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 - MouseWalker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
If I believed that I could jump off a building and fly away, maybe I'd be looney but the belief is still there. It is not 'false'. It's real enough in my mind. That belief is not 'false'.

Belief does not need to be demonstrably true. That's the point of it being a belief. Like a belief in God. It doesn't need to be true for you to believe it to be true. The belief itself is not false. It's personal.

I guess this concept is beyond some. The fact that I can believe things, imagine things, conjure things..... These are qualities that seperate mankind from lesser animals.

Some people got it. Some people don't. ::)

Acting on a false belief can be catastrophic; in that if you were to jump off a building thinking that you can fly, what would be the results death, or severe injury.

2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: August 05, 2020, 03:42:11 PM »
then this is the right place for this statement.
Operation fishbowl is real: I was eye witness to it. Your claim is wrong. this was a test of a Nuclear Bomb scene from Hawaii.
Yes. Best way to study US nuclear bomb tests is feeding your goldfish. US media only publish Fake News about wiping out the terrorist enemies with nukes ... so why read it in a fake news paper?
That does not answer my question: how was that flash produced?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl
It was just stupid propaganda.

sow an  I witness, cannot  move you from your delusion, you're seeing the truth only after they've been cast as shadows in your cave.
How can I help you change your mindset?
You insist that I should join you, in seeing your delusion, as the real thing, it's not going to happen.

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: August 05, 2020, 11:35:17 AM »
then this is the right place for this statement.
Operation fishbowl is real: I was eye witness to it. Your claim is wrong. this was a test of a Nuclear Bomb scene from Hawaii.
Yes. Best way to study US nuclear bomb tests is feeding your goldfish. US media only publish Fake News about wiping out the terrorist enemies with nukes ... so why read it in a fake news paper?
That does not answer my question: how was that flash produced?

4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: August 04, 2020, 08:09:48 PM »
then this is the right place for this statement.
Operation fishbowl is real: I was eye witness to it. Your claim is wrong. this was a test of a Nuclear Bomb scene from Hawaii.

5
No, it was to encourage people to try to win my Challenge and learn about various governments lies.
And here I thought that it was about teaching you some physics. ::)
The Challenge is just to be won. The prize is truth and knowledge.

Operation fishbowl is real: I was eye witness to it. Your claim is wrong.

6
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Perseverence
« on: August 03, 2020, 01:00:32 PM »
Like I said, I don't think NASA is evil but like any agency that depends on external funding there is pressure to produce promising results.

I don't doubt they've tried. I think they are gunning for it. I just wont take everything at face value. At least when billions of dollars is riding on it

There is a huge leap between "NASA wants money" and "NASA is faking Mars rovers in a vast multi-country conspiracy at the highest levels of government fooling the entire world perfectly with no traces or evidence."

Thats the jump you are making here.

NASA makes plenty of mistakes, they make plenty of failures.  The Space Shuttle was a massive failure in that it cost far more money than expected and didn't deliver the cheap access to space it promised, was failure prone and pretty much is the reason NASA lost the ability to send people into space.

I guess we just think different things are unlikely.

You don't think NASA can send robots to Mars.

I don't think NASA can fake all those robots.
It is quite easy to fake everything.
The rover works of course but only on Earth.
Then it is loaded on a rocket that takes off and disappears in the sky.
Only a few people at NASA ground control knows that the rocket will never arrive anywhere.
So they report regular progress, etc.
The arrival Mars is 100% Hollywood studio work again with some NASA ground control staff playing their roles. Finally the rover is put on Mars (i.e. Earth) and NASA can show films about it. Etc, etc. Same scenario as for the Apollo 11 trip 1969. What a waste of money.

with all that how many inspections did you fake; why shod I trust you with an inspection, I don't think so.
How many ships had problems after your inspections?

7

I'd try and explain it, but as you have stated so many timed before, you can't understand, and refuse any explanation as lies.

I'm just glad they returned safely.  It's a dangerous job, but luckily people who actually understand physics are in charge.

Thanks. But how did they visit a toilet in space? Are there toilets there? And showers? And what did they eat? Vacuum dried lobsters?
What do you want: have them, video them taking a  P or  shit, you do know that would be censored.
now for a showers; a sponge bath is most likely.

8
I'm not quite sure how to say this:
 but with the earth moon orbiting each other having a Barycentre, which lies about 4,600 km (2,900 mi) from Earth's center (about 72% of its radius) -   moves along the surface of earth and the water of the oceans tend to follow this point but the continents get in the way then you have a backwash occurring every 24 hours, then there is currents made by the centrifugal force, created by the rotation of the earth. Then you add the gravitational force of the sun to complex things.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:18:49 PM »

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

Well, if the earth were stationary, then the sun wouldn’t be fixed, but moving round the earth.   One could argue that DSCOVR is orbiting the Earth with the same period as the sun.

However, that’s not all we can see in the video.

While I do hear what you are saying there is a point where some reality has to be injected into the discussion.

But irrespective of that it does all boil down to the subject, camera, and light, however, one would wish to reinvent the solar system.

Are we really talking about reinventing the solar system? No, we're talking about where FEr's get their info from. At least that was the OP. And here again, you present earth rotation "evidence" from YouTube even in spite of this:

Quote
The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?

Youtube

Youtube!.....now that’s hardly a well of scientific knowledge is it. I suppose I should have said verifiable.

Irony aside, what has been explained numerous times in myriad ways is that just being presented with one data point, in this case, the satellite composite video showing a seemingly rotating earth is not enough. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. One really can't tell by ONLY looking at the YT video whether the earth is stationary or rotating. Supplementary data is required. It's really that simple. Here, look, this would perhaps be the stationary set-up:



I can equally infer the above by ONLY looking at the video as I can infer a rotating earth.

Is moving the sun to illuminate the subject really an option? OR do we have to conclude, bringing in some reality, that the sun should be stationary?

What is the velocity of the sun and satellite to accomplish such a orbits

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: July 31, 2020, 01:01:37 PM »
Yes, yes. But you can fly as many planes you like into tops of towers and nothing happens below.
The planes weren't flown into the tops of the WTC.

No structure of any kind collapses from top down.
Except when they do:

Topic is a-bombs and not controlled demolition of towers using explosives 911 style. Re topic I have updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm why no a-bombs have ever exploded anywhere.
People should be happy about it BUT plenty get upset that a-bombs are just manipulations.
[/quote]

You forget that you have a I witness to operation fishbowl in your audience.
a-bombs are real; there is nothing that you can say that will convince me otherwise.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Where exactly is it?
« on: July 31, 2020, 12:18:54 PM »
I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?
I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

You have to take the audio with the video
Only by ignoring the audio can you make your claim so put a cork in it.

12
As a safety engineer
How are explosions and fire prevented on a supertanker?
Loaded oil supertankers use inert gas to ensure that no explosive gases are in the tanks. Problem is the pump room adjacent to the tanks. Any oil leakage there can produce explosive gas pockets there. Solution is good ventilation and checking for gas when entering the pump room. The big challenge is to access empty oil cargo tanks for inspections. I have done it >1000 times. It is teamwork. The tank must be clean and gas free and full of fresh air and light and there must be a team on deck to evacuate the inspector (me) if something goes wrong. I have many times detected explosive gas in a tank due to defective cleaning and other reasons. So I escape, we clean and ventilate again, etc. You have to be in shape! An oil cargo tank may be 30 m high, 20 m wide and 60 m long so there is plenty structure to check looking for cracks and climbing around.
That is acceptable.

13
As a safety engineer
How are explosions and fire prevented on a supertanker?

14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: July 26, 2020, 11:46:44 AM »
It seems you agree what an orbit is. So any spacecraft taking off for a trip in space enters an orbit (around Earth). And for that you need energy. And let's face it, there is no rocket on Earth today that can provide that energy for a little trip to the Moon. Just do the calculations.

You are one to talk about calculations,you never provide ANY evidence other than you being dumbfounded how it could be possible, and declaring that a million people are involved in a vast conspiracy... because how could anything YOU don't understand POSSIBLY be real?

Couldn't at all be that you just can't understand it.  No, you are all knowing and the smartest man alive, or ever, clearly.

Can't be YOUR lack of understanding why the ENTIRE WORLD is a confusing mess to you.

Must be the conspiracy.

My evidence/calculations are at my website. Easy to check. But millions of people do not do any calculations or checks at all. They just believe what corrupt people/experts say and what media copy/trumpet as truth. You sound like one believing those lies - a-bombs, space travel, 911 Arabs, etc.

It is apparent that you believe in the HC globe. but when it comes to history, you deny that it is real;  and I don't know how to convince you that the history that you deny, is real.
As a witness to operation fishbowl is not enough to have a witness to history that you deny, can not change your mind?
No, I just believe in my own findings. The winners always write the history, so you have to be alert and check and plan accordingly.

then it is your findings that need to be re-examined because they are in wrong

15
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: July 25, 2020, 08:46:25 PM »
It seems you agree what an orbit is. So any spacecraft taking off for a trip in space enters an orbit (around Earth). And for that you need energy. And let's face it, there is no rocket on Earth today that can provide that energy for a little trip to the Moon. Just do the calculations.

You are one to talk about calculations,you never provide ANY evidence other than you being dumbfounded how it could be possible, and declaring that a million people are involved in a vast conspiracy... because how could anything YOU don't understand POSSIBLY be real?

Couldn't at all be that you just can't understand it.  No, you are all knowing and the smartest man alive, or ever, clearly.

Can't be YOUR lack of understanding why the ENTIRE WORLD is a confusing mess to you.

Must be the conspiracy.

My evidence/calculations are at my website. Easy to check. But millions of people do not do any calculations or checks at all. They just believe what corrupt people/experts say and what media copy/trumpet as truth. You sound like one believing those lies - a-bombs, space travel, 911 Arabs, etc.

It is apparent that you believe in the HC globe. but when it comes to history, you deny that it is real;  and I don't know how to convince you that the history that you deny, is real.
As a witness to operation fishbowl is not enough to have a witness to history that you deny, can not change your mind?

16
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: July 25, 2020, 02:51:45 PM »
  I have to say I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Although you are not sure what point i am trying to make, you are somehow sure that i am the one here who is an idiot, not you?

Congratulations! My point is that JackBlack can't use vector/velocity excuse pretending that there is anything in our formula Θ= arctan vto/c
which justifies that -30 km/s (orbital speed in September) can be understood as something different (something different in a sense that MINUS sign can cause coming to the different result (different value for the angle)) than 30 km/s (orbital speed in March). This MINUS sign (which signifies the change in velocity/vector) is of our concern only in the second case when this hypothetical change in velocity (in direction of earth's orbital motion) yields the change in overall speed of the earth. So, since in the first case, there is no change in the speed (changing the direction of motion in this (first) case doesn't produce the change in earth's orbital velocity), there is no change in the angle between the true (the datum line) and the apparent position of Gamma Draconis, either. On the other hand, in the second case the speed of the earth is changed for 60 km/s due to the changed direction of earth's orbital motion, and that is why in this (second) case the velocity change matters. So, what is of our concern in the first case is the speed of the earth only. And only in the second case velocity change matters because this change produces the change in overall speed of the earth. In conclusion : it is a false claim that in the first case there is 40'' difference between -30 km/s (earth's speed in September) and 30 km/s (earth's speed in March), because there isn't. Only in the second case there is 40'' difference because in the second case earth's overall speed is 280 km/s in March, and 220 km/s in September.

there is the problem with a point of reference, does a race car traveling at 100 mph, on a round circuit go slower on the back side of the track, then when it is going on the front side.of the track? [ the backside of the track is going west the front side of the track is going east ] at one time you have a speed of 100 mph east at the other end 100 mph west, or is that -100 mph east? at no time did the car change it speed at 100 mph.

If the orbital speed of the earth wore to slow it would not maintain its orbit and would crash into the sun.
that is the nature of an orbit.

17
The Lounge / Re: Clarification please.....
« on: July 24, 2020, 04:56:10 PM »
Why do raindrops fall?

Sample gravity.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« on: July 24, 2020, 08:41:58 AM »
On a FE you do.

The barometer pressure paradox proves that the entire atmosphere is not subject to the "law" of attractive gravity.

The collapsing bottle/tanker vacuum chambers are directly related to the aether absorbing graviton model.

why would the scale Measure the 2,000 pounds of atmosphere and I not have to over come that 2,000 pounds to, pickup the scale?
I can pick up the scale, there for I am not on a FE world, but on a globe world, with attractive gravity.


19
Flat Earth General / Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« on: July 24, 2020, 08:08:59 AM »
I don’t need an aether absorbing wormhole to secure a suction cup to a surface.

You most certainly do. I have the references to prove it. You got nothing so far.

The pressure on the outside is greater than the inside.

Not when your bathroom scale does not register the 2,000 pounds of weight.

You’re painfully trying to apply theoretical quantum notions to a very simple atmospheric scenario.

Very leisurely, for your information.

If you want to claim that the atmosphere applies pressure, YOU NEED A STABLE, ROTATING WORMHOLE WHICH DOES NOT ABSORB AETHER.

you say that there is 2,000 pounds of wight holding down the scale, I must have superman powers by picking up the scale off the floor.

 

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flaw in EP - detrimental to FET
« on: July 23, 2020, 10:13:38 PM »
The biggest problem is the Flat Earthers who push the Equivalence principle don't really understand it.

They think it's some magic 'law' that means it's impossible to prove if you are on a round planet with gravity or a flat one accelerating.

THIS IS WRONG.


The Equivalence principle is only valid for small spaces.  That's why an elevator is used as an example.

On larger scales you CAN tell the difference between the two. Tidal forces is one example of an effect that lets you tell the difference.

The Wiki puts some heavy emphasis on EP and rests a large amount of their 'proof' on it but it's fatally flawed.  We can indeed device experiments to tell the difference, we just can't easily do it in a small box. But we don't live in a small box, at least non flat earthers don't.

The entire concept is wrong.

Yet you cite nothing at all, and no experiments, for this assertion.

You do love your citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

"An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space. The room, therefore, should be small enough that tidal effects can be neglected."

Tidal effects would let you distinguish between being on a planet with gravity, and an accelerating disk unless your room was so small your instrumnets couldn't detect it.

That's why the principle states you need to be in a SMALL space. It's not saying it's impossible to tell, just that in a specific set of circumstances you can't. In the real world of course, we can.

Just read any in-depth discussion and you will see that the Equivalence principle is limited.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.4962774

"Strictly speaking, when the gravitational field is non-uniform (like Earth’s), the equivalence principle holds only for experiments in elevators that are small enough and that take place over a short enough period of time"

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/einsteins-experimental-elevator/

"He formulated this insight in what is known as the “equivalence principle,” which asserts that uniform acceleration is equivalent to the presence of a homogenous, or uniform, gravitational field. Now, of course, since the Earth is spherical, its gravitational field is not, strictly speaking, homogenous or uniform, because its lines of gravitational force diverge. But the equivalence principle still holds for reasonably small regions of space where the divergence is negligible."

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle

"All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame. Consider the famous example of a person in a falling elevator. The person floats in the middle of an elevator that is falling down a shaft. Locally, that is during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space, the person falling in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator or being in completely empty space, where there is no gravity."

The Equivalence principle can't prevent you from determining the difference between globe and flat Earth. The planet is MUCH bigger than a small elevator, and another restriction is you are not allowed to look outside the elevator. In reality we can.

That is merely what is thought about the nature of gravity. You have posted zero experimental evidence.

You need EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for that to be true.

As far as I could see, the Equivalence principle was used by proponents of UA.
But the main problem with UA is the lack of uniformity of such acceleration.

Let's take Clemmons, NC for example:
The town is at 36oN, 80.4oW, at the elevation of 260 m.

The acceleration at 261 m above sea level is 9.798191 m/s2.
The acceleration at 10261 m above sea level is 9.766602 m/s2.
How could the same ground point accelerate at two different rates towards two points at different altitudes?

The Equivalence principle can't help here.

What experiment are you referring to? That could just be the calculated number rather than anything that was derived experimentally.

Gravity Variations by Latitude has an article in the tfes wiki. Those are not robust or controlled experiments, and the scales are exposed to the atmpsphere. I would suggest addressing the article rather than stating random things. Also see the article on Gravimeters.

You would need to demonstrate that those experiments are controlled and valid and interpreted correctly for this evidence to be valid.

There is actually much more evidence that the EP has been verified at various elevations and situations, including at different latitudes if we use clocks rather than scales. Again, see the articles on the tfes wiki.

How about The travels of
kern the gnome, for an experiment

Can you explain his wight during his travels.
You should have seen this many times there are links elsewhere on this form.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« on: July 23, 2020, 02:07:55 PM »
jackblack, you are an impostor.

On top of being a compulsory liar.

It seems you have a very short memory as well.

Air pressure doesn't just magically push down. Instead it pushes in all directions, including up.

You were crushed exactly on this topic, not too long ago:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2252934#msg2252934

Are you sure you are ok mentally?

How can you live with yourself and yet post such drivel?

Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?

The only remaining dodge at this point is for the mainstream scientist to mimic the NASA feint and claim the scale is full of air. “For the scale to compress, there must be space underneath it, and that space is filled with air. The pressure underneath the scale equals the pressure above it, so it doesn't register the weight of the air.” This ridiculous argument is actually the accepted one: I am not making it up. The problem, if you don't already see it, is that these scientists have claimed the human body is also filled with one atmosphere of pressure, from air or otherwise; and if we weigh that body, it is standing on a scale also “floating” on air. Therefore the human body should also weigh nothing on the scale, according to this logic. If a column of air weighing 11 tons can be completely levitated by air pressure, why not a 170 pound man? The experts might say it is a matter of density, but neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations have a density variable in them. The force of gravity is supposed to be a function of mass, not density. If it is a matter of density, how does the field know I am denser than the column of air? Mr. Gravity is looking up at me and the column from underneath: how does he know I have more density than the column of air?

Or, return to David Esker's example. If I put my hand flat on a table, he claims there is 270 pounds of force bearing down on it. My hand is acting like a scale, and it “feels” 270 pounds of weight. But, like the scale, my hand is already pressurized. Why does my hand feel the weight but not the scale? If I lift my hand a fraction of an inch off the table, there is now air underneath it. Is my hand now equalized, like the scale? Do I now feel no force from the atmosphere? If I feel no force from the atmosphere, why does my hand not swell up to twice its size, like an astronaut in a hard vacuum without a spacesuit?

What if I lay my hand on the scale: am I to believe that my hand feels the force but not the scale? One of these scientists answered me that the top of my hand equalized the weight of the air, so that it was not transferred to the scale. The problem here, if you cannot see it already, is that if the top of my hand is capable of pushing back with 270 pounds of force, the bottom of my hand should be, too. In which case the scale will be feeling that force.

I find it vary hard to tell what you say and what you are quoting: the wight of the scale is 3 lbs. if I pick it up off the floor I am really picking up 2,003 lbs?


22
Flat Earth General / Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« on: July 17, 2020, 06:11:33 PM »
122.9382-76.1253/68.1104+57.0099*47.5924*73.2832-81.3398 = 198875.241144

47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997


In order to walk upright like a human, you must give up monkeying around.

That's not an algorithm: a repeatable sequence of logical operations.

I use the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

A huge difference.

pleas show the algorithm I have yet to see it : all I have seen is a list of numbers. how did you get the numbers?
show something like the algorithm ( a + b) / c = x : the algorithm in use  ( 10 + 40 ) / 2 = 25.
just one set of numbers will do.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are comets?
« on: July 14, 2020, 05:20:33 PM »
Show me a comet tail that points into the sun, then we can talk.

I can do even better than that: a comet with no tail at all.


https://www.nature.com/news/2007/071026/full/news.2007.195.html

The reason that comet 17P Holmes brightened so suddenly isn’t yet known; this comet doesn't have a tail.

https://sci.esa.int/web/observational-astronomy/-/41491-unexpected-brightening-of-comet-17p-holmes

Although it is bright, comet 17P/Holmes does not have a distinctive tail.


Watch video clips on "Comet Machholz Returns! (April 6, 2007)", and "Comet 96P/Machholz in SOHO field 2012" that show Comet 96P/Machholz on two occasions has had its gas tail almost aligned to the Sun, these events were during the Sun's magnetic pole was reserved, where the magnetic Ring Center of the Solar System was supposedly very near or inside the Sun, with Saturn, Sun and Jupiter arranged in their near superior conjunction. As observed by the SOHO spacecraft, these are the immutable observational proofs for comet gas tail does not align with the Sun; this anomaly during the perihelion visits for this short-period comet is inexplicable with the conventional wisdom of cometary science.

This anomaly was also empirically observed by the SOHO spacecraft for several other comets, such as the Comet NEAT event, and this can be further confirmed by checking the solar wind speed data recorded by the SOHO spacecraft.

These empirical observations showed that the conventional wisdom on solar wind causing the gas tail of comet to always point directly away from the Sun, is a myth.

Comet NEAT as observed by the SOHO spacecraft, was subjected to two corona mass ejections at its near passage of the Sun, and in between the solar wind had fluctuated from a hourly average low speed of 354 km/s to a hourly average high speed of 916 km/s as recorded by the SOHO's CELIAS/MTOF Proton Monitor, yet the comet gas tail deflection was observed to be not affected by the solar wind fluctuation at all; this is an empirical evidence that the gas tail of comet is not blown away by solar wind to point directly away from the Sun.

https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/old/06apr2007/


While passing close to the Sun, the tail is always at a constant angle with respect to the Sun. It is not being deflected by direct solar wind blasts at all. At a much larger distance, other factors come into play (neglected by modern astrophysics), the barycenter of the jovian planets, the electrostatic atmosphere confinement of the comet.

(comet 96P/Machholz unaffected by solar wind)

The tail does simply trail along behind the comet, while passing next to the Sun, in the face of direct solar wind blasts.

(comet NEAT unaffected by solar wind)

(three different comets, including NEAT, no tail lag whatsoever)

Comet C/2011 L4 (PanSTARRS) completely unaffected by direct solar wind blasts:





The tail is not pointing away from the Sun, nor is it interracting with the solar wind blast.

Just where is the SOHO satellite located on a flat earth

24
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: July 04, 2020, 07:53:08 PM »
Why should anyone believe a word you say about anything?

I say nothing, they say everything, you just have to listen to them, that's all. Oh, i forgot one important (necessary) condition : You have to have a brain in your scull and one tiny bit of honesty in your heart, so that you can take off your pink sunglasses and see the real world around you for the first time in your whole life which you spent in your deep rabbit hole.

well you need to come out of your cave, where you see the shadow of reality being cast on the wall.
Until you do you will remain lost in that altered reality.
As for Adam bombs: I saw the flash from  operation fishbowl; and there's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.

25
Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.
Again, you are ignoring the issue.
I don't really care if you want to focus on the molecular level or the macroscopic level.
What I care about is explaining how the individual itself is held together, whether that is a macroscopic link, or a molecular link.
What I want to know is how the right side of that link transfers the force to the left side, without pulling.
That is the problem you continually refuse to address.

As for how I explain it, I use a pulling force, which makes it trivial, regardless of what level of detail you go into.
The atoms on the right pull the atoms on left.
The atoms on the right apply a force to the atoms on the left which results in the atoms on the left moving right. That is a pulling force, exactly what your claims disallow.

Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.
And why doesn't that occur with the major or minor axis?

You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.
No, I mean your magical air that seems to do everything with no actual explanation at all.
You haven't explained your forces. Instead you repeatedly deflect.
I've explained. Now have a real think.
How can there be a pull?
How in the hell can there be a pulling force in reality?

Everything that happens requires compressive force, meaning it absolutely requires a push when you actually look at it much deeper.

Of course we all go by the word "pull" because we see a to and a fro which we simply accept as a push and pull...but let's look at some simple stuff.

Take a spring.
You compress that spring and to do this you need to push on one end and to have a resistance to that push which is something the spring can compress into or against, which can compress back. All push from here, right?
Now you leave loose of the spring and the spring itself decompresses/uncoils by the same compressive force that starts from the very front of that spring, once released for the original compressive push force...and that is channelled all the way to the back as each cooil is pushed outwards, until the foundation/wall/resistance allowing that is no longer a resistant force but the spring is compressed to the ground by it's own dense mass against atmospheric crush/push and to the floor to lay in it's dense state,s till under a push from atmosphere and also compressive forces in each molecular link holding the spring together.

Take your spring hold it horizontally, it can be compressed or stretched from it's relaxed position:
1 compress the spring to its max compressed position, then release it. what happens?
2 stretch the spring to it's max length,  then release it. what happens?
  Explain in your words what happens.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Your average body temperature
« on: June 28, 2020, 09:18:59 PM »

In order to compare whether or not I am healty, ask your grandfather his average body temperature.

My grandfather's average body temperature is room temperature.

And mine are about the average annual temperature of the places they're buried.

This doesn't bode well for Mr. Wise's health.
Maybe Mr. Wise's body temperature is an indication that he's soon to be interred.
No wonder he never make any sense - it's probably just his dementia.
Stop to insult! I have nothing to say you lie! I am good and healty.

Too bad I'm being ignored again.  If Wise really has a body temperature of 86F he needs to take my advice and go to a hospital.  And sue whatever caregivers think that temperature is nothing to be concerned about, because if it's true they are completely incompetent.

Someone certainly is incompetent here.

Of course... the more likely explanation is he has no idea what he's talking about.  Still... it's highly likely he needs some serious meds.


It is my understanding that a temperature of 95 is hypothermia and the flight time from the doctor.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: A simple test.
« on: June 27, 2020, 02:13:25 PM »
ignoring your magnetic compass 30° manipulation nonsense...
I did not read the remain part after this word. Because I have prove that the magnetic declination is a lie, whether or not you accept it. If you are describing the facts of life a nonsence, so you are non sense.
You have proven no such thing!
Yes I have, jack. The stable position of Polaris is a proof that the magnetic declination is lie. You can close your eyes, no problem.

I do not know your location. it may be that the magnetic declination at your location is zero, so what does that prove?
6 degrees according to declinationators. I have tried to verify it in different locations, average declination should be 5-6 but never obserbed.

You are confused that you can't see an AVERAGE declination in a SPECIFIC place?

Are the locations a 1,000 miles east or west from you; you need to move that much, to see a change.
moving  north or south make little difference, in declination.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: A simple test.
« on: June 27, 2020, 09:59:50 AM »
ignoring your magnetic compass 30° manipulation nonsense...
I did not read the remain part after this word. Because I have prove that the magnetic declination is a lie, whether or not you accept it. If you are describing the facts of life a nonsence, so you are non sense.
You have proven no such thing!
Yes I have, jack. The stable position of Polaris is a proof that the magnetic declination is lie. You can close your eyes, no problem.

I do not know your location. it may be that the magnetic declination at your location is zero, so what does that prove?

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Your average body temperature
« on: June 25, 2020, 03:13:37 PM »
At least he's wearing one, unlike some well-known people, which is the real symbolism. Besides, maybe that's how moose are supposed to wear them. ;)
I wear one at work it must cover mouth and nose, tightly. this week there is more a plexiglass shield between me and the customer.

30
Technology, Science & Alt Science / push pull
« on: June 25, 2020, 12:04:45 PM »
Scenario:

hav your hands in front of you with your index finger so each hand pointing to the other index finger, Close your fingers into fist, open your fingers to point to the other.
please explain the muscle action in your finger?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26