Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bill_the_Pretender

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
I'm new here. I agree with iWitness. I urge everyone to repent of your sins (you know what they are) and trust God from this point on, not relying on anyone else especially yourself. Faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice is the only way to God.

Relevance? Also, God's fake, and the global flood never happened. No evidence seems to be apparent for either of those phenomena.

/thread

2
Mikey, the conspirators are under an oath of death for revealing the secrets.Why do think they would be in a hurry to speak about it?

I think Edward Snowden would have loved to share information that confirms that the earth in fact us flat. The lack of such an important and government-destroying statement should lead us to the conclusion that there is no conspiracy.
Who is Edward Snowden?

Former employee at NSA, he leaked thousands of classified information and documents and fled. Now he lives in Russia. He is quite famous, so I'm surprised you haven't heard about him.
Guess I am just not into following conspiracies.

Bullshit. You're a regular on an FE forum. You're the definition of a conspiracy theorist.

3
Are you aware of the military and it's cover ups? Soldiers are forced to withold things from the public. Since when did the government care about truth? It gets its powers from secrecy.

I have 2 great grandparents who were in the nave and an uncle who is currently in active military service.  I know them and they are the kinds of people who would risk their lives to expose such a conspiracy if one existed.  Secrecy may grant power, but exposure of said secrecy would reduce their power to less then they would have if they had no secrets to begin with and enemies could exploit that.  It only takes one person spinning the beans to destroy a conspiracy and so a conspiracy requiring hundreds of millions of people including people in enemy countries who want to see the government go up in flames is just way too risky and anyone with a pulse should have the common sense not to attempt it.

I don't know anyone who has been run over by a tank. Therefore, tanks can't run over people.
I don't know anyone who has been struck by lightning. Therefore, no one has been struck by lightning.

See the problem, mikeboy? The sad thing is, you probably don't you silly little space cultist.

It's pretty typical of conspiracy nuts such as yourself to form cultish bonds with other dimwits. Don't project your faults onto other people, it looks bad.

4
Here is am experiment you should try:

Tell a secret to 10 of your closest friends and watch how fast it slips out and word spreads until everyone knows.  This is just 10 people and an inconsequential secret, imagine hundreds of millions of people with a very important secret that's morally wrong to withhold.
First of all, I don't have 10 friends.

Second, they are not well payed, well trained government agents who make a lifestyle of keeping their mouth shut. Since when did rich people and the government care about morals?

You completely ignored the point. It wasn't about the morality of the secret, it was about the inevitability of it slipping into everyone's hands.

Like I said, government agents are well trained.

Not trained well enough, apparently, seeing as how everyone already knows we definitely made it to the moon, and that the Earth is round.

5
Here is am experiment you should try:

Tell a secret to 10 of your closest friends and watch how fast it slips out and word spreads until everyone knows.  This is just 10 people and an inconsequential secret, imagine hundreds of millions of people with a very important secret that's morally wrong to withhold.
First of all, I don't have 10 friends.

Second, they are not well payed, well trained government agents who make a lifestyle of keeping their mouth shut. Since when did rich people and the government care about morals?

You completely ignored the point. It wasn't about the morality of the secret, it was about the inevitability of it slipping into everyone's hands.

6
Can I use the word 'penguin' to describe you? I think it fits nicely here.

Temper temper, billybaby. Don't want you having a meltdown. Not just yet anyway.

So you again have no answer to any of the evidence. Thanks. Next?
You trawl the internet, find a gif you did not produce, claim its your evidence and then want people to waste their time and argue against you. Make your own video/gif then we will debate, you do not know if the one you posted is real or not for you did not make it, clown.

First of all, I never claimed it to be MY evidence. Evidence is evidence, no matter who puts it on the table. Secondly, who cares if I made it or not? I gave the source, REDDIT (look in the title, moron), and I am simply relaying it to you.

Accept it or don't. Reality does not require belief to survive, as conspiracy does.

7
Can I use the word 'penguin' to describe you? I think it fits nicely here.

Temper temper, billybaby. Don't want you having a meltdown. Not just yet anyway.

So you again have no answer to any of the evidence. Thanks. Next?

8
http://imgur.com/a/mpYA5

Beautiful, isn't it? The number of FEers should be dwindling by now, as even the stupidest walnut can understand overwhelming evidence of this kind.

Thoughts?

/deleteforum

Thoughts? You're an idiot. Many have posted animated gifs as proof of the space adventures. You fail just as badly as those others.

Hurhur (insert assertion here without a shred of evidence) you're an idiot! Hurhurrr

Can I use the word 'penguin' to describe you? I think it fits nicely here.

9
Flat Earth General / Further videos from the ISS, as seen on Reddit
« on: July 10, 2015, 08:27:05 PM »
http://imgur.com/a/mpYA5

Beautiful, isn't it? The number of FEers should be dwindling by now, as even the stupidest walnut can understand overwhelming evidence of this kind.

Thoughts?

/deleteforum

10
Great wise and all knowing septic just how big can a rocket get before it wont work?.
Well let's start at 3000 tons and work backwards from that. So now we are looking at other rocket's smaller. All of them that go to space are the one's that don't work and are not the sizes proclaimed to be.

How did nobody catch this? Sceptic is retarded.

Rockets that can get to space DON'T work?

Okay.

11
A flat Earth would not have an atmosphere or a moving horizon.

Checkmate FEers.

12
Yes, conker; you finish your 'vacuum chamber'...

Make sure it has powerful pumps, mind - wouldn't want to be called a FRAUD now, would you?

Anyhow; what you're basically saying is that the exhaust gases DO create an action/reaction pairing with an outside mass such as the disc.

& an 'equal & opposite' one to boot - why thank you, conker!

However; you're calling it a 'momentum exchange' now, even though it's the same thing, because you are a CROOK & uninterested in anything even vaguely resembling TRUTH.

Whatever; NASA claim that - somehow, magically - rockets produce all their thrust in the combustion chamber.

Yet all that thrust can still be negated by a simple disc of metal?!??!

How?

Really; you lot need to stop flip-flopping like dying fish on a beach & just state exactly how you believe a rocket functions.

After all, I have...

Repeatedly & consistently.

& I've given many examples of simple experiments & easily-verified evidence to support my case too.

Like the one above; HAVE ANY OF YOU REPEATED IT YET?

Nah; didn't think so...

But what can you expect off dingbats who believe in 3,000-tonne flying machines..?

Just LOL!!!

Your experiments and evidence are flawed, why do you expect us to accept them?

13
These globalist's on here remind me of that film, "They live" with Roddy Piper, where only those who wear special sun glasses can see the brainwashing being bestowed upon the population.

I mean, look at this video of a locomotive. Imagine tipping that upright, then adding another 14 of the same one on top of it, then sticking some engines under it and flying it into space.  ;D

This is what we're asked to believe with Saturn V.  ;D

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available

What a beautifully constructed straw-man. Congrats.

You can play in the loony bin with all the other retarded children.

14
LOL!!!

Here we go... Attack of the sci-fi addict Drones!

Provide evidence & experiments for your claim, 'Bill'.

Oh, wait; you can't!

Except for your trusty 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE BLOODY ANALOGY.

& after nearly 80 pages, neither can anyone else...

Could it be that you DON'T HAVE ANY?

I think so...

LMAO!!!

Are you quite done with your outbursts? You're either 12, or possibly insane. We get it that your own stupidity surprises you.

Propulsion is simple. Force in one direction produces an opposing force in the opposite direction.

15
Indeed; the brainwashing has to start at a young age & be Reinforced Often thereafter.

Which is why this thread will soon be buzzing like an angry bee-hive with space-cultists insisting that their laughable 3,000 tonne flying machines REALLY ARE REAL & THEY REALLY DID GO TO THE MOON & HERE ARE REALLY REAL MATHS THAT PROVE IT!!!!

Fact is that none of them will ever go to 'space' themselves & it is obvious to a (non-brainwashed) child that the laws of physics in no way support rocket propulsion in a vacuum...

Yet they will keep typing out their whacked-out space-spam forever, like good little robots.

It's just so LOL!!!

Propulsion is definitely possible in a vaccuum :)

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earthers view on Climate change
« on: July 03, 2015, 02:43:32 AM »
Climate change is not man made . Its corperation made. If you dont want earth mined or trees cut down occens fished , coal & oil burnt. Then stop churning out deluded excessively  grossly over paid elitest scum.
For every one of theses leachers, something has to be destroyed to pay for their pathetic selfish exsistance.
Climate change ? No it the same scum dabbling in weather modification.

Assuming that by "corperation" you mean "Corporation", your statement "Climate change is not man made . Its corperation made." contradicts itself. These Corporation are not a separate entity by themselves.

"something has to be destroyed to pay for their pathetic selfish exsistance"

So you admit that something is being destroyed. So why not make an effort to minimize such destruction ?
Tell you what, when I get home today I will change the bedroom light from a 13w to 11w bulb.
See now we are all pitching in to save you and your planet. I will not accept white plastic bags ever again I will only use green ones as green is good. Can you suggest other changes I could make to right the wrongs that I have done?

I am glad at receiving the first positive response to this thread.

Sure, small measures will go a long way. Here are some other changes as you asked :

1. Changing incandescent bulbs to LED or CFL,
2. Using a Solar heater instead of a 25L geyser can reduce c02 emission by 687 kg annually.
3. Turning of ac, fan light when not in use.
4. Switching from desktop to laptop can reduce individual's co2 emission by 250 kg annually.
5. Using pressure cookers instead of pots and pans reduces c02 emissions by 125 kg annually.
6. reducing water consumption
7. switching off electrical appliances at the plug instead of with remote.
8. reducing use of microwave.
9. Using cold cycles for washing machines.
10. switching off ignition at traffic lights can reduce individual co2 emission by 48 to 60 kg annually.
11. driving with closed windows particularly at high speeds reduces wind resistance and therefore fuel consumption.
12. compared to a car with under inflated tires , a car with properly inflated tires can reduce annual co2 emissions by 150 kg.
13. reducing usage of individual vehicles and resorting to public transport

These are some measures you can do at the individual level. In addition awareness has to be spread at the community level.

It may seem that environmental changes are too huge to tackle, but individual efforts will count.
I just thought of another one for the list.
My nan used to use her tea bags twice, she drank a lot of tea so the load on emission from tea production would be reduced as well as less waste.

Insipid twats like you are the anti-thesis of progress.

17
Hm, ablation heat shields do not work - they just melt and the spaceship is destroyed, if you try it. Therefore no human space ship re-entries have ever taken place. They are all hoaxes, which I explain at my web site. This is the reason why nobody will win my Challenge (topic).
Imagine all fantasy trips in space being done so far by say >600 persons. Dr. Buzz was one of the first. He is now a blubbering alchoholic that everybody laughs at.

You already said that reentry generates a finite amount of heat. Humans can work with that. Just make something that can tolerate that amount. You agreed to this.

Now you're stating that the shield will still melt.

You can't have it both ways. Pick.

Hm, reentry generates heat that melts the spaceship. Reentry also generates forces that compresses and crushes the spaceship. There is no way anything built by man, e.g. a spaceship, can return and land on Earth.  What you have heard to the contrary is just propaganda. There is no evidence that reentry is possible. Rather the opposite, e.g. what happens to meterorites entering the atmosphere.
I have a feeling you are brainwashed to believe in impossible things like reentries, etc.

Meteorites survive reentry plenty of times. The United States alone has collected tens of thousands of em.

18
But I have answered your question several times. Yes I agree reentry (of a spaceship) is associated with finite amounts of energy (heat) that must be taken care of.

Finally.

Now, do you agree that it takes finite amounts of energy (heat) to melt things?

So another question to answer. Yes, heat is required to melt things like ice, heat shields, etc, but not Shuttle ceramic tiles developed by NASA.
When are you going to prove that re-entry is possible for a spaceship full of humans?

It has already been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earthers view on Climate change
« on: July 01, 2015, 08:32:26 PM »
How does that long, arduous explanation help anyone understand anything? It's patently false. Mankind is not a 'zit' that will eventually pop. We're screwing up this planet one factory at a time. Do you understand how thin the atmosphere is? It's very delicate, and changing the chemical composition of it damages it permanently. There is no 'Mother Earth' like the Earth knows whats happening. This sounds like pseudo-Biblical "God made the Earth, so the Earth will provide" bullshit.
What a load of crap. I have been listening to you doomsayers my whole life.
We cannot harm the earth it is to powerful, you going on about it being delicate, just listen to yourself.
You think you are a god and you have to protect the earth because it is delicate.
Must be a lot of fun to be had in your world planting bloody trees when you are so ignorant you cannot see they would grow back by themselves.

Also, dumbass, trees do not grow back by themselves. Look up 'deforestation', and the traumatic effects it has on the planet. Several large areas of the US and Europe are now desert because of this.

When you remove all the trees from an area, you essentially give erosion a free pass to destroy the entire area over a period of time.

Oh, no, but God has a plan for all of it right? The Earth will provide right? Nope. You get out of the Earth what you take from it.
Nah, trees do grow back.
Evacuate a city and in  time nature will pull the city apart.
Chill out Mr fearmonger.

Also, how is this in any way a good argument against climate change? This "Earth will always provide" bullshit started with conservative christians in the 90's attempting to discredit climate scientists using badly interpreted biblical text.

Give me a single good reason to disregard rising global temperatures, otherwise your 'nature' assertions are useless and dig yourself further into the moron hole.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earthers view on Climate change
« on: July 01, 2015, 08:21:36 PM »
How does that long, arduous explanation help anyone understand anything? It's patently false. Mankind is not a 'zit' that will eventually pop. We're screwing up this planet one factory at a time. Do you understand how thin the atmosphere is? It's very delicate, and changing the chemical composition of it damages it permanently. There is no 'Mother Earth' like the Earth knows whats happening. This sounds like pseudo-Biblical "God made the Earth, so the Earth will provide" bullshit.
What a load of crap. I have been listening to you doomsayers my whole life.
We cannot harm the earth it is to powerful, you going on about it being delicate, just listen to yourself.
You think you are a god and you have to protect the earth because it is delicate.
Must be a lot of fun to be had in your world planting bloody trees when you are so ignorant you cannot see they would grow back by themselves.

Also, dumbass, trees do not grow back by themselves. Look up 'deforestation', and the traumatic effects it has on the planet. Several large areas of the US and Europe are now desert because of this.

When you remove all the trees from an area, you essentially give erosion a free pass to destroy the entire area over a period of time.

Oh, no, but God has a plan for all of it right? The Earth will provide right? Nope. You get out of the Earth what you take from it.
Nah, trees do grow back.
Evacuate a city and in  time nature will pull the city apart.
Chill out Mr fearmonger.

If there is already viable plant material, sure, but deforested areas DO NOT grow back without insentives.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earthers view on Climate change
« on: July 01, 2015, 10:13:53 AM »
How does that long, arduous explanation help anyone understand anything? It's patently false. Mankind is not a 'zit' that will eventually pop. We're screwing up this planet one factory at a time. Do you understand how thin the atmosphere is? It's very delicate, and changing the chemical composition of it damages it permanently. There is no 'Mother Earth' like the Earth knows whats happening. This sounds like pseudo-Biblical "God made the Earth, so the Earth will provide" bullshit.
What a load of crap. I have been listening to you doomsayers my whole life.
We cannot harm the earth it is to powerful, you going on about it being delicate, just listen to yourself.
You think you are a god and you have to protect the earth because it is delicate.
Must be a lot of fun to be had in your world planting bloody trees when you are so ignorant you cannot see they would grow back by themselves.

Also, dumbass, trees do not grow back by themselves. Look up 'deforestation', and the traumatic effects it has on the planet. Several large areas of the US and Europe are now desert because of this.

When you remove all the trees from an area, you essentially give erosion a free pass to destroy the entire area over a period of time.

Oh, no, but God has a plan for all of it right? The Earth will provide right? Nope. You get out of the Earth what you take from it.
You can't take anything from earth. Get that into your weird shaped head and you'll learn some stuff, you backward git.

Do you have autism? Or downs-syndrome? I can't figure out which yet.

I can't take anything from the Earth hmm?

>I dig up a tree
>I pound that tree into paper
>That tree no longer produces oxygen by recycling carbon dioxide

WOW, WHAT A REVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Holocaust Deniers
« on: July 01, 2015, 09:03:47 AM »
Scepti base mode is frenzied.  Endless rambling, emotional posts about nothing.
Here's crabby giving it large as usual. Soft cock.  ;D

Showing us your inadequacies again,   I don't wish to know your problems,   you are avoiding answering the question.

   
What question. I gave you all the info and got back abuse for it. Act like a twat and you get treated like one. It's simple, Rayzor, you should know this, you're very astute at it.

You're accusing somebody else of being a twat? LOL

Going back through your profile, all you can really seem to post is adhominem attacks against REers, rather than actually contribute to anything. This is the definition of a twat.

23
I reply to all questions about the topic under discussion ...
Evidently not because you still haven't answered the question of whether or not reentry generates a finite amount of heat.

Has hasn't answered it because he can't answer it.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earthers view on Climate change
« on: July 01, 2015, 08:57:07 AM »
How does that long, arduous explanation help anyone understand anything? It's patently false. Mankind is not a 'zit' that will eventually pop. We're screwing up this planet one factory at a time. Do you understand how thin the atmosphere is? It's very delicate, and changing the chemical composition of it damages it permanently. There is no 'Mother Earth' like the Earth knows whats happening. This sounds like pseudo-Biblical "God made the Earth, so the Earth will provide" bullshit.
What a load of crap. I have been listening to you doomsayers my whole life.
We cannot harm the earth it is to powerful, you going on about it being delicate, just listen to yourself.
You think you are a god and you have to protect the earth because it is delicate.
Must be a lot of fun to be had in your world planting bloody trees when you are so ignorant you cannot see they would grow back by themselves.

Also, dumbass, trees do not grow back by themselves. Look up 'deforestation', and the traumatic effects it has on the planet. Several large areas of the US and Europe are now desert because of this.

When you remove all the trees from an area, you essentially give erosion a free pass to destroy the entire area over a period of time.

Oh, no, but God has a plan for all of it right? The Earth will provide right? Nope. You get out of the Earth what you take from it.

25
Bill is a familiar person. He acts like the little spiteful person in another name. I can't help laughing at him but I realise I am feeding him, so I'll let him harp on with himself.

Translation:  Bill made you look like an idiot,  ( wasn't all that hard in fact ),  so now it's time for the last resort,  lame insults.
You are no different.  ;D
It's like the second someone joins the forum against flat Earth you all appear to join at the hip....or?.....or?....use your imagination, you plank.  ;D

I love how much of a hypocrite you are. You and Legion are definitely buttbuddies on this forum, where if any FE gets challenged on their bullshit, any of you just rush in to defend them like some kind of pseudo-science martyr. It's a beautiful mating display.

26
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.

Let me remind everyone why you are here...

You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.

In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.

This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!

But you won't, will you?

& neutral readers will note that fact...

So LOL!!!

I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.

Let's read Newton's third, shall we?

Quote
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.

...

Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
Quote
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.

Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:

ma * aa = mb * ab

Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma

Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?

Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab

BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????

First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.

Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?

Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.

I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.
Papa has pushed you all into a corner and has whitewashed you all. I enter into it every now and then just to hose you all down ready for Papa to whitewash you all once again.

The desperation with you all is laughable. Weak as piss, even in numbers.  ;D

Crying won't help. I suggest you find better avenues to convey your and Papa's defeat. You desperately need an education.
I'm quite happy watching people like you squirm and damp down.
The more I see of people like you changing names and still being a mean idiot, the more I know that your global  argument is getting weaker by the desperate attempts at nastily trying to jump into try and debunk anything and everything...and failing....badly.

I suggest you change your nappy.

It's funny because you think anything has been proven on this forum. The world already knows the Earth is round, and it will remain that way until the end of humanity. Go watch the live feed from the ISS, and be inspired, you fucking dolt.

27
Conker: again, lots of blah but ZERO evidence.

Let me remind everyone why you are here...

You cut in at the point that I was concluding that a rocket could not, under any circumstances, exceed the maximum velocity of its own exhaust.

In the case of the Space Shuttle the maximum exhaust velocity is 10,000 mph; yet to reach 'orbital velocity' (lol) the Shuttle must attain 17,500 mph.

This is clearly impossible, due to Newton's 3rd (EQUAL & OPPOSITE, yes?), yet you tried to contradict this OBVIOUS FACT with a lot of POMPOUS SPAM but NO GENUINE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...

You & your idiot brethren have continued this SPAMMING for pages now; so either PROVIDE EASILY-VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE & SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR BUTT OUT!

But you won't, will you?

& neutral readers will note that fact...

So LOL!!!

I'm tired of talking to you like if you were a rational person, while you insult me. You awoken the spaniard on me, retard.
How can a car go faster than the road, if the road weights more than the car!
The answer is simple, you haven't read Newton's third, nor you know what a force is. The reason for it is that you are either a homeschooled retard who hasn't put a feet on a science class in its life. It's like when creationists say that the second of thermodynamics says evolution is impossible. Same level of retardation.

Let's read Newton's third, shall we?

Quote
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Hm, it IS true, you are right! it DOES say equal... and opposite... I MUST BE WRONG.

...

Oh, right, it is same magnitude and opposite direction... of the force. Now here's the trick: Equal force does not mean equal velocity. Gee, I wonder why... Oh, right, its because of Newton's Second.
Quote
The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: |F| = ma.

Using mathematics used by Newton himself to actually prove this laws (he wasn't on the experimental mindset, more philosophy than science), we can then deduce that, since |Fa| = |Fb|, then:

ma * aa = mb * ab

Which means aa = (mb * ab) / ma

Now we are stuck. Certainly, behind all this data, there is nothing left. I should accept my defeat i this super important war on the internet... or does it?

Since we know body b (the exhaust) is less massive than body a (the rocket), we know that mb/ma is always less than one. We can then change this for a <1 constant. Then, aa = <1 ab

BUT CUNKER ISNT'T THATH WHAT I SAYS??????

First off, shut up. Second, I haven't finished. Acceleration isn't just a magical constant out of nowhere. Acceleration is just a name we put on the mathematical construct dv/dt. You see the problem now?
No?
Ok, I guess you don't understand what a derivative is. When we derivate velocity over time (which is what dv/dt means) what we mean is that we try to find out the instant change of velocity as a function of time. Mathematically speaking, we find out the find out the limit of the change in velocity respect to the change in time, when the change in time aproaches zero. (lim t->0 of (delta v/ delta t).
Seen the problem yet?
Lets keep going then.
So, then, the "magical" equation we had above becomes dva/dt = <1 dvb/dt
Holy macarena, barman, that means the speed of the exhaust must be higher! Just as you predicted! We are DOOOOOOMED.
Oh wait, what? Sorry, someone is talking to me over the shoulder...oh... yeah... aha... Oh.
Yeah, dva and dvb aren't velocities. They are changes in velocities. Since the rocket is accelerating for minutes, every single time the change in speed is lower than the change in speed on the particles of the exhaust that is being accelerated. But while the exhaust only accelerates for, at most, seconds, the rocket keeps this acceleration throughout the entire burn. Since, as you know, vfinal = vinitial + a[the function that expresses acceleration respect to time] * ttotal.

Do you understand this, or do I have to pull some kids youtube science videos? They don't pay me enough for me to give you a full scientific education, you know?

Don't reply if its not a rebbutal to the mathematical deduction proccess, or an answer to the question.

I rarely ever say 'owned' but, hey, Conker did actually own you, Papa.
Papa has pushed you all into a corner and has whitewashed you all. I enter into it every now and then just to hose you all down ready for Papa to whitewash you all once again.

The desperation with you all is laughable. Weak as piss, even in numbers.  ;D

Crying won't help. I suggest you find better avenues to convey your and Papa's defeat. You desperately need an education.

28
I believe human history of the current human generations is going back to the 11 century.
Err, what?

There are more than a few YECs on this forum. I wouldn't be surprised if Modest was one either, considering how stupid he is.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earthers view on Climate change
« on: June 29, 2015, 11:11:54 PM »
How does that long, arduous explanation help anyone understand anything? It's patently false. Mankind is not a 'zit' that will eventually pop. We're screwing up this planet one factory at a time. Do you understand how thin the atmosphere is? It's very delicate, and changing the chemical composition of it damages it permanently. There is no 'Mother Earth' like the Earth knows whats happening. This sounds like pseudo-Biblical "God made the Earth, so the Earth will provide" bullshit.
What a load of crap. I have been listening to you doomsayers my whole life.
We cannot harm the earth it is to powerful, you going on about it being delicate, just listen to yourself.
You think you are a god and you have to protect the earth because it is delicate.
Must be a lot of fun to be had in your world planting bloody trees when you are so ignorant you cannot see they would grow back by themselves.

The Earth is too powerful? What in hell are you talking about? The Earth is a rock, covered in water in space.

I love how easy it is for you FE morons to straw-man the RE position, knowing full-well that your biblical and pseudo-science nonsense doesn't hold up in the real world. You are being dismissed as a troll.

30
The most essence of universe should be effortless and science is the opposite. as I said science is the art of deceiving, and it erect very clumsy theories to our life to confuse us and it make our life unnaturally ugly. I was believing in evolution and in round earth and in every scientific idea but I understood it make me depressed because it make the world ugly and stinky.

If it's so effortless then you should have no problem coming up with a grand theory of everything that's incredibly simple, and then you can pick up your Nobel prize.  The universe that you think we live in would be about as elegant as that single color image.  Unfortunately the universe is what it is and wanting it to be simple won't change anything.

Here is a way of thinking about it.  Let's take the 3 images I posted before and say that they represent everything there is to know about a given universe.  Let's say that you can only experimentally discover a few pixels and you had to make educated guesses for the rest.  Then a scientist could test their guesses by making and testing predictions and see if it fits.

In the solid image scientists will find out what the whole thing it pretty quickly.

In the random image would probably never be fully figured out because it's random.

The elegant image would be quite tricky to figure out and there will be some holes that will be very hard to fill, but it's easier then the first image because it's more predictable.  This is what we observe with science.

If science is so wrong, then you should have no trouble coming up with some things it currently has wrong.  Please don't say the shape of the Earth, because that would be circular reasoning.
I have a theory which summit all and everything comes out of it - Infinitely and eternally god.

God is fake.
life without god are meaningless that's what naza is all about.

My life has plenty of meaning without an archaic god.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6