probably impossible that's why I offer €1M to win them. My Challenges are just an invitation to see who is smarter and stronger than me ... everybody has failed so far. I am not surprised.

Re the human space travel Challenge it is easy. Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax. It is not possible for a human to leave planet Earth. Basic. Anyone believing you can fly to the Moon or Mars is an idiot! It is not their fault - media/schools say you can fly to the Moon but ... April fool!
Try my other Challenge! A weak top bit C of a structure shall crash the stronger bottom part A keeping C up. Many US experts of all kind say it is possible! Has only happened twice, but anyway. They say it to support terrorism. Imagine that! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
 
Why has neither claim been peer reviewed?

13 September 2001 a peer reviewed scientific paper was published showing that it is perfectly normal that a weak top part C of any structure will crush the structure part A below keping the top part C in place to start with. C about 1/10A. I describe the nonsense in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .
The famous scientist showed that weak top C just crushed bottom A into rubble B at no time at all by gravity alone. Bottom part A didn't offer any resistance at all. It went POUFF, POUFF like:
(http://heiwaco.com/pouf123.jpg)
or:
(http://heiwaco.com/ABWTC.jpg)
My Challenge #1 is to find and describe any structure going POUFF, POUFF.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Pythagoras on January 11, 2015, 08:44:33 AM
Who was the famous scientist?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 11, 2015, 09:22:45 AM

I am in shipping.
 

Well... true I guess.  But being a boat mechanic doesn't necessarily make you more intelligent or more intuitive, or better educated than several of the PhDs that post on these forums.  Your id seems to be adversely affected by your ego every time you open your mouth here LOL.

Or have you really not noticed everybody on this forum laughing at your every claim?    ::)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 11, 2015, 09:48:41 AM
Anders, the guy you keep saying is using a Pseudonym is named Mikeman... his name is Mike... Good lord man.

Besides which, if you decide that a computer model can't win your challenge then Mike is right, you obviously want to have a fully working Saturn V delivered to you. Might as well preface your challenge with "I WILL MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN!".

I am in shipping. To execute a voyage I need a description of the ship, crew and fuel used, etc. Not a computer model. Same applies to my Challenges. My Challenges are difficult and probably impossible that's why I offer €1M to win them. My Challenges are just an invitation to see who is smarter and stronger than me ... everybody has failed so far. I am not surprised.

Re the human space travel Challenge it is easy. Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax. It is not possible for a human to leave planet Earth. Basic. Anyone believing you can fly to the Moon or Mars is an idiot! It is not their fault - media/schools say you can fly to the Moon but ... April fool!
Try my other Challenge! A weak top bit C of a structure shall crash the stronger bottom part A keeping C up. Many US experts of all kind say it is possible! Has only happened twice, but anyway. They say it to support terrorism. Imagine that! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
 

So now computer simulations are not valid?  The reason that they don't work as well on boats is because structural stuff is hard to simulate, but I don't think that the structural integrity of the Saturn V is even in question here other then reentry, the question is mostly about if it can make it with it's fuel, which is something that a simulation is ideal for.  Reentry is hard to simulate, which is why I used explenations and diagrams to explain it.  As for the various systems like engine gimbal, power cells, life support, ect... those are not really large engineering issues that could prevent Moon travel, so why do you need them described to you?

By the way, my offer is still up to varify the acuracy of the program.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 11, 2015, 11:21:14 AM
Anders, the guy you keep saying is using a Pseudonym is named Mikeman... his name is Mike... Good lord man.

Besides which, if you decide that a computer model can't win your challenge then Mike is right, you obviously want to have a fully working Saturn V delivered to you. Might as well preface your challenge with "I WILL MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN!".

I am in shipping. To execute a voyage I need a description of the ship, crew and fuel used, etc. Not a computer model. Same applies to my Challenges. My Challenges are difficult and probably impossible that's why I offer €1M to win them. My Challenges are just an invitation to see who is smarter and stronger than me ... everybody has failed so far. I am not surprised.

Re the human space travel Challenge it is easy. Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax. It is not possible for a human to leave planet Earth. Basic. Anyone believing you can fly to the Moon or Mars is an idiot! It is not their fault - media/schools say you can fly to the Moon but ... April fool!
Try my other Challenge! A weak top bit C of a structure shall crash the stronger bottom part A keeping C up. Many US experts of all kind say it is possible! Has only happened twice, but anyway. They say it to support terrorism. Imagine that! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
 
Why has neither claim been peer reviewed?

13 September 2001 a peer reviewed scientific paper was published showing that it is perfectly normal that a weak top part C of any structure will crush the structure part A below keping the top part C in place to start with. C about 1/10A. I describe the nonsense in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .
The famous scientist showed that weak top C just crushed bottom A into rubble B at no time at all by gravity alone. Bottom part A didn't offer any resistance at all. It went POUFF, POUFF like:
(http://heiwaco.com/pouf123.jpg)
or:
(http://heiwaco.com/ABWTC.jpg)
My Challenge #1 is to find and describe any structure going POUFF, POUFF.

Until you make the damaged floors of the towers their own section with their own structural integrity properties your entire "paper" will always be hilariously wrong.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 11, 2015, 11:26:05 AM
Who did the peer review, contact details please.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 11, 2015, 12:29:03 PM
Who did the peer review, contact details please.
Many years ago I got a paper published in the hardcopy ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, JEM, and then the editor organized the peer review. After publication of my paper the poor editor was fired and probably tortured by CIA/DHS? I sent another paper to JEM but the new editor was afraid to handle it BUT it was later peer reviewed, etc., by EMI - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

ASCE actually asked me to peer review papers coming in to them. You know, I am a recognized academician. But I don't like ASCE. They support terrorism! Not good.

It seems it is nothing wrong with my scientific analysises in my papers - but they are not policically correct. GWB and Condi Rice got upset!

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: kman on January 11, 2015, 12:37:42 PM
Just like a rhetorical question isn't meant to be answered, it's just to make a point, it seems like this ridiculous challenge is just meant to make a point, and maybe to inflate Heiwa's ego. If mikeman gives Heiwa what he is asking for, Heiwa will probably just come up with some other requirements. Heiwa, you should meet Kent Hovind, he has a impossible little challenge too.
Heiwa, you implied that since no one has answered you challenge, everyone else it stupider than you. That is a serious case of hubris.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 11, 2015, 01:13:25 PM
Who did the peer review, contact details please.
Many years ago I got a paper published in the hardcopy ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, JEM, and then the editor organized the peer review. After publication of my paper the poor editor was fired and probably tortured by CIA/DHS? I sent another paper to JEM but the new editor was afraid to handle it BUT it was later peer reviewed, etc., by EMI - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

ASCE actually asked me to peer review papers coming in to them. You know, I am a recognized academician. But I don't like ASCE. They support terrorism! Not good.

It seems it is nothing wrong with my scientific analysises in my papers - but they are not policically correct. GWB and Condi Rice got upset!

Again you posit that the multiple floors that have taken the impact are of the same integrity as the rest of the undamaged towers. Which is incredibly wrong. Making the paper entirely wrong. I have full confidence your Saturn V work is as fundamentally flawed. 

Furthermore as an American who had to wake up to the horrors of that morning I feel you border on incredibly offensive.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 11, 2015, 03:37:54 PM
Re the human space travel Challenge it is easy. Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax.
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the 7 space tourists who paid the Russians upwards of $20 million a pop to visit the ISS?

Try my other Challenge! A weak top bit C of a structure shall crash the stronger bottom part A keeping C up. Many US experts of all kind say it is possible! Has only happened twice, but anyway.
Incorrect.
# (http://#)
# (http://#)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 11, 2015, 04:36:11 PM
Just like a rhetorical question isn't meant to be answered, it's just to make a point, it seems like this ridiculous challenge is just meant to make a point, and maybe to inflate Heiwa's ego. If mikeman gives Heiwa what he is asking for, Heiwa will probably just come up with some other requirements. Heiwa, you should meet Kent Hovind, he has a impossible little challenge too.
Heiwa, you implied that since no one has answered you challenge, everyone else it stupider than you. That is a serious case of hubris.

Fron what I have observed, this is true.  If Heiwa is reading this, I would like him to know that he is wrong about space travel being impossible and if he does what he promised he would do if anyone won his challenge then maybe people would take his first challenge more seriously, but who wants to spend time doing a challenge if they know that they will not be given the promised reward?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 11, 2015, 11:58:50 PM
I bet you confirmed batciulars just can't wait for NASA to probe Uranus. 😄

You are making me look literate again Charlie. How can I hide as a dumb hippie if you keep this up?.
you can't hide your self , let alone claim to hide anyone else .found your sad nasty ass weeks ago piss ant .
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 12, 2015, 12:53:24 AM
I bet you confirmed batciulars just can't wait for NASA to probe Uranus. 😄

You are making me look literate again Charlie. How can I hide as a dumb hippie if you keep this up?.
you can't hide your self , let alone claim to hide anyone else .found your sad nasty ass weeks ago piss ant .

Well come and drink a shit load of long necks and we can build a pendulum.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 12, 2015, 09:55:49 AM
I have made a poll to see if the community thinks I won or lost Heiwa's challenge.  Here it is (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62574.0#.VLQKSXvveCo).
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 12, 2015, 07:36:11 PM

If Heiwa is reading this, I would like him to know that he is wrong about space travel being impossible and if he does what he promised he would do if anyone won his challenge then maybe people would take his first challenge more seriously, but who wants to spend time doing a challenge if they know that they will not be given the promised reward?

Sorry, you are wrong about human space travel. Re my Challenges - I quote from my web site (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) ):

Terrorists, Holocaust deniers (and demolition companies) are also welcome to participate in order to confirm their actions/ideas/services!
Send your entry (description of structure + verified result of test/video) to Anders Björkman, 6 rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil, France, anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr
Money is evidently available in the bank
.

It means that you must send the required info to me and not moan and groan like a baby on the Internet that you have won. I will evidently publish the info of the winner on my site.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 12, 2015, 07:42:52 PM

If Heiwa is reading this, I would like him to know that he is wrong about space travel being impossible and if he does what he promised he would do if anyone won his challenge then maybe people would take his first challenge more seriously, but who wants to spend time doing a challenge if they know that they will not be given the promised reward?

Sorry, you are wrong about human space travel. Re my Challenges - I quote from my web site (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) ):

Terrorists, Holocaust deniers (and demolition companies) are also welcome to participate in order to confirm their actions/ideas/services!
Send your entry (description of structure + verified result of test/video) to Anders Björkman, 6 rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil, France, anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr
Money is evidently available in the bank
.

It means that you must send the required info to me and not moan and groan like a baby on the Internet that you have won. I will evidently publish the info of the winner on my site.

You need to amend your challenge to state that no computer models are accepted. Only a fully functional space vehicle will be possible to be used as evidence.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Arith on January 13, 2015, 03:45:39 AM

Terrorists, Holocaust deniers (and demolition companies) are also welcome to participate in order to confirm their actions/ideas/services!
Send your entry (description of structure + verified result of test/video) to Anders Björkman, 6 rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil, France, anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr
Money is evidently available in the bank
.


In other words, send the capsule to his doorstep. What are you waiting for? Proof of prize money?!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 13, 2015, 05:09:30 AM
Re the human space travel Challenge it is easy. Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax.
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the 7 space tourists who paid the Russians upwards of $20 million a pop to visit the ISS?

Try my other Challenge! A weak top bit C of a structure shall crash the stronger bottom part A keeping C up. Many US experts of all kind say it is possible! Has only happened twice, but anyway.
Incorrect.
# (http://#)
# (http://#)
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 13, 2015, 05:16:12 AM
I don't know who perpetrated that crime. But it sure as hell wasn't just planes that brought those towers down .
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 13, 2015, 05:30:27 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 13, 2015, 06:09:35 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?
That building has been gutted & internally weakened on all floors bar the top few levels . So your claiming the twin towers with it's steel structured tied together columns. Would have collapse in the same manner ?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on January 13, 2015, 06:53:25 AM
Re the human space travel Challenge it is easy. Every human space trip done so far starting with Yuri Gagarin 1961 and ending with clowns going to the International Fake/Space Station 2015 is a hoax.
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the 7 space tourists who paid the Russians upwards of $20 million a pop to visit the ISS?

Try my other Challenge! A weak top bit C of a structure shall crash the stronger bottom part A keeping C up. Many US experts of all kind say it is possible! Has only happened twice, but anyway.
Incorrect.
# (http://#)
# (http://#)
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
Because there is no plastics, woods, or other materials that burn in a sky scraper... ::)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 13, 2015, 07:17:58 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?
That building has been gutted & internally weakened on all floors bar the top few levels.
Citation please.

So your claiming the twin towers with it's steel structured tied together columns. Would have collapse in the same manner ?
Where did I make that claim?  ???
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 13, 2015, 08:16:00 AM
The internet was crying out for another thread about 9/11 building collapse...
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 13, 2015, 08:18:25 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?
That building has been gutted & internally weakened on all floors bar the top few levels . So your claiming the twin towers with it's steel structured tied together columns. Would have collapse in the same manner ?

You need to look at how the the Towers were held up structurally. There were two key flaws when it came to holding themselves up after the damage they were inflicted with.

First, they were built to maximize internal floor space, so the structural beams holding up the floors were virtually all on the outside of the building and arranged in a step pattern. So only 1/3 of the beam sections were holding up any given floor.

Second the core of the building was thin steel beams encased in drywall, which both planes were able to in some way damage (far more in the first buildings impact).

What caused them to collapse is easily seen and understood after knowing those. The floors that were damaged were burning at over 1,800 degrees f. The floor beams running from the damaged core to the damaged outer supports began to sag. As they sagged they pulled the outer support beams in, compromising the entire building.

Eventually one of the floors gave way and collapsed, bringing not one floor down, but the entire building above that floor down with it on top of the building.

The reason I say Heiwas analysis is wrong is because he lumps the damaged floors in with the undamaged portions of the tower, basically saying why would these structurally sound parts of a building collapse?!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 13, 2015, 09:02:53 AM

If Heiwa is reading this, I would like him to know that he is wrong about space travel being impossible and if he does what he promised he would do if anyone won his challenge then maybe people would take his first challenge more seriously, but who wants to spend time doing a challenge if they know that they will not be given the promised reward?

Sorry, you are wrong about human space travel. Re my Challenges - I quote from my web site (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) ):

Terrorists, Holocaust deniers (and demolition companies) are also welcome to participate in order to confirm their actions/ideas/services!
Send your entry (description of structure + verified result of test/video) to Anders Björkman, 6 rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil, France, anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr
Money is evidently available in the bank
.

It means that you must send the required info to me and not moan and groan like a baby on the Internet that you have won. I will evidently publish the info of the winner on my site.

Remember those times when I said that I would check the code for realism?  I am doing that for the reasons that you stated.  It will verify the realism of the program that can simulate a successful Apollo mission.  If you want video evidence then check out the original videos from the Moon, more specifically the dust and how it moves when it's kicked into the air and how that proves that there was no atmosphere present when that was being filmed.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 14, 2015, 03:00:14 AM
Strange - here an anonymous clown claims he has won my difficult Challenge but she/he has never submitted the required info to me for verification. Too difficult?

Thus, in order to win my Challenges: 1. Read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) ! 2. Try to be clever! 3. Submit your findings to me. 4. Do not announce on the Internet that you have won when you have not. It just shows you are stupid.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: theearthisrounddealwithit on January 14, 2015, 03:46:13 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?

He could just as easily forward that money to these people: http://www.debunking911.com/ (http://www.debunking911.com/)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 14, 2015, 05:55:22 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?
That building has been gutted & internally weakened on all floors bar the top few levels . So your claiming the twin towers with it's steel structured tied together columns. Would have collapse in the same manner ?

You need to look at how the the Towers were held up structurally. There were two key flaws when it came to holding themselves up after the damage they were inflicted with.

First, they were built to maximize internal floor space, so the structural beams holding up the floors were virtually all on the outside of the building and arranged in a step pattern. So only 1/3 of the beam sections were holding up any given floor.

Second the core of the building was thin steel beams encased in drywall, which both planes were able to in some way damage (far more in the first buildings impact).

What caused them to collapse is easily seen and understood after knowing those. The floors that were damaged were burning at over 1,800 degrees f. The floor beams running from the damaged core to the damaged outer supports began to sag. As they sagged they pulled the outer support beams in, compromising the entire building.

Eventually one of the floors gave way and collapsed, bringing not one floor down, but the entire building above that floor down with it on top of the building.

The reason I say Heiwas analysis is wrong is because he lumps the damaged floors in with the undamaged portions of the tower, tbasically saying why would these structurally sound parts of a building collapse?!
It not possible to compact the steel beams as you are claiming ,they would bow out or in There is footage of moult & metal poring out of the buildings structural joints . The only thing that could cause metal to melt like that is a thermite mixture.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 14, 2015, 06:23:42 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?

He could just as easily forward that money to these people: http://www.debunking911.com/ (http://www.debunking911.com/)
And yet he didn't.  Tells you something about his integrity, doesn't it?

It not possible to compact the steel beams as you are claiming ,they would bow out or in There is footage of moult & metal poring out of the buildings structural joints . The only thing that could cause metal to melt like that is a thermite mixture.
Anyone who has worked with metals knows that you don't need to melt steel to weaken it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 14, 2015, 07:26:50 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?
That building has been gutted & internally weakened on all floors bar the top few levels . So your claiming the twin towers with it's steel structured tied together columns. Would have collapse in the same manner ?

You need to look at how the the Towers were held up structurally. There were two key flaws when it came to holding themselves up after the damage they were inflicted with.

First, they were built to maximize internal floor space, so the structural beams holding up the floors were virtually all on the outside of the building and arranged in a step pattern. So only 1/3 of the beam sections were holding up any given floor.

Second the core of the building was thin steel beams encased in drywall, which both planes were able to in some way damage (far more in the first buildings impact).

What caused them to collapse is easily seen and understood after knowing those. The floors that were damaged were burning at over 1,800 degrees f. The floor beams running from the damaged core to the damaged outer supports began to sag. As they sagged they pulled the outer support beams in, compromising the entire building.

Eventually one of the floors gave way and collapsed, bringing not one floor down, but the entire building above that floor down with it on top of the building.

The reason I say Heiwas analysis is wrong is because he lumps the damaged floors in with the undamaged portions of the tower, tbasically saying why would these structurally sound parts of a building collapse?!
It not possible to compact the steel beams as you are claiming ,they would bow out or in There is footage of moult & metal poring out of the buildings structural joints . The only thing that could cause metal to melt like that is a thermite mixture.

Quote
The floor beams running from the damaged core to the damaged outer supports began to sag. As they sagged they pulled the outer support beams in, compromising the entire building.

As in buckled them.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 14, 2015, 07:40:00 AM
Where are the high carbon steel columns in that building ? Your comparison is apple & oranges . Molten steel & rock that couldn't be extinguished for over a week . That is fire fighters testimonial who were there. Thermite mixed with petrol & caster sugar.? What domestic fight would be carrying that as it's fuel load?
??? Where was any of that mentioned in the challenge?  The challenge only mentioned top-down collapse of a building, which I have clearly shown.  So where's my million?
That building has been gutted & internally weakened on all floors bar the top few levels . So your claiming the twin towers with it's steel structured tied together columns. Would have collapse in the same manner ?

You need to look at how the the Towers were held up structurally. There were two key flaws when it came to holding themselves up after the damage they were inflicted with.

First, they were built to maximize internal floor space, so the structural beams holding up the floors were virtually all on the outside of the building and arranged in a step pattern. So only 1/3 of the beam sections were holding up any given floor.

Second the core of the building was thin steel beams encased in drywall, which both planes were able to in some way damage (far more in the first buildings impact).

What caused them to collapse is easily seen and understood after knowing those. The floors that were damaged were burning at over 1,800 degrees f. The floor beams running from the damaged core to the damaged outer supports began to sag. As they sagged they pulled the outer support beams in, compromising the entire building.

Eventually one of the floors gave way and collapsed, bringing not one floor down, but the entire building above that floor down with it on top of the building.

The reason I say Heiwas analysis is wrong is because he lumps the damaged floors in with the undamaged portions of the tower, tbasically saying why would these structurally sound parts of a building collapse?!
It not possible to compact the steel beams as you are claiming ,they would bow out or in There is footage of moult & metal poring out of the buildings structural joints . The only thing that could cause metal to melt like that is a thermite mixture.

If you bend metal it gets hotter because of tidal friction.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 14, 2015, 05:28:01 PM

If you bend metal it gets hotter because of tidal friction.

In order to win one of my two difficult Challenges - (A) Can a weak top crush a strong bottom keeping the top in place and if yes how? and (B) Can a human go to the Moon/Mars and if yes how? you really have to read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) and then produce the required information.
You cannot, just like many terrorists (like GWB and Condirice), just suggest you are right and then start shooting at your friendly Challenger. 
BTW - if you bend metal it can also just break apart without getting hotter! Ever heard of brittle metal?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 14, 2015, 05:29:08 PM

If you bend metal it gets hotter because of tidal friction.

In order to win one of my two difficult Challenges - (A) Can a weak top crush a strong bottom keeping the top in place and if yes how? and (B) Can a human go to the Moon/Mars and if yes how? you really have to read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/chall.htm) and then produce the required information.
You cannot, just like many terrorists (like GWB and Condirice), just suggest you are right and then start shooting at your friendly Challenger. 
BTW - if you bend metal it can also just break apart without getting hotter! Ever heard of brittle metal?

So all metal is brittle?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 14, 2015, 06:56:48 PM
(A) Can a weak top crush a strong bottom keeping the top in place and if yes how?
That depends on how heavy the weak top is and how strong the bottom is.


(B) Can a human go to the Moon/Mars and if yes how?
It depends on how much time, effort and money you're willing to spend.

you really have to read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) and then produce the required information.
Why do you even bother posting challenges that you don't ever intend to pay off, no matter how convincing the evidence?

You cannot, just like many terrorists (like GWB and Condirice), just suggest you are right and then start shooting at your friendly Challenger. 
Paranoid much?

BTW - if you bend metal it can also just break apart without getting hotter! Ever heard of brittle metal?
Have you ever heard of heat treating?  All kinds of interesting properties can be imparted to (or removed from) various metals with the use of heat.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 15, 2015, 06:26:02 AM
Normal structural steel will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as three times that of the boiling point of water.

It's also become embarrassingly obvious that Björkman—whose only claim to fame [sic] is that of a boat mechanic—has virtually no knowledge of structural dynamics.  One can only laugh at both the man—and his screwball notions.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 15, 2015, 07:44:37 AM

If you bend metal it gets hotter because of tidal friction.

In order to win one of my two difficult Challenges - (A) Can a weak top crush a strong bottom keeping the top in place and if yes how? and (B) Can a human go to the Moon/Mars and if yes how? you really have to read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) and then produce the required information.
You cannot, just like many terrorists (like GWB and Condirice), just suggest you are right and then start shooting at your friendly Challenger. 
BTW - if you bend metal it can also just break apart without getting hotter! Ever heard of brittle metal?

Well I could look at the code for the simulator and mod to see if they are realistic if you want.  If they are then the simulator is proof that a manned Moon mission is possible, are you afraid that they are accurate?  If it will help me win the challenge then I will do it but I won't waste time on it if it won't be helpful at all.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 15, 2015, 09:05:26 AM

If you bend metal it gets hotter because of tidal friction.

In order to win one of my two difficult Challenges - (A) Can a weak top crush a strong bottom keeping the top in place and if yes how? and (B) Can a human go to the Moon/Mars and if yes how? you really have to read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) and then produce the required information.
You cannot, just like many terrorists (like GWB and Condirice), just suggest you are right and then start shooting at your friendly Challenger. 
BTW - if you bend metal it can also just break apart without getting hotter! Ever heard of brittle metal?

Well I could look at the code for the simulator and mod to see if they are realistic if you want.  If they are then the simulator is proof that a manned Moon mission is possible, are you afraid that they are accurate?  If it will help me win the challenge then I will do it but I won't waste time on it if it won't be helpful at all.

I thought you had already won my Challenge but now you think you could look at the code for the simulator.
Better to use first principles and calculate the energy to get off planet Earth, get on the Moon and fly back for your space ship.
It is like planning a voyage at sea (my speciality) - just replace sea by space!
You should also study structural dynamic analysis ( a speciality of mine) to ensure that your space ship can resist the loads applied at, e.g. gravity slingshots, if you plan to use them, like ESA.
If you are American you can study the Apollo 11 Command Module at a Washington DC museum. It apparently managed to splash down in the Pacific after a trip around the Moon 1969, i.e. the trip ended like a sea voyage. 
I doubt very much this Command Module ever left planet Earth. The structure is a little weak, to say the least. I have a feeling it was simply dropped from an airplane in front of US president tricky Dick Nixon.
To win my Challenge you cannot use tricks like Dick Nixon. Remember what happened to him.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 15, 2015, 09:08:32 AM

...It is like planning a voyage at sea (my speciality) - just replace sea by space!


The two are nothing alike.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 15, 2015, 10:20:15 AM

If you bend metal it gets hotter because of tidal friction.

In order to win one of my two difficult Challenges - (A) Can a weak top crush a strong bottom keeping the top in place and if yes how? and (B) Can a human go to the Moon/Mars and if yes how? you really have to read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) and then produce the required information.
You cannot, just like many terrorists (like GWB and Condirice), just suggest you are right and then start shooting at your friendly Challenger. 
BTW - if you bend metal it can also just break apart without getting hotter! Ever heard of brittle metal?

Well I could look at the code for the simulator and mod to see if they are realistic if you want.  If they are then the simulator is proof that a manned Moon mission is possible, are you afraid that they are accurate?  If it will help me win the challenge then I will do it but I won't waste time on it if it won't be helpful at all.

I thought you had already won my Challenge but now you think you could look at the code for the simulator.
Better to use first principles and calculate the energy to get off planet Earth, get on the Moon and fly back for your space ship.
It is like planning a voyage at sea (my speciality) - just replace sea by space!
You should also study structural dynamic analysis ( a speciality of mine) to ensure that your space ship can resist the loads applied at, e.g. gravity slingshots, if you plan to use them, like ESA.
If you are American you can study the Apollo 11 Command Module at a Washington DC museum. It apparently managed to splash down in the Pacific after a trip around the Moon 1969, i.e. the trip ended like a sea voyage. 
I doubt very much this Command Module ever left planet Earth. The structure is a little weak, to say the least. I have a feeling it was simply dropped from an airplane in front of US president tricky Dick Nixon.
To win my Challenge you cannot use tricks like Dick Nixon. Remember what happened to him.

Your comment about a ship being strong enough to survive a gravity assist demonstrates that you know nothing about space travel.  If a ship is doing a gravity assist because of the nature of gravity it will feel no acceleration whatsoever, and if you are inside that ship then you will be weightless the entire time and if you didn't have windows then you woudn't even know that you are moving, let alone doing a gravity assist.

As for the "incredible stress" put on the command module, all the stress put on it was no more then 10 gees of force, and even my phone can withstand at least 100 gees of force.  It doesn't take much for the command module to survive the trip.

My original question was "would it help if I check the code of the simulator", could you please answer it?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 16, 2015, 08:44:47 AM
You should also study structural dynamic analysis (a specialty of mine) to ensure that your space ship can resist the loads applied at, e.g. gravity slingshots, if you plan to use them, like ESA.

Uh... many of us have studied structural dynamics Björkman, and have obviously come away from that study with a far more comprehensive grasp of its theories than you have—as merely a glorified boat mechanic.

I'm guessing that the only specialty [sic] that you possess—and frequently display here— is as a bullshit artist extraordinaire LOL.


Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 16, 2015, 10:18:40 AM

My original question was "would it help if I check the code of the simulator", could you please answer it?

I suggest you first check the equations or whatever used by the simulator to produce answers. If they are right, it is easy to translate them into computer code, etc.
Believe it or not, I have once developed equations to solve problems and then transformed them into useful software using different computer code.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 16, 2015, 10:36:40 AM
I suggest you first check the equations or whatever used by the simulator to produce answers. If they are right, it is easy to translate them into computer code,
What?  The simulator is computer code.

Quote

Believe it or not,
I'll go with not.  You are a well known liar, after all.

Quote
I have once developed equations to solve problems and then transformed them into useful software using different computer code.
So you programmed an algorithm once?  Well done.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 16, 2015, 01:01:08 PM
Believe it or not, I have once developed equations to solve problems and then transformed them into useful software using different computer code.

I for one choose not to believe it Björkman.  Like all your other absurd claims, it's just another lie.

You seem to be suffering some sort of narcissistic personality disorder; its symptoms?  A grandiose sense of self-importance, a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power or brilliance, a belief that you're “special” and unique, a requirement for excessive admiration, exploitative of others, repeatedly showing arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes etc.

You fit these symptoms like a finger in a glove.  Have you ever considered professional psychological intervention?  If not, then maybe you should.

—Good luck.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 18, 2015, 10:07:51 AM
You seem to be suffering some sort of narcissistic personality disorder; its symptoms?  A grandiose sense of self-importance, a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power or brilliance, a belief that you're “special” and unique, a requirement for excessive admiration, exploitative of others, repeatedly showing arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes etc.

Hm, you don't like me, don't you? But I am just a friendly, goodlooking, intelligent, rich, succesful man telling people how it really is. Plenty sods like you get very upset, cry and moan, shit and wet their pants, etc., but it serves them right.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 18, 2015, 10:12:34 AM
Get off your high horse, you are just a clown.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 18, 2015, 10:36:10 AM

My original question was "would it help if I check the code of the simulator", could you please answer it?

I suggest you first check the equations or whatever used by the simulator to produce answers. If they are right, it is easy to translate them into computer code, etc.
Believe it or not, I have once developed equations to solve problems and then transformed them into useful software using different computer code.

There was a time when I was programming a 2D one body orbital simulator and there was a glitch in the trigonometry portion of the code that caused the ship to move in a way that seemed like complete nonsense.  The point I am trying to make is that computers don't really favor realistic physics, they just do what they are told regardless of what it is.

Now do you want me to check the simulator's realism or not?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 19, 2015, 02:51:04 AM
Normal structural steel will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as three times that of the boiling point of water.

It's also become embarrassingly obvious that Björkman—whose only claim to fame [sic] is that of a boat mechanic—has virtually no knowledge of structural dynamics.  One can only laugh at both the man—and his screwball notions.
What sort of waffling on shit talk is that ya stooge. Three times the temperature of boiling water. What temperature is that ya clown ,boiling water is boiling water .Water can boil at differing temperature dependent on atmospheric pressure & it's purity. Distilled water at sea level boils at 215 F .However kinetic energy time frame can vary. Normal structural steel. WTF what carbon content grade of steel are you referring to ?. Mild steel ?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 19, 2015, 05:05:23 AM
Normal structural steel will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as three times that of the boiling point of water.

It's also become embarrassingly obvious that Björkman—whose only claim to fame [sic] is that of a boat mechanic—has virtually no knowledge of structural dynamics.  One can only laugh at both the man—and his screwball notions.
What sort of waffling on shit talk is that ya stooge. Three times the temperature of boiling water. What temperature is that ya clown ,boiling water is boiling water .Water can boil at differing temperature dependent on atmospheric pressure & it's purity. Distilled water at sea level boils at 215 F .However kinetic energy time frame can vary. Normal structural steel. WTF what carbon content grade of steel are you referring to ?. Mild steel ?

Usually when someone quotes boiling point without any other data it is implied that it is the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure ie 100 C.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 19, 2015, 05:49:38 AM
So why not say 300C then. Instead of the waffling on about boiling water. I will tell you why the waffle.Because that's pretty much the temperature proclaimed the stratosphere is at an altitude of 400km & we can't have anyone asking how ISS is handling that temperature can we. Do you think we are all that stupid , to believe ISS blasted off in to space through the troposphere with a temp as low as -80c & arriving soon after in the stratosphere at 300c. They must of made it out of magic metal.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 19, 2015, 06:41:14 AM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 19, 2015, 07:37:11 AM
Normal structural steel will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as three times that of the boiling point of water.

It's also become embarrassingly obvious that Björkman—whose only claim to fame [sic] is that of a boat mechanic—has virtually no knowledge of structural dynamics.  One can only laugh at both the man—and his screwball notions.
What sort of waffling on shit talk is that ya stooge. Three times the temperature of boiling water. What temperature is that ya clown ,boiling water is boiling water .Water can boil at differing temperature dependent on atmospheric pressure & it's purity. Distilled water at sea level boils at 215 F .However kinetic energy time frame can vary. Normal structural steel. WTF what carbon content grade of steel are you referring to ?. Mild steel ?

Usually when someone quotes boiling point without any other data it is implied that it is the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure ie 100 C.

Poor old Charlie can't comprehend it when people are talking in generalities, or making oblique references when it's not necessary to be precise.  For his further—and much needed—education, structural steel (0.3% to 0.6% C) to ASTM International A36 standard starts to lose its strength at 312ºC.  Happy now Charlie?  Learned something new have we LOL.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 19, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
Normal structural steel will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as three times that of the boiling point of water.

It's also become embarrassingly obvious that Björkman—whose only claim to fame [sic] is that of a boat mechanic—has virtually no knowledge of structural dynamics.  One can only laugh at both the man—and his screwball notions.
What sort of waffling on shit talk is that ya stooge. Three times the temperature of boiling water. What temperature is that ya clown ,boiling water is boiling water .Water can boil at differing temperature dependent on atmospheric pressure & it's purity. Distilled water at sea level boils at 215 F .However kinetic energy time frame can vary. Normal structural steel. WTF what carbon content grade of steel are you referring to ?. Mild steel ?

Usually when someone quotes boiling point without any other data it is implied that it is the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure ie 100 C.

Poor old Charlie can't comprehend it when people are talking in generalities, or making oblique references when it's not necessary to be precise.  For his further—and much needed—education, structural steel (0.3% to 0.6% C) to ASTM International A36 standard starts to lose its strength at 312ºC.  Happy now Charlie?  Learned something new have we LOL.
The sad thing is that if the steel used int he world trade center had something simple like 0.5% more chromium it would have not lost it's strength.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 20, 2015, 03:37:45 AM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 20, 2015, 03:49:39 AM
Normal structural steel will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as three times that of the boiling point of water.

It's also become embarrassingly obvious that Björkman—whose only claim to fame [sic] is that of a boat mechanic—has virtually no knowledge of structural dynamics.  One can only laugh at both the man—and his screwball notions.
What sort of waffling on shit talk is that ya stooge. Three times the temperature of boiling water. What temperature is that ya clown ,boiling water is boiling water .Water can boil at differing temperature dependent on atmospheric pressure & it's purity. Distilled water at sea level boils at 215 F .However kinetic energy time frame can vary. Normal structural steel. WTF what carbon content grade of steel are you referring to ?. Mild steel ?

Usually when someone quotes boiling point without any other data it is implied that it is the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure ie 100 C.

Poor old Charlie can't comprehend it when people are talking in generalities, or making oblique references when it's not necessary to be precise.  For his further—and much needed—education, structural steel (0.3% to 0.6% C) to ASTM International A36 standard starts to lose its strength at 312ºC.  Happy now Charlie?  Learned something new have we LOL.
Yes . now would you like to tell us about the magic metal ISS is apparently made of . You know going from -80c to 312c. What was the time frame ?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 20, 2015, 04:09:48 AM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .

Charlie 1 joule of heat is 1 joule of heat. 4200 j in 1 liter H2O for every deg c. 1 00 atoms/m^2 would hold a poofteenth of heat. You should challenge your mind and go learn something. about 11 at night at your place, get a long neck in ya and get some sleep.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 20, 2015, 04:24:52 AM
Normal structural steel will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as three times that of the boiling point of water.

It's also become embarrassingly obvious that Björkman—whose only claim to fame [sic] is that of a boat mechanic—has virtually no knowledge of structural dynamics.  One can only laugh at both the man—and his screwball notions.
What sort of waffling on shit talk is that ya stooge. Three times the temperature of boiling water. What temperature is that ya clown ,boiling water is boiling water .Water can boil at differing temperature dependent on atmospheric pressure & it's purity. Distilled water at sea level boils at 215 F .However kinetic energy time frame can vary. Normal structural steel. WTF what carbon content grade of steel are you referring to ?. Mild steel ?

Usually when someone quotes boiling point without any other data it is implied that it is the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure ie 100 C.

Poor old Charlie can't comprehend it when people are talking in generalities, or making oblique references when it's not necessary to be precise.  For his further—and much needed—education, structural steel (0.3% to 0.6% C) to ASTM International A36 standard starts to lose its strength at 312ºC.  Happy now Charlie?  Learned something new have we LOL.
Yes . now would you like to tell us about the magic metal ISS is apparently made of . You know going from -80c to 312c. What was the time frame ?

Air has very little heat capacity meaning that it does not transfer heat well. An example for you: Have you ever opened your oven door when it is still on at over 200C? Well, I have and while you get a blast of heat from the air inside the oven it doesn't kill you.

Air high up in the atmosphere has very little density compared to air at ground level and and therefore has a pitifully low heat capacity. Whilst the air may be hot it cannot transfer that heat to other objects. The payloads transferred to orbit will have picked up negligible amounts of heat from the air around them as they passed through the layers of the atmosphere. Indeed, the effect of friction probably had more of an effect.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 20, 2015, 07:26:43 AM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .
You think 1 atom can heat up 6.022 x 10^23 atoms? And I'm the mental one?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 20, 2015, 12:01:20 PM
Topic is "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" but I can assure you nobody has won it, because I have still the €1M in my pocket. In order to try to win it, you must submit an answer to me as per the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) , etc. Discussions here about the temperature of boiling water does not help at all.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2015, 12:09:12 PM
Topic is "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" but I can assure you nobody has won it, because I have still the €1M in my pocket. In order to try to win it, you must submit an answer to me as per the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) , etc. Discussions here about the temperature of boiling water does not help at all.

BORING!

Normal structural steel will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as three times that of the boiling point of water.

It's also become embarrassingly obvious that Björkman—whose only claim to fame [sic] is that of a boat mechanic—has virtually no knowledge of structural dynamics.  One can only laugh at both the man—and his screwball notions.
What sort of waffling on shit talk is that ya stooge. Three times the temperature of boiling water. What temperature is that ya clown ,boiling water is boiling water .Water can boil at differing temperature dependent on atmospheric pressure & it's purity. Distilled water at sea level boils at 215 F .However kinetic energy time frame can vary. Normal structural steel. WTF what carbon content grade of steel are you referring to ?. Mild steel ?

Usually when someone quotes boiling point without any other data it is implied that it is the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure ie 100 C.

Poor old Charlie can't comprehend it when people are talking in generalities, or making oblique references when it's not necessary to be precise.  For his further—and much needed—education, structural steel (0.3% to 0.6% C) to ASTM International A36 standard starts to lose its strength at 312ºC.  Happy now Charlie?  Learned something new have we LOL.
Yes . now would you like to tell us about the magic metal ISS is apparently made of . You know going from -80c to 312c. What was the time frame ?

A lot of it made from aluminum, which can dissipate hear very quickly.  So whatever heat is conducted to it, for all the reasons previously mentioned, would dissipate almost as quickly.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 20, 2015, 12:15:14 PM
Topic is "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" but I can assure you nobody has won it, because I have still the €1M in my pocket. In order to try to win it, you must submit an answer to me as per the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) , etc. Discussions here about the temperature of boiling water does not help at all.

I used the simulator to prove that the Saturn V can make it to the Moon and back along with an offer to check the simulators code for realism and I sent you a diagram showing how a capsule stays stable during reentry.  I could probably find the link to that diagram with enough digging in my browser history if you want to see it again, the poll that I did (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62574.0#.VL62xkZHbCQ) asking if I won your challenge resulted in 7 people saying I didn't and 15 saying I did.  I believe that I won your challenge as detailed on your website, what more do you want?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 20, 2015, 01:30:07 PM
A lot of it made from aluminum, which can dissipate hear very quickly.  So whatever heat is conducted to it, for all the reasons previously mentioned, would dissipate almost as quickly.
In a near perfect vacuum, conduction and convection are almost completely irrelevant.  Radiation is the primary method of heat transfer.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 20, 2015, 02:30:00 PM
Theses atmospheric temperatures are your RE figures not mine. Personally I don't believe you can achieve an altitude higher then 100km aprox before you tumble back down. But I suppose in the world of legal fantasy & fiction anything is possible if you train your slave monkeys to believe in imaginary bullshit . So how did they come up with theses figures then using your analogue.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 20, 2015, 02:37:03 PM
Theses atmospheric temperatures are your RE figures not mine. Personally I don't believe you can achieve an altitude higher then 100km aprox before you tumble back down. But I suppose in the world of legal fantasy & fiction anything is possible if you train your slave monkeys to believe in imaginary bullshit . So how did they come up with theses figures then using your analogue.
Why 100km?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 20, 2015, 02:48:16 PM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .

Charlie 1 joule of heat is 1 joule of heat. 4200 j in 1 liter H2O for every deg c. 1 00 atoms/m^2 would hold a poofteenth of heat. You should challenge your mind and go learn something. about 11 at night at your place, get a long neck in ya and get some sleep.
time frame thanks. From -80c to 300c . I don't know how many pressure vessels & boilers you have built. But have built quite a few . In a multitude of different types of metal. Again time frame please.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: hoppy on January 20, 2015, 03:01:45 PM
It seems you guys forget that lack of atmosphere prevents heat tranfer.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 20, 2015, 03:08:45 PM
Topic is "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" but I can assure you nobody has won it, because I have still the €1M in my pocket. In order to try to win it, you must submit an answer to me as per the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) , etc. Discussions here about the temperature of boiling water does not help at all.

I used the simulator to prove that the Saturn V can make it to the Moon and back along with an offer to check the simulators code for realism and I sent you a diagram showing how a capsule stays stable during reentry.  I could probably find the link to that diagram with enough digging in my browser history if you want to see it again, the poll that I did (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62574.0#.VL62xkZHbCQ) asking if I won your challenge resulted in 7 people saying I didn't and 15 saying I did.  I believe that I won your challenge as detailed on your website, what more do you want?
more like a stimulator , you really need to take your hair palm  off it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 20, 2015, 03:10:21 PM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .

Charlie 1 joule of heat is 1 joule of heat. 4200 j in 1 liter H2O for every deg c. 1 00 atoms/m^2 would hold a poofteenth of heat. You should challenge your mind and go learn something. about 11 at night at your place, get a long neck in ya and get some sleep.
time frame thanks. From -80c to 300c . I don't know how many pressure vessels & boilers you have built. But have built quite a few . In a multitude of different types of metal. Again time frame please.
I can't understand your post. Is there a question in there somewhere?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 20, 2015, 07:42:45 PM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .

Charlie 1 joule of heat is 1 joule of heat. 4200 j in 1 liter H2O for every deg c. 1 00 atoms/m^2 would hold a poofteenth of heat. You should challenge your mind and go learn something. about 11 at night at your place, get a long neck in ya and get some sleep.
time frame thanks. From -80c to 300c . I don't know how many pressure vessels & boilers you have built. But have built quite a few . In a multitude of different types of metal. Again time frame please.
I can't understand your post. Is there a question in there somewhere?
well you keep playing dumb &  a void answering the timeframe it took to go from -80c to 300c. So you don't have to explain contraction & expansion rates & the subsequent resulting damage that occurs to metals structural integrity .
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 20, 2015, 07:49:08 PM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .

Charlie 1 joule of heat is 1 joule of heat. 4200 j in 1 liter H2O for every deg c. 1 00 atoms/m^2 would hold a poofteenth of heat. You should challenge your mind and go learn something. about 11 at night at your place, get a long neck in ya and get some sleep.
time frame thanks. From -80c to 300c . I don't know how many pressure vessels & boilers you have built. But have built quite a few . In a multitude of different types of metal. Again time frame please.
I can't understand your post. Is there a question in there somewhere?
well you keep playing dumb &  a void answering the timeframe it took to go from -80c to 300c. So you don't have to explain contraction & expansion rates & subsequent results to metals.

The air may have gone from -80C to 300C but the material the rocket is comprised of will not have been at those temperatures, heat transfer is not high enough that high in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 20, 2015, 08:33:23 PM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .

Charlie 1 joule of heat is 1 joule of heat. 4200 j in 1 liter H2O for every deg c. 1 00 atoms/m^2 would hold a poofteenth of heat. You should challenge your mind and go learn something. about 11 at night at your place, get a long neck in ya and get some sleep.
time frame thanks. From -80c to 300c . I don't know how many pressure vessels & boilers you have built. But have built quite a few . In a multitude of different types of metal. Again time frame please.
I can't understand your post. Is there a question in there somewhere?
well you keep playing dumb &  a void answering the timeframe it took to go from -80c to 300c. So you don't have to explain contraction & expansion rates & the subsequent resulting damage that occurs to metals structural integrity .
Are you saying metal can't go from -80 degrees C to 300 degrees C? Cryogenic hardening is done at -185 degrees C. Ovens at work go to over 1,500 degrees C. Your view of temperatures is broken.
Oh and we use up to 1 gallon autoclaves. We have never broken them, steel or titanium.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 21, 2015, 05:10:56 AM
Temperature is worthless when there is so little air to transfer heat.
you must be mentally challenged .

Charlie 1 joule of heat is 1 joule of heat. 4200 j in 1 liter H2O for every deg c. 1 00 atoms/m^2 would hold a poofteenth of heat. You should challenge your mind and go learn something. about 11 at night at your place, get a long neck in ya and get some sleep.
time frame thanks. From -80c to 300c . I don't know how many pressure vessels & boilers you have built. But have built quite a few . In a multitude of different types of metal. Again time frame please.
I can't understand your post. Is there a question in there somewhere?
well you keep playing dumb &  a void answering the timeframe it took to go from -80c to 300c. So you don't have to explain contraction & expansion rates & the subsequent resulting damage that occurs to metals structural integrity .
Are you saying metal can't go from -80 degrees C to 300 degrees C? Cryogenic hardening is done at -185 degrees C. Ovens at work go to over 1,500 degrees C. Your view of temperatures is broken.
Oh and we use up to 1 gallon autoclaves. We have never broken them, steel or titanium.
I have asked you to provide the time frame for the change in temp. Then we can discuss metal compositions.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 21, 2015, 05:21:02 AM
I don't know, 3 minutes.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 21, 2015, 05:41:24 AM
Soyuz reaches full orbit at 9 minutes.

Charles - have you ever taken a can of drink from the fridge? That will be at 4C when it is taken out, and will take quite some time to reach ambient temperature of about 20C, and this is just a small can. Things take time to change temperature in air, as it has very little heat capacity.

Think about it.....
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 21, 2015, 10:10:10 AM
I have asked you to provide the time frame for the change in temp. Then we can discuss metal compositions.
The time it takes to for the temperature of a metal to change depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which being the composition of the metal changing temperature.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 22, 2015, 04:03:20 AM
I don't know, 3 minutes.
Well your going from a starting point to an altitude of 400 km. so what speed are you claiming your rocket is travelling at? Oh & what method are you employing to  insure the projectile stops when it reaches a 400 km altitude . Sounds like a fabricated tax payer scam to me.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 22, 2015, 04:17:24 AM
Soyuz reaches full orbit at 9 minutes.

Charles - have you ever taken a can of drink from the fridge? That will be at 4C when it is taken out, and will take quite some time to reach ambient temperature of about 20C, and this is just a small can. Things take time to change temperature in air, as it has very little heat capacity.

Think about it.....
where talking -80c to 300c . Not talking  about taking milk out of the fridge, placing it on the bench & waiting half an hour for it to slowly reach room temperature. Lol . Why don't you try taking a sealed can at -80 then super heat it to 300c & see what happens. Been there done that . ISS is total fabricated lie.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 22, 2015, 04:21:27 AM
Soyuz reaches full orbit at 9 minutes.

Charles - have you ever taken a can of drink from the fridge? That will be at 4C when it is taken out, and will take quite some time to reach ambient temperature of about 20C, and this is just a small can. Things take time to change temperature in air, as it has very little heat capacity.

Think about it.....
where talking -80c to 300c . Not talking  about taking milk out of the fridge, placing it on the bench & waiting half an hour for it to slowly reach room temperature. Lol . Why don't you try taking a sealed can at -80 then super heat it to 300c & see what happens. Been there done that . ISS is total fabricated lie.
Why should it be a lie, what about all the people working on its design, construction and maintenance?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 22, 2015, 04:41:56 AM
Soyuz reaches full orbit at 9 minutes.

Charles - have you ever taken a can of drink from the fridge? That will be at 4C when it is taken out, and will take quite some time to reach ambient temperature of about 20C, and this is just a small can. Things take time to change temperature in air, as it has very little heat capacity.

Think about it.....
where talking -80c to 300c . Not talking  about taking milk out of the fridge, placing it on the bench & waiting half an hour for it to slowly reach room temperature. Lol . Why don't you try taking a sealed can at -80 then super heat it to 300c & see what happens. Been there done that . ISS is total fabricated lie.
Why should it be a lie, what about all the people working on its design, construction and maintenance?
If you want to believe In such bullshit , good for you . But let your tax dollars pay for it not mine. Id rather see my tax dollars going to growing crops & fruit trees to feed people , not stooge & rob them.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 22, 2015, 04:59:37 AM
ISS is total fabricated lie.
Okay Charles;  we've provided plenty of evidence in order to prove that the ISS exists and functions as claimed.  We've posted numerous amateur photographs of it, diagrams of its design and functions, tracking maps, photographs taken from it at specific locations etc.  I've seen it from southern Australia, as have thousands of other Aussies plus people all over the planet.

You can check its location HERE (http://1.usa.gov/1EvKVJE).  I've got a pair of 12 x 50 binoculars, and it's easy to see (I use a tripod for stability).  Low, light cloud cover can hide it though, but if you can see the stars with the naked eye, you'll see the ISS with binoculars.

Can I ask you Charles if you've actually looked for and tried to identify the ISS, or looked but not been able to see it?  Have you tried on different nights and/or varying weather conditions?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 22, 2015, 05:10:14 AM
Soyuz reaches full orbit at 9 minutes.

Charles - have you ever taken a can of drink from the fridge? That will be at 4C when it is taken out, and will take quite some time to reach ambient temperature of about 20C, and this is just a small can. Things take time to change temperature in air, as it has very little heat capacity.

Think about it.....
where talking -80c to 300c . Not talking  about taking milk out of the fridge, placing it on the bench & waiting half an hour for it to slowly reach room temperature. Lol . Why don't you try taking a sealed can at -80 then super heat it to 300c & see what happens. Been there done that . ISS is total fabricated lie.

The can is not being superheated to 300C. Listen.

The ambient temperature around the can is 300C BUT the ability of the ambient air to transfer that heat to the can is very, very poor and means the can will not heat to 300C unless left there for an extensive period of time. Given that soyuz reaches orbit in nine minutes would suggest this is not the case.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 22, 2015, 05:20:52 AM
ISS is total fabricated lie.
Okay Charles;  we've provided plenty of evidence in order to prove that the ISS exists and functions as claimed.  We've posted numerous amateur photographs of it, diagrams of its design and functions, tracking maps, photographs taken from it at specific locations etc.  I've seen it from southern Australia, as have thousands of other Aussies plus people all over the planet.

You can check its location HERE (http://1.usa.gov/1EvKVJE).  I've got a pair of 12 x 50 binoculars, and it's easy to see (I use a tripod for stability).  Low, light cloud cover can hide it though, but if you can see the stars with the naked eye, you'll see the ISS with binoculars.

Can I ask you Charles if you've actually looked for and tried to identify the ISS, or looked but not been able to see it?  Have you tried on different nights and/or varying weather conditions?
MAYBE IF I REPEAT IT IN COMMERCE .ITS A BLIMP AT 115,000FT. it might sink in ya Government suck.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 22, 2015, 05:39:09 AM
ISS is total fabricated lie.
You can check its location HERE (http://1.usa.gov/1EvKVJE).  I've got a pair of 12 x 50 binoculars, and it's easy to see (I use a tripod for stability).  Low, light cloud cover can hide it though, but if you can see the stars with the naked eye, you'll see the ISS with binoculars.

Can I ask you Charles if you've actually looked for and tried to identify the ISS, or looked but not been able to see it?  Have you tried on different nights and/or varying weather conditions?
MAYBE IF I REPEAT IT IN COMMERCE. ITS A BLIMP AT 115,000FT. it might sink in ya Government suck.

OK Charles, let's assume for the moment you're correct.  Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you please post a photograph of it—either one you've taken, or a third-party one?

How have you determined its altitude to be 115,000 feet, and why is it at that specific altitude?  And how is it that it moves along a path that's easily and accurately predicted months ahead?  If there's only one blimp, how then does it refuel, or are there multiple blimps working to a roster?

Lastly, what illuminates it, and how—so that it's visible at night?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 22, 2015, 08:35:27 AM
ISS is total fabricated lie.
Okay Charles;  we've provided plenty of evidence in order to prove that the ISS exists and functions as claimed.  We've posted numerous amateur photographs of it, diagrams of its design and functions, tracking maps, photographs taken from it at specific locations etc.  I've seen it from southern Australia, as have thousands of other Aussies plus people all over the planet.

You can check its location HERE (http://1.usa.gov/1EvKVJE).  I've got a pair of 12 x 50 binoculars, and it's easy to see (I use a tripod for stability).  Low, light cloud cover can hide it though, but if you can see the stars with the naked eye, you'll see the ISS with binoculars.

Can I ask you Charles if you've actually looked for and tried to identify the ISS, or looked but not been able to see it?  Have you tried on different nights and/or varying weather conditions?
MAYBE IF I REPEAT IT IN COMMERCE .ITS A BLIMP AT 115,000FT. it might sink in ya Government suck.

Oh yeah, and the Moon landing was actually filmed in a soundstage on Mars.  Oh wait, your actually serious :-\

A weather balloon going that fast is probobaly a greater accomplishment then a space station.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 22, 2015, 09:19:30 AM
Soyuz reaches full orbit at 9 minutes.

Charles - have you ever taken a can of drink from the fridge? That will be at 4C when it is taken out, and will take quite some time to reach ambient temperature of about 20C, and this is just a small can. Things take time to change temperature in air, as it has very little heat capacity.

Think about it.....
where talking -80c to 300c . Not talking  about taking milk out of the fridge, placing it on the bench & waiting half an hour for it to slowly reach room temperature. Lol . Why don't you try taking a sealed can at -80 then super heat it to 300c & see what happens. Been there done that . ISS is total fabricated lie.
Umm...  You do understand that the ISS and most spacecraft have some form of thermal insulation, don't you?  I've seen a Popsicle placed in an insulated bag that was then placed in a rather hot oven for about 20 minutes and the Popsicle was still ice cold. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 22, 2015, 01:27:13 PM
ISS is total fabricated lie.
You can check its location HERE (http://1.usa.gov/1EvKVJE).  I've got a pair of 12 x 50 binoculars, and it's easy to see (I use a tripod for stability).  Low, light cloud cover can hide it though, but if you can see the stars with the naked eye, you'll see the ISS with binoculars.

Can I ask you Charles if you've actually looked for and tried to identify the ISS, or looked but not been able to see it?  Have you tried on different nights and/or varying weather conditions?
MAYBE IF I REPEAT IT IN COMMERCE. ITS A BLIMP AT 115,000FT. it might sink in ya Government suck.

OK Charles, let's assume for the moment you're correct.  Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you please post a photograph of it—either one you've taken, or a third-party one?

How have you determined its altitude to be 115,000 feet, and why is it at that specific altitude?  And how is it that it moves along a path that's easily and accurately predicted months ahead?  If there's only one blimp, how then does it refuel, or are there multiple blimps working to a roster?

Lastly, what illuminates it, and how—so that it's visible at night?
highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft . The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I,m sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft , lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 22, 2015, 01:54:17 PM
ISS is total fabricated lie.
You can check its location HERE (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/1EvKVJE).  I've got a pair of 12 x 50 binoculars, and it's easy to see (I use a tripod for stability).  Low, light cloud cover can hide it though, but if you can see the stars with the naked eye, you'll see the ISS with binoculars.

Can I ask you Charles if you've actually looked for and tried to identify the ISS, or looked but not been able to see it?  Have you tried on different nights and/or varying weather conditions?
MAYBE IF I REPEAT IT IN COMMERCE. ITS A BLIMP AT 115,000FT. it might sink in ya Government suck.

OK Charles, let's assume for the moment you're correct.  Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you please post a photograph of it—either one you've taken, or a third-party one?

How have you determined its altitude to be 115,000 feet, and why is it at that specific altitude?  And how is it that it moves along a path that's easily and accurately predicted months ahead?  If there's only one blimp, how then does it refuel, or are there multiple blimps working to a roster?

Lastly, what illuminates it, and how—so that it's visible at night?
highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft . The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I,m sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft , lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .

Know what else wouldn't be difficult with NASA's budget? Launching the parts of the ISS up into orbit and assembling it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on January 22, 2015, 02:08:01 PM
ISS is total fabricated lie.
You can check its location HERE (http://1.usa.gov/1EvKVJE).  I've got a pair of 12 x 50 binoculars, and it's easy to see (I use a tripod for stability).  Low, light cloud cover can hide it though, but if you can see the stars with the naked eye, you'll see the ISS with binoculars.

Can I ask you Charles if you've actually looked for and tried to identify the ISS, or looked but not been able to see it?  Have you tried on different nights and/or varying weather conditions?
MAYBE IF I REPEAT IT IN COMMERCE. ITS A BLIMP AT 115,000FT. it might sink in ya Government suck.

OK Charles, let's assume for the moment you're correct.  Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you please post a photograph of it—either one you've taken, or a third-party one?

How have you determined its altitude to be 115,000 feet, and why is it at that specific altitude?  And how is it that it moves along a path that's easily and accurately predicted months ahead?  If there's only one blimp, how then does it refuel, or are there multiple blimps working to a roster?

Lastly, what illuminates it, and how—so that it's visible at night?
highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft . The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I,m sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft , lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .

So a blimp at an altitude of 115,000ft (37kms) would orbit the Earth, assuming a perfect round orbit at:

V=2πa/t

Where V is velocity, a is the semi-major axis of the orbit (in this case the radius of the Earth plus the altitude or 6,408km) and t is time/orbit which is 1.53hrs.

So:

v=2π(6,408)/1.53

v=26,315km/h

Wow.  26,000km/h for a blimp seems pretty fast.  How is it being propelled?  I have not heard of wind going anywhere near that velocity.  On June 24th 2014, the US National Weather Service claimed that the winds at 115,000ft were 83km/h.  Pretty fast, but I have had gusts at the surface that fast.  Hurricane winds only get up to 300km/h.  How does a blimp propel itself that quickly?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 22, 2015, 02:14:22 PM
ISS is total fabricated lie.
You can check its location HERE (http://1.usa.gov/1EvKVJE).  I've got a pair of 12 x 50 binoculars, and it's easy to see (I use a tripod for stability).  Low, light cloud cover can hide it though, but if you can see the stars with the naked eye, you'll see the ISS with binoculars.

Can I ask you Charles if you've actually looked for and tried to identify the ISS, or looked but not been able to see it?  Have you tried on different nights and/or varying weather conditions?
MAYBE IF I REPEAT IT IN COMMERCE. ITS A BLIMP AT 115,000FT. it might sink in ya Government suck.

OK Charles, let's assume for the moment you're correct.  Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you please post a photograph of it—either one you've taken, or a third-party one?

How have you determined its altitude to be 115,000 feet, and why is it at that specific altitude?  And how is it that it moves along a path that's easily and accurately predicted months ahead?  If there's only one blimp, how then does it refuel, or are there multiple blimps working to a roster?

Lastly, what illuminates it, and how—so that it's visible at night?
highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft . The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I,m sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft , lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .

But then the balloon would have to be going about 7.66 kilometers per second and traveling in a trajectory that is not followed by jet streams.  Do you know of any balloons that can do that?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 22, 2015, 02:21:19 PM
When I got into this argument with him before he just started screaming about the troposphere. He can't account for the jet stream that goes well over 25,000 kph, he cant account for a jet stream that crosses the equator in the pattern that it does.

Thats all trivial to Charles though, because he's got "u wot m8" attitude in spades.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 23, 2015, 03:14:26 AM
Highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft. The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I'm sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft, lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .

Can you please address my other questions?   Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you post a photograph of it that you've taken yourself?  And if, as it seems, you're claiming that it's propelled by the jet stream, how is it that it follows an identical and predictable course every day of the year?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: charles bloomington on January 23, 2015, 04:41:28 AM
Highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft. The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I'm sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft, lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .

Can you please address my other questions?   Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you post a photograph of it that you've taken yourself?  And if, as it seems, you're claiming that it's propelled by the jet stream, how is it that it follows an identical and predictable course every day of the year?
its as predictable as the flow of a river. But I'm not wasting anymore of my time with debating your smoke & mirrors . It's not a fair debate when one side deals continually in fabricated scientific facts.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 23, 2015, 04:43:01 AM
Highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft. The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I'm sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft, lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .

Can you please address my other questions?   Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you post a photograph of it that you've taken yourself?  And if, as it seems, you're claiming that it's propelled by the jet stream, how is it that it follows an identical and predictable course every day of the year?
its as predictable as the flow of a river. But I'm not wasting anymore of my time with debating your smoke & mirrors . It's not a fair debate when one side deals continually in fabricated scientific facts.

Yes, you should stop doing that charles.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 23, 2015, 06:03:42 AM
Its as predictable as the flow of a river. But I'm not wasting anymore of my time with debating your smoke & mirrors . It's not a fair debate when one side deals continually in fabricated scientific facts.

I thank you Charles for at least admitting that you've never personally seen this illuminated "blimp" of yours, nor have you got any photos of it.  As I guessed, it's just another of the many fanciful things you make up on an ad hoc basis to suit your argument of the day.

What makes this so funny is that now you're arguing the non-existence of something you've never seen to begin with LOL.  Thanks for the laughs.


Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 23, 2015, 06:17:56 AM
Highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft. The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I'm sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft, lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .

Can you please address my other questions?   Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you post a photograph of it that you've taken yourself?  And if, as it seems, you're claiming that it's propelled by the jet stream, how is it that it follows an identical and predictable course every day of the year?
its as predictable as the flow of a river.
Yes, the path of the ISS is very predictable.  However, the jet streams are not.  Not to mention the fact that the path of the ISS crosses the equator while jet streams do not.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 23, 2015, 07:27:55 AM
Highest altitude balloon YouTube. What do ya know 115,000 ft. The edge of the jet stream. Progress higher if you can with stand the force & your jetted around with it. I'm sure if you can mount a web cam on a balloon & send it to 115,000ft, lighting up a blimp wouldn't be to difficult with a NASA budget .

Can you please address my other questions?   Have you viewed the blimp with a telescope or binoculars?  Can you post a photograph of it that you've taken yourself?  And if, as it seems, you're claiming that it's propelled by the jet stream, how is it that it follows an identical and predictable course every day of the year?
its as predictable as the flow of a river. But I'm not wasting anymore of my time with debating your smoke & mirrors . It's not a fair debate when one side deals continually in fabricated scientific facts.

Hey Charles, did you know that jetstreams are there because the Earth rotates?  It's the good old Coriolis effect which effects quite a lot of things.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 23, 2015, 07:35:29 AM
Whoa, don't get crazy Mike.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 23, 2015, 09:57:32 PM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible. 

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 23, 2015, 10:11:42 PM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible.

There is no firction in space and there is too much friction near the surface, but why can't you just go in between in the place where the atmosphere is present but it's really thin?  The atmosphere is not like the ocean where there is a distinct surface and you are either in it or out of it, the atmosphere gradually get's thinner as you go up until it's undetectable.  There is actually a little bit of air where the international space station is and that's why it has to boost it's self every so often in order to stay in orbit.  If you decend lower then the station then you reach a layer of the atmosphere that is thick enough to slow down a space craft but thin enough to be survived by a space craft.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on January 23, 2015, 10:28:36 PM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible.

There is no firction in space and there is too much friction near the surface, but why can't you just go in between in the place where the atmosphere is present but it's really thin?  The atmosphere is not like the ocean where there is a distinct surface and you are either in it or out of it, the atmosphere gradually get's thinner as you go up until it's undetectable.  There is actually a little bit of air where the international space station is and that's why it has to boost it's self every so often in order to stay in orbit.  If you decend lower then the station then you reach a layer of the atmosphere that is thick enough to slow down a space craft but thin enough to be survived by a space craft.


This is one way to do it hewee. Keep your million I got a quid in my pocket and a beer in the fridge.

Re-entry - The spacecraft had an ablative heat shield to protect it from the temperature during re-entry -- about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius). The structure of the shield was honeycombed aluminum with many layers of glass-fiber material. As the spacecraft descended, the material of the heat shield boiled away, taking the heat away with it. Double walls and insulating material kept the cabin temperature liveable (but still hot).
Landing - After re-entry, a small, drogue parachute was deployed at 21,000 ft (6,405 m) to begin to slow the spacecraft for landing. The main parachute was deployed at 10,000 ft (3,050 m), further slowing the spacecraft in preparation for its water landing. Just prior to hitting the water, a landing bag inflated from behind the heat shield to reduce the force of impact. Upon landing, additional bags inflated around the nose of the craft to keep the capsule upright in the water, and the parachutes were released.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 24, 2015, 08:53:20 AM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible.

There is no firction in space and there is too much friction near the surface, but why can't you just go in between in the place where the atmosphere is present but it's really thin?  The atmosphere is not like the ocean where there is a distinct surface and you are either in it or out of it, the atmosphere gradually get's thinner as you go up until it's undetectable.  There is actually a little bit of air where the international space station is and that's why it has to boost it's self every so often in order to stay in orbit.  If you decend lower then the station then you reach a layer of the atmosphere that is thick enough to slow down a space craft but thin enough to be survived by a space craft.


This is one way to do it hewee. Keep your million I got a quid in my pocket and a beer in the fridge.

Re-entry - The spacecraft had an ablative heat shield to protect it from the temperature during re-entry -- about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius). The structure of the shield was honeycombed aluminum with many layers of glass-fiber material. As the spacecraft descended, the material of the heat shield boiled away, taking the heat away with it. Double walls and insulating material kept the cabin temperature liveable (but still hot).
Landing - After re-entry, a small, drogue parachute was deployed at 21,000 ft (6,405 m) to begin to slow the spacecraft for landing. The main parachute was deployed at 10,000 ft (3,050 m), further slowing the spacecraft in preparation for its water landing. Just prior to hitting the water, a landing bag inflated from behind the heat shield to reduce the force of impact. Upon landing, additional bags inflated around the nose of the craft to keep the capsule upright in the water, and the parachutes were released.
This ablative heat shield story does not hold up because there is no way you can keep the shield in place facing forward during re-entry braking from 7800 to 30 m/s velocity. A little disturbance and the shield is facing backward and POUFF - your space craft is ash.
Yes I know Buzz Aldrin has told the world he saw molten heat shield metal flying by his window when doing his 1969 re-entry, but Buzz is just an old alcoholic today trying to forget all the lies of his past.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on January 24, 2015, 09:24:03 AM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible.

There is no firction in space and there is too much friction near the surface, but why can't you just go in between in the place where the atmosphere is present but it's really thin?  The atmosphere is not like the ocean where there is a distinct surface and you are either in it or out of it, the atmosphere gradually get's thinner as you go up until it's undetectable.  There is actually a little bit of air where the international space station is and that's why it has to boost it's self every so often in order to stay in orbit.  If you decend lower then the station then you reach a layer of the atmosphere that is thick enough to slow down a space craft but thin enough to be survived by a space craft.


This is one way to do it hewee. Keep your million I got a quid in my pocket and a beer in the fridge.

Re-entry - The spacecraft had an ablative heat shield to protect it from the temperature during re-entry -- about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius). The structure of the shield was honeycombed aluminum with many layers of glass-fiber material. As the spacecraft descended, the material of the heat shield boiled away, taking the heat away with it. Double walls and insulating material kept the cabin temperature liveable (but still hot).
Landing - After re-entry, a small, drogue parachute was deployed at 21,000 ft (6,405 m) to begin to slow the spacecraft for landing. The main parachute was deployed at 10,000 ft (3,050 m), further slowing the spacecraft in preparation for its water landing. Just prior to hitting the water, a landing bag inflated from behind the heat shield to reduce the force of impact. Upon landing, additional bags inflated around the nose of the craft to keep the capsule upright in the water, and the parachutes were released.
This ablative heat shield story does not hold up because there is no way you can keep the shield in place facing forward during re-entry braking from 7800 to 30 m/s velocity. A little disturbance and the shield is facing backward and POUFF - your space craft is ash.
Yes I know Buzz Aldrin has told the world he saw molten heat shield metal flying by his window when doing his 1969 re-entry, but Buzz is just an old alcoholic today trying to forget all the lies of his past.
Citation Needed.

As for the others who think that temperature is the only thing that matters, here is a question for you.

Which cooks faster?

A 20 lb turkey deep fried at 350 degrees Fahrenheit
or
A 20 lb turkey in the oven at 350 degrees Fahrenheit?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 24, 2015, 11:36:19 AM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible.

There is no firction in space and there is too much friction near the surface, but why can't you just go in between in the place where the atmosphere is present but it's really thin?  The atmosphere is not like the ocean where there is a distinct surface and you are either in it or out of it, the atmosphere gradually get's thinner as you go up until it's undetectable.  There is actually a little bit of air where the international space station is and that's why it has to boost it's self every so often in order to stay in orbit.  If you decend lower then the station then you reach a layer of the atmosphere that is thick enough to slow down a space craft but thin enough to be survived by a space craft.


This is one way to do it hewee. Keep your million I got a quid in my pocket and a beer in the fridge.

Re-entry - The spacecraft had an ablative heat shield to protect it from the temperature during re-entry -- about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius). The structure of the shield was honeycombed aluminum with many layers of glass-fiber material. As the spacecraft descended, the material of the heat shield boiled away, taking the heat away with it. Double walls and insulating material kept the cabin temperature liveable (but still hot).
Landing - After re-entry, a small, drogue parachute was deployed at 21,000 ft (6,405 m) to begin to slow the spacecraft for landing. The main parachute was deployed at 10,000 ft (3,050 m), further slowing the spacecraft in preparation for its water landing. Just prior to hitting the water, a landing bag inflated from behind the heat shield to reduce the force of impact. Upon landing, additional bags inflated around the nose of the craft to keep the capsule upright in the water, and the parachutes were released.
This ablative heat shield story does not hold up because there is no way you can keep the shield in place facing forward during re-entry braking from 7800 to 30 m/s velocity. A little disturbance and the shield is facing backward and POUFF - your space craft is ash.
Yes I know Buzz Aldrin has told the world he saw molten heat shield metal flying by his window when doing his 1969 re-entry, but Buzz is just an old alcoholic today trying to forget all the lies of his past.
Citation Needed.
Google Buzz Aldrin 2015! Dead drunk!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on January 24, 2015, 11:39:37 AM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible.

There is no firction in space and there is too much friction near the surface, but why can't you just go in between in the place where the atmosphere is present but it's really thin?  The atmosphere is not like the ocean where there is a distinct surface and you are either in it or out of it, the atmosphere gradually get's thinner as you go up until it's undetectable.  There is actually a little bit of air where the international space station is and that's why it has to boost it's self every so often in order to stay in orbit.  If you decend lower then the station then you reach a layer of the atmosphere that is thick enough to slow down a space craft but thin enough to be survived by a space craft.


This is one way to do it hewee. Keep your million I got a quid in my pocket and a beer in the fridge.

Re-entry - The spacecraft had an ablative heat shield to protect it from the temperature during re-entry -- about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius). The structure of the shield was honeycombed aluminum with many layers of glass-fiber material. As the spacecraft descended, the material of the heat shield boiled away, taking the heat away with it. Double walls and insulating material kept the cabin temperature liveable (but still hot).
Landing - After re-entry, a small, drogue parachute was deployed at 21,000 ft (6,405 m) to begin to slow the spacecraft for landing. The main parachute was deployed at 10,000 ft (3,050 m), further slowing the spacecraft in preparation for its water landing. Just prior to hitting the water, a landing bag inflated from behind the heat shield to reduce the force of impact. Upon landing, additional bags inflated around the nose of the craft to keep the capsule upright in the water, and the parachutes were released.
This ablative heat shield story does not hold up because there is no way you can keep the shield in place facing forward during re-entry braking from 7800 to 30 m/s velocity. A little disturbance and the shield is facing backward and POUFF - your space craft is ash.
Yes I know Buzz Aldrin has told the world he saw molten heat shield metal flying by his window when doing his 1969 re-entry, but Buzz is just an old alcoholic today trying to forget all the lies of his past.
Citation Needed.
Google Buzz Aldrin 2015! Dead drunk!
Yes apparently he has had trouble with alcoholism.  However, I need some citation that it was due to him lying about the moon landings.  Since it is your claim,you must provide the supporting evidence.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 24, 2015, 12:10:42 PM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible.

There is no firction in space and there is too much friction near the surface, but why can't you just go in between in the place where the atmosphere is present but it's really thin?  The atmosphere is not like the ocean where there is a distinct surface and you are either in it or out of it, the atmosphere gradually get's thinner as you go up until it's undetectable.  There is actually a little bit of air where the international space station is and that's why it has to boost it's self every so often in order to stay in orbit.  If you decend lower then the station then you reach a layer of the atmosphere that is thick enough to slow down a space craft but thin enough to be survived by a space craft.


This is one way to do it hewee. Keep your million I got a quid in my pocket and a beer in the fridge.

Re-entry - The spacecraft had an ablative heat shield to protect it from the temperature during re-entry -- about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius). The structure of the shield was honeycombed aluminum with many layers of glass-fiber material. As the spacecraft descended, the material of the heat shield boiled away, taking the heat away with it. Double walls and insulating material kept the cabin temperature liveable (but still hot).
Landing - After re-entry, a small, drogue parachute was deployed at 21,000 ft (6,405 m) to begin to slow the spacecraft for landing. The main parachute was deployed at 10,000 ft (3,050 m), further slowing the spacecraft in preparation for its water landing. Just prior to hitting the water, a landing bag inflated from behind the heat shield to reduce the force of impact. Upon landing, additional bags inflated around the nose of the craft to keep the capsule upright in the water, and the parachutes were released.
This ablative heat shield story does not hold up because there is no way you can keep the shield in place facing forward during re-entry braking from 7800 to 30 m/s velocity. A little disturbance and the shield is facing backward and POUFF - your space craft is ash.
Yes I know Buzz Aldrin has told the world he saw molten heat shield metal flying by his window when doing his 1969 re-entry, but Buzz is just an old alcoholic today trying to forget all the lies of his past.

That's why there are attitude thrusters on the re-entry capsule.....
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on January 24, 2015, 12:23:28 PM
It's like they thought of that... Weird.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 24, 2015, 01:00:33 PM
This ablative heat shield story does not hold up because there is no way you can keep the shield in place facing forward during re-entry braking from 7800 to 30 m/s velocity. A little disturbance and the shield is facing backward and POUFF - your space craft is ash.
Yes I know Buzz Aldrin has told the world he saw molten heat shield metal flying by his window when doing his 1969 re-entry, but Buzz is just an old alcoholic today trying to forget all the lies of his past.

That's why there are attitude thrusters on the re-entry capsule.....
There is that, as well as the fact that the command module was designed with certain aerodynamic properties.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.29368 (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.29368)

Also, the reentry corridor is designed for a manageable heat load on the craft.  If you come in at too steep of an angle, then you do indeed burn up.  Too shallow and you skip off the atmosphere.  Just right and you live to tell the tale.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 24, 2015, 01:14:49 PM
Topic is my famous Challenge incl. how to get back from space after a trip there, e.g. from the International Fake Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes at 400 000 m altitude above Earth surface at a speed of say 7 500 m/s.
Evidently there is no atmosphere and jet streams at 400 000 m altitude. At that altitude there is vaccum. No atmosphere. No jet streams.
The jet streams are at 10 000 - 20 000 m altitude, i.e. where airplanes fly in the atmosphere at say max 300 m/s velocity.
Many people suggest it is easy to fly up in space at, e.g. 7 500 m/s speed and when you ask them how they get back, i.e. brake from 7 500 m/s to 0 m/s speed they say - FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
But there is no FRICTION and TURBULENCE in space.
Then it suggested that the braking takes place in the atmosphere (at low altitude) where there is  FRICTION and TURBULENCE.
OK, why not?
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
Why doesn't the brakes of a space ship overheat when braking in the atmosphere?
Then it is suggested that the atmosphere cools the space ship brakes.
Hm?
Reason why nobody wins my Challenges is that you cannot brake a space ship trying to land on Earth. You always burn up!
Only in NASA science fiction stories, e.g. the Apollo 11 fairy tale, braking is safe and the temperature everywhere is nominal! Nominal! Everything is nominal when it is impossible.

There is no firction in space and there is too much friction near the surface, but why can't you just go in between in the place where the atmosphere is present but it's really thin?  The atmosphere is not like the ocean where there is a distinct surface and you are either in it or out of it, the atmosphere gradually get's thinner as you go up until it's undetectable.  There is actually a little bit of air where the international space station is and that's why it has to boost it's self every so often in order to stay in orbit.  If you decend lower then the station then you reach a layer of the atmosphere that is thick enough to slow down a space craft but thin enough to be survived by a space craft.


This is one way to do it hewee. Keep your million I got a quid in my pocket and a beer in the fridge.

Re-entry - The spacecraft had an ablative heat shield to protect it from the temperature during re-entry -- about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius). The structure of the shield was honeycombed aluminum with many layers of glass-fiber material. As the spacecraft descended, the material of the heat shield boiled away, taking the heat away with it. Double walls and insulating material kept the cabin temperature liveable (but still hot).
Landing - After re-entry, a small, drogue parachute was deployed at 21,000 ft (6,405 m) to begin to slow the spacecraft for landing. The main parachute was deployed at 10,000 ft (3,050 m), further slowing the spacecraft in preparation for its water landing. Just prior to hitting the water, a landing bag inflated from behind the heat shield to reduce the force of impact. Upon landing, additional bags inflated around the nose of the craft to keep the capsule upright in the water, and the parachutes were released.
This ablative heat shield story does not hold up because there is no way you can keep the shield in place facing forward during re-entry braking from 7800 to 30 m/s velocity. A little disturbance and the shield is facing backward and POUFF - your space craft is ash.
Yes I know Buzz Aldrin has told the world he saw molten heat shield metal flying by his window when doing his 1969 re-entry, but Buzz is just an old alcoholic today trying to forget all the lies of his past.

Hey Heiwa, do you remember that one diagram that I PM'd you that shows how a capsule stays facing heat shield first as it reenters?  well that diagram shows how a capsule stays facing heat shield first as it reenters.  The short answer to how it happens is because the heat shield is really heavy compared to the rest of the capsule and when there is air resistance involved then things usually fall heavy side first.  You can test this by dropping something with an off center center of mass.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 24, 2015, 05:39:42 PM
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.

Oh dear... Is there anything at all that this guy knows anything about?  How is it that he can be so ignorant of just about every scientific/mechanical/engineering principle known to man?    ;D

He doesn't even understand that F1 brakes are designed to work as they do—smoke and all.  Apparently he equates the smoke with an inherent failure of performance design parameters—which of course is total rubbish.  Although I can see from this lack of comprehension—that any petrol-head can confirm—why he has such a major issue understanding heat mechanics; radiation, conduction or convection and the laws of thermodynamics.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 24, 2015, 11:59:25 PM
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.

Oh dear... Is there anything at all that this guy knows anything about?  How is it that he can be so ignorant of just about every scientific/mechanical/engineering principle known to man?    ;D

He doesn't even understand that F1 brakes are designed to work as they do—smoke and all.  Apparently he equates the smoke with an inherent failure of performance design parameters—which of course is total rubbish.  Although I can see from this lack of comprehension—that any petrol-head can confirm—why he has such a major issue understanding heat mechanics; radiation, conduction or convection and the laws of thermodynamics.

You produce a lot of smoke without any heat, Geoff. Why don't you cool off? Your contribution to this forum is silly nil.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 25, 2015, 09:57:08 AM
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.
That's why the reentry corridor is designed so that the atmospheric braking doesn't happen too fast.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 25, 2015, 10:16:37 AM
Heiwa, I have completed your challenge as detailed in your website.  Unless I missed something you owe me €1,000,000.  So did I miss something or do you just not have any integrity?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on January 25, 2015, 10:18:47 AM
Most people know that you can overheat your brakes when braking too fast. It is seen in formula 1 racing - smoke from the brakes.

Oh dear... Is there anything at all that this guy knows anything about?  How is it that he can be so ignorant of just about every scientific/mechanical/engineering principle known to man?    ;D

He doesn't even understand that F1 brakes are designed to work as they do—smoke and all.  Apparently he equates the smoke with an inherent failure of performance design parameters—which of course is total rubbish.  Although I can see from this lack of comprehension—that any petrol-head can confirm—why he has such a major issue understanding heat mechanics; radiation, conduction or convection and the laws of thermodynamics.

You produce a lot of smoke without any heat, Geoff. Why don't you cool off? Your contribution to this forum is silly nil.
But if they are designed to smoke during normal operation, they are not overheating are they now?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on January 25, 2015, 02:54:19 PM
I expect Heiwa will say flamethrowers overheat every time they are used.  ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 26, 2015, 12:04:13 AM
You produce a lot of smoke without any heat, Geoff. Why don't you cool off? Your contribution to this forum is silly nil.

LOL... I'm pleased to see that I can still get under this whack-job's skin and get a rise out of him.

You'd think he'd learn wouldn't you?  Then again.....  ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 26, 2015, 04:19:47 AM
I expect Heiwa will say flamethrowers overheat every time they are used.  ;D
When I was soldier/officer in the armed forces, i.e. royal navy, some time back my main weapon was the sea mine, a clever, explosive device that was positioned at sea a little below the surface ... to surprise the enemy ships = blow them to hell. If the enemy managed to avoid it and we met face to face, I always shot the enemy down. It was all legal. You do not discuss with such enemies. Here I try to be friendly.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 26, 2015, 06:19:20 AM
I expect Heiwa will say flamethrowers overheat every time they are used.  ;D
When I was soldier/officer in the armed forces, i.e. royal navy...
Soldiers are in the army, sailors are in the navy.  Someone who was in the armed forces would know this.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Son of Orospu on January 26, 2015, 06:32:23 AM
I expect Heiwa will say flamethrowers overheat every time they are used.  ;D
When I was soldier/officer in the armed forces, i.e. royal navy...
Soldiers are in the army, sailors are in the navy.  Someone who was in the armed forces would know this.

Soldiers can also be in an ant colony or a gang or mob.  Sailors can be civilians and not even be in the military. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on January 26, 2015, 06:46:15 AM
I expect Heiwa will say flamethrowers overheat every time they are used.  ;D
When I was soldier/officer in the armed forces, i.e. royal navy...
Soldiers are in the army, sailors are in the navy.  Someone who was in the armed forces would know this.

Soldiers can also be in an ant colony or a gang or mob.  Sailors can be civilians and not even be in the military.

Are you saying you are an ant?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on January 26, 2015, 07:35:19 AM
I expect Heiwa will say flamethrowers overheat every time they are used.  ;D
When I was soldier/officer in the armed forces, i.e. royal navy...
Soldiers are in the army, sailors are in the navy.  Someone who was in the armed forces would know this.

Soldiers can also be in an ant colony or a gang or mob.  Sailors can be civilians and not even be in the military.
The fact that soldiers can be in organizations outside the army does not negate the fact that members of the navy are called sailors, not soldiers. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on January 26, 2015, 11:13:51 AM
I expect Heiwa will say flamethrowers overheat every time they are used.  ;D
When I was soldier/officer in the armed forces, i.e. royal navy, some time back my main weapon was the sea mine, a clever, explosive device that was positioned at sea a little below the surface ... to surprise the enemy ships = blow them to hell. If the enemy managed to avoid it and we met face to face, I always shot the enemy down. It was all legal. You do not discuss with such enemies. Here I try to be friendly.

Your reply was a non-sequitur and did not address my theme of your inability to distinguish proper operation from faulty operation.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 26, 2015, 11:55:04 PM
When I was soldier/officer in the armed forces, i.e. royal navy, some time back my main weapon was the sea mine, a clever, explosive device that was positioned at sea a little below the surface ... to surprise the enemy ships = blow them to hell. If the enemy managed to avoid it and we met face to face, I always shot the enemy down. It was all legal. You do not discuss with such enemies. Here I try to be friendly.

Poor old Björkman's fairy stories are getting more ludicrous by the day!    ;D

This comment of his proves again that the guy's living in some sort of fantasy world created within his own brain.  He's never been in the defence forces of any country, in any capacity.  It's just another of the bogus factoids he likes to sprout as a personal appeal to authority.

He can't even see that everybody on this forum is taking the piss out of him he's so self-centred.  Sad really.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 27, 2015, 08:15:12 AM
When I was soldier/officer in the armed forces, i.e. royal navy, some time back my main weapon was the sea mine, a clever, explosive device that was positioned at sea a little below the surface ... to surprise the enemy ships = blow them to hell. If the enemy managed to avoid it and we met face to face, I always shot the enemy down. It was all legal. You do not discuss with such enemies. Here I try to be friendly.

Poor old Björkman's fairy stories are getting more ludicrous by the day!    ;D

This comment of his proves again that the guy's living in some sort of fantasy world created within his own brain.  He's never been in the defence forces of any country, in any capacity.  It's just another of the bogus factoids he likes to sprout as a personal appeal to authority.

He can't even see that everybody on this forum is taking the piss out of him he's so self-centred.  Sad really.
Stupid jealous Geoff is at it again. Yes, navy uniforms are smart especially on good looking me. Those were the times! The girls were mad about me.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2015, 08:37:04 AM

All the girls love a sailor

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JU1B-0uA4yY/VJIEpDLmrkI/AAAAAAAACxA/wfMhm1YOcnU/s1600/Village-people-in.the.navy.gif)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 27, 2015, 10:26:25 AM
All the girls love a sailor

So do all the boys apparently?  Maybe we should ask Björkman which team he bats for—since he's so impressed with guys that were actually in the navy—as distinct from pretenders such as himself.

     ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 27, 2015, 11:30:01 AM
Heiwa, we all know sailors pay for it.

Also if you were a sailor you would have no objections to the shape of the planet or how the stars worked, because if your Navy was worth a damn at all it would have trained you in navigation, which means that you could read charts, see they matched what you saw.

Said charts based off RE maps. Said star navigation based off the planet rotating. yadda yadda.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on January 27, 2015, 12:13:10 PM
Heiwa, we all know sailors pay for it.

Also if you were a sailor you would have no objections to the shape of the planet or how the stars worked, because if your Navy was worth a damn at all it would have trained you in navigation, which means that you could read charts, see they matched what you saw.

Said charts based off RE maps. Said star navigation based off the planet rotating. yadda yadda.

Heiwa is not a FEer
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 27, 2015, 12:27:08 PM
Heiwa, we all know sailors pay for it.

Also if you were a sailor you would have no objections to the shape of the planet or how the stars worked, because if your Navy was worth a damn at all it would have trained you in navigation, which means that you could read charts, see they matched what you saw.

Said charts based off RE maps. Said star navigation based off the planet rotating. yadda yadda.

Heiwa is not a FEer

touche, I had to go back to re-read his posts about tides and realized he is just saying he is confused about how the moon and tides and gravity work.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 28, 2015, 01:06:46 PM
Heiwa is not a FEer
Maybe not, but his knowledge of geophysics and astrophysics, and the mechanics of tidal forces is so lacking he may as well be a FE'r for all practical purposes.  If you read the nonsensical rubbish and outright lies he posts HERE (http://bit.ly/1tsJcDB) on his less-than-popular sites, you'd see why any self-respecting RE'r would be embarrassed to mention his name in public as being (supposedly) a round earther.   
   ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2015, 01:08:57 PM
Heiwa is not a FEer
Maybe not, but his knowledge of geophysics and astrophysics, and the mechanics of tidal forces is so lacking he may as well be a FE'r for all practical purposes.  If you read the nonsensical rubbish and outright lies he posts HERE (http://bit.ly/1tsJcDB) on his less-than-popular sites, you'd see why any self-respecting RE'r would be embarrassed to mention his name in public as being (supposedly) a round earther.   
   ;D

Preaching to the choir Geoffro. Read other posts sometime.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 28, 2015, 03:23:04 PM
Preaching to the choir Geoffro. Read other posts sometime.

Yeah... I know mate.    ;D

It just seems worth it to me to repeat over and again how nonsensical Björkman and his site's contents are, as too many people—particularly FEs—seem prepared to grant him a modicum of credibility, rather than calling him out for the clown he is.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 29, 2015, 03:31:23 AM
Preaching to the choir Geoffro. Read other posts sometime.

Yeah... I know mate.    ;D

It just seems worth it to me to repeat over and again how nonsensical Björkman and his site's contents are, as too many people—particularly FEs—seem prepared to grant him a modicum of credibility, rather than calling him out for the clown he is.

According reliable statistics my site had 546 visitors/day the past 30 days and it appears most visitors are very happy. I have recieved only two impolite, anonymous mails from unhappy visitors past 30 days. It seems very few visitors are coming from FE forum though.

Most popular subpage is http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm (http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm) about the M/S Costa Concordia incidents 13/14 January 2012 and the trial of the innocent Master, whose ship acidentally contacted something hidden below the surface of the sea one evening and the next day capsized and sank due to being unseaworthy.
 
The criminal court at Grosseto/Italy is a circus, where plenty clowns can be seen.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Arith on January 29, 2015, 04:11:51 AM
Then my popular server is more popular than yours! I have the same amount of visitors, and none of the unhappy emails!
According to reliable statistics, all 625 people who have visited yesterday were 100% satisfied, and left feeling rested and happy after visiting my popular server.

Except I'm not deluded, and realize that they're automated visits - which explains why nobody spends more than a minute or two on your popular dive.

Also I had no idea you had affiliation with the Italian court system.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 29, 2015, 05:27:50 AM
Except I'm not deluded, and realize that they're automated visits - which explains why nobody spends more than a minute or two on your popular dive.

The robot is programmed to spend an automited minute or two on my popular dive? Why would anyone do this? Find a robot? Program it? To automatically visit my popular dive. You must be sick. Suggest you take time off, visit a doctor or ask your mother to help.

You have a mum?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Arith on January 29, 2015, 05:33:56 AM
Yes. A bot made to find vulnerabilities in your popular crap site. Welcome to the world of computers. ... now get out.

I don't need a doctor, or mommy to help me figure out when someone is just inflating his ego.
Your attempts at getting under my skin are just laughable.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on January 29, 2015, 05:41:30 AM
Preaching to the choir Geoffro. Read other posts sometime.

Yeah... I know mate.    ;D

It just seems worth it to me to repeat over and again how nonsensical Björkman and his site's contents are, as too many people—particularly FEs—seem prepared to grant him a modicum of credibility, rather than calling him out for the clown he is.

According reliable statistics my site had 546 visitors/day the past 30 days and it appears most visitors are very happy. I have recieved only two impolite, anonymous mails from unhappy visitors past 30 days. It seems very few visitors are coming from FE forum though.

Most popular subpage is http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm (http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm) about the M/S Costa Concordia incidents 13/14 January 2012 and the trial of the innocent Master, whose ship acidentally contacted something hidden below the surface of the sea one evening and the next day capsized and sank due to being unseaworthy.
 
The criminal court at Grosseto/Italy is a circus, where plenty clowns can be seen.

It accidentally contacted something under under the surface because the captain was a halfwit and got too close to the coast trying to show off.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 29, 2015, 10:53:56 AM
Except I'm not deluded, and realize that they're automated visits - which explains why nobody spends more than a minute or two on your popular dive.

The robot is programmed to spend an automited minute or two on my popular dive? Why would anyone do this?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_crawler
A Web crawler is an Internet bot that systematically browses the World Wide Web, typically for the purpose of Web indexing. A Web crawler may also be called a Web spider,[1] an ant, an automatic indexer,[2] or (in the FOAF software context) a Web scutter.[3]

Web search engines and some other sites use Web crawling or spidering software to update their web content or indexes of others sites' web content. Web crawlers can copy all the pages they visit for later processing by a search engine that indexes the downloaded pages so that users can search them much more quickly.

Crawlers can validate hyperlinks and HTML code. They can also be used for web scraping (see also data-driven programming).
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 29, 2015, 11:26:32 AM
Except I'm not deluded, and realize that they're automated visits - which explains why nobody spends more than a minute or two on your popular dive.

The robot is programmed to spend an automited minute or two on my popular dive? Why would anyone do this?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_crawler
A Web crawler is an Internet bot that systematically browses the World Wide Web, typically for the purpose of Web indexing. A Web crawler may also be called a Web spider,[1] an ant, an automatic indexer,[2] or (in the FOAF software context) a Web scutter.[3]

Web search engines and some other sites use Web crawling or spidering software to update their web content or indexes of others sites' web content. Web crawlers can copy all the pages they visit for later processing by a search engine that indexes the downloaded pages so that users can search them much more quickly.

Crawlers can validate hyperlinks and HTML code. They can also be used for web scraping (see also data-driven programming).

The search engines visit my site to assist their clients - to find me. To down load and record a page takes less than a second. I can program the statistics application to ignore these search engines visits, etc.  No big deal.  But 50% of my visitors find me anyway. My good reputation is all over the www. It has been suggested to put ads on the pages and earn money but it will disturb the attention of the visitors. I like my clean, good loooking pages with correct and valuable info.

Plenty useless clowns are jealous and wet their pants about it. Terrible, isn't?

BTW - noone has won my Challenge yet. Send in your application with full info.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 29, 2015, 11:33:49 AM
Except I'm not deluded, and realize that they're automated visits - which explains why nobody spends more than a minute or two on your popular dive.

The robot is programmed to spend an automited minute or two on my popular dive? Why would anyone do this?

Quote from: /wiki/Web_crawler
A Web crawler is an Internet bot that systematically browses the World Wide Web, typically for the purpose of Web indexing. A Web crawler may also be called a Web spider,[1] an ant, an automatic indexer,[2] or (in the FOAF software context) a Web scutter.[3]

Web search engines and some other sites use Web crawling or spidering software to update their web content or indexes of others sites' web content. Web crawlers can copy all the pages they visit for later processing by a search engine that indexes the downloaded pages so that users can search them much more quickly.

Crawlers can validate hyperlinks and HTML code. They can also be used for web scraping (see also data-driven programming).

The search engines visit my site to assist their clients - to find me. To down load and record a page takes less than a second. I can program the statistics application to ignore these search engines visits, etc.  No big deal.  But 50% of my visitors find me anyway. My good reputation is all over the www. It has been suggested to put ads on the pages and earn money but it will disturb the attention of the visitors. I like my clean, good loooking pages with correct and valuable info.

Plenty useless clowns are jealous and wet their pants about it. Terrible, isn't?

BTW - noone has won my Challenge yet. Send in your application with full info.

So now you are saying that you only have half of the people that you said visit your site?

I have a great idea, just screen cap the analytic page for your site and post it. Make sure to blur out any sensitive stuff, Im not out to hack it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 29, 2015, 11:37:11 AM
Except I'm not deluded, and realize that they're automated visits - which explains why nobody spends more than a minute or two on your popular dive.

The robot is programmed to spend an automited minute or two on my popular dive? Why would anyone do this?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_crawler
A Web crawler is an Internet bot that systematically browses the World Wide Web, typically for the purpose of Web indexing. A Web crawler may also be called a Web spider,[1] an ant, an automatic indexer,[2] or (in the FOAF software context) a Web scutter.[3]

Web search engines and some other sites use Web crawling or spidering software to update their web content or indexes of others sites' web content. Web crawlers can copy all the pages they visit for later processing by a search engine that indexes the downloaded pages so that users can search them much more quickly.

Crawlers can validate hyperlinks and HTML code. They can also be used for web scraping (see also data-driven programming).

The search engines visit my site to assist their clients - to find me. To down load and record a page takes less than a second. I can program the statistics application to ignore these search engines visits, etc.  No big deal.  But 50% of my visitors find me anyway. My good reputation is all over the www. It has been suggested to put ads on the pages and earn money but it will disturb the attention of the visitors. I like my clean, good loooking pages with correct and valuable info.

Plenty useless clowns are jealous and wet their pants about it. Terrible, isn't?

BTW - noone has won my Challenge yet. Send in your application with full info.

If no one has won your challenge then what do you call me giving you all of the information requested on your challenge?  I have given you the information that you requested so tell me what I am missing or admit defeat.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 29, 2015, 01:06:40 PM
I like my clean, good loooking pages with correct and valuable info.
So when are you going to start making such pages?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on January 29, 2015, 04:00:26 PM
Heiwa - where is the evidence for your "good reputation"? You aren't known anywhere on the web except for on a few conspiracy forums, and even amongst those you're either banned and/or exposed as a pathalogical liar with little grasp of the subjects you discuss.
I've seen few uglier looking websites than yours, and no matter how many times you call it "popular" you aren't fooling anyone. Then again, maybe you aren't as deluded as you would have us believe, and you're just baiting. In which case, great trolling.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 29, 2015, 08:05:11 PM
Heiwa - where is the evidence for your "good reputation"? You aren't known anywhere on the web except for on a few conspiracy forums, and even amongst those you're either banned and/or exposed as a pathalogical liar with little grasp of the subjects you discuss.
I've seen few uglier looking websites than yours, and no matter how many times you call it "popular" you aren't fooling anyone. Then again, maybe you aren't as deluded as you would have us believe, and you're just baiting. In which case, great trolling.

Hm, you are just jealous, blind and a halfwit. Nobody has shown anything wrong with the info I publish. Try yourself! Copy/paste anything from my site and show it is a lie! You cannot.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 29, 2015, 08:47:23 PM
Heiwa - where is the evidence for your "good reputation"? You aren't known anywhere on the web except for on a few conspiracy forums, and even amongst those you're either banned and/or exposed as a pathalogical liar with little grasp of the subjects you discuss.
I've seen few uglier looking websites than yours, and no matter how many times you call it "popular" you aren't fooling anyone. Then again, maybe you aren't as deluded as you would have us believe, and you're just baiting. In which case, great trolling.

Hm, you are just jealous, blind and a halfwit. Nobody has shown anything wrong with the info I publish. Try yourself! Copy/paste anything from my site and show it is a lie! You cannot.

You know what, tomorrow I'm going to spend a while creating a thread that is going to do just that. I'm going to go full sodukhan or katsung on your ass and point out every single thing that is wrong with it. Then I'm going to follow you around to every site you post at and link back to that thread and encourage everyone here to do the same.

It'll be fun! See you tomorrow.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 30, 2015, 12:47:44 AM
According reliable statistics my site had 546 visitors/day the past 30 days and it appears most visitors are very happy. I have received only two impolite, anonymous mails from unhappy visitors past 30 days. It seems very few visitors are coming from FE forum though.
Notice how Björkman "conveniently" doesn't quote the source of those reliable statistics?  That's because it's nothing more than a figure he pulls out of his hat.  It's imaginary.  You'll also note that he didn't try and dispute my Alexa (http://bit.ly/rqnPK8) statistics—mainly because they proved his site visit claims to be all lies.

Björkman's entire existence and his nonsensical web pages are built around a fabric of misrepresentation, distortions of fact, third-party disinformation, delusions of grandeur, fantasy, technical ignorance, and outright lies.

One could learn more about genuine science and engineering from Bozo the clown, rather than this glorified boat mechanic.    ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Arith on January 30, 2015, 03:10:34 AM
Except I'm not deluded, and realize that they're automated visits - which explains why nobody spends more than a minute or two on your popular dive.

The robot is programmed to spend an automited minute or two on my popular dive? Why would anyone do this?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_crawler
A Web crawler is an Internet bot that systematically browses the World Wide Web, typically for the purpose of Web indexing. A Web crawler may also be called a Web spider,[1] an ant, an automatic indexer,[2] or (in the FOAF software context) a Web scutter.[3]

Web search engines and some other sites use Web crawling or spidering software to update their web content or indexes of others sites' web content. Web crawlers can copy all the pages they visit for later processing by a search engine that indexes the downloaded pages so that users can search them much more quickly.

Crawlers can validate hyperlinks and HTML code. They can also be used for web scraping (see also data-driven programming).

The search engines visit my site to assist their clients - to find me. To down load and record a page takes less than a second. I can program the statistics application to ignore these search engines visits, etc.  No big deal.  But 50% of my visitors find me anyway. My good reputation is all over the www. It has been suggested to put ads on the pages and earn money but it will disturb the attention of the visitors. I like my clean, good loooking pages with correct and valuable info.

Plenty useless clowns are jealous and wet their pants about it. Terrible, isn't?

BTW - noone has won my Challenge yet. Send in your application with full info.

So now suddenly it's not so fantastic that bots visit your popular website huh? I'll give you this, you stopped calling everyone terrorist. (Which is funny to me, because I imagine you calling everything you don't like terrorist - Old woman at the grocery checkout line taking too long? Anders standing there pointing proclaiming terrorist! (http://))

As for your good reputation, at least there you're partially correct. JREF forums are a prime example of that. Also, advertisers don't care about your website, they want ads on everything. If my server were a public facing site, I'm sure I'd get those too. Props for not going down that road, I have to concede that.

Clean, good looking website? Okay, you have GOT to be trolling here, because nobody in their right mind throws alphabet soup at a canvas and calls it a scientific publication. The actual content? FULL of handwaving and assertions. Very little fact. It's hard to take someone serious in a publication when they put SO MUCH BIAS into everything. Not to mention a woefully painful lack of design principles.

I bet the Google spider that hits your popular website needs to be repaired after encountering such sheer amounts of stupid.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: kman on January 30, 2015, 06:17:39 AM
Mr. bjorkman uses the same tactic as propaganda in totalitarian countries. He thinks that if he yells loudly enough, and says everything with complete conviction, people will eventually believe him.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on January 30, 2015, 06:24:16 AM
Mr. bjorkman uses the same tactic as propaganda in totalitarian countries. He thinks that if he yells loudly enough, and says everything with complete conviction, people will eventually believe him.
Weirdly, that just what mainstream science does. They corner the market in bull crap.
You people attack Heiwa's site because it scares you. I don't agree with everything Heiwa says but his site is very informative and gives food for thought for anyone that takes their time to look at it.

This site is simply an attack site for you people. You have no interest in finding the truth about anything other than what has already been ingrained into you by pre/post school indoctrination.

Why don't some of you take a time out and actually look at alternatives, instead of sticking to your given subjects. You might find it more interesting if you can use your logical brains and common sense for a while.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on January 30, 2015, 06:32:15 AM
Mr. bjorkman uses the same tactic as propaganda in totalitarian countries. He thinks that if he yells loudly enough, and says everything with complete conviction, people will eventually believe him.
Weirdly, that just what mainstream science does. They corner the market in bull crap.
You people attack Heiwa's site because it scares you. I don't agree with everything Heiwa says but his site is very informative and gives food for thought for anyone that takes their time to look at it.

This site is simply an attack site for you people. You have no interest in finding the truth about anything other than what has already been ingrained into you by pre/post school indoctrination.

Why don't some of you take a time out and actually look at alternatives, instead of sticking to your given subjects. You might find it more interesting if you can use your logical brains and common sense for a while.
Scepti, Anders is a lot like you in that he's long on criticizing the mainstream but short on providing evidence that supports his own opinions.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Socratic Amusement on January 30, 2015, 06:39:43 AM
Mr. bjorkman uses the same tactic as propaganda in totalitarian countries. He thinks that if he yells loudly enough, and says everything with complete conviction, people will eventually believe him.
Weirdly, that just what mainstream science does. They corner the market in bull crap.
You people attack Heiwa's site because it scares you. I don't agree with everything Heiwa says but his site is very informative and gives food for thought for anyone that takes their time to look at it.

This site is simply an attack site for you people. You have no interest in finding the truth about anything other than what has already been ingrained into you by pre/post school indoctrination.

Why don't some of you take a time out and actually look at alternatives, instead of sticking to your given subjects. You might find it more interesting if you can use your logical brains and common sense for a while.

If you still think after all this time on this website that science is merely the opinion of the majority and that they silence any disagreement with their position, then I truly, truly worry about your ability to function as a human being.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 30, 2015, 06:41:25 AM

Scepti, Anders is a lot like you in that he's long on criticizing the mainstream but short on providing evidence that supports his own opinions.

My site is mainly, >80%, about safety at sea based on facts. Mainstream media do not like safety at sea and publish just nonsense about it.
That's why I expanded with a few pages about fake atomic bombs, fake space travel and fake 911 structural analysises, where media also support hoaxes of all kind.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on January 30, 2015, 07:06:37 AM
Mr. bjorkman uses the same tactic as propaganda in totalitarian countries. He thinks that if he yells loudly enough, and says everything with complete conviction, people will eventually believe him.
Weirdly, that just what mainstream science does. They corner the market in bull crap.
You people attack Heiwa's site because it scares you. I don't agree with everything Heiwa says but his site is very informative and gives food for thought for anyone that takes their time to look at it.

This site is simply an attack site for you people. You have no interest in finding the truth about anything other than what has already been ingrained into you by pre/post school indoctrination.

Why don't some of you take a time out and actually look at alternatives, instead of sticking to your given subjects. You might find it more interesting if you can use your logical brains and common sense for a while.

You think RE'ers haven't ever had doubt? Please! We all had our doubts, but using history, mathematics and simple logic experiments, we've developed the belief that the earth is round. For thousands of years people have believed the earth is round, countries today believe it is, we've established satellites over the earth that ORBIT it and use the INERTIAL FORCE GENERATED BY THE RESISTANCE OF CENTRIPITAL ACCELERATION to keep them up, our theoretical physics (I've noticed a topic or 6 that uses theoretical and GEN/SPEC relativity) proves RE is truth, and all you guys can do is create a massive turtle that holds the earth up...

It isn't that we're closed-minded (at least I'm not), but you don't provide sufficient logical evidence to sway our beliefs. It's like trying to convert a faithful Christian to Islam by only telling the Christian that his religion is wrong and the Qu-ran (?) is the truth.

You, personally, have created denpressure, and while that's all fine and dandy, science already has your denpressure and we call it atmospheric pressure! Not only is your concept already an established thing, but the equation that good sir AusGeoff introduced me to indirectly that was apparently YOUR post, didn't account for acceleration
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on January 30, 2015, 08:32:15 AM
@Heiwa

I see your email est en Français, donc tu dois pouvoir lit ce phrase facilement! T' habites là, mais je pense que tu es un menteur avec votre faux argents, questions-réponses, et bravade. Je là habite et je ce veux t'exposer!

^^ this part hasn't been translated correctly by iTranslate, Google, Bab, or Babylon Translate :) let's see how fake you might be, down to the email. If you really lived in France though, this shouldn't be terrible to read!^^

Now for my English portion!

Heiwa, your nuke section is entirely invalid as I, as a nuclear engineer, have expertise enough to discredit your Lyssenko claims. Not only that, since I may be lying due to this being the internet, but seismology, the evolution of plant and fauna, detectable radiation, measurable EMF disruption, and Japanese testimony describing a massive cloud all discredit you.

Not only this, but the US didn't create an atom bomb to display technological superiourity over Russia, but did it for Germany and to force an end to conflict with Japan. Your Lysenko (you made a typo) argument doesn't even hold water as there's no evidence the family controlled the collective knowledge of multiple nations.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 30, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
@Heiwa

I see your email est en Français, donc tu dois pouvoir lit ce phrase facilement! T' habites là, mais je pense que tu es un menteur avec votre faux argents, questions-réponses, et bravade. Je là habite et je ce veux t'exposer!

^^ this part hasn't been translated correctly by iTranslate, Google, Bab, or Babylon Translate :) let's see how fake you might be, down to the email. If you really lived in France though, this shouldn't be terrible to read!^^

Now for my English portion!

Heiwa, your nuke section is entirely invalid as I, as a nuclear engineer, have expertise enough to discredit your Lyssenko claims. Not only that, since I may be lying due to this being the internet, but seismology, the evolution of plant and fauna, detectable radiation, measurable EMF disruption, and Japanese testimony describing a massive cloud all discredit you.

Not only this, but the US didn't create an atom bomb to display technological superiourity over Russia, but did it for Germany and to force an end to conflict with Japan. Your Lysenko (you made a typo) argument doesn't even hold water as there's no evidence the family controlled the collective knowledge of multiple nations.

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.



Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 30, 2015, 02:29:05 PM
Mr. bjorkman uses the same tactic as propaganda in totalitarian countries. He thinks that if he yells loudly enough, and says everything with complete conviction, people will eventually believe him.
Weirdly, that just what mainstream science does. They corner the market in bull crap.
Nope.  Wrong yet again my friend.  It's called "mainstream" science even by people such as yourself, and called that for a very good reason.  Mainstream also means 'established', 'dominant', 'prevailing' and 'accepted'.  Are you seriously now suggesting that the entire, worldwide, scientific fraternity is simply "marketing" total nonsense?

Quote
You people attack Heiwa's site because it scares you.
Nope again.  We "attack" it because it's a farrago of lies, misrepresentation, distortions of fact, erroneous science and engineering, unqualified personal claims, bogus citations and plain ignorance.  In case you hadn't noticed, we've been laughing at Björkman and his sites ever since he started infesting these forums with his conceited opinions—when in reality he's only a glorified boat mechanic with an ego the size of a small asteroid LOL.

Quote
I don't agree with everything Heiwa says...
And nor should you;  it's 99% crapola.

Quote
This site is simply an attack site for you people. You have no interest in finding the truth about anything other than what has already been ingrained into you by pre/post school indoctrination.
So where exactly, and what sorts of resources did you use sceptimatic, in order to learn what you know about science and maths?  It seems you automatically refute just about every bit of "conventional" science out of hand, so I'd be interested in knowing how you learned what you now claim to know.  You posted earlier that you possess thirteen "academic" qualifications; where did you gain those if not at a university?  Or if you were self-taught, what types of reference books—other than what round earthers refer to of course—did you utilise to do so?


Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 30, 2015, 02:43:00 PM
you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it!
So now poor old Björkman is accusing somebody he's never even met of being a liar.  How childish can one get LOL.  The guy is obviously struggling now to maintain some sort of credibility, despite in reality being nothing more than a glorified boat mechanic.

Quote
I am just a friendly, honest guy.
Uh... no you're not.  The entire interwebs see you as a total whack-job and liar and clown.  What's it like to have the entire science/engineering fraternity laughing at you all day, every day?  Must be very damaging for that monstrous ego of yours, and the absurd fairy tales you've wallpapered your silly sites with.

Quote
I like correct info.
No you don't.  You live on lies and deceit and disinformation.  "Correct" information is the antithesis of all you stand for.

I suggest that people check out "The Unique World of Anders Björkman" at THIS (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3) site for some more info about the guy.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 30, 2015, 04:04:54 PM

@Heiwa

I see your email est en Français, donc tu dois pouvoir lit ce phrase facilement! T' habites là, mais je pense que tu es un menteur avec votre faux argents, questions-réponses, et bravade. Je là habite et je ce veux t'exposer!

^^ this part hasn't been translated correctly by iTranslate, Google, Bab, or Babylon Translate :) let's see how fake you might be, down to the email. If you really lived in France though, this shouldn't be terrible to read!^^

Now for my English portion!

Heiwa, your nuke section is entirely invalid as I, as a nuclear engineer, have expertise enough to discredit your Lyssenko claims. Not only that, since I may be lying due to this being the internet, but seismology, the evolution of plant and fauna, detectable radiation, measurable EMF disruption, and Japanese testimony describing a massive cloud all discredit you.

Not only this, but the US didn't create an atom bomb to display technological superiourity over Russia, but did it for Germany and to force an end to conflict with Japan. Your Lysenko (you made a typo) argument doesn't even hold water as there's no evidence the family controlled the collective knowledge of multiple nations.

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.
Ok. For one, your claims for the nuclear test with ships is all wrong. The ships did take damage. The bomb didn't use uranium. The test should be the Bikini Atoll test that took place in 1946.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on January 30, 2015, 06:36:54 PM
@Heiwa

I see your email est en Français, donc tu dois pouvoir lit ce phrase facilement! T' habites là, mais je pense que tu es un menteur avec votre faux argents, questions-réponses, et bravade. Je là habite et je ce veux t'exposer!

^^ this part hasn't been translated correctly by iTranslate, Google, Bab, or Babylon Translate :) let's see how fake you might be, down to the email. If you really lived in France though, this shouldn't be terrible to read!^^

Now for my English portion!

Heiwa, your nuke section is entirely invalid as I, as a nuclear engineer, have expertise enough to discredit your Lyssenko claims. Not only that, since I may be lying due to this being the internet, but seismology, the evolution of plant and fauna, detectable radiation, measurable EMF disruption, and Japanese testimony describing a massive cloud all discredit you.

Not only this, but the US didn't create an atom bomb to display technological superiourity over Russia, but did it for Germany and to force an end to conflict with Japan. Your Lysenko (you made a typo) argument doesn't even hold water as there's no evidence the family controlled the collective knowledge of multiple nations.

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 30, 2015, 09:11:22 PM
@Heiwa

I see your email est en Français, donc tu dois pouvoir lit ce phrase facilement! T' habites là, mais je pense que tu es un menteur avec votre faux argents, questions-réponses, et bravade. Je là habite et je ce veux t'exposer!

^^ this part hasn't been translated correctly by iTranslate, Google, Bab, or Babylon Translate :) let's see how fake you might be, down to the email. If you really lived in France though, this shouldn't be terrible to read!^^

Now for my English portion!

Heiwa, your nuke section is entirely invalid as I, as a nuclear engineer, have expertise enough to discredit your Lyssenko claims. Not only that, since I may be lying due to this being the internet, but seismology, the evolution of plant and fauna, detectable radiation, measurable EMF disruption, and Japanese testimony describing a massive cloud all discredit you.

Not only this, but the US didn't create an atom bomb to display technological superiourity over Russia, but did it for Germany and to force an end to conflict with Japan. Your Lysenko (you made a typo) argument doesn't even hold water as there's no evidence the family controlled the collective knowledge of multiple nations.

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on January 30, 2015, 09:35:18 PM

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.

I exposed you as a liar about your location due to your lack of the French language. Anyone living en France should've been able to read what I said, but not only did you respond inappropriately, you responded with a MASSIVE grammatical error.

Seismic activity recorded on the other side of the planet is something significant. Yes, the radiation could be fake, I agree, but your paper says how anything in critical mass would melt the container it was in which is true only if you use a material with a low specific heat, melting point, and low density. They used Beryllium and Tungsten blocks. (Tungsten means heavy stone in Swedish).

You also forgot the bit where an atom bomb has different detonation methods and stages to make sure the device goes off before melting in relation with the fissile isotopes.

Uranium requires a Cu+ sheet on side 1 separated by a platinum lattice from side 2 from a cobalt isotope. The neutrons released by the reaction are caught in the lattice and channeled to the uranium to initiate fission (generally started far above 1mi-ish). Then, since critical mass will be achieved by detonation time while keeping the temperature relatively low due to the heavy insulation of beryllium, a pre-detonation charge of anything from c4 to a heavy portion of dynamite can be used to compress the critical state mass and induce nuclear detonation.

Care to add that into your site?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 30, 2015, 10:08:37 PM
Also on top of the massive spanking she just gave you, you don't see nuclear explosions anymore because if test ban treaties. Pretty easy to look up really.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on January 31, 2015, 12:30:18 AM
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
No need to waste our time doing that Anders.  THIS (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3)  popular site already does an excellent job of exposing your absurd notions, discrepant accounts and counter-factual scientific and engineering claims.

Anybody reading that site would certainly come away with the distinct impression you're totally off the planet [sic] or you're an inveterate liar.  Take your pick.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on January 31, 2015, 05:35:03 AM

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.

I exposed you as a liar about your location due to your lack of the French language. Anyone living en France should've been able to read what I said, but not only did you respond inappropriately, you responded with a MASSIVE grammatical error.

Seismic activity recorded on the other side of the planet is something significant. Yes, the radiation could be fake, I agree, but your paper says how anything in critical mass would melt the container it was in which is true only if you use a material with a low specific heat, melting point, and low density. They used Beryllium and Tungsten blocks. (Tungsten means heavy stone in Swedish).

You also forgot the bit where an atom bomb has different detonation methods and stages to make sure the device goes off before melting in relation with the fissile isotopes.

Uranium requires a Cu+ sheet on side 1 separated by a platinum lattice from side 2 from a cobalt isotope. The neutrons released by the reaction are caught in the lattice and channeled to the uranium to initiate fission (generally started far above 1mi-ish). Then, since critical mass will be achieved by detonation time while keeping the temperature relatively low due to the heavy insulation of beryllium, a pre-detonation charge of anything from c4 to a heavy portion of dynamite can be used to compress the critical state mass and induce nuclear detonation.

Care to add that into your site?
No. Or Non (that is French for No). According US experts a critical mass of fissile metal just explodes, when mechanically compressed, i.e. it or a part of it is transformed into pure energy in some nanoseconds - light, heat, noise, shock wave, radiation and a mushroom cloud. There is no evidence for it though. Many Nobel prize physicists taking part in the invention just lied.
What I say on my website is that fission must be moderated to avoid overheating. Thus nuclear power station works. A-bombs no!
But thanks for visiting my site. As I say: copy/paste what you think is wrong and paste the correct description and I will correct.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Misero on January 31, 2015, 06:24:00 AM

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.

I exposed you as a liar about your location due to your lack of the French language. Anyone living en France should've been able to read what I said, but not only did you respond inappropriately, you responded with a MASSIVE grammatical error.

Seismic activity recorded on the other side of the planet is something significant. Yes, the radiation could be fake, I agree, but your paper says how anything in critical mass would melt the container it was in which is true only if you use a material with a low specific heat, melting point, and low density. They used Beryllium and Tungsten blocks. (Tungsten means heavy stone in Swedish).

You also forgot the bit where an atom bomb has different detonation methods and stages to make sure the device goes off before melting in relation with the fissile isotopes.

Uranium requires a Cu+ sheet on side 1 separated by a platinum lattice from side 2 from a cobalt isotope. The neutrons released by the reaction are caught in the lattice and channeled to the uranium to initiate fission (generally started far above 1mi-ish). Then, since critical mass will be achieved by detonation time while keeping the temperature relatively low due to the heavy insulation of beryllium, a pre-detonation charge of anything from c4 to a heavy portion of dynamite can be used to compress the critical state mass and induce nuclear detonation.

Care to add that into your site?
No. Or Non (that is French for No). According US experts a critical mass of fissile metal just explodes, when mechanically compressed, i.e. it or a part of it is transformed into pure energy in some nanoseconds - light, heat, noise, shock wave, radiation and a mushroom cloud. There is no evidence for it though. Many Nobel prize physicists taking part in the invention just lied.
What I say on my website is that fission must be moderated to avoid overheating. Thus nuclear power station works. A-bombs no!
But thanks for visiting my site. As I say: copy/paste what you think is wrong and paste the correct description and I will correct.
Would you mind saying that to the families of the people killed by atom bombs? I hope they punch you. The point of an atom bomb is to blow up.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on January 31, 2015, 06:46:36 AM

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.

I exposed you as a liar about your location due to your lack of the French language. Anyone living en France should've been able to read what I said, but not only did you respond inappropriately, you responded with a MASSIVE grammatical error.

Seismic activity recorded on the other side of the planet is something significant. Yes, the radiation could be fake, I agree, but your paper says how anything in critical mass would melt the container it was in which is true only if you use a material with a low specific heat, melting point, and low density. They used Beryllium and Tungsten blocks. (Tungsten means heavy stone in Swedish).

You also forgot the bit where an atom bomb has different detonation methods and stages to make sure the device goes off before melting in relation with the fissile isotopes.

Uranium requires a Cu+ sheet on side 1 separated by a platinum lattice from side 2 from a cobalt isotope. The neutrons released by the reaction are caught in the lattice and channeled to the uranium to initiate fission (generally started far above 1mi-ish). Then, since critical mass will be achieved by detonation time while keeping the temperature relatively low due to the heavy insulation of beryllium, a pre-detonation charge of anything from c4 to a heavy portion of dynamite can be used to compress the critical state mass and induce nuclear detonation.

Care to add that into your site?
No. Or Non (that is French for No). According US experts a critical mass of fissile metal just explodes, when mechanically compressed, i.e. it or a part of it is transformed into pure energy in some nanoseconds - light, heat, noise, shock wave, radiation and a mushroom cloud. There is no evidence for it though. Many Nobel prize physicists taking part in the invention just lied.
What I say on my website is that fission must be moderated to avoid overheating. Thus nuclear power station works. A-bombs no!
But thanks for visiting my site. As I say: copy/paste what you think is wrong and paste the correct description and I will correct.

What did you think when you visited Hiroshima?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 31, 2015, 08:05:48 AM

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.

I exposed you as a liar about your location due to your lack of the French language. Anyone living en France should've been able to read what I said, but not only did you respond inappropriately, you responded with a MASSIVE grammatical error.

Seismic activity recorded on the other side of the planet is something significant. Yes, the radiation could be fake, I agree, but your paper says how anything in critical mass would melt the container it was in which is true only if you use a material with a low specific heat, melting point, and low density. They used Beryllium and Tungsten blocks. (Tungsten means heavy stone in Swedish).

You also forgot the bit where an atom bomb has different detonation methods and stages to make sure the device goes off before melting in relation with the fissile isotopes.

Uranium requires a Cu+ sheet on side 1 separated by a platinum lattice from side 2 from a cobalt isotope. The neutrons released by the reaction are caught in the lattice and channeled to the uranium to initiate fission (generally started far above 1mi-ish). Then, since critical mass will be achieved by detonation time while keeping the temperature relatively low due to the heavy insulation of beryllium, a pre-detonation charge of anything from c4 to a heavy portion of dynamite can be used to compress the critical state mass and induce nuclear detonation.

Care to add that into your site?
No. Or Non (that is French for No). According US experts a critical mass of fissile metal just explodes, when mechanically compressed, i.e. it or a part of it is transformed into pure energy in some nanoseconds - light, heat, noise, shock wave, radiation and a mushroom cloud. There is no evidence for it though. Many Nobel prize physicists taking part in the invention just lied.
What I say on my website is that fission must be moderated to avoid overheating. Thus nuclear power station works. A-bombs no!
But thanks for visiting my site. As I say: copy/paste what you think is wrong and paste the correct description and I will correct.
My favorite part is where you said nuclear power is real. So fissile material is fake unless it is in a power plant.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 31, 2015, 12:46:33 PM
You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.
[/quote]

If atom bombs don't actually exist then what was that thing that obliterated two Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of people?  There are many survivor accounts of the explosions and radiation from the bombs can still be detected with a commercially available radiation detector to this day.  Are you going to try to tell me that everyone within a few hundred mile radius of the epicenter of the explosion was in on the conspiracyTM despite being at war?  The bombs are what ended the war and you believe that they never even existed, so what really ended the war and destroyed two cities if it was not nukes?  You are almost as mistrusting as Hoppy...
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 31, 2015, 02:27:23 PM

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.

I exposed you as a liar about your location due to your lack of the French language. Anyone living en France should've been able to read what I said, but not only did you respond inappropriately, you responded with a MASSIVE grammatical error.

Seismic activity recorded on the other side of the planet is something significant. Yes, the radiation could be fake, I agree, but your paper says how anything in critical mass would melt the container it was in which is true only if you use a material with a low specific heat, melting point, and low density. They used Beryllium and Tungsten blocks. (Tungsten means heavy stone in Swedish).

You also forgot the bit where an atom bomb has different detonation methods and stages to make sure the device goes off before melting in relation with the fissile isotopes.

Uranium requires a Cu+ sheet on side 1 separated by a platinum lattice from side 2 from a cobalt isotope. The neutrons released by the reaction are caught in the lattice and channeled to the uranium to initiate fission (generally started far above 1mi-ish). Then, since critical mass will be achieved by detonation time while keeping the temperature relatively low due to the heavy insulation of beryllium, a pre-detonation charge of anything from c4 to a heavy portion of dynamite can be used to compress the critical state mass and induce nuclear detonation.

Care to add that into your site?
No. Or Non (that is French for No). According US experts a critical mass of fissile metal just explodes, when mechanically compressed, i.e. it or a part of it is transformed into pure energy in some nanoseconds - light, heat, noise, shock wave, radiation and a mushroom cloud. There is no evidence for it though. Many Nobel prize physicists taking part in the invention just lied.
What I say on my website is that fission must be moderated to avoid overheating. Thus nuclear power station works. A-bombs no!
But thanks for visiting my site. As I say: copy/paste what you think is wrong and paste the correct description and I will correct.

Wait, if you believe power plants work, then how on earth would a bomb not work? isnt an atomic weapon just an uncontrolled power plant reaction?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: kman on January 31, 2015, 02:36:58 PM
You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.

If atom bombs don't actually exist then what was that thing that obliterated two Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of people?  There are many survivor accounts of the explosions and radiation from the bombs can still be detected with a commercially available radiation detector to this day.  Are you going to try to tell me that everyone within a few hundred mile radius of the epicenter of the explosion was in on the conspiracyTM despite being at war?  The bombs are what ended the war and you believe that they never even existed, so what really ended the war and destroyed two cities if it was not nukes?  You are almost as
mistrusting as Hoppy...
[/quote]

I skimmed his site and he seems to think that the destruction was caused by fire bombing which burned down the wooden japanese building.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 01, 2015, 12:18:02 AM

Bon nuit.

you are a nuke engineer!?  I don't believe it. Prove it! Then prove that I do not exist, that I lie, that I am not ... anything. Why should I lie? Why?

This thread is getting stranger and stranger with more nuts and wits joining. I am just a friendly, honest guy. Somebody here linked to my popular web site. I publish there what I have found and think is correct. If you do not agree, just explain what you think is wrong.

Forget me! Focus on what you think is right and why my info is wrong. I will change my info/understanding, if it is wrong. No big deal for me. I like correct info. Only way to achieve it, is to discuss it. The info.

You didn't answer the French part in a way that made sense with what I said...and it's BONNE NUIT not bon nuit, so I assume your French email isn't representative of where you really live.

It doesn't matter if you believe my engineering background though, as recorded seismic activity during that period recorded a significant disturbance that correlated with the period of supposed detonation. Not only that, but atmospheric Geiger counters (basically) detected increases in radiation to confirm suspicions
You are supposed to expose me as a liar. Go ahead and try.
So there was seismic disturbance when an atomic bomb explosed. So IT is your evidence that atomic bombs work. Not very impressive. Or planes collecting radioactive dust in the sky after detonations found radioactivity. Hm, easy to fake.
So why all these funny propaganda films from the 1950's about atomic bomb explosions? Why not show the real thing?
I think my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) are sufficient to demonstrate that atomic bombs do not work. Aren't you happy? Or do you LOVE atomic bombs (and that they produce seismmic effects?).
Anyway, try to find anything wrong with my web page.
And do no suggest that I lie.

I exposed you as a liar about your location due to your lack of the French language. Anyone living en France should've been able to read what I said, but not only did you respond inappropriately, you responded with a MASSIVE grammatical error.

Seismic activity recorded on the other side of the planet is something significant. Yes, the radiation could be fake, I agree, but your paper says how anything in critical mass would melt the container it was in which is true only if you use a material with a low specific heat, melting point, and low density. They used Beryllium and Tungsten blocks. (Tungsten means heavy stone in Swedish).

You also forgot the bit where an atom bomb has different detonation methods and stages to make sure the device goes off before melting in relation with the fissile isotopes.

Uranium requires a Cu+ sheet on side 1 separated by a platinum lattice from side 2 from a cobalt isotope. The neutrons released by the reaction are caught in the lattice and channeled to the uranium to initiate fission (generally started far above 1mi-ish). Then, since critical mass will be achieved by detonation time while keeping the temperature relatively low due to the heavy insulation of beryllium, a pre-detonation charge of anything from c4 to a heavy portion of dynamite can be used to compress the critical state mass and induce nuclear detonation.

Care to add that into your site?
No. Or Non (that is French for No). According US experts a critical mass of fissile metal just explodes, when mechanically compressed, i.e. it or a part of it is transformed into pure energy in some nanoseconds - light, heat, noise, shock wave, radiation and a mushroom cloud. There is no evidence for it though. Many Nobel prize physicists taking part in the invention just lied.
What I say on my website is that fission must be moderated to avoid overheating. Thus nuclear power station works. A-bombs no!
But thanks for visiting my site. As I say: copy/paste what you think is wrong and paste the correct description and I will correct.

Wait, if you believe power plants work, then how on earth would a bomb not work? isnt an atomic weapon just an uncontrolled power plant reaction?

To be fair, the fission reactions at a power plant cannot detonate as they don't have critical mass. They can however run away and melt the plant, which tends to cause secondary explosions in the pressure systems. This is still bad however, just more in fallout as opposed to physical destruction.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on February 01, 2015, 08:23:33 AM
@Heiwa, mon ami

The only differences in a nuclear power plant and an atom bomb is the explosives, the containment of radiation, and the fact that power plants don't deal with Critical material

A-bomb
Heats up to massive temperatures, yes, but melting doesn't occur because the thermal energy required to melt the bomb isn't present as the equation

Q = mC(delta)Time

Or

Thermal energy = mass times specific heat times Time

Input the average energy a Critical item exudes as thermal energy or the melting point of the Tungsten or Beryllium capsule and you'll find the time needed will be less than the time of detonation.

Yes, the materials do melt, but science just blows it up before it does
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 01, 2015, 09:21:50 AM
@Heiwa, mon ami

The only differences in a nuclear power plant and an atom bomb is the explosives, the containment of radiation, and the fact that power plants don't deal with Critical material

A-bomb
Heats up to massive temperatures, yes, but melting doesn't occur because the thermal energy required to melt the bomb isn't present as the equation

Q = mC(delta)Time

Or

Thermal energy = mass times specific heat times Time

Input the average energy a Critical item exudes as thermal energy or the melting point of the Tungsten or Beryllium capsule and you'll find the time needed will be less than the time of detonation.

Yes, the materials do melt, but science just blows it up before it does

Critical material? What are you talking about.

Critical mass! Of some metals: It is just an invention of some propagandaists. No scientific evidence that critical mass is critical.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 01, 2015, 09:48:54 AM
@Heiwa, mon ami

The only differences in a nuclear power plant and an atom bomb is the explosives, the containment of radiation, and the fact that power plants don't deal with Critical material

A-bomb
Heats up to massive temperatures, yes, but melting doesn't occur because the thermal energy required to melt the bomb isn't present as the equation

Q = mC(delta)Time

Or

Thermal energy = mass times specific heat times Time

Input the average energy a Critical item exudes as thermal energy or the melting point of the Tungsten or Beryllium capsule and you'll find the time needed will be less than the time of detonation.

Yes, the materials do melt, but science just blows it up before it does

Critical material? What are you talking about.

Critical mass! Of some metals: It is just an invention of some propagandaists. No scientific evidence that critical mass is critical.

What he means is critical purity, when you purify radioactive elements like uranium it gets more critical and the more critical it is the more energy it releases as radiation and heat.  Atom bombs use really high purity uranium that explodes when atoms are split by firing neutrons at them.  Nuclear reactors use lower purity uranium and it uses the heat it produces to boil water to spin turbines which generate power.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on February 01, 2015, 11:30:29 AM
@Heiwa, mon ami

The only differences in a nuclear power plant and an atom bomb is the explosives, the containment of radiation, and the fact that power plants don't deal with Critical material

A-bomb
Heats up to massive temperatures, yes, but melting doesn't occur because the thermal energy required to melt the bomb isn't present as the equation

Q = mC(delta)Time

Or

Thermal energy = mass times specific heat times Time

Input the average energy a Critical item exudes as thermal energy or the melting point of the Tungsten or Beryllium capsule and you'll find the time needed will be less than the time of detonation.

Yes, the materials do melt, but science just blows it up before it does

Critical material? What are you talking about.

Critical mass! Of some metals: It is just an invention of some propagandaists. No scientific evidence that critical mass is critical.

What he means is critical purity, when you purify radioactive elements like uranium it gets more critical and the more critical it is the more energy it releases as radiation and heat.  Atom bombs use really high purity uranium that explodes when atoms are split by firing neutrons at them.  Nuclear reactors use lower purity uranium and it uses the heat it produces to boil water to spin turbines which generate power.

Oh thank god. Yes. Exactly.

@Heiwa

Uranium is mined (Nazca lines area has a lot of minerals and stuff like this), and it is put in an ultracentrifuge to separate the low purity and high purity Uranium.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 02, 2015, 06:32:14 AM
@Heiwa, mon ami

The only differences in a nuclear power plant and an atom bomb is the explosives, the containment of radiation, and the fact that power plants don't deal with Critical material

A-bomb
Heats up to massive temperatures, yes, but melting doesn't occur because the thermal energy required to melt the bomb isn't present as the equation

Q = mC(delta)Time

Or

Thermal energy = mass times specific heat times Time

Input the average energy a Critical item exudes as thermal energy or the melting point of the Tungsten or Beryllium capsule and you'll find the time needed will be less than the time of detonation.

Yes, the materials do melt, but science just blows it up before it does

Critical material? What are you talking about.

Critical mass! Of some metals: It is just an invention of some propagandaists. No scientific evidence that critical mass is critical.

What he means is critical purity, when you purify radioactive elements like uranium it gets more critical and the more critical it is the more energy it releases as radiation and heat.  Atom bombs use really high purity uranium that explodes when atoms are split by firing neutrons at them.  Nuclear reactors use lower purity uranium and it uses the heat it produces to boil water to spin turbines which generate power.

Oh thank god. Yes. Exactly.

@Heiwa

Uranium is mined (Nazca lines area has a lot of minerals and stuff like this), and it is put in an ultracentrifuge to separate the low purity and high purity Uranium.

Uranium ore is mined, e.g. uranium oxides. Pechblende is one type. Then you have to get rid of the oxides to produce the metal uranium. Then you have to let the uranium metal react with e.g. flour to become a gas.
That gas you can centrifuge to separate the lighter uranium235atoms from the rest. Stalin did it 1945-1949 and produced his A-bomb? A friend of mine helped Stalin do it.
Small world, isn't it. I friend of mine helped Stalin to build an A-bomb.!!
What friends do I have?

Study section 2.8 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#28 (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#28)

Actually the Stalin A-bomb was as real a 7-dollar bill. As fake as the US bomb.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on February 02, 2015, 08:27:20 AM
@Heiwa

You saying your friend helped Stalin makes you sound like a fraud. To prove this, we require your friend's name(as he'd be famous), your selfie (which we shall verify with you doing a specific thing), and a picture of both of you in a picture together.

You said one word correctly in French. Impressive. Ce n'est pas quelque chose qu'un enfant peut faire...do more, s'il te plait.

Go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and measure the radiation levels there. Go to Project Trinity's test site. Look at the sand that has been heated into glass in that blast radius.

Or, if you're so certain they don't work, and you're rich enough to have €1m, buy some nuke-grade uranium from a few sources ex: Reykjavik, Dark Net, etc. I'll tell your so-enlightened self how to build the device, although you'll need around €2m.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 02, 2015, 06:20:56 PM
@Heiwa

You saying your friend helped Stalin makes you sound like a fraud. To prove this, we require your friend's name(as he'd be famous), your selfie (which we shall verify with you doing a specific thing), and a picture of both of you in a picture together.

You said one word correctly in French. Impressive. Ce n'est pas quelque chose qu'un enfant peut faire...do more, s'il te plait.

Go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and measure the radiation levels there. Go to Project Trinity's test site. Look at the sand that has been heated into glass in that blast radius.

Or, if you're so certain they don't work, and you're rich enough to have €1m, buy some nuke-grade uranium from a few sources ex: Reykjavik, Dark Net, etc. I'll tell your so-enlightened self how to build the device, although you'll need around €2m.
So you are an A-bomb lover. But you didn't study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) about my friend that helped Stalin build his A-bomb with fake Saxon Uranium.
I have been to Nagasaki several times and no A-bomb destroyed it. I have also been to Albaquerque close to the Trinity site and met some of the PhDs building A-bombs. All clowns of course.
Aren't you happy that A-bombs do not work? It is all propaganda! You were fooled. The Général was/is also part of it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 02, 2015, 06:27:54 PM
My mind is literally blown.

This assclown just called Oppenheimer a clown.

And no of course she hasn't studied your site, she's actually an intelligent woman who specializes in nuclear engineering. Why on earth would she give a flying rats ass about what stupidity you have to spew?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on February 02, 2015, 07:00:53 PM
My mind is literally blown.

This assclown just called Oppenheimer a clown.

And no of course she hasn't studied your site, she's actually an intelligent woman who specializes in nuclear engineering. Why on earth would she give a flying rats ass about what stupidity you have to spew?

How can you study something so mind-bendingly incorrect?? For my final project in my closing of 5 years we were asked to create a device capable, if 1kg of uranium OR plutonium were integrated, of detonating.

Oppenheimer was a bloody genius, and rightly so, as he developed the infinitesimal and harnessed its power, albeit to ill effect
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 02, 2015, 09:06:41 PM
My mind is literally blown.

This assclown just called Oppenheimer a clown.

And no of course she hasn't studied your site, she's actually an intelligent woman who specializes in nuclear engineering. Why on earth would she give a flying rats ass about what stupidity you have to spew?

How can you study something so mind-bendingly incorrect?? For my final project in my closing of 5 years we were asked to create a device capable, if 1kg of uranium OR plutonium were integrated, of detonating.

Oppenheimer was a bloody genius, and rightly so, as he developed the infinitesimal and harnessed its power, albeit to ill effect

Anyway, it seems Stalin managed to copy/paste together an atomic bomb from scratch in four years, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is trying since 30-40 years to do it. My conclusion is that atomic bombs do not work at all and that Stalin just played along the propaganda game started by the USA 1945.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 02, 2015, 09:37:09 PM
My mind is literally blown.

This assclown just called Oppenheimer a clown.

And no of course she hasn't studied your site, she's actually an intelligent woman who specializes in nuclear engineering. Why on earth would she give a flying rats ass about what stupidity you have to spew?

How can you study something so mind-bendingly incorrect?? For my final project in my closing of 5 years we were asked to create a device capable, if 1kg of uranium OR plutonium were integrated, of detonating.

Oppenheimer was a bloody genius, and rightly so, as he developed the infinitesimal and harnessed its power, albeit to ill effect

Holy crap, so basically your like dissertation was to design a nuclear bomb? That's rather bad ass. My Environmental Sciences major probably won't have me doing anything near as awesome.

Heiwa, there is a difference between a nation who is having all of its nuclear scientists killed by the Mossad, is embargoed from easily acquiring the materials the create a bomb and is under some of the heaviest embargoes in history and a superpower with all the money and power of a superpower set to accomplish the goal.

Oh and the head start of getting some of the Nazi scientist who had been working on the German bomb.

You know, history stuff heiwa. Check it out.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 02, 2015, 09:42:58 PM
My mind is literally blown.

This assclown just called Oppenheimer a clown.

And no of course she hasn't studied your site, she's actually an intelligent woman who specializes in nuclear engineering. Why on earth would she give a flying rats ass about what stupidity you have to spew?

How can you study something so mind-bendingly incorrect?? For my final project in my closing of 5 years we were asked to create a device capable, if 1kg of uranium OR plutonium were integrated, of detonating.

Oppenheimer was a bloody genius, and rightly so, as he developed the infinitesimal and harnessed its power, albeit to ill effect

Anyway, it seems Stalin managed to copy/paste together an atomic bomb from scratch in four years, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is trying since 30-40 years to do it. My conclusion is that atomic bombs do not work at all and that Stalin just played along the propaganda game started by the USA 1945.

There was actually an experiment done where two guys without backgrounds in nuclear physics were asked to design an atomic bomb only using publicly accessible information on the Internet and given 48 hours to do so and they succeeded.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 02, 2015, 09:47:00 PM
My mind is literally blown.

This assclown just called Oppenheimer a clown.

And no of course she hasn't studied your site, she's actually an intelligent woman who specializes in nuclear engineering. Why on earth would she give a flying rats ass about what stupidity you have to spew?

How can you study something so mind-bendingly incorrect?? For my final project in my closing of 5 years we were asked to create a device capable, if 1kg of uranium OR plutonium were integrated, of detonating.

Oppenheimer was a bloody genius, and rightly so, as he developed the infinitesimal and harnessed its power, albeit to ill effect

Anyway, it seems Stalin managed to copy/paste together an atomic bomb from scratch in four years, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is trying since 30-40 years to do it. My conclusion is that atomic bombs do not work at all and that Stalin just played along the propaganda game started by the USA 1945.

There was actually an experiment done where two guys without backgrounds in nuclear physics were asked to design an atomic bomb only using publicly accessible information on the Internet and given 48 hours to do so and they succeeded.

Hell, Sum of All Fears has a rather detailed description on the subject. Tritium! Moar tritium!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 02, 2015, 10:22:43 PM

There was actually an experiment done where two guys without backgrounds in nuclear physics were asked to design an atomic bomb only using publicly accessible information on the Internet and given 48 hours to do so and they succeeded.

I describe how you make an atomic bomb at my web site in a bag. It is easy. Just 61 kg pure U235 knocked together. Only problem is it doesn't work.   
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 02, 2015, 10:25:55 PM

There was actually an experiment done where two guys without backgrounds in nuclear physics were asked to design an atomic bomb only using publicly accessible information on the Internet and given 48 hours to do so and they succeeded.

I describe how you make an atomic bomb at my web site in a bag. It is easy. Just 61 kg pure U235 knocked together. Only problem is it doesn't work.

Yes it does.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 03, 2015, 12:52:26 AM
So our glorified boat mechanic Björkman is apparently a marine engineer, a structural engineer, an astrophysicist, a nuclear physicist, an aeronautics engineer, and a mechanical engineer.  All with a single degree from the Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden.

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 (http://bit.ly/1KmWfcn) list the best global universities and are the only international university performance tables to judge world class universities.  Chalmers is listed at No. 276 in the world rankings.  The  Australian National University ranks at No. 45, and the University of Melbourne ranks at No. 33, so it's obvious that Chalmers isn't exactly the epitome of global tertiary education LOL.

And this could explain partly why Björkman has such an unwarranted and overblown opinion of his alleged academic credentials;  his single, fairly average "qualification" obtained forty years ago just can't sustain his multiple-disciplinary claims.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 03, 2015, 04:50:19 AM

There was actually an experiment done where two guys without backgrounds in nuclear physics were asked to design an atomic bomb only using publicly accessible information on the Internet and given 48 hours to do so and they succeeded.

I describe how you make an atomic bomb at my web site in a bag. It is easy. Just 61 kg pure U235 knocked together. Only problem is it doesn't work.

Yes it does.

Any photos to prove it?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 03, 2015, 04:58:45 AM
(http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/763px-Crossroads_baker_explosion.jpeg)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 03, 2015, 05:00:04 AM

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 (http://bit.ly/1KmWfcn) list the best global universities and are the only international university performance tables to judge world class universities.  Chalmers is listed at No. 276 in the world rankings.  The  Australian National University ranks at No. 45, and the University of Melbourne ranks at No. 33, so it's obvious that Chalmers isn't exactly the epitome of global tertiary education LOL.

And this could explain partly why Björkman has such an unwarranted and overblown opinion of his alleged academic credentials;  his single, fairly average "qualification" obtained forty years ago just can't sustain his multiple-disciplinary claims.

You are almost right after all - I graduated 45 years ago from Chalmers University. Time goes. And since then I have learnt a lot more and made a lot of money. That's why I present all my findings at my popular web site http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) and offer anybody €1 million to invalidate either (1) the Björkman Axiom about structures (they do not self destruct from top down as suggested by terrorists), or (2) my suggestion that humans cannot ever travel in space, i.e. topic - somebody won my Challenge.

Actually plenty people have tried but nobody has won. But plenty people have learnt a lot.

Isn't it good?

 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 03, 2015, 05:00:54 AM
(http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/763px-Crossroads_baker_explosion.jpeg)
What is this?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 03, 2015, 05:06:21 AM
That would be a fission explosion that you think is impossible.....
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 03, 2015, 05:07:50 AM
That would be a fission explosion that you think is impossible.....
The ships don't seem to mind.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 03, 2015, 05:08:24 AM
(http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/763px-Crossroads_baker_explosion.jpeg)
What is this?

The little black things were old stuffed ships. Eniwetok atoll I think. Bomb went off just bellow sea level. Yanks still paying the displaced islanders.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 03, 2015, 05:10:38 AM
Never worry about nukes. They can't even move little stuffed ships.  ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 03, 2015, 05:12:26 AM
Never worry about nukes. They can't even move little stuffed ships.  ;D

See the big round sphere....?

That's the shockwave that hasn't hit the ships yet....
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 03, 2015, 05:15:27 AM
Never worry about nukes. They can't even move little stuffed ships.  ;D

See the big round sphere....?

That's the shockwave that hasn't hit the ships yet....
Yeah, really scary. Let's all be scared of nukes.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 03, 2015, 05:16:39 AM
Never worry about nukes. They can't even move little stuffed ships.  ;D

See the big round sphere....?

That's the shockwave that hasn't hit the ships yet....
Yeah, really scary. Let's all be scared of nukes.

Perhaps you would like to chat to the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think they might have a different viewpoint.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 03, 2015, 05:24:55 AM
Never worry about nukes. They can't even move little stuffed ships.  ;D

See the big round sphere....?

That's the shockwave that hasn't hit the ships yet....
Yeah, really scary. Let's all be scared of nukes.
Nuclear Tests on pigs (http://#)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 03, 2015, 05:38:46 AM
Never worry about nukes. They can't even move little stuffed ships.  ;D

See the big round sphere....?

That's the shockwave that hasn't hit the ships yet....
Yeah, really scary. Let's all be scared of nukes.

Perhaps you would like to chat to the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think they might have a different viewpoint.
That depends on who's telling a story or not. Who's telling a real story and who is reading a script. Don't profess that you know the real answer and don't try and use emotion as an argument either.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 03, 2015, 05:39:51 AM
Never worry about nukes. They can't even move little stuffed ships.  ;D

See the big round sphere....?

That's the shockwave that hasn't hit the ships yet....
Yeah, really scary. Let's all be scared of nukes.
Nuclear Tests on pigs (http://#)
Yep, about as scary as a fart in a lift.

Nukes never have and never will exist. They are just a fantasy weapon of control and fear.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: frenat on February 03, 2015, 05:50:04 AM


. But plenty people have learnt a lot.



 
From what I've seen here and other places, people have learned you've never proven the money is available, you don't understand the relevant concepts to be the judge of your own contest (any real contest would have a third party judge anyway), that you have no intention of ever awarding anything, and that your space travel question was answered multiple times on apollohoax.net and you just ignored the answers.  In general, they've learned you're a fraud.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 03, 2015, 05:53:51 AM


. But plenty people have learnt a lot.



 
From what I've seen here and other places, people have learned you've never proven the money is available, you don't understand the relevant concepts to be the judge of your own contest (any real contest would have a third party judge anyway), that you have no intention of ever awarding anything, and that your space travel question was answered multiple times on apollohoax.net and you just ignored the answers.  In general, they've learned you're a fraud.
Who are the real frauds?
Is it Heiwa who hasn't taken a penny and has issued a challenge or is it those that have taken more than a penny and never proved a challenge, physically?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2015, 06:29:09 AM
It's Heiwa without a doubt.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 03, 2015, 08:33:30 AM


. But plenty people have learnt a lot.



 
From what I've seen here and other places, people have learned you've never proven the money is available, you don't understand the relevant concepts to be the judge of your own contest (any real contest would have a third party judge anyway), that you have no intention of ever awarding anything, and that your space travel question was answered multiple times on apollohoax.net and you just ignored the answers.  In general, they've learned you're a fraud.
Who are the real frauds?
Is it Heiwa who hasn't taken a penny and has issued a challenge or is it those that have taken more than a penny and never proved a challenge, physically?

Yeah, definitely Heiwa.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 04, 2015, 01:48:05 AM
Actually plenty people have tried but nobody has won. But plenty people have learnt a lot.
Uh... not exactly.  Nobody with any accredited scientific and/or engineering qualifications has ever seriously taken on your silly "challenge" due to the simple fact that they—like us—realise that you don't have €1 million to give way.  It's a payout that you know that you'll never have to honour, as your terms and conditions are just made up on an ad hoc basis to refute any potentially successful applicants.

The only thing people—such as me—have "learned" from visiting your sites for a few minutes (2½ each in fact according to Alexa (http://bit.ly/rqnPK8)) is that you're a total fraud and liar.  About everything you claim.

If you seriously think that any professional engineer or scientist is going to waste hours of their time disputing and subsequently demolishing your nonsensical claims bit by bit, then you're even more stupid than I originally thought—if that's at all possible LOL.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 01:56:23 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 04, 2015, 02:31:54 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.

What are you basing that assumption on? I doubt any eminent Scientists have a clue who this nutjob is in the first place to even consider taking on his 'challenge'. He simply doesn't register in their world because he hasn't done anything of note (and please don't cite his visual catastrophe of a website, because I'm sure he will).

In any case, let's assume for a second that a leader in the field stumbles across this challenge. Why would they be afraid that Bjorkman is correct? Science is always striving to make new discoveries. If, as some FE'ers suggest, scientists are compliant with a global conspiracy to hide the truth from the rest, at what point do these scientists become indoctrinated? During their University Degree? I work in a Physics Department at a University, and all I see is intelligent people honing their craft and performing experiments to back up their research. I certainly know that I've never been told to lie to students about science, do you not think I would have noticed if my colleagues had? Are all the Astrophysicists in my department deliberate liars, for example?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 04, 2015, 02:42:46 AM
I work in a Physics Department at a University, and all I see is intelligent people honing their craft and performing experiments to back up their research.

You need to know that sceptimatic possesses thirteen academic qualifications before you cite your professional academic career in order to support the credibility of your claims.  He's also authored a dozen books, and has numerous worldwide patents for his inventions—which can be found in any household.

Just sayin'...
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 03:12:52 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.

What are you basing that assumption on? I doubt any eminent Scientists have a clue who this nutjob is in the first place to even consider taking on his 'challenge'. He simply doesn't register in their world because he hasn't done anything of note (and please don't cite his visual catastrophe of a website, because I'm sure he will).

In any case, let's assume for a second that a leader in the field stumbles across this challenge. Why would they be afraid that Bjorkman is correct? Science is always striving to make new discoveries. If, as some FE'ers suggest, scientists are compliant with a global conspiracy to hide the truth from the rest, at what point do these scientists become indoctrinated? During their University Degree? I work in a Physics Department at a University, and all I see is intelligent people honing their craft and performing experiments to back up their research. I certainly know that I've never been told to lie to students about science, do you not think I would have noticed if my colleagues had? Are all the Astrophysicists in my department deliberate liars, for example?
I don't know why you people keep doing this, so let me explain this one last time and keep it in mind.
I have nothing against scientists doing their work. Some of them are brilliant. They are dilligent and smart people, clearly.
They dedicate most of their lives to figuring out whatever they are tasked with or not tasked with in certain cases.

I have no issues with this.
I also have no issues with scientists/professors, teaching students about what they themselves are adept in and knowledgeable about.
They are doing their job and also most scientists are not mind channelled into the workings of a global Earth in space or stars and planets, etc.

Those scientists can go about their own work and still believe they are on a globe or that rockets work in space and all the rest of it. They may be smart but smartness doesn't exclude them from being naive.

If you invent a robot that mimic's a human in every way due to your brilliance in putting the circuitry and such like together, it doesn't give you any expertise on a globe or space but people would listen to you and believe you if you merely stated that it was. It's about people choosing to believe someone they think is qualified to say anything scientific, even if it's not their field.

As for astrophysicists and what not - what are they studying?....the sky from the ground.
If they left school to study the sky and what not, then they are studying what's been told to them.
They can sit and think of all kinds of stuff from that point. They can say that they found a planet or what appears to be one and believe it, even though what they see is a minute dot or whatever.
Like Hawking (supposedly) who can cite that the universe started from nothing.
It's all just theoretical/hypothetical thoughts and nothing other than that.

It's no different to religions.
There's no physical proof but millions upon millions of people run their lives by it, because they trusted in the person or people or books that set that religion in motion. The mere thought that it is or isn't true to people is something that is open to any particular persons mind, just as unprovable space science is.

It can be simply made up to fit a pattern over time, which this globe model and all the rest of the gunk has been done (in my opinon) with addages over time to bamboozle the inquisitive minds who see flaws.

It's like the John Titor story of time travel. He starts a story off and people question it. As he tells the story, some people pick up on a flaw, so he amends the story in such a way that it becomes hard to trip him up, by simply saying " oh well this hasn't happened on the date I said because my timeline changed due to travelling in a different path to the expected path"...and so on.
Over time, by logical thinking and by chance, things will transpire that echo what he's said.
Now there's 3 ways a person can look at the story and either one could be correct yet never known for certain which one.

1. People can cast it off as some clown taking the piss and reeling in gullible people.
2. People can buy into it because what he says appears to be fairly fluent and predictions made have come to fruition.
3. A conspiracy theorist can argue that the person has been put into forums to deliberately push a time travel story and knowing the outcome of many things because those that employ him, know what's ahead by orchestrated future incidents.
1 and 2 would be lassed as feasible.
3 would simply classify conspiracy theorists as going into another level of tin foil hat partying.
The story can become a never ending story if the story teller is around to tell it...and even if he's not; the story has gained enough audience to carry it on to the point where a large number of people will accept that time travel is real.

Oh yeah and I know you can cite that you can see this and that and use laser beams, ham radio, red shift and blue shift, etc, etc to say this is correct. All I'm saying is, you don't know for sure what you see. You're told it and you see what you're told about, so the logical thing is to go with that, which concludes that any other explanation is simply people acting unstable or walking about with a tin foil hat on...and so on.

It's in your psyche and also in the psyche of scientists the world over to think it's all true and to follow that path rather than question it, if it's not their real line of work.
I would hazard a GUESS that those scientists that are interested in Earth science, probably know there's a lot of stuff that's not legitimate but what can they do?
They aren't going to stand in front of a panel and proclaim it's this shape or that shape, or the sky isn't what we've been told it is, because not only will they lose their credibility in their work, they will lose their job - or worse - be put into a nut house under the guise that they went loop the loop or tried to pass on secrets...or..name anything you want. Do I know this for sure? no I don't but I'm giving you scenarios as alternatives to what you think is all above board knowledge which may be anything but.

It's entirely up to each individual to believe what they want and I'm fine either way. I have my own thoughts.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 04, 2015, 03:48:44 AM

Yawn.....   ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 04, 2015, 05:34:34 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 08:25:49 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 04, 2015, 08:31:03 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

The mountains of crap we have been dealt are very easy to see through considering that they don't exist.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 04, 2015, 08:31:47 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

If you believed that the internal combustion engine worked off puppy farts and rainbows frosted with moonbeams would you fault a car mechanic for dismissing everything you say regarding the internal combustion engine?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 04, 2015, 09:03:29 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

If you're interested in enlightening people as to the true nature of the Earth etc, then why not help them out a little with some experimental evidence to back up your claims? Otherwise you're just a random guy spouting off. To be taken seriously, you must be serious about your beliefs.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 09:06:03 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

If you believed that the internal combustion engine worked off puppy farts and rainbows frosted with moonbeams would you fault a car mechanic for dismissing everything you say regarding the internal combustion engine?
No. I would try to apply as much logic to it as possible. I would sniff the exhaust pipe whilst the car as running to see if it stunk of puppy farts. If the smell was different, I'd have to enquire.
This is how I work. I don't just dismiss everything as bogus, I have to have a reason for doing so.
It's about trusting your own senses and sensors, as well as having the ability to spot a liar or a lie.
A lot of my thoughts are hypothesis and are as valid as the one's put out as scientific, without physical proof.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 04, 2015, 09:11:02 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

If you believed that the internal combustion engine worked off puppy farts and rainbows frosted with moonbeams would you fault a car mechanic for dismissing everything you say regarding the internal combustion engine?
No. I would try to apply as much logic to it as possible. I would sniff the exhaust pipe whilst the car as running to see if it stunk of puppy farts. If the smell was different, I'd have to enquire.
This is how I work. I don't just dismiss everything as bogus, I have to have a reason for doing so.
It's about trusting your own senses and sensors, as well as having the ability to spot a liar or a lie.
A lot of my thoughts are hypothesis and are as valid as the one's put out as scientific, without physical proof.

Ok good, then you agree you should be testing these things. Awesome, lets do it!

Get a telescope and look at the ISS, look at a satellite and then use a solar filter and look at the sun, even better, dont get a solar filter, just let it project on a paper, then draw the circle and the sun spots in, then repeat for a few days over the week to watch them move.

Then compare them to what NASA shows with its sun observatory, ask another person on a different landmass to look at it and show you their drawing.

Go to a lab with a vacuum chamber and see if a scale holding a brick changes the weight shown!

TESTS!

See the problem is scepti, you say you test things yourself, but you dont. You refuse to. I'm ok with the bullshit, just dont straight lie to us.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 04, 2015, 09:24:25 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

If you believed that the internal combustion engine worked off puppy farts and rainbows frosted with moonbeams would you fault a car mechanic for dismissing everything you say regarding the internal combustion engine?
No. I would try to apply as much logic to it as possible. I would sniff the exhaust pipe whilst the car as running to see if it stunk of puppy farts. If the smell was different, I'd have to enquire.
This is how I work. I don't just dismiss everything as bogus, I have to have a reason for doing so.
It's about trusting your own senses and sensors, as well as having the ability to spot a liar or a lie.
A lot of my thoughts are hypothesis and are as valid as the one's put out as scientific, without physical proof.

This is from another thread:

You put too much faith in your own eyes and also you need to know your own eyes and their shape.
Believing it doesn't count will render your thoughts obscure.

So we should trust our senses but only if they tell us that the Earth is flat?  That is the definition of bias.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

If you're interested in enlightening people as to the true nature of the Earth etc, then why not help them out a little with some experimental evidence to back up your claims? Otherwise you're just a random guy spouting off. To be taken seriously, you must be serious about your beliefs.
I've yet to see any experimental evidence from the global Earther's, so what's the problem?
If I poured out a million experiments all proving a flat Earth, it would be denied by you people. Why?
Because, like I said before. You people are here to ridicule and deny. You're not here for any other reason.
I'll also state that you will wait for me or trot along. I decide what to put and when to put it.
Nothing you people say will change my thinking. Only people who have a logical mind can change my thinking on stuff and they are very few on here. I've already named them.

Either use your common sense and logic to look into much of what has been put forward by all flat Earth theorists and question your indoctrinated globe model or continue on with your fellow global ridicule merchants and gain answers like this all the time.
You get back what you give and I'm in no giving mood for you people, as and when you decide you want things done.
Learn this and show respect for the people who are willing to actually think for themselves and not just copy theories to post as a truth.

I think I've covered it all. Any other global clown, take notice of this.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 10:11:35 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

If you believed that the internal combustion engine worked off puppy farts and rainbows frosted with moonbeams would you fault a car mechanic for dismissing everything you say regarding the internal combustion engine?
No. I would try to apply as much logic to it as possible. I would sniff the exhaust pipe whilst the car as running to see if it stunk of puppy farts. If the smell was different, I'd have to enquire.
This is how I work. I don't just dismiss everything as bogus, I have to have a reason for doing so.
It's about trusting your own senses and sensors, as well as having the ability to spot a liar or a lie.
A lot of my thoughts are hypothesis and are as valid as the one's put out as scientific, without physical proof.

This is from another thread:

You put too much faith in your own eyes and also you need to know your own eyes and their shape.
Believing it doesn't count will render your thoughts obscure.

So we should trust our senses but only if they tell us that the Earth is flat?  That is the definition of bias.
No. It's the definition of using your logical brain and being able to understand the absurdity of a spinning globe.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 04, 2015, 10:15:06 AM
So now you're admitting you dont test things, you just assume.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 10:26:43 AM
So now you're admitting you dont test things, you just assume.
I've tested many things. Because you're not privvy to them is not my concern.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 04, 2015, 10:28:25 AM
So now you're admitting you dont test things, you just assume.
I've tested many things. Because you're not privvy to them is not my concern.

I didn't ask to be privy to them, I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 10:31:23 AM
So now you're admitting you dont test things, you just assume.
I've tested many things. Because you're not privvy to them is not my concern.

I didn't ask to be privy to them, I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.
Keep pointing, it's pointless pointing. All it will do is frustrate you. Learn respect and one day you may engage with me in a debate with no smugness.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 04, 2015, 10:33:54 AM
So now you're admitting you dont test things, you just assume.
I've tested many things. Because you're not privvy to them is not my concern.

I didn't ask to be privy to them, I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.
Keep pointing, it's pointless pointing. All it will do is frustrate you. Learn respect and one day you may engage with me in a debate with no smugness.

No smugness here, really the only person lacking respect and being smug is you.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2015, 10:38:40 AM
So now you're admitting you dont test things, you just assume.
I've tested many things. Because you're not privvy to them is not my concern.

I didn't ask to be privy to them, I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.
Keep pointing, it's pointless pointing. All it will do is frustrate you. Learn respect and one day you may engage with me in a debate with no smugness.

No smugness here, really the only person lacking respect and being smug is you.
Yep, because you people never come here and go into ridicule mode constantly. Hiding behind each otehr as one starts, then the next.
You see, then some of you realise how pointless this is but get all pissed off when you get a little bit back, then proclaim that I am the culprit.
You people seriously make me laugh. ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 04, 2015, 10:44:43 AM
So now you're admitting you dont test things, you just assume.
I've tested many things. Because you're not privvy to them is not my concern.

I didn't ask to be privy to them, I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.
Keep pointing, it's pointless pointing. All it will do is frustrate you. Learn respect and one day you may engage with me in a debate with no smugness.

No smugness here, really the only person lacking respect and being smug is you.
Yep, because you people never come here and go into ridicule mode constantly. Hiding behind each otehr as one starts, then the next.
You see, then some of you realise how pointless this is but get all pissed off when you get a little bit back, then proclaim that I am the culprit.
You people seriously make me laugh. ;D

This isn't between you and everyone here, right now me and you are talking. And the only person showing no respect and being smug is you.

Quote
You see, then some of you realise how pointless this is but get all pissed off when you get a little bit back, then proclaim that I am the culprit.

Though I have no idea what you are saying here.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 04, 2015, 11:01:36 AM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.

My thoughts are simply just that. I put them out for people to see. Most will immediately dismiss them for any number of reasons...but some wills ee them and realise that they do make more sense.
I don't expect you or anyone else like you to ever accept it and nor am I bothered. As I've said before. The only people that I'm interested in, are those that have the ability to see through the mountains of crap we've been dealt.

If you're interested in enlightening people as to the true nature of the Earth etc, then why not help them out a little with some experimental evidence to back up your claims? Otherwise you're just a random guy spouting off. To be taken seriously, you must be serious about your beliefs.
I've yet to see any experimental evidence from the global Earther's, so what's the problem?
If I poured out a million experiments all proving a flat Earth, it would be denied by you people. Why?
Because, like I said before. You people are here to ridicule and deny. You're not here for any other reason.
I'll also state that you will wait for me or trot along. I decide what to put and when to put it.
Nothing you people say will change my thinking. Only people who have a logical mind can change my thinking on stuff and they are very few on here. I've already named them.

Either use your common sense and logic to look into much of what has been put forward by all flat Earth theorists and question your indoctrinated globe model or continue on with your fellow global ridicule merchants and gain answers like this all the time.
You get back what you give and I'm in no giving mood for you people, as and when you decide you want things done.
Learn this and show respect for the people who are willing to actually think for themselves and not just copy theories to post as a truth.

I think I've covered it all. Any other global clown, take notice of this.

The round earthers have done tons of experiments, if you don't believe me then look at the link in my signature, but I have never even seen one proposed experiment from you.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 04, 2015, 12:36:38 PM
No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim. Why?
Because they would have to literally prove it and they can't. They can't because they either have no clue as to how to do it or they know that it is a massive sham and don't want to out themselves.
Incorrect.  No professional engineer or scientist will waste their time challenging Heiwa's claim because they feel that it's already been proven time and time again.  Your or Heiwa's inability to understand and/or refusal to accept that proof is of no consequence to those professional scientists and engineers.
Correct. Anything we say is of no consequence to anybody in any field, because what we are saying goes against much of it, so I'm under no illusions that what I say means anything to anyone in those fields.
No.  Anything you say is of no consequence to professional engineers and scientists because what you say is wrong, pure and simple.  I keep suggesting that you take a college level physics course so that you can test some of the principles that you seem to think that the rest of the world has wrong. but you seem to prefer to live in your own little word. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on February 04, 2015, 06:44:43 PM
Sceptimatic, if you showed conclusive, no biased results and videos with no editing of the flat earth being a reality, I'd be right along with you. Show me equations, simple experiments, hypotheses made by your philosophy and experiments that prove them
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 05, 2015, 03:54:54 AM
Exactly.

I don't have a massive need to believe Earth is spherical, in fact it makes no difference to my life whether it is spherical or flat, but I believe it is spherical based on the evidence I have seen (which you choose to reject). If evidence came to light which proved otherwise, I would be very interested in it, as would many others I'm sure. You claim that you will be mocked and ridiculed if you presented evidence for your claims due to RE'ers being so convinced of their own ideas that they will never be swayed. That just sounds like a cop-out to me.

If indisputable evidence was provided to show the Earth was flat, I would believe it. I would have no reason not to.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 04:42:01 AM
Exactly.

I don't have a massive need to believe Earth is spherical, in fact it makes no difference to my life whether it is spherical or flat, but I believe it is spherical based on the evidence I have seen (which you choose to reject). If evidence came to light which proved otherwise, I would be very interested in it, as would many others I'm sure. You claim that you will be mocked and ridiculed if you presented evidence for your claims due to RE'ers being so convinced of their own ideas that they will never be swayed. That just sounds like a cop-out to me.

If indisputable evidence was provided to show the Earth was flat, I would believe it. I would have no reason not to.
I'm not here to prove anything to you. I'm here to prove things to myself and in doing so, help others to search their own minds for the truth.
I came here because it gave me food for thought. I didn't just decide the Earth was not a globe, I actually had to drag my own mind into reality of it not being one. I can happily state that I managed to do that. The only issue now is to figure out EXACTLY how the Earth is in its entirety. Something I may never fully know but happy to have got over many hurdles in my way with a globe model.

If you are on this forum for the reason of finding the truth then start looking a bit deeper at what's being said and stop relying on what's been put out that you cannot physically verify in your model.
Merely telling me that your model stands up to scrutiny is cheating yourself...not me.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 05, 2015, 04:43:31 AM
If actual, indisputable evidence was placed before any of the Round Earth crowd then I guarantee that they would be swayed by that evidence, as there is no agenda. We go for round earth because the evidence for round earth is overwhelming and totally indisputable.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 05, 2015, 04:45:09 AM
Exactly.

I don't have a massive need to believe Earth is spherical, in fact it makes no difference to my life whether it is spherical or flat, but I believe it is spherical based on the evidence I have seen (which you choose to reject). If evidence came to light which proved otherwise, I would be very interested in it, as would many others I'm sure. You claim that you will be mocked and ridiculed if you presented evidence for your claims due to RE'ers being so convinced of their own ideas that they will never be swayed. That just sounds like a cop-out to me.

If indisputable evidence was provided to show the Earth was flat, I would believe it. I would have no reason not to.
I'm not here to prove anything to you. I'm here to prove things to myself and in doing so, help others to search their own minds for the truth.
I came here because it gave me food for thought. I didn't just decide the Earth was not a globe, I actually had to drag my own mind into reality of it not being one. I can happily state that I managed to do that. The only issue now is to figure out EXACTLY how the Earth is in its entirety. Something I may never fully know but happy to have got over many hurdles in my way with a globe model.

If you are on this forum for the reason of finding the truth then start looking a bit deeper at what's being said and stop relying on what's been put out that you cannot physically verify in your model.
Merely telling me that your model stands up to scrutiny is cheating yourself...not me.

You only cheat yourself when you ignore the evidence in front of you. Instead you pick and choose that which matches desired result.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 04:54:11 AM
Exactly.

I don't have a massive need to believe Earth is spherical, in fact it makes no difference to my life whether it is spherical or flat, but I believe it is spherical based on the evidence I have seen (which you choose to reject). If evidence came to light which proved otherwise, I would be very interested in it, as would many others I'm sure. You claim that you will be mocked and ridiculed if you presented evidence for your claims due to RE'ers being so convinced of their own ideas that they will never be swayed. That just sounds like a cop-out to me.

If indisputable evidence was provided to show the Earth was flat, I would believe it. I would have no reason not to.
I'm not here to prove anything to you. I'm here to prove things to myself and in doing so, help others to search their own minds for the truth.
I came here because it gave me food for thought. I didn't just decide the Earth was not a globe, I actually had to drag my own mind into reality of it not being one. I can happily state that I managed to do that. The only issue now is to figure out EXACTLY how the Earth is in its entirety. Something I may never fully know but happy to have got over many hurdles in my way with a globe model.

If you are on this forum for the reason of finding the truth then start looking a bit deeper at what's being said and stop relying on what's been put out that you cannot physically verify in your model.
Merely telling me that your model stands up to scrutiny is cheating yourself...not me.

You only cheat yourself when you ignore the evidence in front of you. Instead you pick and choose that which matches desired result.
You've spent your entire life beliving what you were told. Not once have you questioned it. I spent a lot of my life doing the same. I decided to question it. I am now more than sure that we do not live on a rotaing globe in space whizzing around a hge sun and all the rest of it. I didn't just decide that, I spent time weighing up all the options.
The flat Earth to you is the indoctrinated into your head thought as the lunatic fringe. Because of this, your mind is made up because you are scared to alter that because to do that would place you in that same mould. It scares people away. That's fineif that's the reason but you're only cheating yourself by at least not deeply questioning stuff.

Your argument is not with me, it's with your own senses.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 05, 2015, 05:05:56 AM
Exactly.

I don't have a massive need to believe Earth is spherical, in fact it makes no difference to my life whether it is spherical or flat, but I believe it is spherical based on the evidence I have seen (which you choose to reject). If evidence came to light which proved otherwise, I would be very interested in it, as would many others I'm sure. You claim that you will be mocked and ridiculed if you presented evidence for your claims due to RE'ers being so convinced of their own ideas that they will never be swayed. That just sounds like a cop-out to me.

If indisputable evidence was provided to show the Earth was flat, I would believe it. I would have no reason not to.
I'm not here to prove anything to you. I'm here to prove things to myself and in doing so, help others to search their own minds for the truth.
I came here because it gave me food for thought. I didn't just decide the Earth was not a globe, I actually had to drag my own mind into reality of it not being one. I can happily state that I managed to do that. The only issue now is to figure out EXACTLY how the Earth is in its entirety. Something I may never fully know but happy to have got over many hurdles in my way with a globe model.

If you are on this forum for the reason of finding the truth then start looking a bit deeper at what's being said and stop relying on what's been put out that you cannot physically verify in your model.
Merely telling me that your model stands up to scrutiny is cheating yourself...not me.

You only cheat yourself when you ignore the evidence in front of you. Instead you pick and choose that which matches desired result.
You've spent your entire life beliving what you were told. Not once have you questioned it. I spent a lot of my life doing the same. I decided to question it. I am now more than sure that we do not live on a rotaing globe in space whizzing around a hge sun and all the rest of it. I didn't just decide that, I spent time weighing up all the options.
The flat Earth to you is the indoctrinated into your head thought as the lunatic fringe. Because of this, your mind is made up because you are scared to alter that because to do that would place you in that same mould. It scares people away. That's fineif that's the reason but you're only cheating yourself by at least not deeply questioning stuff.

Your argument is not with me, it's with your own senses.

Ha.

You don't know me very well then do you. I spend most of my life questioning things and experimenting, it's what I enjoy. I'm into Astronomy and to understand how my equipment works I need to know the science behind it. If the earth was flat then a lot of my equipment simply would not work properly.

You clearly also don't know what a science or engineering degree actually consists of, given that a large amount of time is spent in the lab or the workshop actually understanding theory put into real life practice.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 05:14:11 AM
Exactly.

I don't have a massive need to believe Earth is spherical, in fact it makes no difference to my life whether it is spherical or flat, but I believe it is spherical based on the evidence I have seen (which you choose to reject). If evidence came to light which proved otherwise, I would be very interested in it, as would many others I'm sure. You claim that you will be mocked and ridiculed if you presented evidence for your claims due to RE'ers being so convinced of their own ideas that they will never be swayed. That just sounds like a cop-out to me.

If indisputable evidence was provided to show the Earth was flat, I would believe it. I would have no reason not to.
I'm not here to prove anything to you. I'm here to prove things to myself and in doing so, help others to search their own minds for the truth.
I came here because it gave me food for thought. I didn't just decide the Earth was not a globe, I actually had to drag my own mind into reality of it not being one. I can happily state that I managed to do that. The only issue now is to figure out EXACTLY how the Earth is in its entirety. Something I may never fully know but happy to have got over many hurdles in my way with a globe model.

If you are on this forum for the reason of finding the truth then start looking a bit deeper at what's being said and stop relying on what's been put out that you cannot physically verify in your model.
Merely telling me that your model stands up to scrutiny is cheating yourself...not me.

You only cheat yourself when you ignore the evidence in front of you. Instead you pick and choose that which matches desired result.
You've spent your entire life beliving what you were told. Not once have you questioned it. I spent a lot of my life doing the same. I decided to question it. I am now more than sure that we do not live on a rotaing globe in space whizzing around a hge sun and all the rest of it. I didn't just decide that, I spent time weighing up all the options.
The flat Earth to you is the indoctrinated into your head thought as the lunatic fringe. Because of this, your mind is made up because you are scared to alter that because to do that would place you in that same mould. It scares people away. That's fineif that's the reason but you're only cheating yourself by at least not deeply questioning stuff.

Your argument is not with me, it's with your own senses.

Ha.

You don't know me very well then do you. I spend most of my life questioning things and experimenting, it's what I enjoy. I'm into Astronomy and to understand how my equipment works I need to know the science behind it. If the earth was flat then a lot of my equipment simply would not work properly.

You clearly also don't know what a science or engineering degree actually consists of, given that a large amount of time is spent in the lab or the workshop actually understanding theory put into real life practice.
No problem. You crack on. You know it all so why are you here? It seems pointless you being here if you're not after questioning what you've been schooled into.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 05, 2015, 05:22:28 AM
I do question what I 'was schooled with'. And I am here to hopefully educate arrogant idiots who decide that they know better than the overwhelming mass of evidence that is presented to them.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 05, 2015, 05:24:00 AM
You clearly also don't know what a science or engineering degree actually consists of, given that a large amount of time is spent in the lab or the workshop actually understanding theory put into real life practice.

You need to know that sceptimatic possesses thirteen academic qualifications, and has authored a dozen books.  He's also a research scientist, self-described genius, and holds numerous patents for everyday items you'll find in your household.

He's also developed the so-called theory of "denpressure" as an explanation as to why the current scientific theories regarding gravitational forces are erroneous.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 05, 2015, 05:27:25 AM
Your argument is not with me, it's with your own senses.
That's because your senses have some very severe limitations and can be fooled quite easily, therefore they should not always be trusted.  The trick is to understand those limitations and figure out how to overcome them.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 06:04:43 AM
I do question what I 'was schooled with'. And I am here to hopefully educate arrogant idiots who decide that they know better than the overwhelming mass of evidence that is presented to them.
Well you're never going to succeed with me. Good luck with whoever else you think is like this. You are just naive and arrogant. I wouldn't go so far as to call you an idiot.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 05, 2015, 07:01:21 AM
Exactly.

I don't have a massive need to believe Earth is spherical, in fact it makes no difference to my life whether it is spherical or flat, but I believe it is spherical based on the evidence I have seen (which you choose to reject). If evidence came to light which proved otherwise, I would be very interested in it, as would many others I'm sure. You claim that you will be mocked and ridiculed if you presented evidence for your claims due to RE'ers being so convinced of their own ideas that they will never be swayed. That just sounds like a cop-out to me.

If indisputable evidence was provided to show the Earth was flat, I would believe it. I would have no reason not to.
I'm not here to prove anything to you. I'm here to prove things to myself and in doing so, help others to search their own minds for the truth.
I came here because it gave me food for thought. I didn't just decide the Earth was not a globe, I actually had to drag my own mind into reality of it not being one. I can happily state that I managed to do that. The only issue now is to figure out EXACTLY how the Earth is in its entirety. Something I may never fully know but happy to have got over many hurdles in my way with a globe model.

If you are on this forum for the reason of finding the truth then start looking a bit deeper at what's being said and stop relying on what's been put out that you cannot physically verify in your model.
Merely telling me that your model stands up to scrutiny is cheating yourself...not me.

So you're not here to prove things to others, you're here to prove things to yourself...fine, what experiments are you performing to make these confirmations for yourself? If you're still trying "to figure out exactly how the Earth is in its entirety" then what is it you're doing in order to seek this knowledge? Wouldn't you want to achieve some sort of scientific result that would affirm your beliefs?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 07:09:35 AM
So you're not here to prove things to others, you're here to prove things to yourself...fine, what experiments are you performing to make these confirmations for yourself? If you're still trying "to figure out exactly how the Earth is in its entirety" then what is it you're doing in order to seek this knowledge? Wouldn't you want to achieve some sort of scientific result that would affirm your beliefs?
My experiments are for me. I've explained quite a few and put them forward. What people take from them is entirely up to them.
If it wakes a few people up, then great. If not, then no problem.

As for putting it out there. I may appear stupid to people and that's fine but I'm not so stupid as to go and put my experiments forward to destroy a globe model only for me to be ridiculed back home or put in a straight jacket and cast off as some doomsday lunatic, which is exactly what would happen.
Don't even tell me any different.

I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them for putting this stuff out. It gives me a sense of knowing and freedom  of mind.

I spent too long gawping at the news and the constant spewing of clear as day bullshit to take anything they say seriously anymore.
That's just the way it is. The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

There's quite a few things that would nail it for me, either way. I 100% doubt it will ever be shown by those who push this stuff, except in a video that they alter themselves.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 05, 2015, 07:15:38 AM
So you're not here to prove things to others, you're here to prove things to yourself...fine, what experiments are you performing to make these confirmations for yourself? If you're still trying "to figure out exactly how the Earth is in its entirety" then what is it you're doing in order to seek this knowledge? Wouldn't you want to achieve some sort of scientific result that would affirm your beliefs?

Last year, sceptimatic carried out an expensive experiment with a newly-developed laser, a scientist colleague, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in an endeavour to prove that the earth was indeed flat.

As far as I recall, he'd finished his research, and had forwarded his conclusions to several world-renowned scientists for their consideration and, presumably, their positive peer review of his data.  Once he had confirmation of his experiment's conclusions—that the earth was actually flat—he was going to make a public announcement that would throw the accepted scientific consensus of the earth's sphericity into complete disarray.

Now, around 12 months later, we should be asking him what the opinions of the scientists who perused his research were—did they agree with his results, disagree, or remain unconvinced either way?  Presuming their peer reviews were positive, why has sceptimatic not yet made public these astounding and world-shattering [sic] research results, or at least let us know on these forums?

So... are we now to logically assume that (a) the entire "experiment" was bogus from day one, or (b) that the results of the experiment proved that the earth was indeed spherical?

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 05, 2015, 08:05:22 AM
So you're not here to prove things to others, you're here to prove things to yourself...fine, what experiments are you performing to make these confirmations for yourself? If you're still trying "to figure out exactly how the Earth is in its entirety" then what is it you're doing in order to seek this knowledge? Wouldn't you want to achieve some sort of scientific result that would affirm your beliefs?
My experiments are for me. I've explained quite a few and put them forward. What people take from them is entirely up to them.
If it wakes a few people up, then great. If not, then no problem.

As for putting it out there. I may appear stupid to people and that's fine but I'm not so stupid as to go and put my experiments forward to destroy a globe model only for me to be ridiculed back home or put in a straight jacket and cast off as some doomsday lunatic, which is exactly what would happen.
Don't even tell me any different.

I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them for putting this stuff out. It gives me a sense of knowing and freedom  of mind.

I spent too long gawping at the news and the constant spewing of clear as day bullshit to take anything they say seriously anymore.
That's just the way it is. The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

There's quite a few things that would nail it for me, either way. I 100% doubt it will ever be shown by those who push this stuff, except in a video that they alter themselves.

Let's look at two hypothetical situations;

Scenario 1

For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and proclaim...

"The Earth is flat because it looks flat, pictures from space are all faked because space travel is a lie created by a NASA conspiracy, gravity doesn't exist and we are all surrounded by a giant ice wall guarded by those complicit with the conspiracy. The Earth does not rotate around the sun, which by the way is only a few thousand miles up in the sky. I've come to these conclusions because my senses tell me so, just think about it" (apologies for generalising some of your theories).

You would quite rightly be branded a lunatic, nobody would take you seriously and you'd become a laughing stock. No doubt your speech would go viral on the internet and you'd achieve some fame for a few months, before inevitably fading from public consciousness and becoming a footnote somewhere on Wikipedia, a pub-quiz question.

Scenario 2

For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and state all of the things you asserted in the first scenario, only this time you follow it with actual proof..."here is the science behind my claims, as proven by various and repeated experiments" and "...here is the maths supporting my experimentation and here is how it holds up under scrutiny". You show, through rigorous research and experimentation, that the Earth is flat, and in the process you disprove a round Earth, showing how we have all been deceived for so long.

If your theory is complete and airtight, then the scientific community would be unable to disprove it and you would completely change what is considered fact. You would be hailed as a genius, no doubt win the Nobel Prize and would received untold riches. You would be studied for hundreds/thousands of years and remembered as a visionary of great historical significance. You would be mentioned in the same breath as Newton and Einstein.

 
Right now you're just repeating scenario 1 over and over, but on a far smaller scale (this forum). Care to strive towards scenario 2 at any point? Again, I reiterate, I'm a truth seeker, and if you're interested in helping people see the truth, then help me out a little. Merely saying 'think deeper and question what you know' just isn't enough I'm afraid.   
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 05, 2015, 08:14:45 AM
So you're not here to prove things to others, you're here to prove things to yourself...fine, what experiments are you performing to make these confirmations for yourself? If you're still trying "to figure out exactly how the Earth is in its entirety" then what is it you're doing in order to seek this knowledge? Wouldn't you want to achieve some sort of scientific result that would affirm your beliefs?
My experiments are for me. I've explained quite a few and put them forward. What people take from them is entirely up to them.
If it wakes a few people up, then great. If not, then no problem.

As for putting it out there. I may appear stupid to people and that's fine but I'm not so stupid as to go and put my experiments forward to destroy a globe model only for me to be ridiculed back home or put in a straight jacket and cast off as some doomsday lunatic, which is exactly what would happen.
Don't even tell me any different.

I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them for putting this stuff out. It gives me a sense of knowing and freedom  of mind.

I spent too long gawping at the news and the constant spewing of clear as day bullshit to take anything they say seriously anymore.
That's just the way it is. The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

There's quite a few things that would nail it for me, either way. I 100% doubt it will ever be shown by those who push this stuff, except in a video that they alter themselves.

So you have evidence but you don't feel like sharing it?  Isn't that what you accuse NASA and laboratories of doing?  If someone were to believs in your model based off if what you say on the forums then they would simply be doing it out of blind faith because you haven't given any evidence to support your claims.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 05, 2015, 08:22:04 AM
I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them

That sounds like the very definition of paranoia

The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

Why are your 'proofs' (whatever they may be) so superior to those of others?

Last year, sceptimatic carried out an expensive experiment with a newly-developed laser, a scientist colleague, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in an endeavour to prove that the earth was indeed flat.

As far as I recall, he'd finished his research, and had forwarded his conclusions to several world-renowned scientists for their consideration and, presumably, their positive peer review of his data.  Once he had confirmation of his experiment's conclusions—that the earth was actually flat—he was going to make a public announcement that would throw the accepted scientific consensus of the earth's sphericity into complete disarray.

Now, around 12 months later, we should be asking him what the opinions of the scientists who perused his research were—did they agree with his results, disagree, or remain unconvinced either way?  Presuming their peer reviews were positive, why has sceptimatic not yet made public these astounding and world-shattering [sic] research results, or at least let us know on these forums?

So... are we now to logically assume that (a) the entire "experiment" was bogus from day one, or (b) that the results of the experiment proved that the earth was indeed spherical?

Excellent. Being new here, I didn't know this. Scepti - what is the current status?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 08:59:27 AM
Let's look at two hypothetical situations;

Scenario 1

For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and proclaim...

"The Earth is a flat because it looks flat, pictures from space are all faked because space travel is a lie created by a NASA conspiracy, gravity doesn't exist and we are all surrounded by a giant ice wall guarded by those complicit with the conspiracy. The Earth does not rotate around the sun, which by the way is only a few thousand miles up in the sky. I've come to these conclusions because my senses tell me so, just think about it" (apologies for generalising some of your theories).

You would quite rightly be branded a lunatic, nobody would take you seriously and you'd become a laughing stock. No doubt your speech would go viral on the internet and you'd achieve some fame for a few months, before inevitably fading from public consciousness and becoming a footnote somewhere on Wikipedia, a pub-quiz question.
In this scenario I would not dive right in and mention anything as a given. If I was allowed the air time, I would merely state my case as a "what if" scenario.

I'm well aware that me proclaming anything against what people have been schooled into all their lives, gives them the mass upper hand over me and like you say, I will be thought of as a lunatic from the very start, which would nullify anything I had to say from that point on.
If I walked into a pub doing the same thing, I would be classed as "that nutter" wh thinks the Earth is flat.

However, if I put out a "what if" scenario  and made a point that the whole process is a "what if" then at best I could expect half of that audience to ponder my "what if's"..knowing that I am merely putting out an alternative, just like people would do in religious terms about, what if god exists but the devil doesn't, or what if the devil exists but god doesn't, or what of none of those exist and we are on our own, or what if  our mother's and father's are not our real parents.

You know, stuff like that. You see, at best it creates a debate but the worst scenario is also creates heated debates and angry confrontation that leads to the whole point lost. It's natural human reaction but not because of open mindedness, it's the opposite.

You see, it's about the thoughts or belief's of any particular person that creates a debate or a fragmented debate or downright pandemonium.
You see, assuming I'm given air time, I'm immediately under the guidance of the host and that host is under the guidance of the scriptwriter and producer, etc.
It's common knowledge that the second I open my mouth about a "what if" when mentioning a flat Earth and the many things about it - I am immediately in front of an audience of eye rollers and even more so if I said, "what if gravity was atmospheric pressure."
Someone in the audience can say, ell ok, gravity has been measured and it's 9.8m/s/s, the workings are fine for it, we know it's real, show me your equations.
I can say "oh I don't have any because I class it as variable so it's a case of measurement depending on the mass of an object at whatever height." etc.

Cue the laughing.
I could say " I don't know the equation for it, I'm just saying what if. I mean, is it possible?"
The debate can go on but the best I could hope for  at the end by doing this is, " well he was just putting scenarios to us, it's not like he was proclaiming it without backing it up."
The worst is being told to eff off or booed.
Why?
Because as much as you want to shout out that there's back up, that supposed back up is not physically proven except to drop something at a small height and measure that alone to come to a conclusion that in a near vacuum it would be this or that and it's gravity, even though we don't know what that force is...it can be measured.

You see, most people would boo or roll their eyes because they know what it all is. They've been schooled for long enough. So if I then went for it and said, "well what if the world is actually flat and not a globe."
I'd be laughed out of the place, including the ridiculing quips by the host, because everyone knows it's a globe, they've seen pictures and the sun rises and sets and look at space and all the rest of it.




Scenario 2

For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and state all of the things you asserted in the first scenario, only this time you follow it with actual proof..."here is the science behind my claims, as proven by various and repeated experiments" and "...here is the maths supporting my experimentation and here is how it holds up under scrutiny". You show, through rigorous research and experimentation, that the Earth is flat, and in the process you disprove a round Earth, showing how we have all been deceived for so long.
This scenario wouldn't happen but if it did and I provided proof, I would be intentionally ridiculed. Not by the audience but by the very people that gave me the platform because even if they genuinely wanted to give me that platform, I'm fairly certain that they would be told to shut it down and ridicule me and my name would be forever known as the loony with his natshit crazy ideas who is a danger to society...or whatever.
I truly believe this would be the case.
Look at the amount of people that have tried to open people's eyes. They are cast off as looney's.
Look, let's be honest and think about this.
Everything about space is geared for a globe and so is space travel and all the rest of the add on's. Do you seriously think air time would be given to anyone who had concrete proof that it was a lie?
They would allow anyone on who had no direct physical proof because there's only going to be one winner and very few people are going to take what's said, onboard due to fear of ridicule by their peers, even if they did see ruth or potential truth in it.
It's human nature to follow a trend of any kind. The masses win all the time, which means they will follow what they're told to follow.


If your theory is complete and airtight, then the scientific community would be unable to disprove it and you would completely change what is considered fact. You would be hailed as a genius, no doubt win the Nobel Prize and would received untold riches. You would be studied for hundreds/thousands of years and remembered as a visionary of great historical significance. You would be mentioned in the same breath as Newton and Einstein.
I would win a sniper bullet to the forehead or be found hanging due to depression or something. I certainly wouldn't be recieving any star prize unless it was a ninja star jammed into me.
 
Right now you're just repeating scenario 1 over and over, but on a far smaller scale (this forum). Care to strive towards scenario 2 at any point? Again, I reiterate, I'm a truth seeker, and if you're interested in helping people see the truth, then help me out a little. Merely saying 'think deeper and question what you know' just isn't enough I'm afraid.
You know that I cannot physically prove what I'm saying. You believe you can physically prove what you are saying because you have mainstream science books to back you up and also the wider public to agree.
That's fine. I understand your stance.

If you appear to want to find the truth, I can only offer tid bits along with other's. I can't make you question. I can't make you decide to look at a different picture.
I could only do that with direct proof. Nobody is going to allow anyone to provide that direct proof because all of the proof's are behind a security blanket.

You have to make a choice for yourself to question just one thing. Pick the weakest argument about your globe. Question it and see where you go.
You're not argung against me and I'm not arguing against you or anyone else on here. I'm simply probing and coming up with reasons as to why the Earth is not a globe. Nobody has to take it onboard, just take it as a thought process. Use me as a thinking process. A could it be or maybe there is something in this....or simply dismiss it all and keep to the model you were comfortably brought up with, to present day.

All I say is, if you're here then you must have some kind of doubt about something's...if so, then have a go at questioning it, because simply sticking to your trusted model will gain you no ground, because it's all been heard before and is being argued against for a reason, whether that reason is legitimate to you or not.

I don't spend my time typing all this stuff just for a laugh and I'm not insane. All I'm doing is picking away. There's lot's I can learn off people on here, unfortunately I won't be learing anything new from people who push a globe model, unless they talk about something different that gives me more food for thought.


For me and this is the truth. There's so much magic involved in a globe model that it renders it not only wrong, but absolutely ludicrous. That's my personal opinion, don't take it as a personal dig at you. You are like anyone else who came here. You came with a globe in mind. I did once...not anymore and you know how strong my mind is, so if I can be changed to think alternatively or question stuff, then anyone can...but...it's entirely up to you.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 09:01:48 AM
So you're not here to prove things to others, you're here to prove things to yourself...fine, what experiments are you performing to make these confirmations for yourself? If you're still trying "to figure out exactly how the Earth is in its entirety" then what is it you're doing in order to seek this knowledge? Wouldn't you want to achieve some sort of scientific result that would affirm your beliefs?
My experiments are for me. I've explained quite a few and put them forward. What people take from them is entirely up to them.
If it wakes a few people up, then great. If not, then no problem.

As for putting it out there. I may appear stupid to people and that's fine but I'm not so stupid as to go and put my experiments forward to destroy a globe model only for me to be ridiculed back home or put in a straight jacket and cast off as some doomsday lunatic, which is exactly what would happen.
Don't even tell me any different.

I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them for putting this stuff out. It gives me a sense of knowing and freedom  of mind.

I spent too long gawping at the news and the constant spewing of clear as day bullshit to take anything they say seriously anymore.
That's just the way it is. The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

There's quite a few things that would nail it for me, either way. I 100% doubt it will ever be shown by those who push this stuff, except in a video that they alter themselves.

So you have evidence but you don't feel like sharing it?  Isn't that what you accuse NASA and laboratories of doing?  If someone were to believs in your model based off if what you say on the forums then they would simply be doing it out of blind faith because you haven't given any evidence to support your claims.
I'm not asking anyone to do anything they don't want to do. All I'm doing is putting my stuff out and giving people the chance to actually open their minds to possibilities.
Think for themselves instead of doing it under peer pressure.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Misero on February 05, 2015, 09:03:37 AM
So you're not here to prove things to others, you're here to prove things to yourself...fine, what experiments are you performing to make these confirmations for yourself? If you're still trying "to figure out exactly how the Earth is in its entirety" then what is it you're doing in order to seek this knowledge? Wouldn't you want to achieve some sort of scientific result that would affirm your beliefs?
My experiments are for me. I've explained quite a few and put them forward. What people take from them is entirely up to them.
If it wakes a few people up, then great. If not, then no problem.

As for putting it out there. I may appear stupid to people and that's fine but I'm not so stupid as to go and put my experiments forward to destroy a globe model only for me to be ridiculed back home or put in a straight jacket and cast off as some doomsday lunatic, which is exactly what would happen.
Don't even tell me any different.

I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them for putting this stuff out. It gives me a sense of knowing and freedom  of mind.

I spent too long gawping at the news and the constant spewing of clear as day bullshit to take anything they say seriously anymore.
That's just the way it is. The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

There's quite a few things that would nail it for me, either way. I 100% doubt it will ever be shown by those who push this stuff, except in a video that they alter themselves.

So you have evidence but you don't feel like sharing it?  Isn't that what you accuse NASA and laboratories of doing?  If someone were to believs in your model based off if what you say on the forums then they would simply be doing it out of blind faith because you haven't given any evidence to support your claims.
I'm not asking anyone to do anything they don't want to do. All I'm doing is putting my stuff out and giving people the chance to actually open their minds to possibilities.
Think for themselves instead of doing it under peer pressure.
So, essentially, you're weaseling out of giving evidence? Good job.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 09:07:27 AM
I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them

That sounds like the very definition of paranoia

The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

Why are your 'proofs' (whatever they may be) so superior to those of others?

Last year, sceptimatic carried out an expensive experiment with a newly-developed laser, a scientist colleague, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in an endeavour to prove that the earth was indeed flat.

As far as I recall, he'd finished his research, and had forwarded his conclusions to several world-renowned scientists for their consideration and, presumably, their positive peer review of his data.  Once he had confirmation of his experiment's conclusions—that the earth was actually flat—he was going to make a public announcement that would throw the accepted scientific consensus of the earth's sphericity into complete disarray.

Now, around 12 months later, we should be asking him what the opinions of the scientists who perused his research were—did they agree with his results, disagree, or remain unconvinced either way?  Presuming their peer reviews were positive, why has sceptimatic not yet made public these astounding and world-shattering [sic] research results, or at least let us know on these forums?

So... are we now to logically assume that (a) the entire "experiment" was bogus from day one, or (b) that the results of the experiment proved that the earth was indeed spherical?

Excellent. Being new here, I didn't know this. Scepti - what is the current status?
My current status is that all tests are done and are verified. All the relevant people have them and you don't need to know.
I put them out to trusted people on here. No offence to you but I trust you about as much as I'd trust a starving wolf not to eat a chicken tied to my , ahem.
Take that as a compliment because I trust Geoffrey and co about as much as  being able to walk out of  a den of wolves as I'm eating friend chicken and lathered in chicken grease, knowing the wolves are close to cannibalism.  ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 09:08:16 AM
So you're not here to prove things to others, you're here to prove things to yourself...fine, what experiments are you performing to make these confirmations for yourself? If you're still trying "to figure out exactly how the Earth is in its entirety" then what is it you're doing in order to seek this knowledge? Wouldn't you want to achieve some sort of scientific result that would affirm your beliefs?
My experiments are for me. I've explained quite a few and put them forward. What people take from them is entirely up to them.
If it wakes a few people up, then great. If not, then no problem.

As for putting it out there. I may appear stupid to people and that's fine but I'm not so stupid as to go and put my experiments forward to destroy a globe model only for me to be ridiculed back home or put in a straight jacket and cast off as some doomsday lunatic, which is exactly what would happen.
Don't even tell me any different.

I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them for putting this stuff out. It gives me a sense of knowing and freedom  of mind.

I spent too long gawping at the news and the constant spewing of clear as day bullshit to take anything they say seriously anymore.
That's just the way it is. The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

There's quite a few things that would nail it for me, either way. I 100% doubt it will ever be shown by those who push this stuff, except in a video that they alter themselves.

So you have evidence but you don't feel like sharing it?  Isn't that what you accuse NASA and laboratories of doing?  If someone were to believs in your model based off if what you say on the forums then they would simply be doing it out of blind faith because you haven't given any evidence to support your claims.
I'm not asking anyone to do anything they don't want to do. All I'm doing is putting my stuff out and giving people the chance to actually open their minds to possibilities.
Think for themselves instead of doing it under peer pressure.
So, essentially, you're weaseling out of giving evidence? Good job.
No. More like not giving weasels the benefit of it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 05, 2015, 09:36:10 AM
Let's look at two hypothetical situations;

Scenario 1

For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and proclaim...

"The Earth is a flat because it looks flat, pictures from space are all faked because space travel is a lie created by a NASA conspiracy, gravity doesn't exist and we are all surrounded by a giant ice wall guarded by those complicit with the conspiracy. The Earth does not rotate around the sun, which by the way is only a few thousand miles up in the sky. I've come to these conclusions because my senses tell me so, just think about it" (apologies for generalising some of your theories).

You would quite rightly be branded a lunatic, nobody would take you seriously and you'd become a laughing stock. No doubt your speech would go viral on the internet and you'd achieve some fame for a few months, before inevitably fading from public consciousness and becoming a footnote somewhere on Wikipedia, a pub-quiz question.
In this scenario I would not dive right in and mention anything as a given. If I was allowed the air time, I would merely state my case as a "what if" scenario.

I'm well aware that me proclaming anything against what people have been schooled into all their lives, gives them the mass upper hand over me and like you say, I will be thought of as a lunatic from the very start, which would nullify anything I had to say from that point on.
If I walked into a pub doing the same thing, I would be classed as "that nutter" wh thinks the Earth is flat.

However, if I put out a "what if" scenario  and made a point that the whole process is a "what if" then at best I could expect half of that audience to ponder my "what if's"..knowing that I am merely putting out an alternative, just like people would do in religious terms about, what if god exists but the devil doesn't, or what if the devil exists but god doesn't, or what of none of those exist and we are on our own, or what if  our mother's and father's are not our real parents.

You know, stuff like that. You see, at best it creates a debate but the worst scenario is also creates heated debates and angry confrontation that leads to the whole point lost. It's natural human reaction but not because of open mindedness, it's the opposite.

You see, it's about the thoughts or belief's of any particular person that creates a debate or a fragmented debate or downright pandemonium.
You see, assuming I'm given air time, I'm immediately under the guidance of the host and that host is under the guidance of the scriptwriter and producer, etc.
It's common knowledge that the second I open my mouth about a "what if" when mentioning a flat Earth and the many things about it - I am immediately in front of an audience of eye rollers and even more so if I said, "what if gravity was atmospheric pressure."
Someone in the audience can say, ell ok, gravity has been measured and it's 9.8m/s/s, the workings are fine for it, we know it's real, show me your equations.
I can say "oh I don't have any because I class it as variable so it's a case of measurement depending on the mass of an object at whatever height." etc.

Cue the laughing.
I could say " I don't know the equation for it, I'm just saying what if. I mean, is it possible?"
The debate can go on but the best I could hope for  at the end by doing this is, " well he was just putting scenarios to us, it's not like he was proclaiming it without backing it up."
The worst is being told to eff off or booed.
Why?
Because as much as you want to shout out that there's back up, that supposed back up is not physically proven except to drop something at a small height and measure that alone to come to a conclusion that in a near vacuum it would be this or that and it's gravity, even though we don't know what that force is...it can be measured.

You see, most people would boo or roll their eyes because they know what it all is. They've been schooled for long enough. So if I then went for it and said, "well what if the world is actually flat and not a globe."
I'd be laughed out of the place, including the ridiculing quips by the host, because everyone knows it's a globe, they've seen pictures and the sun rises and sets and look at space and all the rest of it.




Scenario 2

For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and state all of the things you asserted in the first scenario, only this time you follow it with actual proof..."here is the science behind my claims, as proven by various and repeated experiments" and "...here is the maths supporting my experimentation and here is how it holds up under scrutiny". You show, through rigorous research and experimentation, that the Earth is flat, and in the process you disprove a round Earth, showing how we have all been deceived for so long.
This scenario wouldn't happen but if it did and I provided proof, I would be intentionally ridiculed. Not by the audience but by the very people that gave me the platform because even if they genuinely wanted to give me that platform, I'm fairly certain that they would be told to shut it down and ridicule me and my name would be forever known as the loony with his natshit crazy ideas who is a danger to society...or whatever.
I truly believe this would be the case.
Look at the amount of people that have tried to open people's eyes. They are cast off as looney's.
Look, let's be honest and think about this.
Everything about space is geared for a globe and so is space travel and all the rest of the add on's. Do you seriously think air time would be given to anyone who had concrete proof that it was a lie?
They would allow anyone on who had no direct physical proof because there's only going to be one winner and very few people are going to take what's said, onboard due to fear of ridicule by their peers, even if they did see ruth or potential truth in it.
It's human nature to follow a trend of any kind. The masses win all the time, which means they will follow what they're told to follow.


If your theory is complete and airtight, then the scientific community would be unable to disprove it and you would completely change what is considered fact. You would be hailed as a genius, no doubt win the Nobel Prize and would received untold riches. You would be studied for hundreds/thousands of years and remembered as a visionary of great historical significance. You would be mentioned in the same breath as Newton and Einstein.
I would win a sniper bullet to the forehead or be found hanging due to depression or something. I certainly wouldn't be recieving any star prize unless it was a ninja star jammed into me.
 
Right now you're just repeating scenario 1 over and over, but on a far smaller scale (this forum). Care to strive towards scenario 2 at any point? Again, I reiterate, I'm a truth seeker, and if you're interested in helping people see the truth, then help me out a little. Merely saying 'think deeper and question what you know' just isn't enough I'm afraid.
You know that I cannot physically prove what I'm saying. You believe you can physically prove what you are saying because you have mainstream science books to back you up and also the wider public to agree.
That's fine. I understand your stance.

If you appear to want to find the truth, I can only offer tid bits along with other's. I can't make you question. I can't make you decide to look at a different picture.
I could only do that with direct proof. Nobody is going to allow anyone to provide that direct proof because all of the proof's are behind a security blanket.

You have to make a choice for yourself to question just one thing. Pick the weakest argument about your globe. Question it and see where you go.
You're not argung against me and I'm not arguing against you or anyone else on here. I'm simply probing and coming up with reasons as to why the Earth is not a globe. Nobody has to take it onboard, just take it as a thought process. Use me as a thinking process. A could it be or maybe there is something in this....or simply dismiss it all and keep to the model you were comfortably brought up with, to present day.

All I say is, if you're here then you must have some kind of doubt about something's...if so, then have a go at questioning it, because simply sticking to your trusted model will gain you no ground, because it's all been heard before and is being argued against for a reason, whether that reason is legitimate to you or not.

I don't spend my time typing all this stuff just for a laugh and I'm not insane. All I'm doing is picking away. There's lot's I can learn off people on here, unfortunately I won't be learing anything new from people who push a globe model, unless they talk about something different that gives me more food for thought.


For me and this is the truth. There's so much magic involved in a globe model that it renders it not only wrong, but absolutely ludicrous. That's my personal opinion, don't take it as a personal dig at you. You are like anyone else who came here. You came with a globe in mind. I did once...not anymore and you know how strong my mind is, so if I can be changed to think alternatively or question stuff, then anyone can...but...it's entirely up to you.

The best compliment I can give you is that you certainly put a hell of a lot more thought into your worldview than other FE'ers around here. Even thought I completely disagree with you on almost every point, I respect you enough to at least debate with you on these topics. At the very least, you are coherent (unlike Bloomington) and you don't quote a load of scripture to back up your claims (iWitness). Similarly, if you are a troll, then you're a fantastic one.

I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them

That sounds like the very definition of paranoia

The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

Why are your 'proofs' (whatever they may be) so superior to those of others?

Last year, sceptimatic carried out an expensive experiment with a newly-developed laser, a scientist colleague, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in an endeavour to prove that the earth was indeed flat.

As far as I recall, he'd finished his research, and had forwarded his conclusions to several world-renowned scientists for their consideration and, presumably, their positive peer review of his data.  Once he had confirmation of his experiment's conclusions—that the earth was actually flat—he was going to make a public announcement that would throw the accepted scientific consensus of the earth's sphericity into complete disarray.

Now, around 12 months later, we should be asking him what the opinions of the scientists who perused his research were—did they agree with his results, disagree, or remain unconvinced either way?  Presuming their peer reviews were positive, why has sceptimatic not yet made public these astounding and world-shattering [sic] research results, or at least let us know on these forums?

So... are we now to logically assume that (a) the entire "experiment" was bogus from day one, or (b) that the results of the experiment proved that the earth was indeed spherical?

Excellent. Being new here, I didn't know this. Scepti - what is the current status?
My current status is that all tests are done and are verified. All the relevant people have them and you don't need to know.
I put them out to trusted people on here. No offence to you but I trust you about as much as I'd trust a starving wolf not to eat a chicken tied to my , ahem.
Take that as a compliment because I trust Geoffrey and co about as much as  being able to walk out of  a den of wolves as I'm eating friend chicken and lathered in chicken grease, knowing the wolves are close to cannibalism.  ;D

Back to the point, I wasn't asking for you to show me your research. I merely enquired as to the current status ie what where the responses from the world-leading scientists? Has your work been met with acclaim? I could always show your work to some of my Physics colleagues - some of whom achieved world leading status in the recent REF results - and see what they make of it?

REF = Research Excellence Framework, used to assess academic research in UK Universities.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 05, 2015, 09:46:03 AM
I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them

That sounds like the very definition of paranoia

The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

Why are your 'proofs' (whatever they may be) so superior to those of others?

Last year, sceptimatic carried out an expensive experiment with a newly-developed laser, a scientist colleague, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in an endeavour to prove that the earth was indeed flat.

As far as I recall, he'd finished his research, and had forwarded his conclusions to several world-renowned scientists for their consideration and, presumably, their positive peer review of his data.  Once he had confirmation of his experiment's conclusions—that the earth was actually flat—he was going to make a public announcement that would throw the accepted scientific consensus of the earth's sphericity into complete disarray.

Now, around 12 months later, we should be asking him what the opinions of the scientists who perused his research were—did they agree with his results, disagree, or remain unconvinced either way?  Presuming their peer reviews were positive, why has sceptimatic not yet made public these astounding and world-shattering [sic] research results, or at least let us know on these forums?

So... are we now to logically assume that (a) the entire "experiment" was bogus from day one, or (b) that the results of the experiment proved that the earth was indeed spherical?

Excellent. Being new here, I didn't know this. Scepti - what is the current status?
My current status is that all tests are done and are verified. All the relevant people have them and you don't need to know.
I put them out to trusted people on here. No offence to you but I trust you about as much as I'd trust a starving wolf not to eat a chicken tied to my , ahem.
Take that as a compliment because I trust Geoffrey and co about as much as  being able to walk out of  a den of wolves as I'm eating friend chicken and lathered in chicken grease, knowing the wolves are close to cannibalism.  ;D

If your theories are right then e can't disprove them and if they are wrong then disproving then would be a good thing.  Hitler actually assigned a team of scientists the task of proving Eanstein wrong at one point and this is when Einstein said "If I was wrong then they would only need one scientist", but Hitler's team failed at disproving Einstein because he was right.  There is never any harm in posting your evidence unless you know that it is wrong and you want to believe it is right, so what are you afraid of?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 11:37:37 AM
Let's look at two hypothetical situations;

Scenario 1

For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and proclaim...

"The Earth is a flat because it looks flat, pictures from space are all faked because space travel is a lie created by a NASA conspiracy, gravity doesn't exist and we are all surrounded by a giant ice wall guarded by those complicit with the conspiracy. The Earth does not rotate around the sun, which by the way is only a few thousand miles up in the sky. I've come to these conclusions because my senses tell me so, just think about it" (apologies for generalising some of your theories).

You would quite rightly be branded a lunatic, nobody would take you seriously and you'd become a laughing stock. No doubt your speech would go viral on the internet and you'd achieve some fame for a few months, before inevitably fading from public consciousness and becoming a footnote somewhere on Wikipedia, a pub-quiz question.
In this scenario I would not dive right in and mention anything as a given. If I was allowed the air time, I would merely state my case as a "what if" scenario.

I'm well aware that me proclaming anything against what people have been schooled into all their lives, gives them the mass upper hand over me and like you say, I will be thought of as a lunatic from the very start, which would nullify anything I had to say from that point on.
If I walked into a pub doing the same thing, I would be classed as "that nutter" wh thinks the Earth is flat.

However, if I put out a "what if" scenario  and made a point that the whole process is a "what if" then at best I could expect half of that audience to ponder my "what if's"..knowing that I am merely putting out an alternative, just like people would do in religious terms about, what if god exists but the devil doesn't, or what if the devil exists but god doesn't, or what of none of those exist and we are on our own, or what if  our mother's and father's are not our real parents.

You know, stuff like that. You see, at best it creates a debate but the worst scenario is also creates heated debates and angry confrontation that leads to the whole point lost. It's natural human reaction but not because of open mindedness, it's the opposite.

You see, it's about the thoughts or belief's of any particular person that creates a debate or a fragmented debate or downright pandemonium.
You see, assuming I'm given air time, I'm immediately under the guidance of the host and that host is under the guidance of the scriptwriter and producer, etc.
It's common knowledge that the second I open my mouth about a "what if" when mentioning a flat Earth and the many things about it - I am immediately in front of an audience of eye rollers and even more so if I said, "what if gravity was atmospheric pressure."
Someone in the audience can say, ell ok, gravity has been measured and it's 9.8m/s/s, the workings are fine for it, we know it's real, show me your equations.
I can say "oh I don't have any because I class it as variable so it's a case of measurement depending on the mass of an object at whatever height." etc.

Cue the laughing.
I could say " I don't know the equation for it, I'm just saying what if. I mean, is it possible?"
The debate can go on but the best I could hope for  at the end by doing this is, " well he was just putting scenarios to us, it's not like he was proclaiming it without backing it up."
The worst is being told to eff off or booed.
Why?
Because as much as you want to shout out that there's back up, that supposed back up is not physically proven except to drop something at a small height and measure that alone to come to a conclusion that in a near vacuum it would be this or that and it's gravity, even though we don't know what that force is...it can be measured.

You see, most people would boo or roll their eyes because they know what it all is. They've been schooled for long enough. So if I then went for it and said, "well what if the world is actually flat and not a globe."
I'd be laughed out of the place, including the ridiculing quips by the host, because everyone knows it's a globe, they've seen pictures and the sun rises and sets and look at space and all the rest of it.




Scenario 2

For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and state all of the things you asserted in the first scenario, only this time you follow it with actual proof..."here is the science behind my claims, as proven by various and repeated experiments" and "...here is the maths supporting my experimentation and here is how it holds up under scrutiny". You show, through rigorous research and experimentation, that the Earth is flat, and in the process you disprove a round Earth, showing how we have all been deceived for so long.
This scenario wouldn't happen but if it did and I provided proof, I would be intentionally ridiculed. Not by the audience but by the very people that gave me the platform because even if they genuinely wanted to give me that platform, I'm fairly certain that they would be told to shut it down and ridicule me and my name would be forever known as the loony with his natshit crazy ideas who is a danger to society...or whatever.
I truly believe this would be the case.
Look at the amount of people that have tried to open people's eyes. They are cast off as looney's.
Look, let's be honest and think about this.
Everything about space is geared for a globe and so is space travel and all the rest of the add on's. Do you seriously think air time would be given to anyone who had concrete proof that it was a lie?
They would allow anyone on who had no direct physical proof because there's only going to be one winner and very few people are going to take what's said, onboard due to fear of ridicule by their peers, even if they did see ruth or potential truth in it.
It's human nature to follow a trend of any kind. The masses win all the time, which means they will follow what they're told to follow.


If your theory is complete and airtight, then the scientific community would be unable to disprove it and you would completely change what is considered fact. You would be hailed as a genius, no doubt win the Nobel Prize and would received untold riches. You would be studied for hundreds/thousands of years and remembered as a visionary of great historical significance. You would be mentioned in the same breath as Newton and Einstein.
I would win a sniper bullet to the forehead or be found hanging due to depression or something. I certainly wouldn't be recieving any star prize unless it was a ninja star jammed into me.
 
Right now you're just repeating scenario 1 over and over, but on a far smaller scale (this forum). Care to strive towards scenario 2 at any point? Again, I reiterate, I'm a truth seeker, and if you're interested in helping people see the truth, then help me out a little. Merely saying 'think deeper and question what you know' just isn't enough I'm afraid.
You know that I cannot physically prove what I'm saying. You believe you can physically prove what you are saying because you have mainstream science books to back you up and also the wider public to agree.
That's fine. I understand your stance.

If you appear to want to find the truth, I can only offer tid bits along with other's. I can't make you question. I can't make you decide to look at a different picture.
I could only do that with direct proof. Nobody is going to allow anyone to provide that direct proof because all of the proof's are behind a security blanket.

You have to make a choice for yourself to question just one thing. Pick the weakest argument about your globe. Question it and see where you go.
You're not argung against me and I'm not arguing against you or anyone else on here. I'm simply probing and coming up with reasons as to why the Earth is not a globe. Nobody has to take it onboard, just take it as a thought process. Use me as a thinking process. A could it be or maybe there is something in this....or simply dismiss it all and keep to the model you were comfortably brought up with, to present day.

All I say is, if you're here then you must have some kind of doubt about something's...if so, then have a go at questioning it, because simply sticking to your trusted model will gain you no ground, because it's all been heard before and is being argued against for a reason, whether that reason is legitimate to you or not.

I don't spend my time typing all this stuff just for a laugh and I'm not insane. All I'm doing is picking away. There's lot's I can learn off people on here, unfortunately I won't be learing anything new from people who push a globe model, unless they talk about something different that gives me more food for thought.


For me and this is the truth. There's so much magic involved in a globe model that it renders it not only wrong, but absolutely ludicrous. That's my personal opinion, don't take it as a personal dig at you. You are like anyone else who came here. You came with a globe in mind. I did once...not anymore and you know how strong my mind is, so if I can be changed to think alternatively or question stuff, then anyone can...but...it's entirely up to you.

The best compliment I can give you is that you certainly put a hell of a lot more thought into your worldview than other FE'ers around here. Even thought I completely disagree with you on almost every point, I respect you enough to at least debate with you on these topics. At the very least, you are coherent (unlike Bloomington) and you don't quote a load of scripture to back up your claims (iWitness). Similarly, if you are a troll, then you're a fantastic one.

I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them

That sounds like the very definition of paranoia

The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

Why are your 'proofs' (whatever they may be) so superior to those of others?

Last year, sceptimatic carried out an expensive experiment with a newly-developed laser, a scientist colleague, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in an endeavour to prove that the earth was indeed flat.

As far as I recall, he'd finished his research, and had forwarded his conclusions to several world-renowned scientists for their consideration and, presumably, their positive peer review of his data.  Once he had confirmation of his experiment's conclusions—that the earth was actually flat—he was going to make a public announcement that would throw the accepted scientific consensus of the earth's sphericity into complete disarray.

Now, around 12 months later, we should be asking him what the opinions of the scientists who perused his research were—did they agree with his results, disagree, or remain unconvinced either way?  Presuming their peer reviews were positive, why has sceptimatic not yet made public these astounding and world-shattering [sic] research results, or at least let us know on these forums?

So... are we now to logically assume that (a) the entire "experiment" was bogus from day one, or (b) that the results of the experiment proved that the earth was indeed spherical?

Excellent. Being new here, I didn't know this. Scepti - what is the current status?
My current status is that all tests are done and are verified. All the relevant people have them and you don't need to know.
I put them out to trusted people on here. No offence to you but I trust you about as much as I'd trust a starving wolf not to eat a chicken tied to my , ahem.
Take that as a compliment because I trust Geoffrey and co about as much as  being able to walk out of  a den of wolves as I'm eating friend chicken and lathered in chicken grease, knowing the wolves are close to cannibalism.  ;D

Back to the point, I wasn't asking for you to show me your research. I merely enquired as to the current status ie what where the responses from the world-leading scientists? Has your work been met with acclaim? I could always show your work to some of my Physics colleagues - some of whom achieved world leading status in the recent REF results - and see what they make of it?

REF = Research Excellence Framework, used to assess academic research in UK Universities.
You seem one of the more reasonable global Earth posters and I'll respect you for that.
The tests I've done have been verified by scientific people, some of whom have performed very much the same test because what I showed them, impressed and shocked them.
I showed how it was all done with a diagram to some global Earther's on here and they chose to ridicule it. I have since decided to keep it firmly locked away from global Earther's. Trust as a great issue and wasting my time, as some have done is not taken lightly with me.

Don't take this personally but you will simply have to go by thoughts on here when dealing with me and disagree as you feel, which is fine by me. Maybe one day something may hit home for you and set your mind into motion on thoughts alternate to what you firmly adhere to.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 11:42:20 AM
I question things because I like to know that those that are taking the piss are being laughed at by me, not me being laughed at by them

That sounds like the very definition of paranoia

The only way my trust can be gained is for them to show me physical proof of their claims by my own proof's, not by their shenanigans.

Why are your 'proofs' (whatever they may be) so superior to those of others?

Last year, sceptimatic carried out an expensive experiment with a newly-developed laser, a scientist colleague, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in an endeavour to prove that the earth was indeed flat.

As far as I recall, he'd finished his research, and had forwarded his conclusions to several world-renowned scientists for their consideration and, presumably, their positive peer review of his data.  Once he had confirmation of his experiment's conclusions—that the earth was actually flat—he was going to make a public announcement that would throw the accepted scientific consensus of the earth's sphericity into complete disarray.

Now, around 12 months later, we should be asking him what the opinions of the scientists who perused his research were—did they agree with his results, disagree, or remain unconvinced either way?  Presuming their peer reviews were positive, why has sceptimatic not yet made public these astounding and world-shattering [sic] research results, or at least let us know on these forums?

So... are we now to logically assume that (a) the entire "experiment" was bogus from day one, or (b) that the results of the experiment proved that the earth was indeed spherical?

Excellent. Being new here, I didn't know this. Scepti - what is the current status?
My current status is that all tests are done and are verified. All the relevant people have them and you don't need to know.
I put them out to trusted people on here. No offence to you but I trust you about as much as I'd trust a starving wolf not to eat a chicken tied to my , ahem.
Take that as a compliment because I trust Geoffrey and co about as much as  being able to walk out of  a den of wolves as I'm eating friend chicken and lathered in chicken grease, knowing the wolves are close to cannibalism.  ;D

If your theories are right then e can't disprove them and if they are wrong then disproving then would be a good thing.  Hitler actually assigned a team of scientists the task of proving Eanstein wrong at one point and this is when Einstein said "If I was wrong then they would only need one scientist", but Hitler's team failed at disproving Einstein because he was right.  There is never any harm in posting your evidence unless you know that it is wrong and you want to believe it is right, so what are you afraid of?
It's not about being afraid. It's about not just giving stuff out to anyone for the sake of it.
I described and diagrammed my stuff and gave a few people the benefit of seeing what it was all about. They chose to go into ridicule mode and call me a liar. I simply smiled and cast them aside. The trust with globalites is gone.

You people don't help yourselves if you are genuine.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 05, 2015, 11:43:52 AM
You seem one of the more reasonable global Earth posters and I'll respect you for that.
The tests I've done have been verified by scientific people, some of whom have performed very much the same test because what I showed them, impressed and shocked them.
I showed how it was all done with a diagram to some global Earther's on here and they chose to ridicule it. I have since decided to keep it firmly locked away from global Earther's. Trust as a great issue and wasting my time, as some have done is not taken lightly with me.

Don't take this personally but you will simply have to go by thoughts on here when dealing with me and disagree as you feel, which is fine by me. Maybe one day something may hit home for you and set your mind into motion on thoughts alternate to what you firmly adhere to.

The reason everyone here ridicules you is because you don't post any evidence, and the reason you don't post any evidence is because everyone ridicules you.  If your claims are true then there will be no harm in posting your evidence and you sure will teach us indoctorinated globalist a a lesson, so why don't you do it?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 05, 2015, 11:45:00 AM
It's not about being afraid. It's about not just giving stuff out to anyone for the sake of it.
I described and diagrammed my stuff and gave a few people the benefit of seeing what it was all about. They chose to go into ridicule mode and call me a liar. I simply smiled and cast them aside. The trust with globalites is gone.

You people don't help yourselves if you are genuine.

If you don't cite your evidence then nobody is going to take you seriously, it's as simple as that.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 11:58:38 AM
You seem one of the more reasonable global Earth posters and I'll respect you for that.
The tests I've done have been verified by scientific people, some of whom have performed very much the same test because what I showed them, impressed and shocked them.
I showed how it was all done with a diagram to some global Earther's on here and they chose to ridicule it. I have since decided to keep it firmly locked away from global Earther's. Trust as a great issue and wasting my time, as some have done is not taken lightly with me.

Don't take this personally but you will simply have to go by thoughts on here when dealing with me and disagree as you feel, which is fine by me. Maybe one day something may hit home for you and set your mind into motion on thoughts alternate to what you firmly adhere to.

The reason everyone here ridicules you is because you don't post any evidence, and the reason you don't post any evidence is because everyone ridicules you.  If your claims are true then there will be no harm in posting your evidence and you sure will teach us indoctorinated globalist a a lesson, so why don't you do it?
Because I'm not the least bit interested in people like you to give you the benefit of the truth for you to deny in a fit.
You really need to stop harping on about evidence being shown physically when you can't even produce your own even when your backed up by mainstream science, except to produce fake mages and such, which isn't your fault, because you believe them to be real.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 12:02:15 PM
It's not about being afraid. It's about not just giving stuff out to anyone for the sake of it.
I described and diagrammed my stuff and gave a few people the benefit of seeing what it was all about. They chose to go into ridicule mode and call me a liar. I simply smiled and cast them aside. The trust with globalites is gone.

You people don't help yourselves if you are genuine.

If you don't cite your evidence then nobody is going to take you seriously, it's as simple as that.
Do me a favour and read this post thoroughly. It'll save you time in posting the same stuff to me.

I do not care who takes me seriously. All people need to do is read what I say and decide for themselves if what I say has any relevance.
They can have me down as a stark raving nutter. All I say is, look past the stark raving nutter and question stuff. That's all that can be done and either way it has no bearing on me, it has a bearing on what the individual thinks for themselves.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 05, 2015, 12:05:05 PM
You seem one of the more reasonable global Earth posters and I'll respect you for that.
The tests I've done have been verified by scientific people, some of whom have performed very much the same test because what I showed them, impressed and shocked them.
I showed how it was all done with a diagram to some global Earther's on here and they chose to ridicule it. I have since decided to keep it firmly locked away from global Earther's. Trust as a great issue and wasting my time, as some have done is not taken lightly with me.

Don't take this personally but you will simply have to go by thoughts on here when dealing with me and disagree as you feel, which is fine by me. Maybe one day something may hit home for you and set your mind into motion on thoughts alternate to what you firmly adhere to.

The reason everyone here ridicules you is because you don't post any evidence, and the reason you don't post any evidence is because everyone ridicules you.  If your claims are true then there will be no harm in posting your evidence and you sure will teach us indoctorinated globalist a a lesson, so why don't you do it?
Because I'm not the least bit interested in people like you to give you the benefit of the truth for you to deny in a fit.
You really need to stop harping on about evidence being shown physically when you can't even produce your own even when your backed up by mainstream science, except to produce fake mages and such, which isn't your fault, because you believe them to be real.

Ummm...  The long in my forum signature is proof that the Earth is round in the form of an experiment that Dephelis and I did.  I could post proof ask day but it's just immediately rejected by flat earthers.  Just humour me and post some evidence, because a theory without evidence is just a speculation.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 12:18:20 PM
You seem one of the more reasonable global Earth posters and I'll respect you for that.
The tests I've done have been verified by scientific people, some of whom have performed very much the same test because what I showed them, impressed and shocked them.
I showed how it was all done with a diagram to some global Earther's on here and they chose to ridicule it. I have since decided to keep it firmly locked away from global Earther's. Trust as a great issue and wasting my time, as some have done is not taken lightly with me.

Don't take this personally but you will simply have to go by thoughts on here when dealing with me and disagree as you feel, which is fine by me. Maybe one day something may hit home for you and set your mind into motion on thoughts alternate to what you firmly adhere to.

The reason everyone here ridicules you is because you don't post any evidence, and the reason you don't post any evidence is because everyone ridicules you.  If your claims are true then there will be no harm in posting your evidence and you sure will teach us indoctorinated globalist a a lesson, so why don't you do it?
Because I'm not the least bit interested in people like you to give you the benefit of the truth for you to deny in a fit.
You really need to stop harping on about evidence being shown physically when you can't even produce your own even when your backed up by mainstream science, except to produce fake mages and such, which isn't your fault, because you believe them to be real.

Ummm...  The long in my forum signature is proof that the Earth is round in the form of an experiment that Dephelis and I did.  I could post proof ask day but it's just immediately rejected by flat earthers.  Just humour me and post some evidence, because a theory without evidence is just a speculation.
You've been on here long enough to figure stuff out amid a lot of evidence that you simply refute or choose not to even look at.
You're not here for evidence for a flat Earth. You're stuck rigidly to your globe and I say, carry on. You're entitled to believe what you want to.

As for me posting evidence. I'll just do what I normally do. Take it or leave it, it's all the same to me.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Socratic Amusement on February 05, 2015, 12:22:23 PM
You seem one of the more reasonable global Earth posters and I'll respect you for that.
The tests I've done have been verified by scientific people, some of whom have performed very much the same test because what I showed them, impressed and shocked them.
I showed how it was all done with a diagram to some global Earther's on here and they chose to ridicule it. I have since decided to keep it firmly locked away from global Earther's. Trust as a great issue and wasting my time, as some have done is not taken lightly with me.

Don't take this personally but you will simply have to go by thoughts on here when dealing with me and disagree as you feel, which is fine by me. Maybe one day something may hit home for you and set your mind into motion on thoughts alternate to what you firmly adhere to.

The reason everyone here ridicules you is because you don't post any evidence, and the reason you don't post any evidence is because everyone ridicules you.  If your claims are true then there will be no harm in posting your evidence and you sure will teach us indoctorinated globalist a a lesson, so why don't you do it?
Because I'm not the least bit interested in people like you to give you the benefit of the truth for you to deny in a fit.
You really need to stop harping on about evidence being shown physically when you can't even produce your own even when your backed up by mainstream science, except to produce fake mages and such, which isn't your fault, because you believe them to be real.

Ummm...  The long in my forum signature is proof that the Earth is round in the form of an experiment that Dephelis and I did.  I could post proof ask day but it's just immediately rejected by flat earthers.  Just humour me and post some evidence, because a theory without evidence is just a speculation.
You've been on here long enough to figure stuff out amid a lot of evidence that you simply refute or choose not to even look at.
You're not here for evidence for a flat Earth. You're stuck rigidly to your globe and I say, carry on. You're entitled to believe what you want to.

As for me posting evidence. I'll just do what I normally do. Take it or leave it, it's all the same to me.

You do understand the difference between rejecting FE evidence because the conclusions and/or methodology were incorrect/flawed, and simply rejecting something out of hand, yes?

You've been here long enough Scepti, please don't be disingenuous.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2015, 12:28:09 PM
You seem one of the more reasonable global Earth posters and I'll respect you for that.
The tests I've done have been verified by scientific people, some of whom have performed very much the same test because what I showed them, impressed and shocked them.
I showed how it was all done with a diagram to some global Earther's on here and they chose to ridicule it. I have since decided to keep it firmly locked away from global Earther's. Trust as a great issue and wasting my time, as some have done is not taken lightly with me.

Don't take this personally but you will simply have to go by thoughts on here when dealing with me and disagree as you feel, which is fine by me. Maybe one day something may hit home for you and set your mind into motion on thoughts alternate to what you firmly adhere to.

The reason everyone here ridicules you is because you don't post any evidence, and the reason you don't post any evidence is because everyone ridicules you.  If your claims are true then there will be no harm in posting your evidence and you sure will teach us indoctorinated globalist a a lesson, so why don't you do it?
Because I'm not the least bit interested in people like you to give you the benefit of the truth for you to deny in a fit.
You really need to stop harping on about evidence being shown physically when you can't even produce your own even when your backed up by mainstream science, except to produce fake mages and such, which isn't your fault, because you believe them to be real.

Ummm...  The long in my forum signature is proof that the Earth is round in the form of an experiment that Dephelis and I did.  I could post proof ask day but it's just immediately rejected by flat earthers.  Just humour me and post some evidence, because a theory without evidence is just a speculation.
You've been on here long enough to figure stuff out amid a lot of evidence that you simply refute or choose not to even look at.
You're not here for evidence for a flat Earth. You're stuck rigidly to your globe and I say, carry on. You're entitled to believe what you want to.

As for me posting evidence. I'll just do what I normally do. Take it or leave it, it's all the same to me.

You do understand the difference between rejecting FE evidence because the conclusions and/or methodology were incorrect/flawed, and simply rejecting something out of hand, yes?

You've been here long enough Scepti, please don't be disingenuous.
Yep and seeing as both sides find it hard to post physical evidence, all we have to rely on is thought experiments and logic to determine just what we are dealing with.
The issue is, who is using logic and who isn't.
You can argue that it's you lot and call us the nutters. That's fine but I'm obviously going to flip that, apart from calling you people nutters. I end to use, naive and not in a bad way, either.

We are all naive in some form. I have the benefit of having been naive in beliving this global stuff along with gravity. I managed to get out of it. Maybe one day, you can.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Socratic Amusement on February 05, 2015, 12:48:44 PM
You seem one of the more reasonable global Earth posters and I'll respect you for that.
The tests I've done have been verified by scientific people, some of whom have performed very much the same test because what I showed them, impressed and shocked them.
I showed how it was all done with a diagram to some global Earther's on here and they chose to ridicule it. I have since decided to keep it firmly locked away from global Earther's. Trust as a great issue and wasting my time, as some have done is not taken lightly with me.

Don't take this personally but you will simply have to go by thoughts on here when dealing with me and disagree as you feel, which is fine by me. Maybe one day something may hit home for you and set your mind into motion on thoughts alternate to what you firmly adhere to.

The reason everyone here ridicules you is because you don't post any evidence, and the reason you don't post any evidence is because everyone ridicules you.  If your claims are true then there will be no harm in posting your evidence and you sure will teach us indoctorinated globalist a a lesson, so why don't you do it?
Because I'm not the least bit interested in people like you to give you the benefit of the truth for you to deny in a fit.
You really need to stop harping on about evidence being shown physically when you can't even produce your own even when your backed up by mainstream science, except to produce fake mages and such, which isn't your fault, because you believe them to be real.

Ummm...  The long in my forum signature is proof that the Earth is round in the form of an experiment that Dephelis and I did.  I could post proof ask day but it's just immediately rejected by flat earthers.  Just humour me and post some evidence, because a theory without evidence is just a speculation.
You've been on here long enough to figure stuff out amid a lot of evidence that you simply refute or choose not to even look at.
You're not here for evidence for a flat Earth. You're stuck rigidly to your globe and I say, carry on. You're entitled to believe what you want to.

As for me posting evidence. I'll just do what I normally do. Take it or leave it, it's all the same to me.

You do understand the difference between rejecting FE evidence because the conclusions and/or methodology were incorrect/flawed, and simply rejecting something out of hand, yes?

You've been here long enough Scepti, please don't be disingenuous.
Yep and seeing as both sides find it hard to post physical evidence, all we have to rely on is thought experiments and logic to determine just what we are dealing with.
The issue is, who is using logic and who isn't.
You can argue that it's you lot and call us the nutters. That's fine but I'm obviously going to flip that, apart from calling you people nutters. I end to use, naive and not in a bad way, either.

We are all naive in some form. I have the benefit of having been naive in beliving this global stuff along with gravity. I managed to get out of it. Maybe one day, you can.

That isn't true Scepti, and you know it.

The RE side has posted mountains, and mountains, and MOUNTAINS of physical evidence in the form of first-hand experiments, photographs, mathematical formulas, and coherent models.

The FET has yet to post a single shred of physical evidence.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you are right and the world is flat, the simple lack of anything resembling a predictive model or physical evidence makes a poor counterpoint to the established model. Remember, people used to think the Earth was flat until physical evidence changed the status quo.

Simply do that again and it may change back.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 05, 2015, 01:16:38 PM
You've been on here long enough to figure stuff out amid a lot of evidence that you simply refute or choose not to even look at.
You're not here for evidence for a flat Earth. You're stuck rigidly to your globe and I say, carry on. You're entitled to believe what you want to.

As for me posting evidence. I'll just do what I normally do. Take it or leave it, it's all the same to me.

Alright, you do what you normally do.  Just don't expect anyone to take you for more then an overly paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Also, what is this FE evidence you speak of and why haven't I heard of it?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on February 05, 2015, 01:31:24 PM
@Sceptimatic

Are you bloody daft, mate?? You've talk of experiments and "academic qualifications" (AKA degrees), international renown and everything and you don't bloody post shite. You say you're just here to help us to question the world around us, but what is there to question??? You don't bloody show ANYTHING and instead expect us to believe your experiments are valid or you're not just a nut, but you've shown NOTHING to cement your relations here.

Right now what you're trying to do is weasel your way out of falling out of a hole. Right now what you're doing is backing away into a corner like a chihuahua surrounded by lions. But you know what? If what you're saying is true (You've verifiable evidence and have peer-reviewed material), then there is a plexiglass wall between you and the lions. There is a bloody shovel to put yourself out of the hole.

You're taking the weakest way out. You're not even fighting because maybe you don't believe in a flat earth anymore. Have we really destroyed you so much that you're to the point where you've rolled over on your belly like a submissive dog and are hoping we don't slit your belly of "theory"? Yeah, that is what you're doing. Man up and destroy your competition and tout your superiour intellect.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 05, 2015, 01:50:09 PM
@Sceptimatic

Are you bloody daft, mate?? You've talk of experiments and "academic qualifications" (AKA degrees), international renown and everything and you don't bloody post shite. You say you're just here to help us to question the world around us, but what is there to question??? You don't bloody show ANYTHING and instead expect us to believe your experiments are valid or you're not just a nut, but you've shown NOTHING to cement your relations here.

Right now what you're trying to do is weasel your way out of falling out of a hole. Right now what you're doing is backing away into a corner like a chihuahua surrounded by lions. But you know what? If what you're saying is true (You've verifiable evidence and have peer-reviewed material), then there is a plexiglass wall between you and the lions. There is a bloody shovel to put yourself out of the hole.

You're taking the weakest way out. You're not even fighting because maybe you don't believe in a flat earth anymore. Have we really destroyed you so much that you're to the point where you've rolled over on your belly like a submissive dog and are hoping we don't slit your belly of "theory"? Yeah, that is what you're doing. Man up and destroy your competition and tout your superiour intellect.

Funny enough, earlier in another thread he said he was the lion, and we are all the hyenas. Close.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on February 05, 2015, 01:52:02 PM
@Sceptimatic

Are you bloody daft, mate?? You've talk of experiments and "academic qualifications" (AKA degrees), international renown and everything and you don't bloody post shite. You say you're just here to help us to question the world around us, but what is there to question??? You don't bloody show ANYTHING and instead expect us to believe your experiments are valid or you're not just a nut, but you've shown NOTHING to cement your relations here.

Right now what you're trying to do is weasel your way out of falling out of a hole. Right now what you're doing is backing away into a corner like a chihuahua surrounded by lions. But you know what? If what you're saying is true (You've verifiable evidence and have peer-reviewed material), then there is a plexiglass wall between you and the lions. There is a bloody shovel to put yourself out of the hole.

You're taking the weakest way out. You're not even fighting because maybe you don't believe in a flat earth anymore. Have we really destroyed you so much that you're to the point where you've rolled over on your belly like a submissive dog and are hoping we don't slit your belly of "theory"? Yeah, that is what you're doing. Man up and destroy your competition and tout your superiour intellect.

Funny enough, earlier in another thread he said he was the lion, and we are all the hyenas. Close.

Ahh, he must mean a lion cub and we're the hyenas about to tear him apart
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 06, 2015, 04:44:39 AM
My current status is that all tests are done and are verified. All the relevant people have them and you don't need to know.
Can you tell us—in general terms—who these "relevant" people are please sceptimatic. Can you also tell us why people on this forum—both round earthers and flat earthers—"don't need to know" your research results?  Surely if the reuslts prove that the spherical earth model is, or could be erroneous, you should be going public?  After all, your results would overturn, literally, centuries of scientific theorems.  It'd probably be the most astounding discovery in the history of the world in fact.  So why the reluctance?

Quote
I put them out to trusted people on here.
Can you please tell us which "trusted" people on this forum are privy to your research results. And also what determined precisely whom you told?  Did you tell any round earthers at all?  And do you acknowledge that eventually you're going to have to tell the round earth scientists?  When will that happen exactly?  Next month?  Next year?  And what specific criteria sets this timing agenda of yours?

Quote
Take that as a compliment because I trust Geoffrey and co about as much as  being able to walk out of  a den of wolves as I'm eating friend chicken and lathered in chicken grease, knowing the wolves are close to cannibalism.
Uh... are you really suggesting that you're not going public on this forum simply because you're apparently fearful of how I'll judge your alleged research results sceptimatic?   If that's the case, then I'm truly flattered.  And it also confirms my suspicions that I've called your bluff, and got you on the run without any answers.

So folks... I think that going on the simple fact that sceptimatic is unable to post any confirmatory evidence—even a brief outline— for his alleged research, we can safely dismiss the whole thing as nothing more than a fraud.

And also that once again, sceptimatic has been proven to be an inveterate liar and/or suffering from a major delusional disorder.

No research; no results; no credibility.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 06, 2015, 06:33:15 AM
Please could somebody link me to the topic where he posted a diagram?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 06, 2015, 06:50:20 AM
Please could somebody link me to the topic where he posted a diagram?

What on earth for. septic does some work in ms paint.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 06, 2015, 07:10:34 AM
Because I would like to see it with my own eyes before passing judgement. We were talking about the experiment Scepti claims he has performed, and if the diagram is the only thing he's put out in relation to this, then at the very least I would like to see it for myself.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: kman on February 06, 2015, 02:41:47 PM
Scepti, this is a new low for even you. A three year old can tell that you are lying.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 06, 2015, 05:38:12 PM
It seems the thread has got off topic a little. Somebody claims that "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" and that is neither true nor possible because the person claiming "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has neither presented the required information, nor collected the money.

The money is still in the bank.

The rules of my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) . Both REs and FEs are welcome to try. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 06, 2015, 06:01:31 PM
Anders, just out of curiosity, why do you assume that any floor of a skyscraper is significantly stronger than the floor immediately above it?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 07, 2015, 01:00:22 AM
Anders, just out of curiosity, why do you assume that any floor of a skyscraper is significantly stronger than the floor immediately above it?
All the horizontal floors are about the same strength between the walls at every level. Only the vertical wall/columns differ. The bottom ones are >100 times stronger than the top ones.

Therefore a vertical wall column cannot be crushed from top down - only from bottom up. That is why you cannot win my structural strength Challenge.

The space travel Challenge is impossible to win because you cannot brake at return and land safely. If you try to use friction to land, you will burn up. Like all meteorites. You will land as ash. 

The purpose of my Challenges is to encourage people to THINK. However, it seems most people get upset and abusive = behave stupidly.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 07, 2015, 01:20:09 AM
Would you care provide your source for the bottom vertical actions being >100 times stronger.

As for the shuttles. You do realise there was this little thing called the heat shield on the bottom which was pretty much the single most expensive part of the shuttle program.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 07, 2015, 01:34:56 AM
The money is still in the bank. 

No it's not.  This claim is just another of the many blatant lies you post on forum all over the interwebs, and which is why you and your absurd theories are laughed at by anybody who can be bothered wading through the "engineering" detritus you plaster your crude web pages with.

Nobody of sane mind leaves AUD$1,450,000 sitting idle in a bank account.  And which is proof in itself that your entire "challenge" is nothing more than a figment of your obviously fertile imagination.

Anyway... exactly which bank, and its location, do you allegedly have this money deposited?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 07, 2015, 05:39:12 AM
Would you care provide your source for the bottom vertical actions being >100 times stronger.

As for the shuttles. You do realise there was this little thing called the heat shield on the bottom which was pretty much the single most expensive part of the shuttle program.

In order for a tower structure to be equally stressed in its vertical elements, the lower ones are stronger than the top ones. For WTC 1/2 it means that bottom is 100X stronger than the top - see http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm (http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm) .

Such a structure cannot globaly collapse from top down, i.e. top crushes bottom.

The heavy Shuttle had no means to brake at re-entry from space. No heat shield was fitted. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) for details. 
The Shuttle started re-entry at 7500 m/s speed flying upside down at 400 000 m altitude with nose aft to brake with the rocket engines. When coming down at 120 000 m altitude the speed had increased to 7800 m/s. Then the Shuttle flipped 180°, so the nose was suddenly forward and dipped into the atmosphere and a little later the speed was only 200 m/s, so you could fly it as a plane.
The thin window panes in the cockpit were really strong, so the pilot could look out ... all the time. 
Only feeble minded persons believe such NASA nonsense. The whole Shuttle program was a hoax.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: HumanKentipede on February 07, 2015, 06:02:23 AM
Would you care provide your source for the bottom vertical actions being >100 times stronger.

As for the shuttles. You do realise there was this little thing called the heat shield on the bottom which was pretty much the single most expensive part of the shuttle program.

In order for a tower structure to be equally stressed in its vertical elements, the lower ones are stronger than the top ones. For WTC 1/2 it means that bottom is 100X stronger than the top - see http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm (http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm) .

Such a structure cannot globaly collapse from top down, i.e. top crushes bottom.

The heavy Shuttle had no means to brake at re-entry from space. No heat shield was fitted. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) for details. 
The Shuttle started re-entry at 7500 m/s speed flying upside down at 400 000 m altitude with nose aft to brake with the rocket engines. When coming down at 120 000 m altitude the speed had increased to 7800 m/s. Then the Shuttle flipped 180°, so the nose was suddenly forward and dipped into the atmosphere and a little later the speed was only 200 m/s, so you could fly it as a plane.
The thin window panes in the cockpit were really strong, so the pilot could look out ... all the time. 
Only feeble minded persons believe such NASA nonsense. The whole Shuttle program was a hoax.
Your challenge appears more a hoax than any NASA program ever to exist or nonexist.
Maybe you should accept your challenge has been beaten and pay up to the various people who successfully opposed it.
That is, unless you don't have the money, which would be a terribly unfortunate event, would it not?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 07, 2015, 06:04:28 AM
Only feeble minded persons believe such NASA nonsense. The whole Shuttle program was a hoax.

LOL... I thank you for calling me—and the majority of the world's educated population—"feeble minded".  Maybe you should look in the mirror one day Björkman and see just how stupid and feeble minded you yourself look?

The only thing relevant to this thread is that your embarrassingly pathetic sites are obviously the work of an ignorant egomaniac.. or a glorified boat mechanic.    ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: HumanKentipede on February 07, 2015, 06:07:29 AM
Only feeble minded persons believe such NASA nonsense. The whole Shuttle program was a hoax.

LOL... I thank you for calling me—and the majority of the world's educated population—"feeble minded".  Maybe you should look in the mirror one day Björkman and see just how stupid and feeble minded you yourself look?

The only thing relevant to this thread is that your embarrassingly pathetic sites are obviously the work of an ignorant egomaniac.. or a glorified boat mechanic.    ;D
Listen buddy do you want the €1,000,000 or not.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 07, 2015, 06:46:47 AM

Your challenge appears more a hoax than any NASA program ever to exist or nonexist.
Maybe you should accept your challenge has been beaten and pay up to the various people who successfully opposed it.
That is, unless you don't have the money, which would be a terribly unfortunate event, would it not?

Evidently my Challenges are real and existing since 2012 and produces plenty of discussion. 

So far noone has provided the information required to win the €1 000 000:-. Evidently plenty anonymous people go around and say they have won it, but they are not telling the truth.

Evidently I have the money. But it is quite safe. My Challenges are pretty difficult to win, I would say very difficult. I do not in fact expect anybody winning my Challenges. You know, CIA, FBI, MIT, Stanford, UCLA, NASA - all have failed miserably.
They should at least admit that they couldn't win my invitations to find out who is the best - me or them.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 07, 2015, 06:56:02 AM
Hewee you don't have the brains to make a million bucks. If you ever designed a boat it must have a Filipino ferry, they sink all the time. Go play with your rusty nuts in the bilge. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 07, 2015, 09:16:51 AM
Would you care provide your source for the bottom vertical actions being >100 times stronger.

As for the shuttles. You do realise there was this little thing called the heat shield on the bottom which was pretty much the single most expensive part of the shuttle program.

In order for a tower structure to be equally stressed in its vertical elements, the lower ones are stronger than the top ones. For WTC 1/2 it means that bottom is 100X stronger than the top - see http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm (http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm) .

Such a structure cannot globaly collapse from top down, i.e. top crushes bottom.

The heavy Shuttle had no means to brake at re-entry from space. No heat shield was fitted. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm) for details. 
The Shuttle started re-entry at 7500 m/s speed flying upside down at 400 000 m altitude with nose aft to brake with the rocket engines. When coming down at 120 000 m altitude the speed had increased to 7800 m/s. Then the Shuttle flipped 180°, so the nose was suddenly forward and dipped into the atmosphere and a little later the speed was only 200 m/s, so you could fly it as a plane.
The thin window panes in the cockpit were really strong, so the pilot could look out ... all the time. 
Only feeble minded persons believe such NASA nonsense. The whole Shuttle program was a hoax.

The shuttle used atmospheric braking to slow down.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 07, 2015, 12:15:06 PM
In order for a tower structure to be equally stressed in its vertical elements, the lower ones are stronger than the top ones. For WTC 1/2 it means that bottom is 100X stronger than the top - see http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm (http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm) .
You do realize that the bottom is also under 100x times the loading than the top, don't you?  That means that the safety margin at the bottom is roughly the same as a the top.

Such a structure cannot globaly collapse from top down, i.e. top crushes bottom.
Except when they do collapse from the top.
Top-Down building collapse 1 (http://#)

The heavy Shuttle had no means to brake at re-entry from space. No heat shield was fitted.
Then what were all of those ceramic bricks along the bottom of the shuttle?
 
The Shuttle started re-entry at 7500 m/s speed flying upside down at 400 000 m altitude with nose aft to brake with the rocket engines. When coming down at 120 000 m altitude the speed had increased to 7800 m/s. Then the Shuttle flipped 180°, so the nose was suddenly forward and dipped into the atmosphere and a little later the speed was only 200 m/s, so you could fly it as a plane.
The thin window panes in the cockpit were really strong, so the pilot could look out ... all the time. 
First of all, the shuttle windows were actually quite thick.
http://www.cmog.org/article/glass-and-space-orbiter (http://www.cmog.org/article/glass-and-space-orbiter)

Secondly, the angle of attack during reentry meant that the glass didn't take the brunt of the heating.  Also, the fairly shallow angle of descent meant that the heat loading was kept to a manageable level.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: HumanKentipede on February 07, 2015, 03:37:08 PM

Your challenge appears more a hoax than any NASA program ever to exist or nonexist.
Maybe you should accept your challenge has been beaten and pay up to the various people who successfully opposed it.
That is, unless you don't have the money, which would be a terribly unfortunate event, would it not?

Evidently my Challenges are real and existing since 2012 and produces plenty of discussion. 

So far noone has provided the information required to win the €1 000 000:-. Evidently plenty anonymous people go around and say they have won it, but they are not telling the truth.

Evidently I have the money. But it is quite safe. My Challenges are pretty difficult to win, I would say very difficult. I do not in fact expect anybody winning my Challenges. You know, CIA, FBI, MIT, Stanford, UCLA, NASA - all have failed miserably.
They should at least admit that they couldn't win my invitations to find out who is the best - me or them.
Sick!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Orifiel on February 07, 2015, 04:29:06 PM
It seems the thread has got off topic a little. Somebody claims that "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" and that is neither true nor possible because the person claiming "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has neither presented the required information, nor collected the money.

The money is still in the bank.

The rules of my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) . Both REs and FEs are welcome to try.

and that is neither true nor possible

So you admit that even with all the presented info, it's impossible to win? K
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 07, 2015, 08:16:01 PM
It seems the thread has got off topic a little. Somebody claims that "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" and that is neither true nor possible because the person claiming "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has neither presented the required information, nor collected the money.

The money is still in the bank.

The rules of my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) . Both REs and FEs are welcome to try.

and that is neither true nor possible

So you admit that even with all the presented info, it's impossible to win? K

Oh yeah. Especially since he regards any science or engineering that shows he is wrong as fake.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 08, 2015, 12:12:39 AM
I'm sure by now that everybody will have noted that Björkman has again avoided addressing my earlier question:

—What's the name of this "bank" where you allegedly have your €1,000,000 deposited, and in which city is the bank?

Or can't you tell us simply because it's just another of your nonsensical fabrications?  Or dare I say lies?

You're consistently very, very light on any specific details about this money and/or its availability aren't you?  Why is that?  Because it's nothing more than a bluff intended to give your absurd claims a veneer of credibility.  As in "I'm so positive my theories are absolutely accurate that I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is".  Which, as any logician will tell you, is completely inconsequential and proves nothing.

Your continued struggle for credibility across the interwebs indicates nothing more than a super over-inflated ego, or a somewhat immature mindset.  You desperately need to get back in touch with reality my friend before your bizarre fantasies destroy you.  If they haven't already—as your rantings would indicate.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: HumanKentipede on February 08, 2015, 12:47:12 AM
I'm sure by now that everybody will have noted that Björkman has again avoided addressing my earlier question:

—What's the name of this "bank" where you allegedly have your €1,000,000 deposited, and in which city is the bank?

Or can't you tell us simply because it's just another of your nonsensical fabrications?  Or dare I say lies?

You're consistently very, very light on any specific details about this money and/or its availability aren't you?  Why is that?  Because it's nothing more than a bluff intended to give your absurd claims a veneer of credibility.  As in "I'm so positive my theories are absolutely accurate that I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is".  Which, as any logician will tell you, is completely inconsequential and proves nothing.

Your continued struggle for credibility across the interwebs indicates nothing more than a super over-inflated ego, or a somewhat immature mindset.  You desperately need to get back in touch with reality my friend before your bizarre fantasies destroy you.  If they haven't already—as your rantings would indicate.
It's in Houston, Texas.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 08, 2015, 12:56:02 AM
It seems the thread has got off topic a little. Somebody claims that "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" and that is neither true nor possible because the person claiming "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has neither presented the required information, nor collected the money.

The money is still in the bank.

The rules of my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) . Both REs and FEs are welcome to try.

and that is neither true nor possible

So you admit that even with all the presented info, it's impossible to win? K

You have to read what I propose. My Challenges are very difficult to win.
Challenge 1 is to show that a top part C of a structure can crush bottom part A, when C is dropped on A. Normally A keeps C in place. A video showing A being destroyed by external means and C dropping down in the  dust and rubble doesn't win the Challenge. You have to show how C crushes A by gravity after having been dropped on A. Use a structure that does not produce smoke and dust when crushed.

Challenge 2 is to describe a space trip ending in landing on planet Earth. The landing is very difficult. Just to suggest that the space ship lands like an airplane shows that you are not serious. Airplanes do max 300 m/s in service. A space ship makes 7800 m/s in service and is very difficult to slow down. To suggest that the windows in a space ship are reinforced with tiles outside shows that you do not know anything about space ship design. Start with trying to slow down anything orbiting Earth and land it. It is in fact impossible unless you come up with some magic solution.

You have to be very smart to win my Challenges.
 
Another twirp wonders what bank keeps the money. Bank? I invest all my money in real estate and stocks. Only twirps use banks.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 08, 2015, 02:31:59 AM
All structures produce smoke and dust when destroyed......
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2015, 03:56:18 AM
All structures produce smoke and dust when destroyed......
All structures do not collapse top down at free fall speed.
What we have to believe goes against what you people keep pushing with your free fall arguments.

A 110 storey building falling to the ground at free fall speed, encountering no resistance whatsoever, even though each floor has to crush the one beneath it.

You're trying to tell people that an iron ball dropped from a 110 storey building will hit the ground at the same time as a building that falls one floor at a time to crush down.

That's like saying that i can walk through 110 open doors and you have to open each one, yet we both finish at the last door at the same time. It's not happening unless  another force comes into play to effect that free fall speed.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 08, 2015, 04:01:13 AM
Note that yet again, Björkman has avoided addressing my simple question...

—What's the name of this "bank" where you allegedly have your €1,000,000 deposited, and in which city is the bank?

This is simply even more evidence—if one needed more LOL—that the money simply doesn't exist, and never has.  Björkman is surely in line for a Nobel Prize in 'Lying and Obfuscation'.  And he'll walk it in I'm guessing LOL.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 08, 2015, 04:09:15 AM
All structures do not collapse top down at free fall speed.

You're obviously neglecting the effects of denpressure sceptimatic, which would vastly accelerate the downwards motion of the upper floors of the building.  Such huge vertical structures as were the WTC towers would experience massive forces due to denpressure acting over their entire surfaces.

I can only guess, but I'm thinking that Björkman is also forgetting to add denpressure into his computations, as he seems not to have factored in your earlier equation supporting its effects.  Could this fact throw serious doubt on the results of his final calculations?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 08, 2015, 04:17:30 AM
Just had a thought, dunny pressure must make tires go flat at the top. Old man Dunlop will be pissed about that.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2015, 04:21:32 AM
All structures do not collapse top down at free fall speed.

You're obviously neglecting the effects of denpressure sceptimatic, which would vastly accelerate the downwards motion of the upper floors of the building.  Such huge vertical structures as were the WTC towers would experience massive forces due to denpressure acting over their entire surfaces.

I can only guess, but I'm thinking that Björkman is also forgetting to add denpressure into his computations, as he seems not to have factored in your earlier equation supporting its effects.  Could this fact throw serious doubt on the results of his final calculations?
Harp on all you want. You are deliberately denying your own physics to stick to the mainstream model of anything.
I know that you know fine well that those buildings could not collapse like they did from the top down.
If the top 10 floors were the real structure stood on top of 100 floors of polystyrene, I'd be backing you up. Is that the case?...no it's not.

It's not happening unless it was prepped and demolished in a controlled manner.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2015, 04:23:14 AM
Just had a thought, dunny pressure must make tires go flat at the top. Old man Dunlop will be pissed about that.
This is the reason why you people are not scientists in any shape or form. You can't even grasp the basics.
You spend too much time simply copying what you need to know from the internet and then spewing it out without knowing anything about it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 08, 2015, 04:33:12 AM
You still have not explained why dunny pressure only pushes down.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2015, 05:31:39 AM
You still have not explained why dunny pressure only pushes down.
That's because it doesn't. It pushes back but you people just can't seem to understand it or refuse to. No wonder you'll never understand anything.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on February 08, 2015, 05:35:59 AM
All structures do not collapse top down at free fall speed.

You're obviously neglecting the effects of denpressure sceptimatic, which would vastly accelerate the downwards motion of the upper floors of the building.  Such huge vertical structures as were the WTC towers would experience massive forces due to denpressure acting over their entire surfaces.

I can only guess, but I'm thinking that Björkman is also forgetting to add denpressure into his computations, as he seems not to have factored in your earlier equation supporting its effects.  Could this fact throw serious doubt on the results of his final calculations?
Harp on all you want. You are deliberately denying your own physics to stick to the mainstream model of anything.
I know that you know fine well that those buildings could not collapse like they did from the top down.
If the top 10 floors were the real structure stood on top of 100 floors of polystyrene, I'd be backing you up. Is that the case?...no it's not.

It's not happening unless it was prepped and demolished in a controlled manner.

But the towers did not collapse at free fall speed.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 08, 2015, 05:46:43 AM
You still have not explained why dunny pressure only pushes down.
That's because it doesn't. It pushes back but you people just can't seem to understand it or refuse to. No wonder you'll never understand anything.

So if it pushes back on a falling object it goes up?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: kman on February 08, 2015, 06:41:53 AM
If the conspiracy really controls the whole world, you would think they wouldn't be stupid enough to make a fake terrorist attack thats physically impossible
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 08, 2015, 09:35:46 AM
If the conspiracy really controls the whole world, you would think they wouldn't be stupid enough to make a fake terrorist attack thats physically impossible

You'd think so wouldnt you?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: hoppy on February 08, 2015, 10:29:43 AM
If the conspiracy really controls the whole world, you would think they wouldn't be stupid enough to make a fake terrorist attack thats physically impossible

You'd think so wouldnt you?
They did it and control the media. They knew that you wouldn't be any trouble to convince of the impossible.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2015, 01:27:20 AM
All structures do not collapse top down at free fall speed.

You're obviously neglecting the effects of denpressure sceptimatic, which would vastly accelerate the downwards motion of the upper floors of the building.  Such huge vertical structures as were the WTC towers would experience massive forces due to denpressure acting over their entire surfaces.

I can only guess, but I'm thinking that Björkman is also forgetting to add denpressure into his computations, as he seems not to have factored in your earlier equation supporting its effects.  Could this fact throw serious doubt on the results of his final calculations?
Harp on all you want. You are deliberately denying your own physics to stick to the mainstream model of anything.
I know that you know fine well that those buildings could not collapse like they did from the top down.
If the top 10 floors were the real structure stood on top of 100 floors of polystyrene, I'd be backing you up. Is that the case?...no it's not.

It's not happening unless it was prepped and demolished in a controlled manner.

But the towers did not collapse at free fall speed.
By what we were shown on the TV, those towers fell at free fall speed. Now what we saw on the TV was fake but that's not the issue here. The issue is, they showed the towers falling at free fall speed.

How long would it take an iron ball dropped off one of those towers, to hit the ground?
How long did it take the buildings to fall to the ground?

What's the best and fastest way for a 110 storey ( steel framed) building to be rought to the ground?
Prep it with cutter charges after weakening the major structures. Put the cutter charges at an angle so the building walks one way then the other, like a zig zag at the same time as blowing all the other main structures in a timed (controlled) explosion from the bottom up allowing all floors to fall against little to no resistance.
This way you get close to free fall speed.

If that building collapsed from the top down after supposedly being hit by planes, the top part would have crushed a few floors before the top simply toppled over to the ground, leaving three quarters of that building still standing.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2015, 01:28:53 AM
You still have not explained why dunny pressure only pushes down.
That's because it doesn't. It pushes back but you people just can't seem to understand it or refuse to. No wonder you'll never understand anything.

So if it pushes back on a falling object it goes up?
Give me a shout when you're capable of using your brain without trying to fight like a kid.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2015, 01:34:01 AM
If the conspiracy really controls the whole world, you would think they wouldn't be stupid enough to make a fake terrorist attack thats physically impossible
They're far from stupid. These people are genius. Literally genius. They don't make errors that they don't have contingency plans for.
The sheep are sheep. The sheep are grazing. You can literally stand in front of a crowd and throw in a harmless smoke grenade, then 1 day later tell that same crowd that the grenade that was thrown was tear gas.

Now go and interview those people and tell them this and they will explain how their eyes were stinging.
You can make people believe anything by a little coaxing or altering a story into something completely different.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 09, 2015, 01:38:15 AM
You still have not explained why dunny pressure only pushes down.
That's because it doesn't. It pushes back but you people just can't seem to understand it or refuse to. No wonder you'll never understand anything.

So if it pushes back on a falling object it goes up?
Give me a shout when you're capable of using your brain without trying to fight like a kid.

Get real septic just tell me how dunny pressure knows which way is down. And then prove it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2015, 01:41:34 AM
You still have not explained why dunny pressure only pushes down.
That's because it doesn't. It pushes back but you people just can't seem to understand it or refuse to. No wonder you'll never understand anything.

So if it pushes back on a falling object it goes up?
Give me a shout when you're capable of using your brain without trying to fight like a kid.

Get real septic just tell me how dunny pressure knows which way is down. And then prove it.
Nah, not in this topic. Come back to me when you stop flapping about like a screaming kid. Oh and enagage your brain as well.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 09, 2015, 01:43:31 AM
Does that mean you don't know.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 09, 2015, 02:06:58 AM
Does that mean you don't know.

So you really don't know.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 09, 2015, 02:19:26 AM
Look's like the word proof shuts you up. wish I used is a long time ago. Come on turkey prove some of your snot.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 09, 2015, 04:40:12 AM
If the conspiracy really controls the whole world, you would think they wouldn't be stupid enough to make a fake terrorist attack thats physically impossible
They're far from stupid. These people are genius. Literally genius. They don't make errors that they don't have contingency plans for.
The sheep are sheep. The sheep are grazing. You can literally stand in front of a crowd and throw in a harmless smoke grenade, then 1 day later tell that same crowd that the grenade that was thrown was tear gas.

Now go and interview those people and tell them this and they will explain how their eyes were stinging.
You can make people believe anything by a little coaxing or altering a story into something completely different.

And yet somehow people like you, who are incapable of understanding basic science, have managed to see through the genius plot.....

That's me convinced......
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on February 09, 2015, 04:55:33 AM
All structures do not collapse top down at free fall speed.

You're obviously neglecting the effects of denpressure sceptimatic, which would vastly accelerate the downwards motion of the upper floors of the building.  Such huge vertical structures as were the WTC towers would experience massive forces due to denpressure acting over their entire surfaces.

I can only guess, but I'm thinking that Björkman is also forgetting to add denpressure into his computations, as he seems not to have factored in your earlier equation supporting its effects.  Could this fact throw serious doubt on the results of his final calculations?
Harp on all you want. You are deliberately denying your own physics to stick to the mainstream model of anything.
I know that you know fine well that those buildings could not collapse like they did from the top down.
If the top 10 floors were the real structure stood on top of 100 floors of polystyrene, I'd be backing you up. Is that the case?...no it's not.

It's not happening unless it was prepped and demolished in a controlled manner.

But the towers did not collapse at free fall speed.
By what we were shown on the TV, those towers fell at free fall speed. Now what we saw on the TV was fake but that's not the issue here. The issue is, they showed the towers falling at free fall speed.

How long would it take an iron ball dropped off one of those towers, to hit the ground?
How long did it take the buildings to fall to the ground?

What's the best and fastest way for a 110 storey ( steel framed) building to be rought to the ground?
Prep it with cutter charges after weakening the major structures. Put the cutter charges at an angle so the building walks one way then the other, like a zig zag at the same time as blowing all the other main structures in a timed (controlled) explosion from the bottom up allowing all floors to fall against little to no resistance.
This way you get close to free fall speed.

If that building collapsed from the top down after supposedly being hit by planes, the top part would have crushed a few floors before the top simply toppled over to the ground, leaving three quarters of that building still standing.

But it took almost double free fall speed.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2015, 06:25:53 AM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 09, 2015, 06:41:18 AM
Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
So when are you going to pay these guys?
Top-Down building collapse 2 (http://#)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 09, 2015, 06:57:02 AM
Note that for the third time I've asked, Björkman has avoided addressing this simple question.  I wonder why?  Not.

—What's the name of this "bank" where you allegedly have your €1,000,000 deposited, and in which city is the bank?

The answer is now even more than obvious—as if we didn't already know LOL.

The money simply doesn't exist, and never has.  Björkman has once again been exposed as the inveterate liar that he is.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on February 09, 2015, 07:24:55 AM
—What's the name of this "bank" where you allegedly have your €1,000,000 deposited, and in which city is the bank?

[AusGeoff] wonders what bank keeps the money. Bank? I invest all my money in real estate and stocks. Only twirps use banks.

Take a deep breath and read his posts from time to time.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 09, 2015, 08:24:36 AM
Take a deep breath and read his posts from time to time.

I do, and I've also read his "challenge" posted on his web pages—as much as they hurt my eyes LOL.

He says several times on those pages:  "Money is evidently available in the bank."  (Evidently: —adverb: without question; clearly; undoubtedly; to all appearances.)

He also says on this forum:  "The money is still in the bank" and "I have still the €1M in my pocket".

After a couple of grillings by me, he suddenly claims that "I invest all my money in real estate and stocks".

Like all his other lies, this is just another—admittedly—minor example of his ad hoc excuses and inconsistencies of fact.  He simply swamps any of his critics—and there's literally thousands of them LOL—with a plethora of disinformation, misrepresentation, distortions of fact, engineering falsities, a combination of bogus references and citations to non-existent authorities, and blatant lies and untruths.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 09, 2015, 09:36:33 AM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.

Fail. Each floor of WTC was effectively identical all the way to the base of the structure where the larger foyers and concourses were. The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

You still display an amazing ignorance of basic engineering. Tall buildings are fantastic at holding static loads but as soon as the load becomes dynamic (ie moving) they struggle. If just one floor of the WTC collapses the increase in load on the floors below is around three orders of magnitude higher.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2015, 10:19:32 AM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.

Fail. Each floor of WTC was effectively identical all the way to the base of the structure where the larger foyers and concourses were. The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

You still display an amazing ignorance of basic engineering. Tall buildings are fantastic at holding static loads but as soon as the load becomes dynamic (ie moving) they struggle. If just one floor of the WTC collapses the increase in load on the floors below is around three orders of magnitude higher.
The mere fact that you said that in bold and then call Heiwa ignorant, just makes you ultra ignorant.
You are clueless.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 09, 2015, 11:12:13 AM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.

Wait. JFK and LBJ and the USA network all supported the 9-11 terrorist? That's as amazing as you ignoring the multiple independent reports by highly qualifed engineers saying how the wtc fell.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 09, 2015, 11:15:49 AM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.

Fail. Each floor of WTC was effectively identical all the way to the base of the structure where the larger foyers and concourses were. The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

You still display an amazing ignorance of basic engineering. Tall buildings are fantastic at holding static loads but as soon as the load becomes dynamic (ie moving) they struggle. If just one floor of the WTC collapses the increase in load on the floors below is around three orders of magnitude higher.
The mere fact that you said that in bold and then call Heiwa ignorant, just makes you ultra ignorant.
You are clueless.

Go on then show where I am wrong.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2015, 11:34:29 AM
Take a deep breath and read his posts from time to time.He says several times on those pages:  "Money is evidently available in the bank."  (Evidently: —adverb: without question; clearly; undoubtedly; to all appearances.)

He also says on this forum:  "The money is still in the bank" and "I have still the €1M in my pocket".


I do, and I've also read his "challenge" posted on his web pages—as much as they hurt my eyes LOL.


After a couple of grillings by me, he suddenly claims that "I invest all my money in real estate and stocks".

Like all his other lies, this is just another—admittedly—minor example of his ad hoc excuses and inconsistencies of fact.  He simply swamps any of his critics—and there's literally thousands of them LOL—with a plethora of disinformation, misrepresentation, distortions of fact, engineering falsities, a combination of bogus references and citations to non-existent authorities, and blatant lies and untruths.

Hm, my money and the €1M is evidently part of my investments in real estate/stocks, etc. I only use banks to transfer money from S to W, if necessary
So if  "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" really won my Challenge, the person must inform me his bank style, etc, and I will transfer the money, unless she/he/it comes to collect it at my place.

PS .. ausGeoff - you are a useless, shitty twirp - don't you agree? I feel sorry for your parents.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

Any structure A entered in my Challenge at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) must be able to support the top C statically.

Then ... the Challenge ...  is just to disconnect top C from A and drop it on A and to show that C crushes A.

If you can do it I will give you €1M.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 09, 2015, 11:42:37 AM
PS .. ausGeoff - you are a useless, shitty twirp - don't you agree? I feel sorry for your parents.

LOL... I'm pleased to see that I'm still getting under this guy's skin. 

Apparently he's now so embarrassed by my constantly pointing out his various lies and deceptions, he's resorted to..... wait for it guys..... puerile schoolyard bullying!

Wow!  What a hero!  What an intellectual giant!!!

BTW Björkman, at least I know who my parents are.   :P
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2015, 11:44:52 AM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.

Fail. Each floor of WTC was effectively identical all the way to the base of the structure where the larger foyers and concourses were. The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

You still display an amazing ignorance of basic engineering. Tall buildings are fantastic at holding static loads but as soon as the load becomes dynamic (ie moving) they struggle. If just one floor of the WTC collapses the increase in load on the floors below is around three orders of magnitude higher.

Hm. Evidently all floors are identical. They are there just to walk on, etc.
Only the walls differ.
The walls in the bottom are much stronger than those at the top.
But you can still hang a picture on them.

Thanks for promoting my web site http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) . Even if I do not really need it.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 09, 2015, 11:46:49 AM
The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

Any structure A entered in my Challenge at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) must be able to support the top C statically.

Then ... the Challenge ...  is just to disconnect top C from A and drop it on A and to show that C crushes A.

If you can do it I will give you €1M.

How about your second challenge about the Apollo missions that I did?  Did I miss something or are you simply denying that I won?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 09, 2015, 11:54:49 AM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.

Fail. Each floor of WTC was effectively identical all the way to the base of the structure where the larger foyers and concourses were. The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

You still display an amazing ignorance of basic engineering. Tall buildings are fantastic at holding static loads but as soon as the load becomes dynamic (ie moving) they struggle. If just one floor of the WTC collapses the increase in load on the floors below is around three orders of magnitude higher.

Hm. Evidently all floors are identical. They are there just to walk on, etc.
Only the walls differ.
The walls in the bottom are much stronger than those at the top.
But you can still hang a picture on them.

Thanks for promoting my web site http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) . Even if I do not really need it.

So, lets use your number of the bottom being 100x stronger than the top, (its not, the bottom steel thickness was 4 inches vs a couple inches at the top) are you refuting that the bottom of the structure is under 100x the pressure and load as the top and therefore has the same margin of failure as any other portion of the building when the load it is carrying goes from static to kinetic?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2015, 06:18:58 PM
The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

Any structure A entered in my Challenge at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) must be able to support the top C statically.

Then ... the Challenge ...  is just to disconnect top C from A and drop it on A and to show that C crushes A.

If you can do it I will give you €1M.

How about your second challenge about the Apollo missions that I did?  Did I miss something or are you simply denying that I won?

You failed. You referred to some software you said could do the calculations and suggested the writers of the software should get €1M. But the software could not do the calculations. And we don't know the writers!
And you also need a spaceship to do any trip. The software didn't describe it.
Easiest is to copy paste all NASA info of Apollo 11 but ... it is a mess. Haven't you read my analysis of the Apollo 11 trip based on NASA data? It does not add up - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm) . I like the religious end of the Apollo 11 trip with Tricky Dick praying on the deck of some air craft carrier. Pathetic!
 
You have to do much better to win my Challenge 2.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2015, 06:29:00 PM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.

Fail. Each floor of WTC was effectively identical all the way to the base of the structure where the larger foyers and concourses were. The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

You still display an amazing ignorance of basic engineering. Tall buildings are fantastic at holding static loads but as soon as the load becomes dynamic (ie moving) they struggle. If just one floor of the WTC collapses the increase in load on the floors below is around three orders of magnitude higher.

Hm. Evidently all floors are identical. They are there just to walk on, etc.
Only the walls differ.
The walls in the bottom are much stronger than those at the top.
But you can still hang a picture on them.

Thanks for promoting my web site http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) . Even if I do not really need it.

So, lets use your number of the bottom being 100x stronger than the top, (its not, the bottom steel thickness was 4 inches vs a couple inches at the top) are you refuting that the bottom of the structure is under 100x the pressure and load as the top and therefore has the same margin of failure as any other portion of the building when the load it is carrying goes from static to kinetic?

Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 09, 2015, 06:44:38 PM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2015, 09:06:24 PM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on February 09, 2015, 09:07:43 PM
from that masterpiece of mine

lolno
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 09, 2015, 10:16:55 PM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 09, 2015, 11:23:46 PM


But it took almost double free fall speed.

Topic is of course "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" where the Challenge is to drop top C of any structure A, so that C crushes A ... at any speed. If it is done at free fall speed or half free fall speed or quarter free fall speed is thus not important.
The twirp stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" has not been able to crush anything from top down at any speed so far.
Actually only terrorists maintain that structures can collapse from top ... at any speed ... where weak top C crushes strong bottom A. How it is done is terrorist magic, i.e. better kept secret.
But the terrorists are supported by CIA, FBI, JFK, LBJ, CNN, FOX, CBI, ABC, USA, DHS, DoD, etc, so don't worry.

Fail. Each floor of WTC was effectively identical all the way to the base of the structure where the larger foyers and concourses were. The top was not any weaker or stronger than the bottom.

You still display an amazing ignorance of basic engineering. Tall buildings are fantastic at holding static loads but as soon as the load becomes dynamic (ie moving) they struggle. If just one floor of the WTC collapses the increase in load on the floors below is around three orders of magnitude higher.

Hm. Evidently all floors are identical. They are there just to walk on, etc.
Only the walls differ.
The walls in the bottom are much stronger than those at the top.
But you can still hang a picture on them.

Thanks for promoting my web site http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) . Even if I do not really need it.

So, lets use your number of the bottom being 100x stronger than the top, (its not, the bottom steel thickness was 4 inches vs a couple inches at the top) are you refuting that the bottom of the structure is under 100x the pressure and load as the top and therefore has the same margin of failure as any other portion of the building when the load it is carrying goes from static to kinetic?

Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.
Wow. A stack of solider all weights would definately give an accurate simulation of a building built girders and struts......
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2015, 11:30:50 PM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?

Yes, it is a fact that structural members of, e.g. steel, deform both staticly and dynamicly under different static and dynamic loads and I describe how for a 110 floors tower.
The foundations of the WTC 1/2 towers were designed to handle the static loads of 110 floors and, e.g. wind forces acting on the perimeters, etc. The static vertical deformations are considerable and the lateral deformations due to wind are also noticeable.

I also show what happens if, for any reasons, you remove all supports between floors 92 and 93 and allow the top C above floor 93 to drop on the structure A below floor 92. The result is, apart from local deformations in the interface floors 92/93 at the impact, that the top C bounces on the big strong bottom part A and remains up top.

Only terrorists believe otherwise.   

If you can prove me wrong and the terrorists right, you'll win my Challenge 1 and I give you €1M.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on February 09, 2015, 11:52:33 PM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?

Yes, it is a fact that structural members of, e.g. steel, deform both staticly and dynamicly under different static and dynamic loads and I describe how for a 110 floors tower.
The foundations of the WTC 1/2 towers were designed to handle the static loads of 110 floors and, e.g. wind forces acting on the perimeters, etc. The static vertical deformations are considerable and the lateral deformations due to wind are also noticeable.

I also show what happens if, for any reasons, you remove all supports between floors 92 and 93 and allow the top C above floor 93 to drop on the structure A below floor 92. The result is, apart from local deformations in the interface floors 92/93 at the impact, that the top C bounces on the big strong bottom part A and remains up top.

Only terrorists believe otherwise.   

If you can prove me wrong and the terrorists right, you'll win my Challenge 1 and I give you €1M.
On account that the World Trade Centers collapsed in such a way as you say is impossible, you are wrong.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 10, 2015, 04:40:09 AM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?

Yes, it is a fact that structural members of, e.g. steel, deform both staticly and dynamicly under different static and dynamic loads and I describe how for a 110 floors tower.
The foundations of the WTC 1/2 towers were designed to handle the static loads of 110 floors and, e.g. wind forces acting on the perimeters, etc. The static vertical deformations are considerable and the lateral deformations due to wind are also noticeable.

I also show what happens if, for any reasons, you remove all supports between floors 92 and 93 and allow the top C above floor 93 to drop on the structure A below floor 92. The result is, apart from local deformations in the interface floors 92/93 at the impact, that the top C bounces on the big strong bottom part A and remains up top.

Only terrorists believe otherwise.   

If you can prove me wrong and the terrorists right, you'll win my Challenge 1 and I give you €1M.

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 10, 2015, 04:53:29 AM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?

Yes, it is a fact that structural members of, e.g. steel, deform both staticly and dynamicly under different static and dynamic loads and I describe how for a 110 floors tower.
The foundations of the WTC 1/2 towers were designed to handle the static loads of 110 floors and, e.g. wind forces acting on the perimeters, etc. The static vertical deformations are considerable and the lateral deformations due to wind are also noticeable.

I also show what happens if, for any reasons, you remove all supports between floors 92 and 93 and allow the top C above floor 93 to drop on the structure A below floor 92. The result is, apart from local deformations in the interface floors 92/93 at the impact, that the top C bounces on the big strong bottom part A and remains up top.

Only terrorists believe otherwise.   

If you can prove me wrong and the terrorists right, you'll win my Challenge 1 and I give you €1M.
On account that the World Trade Centers collapsed in such a way as you say is impossible, you are wrong.

Prove it!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 10, 2015, 05:03:27 AM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?

Yes, it is a fact that structural members of, e.g. steel, deform both staticly and dynamicly under different static and dynamic loads and I describe how for a 110 floors tower.
The foundations of the WTC 1/2 towers were designed to handle the static loads of 110 floors and, e.g. wind forces acting on the perimeters, etc. The static vertical deformations are considerable and the lateral deformations due to wind are also noticeable.

I also show what happens if, for any reasons, you remove all supports between floors 92 and 93 and allow the top C above floor 93 to drop on the structure A below floor 92. The result is, apart from local deformations in the interface floors 92/93 at the impact, that the top C bounces on the big strong bottom part A and remains up top.

Only terrorists believe otherwise.   

If you can prove me wrong and the terrorists right, you'll win my Challenge 1 and I give you €1M.

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?

You really have to study my scientific paper linked to above.

The structure A of the tower below floor 92 can evidently carry the top C before statically+ windforces acting on the whole structure.

Now, if you disconnect top C from bottom A and drop C on A, there will be a collision between C and A. BANG! An impact. It lasts maybe a second. And what happens after that?

Does top C suddenly crush bottom A at high speed?  According terrorists like GWB, Condileezza Rice it happens.

According my analysis it does not happen. No . C should just bounce on A.

The force that bottom A applied on top C at the impact did it. The force that A applied on top C at impact resulted in C bouncing on A.

If you see/saw something else on TV it was Disneyworld! Fantasyland!

I really urge you to try to win my Challenge and collect €1M.

 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Arith on February 10, 2015, 05:06:05 AM
If you see/saw something else on TV it was Disneyworld! Fantasyland!
I really urge you to try to win my Challenge and collect €1M.

Otherwise known as reality to the vast majority of people. Countless eye witnesses, no hint of a conspiracy except from nutters like you.

I don't think anyone really WANTS to take you up on your challenge unless the goalposts are firmly cemented in place. Proof of prize would be nice too.. until then, you're just a raving lunatic with no proof and a terrible website. Oh and a terrorist. Almost forgot that one.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 10, 2015, 05:08:21 AM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?

Yes, it is a fact that structural members of, e.g. steel, deform both staticly and dynamicly under different static and dynamic loads and I describe how for a 110 floors tower.
The foundations of the WTC 1/2 towers were designed to handle the static loads of 110 floors and, e.g. wind forces acting on the perimeters, etc. The static vertical deformations are considerable and the lateral deformations due to wind are also noticeable.

I also show what happens if, for any reasons, you remove all supports between floors 92 and 93 and allow the top C above floor 93 to drop on the structure A below floor 92. The result is, apart from local deformations in the interface floors 92/93 at the impact, that the top C bounces on the big strong bottom part A and remains up top.

Only terrorists believe otherwise.   

If you can prove me wrong and the terrorists right, you'll win my Challenge 1 and I give you €1M.

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?

You really have to study my scientific paper linked to above.

The structure A of the tower below floor 92 can evidently carry the top C before statically+ windforces acting on the whole structure.

Now, if you disconnect top C from bottom A and drop C on A, there will be a collision between C and A. BANG! An impact. It lasts maybe a second. And what happens after that?

Does top C suddenly crush bottom A at high speed?  According terrorists like GWB, Condileezza Rice it happens.

According my analysis it does not happen. No . C should just bounce on A.

The force that bottom A applied on top C at the impact did it. The force that A applied on top C at impact resulted in C bouncing on A.

If you see/saw something else on TV it was Disneyworld! Fantasyland!

I really urge you to try to win my Challenge and collect €1M.

I repeat:

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 10, 2015, 05:20:16 AM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?

Yes, it is a fact that structural members of, e.g. steel, deform both staticly and dynamicly under different static and dynamic loads and I describe how for a 110 floors tower.
The foundations of the WTC 1/2 towers were designed to handle the static loads of 110 floors and, e.g. wind forces acting on the perimeters, etc. The static vertical deformations are considerable and the lateral deformations due to wind are also noticeable.

I also show what happens if, for any reasons, you remove all supports between floors 92 and 93 and allow the top C above floor 93 to drop on the structure A below floor 92. The result is, apart from local deformations in the interface floors 92/93 at the impact, that the top C bounces on the big strong bottom part A and remains up top.

Only terrorists believe otherwise.   

If you can prove me wrong and the terrorists right, you'll win my Challenge 1 and I give you €1M.

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?

You really have to study my scientific paper linked to above.

The structure A of the tower below floor 92 can evidently carry the top C before statically+ windforces acting on the whole structure.

Now, if you disconnect top C from bottom A and drop C on A, there will be a collision between C and A. BANG! An impact. It lasts maybe a second. And what happens after that?

Does top C suddenly crush bottom A at high speed?  According terrorists like GWB, Condileezza Rice it happens.

According my analysis it does not happen. No . C should just bounce on A.

The force that bottom A applied on top C at the impact did it. The force that A applied on top C at impact resulted in C bouncing on A.

If you see/saw something else on TV it was Disneyworld! Fantasyland!

I really urge you to try to win my Challenge and collect €1M.

I repeat:

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?


You really have to study my scientific paper linked to above.

The structure A of the tower below floor 92 can evidently carry the top C before statically+ windforces acting on the whole structure.

Now, if you disconnect top C from bottom A and drop C on A, there will be a collision between C and A. BANG! An impact. It lasts maybe a second. And what happens after that?

Does top C suddenly crush bottom A at high speed?  According terrorists like GWB, Condileezza Rice it happens.

According my analysis it does not happen. No . C should just bounce on A.

The force that bottom A applied on top C at the impact did it. The force that A applied on top C at impact resulted in C bouncing on A.

If you see/saw something else on TV it was Disneyworld! Fantasyland!

I really urge you to try to win my Challenge and collect €1M.

PS When top C floors 93-110 impacts bottom A, the forces applied by C on A equals the forces applied by A on C.
It is balance. It is equilibrium. All the time until the forces are reduced to static equilibrium.

If anything should collapse at the impact, it is of course the weak top C. It should collapse like a house of cards but ... I suggest C just bounces.
Strong bottom A will always remain intact.

Only terrorists suggest the opposite.

Are you a terrorist?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 10, 2015, 05:44:17 AM
Answer the questions Heiwa.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 10, 2015, 06:25:41 AM
Any proof that is provided you will claim is faked, so what is the point in attempting your challenge?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 10, 2015, 06:35:46 AM
Prove it!

We don't have to "disprove" your nonsensical 9/11 claims Björkman.  More than 100 qualified structural engineers with PhDs (and not just glorified boat mechanics with dubious 40-year-old, out-of-date qualifications) have effectively already done so.

Why should anybody waste their time simply to prove any/all of your hypotheses as being demonstrably erroneous?  I'm sure most of us have far better things to do with our time than continually argue the toss with some self-styled  but enormously delusional "expert" on matters structural who's never designed a multi-story building beyond the level of a two-level chicken coop.

    ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 06:44:45 AM
What about the structural engineers and demolition experts that have proved the opposite of what the official story told. Do they not count in this?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 10, 2015, 06:51:19 AM
What about the structural engineers and demolition experts that have proved the opposite of what the official story told. Do they not count in this?

Go septic. Bloody good on you man.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 10, 2015, 07:12:20 AM


I repeat:

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?

OK - assume that the mass of top C (floors 93-110) is m kg. With a factor of safety 3 the structure A, i.e. floors 0-92 can handle 3m kg. It means that top C safely rests on bottom A.

Do you agree?

The force F that impacted floor 92 when top C impacted bottom A was about 9.82m N(ewton). At the same time bottom A applied a force -F on top C so that equilibrium was maintained.

The amount of energy (Joule) involved at the impact is more interesting than the force F. I explain it in detail in my scientific paper in the link given above.  The energy depends on the velocity of C at impact. The velocity of A is evidently 0.

The energy is absorbed as deformations of C and A at impact. As C is much weaker than A, C is destroyed first.

It means that top C cannot ever destroy bottom A.

Bottom A always destroys top C first.

It is the famous Björkman Axiom!

Terrorists like Condoleezza Rice do not like it. But she is gone, finished, unhappy, a twirp.

Applied to WTC 1/2 on 911 the tops can only bounce on the bottoms with some local deformations in between. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 10, 2015, 07:14:46 AM
What about the structural engineers and demolition experts that have proved the opposite of what the official story told. Do they not count in this?

Go septic. Bloody good on you man.

I read too quick, just more of your bulldust. I just for one second thought you said something real. Sorry for over estimating you 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: BJ1234 on February 10, 2015, 07:38:52 AM
Yes, let's use my numbers. If you put 100 masses of 1 kg on top of each other, there is no load on the uppermost one (except the air above) and the load on the support of the bottom one is 100 kg or about 982 N.

Now if you drop the 10 top masses (10 kg) - part C - and drop them on the 90 bottom masses (90 kg) - part A - you will find that C bounces on A. Try it!
Since you are the one making this claim, why don't you show us your experimental evidence?  Surely you have the resources to perform such an experiment, don't you?

I explain it scientifically at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .

Suggest you copy/paste text that you consider wrong from that masterpiece of mine and propose improvements.

So you assume the building was designed with the forethought to be able to handle large differing dynamic loads as well as static loads?

Yes, it is a fact that structural members of, e.g. steel, deform both staticly and dynamicly under different static and dynamic loads and I describe how for a 110 floors tower.
The foundations of the WTC 1/2 towers were designed to handle the static loads of 110 floors and, e.g. wind forces acting on the perimeters, etc. The static vertical deformations are considerable and the lateral deformations due to wind are also noticeable.

I also show what happens if, for any reasons, you remove all supports between floors 92 and 93 and allow the top C above floor 93 to drop on the structure A below floor 92. The result is, apart from local deformations in the interface floors 92/93 at the impact, that the top C bounces on the big strong bottom part A and remains up top.

Only terrorists believe otherwise.   

If you can prove me wrong and the terrorists right, you'll win my Challenge 1 and I give you €1M.
On account that the World Trade Centers collapsed in such a way as you say is impossible, you are wrong.

Prove it!
Been to NYC before 9/11 and after 9/11 the WTC was there before, not after.  The videos show the buildings collapse in exactly the way you say is impossible.  This includes official news footage, and amature video.  I believe your Challenge is lost.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 10, 2015, 07:43:08 AM
It is the famous Björkman Axiom!

You are not famous.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2015, 08:00:55 AM
What about the structural engineers and demolition experts that have proved the opposite of what the official story told. Do they not count in this?

Go septic. Bloody good on you man.

I read too quick, just more of your bulldust. I just for one second thought you said something real. Sorry for over estimating you
That's ok, I knew you would realise it. It gave me a bit of a chuckle and I bet it did to you as well.
The question still stands though.

What about the structural engineers and demolition experts that have proved the opposite of what the official story told. Do they not count in this?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 10, 2015, 08:03:05 AM


I repeat:

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?

OK - assume that the mass of top C (floors 93-110) is m kg. With a factor of safety 3 the structure A, i.e. floors 0-92 can handle 3m kg. It means that top C safely rests on bottom A.

Do you agree?

The force F that impacted floor 92 when top C impacted bottom A was about 9.82m N(ewton). At the same time bottom A applied a force -F on top C so that equilibrium was maintained.

The amount of energy (Joule) involved at the impact is more interesting than the force F. I explain it in detail in my scientific paper in the link given above.  The energy depends on the velocity of C at impact. The velocity of A is evidently 0.

The energy is absorbed as deformations of C and A at impact. As C is much weaker than A, C is destroyed first.

It means that top C cannot ever destroy bottom A.

Bottom A always destroys top C first.

It is the famous Björkman Axiom!

Terrorists like Condoleezza Rice do not like it. But she is gone, finished, unhappy, a twirp.

Applied to WTC 1/2 on 911 the tops can only bounce on the bottoms with some local deformations in between.

I love how he starts with already fuzzy math, but then just drops the fuzzy math half way through and starts making general statements and made up shit.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: guv on February 10, 2015, 08:28:06 AM
What about the structural engineers and demolition experts that have proved the opposite of what the official story told. Do they not count in this?

Go septic. Bloody good on you man.

I read too quick, just more of your bulldust. I just for one second thought you said something real. Sorry for over estimating you
That's ok, I knew you would realise it. It gave me a bit of a chuckle and I bet it did to you as well.
The question still stands though.

What about the structural engineers and demolition experts that have proved the opposite of what the official story told. Do they not count in this?


As you well know the truth is flexible, I think those buildings fell just like were told, but the knights in their suits of flax and cotton have taken all our rights as written in the magna carta away because terrorism is sooo dangermouse. The wankers have just traded suits of steel for the faggot clothes they were now. nothing has changed since robin hood times except we have no robin. live with it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 10, 2015, 08:39:45 AM
It is the famous Björkman Axiom!
You are not famous.
LOL... Björkman is actually "famous".  But for all the wrong reasons.  Next to Alex Jones (http://bit.ly/nOULmH), the mentally-challenged Anders makes Alex look like Einstein.

    ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on February 10, 2015, 09:08:37 AM


I repeat:

What is the maximum load that floors below 92 can handle?

What force impacted floor 92 when floors 93-110 hit?

OK - assume that the mass of top C (floors 93-110) is m kg. With a factor of safety 3 the structure A, i.e. floors 0-92 can handle 3m kg. It means that top C safely rests on bottom A.

Do you agree?

The force F that impacted floor 92 when top C impacted bottom A was about 9.82m N(ewton). At the same time bottom A applied a force -F on top C so that equilibrium was maintained.

The amount of energy (Joule) involved at the impact is more interesting than the force F. I explain it in detail in my scientific paper in the link given above.  The energy depends on the velocity of C at impact. The velocity of A is evidently 0.

The energy is absorbed as deformations of C and A at impact. As C is much weaker than A, C is destroyed first.

It means that top C cannot ever destroy bottom A.

Bottom A always destroys top C first.

It is the famous Björkman Axiom!

Terrorists like Condoleezza Rice do not like it. But she is gone, finished, unhappy, a twirp.

Applied to WTC 1/2 on 911 the tops can only bounce on the bottoms with some local deformations in between.

I love how he starts with already fuzzy math, but then just drops the fuzzy math half way through and starts making general statements and made up shit.

This is exactly what he gets raked over the coals for when he talks with real engineers: using assumptions when it is a real world problem which he can source actual numbers for.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 10, 2015, 09:32:44 AM
It is the famous Björkman Axiom!
You are not famous.
LOL... Björkman is actually "famous".  But for all the wrong reasons.  Next to Alex Jones (http://bit.ly/nOULmH), the mentally-challenged Anders makes Alex look like Einstein.

    ;D

Hm, if you ask Google about Björkman's axiom you get about 293,000 results (0.37 seconds) = the axiom is famous and much debated since many years. Many twirps try to participate in the discussion and are just jealous making fools of themselves.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on February 10, 2015, 09:39:49 AM
Hmm.  If you ask Google about Rama Set Axiom you get 7,410,000 results (0.60 sec) = I am 25,000 times more famous than you. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Pavarotti on February 10, 2015, 10:16:35 AM
Hmm.  If you ask Google about Rama Set Axiom you get 7,410,000 results (0.60 sec) = I am 25,000 times more famous than you.

Pavarotti Set Axiom gets me about 4 270 000 results, I am saddened, I really thought I'll be more famous  :'(
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 10, 2015, 10:25:10 AM
Hm, if you ask Google about Björkman's axiom you get about 293,000 results (0.37 seconds) = the axiom is famous and much debated since many years. Many twirps try to participate in the discussion and are just jealous making fools of themselves.

LOL... that may be the case, but don't you understand that most of those linked sites are laughing at you and calling you out as the moron you seem to be?

I quote from only the second site on the very first page of results as an example....

Quote
The guy is insane.

Is it any wonder that we would call his credibility into question we he says stuff like "If you drop a 60 million pound block of ice on a building, the building won't be crushed"

And

"If you jump on a scale, it will constantly report the same weight"

or

"Mass and weight are the same thing"

I'm sorry, but I'm not taking physics lessons from a guy that doesn't understand the difference between weight and mass.

—And there's hundreds more just like that.    ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mastermind on February 10, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
It is the famous Björkman Axiom!
You are not famous.
LOL... Björkman is actually "famous".  But for all the wrong reasons.  Next to Alex Jones (http://bit.ly/nOULmH), the mentally-challenged Anders makes Alex look like Einstein.

    ;D

Hm, if you ask Google about Björkman's axiom you get about 293,000 results (0.37 seconds) = the axiom is famous and much debated since many years. Many twirps try to participate in the discussion and are just jealous making fools of themselves.

Are you really that deluded that you see 293,000 results and think they're all about you? By the second page of a 'Björkman's axiom' Google search a load of unrelated material is already starting to appear, and by the third almost no references to you whatsoever. The links that are a direct hit tend to be other conspiracy forums where you tend to be, on the whole, berated and ridiculed, or for all the wrong reasons as Geoff puts it. Your reach does not go any further than this subculture by the looks of it. In fact, I think even I have more direct hits on Google than you, and that was for being rather good at Mario kart 64 10 years ago, but I don't go around telling people I'm famous when only competitive Mario Karters know of me. Shameless plug aside, not even Wikipedia has heard of you, but it does know of another 'Anders Björkman' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Bj%C3%B6rkman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Bj%C3%B6rkman)), unless this is you?

Conclusion: You're not even those most famous Anders Björkman!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 10, 2015, 11:01:00 AM
Even Johann Joachim Becher—he of the phlogiston theory—has a 2 page entry in Wikipedia LOL.

Poor old Björkman can't even rate 2 lines there!

The guy's a loser for sure.    ;D

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 10, 2015, 11:23:42 AM
It is the famous Björkman Axiom!
You are not famous.
LOL... Björkman is actually "famous".  But for all the wrong reasons.  Next to Alex Jones (http://bit.ly/nOULmH), the mentally-challenged Anders makes Alex look like Einstein.

    ;D

Hm, if you ask Google about Björkman's axiom you get about 293,000 results (0.37 seconds) = the axiom is famous and much debated since many years. Many twirps try to participate in the discussion and are just jealous making fools of themselves.

Are you really that deluded that you see 293,000 results and think they're all about you? By the second page of a 'Björkman's axiom' Google search a load of unrelated material is already starting to appear, and by the third almost no references to you whatsoever. The links that are a direct hit tend to be other conspiracy forums where you tend to be, on the whole, berated and ridiculed, or for all the wrong reasons as Geoff puts it. Your reach does not go any further than this subculture by the looks of it. In fact, I think even I have more direct hits on Google than you, and that was for being rather good at Mario kart 64 10 years ago, but I don't go around telling people I'm famous when only competitive Mario Karters know of me. Shameless plug aside, not even Wikipedia has heard of you, but it does know of another 'Anders Björkman' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Bj%C3%B6rkman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Bj%C3%B6rkman)), unless this is you?

Conclusion: You're not even those most famous Anders Björkman!
No, I just mentioned in passing that Google links to me and my Axiom and plenty FEF twirps get upset about it. As expected. There are 100's of Anders Björkmans around too without Axiom - popular names - but what to do. I am the only one with an Axiom.

Anyway, the topic is "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" and I am happy to see that I have still the money in my pocket so you have still a chance to win it, if you are clever.

Try to avoid making stupid comments - just try to be on topic.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 10, 2015, 11:29:09 AM
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 10, 2015, 12:30:30 PM
No, I just mentioned in passing that Google links to me and my Axiom and plenty FEF twirps get upset about it.

LOL... but not one single entry in Wikipedia?  Even "Bozo the Clown" has eight Wikipedia pages devoted to him and his history.  Does this mean that Bozo is more eminent and better known than the "great" boat mechanic Anders Björkman?

Quote
Try to avoid making stupid comments - just try to be on topic.

Ahhh... we've got him on the run guys.  He's starting to lose his cool.  Keep up the good work and we'll soon eradicate him entirely from the forum.

    :P
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Rama Set on February 10, 2015, 12:44:48 PM
(video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close)

The structure surrounding the core collapsed that quickly, but the core of WTC 1 took about 4-6 more seconds to collapse.  Regardless, if you take the collapse on the view of the conspiracy theorists, the model becomes more likely to have a progressive collapse is the point to take away from this.

Nice work.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 10, 2015, 01:29:09 PM
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

You're a millionaire now!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 10, 2015, 07:51:21 PM
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.  Then make a model and drop top C on bottom A to see what happens, e.g. a bounce!
Yes, 45 000 000 kg will bounce full scale.

Suggest your model is smaller.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 10, 2015, 07:54:11 PM
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.

45,000 tonnes is 45,000,000 kg. maybe you should get your units correct?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 12, 2015, 12:05:43 AM
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.

45,000 tonnes is 45,000,000 kg. maybe you should get your units correct?

I was thinking of your innovative deceleration distance 1 m, whatever it can be! Imagine if it was 0. Then your impact force is quite big, to say the least.
Don't you agree?
But then the impact force only lasts for 0 seconds, so it will not cause any damage what so ever. The top remains stuck on top.

My calculations are much simpler. A certain amount of energy (J) or (Nm) is applied to the structure, when top C contacts bottom A after a drop of a certain height. It, the energy, compresses both C and A and may cause some local damages at interface C/A. But both C and A decompress (like springs) and C remains on top of A.

Unless the energy destroys top C from bottom up, of course

Any force applied by C at the impact C/A is simply transmitted to the support below A (ground/planet Earth) via A and disappears. It takes very little time.

I suggest you go and jump on your bed. You will find that you will bounce.

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 12, 2015, 12:32:38 AM
LOL..... for once in his life, poor old Björkman couldn't think of any comeback.  I've obviously got him on the run!

He claims to be a much in demand, world-renowned engineering expert, but strangely, doesn't even rate one single entry in Wikipedia.  Even "Bozo the Clown" has eight Wikipedia pages devoted to him and his history. 

Does this mean that Bozo is more eminent and more in demand than the "great" boat mechanic Anders Björkman?     ;D

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Arith on February 12, 2015, 03:40:56 AM
Quote
I suggest you go and jump on your bed. You will find that you will bounce.

He also seems to think that buildings are loaded up with foam and springs. Because jumping on your bed is a GREAT analogue to a collapsing building.

Where did you say you got your 'engineering degree' from?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 12, 2015, 04:24:24 AM
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.

45,000 tonnes is 45,000,000 kg. maybe you should get your units correct?

I was thinking of your innovative deceleration distance 1 m, whatever it can be! Imagine if it was 0. Then your impact force is quite big, to say the least.
Don't you agree?
But then the impact force only lasts for 0 seconds, so it will not cause any damage what so ever. The top remains stuck on top.

My calculations are much simpler. A certain amount of energy (J) or (Nm) is applied to the structure, when top C contacts bottom A after a drop of a certain height. It, the energy, compresses both C and A and may cause some local damages at interface C/A. But both C and A decompress (like springs) and C remains on top of A.

Unless the energy destroys top C from bottom up, of course

Any force applied by C at the impact C/A is simply transmitted to the support below A (ground/planet Earth) via A and disappears. It takes very little time.

I suggest you go and jump on your bed. You will find that you will bounce.

I suggest you go and read about how impact forces are calculated. I use 1 meter as a simplification and to underestimate the impact force. The actual impact probably occurred over just a few centimeters which would increase the impact force by an order of magnitude.

The premise here is very simple. The bottom can support x amount of load before failing. The impact of 45,000 tonnes of building falling 2-3 meters is going to significantly higher than x. I'm talking orders of magnitude higher.

As for jumping on my bed. If I jumped on my bed in the middle it would fail. The central wooden beam supporting the mattress  simply could not support a fully grown adult landing on it even from a height of a foot. This is an excellent example of the differences between static and dynamic loading. My bed will happily support two grown adults but will fail when one adult lands on it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 12, 2015, 04:49:28 AM
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.

45,000 tonnes is 45,000,000 kg. maybe you should get your units correct?

I was thinking of your innovative deceleration distance 1 m, whatever it can be! Imagine if it was 0. Then your impact force is quite big, to say the least.
Don't you agree?
But then the impact force only lasts for 0 seconds, so it will not cause any damage what so ever. The top remains stuck on top.

My calculations are much simpler. A certain amount of energy (J) or (Nm) is applied to the structure, when top C contacts bottom A after a drop of a certain height. It, the energy, compresses both C and A and may cause some local damages at interface C/A. But both C and A decompress (like springs) and C remains on top of A.

Unless the energy destroys top C from bottom up, of course

Any force applied by C at the impact C/A is simply transmitted to the support below A (ground/planet Earth) via A and disappears. It takes very little time.

I suggest you go and jump on your bed. You will find that you will bounce.

I suggest you go and read about how impact forces are calculated. I use 1 meter as a simplification and to underestimate the impact force. The actual impact probably occurred over just a few centimeters which would increase the impact force by an order of magnitude.

The premise here is very simple. The bottom can support x amount of load before failing. The impact of 45,000 tonnes of building falling 2-3 meters is going to significantly higher than x. I'm talking orders of magnitude higher.

As for jumping on my bed. If I jumped on my bed in the middle it would fail. The central wooden beam supporting the mattress  simply could not support a fully grown adult landing on it even from a height of a foot. This is an excellent example of the differences between static and dynamic loading. My bed will happily support two grown adults but will fail when one adult lands on it.

I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis. The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions. http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm (http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm) .

Your mistake is to assume that top part C - 45 000 000 kg - is solid and cannot deform, when it contacts bottom part A 400 000 kg. As top part C is weaker than bottom part A it will only bounce on A with some local deformations in interface C/A.

The US 911 terrorists made the same mistake. It seems you are a terrorist supporter by fooling around with your theories. Shape up!

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 12, 2015, 06:15:29 AM
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 12, 2015, 06:23:15 AM
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis. The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions. http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm (http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm) .
It's just a shame that you couldn't get that oil tanker design approved by the US Coast Guard.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulombi_Egg_Tanker
The Coulombi Egg Tanker is a design that is aimed at reducing oil spills. It was designed by Anders Björkman. It was approved by IMO as an alternative to the double hull concept. The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built
I guess the Coast Guard is run by terrorists too.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 12, 2015, 10:32:30 AM
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 12, 2015, 10:39:03 AM
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis. The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions. http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm (http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm) .
It's just a shame that you couldn't get that oil tanker design approved by the US Coast Guard.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulombi_Egg_Tanker
The Coulombi Egg Tanker is a design that is aimed at reducing oil spills. It was designed by Anders Björkman. It was approved by IMO as an alternative to the double hull concept. The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built
I guess the Coast Guard is run by terrorists too.

The United States Coast Guard, USCG, is nowadays part of US Department of Homeland Security so you never know. Foreign seamen arriving at US ports are all suspects and cannot leave their ships until checked by USCG/DHS getting frisked, fingerprinted, photos taken, etc, etc. And then they need a permit to pass through the port area ... and will be checked again going back to the ship. But who wants to visit the US bars outside the port? Are they safe?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 12, 2015, 10:41:52 AM
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis. The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions. http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm (http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm) .
It's just a shame that you couldn't get that oil tanker design approved by the US Coast Guard.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulombi_Egg_Tanker
The Coulombi Egg Tanker is a design that is aimed at reducing oil spills. It was designed by Anders Björkman. It was approved by IMO as an alternative to the double hull concept. The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built
I guess the Coast Guard is run by terrorists too.

The United States Coast Guard, USCG, is nowadays part of US Department of Homeland Security so you never know. Foreign seamen arriving at US ports are all suspects and cannot leave their ships until checked by USCG/DHS getting frisked, fingerprinted, photos taken, etc, etc. And then they need a permit to pass through the port area ... and will be checked again going back to the ship. But who wants to visit the US bars outside the port? Are they safe?

Jingoism. As an American I find your statements offensive. Mods?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 12, 2015, 11:35:49 AM
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

A large block lands on another large block. How would it be sliced?

Again, you need to look up the word terrorist. I am simply someone who isn't a complete halfwit and actually understands physics and engineering.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 12, 2015, 08:14:27 PM
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

A large block lands on another large block. How would it be sliced?

Again, you need to look up the word terrorist. I am simply someone who isn't a complete halfwit and actually understands physics and engineering.

Structures consist of elements and ... plenty air. If you think my Challenge (topic) is about a bit of solid material crushing another bit of solid material you are a complete halfwit.

I use the US definition of a terrorist (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or covered person. See http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm (http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 12, 2015, 08:35:40 PM
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

A large block lands on another large block. How would it be sliced?

Again, you need to look up the word terrorist. I am simply someone who isn't a complete halfwit and actually understands physics and engineering.

Structures consist of elements and ... plenty air. If you think my Challenge (topic) is about a bit of solid material crushing another bit of solid material you are a complete halfwit.

I use the US definition of a terrorist (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or covered person. See http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm (http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm)

Yet you seem to think that the bottom portion of the building is a solid that isn't subjected to the same structural weaknesses of the top portion. Who's the half wit?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 12, 2015, 10:27:08 PM
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

A large block lands on another large block. How would it be sliced?

Again, you need to look up the word terrorist. I am simply someone who isn't a complete halfwit and actually understands physics and engineering.

Structures consist of elements and ... plenty air. If you think my Challenge (topic) is about a bit of solid material crushing another bit of solid material you are a complete halfwit.

I use the US definition of a terrorist (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or covered person. See http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm (http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm)

Yet you seem to think that the bottom portion of the building is a solid that isn't subjected to the same structural weaknesses of the top portion. Who's the half wit?
No, I know that the bottom portion A, that carries top part C statically, is also capable to resist dynamically, if C is dropped on A. Bottom portion A acts as a spring!

C is also acting as a spring. Only terrorists and halfwits think C is solid and A is subject to structural weaknesses and that A can be crushed from top down by C and gravity.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 12, 2015, 11:20:33 PM
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 13, 2015, 02:04:26 AM
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.

Only terrorists believe it.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: sceptimatic on February 13, 2015, 02:51:42 AM
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.

Only terrorists believe it.
Heiwa: I think by now you realise that nothing you can say to these people will ever make them wake up. You are dealing with dense headed people who believe anything they're told and will not and cannot think on any other line than what they're trained to think by the very hypnotic TV they watch and absorb as a truth.

It SHOULD be blatantly obvious to even the most comatose, ignorant people that buildings' of this immense size and strength are not going to collapse into a pile of dust and well trimmed steel girders by simply one floor crushing the next.

The truth is, most on here will know this but the problem is, you have people like Geoffrey and co who's goals' are to constantly ridicule you to the point where the other sheep will join in, which feeds the other sheep the ruse that you are indeed a nutter, for no other reason than they can't think for themselves and just follow the crowd.

Obviously I'm telling you this but I know that you know all of this. I just feel that I need to add a bit of support to what you put out just so you know that your efforts on this forum are not going unseen.

Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 13, 2015, 04:53:45 AM
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.

Only terrorists believe it.
Heiwa: I think by now you realise that nothing you can say to these people will ever make them wake up. You are dealing with dense headed people who believe anything they're told and will not and cannot think on any other line than what they're trained to think by the very hypnotic TV they watch and absorb as a truth.
'These people' do this funny thing when we learn something, we got out and investigate and test. I know how materials behave because I have actually gone out into the real world and tested them.
Quote
It SHOULD be blatantly obvious to even the most comatose, ignorant people that buildings' of this immense size and strength are not going to collapse into a pile of dust and well trimmed steel girders by simply one floor crushing the next.
Despite the fact that very elementary calculations show otherwise.
Quote
The truth is, most on here will know this but the problem is, you have people like Geoffrey and co who's goals' are to constantly ridicule you to the point where the other sheep will join in, which feeds the other sheep the ruse that you are indeed a nutter, for no other reason than they can't think for themselves and just follow the crowd.
WE ridicule him, as you put it, because he literally does not know what he is talking about and has been shown to be wrong on countless occasions by actual verifiable science and evidence.
Quote
Obviously I'm telling you this but I know that you know all of this. I just feel that I need to add a bit of support to what you put out just so you know that your efforts on this forum are not going unseen.

Keep up the good work.

It does amuse me how you both try and take the high ground in these debates despite having no evidence and no idea of how science and engineering actually operate.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 13, 2015, 05:03:28 AM
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis.
No you don't.  You simply misrepresent yourself as a qualified structural and/or mechanical engineer on an ad hoc basis dependent on the given scenario.  You also say—arrogantly but irrelevantly—many times on your sites:  "I am just a very friendly, healthy, intelligent and generous person trying to clear up confusion" that's allegedly aimed at you by your detractors.  Simply being friendly or healthy or generous does not make your alleged engineering qualifications any more credible Björkman.  More likely it makes it look as though you're desperate for people to believe in the bovine excrement you plaster all over your worthless sites.  "Oh... Anders is a nice friendly guy; he must be telling the truth".

Quote
The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions.

Nope.  Major misrepresentation of the "facts" here Björkman.  I quote a transcript from the  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated 25 June 1998:

"Mr. GILCHREST [Chairman of the subcommittee]:  Is there any other alternative technologies out there that IMO [UN International Maritime Organization] has looked into?

Admiral NORTH [Assistant & Commandant for Marine Safety & Environmental Protection US Coast Guard]:   IMO currently accepts double hull, mid-deck, and so-called Coulombi Egg designs, but again, they give more credit, so to speak, to median outflow and don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do.

Mr. GILCHREST:   Do you think that there will ever come a time when we might find some alternative technology that will prove at least as good or safer than double hulls?

Admiral NORTH:  The Coast Guard would be happy to look at any design that claims to provide the same kind of zero outflow performance that we see double-hulls providing.

Admiral NORTH:  There is nothing presently that we have found that matches the double-hull for the probability of zero outflow. We have looked at a number of designs; we did a report to Congress, currently in clearance that talks about some of those.  There have been other designs brought up that were not considered in that report and we have yet to find one that matches the double-hull from that perspective in terms of probability of zero outflow.

Admiral NORTH:  For zero outflow, the double-hull is the best we have seen, to date."



—As a result, The US Coast Guard would not allow this design of vessel to enter US waters, and thus no ships of this design have ever been constructed.  It's just another part in the many of Björkman's fairy stories that have virtually zero basis in fact.  And it should be noted that Björkman has been unsuccessfully trying to "sell" this Coulombi Egg design for more than 23 years!

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 13, 2015, 08:21:19 AM
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.

Only terrorists believe it.

Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 13, 2015, 09:44:51 AM
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis.
No you don't.  You simply misrepresent yourself as a qualified structural and/or mechanical engineer on an ad hoc basis dependent on the given scenario.  You also say—arrogantly but irrelevantly—many times on your sites:  "I am just a very friendly, healthy, intelligent and generous person trying to clear up confusion" that's allegedly aimed at you by your detractors.  Simply being friendly or healthy or generous does not make your alleged engineering qualifications any more credible Björkman.  More likely it makes it look as though you're desperate for people to believe in the bovine excrement you plaster all over your worthless sites.  "Oh... Anders is a nice friendly guy; he must be telling the truth".

Quote
The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions.

Nope.  Major misrepresentation of the "facts" here Björkman.  I quote a transcript from the  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated 25 June 1998:

"Mr. GILCHREST [Chairman of the subcommittee]:  Is there any other alternative technologies out there that IMO [UN International Maritime Organization] has looked into?

Admiral NORTH [Assistant & Commandant for Marine Safety & Environmental Protection US Coast Guard]:   IMO currently accepts double hull, mid-deck, and so-called Coulombi Egg designs, but again, they give more credit, so to speak, to median outflow and don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do.

Mr. GILCHREST:   Do you think that there will ever come a time when we might find some alternative technology that will prove at least as good or safer than double hulls?

Admiral NORTH:  The Coast Guard would be happy to look at any design that claims to provide the same kind of zero outflow performance that we see double-hulls providing.

Admiral NORTH:  There is nothing presently that we have found that matches the double-hull for the probability of zero outflow. We have looked at a number of designs; we did a report to Congress, currently in clearance that talks about some of those.  There have been other designs brought up that were not considered in that report and we have yet to find one that matches the double-hull from that perspective in terms of probability of zero outflow.

Admiral NORTH:  For zero outflow, the double-hull is the best we have seen, to date."



—As a result, The US Coast Guard would not allow this design of vessel to enter US waters, and thus no ships of this design have ever been constructed.  It's just another part in the many of Björkman's fairy stories that have virtually zero basis in fact.  And it should be noted that Björkman has been unsuccessfully trying to "sell" this Coulombi Egg design for more than 23 years!

Thanks for quoting from my web page - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscongress.htm (http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscongress.htm) .

It is thus a fact that all members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, approved my clever design and that only USA decided that it could not enter US ports.
Real reason was that I didn't pay enough to lobbyists in Washington DC, etc, etc.
But it made me famous and well known in maritime circles. Imagine that I was invited by the US Congress to explain why my design was approved by IMO and that later the US government declared that, if it was built, it could not enter US ports.
It has never happened before and after.   
Maybe one reason was that I declined to sell the patents to a US buyer?

But ausGeoff, you know why? I didn't need the money. I have plenty! Why waste my time/money with stupid Americans? Of course, I waste my time with you, because I know how you dirty and wet your pants every time you see a post of me here.
 

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 13, 2015, 09:48:17 AM
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis.
No you don't.  You simply misrepresent yourself as a qualified structural and/or mechanical engineer on an ad hoc basis dependent on the given scenario.  You also say—arrogantly but irrelevantly—many times on your sites:  "I am just a very friendly, healthy, intelligent and generous person trying to clear up confusion" that's allegedly aimed at you by your detractors.  Simply being friendly or healthy or generous does not make your alleged engineering qualifications any more credible Björkman.  More likely it makes it look as though you're desperate for people to believe in the bovine excrement you plaster all over your worthless sites.  "Oh... Anders is a nice friendly guy; he must be telling the truth".

Quote
The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions.

Nope.  Major misrepresentation of the "facts" here Björkman.  I quote a transcript from the  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated 25 June 1998:

"Mr. GILCHREST [Chairman of the subcommittee]:  Is there any other alternative technologies out there that IMO [UN International Maritime Organization] has looked into?

Admiral NORTH [Assistant & Commandant for Marine Safety & Environmental Protection US Coast Guard]:   IMO currently accepts double hull, mid-deck, and so-called Coulombi Egg designs, but again, they give more credit, so to speak, to median outflow and don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do.

Mr. GILCHREST:   Do you think that there will ever come a time when we might find some alternative technology that will prove at least as good or safer than double hulls?

Admiral NORTH:  The Coast Guard would be happy to look at any design that claims to provide the same kind of zero outflow performance that we see double-hulls providing.

Admiral NORTH:  There is nothing presently that we have found that matches the double-hull for the probability of zero outflow. We have looked at a number of designs; we did a report to Congress, currently in clearance that talks about some of those.  There have been other designs brought up that were not considered in that report and we have yet to find one that matches the double-hull from that perspective in terms of probability of zero outflow.

Admiral NORTH:  For zero outflow, the double-hull is the best we have seen, to date."



—As a result, The US Coast Guard would not allow this design of vessel to enter US waters, and thus no ships of this design have ever been constructed.  It's just another part in the many of Björkman's fairy stories that have virtually zero basis in fact.  And it should be noted that Björkman has been unsuccessfully trying to "sell" this Coulombi Egg design for more than 23 years!

Thanks for quoting from my web page - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscongress.htm (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ce_uscongress.htm) .

It is thus a fact that all members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, approved my clever design and that only USA decided that it could not enter US ports.
Real reason was that I didn't pay enough to lobbyists in Washington DC, etc, etc.
But it made me famous and well known in maritime circles. Imagine that I was invited by the US Congress to explain why my design was approved by IMO and that later the US government declared that, if it was built, it could not enter US ports.
It has never happened before and after.   
Maybe one reason was that I declined to sell the patents to a US buyer?

But ausGeoff, you know why? I didn't need the money. I have plenty! Why waste my time/money with stupid Americans? Of course, I waste my time with you, because I know how you dirty and wet your pants every time you see a post of me here.

No, they gave the reason it can't.

Quote
...don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do

You know, sounds like because your design is a step backwards from double hull, since it wouldn't guarantee zero spillage from an incident.

I'm glad my congress shut it down.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 13, 2015, 09:52:28 AM


Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
[/quote]

The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic. 

Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 13, 2015, 09:57:23 AM
Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

I didn't ask in generalities, I want to know how much stronger the 91st is from the 92nd.

Because we both know its negligible, yet you can accept that the 92nd floor failed, but not that the 91st failed. Its puzzling to me.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 13, 2015, 10:02:51 AM
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis.
No you don't.  You simply misrepresent yourself as a qualified structural and/or mechanical engineer on an ad hoc basis dependent on the given scenario.  You also say—arrogantly but irrelevantly—many times on your sites:  "I am just a very friendly, healthy, intelligent and generous person trying to clear up confusion" that's allegedly aimed at you by your detractors.  Simply being friendly or healthy or generous does not make your alleged engineering qualifications any more credible Björkman.  More likely it makes it look as though you're desperate for people to believe in the bovine excrement you plaster all over your worthless sites.  "Oh... Anders is a nice friendly guy; he must be telling the truth".

Quote
The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions.

Nope.  Major misrepresentation of the "facts" here Björkman.  I quote a transcript from the  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated 25 June 1998:

"Mr. GILCHREST [Chairman of the subcommittee]:  Is there any other alternative technologies out there that IMO [UN International Maritime Organization] has looked into?

Admiral NORTH [Assistant & Commandant for Marine Safety & Environmental Protection US Coast Guard]:   IMO currently accepts double hull, mid-deck, and so-called Coulombi Egg designs, but again, they give more credit, so to speak, to median outflow and don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do.

Mr. GILCHREST:   Do you think that there will ever come a time when we might find some alternative technology that will prove at least as good or safer than double hulls?

Admiral NORTH:  The Coast Guard would be happy to look at any design that claims to provide the same kind of zero outflow performance that we see double-hulls providing.

Admiral NORTH:  There is nothing presently that we have found that matches the double-hull for the probability of zero outflow. We have looked at a number of designs; we did a report to Congress, currently in clearance that talks about some of those.  There have been other designs brought up that were not considered in that report and we have yet to find one that matches the double-hull from that perspective in terms of probability of zero outflow.

Admiral NORTH:  For zero outflow, the double-hull is the best we have seen, to date."



—As a result, The US Coast Guard would not allow this design of vessel to enter US waters, and thus no ships of this design have ever been constructed.  It's just another part in the many of Björkman's fairy stories that have virtually zero basis in fact.  And it should be noted that Björkman has been unsuccessfully trying to "sell" this Coulombi Egg design for more than 23 years!

Thanks for quoting from my web page - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscongress.htm (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ce_uscongress.htm) .

It is thus a fact that all members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, approved my clever design and that only USA decided that it could not enter US ports.
Real reason was that I didn't pay enough to lobbyists in Washington DC, etc, etc.
But it made me famous and well known in maritime circles. Imagine that I was invited by the US Congress to explain why my design was approved by IMO and that later the US government declared that, if it was built, it could not enter US ports.
It has never happened before and after.   
Maybe one reason was that I declined to sell the patents to a US buyer?

But ausGeoff, you know why? I didn't need the money. I have plenty! Why waste my time/money with stupid Americans? Of course, I waste my time with you, because I know how you dirty and wet your pants every time you see a post of me here.

No, they gave the reason it can't.

Quote
...don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do

You know, sounds like because your design is a step backwards from double hull, since it wouldn't guarantee zero spillage from an incident.

I'm glad my congress shut it down.

Reason why my design was approved by the IMO 1997 was that it spilt much less oil in all accidents compared with the US double hull that spilt no oil in certain cases but a lot more in others and totally much more than my design. US decision was/is simply bad for the marine environment.

Knowing the cost to clean up spills, my design was more economic to protect the environment! It is also safer and costs less to build, etc.

No, US Congress shot itself in the foot. Same Congress a little later decided to start to bomb Afghanistan, a war that is lost 2015. It is tragic.


Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 13, 2015, 10:05:34 AM
Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

I didn't ask in generalities, I want to know how much stronger the 91st is from the 92nd.

Because we both know its negligible, yet you can accept that the 92nd floor failed, but not that the 91st failed. Its puzzling to me.

You really have to study my scientific papers about it at http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm (http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm) and http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) .
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 13, 2015, 10:06:13 AM
Sounds to me Heiwa that your design is never guaranteed to not spill oil, whereas under certain (and the most common I might add) situations the double hull design is guaranteed to not spill oil.

I'd go with the one that gives the chance of zero spill for the majority of incidents over one that will spill a little oil under all incidents.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 13, 2015, 10:07:23 AM
Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

I didn't ask in generalities, I want to know how much stronger the 91st is from the 92nd.

Because we both know its negligible, yet you can accept that the 92nd floor failed, but not that the 91st failed. Its puzzling to me.

You really have to study my scientific papers about it at http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tower.htm) and http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/emi2013.htm) .

I'll study them when they are scientific papers, which means peer reviewed in a scientific journal. I await the journals they are published in, which yes I have access to all scientific journals through my university going back to the early 1900s.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 13, 2015, 10:32:44 AM

Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?

The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

So, the 91st floor is slightly stronger than the 92nd floor. It is however not 100x stronger, as that is at least how much more force would impact the 91st floor when the 92nd -110st floor land on it from 2 meters.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 13, 2015, 05:38:54 PM

Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?

The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

So, the 91st floor is slightly stronger than the 92nd floor. It is however not 100x stronger, as that is at least how much more force would impact the 91st floor when the 92nd -110st floor land on it from 2 meters.

Good, now you start to learn why nobody will ever win Heiwa's € 1 000 000 Challenge (topic). The bottom part is simply stronger than the (weak) top part and therefore the weak top part cannot crush the strong bottom part. It is physically impossible.
Only terrorists believe otherwise.
Many people say they have seen it but they were fooled by the terrorists.
They just saw a Hollywood film on TV.
Plenty of things that you believe happen are quite similar.
But enjoy the shows as long as you can. 
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 13, 2015, 07:48:04 PM
Good, now you start to learn why nobody will ever win Heiwa's € 1 000 000 Challenge
Yes, because you have made up your mind and refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your position, no matter what.

Many people say they have seen it but they were fooled by the terrorists.
They just saw a Hollywood film on TV.
What about the people that were in the towers when they were hit and managed to escape before the towers collapsed?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 13, 2015, 11:48:45 PM

Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?

The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

So, the 91st floor is slightly stronger than the 92nd floor. It is however not 100x stronger, as that is at least how much more force would impact the 91st floor when the 92nd -110st floor land on it from 2 meters.

Good, now you start to learn why nobody will ever win Heiwa's € 1 000 000 Challenge (topic). The bottom part is simply stronger than the (weak) top part and therefore the weak top part cannot crush the strong bottom part. It is physically impossible.
Only terrorists believe otherwise.
Many people say they have seen it but they were fooled by the terrorists.
They just saw a Hollywood film on TV.
Plenty of things that you believe happen are quite similar.
But enjoy the shows as long as you can.

Strength of the top part doesn't matter. Mass and impact velocity clearly do.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 14, 2015, 12:33:57 AM

Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?

The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

So, the 91st floor is slightly stronger than the 92nd floor. It is however not 100x stronger, as that is at least how much more force would impact the 91st floor when the 92nd -110st floor land on it from 2 meters.

Good, now you start to learn why nobody will ever win Heiwa's € 1 000 000 Challenge (topic). The bottom part is simply stronger than the (weak) top part and therefore the weak top part cannot crush the strong bottom part. It is physically impossible.
Only terrorists believe otherwise.
Many people say they have seen it but they were fooled by the terrorists.
They just saw a Hollywood film on TV.
Plenty of things that you believe happen are quite similar.
But enjoy the shows as long as you can.

Strength of the top part doesn't matter. Mass and impact velocity clearly do.

No, only strength of the top part matters. And it is weaker than the bottom, etc, etc.
If you try yourself to crush a structure from top to bottom using the top, it is SAFE to stay in the bottom.
But only way to destroy a structure like a tower is to weaken the structure locally and then destroy the bottom using outside energy. And do not remain inside when you ûsh the button!
That's why the anonymous clown stating "I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge" is a simple liar, when he claims he can fly to the Moon and back using some Disneyland software.
My Challenges are evidently impossible to win.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 14, 2015, 02:04:16 AM
Brilliant. Total ignorance of physics and engineering.

If a building floor has a maximum load limit and the impact of the floors above has more force than that limit then the floor will collapse. This triggers a cascade down all the floors. This is very, very basic stuff.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 14, 2015, 12:28:25 PM
Brilliant. Total ignorance of physics and engineering.

If a building floor has a maximum load limit and the impact of the floors above has more force than that limit then the floor will collapse. This triggers a cascade down all the floors. This is very, very basic stuff.

Most building floors have a maximum load limit of say 300 kg/m² or 4 persons standing on one meter square.

If you put 8 persons there, maybe there is a hole in the floor.

But the floor will not collapse!

And no cascade of anything happens.

You talk like a terrorist.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 14, 2015, 12:31:51 PM
Brilliant. Total ignorance of physics and engineering.

If a building floor has a maximum load limit and the impact of the floors above has more force than that limit then the floor will collapse. This triggers a cascade down all the floors. This is very, very basic stuff.

Most building floors have a maximum load limit of say 300 kg/m² or 4 persons standing on one meter square.

If you put 8 persons there, maybe there is a hole in the floor.

But the floor will not collapse!

And no cascade of anything happens.

You talk like a terrorist.

The floor will collapse if there are several tonnes per square metre across the entire floor.

And stop calling me a terrorist.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 14, 2015, 02:03:26 PM
Thanks for quoting from my web page...

You're welcome.  But... uh... I was taking the piss LOL.

Quote
It is thus a fact that all members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, approved my clever design and that only USA decided that it could not enter US ports.

Nowhere did they describe it as a "clever" design.  That's why the US Coast Guard rejected it.  And that's why not one single ship was ever built to your hypothetical design in the thirty years since.  The unknown risk factor was simply too high.

Quote
Real reason was that I didn't pay enough to lobbyists in Washington DC, etc, etc.

LOL... the true mark of the embittered conspiracy theorist.  Boo hoo... they didn't build my ship because they don't like me... waaah.

Quote
But it made me famous and well known in maritime circles.

Nope.  It didn't make you "famous" and nobody in maritime "circles" ever mentions your name in public.  In fact most people just shrug and laugh at you and go on their way to deal with more influential people, rather than a glorified boat mechanic.  And you don't even rate a single page in Wikipedia;  that's how famous you are Björkman LOL.

Quote
Of course, I waste my time with you, because I know how you dirty and wet your pants every time you see a post of me here.

Reading this sort of puerile drivel, it's actually difficult to imagine Björkman as a mature adult ain't it folks?  I'd expect a far more intellectualised response form someone who claims to be a world-renowned marine engineer wouldn't you?  Childish insults don't really project an image of an articulate, professional, academically-qualified expert in their field.

    ::)
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 14, 2015, 04:54:13 PM
Brilliant. Total ignorance of physics and engineering.

If a building floor has a maximum load limit and the impact of the floors above has more force than that limit then the floor will collapse. This triggers a cascade down all the floors. This is very, very basic stuff.

Most building floors have a maximum load limit of say 300 kg/m² or 4 persons standing on one meter square.

If you put 8 persons there, maybe there is a hole in the floor.

But the floor will not collapse!

And no cascade of anything happens.

You talk like a terrorist.

The floor will collapse if there are several tonnes per square metre across the entire floor.

And stop calling me a terrorist.

A tower is not supported by its horizontal floors. It is supported by its vertical walls that are getting weaker the higher you are.

Only terrorists suggest that a tower can collapse from top down.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 14, 2015, 04:59:10 PM
An individual floor might be weaker than the one below it but when 20+ floors all impact then it really doesn't matter as that lower floor will collapse.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 14, 2015, 05:15:45 PM
Thanks for quoting from my web page...

You're welcome.  But... uh... I was taking the piss LOL.

Quote
It is thus a fact that all members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, approved my clever design and that only USA decided that it could not enter US ports.

Nowhere did they describe it as a "clever" design.  That's why the US Coast Guard rejected it.  And that's why not one single ship was ever built to your hypothetical design in the thirty years since.  The unknown risk factor was simply too high.

Quote
Real reason was that I didn't pay enough to lobbyists in Washington DC, etc, etc.

LOL... the true mark of the embittered conspiracy theorist.  Boo hoo... they didn't build my ship because they don't like me... waaah.

Quote
But it made me famous and well known in maritime circles.

Nope.  It didn't make you "famous" and nobody in maritime "circles" ever mentions your name in public.  In fact most people just shrug and laugh at you and go on their way to deal with more influential people, rather than a glorified boat mechanic.  And you don't even rate a single page in Wikipedia;  that's how famous you are Björkman LOL.

Quote
Of course, I waste my time with you, because I know how you dirty and wet your pants every time you see a post of me here.

Reading this sort of puerile drivel, it's actually difficult to imagine Björkman as a mature adult ain't it folks?  I'd expect a far more intellectualised response form someone who claims to be a world-renowned marine engineer wouldn't you?  Childish insults don't really project an image of an articulate, professional, academically-qualified expert in their field.

    ::)

Thanks again for studying my web pages about the Coulombi Egg oil tanker design - the only one approved by the IMO as per Marpol I/13F(5) - http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm (http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm) .
The USCG is (or was) a signatory to Marpol I/13F(5).

The IMO incl. US/USCG decided the rules for alternative designs = they must spill less oil than (USCG) double hull. The USCG accepted these rules. My design is the only such design approved by the IMO according with these rules.

Reason (1) is that it spills much less oil in collisions as the collision protection is adapted to the damage statistics (75% of damage is above waterline, etc). Double hull waste protection below waterline where the risk of damage is small.

Reason (2) is that it spills much less oil in groundings as it doesn't lose much buoyancy when ripping open the single bottom, etc, etc. Single bottom is acceptable by Marpol I/13F .

As it spills much less oil in all incidents it is much more friendly to the marine environment according the IMO.

It seems that US then changed the rules to disapprove my design and to accept only less environmentally friendly designs.

I was part of the Swedish delegation to the IMO at the time of approval. I had also been parts of the Liberian and the Int. Chamber of Shipping delegations to the IMO in the process to get the design approved and to improve marine environmental protection.
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth also appreciated my work.
So in the small world of  marine environmental protection by clever design I was quite famous or well known in the 1990's and 2000's.
The web site quoted above is still very popular with many downloads/month.

Sorry ausGeoff - you are a sick twirp just shitting/wetting your pants daily with your stupid posts.






Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 14, 2015, 05:21:30 PM
A tower is not supported by its horizontal floors. It is supported by its vertical walls that are getting weaker the higher you are.
Perhaps not directly, but floors can affect the structural integrity of those vertical supports.
Quote from: http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

Only terrorists suggest that a tower can collapse from top down.
Seems to me that only terrorists and bad structural engineers would want people to think that buildings can't collapse from the top down (especially since it has already been demonstrated).  Are you a terrorist, Anders, or just a bad structural engineer?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 14, 2015, 05:24:23 PM
An individual floor might be weaker than the one below it but when 20+ floors all impact then it really doesn't matter as that lower floor will collapse.

Well, if you can prove it and show how a structure collapses from top, when the floors collapse as you suggest (and the walls also break apart in the process), you will win Heiwa's €1 000 000 challenge. Details are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .

I suggest you prove/show it with a structure, where the floors (and the walls) do not produce smoke/dust when collapsing, so we can see how it works, i.e. falling floors destroy the floors below ripping them away from the walls that then collapse.

I would assume all floors will be piled up on each other at the end of the collapse (as a pile of pan cakes) with the internal (core) walls in between and the external walls on the outside of the pile?

Pls tell me what it will look like.

Until then only terrorists suggest that it is possible to destroy a structure from top by dropping the top floors on the floors below.

No serious structural designer/analyst has been able to show a structure that can collapse from top down (as seen live on US TV twice on 911 - the only times it has ever happened ... if it happened. I suggest the TV broadcasts were part of the hoax).

I have invited plenty professors of civil engineering to have a try - all failed or declined. It seems my Challenge cannot be won.   





Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: markjo on February 14, 2015, 05:53:34 PM
I suggest you prove/show it with a structure, where the floors (and the walls) do not produce smoke/dust when collapsing...
Seriously?   Have you ever seen a tall building that didn't produce lots of dust when collapsing?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Socratic Amusement on February 14, 2015, 05:56:42 PM
I have invited plenty professors of civil engineering to have a try - all failed or declined. It seems my Challenge cannot be won.

Only because you decline clear winning of your challenge for arbitrary reasons that are not based on science or logic.

Indeed, I see you only reject objective answers with "terrorist" rhetoric, and nothing else.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 14, 2015, 11:45:14 PM
Heiwa

I've already shown mathematically how the structure collapses from top down. All buildings produce dust and smoke when they collapse so your rules are inherently flawed from the start. It would be like me saying:

You can win £1 million by making a fire from wood but it must not produce heat.

Clearly nonsense.

And moderators; do your job occasionally, as I'm getting bored of being called a terrorist. Or am allowed just to retort and call this guy a sick, twisted and pathetic excuse of a human that is a waste of the space he takes up. Based upon several of his threads including the holocaust denial.....
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 15, 2015, 01:08:38 AM
Heiwa

I've already shown mathematically how the structure collapses from top down.

And moderators; do your job occasionally, as I'm getting bored of being called a terrorist. Or am allowed just to retort and call this guy a sick, twisted and pathetic excuse of a human that is a waste of the space he takes up. Based upon several of his threads including the holocaust denial.....

Please be kind to repeat mathematically how the structure collapses from top down. Then show it in a laboratory. Then you might win my Challenge.

Please be kind to tell me of his threads including the holocaust denial....

FYI I describe Hitler's genocide in detail at http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm#H (http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm#H) . It is in Swedish by Google will translate if necessary.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 15, 2015, 01:20:56 AM
I suggest you prove/show it with a structure, where the floors (and the walls) do not produce smoke/dust when collapsing...
Seriously?   Have you ever seen a tall building that didn't produce lots of dust when collapsing?

Topic is I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge and some anonymous clown says he has done it and other anonymous clowns are calling me names.
Actually, my Challenge is about any structure A and, if you can show that top C of A can crush A, you are a winner.
I always recommend contestants to use a structure that does not produce smoke and dust when it collapses from top to bottom. If the structure is done of steel or wood, no smoke dust/smoke will be produced when the elements break. Only noise.

Evidently concrete/brick buildings produce dust when they are demolished by controlled means from bottom up. The controlled means are normally dynamite or similar that produce smoke, etc.

Here you shall only drop C on A from above and then C shall crush A by gravity. Where shall the smoke/dust come from? C shall remain intact and A shall only be compacted/crushed?

You have probably seen too many 911 videos of the WTC1/2 fountains of smoke/dust/wall panels, which IMHO are just Hollywood computer generated images. It seems every second movies today are full of such tricks.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Mainframes on February 15, 2015, 05:30:09 AM
Concrete and cement are aggregate materials that will invariably produce dust and smoke clouds when subjected to crushing forces. It is inevitable. Just look up any youTube video of brick walls being pulled over.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 15, 2015, 05:53:24 AM
The sad truth is that Heiwa doesn't have the money to pay anyway, no matter how thoroughly the challenge is won. Look what does he do for a living - he's an unsuccessful professional crank. That doesn't pay that well.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 15, 2015, 06:16:54 AM
Concrete and cement are aggregate materials that will invariably produce dust and smoke clouds when subjected to crushing forces. It is inevitable. Just look up any youTube video of brick walls being pulled over.
That's why I recommend you use some other materials, like wood, paper, plastic or metal not producing dust and smoke clouds, when trying to show a structure that can win my Challenge.

Please try! The MONEY is there for any WINNER.

Don't be a LOSER!
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 15, 2015, 06:26:34 AM
The sad truth is that Heiwa doesn't have the money to pay anyway, no matter how thoroughly the challenge is won. Look what does he do for a living - he's an unsuccessful professional crank. That doesn't pay that well.
The good news are that Heiwa has the money and that all sorts of cranks - 99% anonymous twirps common on open internet forums - cannot beat me.
So these young whelps invent all sorts of stupid things about me incl. me being an antisemit, etc, etc. That routine seems to be standard among paid, uneducated, sick shills being paid by the letter/post. I wonder were they all come from. A mad house? But where? I assume the mods know.
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: ausGeoff on February 15, 2015, 08:36:02 AM
The good news are that Heiwa has the money and that all sorts of cranks - 99% anonymous twirps common on open internet forums - cannot beat me.
So these young whelps invent all sorts of stupid things about me incl. me being an antisemit, etc, etc. That routine seems to be standard among paid, uneducated, sick shills being paid by the letter/post. I wonder were they all come from. A mad house? But where? I assume the mods know.

LOL... poor old Anders is obviously getting desperate how!  At least we've got him on the run, and hopefully he'll soon give up and go away to infest some other unfortunate forum with his nonsensical, pseudo-scientific gibberish, shonky structural "theories" and crude insults.

When someone resorts to repeated ad hominems, it's a sure sign that they've been backed into a corner with nowhere to go.

Well done Björkman.  And while I'm feeling more than generous, 10/10 for your repeated home goals.    ;D
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: mikeman7918 on February 15, 2015, 09:17:16 AM
The sad truth is that Heiwa doesn't have the money to pay anyway, no matter how thoroughly the challenge is won. Look what does he do for a living - he's an unsuccessful professional crank. That doesn't pay that well.
The good news are that Heiwa has the money and that all sorts of cranks - 99% anonymous twirps common on open internet forums - cannot beat me.
So these young whelps invent all sorts of stupid things about me incl. me being an antisemit, etc, etc. That routine seems to be standard among paid, uneducated, sick shills being paid by the letter/post. I wonder were they all come from. A mad house? But where? I assume the mods know.

The problem is that the person who is judging is the same person that looses €1,000,000 if someone wins.  When other people judge you get different results (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62574.0#.VODULIZHbCQ).
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Heiwa on February 15, 2015, 12:03:03 PM
The sad truth is that Heiwa doesn't have the money to pay anyway, no matter how thoroughly the challenge is won. Look what does he do for a living - he's an unsuccessful professional crank. That doesn't pay that well.
The good news are that Heiwa has the money and that all sorts of cranks - 99% anonymous twirps common on open internet forums - cannot beat me.
So these young whelps invent all sorts of stupid things about me incl. me being an antisemit, etc, etc. That routine seems to be standard among paid, uneducated, sick shills being paid by the letter/post. I wonder were they all come from. A mad house? But where? I assume the mods know.

The problem is that the person who is judging is the same person that looses €1,000,000 if someone wins.  When other people judge you get different results (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62574.0#.VODULIZHbCQ).

You are an anonymous shrill and twirp, mikeman7918, joining FESF in December 2014 and then posting 15 times/day pure nonsense and a loser of Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge. Why don't you just piss off?
Title: Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on February 15, 2015, 12:48:14 PM