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 - chtwrone

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Full Moon and other phases questions
« on: October 02, 2016, 03:50:43 AM »
Maybe people don't like to bother answering stupid questions from stupid people?  :-\

The 'stupid people' on this website are the flat earth believers. After all, only a stupid person would actually believe that the moon isn't illuminated by the sun and reflecting its light. It's obvious, that the moon is reflecting sunlight - how can anybody be so stupid not to see this - it's a no-brainer.

I don't know, stickying this might make Thork angry.

You really dont know if its round or not, you never tested it bounderies or limmits or its edge, you never even been to the moon to begin with. You use a telescope watch the moon at night but none of the bilion satelites we have on stratosphere cross through out my scope you lying pieceses of shit!

You actually think you can see something the size of a refrigerator, that is thousands of miles away, through a telescope? The only thing you have between your ears is SHIT.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sun behind the horizon
« on: October 02, 2016, 03:20:58 AM »
No, you don't. Foggy (etc) thing increases the halo. Sun's halo can be easily filtered out.

.... but unfortunately JROA's ignorance to fact, mathematics and science cannot be filtered out.

It is jroa, thank you very much.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the sun is the same angular size throughout the day, despite the fact that it should be obviously much smaller when it's lower in the sky and therefore much further away from the observer, only serves to highlight how flawed the flat earth model is. How weak and pathetic that you can't even offer at least some plausible explanation to this huge hole in the flat earth model. Oh, if you hadn't already realised, the flat earth model is a sad pathetic joke, and so are the ignorant fools that support it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun
« on: October 02, 2016, 03:13:36 AM »
Surprising how the angular size seems to decrease around noon hours though only by one degree, probably due to something unrelated to size or position (maybe the size of the sun in the image or zoom?) while in the flat earth theory it would peak. Wow.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the sun is ALWAYS at its zenith exactly at midday? There are 2 noons for each day, but the solar noon is NOT always the same as the local clock (time) noon. Not sure where you got the idea that they are always exactly the same?

Flat Earth General / Re: Prove That Antarctica Is A Continent.
« on: October 02, 2016, 02:59:38 AM »

You've mentioned in a previous post on this thread, that it's possible for the 24 hour Antarctic sun to exist on the flat earth model. I thought that the flat earth sun acted like a spot light and only illuminated a defined circular section of the surface at any given time. How then is it possible for the spot light sun to illuminate the whole of Antarctica at the same time, when Antarctica encircles the entire flat earth?

... okay, I will assume you are serious (although it is hard to believe)..

Those videos are taken with long exposure times, so you will not notice the little twinkling of the stars.

Also: Why would many, independent, private people upload such videos?

They're agents.Just show me one video of a southern hemisphere star that isn't a cgi timelapse and this thread will die.

I live in New Zealand (Southern Hemisphere if you didn't know) about 3 hours flying time east of Australia. It's almost as if you don't actually think that stars can be seen in the sky at night time here in the southern hemisphere?  Exactly what is the issue that you have with the stars in this part of the world?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!
« on: October 01, 2016, 06:53:43 PM »
it would literally take around 20 minutes.. there's hundreds every night

a simple task so we can continue :)

and my questions are very basic, not nonsense, I'd appreciate you return the respect I'm now showing you


No need to talk about something i did'nt see and don't believe it is exist.

everyone, flat earthers included, agree that they are there, they just have different ideas as to what they are

you are the only person who says 'I don't believe there are moving lights in the sky'

all you need to do is look up, at night, for less than half an hour, and you'll see 1 or 2 in that time

they are 100% there, it's not something that CAN be denied..
..I just want to know what YOU think they are

that's like me saying there's no such things as sharks, I've never actually seen one except for on tv.. I have a reasonable argument?

no, because they exist

I'm NOT saying that if you see them you're admitting they're satellites
I just want you to look at one and tell me what you think it is


I work alone. I looked to the sky at night and didn't see anything except moon,  stars and moving stars. I don't care who see or who don't. Some of flathers actually are not flathers and i don't know and i don't care who are they and what they are depend on.

I didn't see that things that you said. As Arnold said that: Don't trust anybody.  8)

moving stars?
that's what I'm asking!! You've told me you've NEVER seen them and don't believe they exist

can you please clear up what you mean by 'moving stars'

Moving stars= stars. Most of them are falling down stars.

Do you even realize that NOBODY is remotely interested in your bullshit pseudo science explanations for 'this' and 'that'?  Aside from the fact that NOBODY can understand what you're even saying due to your abysmal english, the information that is able to be understood (just) is just too stupid to give any credibility to. You epitomize the statement 'Let's just make some shit up, and see who's stupid enough to believe it'.

You are COMPLETELY wasting your time on this website even trying to get anybody to understand or give credibility to what you have to say.

To sum up your overall contribution to the subject of round earth/flat earth debate, you are just ONE BIG EPIC FAIL.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites don't exist?
« on: October 01, 2016, 12:02:24 AM »
It is easy to say have something but it is hard to prove it.

For example i'm saying i have 1.250.799 sattelites on the sky. Why don't you believe me? because you don't believe me. USA, China and Russia is the member of "lie council" who defends Antarctica the end of the world. So we don't believe any of them too.

First they should to convince us there are exist.

I'm saying that they firstly should to prove how they can pass to the thermospehere by the lab way. Do you remember an experiment contains a laboratory has an environment same as thermosphere and a machine passes it without damage. I don't remember an experiment like this. Firstly they should to prove they can!

We are looking to the sky and see no one of the sattelites. But our antennas turned some spesific point that never move. So it must be at there. But no matter how your binoculars or telescope be sensitive, it is impossible to see them as a scientific observation: understandable and repeatable.

So they are not exist. We have no reason to accept they are exist.

A satellite in geostationary orbit, is around 36,000 km's above the surface of the earth. These satellites can be as small as a watermelon or large as a small bus. The fact that you even ask why we can't see satellites of this comparatively small size, at such a great distance, with the aid of a pair of binoculars or telescope, only serves to highlight the profound stupidity exhibited by flat earth theorists such as yourself. You people actually don't know much at all do you?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: sun behind the horizon
« on: September 28, 2016, 02:20:04 AM »
Perspective and refraction.  Have you read the wiki or the FAQ?

As the sun gets lower and lower in the sky, and therefore getting further and further away from the observer (in the FE model), the sun's angular diameter should be getting progressively smaller and smaller. The fact that it does not change size at all, obviously disproves the flat earth model conclusively. No doubt you'll have some 'let's make some shit up' theory that explains why the sun's size doesn't change at all throughout the day?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inverted moon on flat earth is impossible
« on: September 28, 2016, 01:40:55 AM »
You are still not turning me on.

The moon is NOT 3000 miles above the flat earth's surface. The various laser reflectors placed on the moon's surface prove that beyond all doubt. It's understandable that you would dismiss this evidence out of hand, but nevertheless, it's there for all to see. The moon's average distance from earth is 384,400 km - FACT.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the sun is a spotlight then...
« on: April 14, 2016, 04:55:49 AM »
The question about why the size of the sun is always the same regardless of the time of day is just one of many nails in the FE theory. Imagine if the sun were immediately overhead at midday and therefore 3000 miles away. Now imagine that it's either the end of the day with the sun disappearing out of sight, or the beginning of the day with the sun now in view. At these times when the sun is very low in the sky (first light and dusk), it must therefore obviously be much further away than the 3000 miles that is at midday. According to the FE map, the sun would have to be at least 15,000 miles away at these times when the sun is low in the sky. It would be much appreciated if someone could explain to me, how the size of the sun is exactly the same, regardless of whether it's 3000 miles or 15,000 miles away?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'd like to present a few proofs...
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:44:55 PM »
Indeed, claiming the win on an internet forum surely ends the argument and makes clear who succeeded. Well played, Sir!

Wait, the second win ... you, Sir, must be surely the king of the internet!

Sounds like the words of someone who has been defeated.  I will not claim this as a win, as I am starting to feel sorry for you.

I will GREATLY simplify geometry for you. You won't even need to know "spherical geometry". I will make it ONE line - not 3. Apparently, FEers can't do more than one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how a cruise ship from Ushuaia, AR can go in 3 days to S. Georgia Island (via the Falkland Islands no less) - a distance of 3500-4000 mi on a Flat Earth map ( The trip is 12/18/2015.

Do you think I have enough money in my bank account to perform this?  Perhaps you do not know what a demonstration is?  Or, maybe you are just confused?  You tell me.
Why do you have to go on the trip? The trip exists. Using a FE model, explain it.

You want me to explain your anecdote to you?  Are you serious, or are you just jerking me around?
Yes, I would like you explain it. I am serious.

Well, then, since I did not do it, and neither did you, that means I can just make up anything I want.  I choose...Time Dilation, for the win.

Yes, we know that you 'just make up anything' you want.

This is apparent in each and every post you make - it's ALL just made up, lol.

The round earth model is FACT, yet all of the flat earth model is just 'made up' theory.

Is there anything about flat earth theory that actually ISN'T made up?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:39:00 PM »
What happened to "don't start arguing again"?
Despite some of his questionable opinions jroa has a point. I came here for FE explanations that I could use my common sense to determine their authenticity. I don't need RE's butting in with their opinions. Once or twice? Fair enough. But this is now a debate. If you want to continue arguing go over to the discussion board. I'll happily start a new thread and we can argue there. But shut up and let jroa or whoever else wants to answer me answer my question.

Why do you even give this jroa the time of day?

All his theories are based on ignorance and lame conjecture.

The round earth model is fact, as can be witnessed each and every day on this spherical planet.

Did you know that jroa actually thinks the sun is only 3000 miles about the flat earth surface?

Yet, he has NEVER been able to explain how the sun disappears out of sight at the end of each day?  On a flat earth, this would be impossible, but then it's these 'impossibilities' that flat earthers grasp onto like some child with a favourite stuffed toy?

These people also think the moon is self-illuminating, and moonlight is NOT reflected sun light at all.

Is this the sort of rubbish you are willing to embrace as fact?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:30:33 PM »
Yep, here's some compelling evidence about the shape of the earth - therefore the 'logical conclusion' is that the shape of the earth is round.

Why do you post that image everywhere? FEers have a firm response to such photos. You can disagree with it all you want, but your image is useless for convincing anyone.

Ah, the old ad populum fallacy "Others[nb]In this case, it's a really small group of "others", but still.[/nb] say this image is fake, therefore it must be fake."
Well its not fake , it is a photo. Manipulated ?defently, its a photo of a southern hemis  day time moon. Inverted & with the back ground blacked out . What is wrong with you people!!!!That you have to continually lie deceive & inflict continual malignancy of  servitude. Do you not feel the slightest bit of shame in what your doing ?
Birdy - People Help The People [Official Music Vi…: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Is this just your opinion that ALL NASA photos are fake, or do you actually have some evidence to back up your statements?

What makes you say the background has been 'blacked out'?

You say that as though you would expect hundreds of stars to be visible?

I know why there would never be stars visible in pictures such as this, but it seems your ignorance is preventing you from knowing this reason.

Maybe it's time you did some photography fact-finding, instead of lamely making ignorant posts?

Did you know for instance, that during bright lighting conditions, a fast camera shutter setting must be used, or the picture will be overexposed?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Appearance and Disappearance of Stars
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:22:29 PM »
There is not a cloud in the sky in my picture.  Quit making stuff up when you get backed into a corner.

Your picture shows a mountain ridge, which is not the actual horizon.  Please, stop being disingenuous when you post.  It makes all roundies look like liars, not just yourself.

Have you ever seen clouds at night?  They don't look all white at night, they are black because they are not being illuminated and they are often hard to find.  In your image the areas where the stars were faded were a bit spotty which is consistant with clouds.

Here is an image of the stars not fading near the horizon at sea where the horizon is pretty darn near eye level:

Being someone who uses a telescope a lot I can personally veryfy that the angular distance between stars is constant reguandless of weather it's near the horizon or directly overhead and a spherical star chart matches perfectly with observations.  I also use an equatorial mount, which works because Earth is round.  Also, you didn't address my point about the Sun setting and not fading away.

Wow, the clouds at the horizon must be fading your stars, too.  lol

The picture below of the sun, contradicts two requirements -

Firstly, according to FE theory, the sun is ALWAYS 3000 miles about the surface of the flat earth.

It would be greatly appreciated if you explain how the sun could start to disappear out of view and then completely disappear, if it is always supposed to be 3000 miles about the flat surface?

And secondly, when the sun is this close to the horizon, according to FE theory, it must be a great deal further away from the observer than compared to when it is midday.

Please explain how the size of the sun remains exactly the same during the day, despite supposedly being a much greater distance away in the evening and morning?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Star motion
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:11:02 PM »
One more thing is also quite dissapointing: one talk go back to 2008. In 7 years time noone was able to create any theoretical fundaments for this theory? You want to keep that as just a claim with no proof? Or, someone already did this and my digging skills are bad.

Your own scientists invent theories to explain things that can only be observed but never tested.  Why are we held to a different standard?  Do you think we are Omnipotent?

Oh, so you point out that 'your own scientists invent theories'?

You say this, as though there is something in FE theory that disputes RE fact (theory)?

Really, what?

Flat Earth General / Re: Space programs in other countries
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:06:22 PM »
Obvious, he believes whatever big brother tells him. :'(

I know, right. Hoppy, did you read where I explained the deflector shield to you?

Yep, he probably saw your pathetic 'deflector' proposition.

He probably also saw your post on another thread, explaining how a man on a skateboard, throwing a medicine ball, is actually being propelled because the medicine ball is pushing on the atmosphere, lol.

The 2 posts combined, have no doubt firmly established in his mind, that YOU have the intellect of a hamster, lol.

Incidentally Yendor, did you never ask yourself why a VERY heavy medicine ball is used in the 'man on skateboard throwing ball' experiment?

Did it never occur to you, that maybe it's the momentum of the object being thrown that causes the man on the skateboard to be propelled in the opposite direction?

But then you actually think that if a beach ball weighing a few ounces, with the same dimensions as the medicine ball, was thrown with the same speed, that it would produce exactly the same propelling force, because it's the same surface area that is pushing off the atmosphere, lol.

That for me, is the clincher, when it come to your 'hamster' brain, lol.

Please don't stop posting these propositions of yours though, as they are a constant source of amusement and really brighten my day - thanks for that by the way.

I believe we are talking about impulse momentum in this situation. The Momentum-Impulse Theorem states that the change in momentum of an object is equal to the impulse exerted on it over time:
J = FΔt
J=impulse momentum

Force is, strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.

1. A person can exert more force throwing an object that weighs far less than a heavier object. So, the throwing force applied to a beach ball would be much greater than the medicine ball.

2. Because the medicine ball is much heavier than the beach ball, the time it takes to throw it is much less because a person can't get his arms out as far as he can throwing a beach ball. A person can really stretch his arms out throwing a beach ball. So, the time it takes to throw the beach ball would be greater.

In conclusion, a person can put more force behind throwing a beach ball than a medicine ball and a person can take more time exerting this extra force. So I'd say this equals more impulse momentum.

I hope this brightens your day.

So why do experiments of this nature (person throwing an object to demonstrate momentum) always feature a heavy object (medicine ball)?

If a very light object such as a beach ball, would demonstrate this resultant momentum force much more convincingly, why are these never used?

 And I thought from a previous comment you posted about the propelling force exerted onto a man on a skateboard, that it was your contention that it was the atmosphere pushing back on the object being thrown?

Now you suddenly introduced this 'impulse momentum' (whatever that is) into the discussion?

Regardless of what your opinion is, it's patently clear you have NO IDEA WHAT SO EVER ABOUT MOMENTUM, AND PROPELLING FORCES.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space programs in other countries
« on: November 04, 2015, 09:58:58 PM »
I find it odd that you roundies can believe in self propelled flying space debris squares, yet you can not believe that your government has ever lied to you.  Go figure. 

I am getting tired of all of these wins.  Please, give me a challenge.

You want a challenge?

Ok then, please explain what 'force' is behind the 360 degree circular movement of the sun over the earth's surface every 24 hours?

I have never seen a legitimate response to this question from a FEer, but obviously YOU can provide me with an answer.

Or it this requested challenge too hard for you?

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun
« on: November 04, 2015, 09:50:16 PM »
Please, post your data and methods for review.  Thanks.

So, you actually think the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the earth?

Please, post your data and methods for review.   Thanks.

Flat Earth General / Re: People on skateboards.
« on: November 04, 2015, 09:48:27 PM »
I already answered you.


It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.


It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.

Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.

But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.

And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.

Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.

Simple stuff.

So; when you write this:

You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.

You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.

And now you are making an ass of yourself even more...

Are you a masochist?

The ass is clearly YOU.

It's YOU who lamely thinks that a rocket's exhaust is FIRMLY attached to the rocket, lol.

You might like to explain to us all, just how a gas can be attached to a solid.

No doubt you'll just make another lame excuse as to why you don't have to answer this question, but it will only serve to highlight, yet again, just how baseless and ignorant your opinions/thoughts/theories/propositions are.

« on: November 04, 2015, 09:43:04 PM »
If a rocket, in essence, can propel itself by pushing on its own exhaust, then a dinghy should be able to do the same thing. A person, sitting inside a dinghy that is floating on the water, pushing against the transom board with your knees firmly planted on the seat board should work the same as a rocket. Sure your knees will slip and slide some, but you will be applying enough force on the transom to cause the boat to float backwards somewhat noticeable. I'm I correct in this scenario?

No. No mass is leaving the dingy, so the dingy does not receive any momentum from anything. If you threw the transom with enough force it would however accelerate the dingy by a small, probably unnoticeable amount as a whole dingy (without a transom) + you weighs a lot more than the transom. If you'd like to I could calculate roughly what speed you'd have to accelerate the transom to for the dingy to gain a velocity of 1 m/s, if you think it'll help you understand. And that would be without resistance from the water onto the dingy.

However, if you WERE strong enough, in your scenario it could work. You have to push so hard that you break it off and it flies away from you with high velocity.

So, you are saying that pushing on the transom itself will not cause the dinghy to move, It only needs the outward rushing of the exhaust to cause the rocket to fly. Now I've seen rockets leaving the launching pad and I know that under the launching pad are concrete pathways for the exhaust to travel away from the rocket during lift off. I would say that since an object at rest tends to remain at rest, It would take a lot more escaping exhaust to move that rocket off the launch pad then it does to fly in the air. How can it do that if the necessary exhaust for propulsion is being diverted out of the way of the rocket and into the exhaust pathways just as soon as it starts to leaves the rocket? It looks to me that the rocket should be elevated up far enough so the exhaust can exit cleanly enough to be substantial to push against. I placed red lines, on the pic below, where these exhaust pathways i'm talking about are located. As close as this rocket is to the launch pad, you know that this rocket is not going to have much exhaust to push against if most of it is diverted out the sides of the launch pad.

Once the exhaust has left the rocket it has done its job.  The pathways are there to prevent the heat from building up on the launch pad and melting the concrete.

In order to overcome gravity and lift that big rocket off the launching pad, you are going to need a lot of exhaust molecules to push against. They won't be there because they are being diverted away from the rocket. In my opinion this rocket will need something more substantial than just the little remaining exhaust. Something like a solid structure separate from the rocket.

Nobody gives a toss about your opinion.

After all, anybody who seriously thinks a man on a skateboard, who throws a medicine ball, is being propelled in one direction because the medicine ball is being pushed against the atmosphere, deserves NO credibility at all.

My god, you even think that a beach ball of the same dimensions as the thrown medicine ball, would have exactly the same propelling force, lol.

You certainly were last in line, when someone was handing out brains.

I know FE fans don't even look out of the window of their basement to confirm or refute evidence, but even looking around the internet seems too much for them now.

Pages of every noteworthy space flight event, incuding launches and space walks, each with videos ranging from a few minute highlights to several hours full coverage, as well as pictures and relevant facebook updates.

You'd be amazed how much work goes into planning, writing, storyboarding, casting, filming, adding CGI, editing and promoting a film or TV show.

But, does that make them real?

It also makes me cringe how you bozo's mention social media updates as proof of legitimacy. Good one.

So as usual, you have an opinion about a subject, based on profound ignorance, type a few words on a messageboard, and hey presto, absolute evidence about a worldwide conspiracy concerning space travel.

Lol, you people are just the biggest joke around at the moment.

Still waiting for proof to back up your pathetic rants...............................

There must be thousands of people around the world who know about this conspiracy, but as yet no one has spoken up, not one, ever.

I've recently organised a surprise birthday party for a guy at work. We have 25 staff and it took only one to ruin the surprise, just one.

You people are just deluded fools if you think thousands of people can be kept quiet, forever.

Flat Earth General / Re: People on skateboards.
« on: November 02, 2015, 12:22:23 PM »
In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel.  This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.


So the Force acts upon its own Force?!?

That'd be the same Force that's heading AWAY from the rocket at EXACTLY the same velocity as the Force that's somehow trying to push against it?!?!

GTFO, psycho!

Wtf is WRONG with you?

You are trying to create a Frankenstein version of Newton's 3rd from an example of ONLY Newton's 2nd; PLEASE just learn the difference & be done with this Insanity...

Cos it's getting REALLY creepy now!


I made one special for your special needs; go use it, eh?

So you really think that the burnt fuel/propellent mass, being forcibly ejected out of a rocket system, has had NO momentum imparted onto it at all?

Flat Earth General / Re: Rockets do not have combustion chambers.
« on: November 02, 2015, 12:18:47 PM »
Once you see it for what it is, it should give you a real good leg up into actually realising how much you've been duped with this rocket and  space crap.
I see the "science" is absolute fabrication.  However, I am confused about what is being witnessed. 

What are people seeing?  What are these "rockets" being shot up into the air?  I do not see wings on them.  They can not be airplanes. 
What keeps these "rockets" flying straight up?  What keeps them from wobbling off and crashing down? 

Are the flames simply for show and tell?  to maintain the mystique of what Hollywood raised us to accept as spacecraft? 

Are these rocket scientists staging miniature models?  Are they using perspective effects or video alteration effects?

Yep, with each and EVERY post you make, it becomes more clear how your profound ignorance manifests its ugly head in your suppositions.

You lamely ask 'What keeps these "rockets" flying straight up?  What keeps them from wobbling off and crashing down?'

Have you never encountered the terminology 'thrust vectoring' in all your life?

The thrust out of a rocket's engine can be vectored - did you not know this?

Obviously not, be there are a GREAT MANY things that you have no clue about, so your profound ignorance is of no surprise to us at all, lol.

Here's a link explaining, in simple terms that even you might understand, lol.

But I doubt you'll even take the few minutes required, as you'd obviously want to maintain your current low level of knowledge, and remain blissfully ignorant, lol.

chtwrone: you appear to be in a right state. It might be best for you to take a bit of time off to recover or you might crack up.
Just accept you were owned and are wrong and you can move on.

'Owned' in what way?

So you don't think that Object B is the fuel/propellent in a rocket system?

Oh, please don't tell us that you actually think a rocket's exhaust is pushing on the atmosphere?

If this is actually what you think, then obviously you're COMPLETELY dismissing the HUGE momentum force being created when the mass of the fuel/propellent is being forcibly ejected at hypersonic velocity out of the rocket system?

You might have to explain how this huge amount of mass travelling at a hypersonic velocity has created no momentum force?

Good luck explaining this - we await your reply.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space programs in other countries
« on: November 02, 2015, 11:53:11 AM »
Obvious, he believes whatever big brother tells him. :'(

I know, right. Hoppy, did you read where I explained the deflector shield to you?

Yep, he probably saw your pathetic 'deflector' proposition.

He probably also saw your post on another thread, explaining how a man on a skateboard, throwing a medicine ball, is actually being propelled because the medicine ball is pushing on the atmosphere, lol.

The 2 posts combined, have no doubt firmly established in his mind, that YOU have the intellect of a hamster, lol.

Incidentally Yendor, did you never ask yourself why a VERY heavy medicine ball is used in the 'man on skateboard throwing ball' experiment?

Did it never occur to you, that maybe it's the momentum of the object being thrown that causes the man on the skateboard to be propelled in the opposite direction?

But then you actually think that if a beach ball weighing a few ounces, with the same dimensions as the medicine ball, was thrown with the same speed, that it would produce exactly the same propelling force, because it's the same surface area that is pushing off the atmosphere, lol.

That for me, is the clincher, when it comes to your 'hamster' brain, lol.

Please don't stop posting these propositions of yours though, as they are a constant source of amusement and really brighten my day - thanks for that by the way.

Whatever, Walter Mitty; you can't even find the correct thread to post on, so just give it up...

Now; do you have any information regarding how it is possible that, on every video we see from the fake ISS, the poofternauts are always wearing box-fresh clothing with knife-sharp creases?

I suggest it is because there is 'space-ironing' occurring; yet I can find no evidence whatsoever of this remarkable advancement in the History & Science of Household-chores...

What are NASA trying to hide from us?

Any thoughts?

On-topic ones, that is...

You only EVER mention NASA as the 'evil and corrupt' organisation connected with space flight, but why do you COMPLETELY ignore the MANY other space agencies around the world?

Are they not just as 'evil and corrupt'?

The fact that you ONLY ever mention NASA in your lame posts, is testament to your irrational and ignorant view-point.









Flat Earth General / Re: People on skateboards.
« on: November 02, 2015, 11:16:01 AM »
So you're saying that the force created by the fuel acts on the fuel, yes?

Aaaand we're back to a rocket 'pushing on itself' (lol!).

It's very simple, the fuel/propellent, once ignited, is forced out of the rocket system, with exactly the same weight as it had when it was sitting stationary within the fuel tanks. What is the result of a substantial amount of mass (fuel) being being forcibly ejected with huge velocity out of a rocket system?


Laughably, Papa Legba thinks that a rocket's exhaust is still 'attached' to the rocket once its left the engine nozzles.  It's only at this point, that he somehow thinks that the exhaust is now pushing on the atmosphere, and then exerts a HUGE force back onto the base of the rocket, propelling it forward/up.

This is THE most ridiculous notion that anybody could ever come up with, and it's clear that this CLOWN knows very little about momentum laws - I bet he even failed his Kindergarten 101 course, lol.

Logically, he also thinks that the expelled breathe that we make with our bodies, is still 'attached' to the Human Body system as well, LOL.

                                             OBJECT B IS THE FUEL/PROPELLENT.

« on: November 02, 2015, 03:35:03 AM »

Just how does a gas attach itself to a solid? 

Some sort of magic glue?

Yeah, some 'let's make some shit up' glue, lol.

Flat Earth General / Re: People on skateboards.
« on: November 02, 2015, 03:28:23 AM »

'When you breathe air out, is it still attached to your body?  Of course fucking not, so how is a rocket's exhaust still attached to a rocket?'

It's no surprise that you didn't answer the above question - you are such a pathetic coward.

Man-up and explain to us all, just how a rocket's exhaust is still attached to a rocket, as you say?

But I predict that you will refuse to answer this question, as your 'let's make some shit up' theories can't be explained at all, lol.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15