The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: FlatAssembler on July 05, 2017, 07:10:29 AM

Title: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 05, 2017, 07:10:29 AM
Our culture makes us hold many irrational beliefs. One of them is demonstrably the belief that airplanes exist. It's told us by our parents, told by our teachers, and most of us never really investigate it. And there is not much evidence of that.
Most of the arguments we use to prove airplanes exist can be used to prove that dragons exist as well. We sometimes see white lines in the sky and we say they are evidence of jet airplanes. But saying they are the evidence of dragons is just as valid. There are people who say they have flown on an airplane, and use it as a proof that airplanes exist. But they could just as easily say it for dragons. And history tells us that before people claimed to have flown on a dragon just as often as people say today they have been on an airplane.
In reality, what we usually mean when we say airplane is so called jet airplane, and they can be disproven with some basic physics. Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also. But remember the Torricelli's law? Most of the people have learned it school, they just have never really thought about it. If they have, they would realize that it makes  the airplanes impossible.
One of the well-known formulations of the Torricelli's law is that, when a liquid goes through a small hole (an outlet), its speed is determined by the formula:
Code: [Select]
v=sqrt(2*g*h)But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:
Code: [Select]
a=0The Newton's second law tells us:
Code: [Select]
F=m*aTherefore:
Code: [Select]
F=m*a=m*0=0So, by the Newton's third law:
Code: [Select]
F1=-F2
0=-F2
F2=-0=0
So, the force acting on an airplane itself is zero, so by the Newton's first law:
Code: [Select]
F=0
 |
 V
a=0
So, how can jet airplanes work in reality if they don't even work on paper? You may give me some counter-example to the Torricelli's law. But do the counter-examples matter? They don't. The Torricelli's law is derived from the Bernoulli's equation, and it's derived right from the Newton's three axioms.
Also, the burden of proof is definitely on you. You can't prove for anything that doesn't exist that it doesn't exist, but, in general, if something exists, you are able to prove it. And Occam's razor always favors more an explanation that involves someone lying or hallucinating than an explanation that involves something as complicated and as crazy sounding as airplanes.
And you might ask me what if I am wrong. So what if I am wrong? At least I am thinking about whether airplanes exist, and other people aren't thinking about that at all, they just accept what most people believe as fact. And you are way more likely to be wrong if you aren't thinking than if you are thinking.
(This is a satire of many arguments made on this forum!)
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 07:15:40 AM
So when the liquid changes position, you are saying its acceleration is zero?

(https://s23.postimg.org/j05z7ssl7/duebdj.jpg)

(This is a satire of many arguments made on this forum!)

Satire of what tho?
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: markjo on July 05, 2017, 07:48:44 AM
Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also.
Incorrect.  The reaction mass of jet airplanes is, for the most part, the air that passes through the engine.

Good satire relies on you getting the basics right before you try to poke fun at it.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 05, 2017, 08:26:36 AM
As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 02:54:06 PM
As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…

So you demonstrate that you are incapable of applying newtons second law and then blame it on "conspiracy theorists."

Hokay.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 05, 2017, 11:47:45 PM
As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…

So you demonstrate that you are incapable of applying newtons second law and then blame it on "conspiracy theorists."

Hokay.
No, I wanted to say that conspiracy theorists are intentionally misapplying laws of science (whether or not they themselves understand them correctly) in an effort to decieve people. I thought I made it quite obvious.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 06, 2017, 12:04:21 AM
Example?
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 06, 2017, 11:58:17 PM
Example?
Where have you been all until now? A good example may be the movie "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon".
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 09, 2017, 02:56:08 AM
when a liquid goes through a small hole (an outlet), its speed is determined by the formula:


Kaopectate.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: rabinoz on July 09, 2017, 05:25:40 AM
As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…

So you demonstrate that you are incapable of applying newtons second law and then blame it on "conspiracy theorists."

Hokay.
Please explain just what is wrong with the application of "Newton's second law" in:
its speed is determined by the formula:
Code: [Select]
v=sqrt(2.g.h)
Maybe, for the simple minded, here there should have been added:
Code: [Select]
if h = constant, then v = constant
Code: [Select]
a = dv/dt, hence dv/dt = 0
Quote from: FlatAssembler
But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:
Code: [Select]
a=0The Newton's second law tells us:
Code: [Select]
F=m.aTherefore:
Code: [Select]
F=m.a=m.0=0
:P All that looks quite logical to me.  :P
8) Hint, look at what isn't there.  8)
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 09, 2017, 06:38:04 AM
I thought the error there was quite obvious and actually funny. Either I have a very bad sense of humour, or it's that very few people on this forum understand the basic physics.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 10, 2017, 02:39:15 AM
I thought the error there was quite obvious and actually funny. Either I have a very bad sense of humour, or it's that very few people on this forum understand the basic physics.

Humour was lacking.

As if the conspiracy theorists usually got the basics right…

So you demonstrate that you are incapable of applying newtons second law and then blame it on "conspiracy theorists."

Hokay.
Please explain just what is wrong with the application of "Newton's second law" in:
its speed is determined by the formula:
Code: [Select]
v=sqrt(2.g.h)
Maybe, for the simple minded, here there should have been added:
Code: [Select]
if h = constant, then v = constant
Code: [Select]
a = dv/dt, hence dv/dt = 0
Quote from: FlatAssembler
But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:
Code: [Select]
a=0The Newton's second law tells us:
Code: [Select]
F=m.aTherefore:
Code: [Select]
F=m.a=m.0=0
:P All that looks quite logical to me.  :P
8) Hint, look at what isn't there.  8)

Rab mathematical application aside when the liquid moves it has an acceleration (edit for clarity.) Causes acceleration of the plane. Would you like to debate this point?

He has conclusively proven that if the planes engines aren't turned on, the plane won't fly. Forgive me trolling him a little.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: Vsauce1337 on July 10, 2017, 04:27:59 PM
I suggest you buy an airplane ticket and see for yourself.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: boydster on July 19, 2017, 07:54:18 PM
Rab mathematical application aside when the liquid moves it has an acceleration. Would you like to debate this point?

Hi. Not Rab, admittedly. Are you suggesting that for some reason, a collection of molecules in a certain phase can't move at a constant velocity?
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: Bullwinkle on July 19, 2017, 09:00:34 PM

Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also.


No, I don't want fries with that.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: Sentinel on July 20, 2017, 09:18:00 AM
I would love to ride a dragon once, actually. Airplanes are really lame...  :-\
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 06:11:35 PM
Rab mathematical application aside when the liquid moves it has an acceleration. Would you like to debate this point?

Hi. Not Rab, admittedly. Are you suggesting that for some reason, a collection of molecules in a certain phase can't move at a constant velocity?

No.

Seriously?

In a similar tone are you suggesting that a collection of molecules with a constant velocity being ejected from a plane won't create a force?

Lets check.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/turbth.html

Ok.

(https://s18.postimg.org/ktiobgmy1/turbth.gif)

He has conclusively proven that if the planes engines aren't turned on, the plane won't fly. Forgive me trolling him a little.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: boydster on July 20, 2017, 06:42:36 PM
Ok but V0 != Ve in your example. Similarly with the m terms. You said you were trolling, I get it. Forgive me for calling your shit. Liquid/fluid/matter does not have an acceleration just because it's moving. That's the thing you stated that is wrong. No more, no less.

I see you edited your post now.


In a similar tone are you suggesting that a collection of molecules with a constant velocity being ejected from a plane won't create a force?

Well that depends on if anything happens to those molecules, now doesn't it? If no combustion reaction occurs in the engine, those molecules move right on through at a constant velocity (barring friction... You know, Newton's laws and all that) and no force is generated. Plane falls from sky. Your drawing says something different than your words.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 06:45:55 PM
I suggest you turn on a garden hose.

It should clear up a few things.

All the best man. I understand that everyone has to attack my posts.

Alternately drive a remote controlled car into another rc car at a constant velocity and note if it causes an acceleration of either car.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: boydster on July 20, 2017, 06:52:42 PM
You really have a victim thing going on. Sorry man. But I'm not attacking you because it's the cool thing to do. I'm challenging your argument.

Water moving through a garden hose has an additional force acting on it. Namely, the pressure that is being applied, whether gravity (water tower) or pumps. It's not just freely moving. Not nearly the same as air flowing through a tube without a combustion reaction to create different molecules plus heat and expansion
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 06:57:15 PM
We're talking about planes. The planes use combustion to create force through acceleration of mass. A very large garden hose could create the same effect without combustion. That is creating a force by moving (accelerating) a mass.

I'm not folowing your argument at all.

The free flowing air does indeed cause and acceleration (deceleration) of the plane while the plane has a velocity different to that of the surrounding air.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: boydster on July 20, 2017, 07:04:47 PM
We're talking about planes. The planes use combustion to create force through acceleration of mass. A very large garden hose could create the same effect without combustion. That is creating a force by moving (accelerating) a mass.

I'm not folowing your argument at all.

The water doesn't just move through the garden hose because it feels like it. There is an outside force acting on it. You aren't accounting for that force when you say "turn on your hose." That's as weak an argument as "look out your window" dude.

The hose generates a force pushing away from the water because there is either a water pump (as in, people with a well in their yard and pump the water to their house) or gravity (if you have a municipal water supply and a huge amount of water is being stored in a water tower high up in the air, resulting in high potential energy that is converted to kinetic energy as the water is attempting to drain out of the tower through whatever openings it can find that are below the height of the tower) acting on the water, creating pressure, which is converted into a force you can feel when the water can move from an area of high pressure to an area of lower pressure. But SOMETHING has to provide that differential.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 07:07:13 PM
The water doesn't just move through the garden hose because it feels like it.

SOMETHING has to provide that differential.

So this?

He has conclusively proven that if the planes engines aren't turned on, the plane won't fly.

I'm not arguing against that. If the engines aren't turned on the plane won't fly. It would be silly to argue that.

This is a little embarrassing tbh.

Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: boydster on July 20, 2017, 07:18:37 PM
No. Not that. I thought that was clear. It was the argument that simply because stuff is moving, it's accelerating, and turning on a garden hose is proof.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 07:20:07 PM
Not at all.

I should have been more clear.

Edit.

We can see clearly in the picture I presented that if Ve is greater than Vo there is a force.

(https://s18.postimg.org/ktiobgmy1/turbth.gif)

A change in velocity requires an acceleration.

Again if the engines aren't turned on the plane won't fly.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 07:35:39 PM
I know you're not stupid. I thought perhaps you knew I wasn't stupid.

Acceleration is different than velocity. I concede it and would never argue that they are the same thing. Not sure what else I can say...

Sorry I guess.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: boydster on July 20, 2017, 07:39:27 PM
We had a spat there. Things were said.  I think we misunderstood each other.

I still love you, you kangaroo-punching beast, you. ;) :-*
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: boydster on July 20, 2017, 07:42:01 PM
I know you're not stupid. I thought perhaps you knew I wasn't stupid.

Acceleration is different than velocity. I concede it and would never argue that they are the same thing. Not sure what else I can say...

Sorry I guess.

I know you're not stupid. I thought you were on full-troll mode and testing the waters to see what would fly with being contested. Misread the situation.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 07:44:52 PM
It's fine to dislike me. I am very opinionated and don't spare anyones feelings. I don't expect people to like me.

I do have a "victim complex" here.

To be fair it took approximately 20 000 posts of dismissing everything and anything I say on the basis that I have a mental illness. I got sick of it, not gonna lie.

Anyway as I said all the best.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: PhysicsMaster on July 21, 2017, 12:37:00 PM
I suggest you buy an airplane ticket and see for yourself.
And, if you see something you can't explain, isn't it more likely that you are hallucinating than that it's real? Think of the dragons.

Joking aside. Anyway, I think that the solution to the FlatAssembler's puzzle is that the Torricelli's law dictates the speed of the fluid right when it's left the container. Of course the fluid needs to accelerate in the container to reach that speed.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: disputeone on July 23, 2017, 07:36:41 PM
I suggest you buy an airplane ticket and see for yourself.
And, if you see something you can't explain, isn't it more likely that you are hallucinating than that it's real? Think of the dragons.

Joking aside. Anyway, I think that the solution to the FlatAssembler's puzzle is that the Torricelli's law dictates the speed of the fluid right when it's left the container. Of course the fluid needs to accelerate in the container to reach that speed.

Pretty good tbh.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: PhysicsMaster on July 24, 2017, 09:59:09 AM
So, what do you think, is this thread really useful to link the conspiracy theorists to?
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 31, 2017, 11:28:53 AM
The arguments I've used may even be too smart for most of the conspiracy theorists to understand.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2017, 09:11:17 PM
The arguments I've used may even be too smart for most of the conspiracy theorists to understand.
I'm willing to bet that they may even be too smart for you to understand.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: suseuser on November 15, 2017, 02:09:44 PM
Sometimes I think people just like to argue because they enjoy it.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: deadsirius on November 16, 2017, 10:18:19 AM
Sometimes I think people just like to argue because they enjoy it.

WELL I THINK YOU'RE WRONG!
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: MouseWalker on March 24, 2020, 06:45:46 PM
Our culture makes us hold many irrational beliefs. One of them is demonstrably the belief that airplanes exist. It's told us by our parents, told by our teachers, and most of us never really investigate it. And there is not much evidence of that.
Most of the arguments we use to prove airplanes exist can be used to prove that dragons exist as well. We sometimes see white lines in the sky and we say they are evidence of jet airplanes. But saying they are the evidence of dragons is just as valid. There are people who say they have flown on an airplane, and use it as a proof that airplanes exist. But they could just as easily say it for dragons. And history tells us that before people claimed to have flown on a dragon just as often as people say today they have been on an airplane.
In reality, what we usually mean when we say airplane is so called jet airplane, and they can be disproven with some basic physics. Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also. But remember the Torricelli's law? Most of the people have learned it school, they just have never really thought about it. If they have, they would realize that it makes  the airplanes impossible.
One of the well-known formulations of the Torricelli's law is that, when a liquid goes through a small hole (an outlet), its speed is determined by the formula:
Code: [Select]
v=sqrt(2*g*h)But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:
Code: [Select]
a=0The Newton's second law tells us:
Code: [Select]
F=m*aTherefore:
Code: [Select]
F=m*a=m*0=0So, by the Newton's third law:
Code: [Select]
F1=-F2
0=-F2
F2=-0=0
So, the force acting on an airplane itself is zero, so by the Newton's first law:
Code: [Select]
F=0
 |
 V
a=0
So, how can jet airplanes work in reality if they don't even work on paper? You may give me some counter-example to the Torricelli's law. But do the counter-examples matter? They don't. The Torricelli's law is derived from the Bernoulli's equation, and it's derived right from the Newton's three axioms.
Also, the burden of proof is definitely on you. You can't prove for anything that doesn't exist that it doesn't exist, but, in general, if something exists, you are able to prove it. And Occam's razor always favors more an explanation that involves someone lying or hallucinating than an explanation that involves something as complicated and as crazy sounding as airplanes.
And you might ask me what if I am wrong. So what if I am wrong? At least I am thinking about whether airplanes exist, and other people aren't thinking about that at all, they just accept what most people believe as fact. And you are way more likely to be wrong if you aren't thinking than if you are thinking.
(This is a satire of many arguments made on this forum!)
I know that jet airplanes are real, alls I have to do is look out my window on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: rabinoz on March 24, 2020, 07:14:34 PM
I know that jet airplanes are real, all I have to do is look out my window on a daily basis.

You must be a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).

So the onus is on YOU to prove that when you look out your window on a daily basis and see real passenger jet airplanes:
Maybe all you're seeing is this sort of thing:


You could post your own video but, of course, if I cannot personally verify that, it's probably just a CGV and more fabricated evidence.

Just remember that us airplane deniers start with the knowledge that airplanes don't exist. All the evidence which we are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence, all the evidence to the contrary, much of which we are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The non-existence of airplanes is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the non-existence of airplanes
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the non-existence of airplanes is therefore fabricated evidence
P4) If there are large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: MouseWalker on March 24, 2020, 07:35:39 PM
I know that jet airplanes are real, all I have to do is look out my window on a daily basis.

You must be a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).

So the onus is on YOU to prove that when you look out your window on a daily basis and see real passenger jet airplanes:
Maybe all you're seeing is this sort of thing:


You could post your own video but, of course, if I cannot personally verify that, it's probably just a CGV and more fabricated evidence.

Just remember that us airplane deniers start with the knowledge that airplanes don't exist. All the evidence which we are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence, all the evidence to the contrary, much of which we are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The non-existence of airplanes is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the non-existence of airplanes
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the non-existence of airplanes is therefore fabricated evidence
P4) If there are large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).

LOL : that is all true in your CAVE; but I don't live in a cave nor do I wish to visit yours, so come out come out where are your up is my down, and I am the one that is hanging by my feet from you're point of view.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: rabinoz on March 24, 2020, 08:46:09 PM
So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).

LOL : that is all true in your CAVE; but I don't live in a cave nor do I wish to visit yours, so come out come out where are your up is my down, and I am the one that is hanging by my feet from you're point of view.
Why should Globe deniers have a monopoly on this conspiracy businesses?

OK, I'm out and my up is up and my down is down and I'll leave you to your hanging around.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: MouseWalker on March 24, 2020, 10:22:52 PM
So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).

LOL : that is all true in your CAVE; but I don't live in a cave nor do I wish to visit yours, so come out come out where are your up is my down, and I am the one that is hanging by my feet from you're point of view.
Why should Globe deniers have a monopoly on this conspiracy businesses?

OK, I'm out and my up is up and my down is down and I'll leave you to your hanging around.
and sea-tac is a north-south runway that moves out from under the airplane lol!
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: rabinoz on March 25, 2020, 01:13:20 AM
So, therefore Mr MouseWalker, you are proven a part of the worldwide conspiracy that falsely teaches that the airplanes really exist ;).

LOL : that is all true in your CAVE; but I don't live in a cave nor do I wish to visit yours, so come out come out where are your up is my down, and I am the one that is hanging by my feet from you're point of view.
Why should Globe deniers have a monopoly on this conspiracy businesses?

OK, I'm out and my up is up and my down is down and I'll leave you to your hanging around.
and sea-tac is a north-south runway that moves out from under the airplane lol!
They just have to release the wheel-clamps and the plane drops into the air ???.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 07, 2020, 02:28:47 AM
I've translated (https://flatassembler.github.io/AvioniNePostoje.pdf) that parody of conspiracy theorists to Croatian.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: rabinoz on May 07, 2020, 02:47:46 AM
I've translated (https://flatassembler.github.io/AvioniNePostoje.pdf) that parody of conspiracy theorists to Croatian.
I hope you're not ridiculing the existence of dragons?
Especially with all science of the Dragonriders of Pern presented by Anne McCaffrey.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on May 07, 2020, 03:13:57 AM
Only conspiracy which is REAL C:-)
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: wise on May 07, 2020, 04:45:24 AM
I've translated (https://flatassembler.github.io/AvioniNePostoje.pdf) that parody of conspiracy theorists to Croatian.
This only can be a parody. We have reported its being a parody three years ago, but management team have ignored our reports. I guess now they can be convinced its being a parody, because OP'er admits his crime.

Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: JJA on May 07, 2020, 02:09:20 PM
I would love to ride a dragon once, actually. Airplanes are really lame...  :-\

I hear they have baby dragons in boxes on the other forum if you dare to open one.
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: rabinoz on May 07, 2020, 05:16:39 PM
I've translated (https://flatassembler.github.io/AvioniNePostoje.pdf) that parody of conspiracy theorists to Croatian.
This only can be a parody. We have reported its being a parody three years ago, but management team have ignored our reports. I guess now they can be convinced its being a parody, because OP'er admits his crime.


There is no "crime"! The video is "Stive Morgan - #Electronic Feelings by Byyassar and makes no claim's at all about "reality".

Why should the managemen be concerned?
Title: Re: Airplanes don't exist
Post by: MouseWalker on May 07, 2020, 05:36:17 PM
Our culture makes us hold many irrational beliefs. One of them is demonstrably the belief that airplanes exist. It's told us by our parents, told by our teachers, and most of us never really investigate it. And there is not much evidence of that.
Most of the arguments we use to prove airplanes exist can be used to prove that dragons exist as well. We sometimes see white lines in the sky and we say they are evidence of jet airplanes. But saying they are the evidence of dragons is just as valid. There are people who say they have flown on an airplane, and use it as a proof that airplanes exist. But they could just as easily say it for dragons. And history tells us that before people claimed to have flown on a dragon just as often as people say today they have been on an airplane.
In reality, what we usually mean when we say airplane is so called jet airplane, and they can be disproven with some basic physics. Jet airplanes are supposed to work by having water (or some other liquid) as a fuel and engines forcing that water to go out, so that that water accelerates and, by the Newton's third law, makes the airplane accelerate also. But remember the Torricelli's law? Most of the people have learned it school, they just have never really thought about it. If they have, they would realize that it makes  the airplanes impossible.
One of the well-known formulations of the Torricelli's law is that, when a liquid goes through a small hole (an outlet), its speed is determined by the formula:
Code: [Select]
v=sqrt(2*g*h)But there is a pretty obvious implication here. That is:
Code: [Select]
a=0The Newton's second law tells us:
Code: [Select]
F=m*aTherefore:
Code: [Select]
F=m*a=m*0=0So, by the Newton's third law:
Code: [Select]
F1=-F2
0=-F2
F2=-0=0
So, the force acting on an airplane itself is zero, so by the Newton's first law:
Code: [Select]
F=0
 |
 V
a=0
So, how can jet airplanes work in reality if they don't even work on paper? You may give me some counter-example to the Torricelli's law. But do the counter-examples matter? They don't. The Torricelli's law is derived from the Bernoulli's equation, and it's derived right from the Newton's three axioms.
Also, the burden of proof is definitely on you. You can't prove for anything that doesn't exist that it doesn't exist, but, in general, if something exists, you are able to prove it. And Occam's razor always favors more an explanation that involves someone lying or hallucinating than an explanation that involves something as complicated and as crazy sounding as airplanes.
And you might ask me what if I am wrong. So what if I am wrong? At least I am thinking about whether airplanes exist, and other people aren't thinking about that at all, they just accept what most people believe as fact. And you are way more likely to be wrong if you aren't thinking than if you are thinking.
(This is a satire of many arguments made on this forum!)
Then what is the thing that flies over my house on a daily basis.