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 - defender_of_truth

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: a simple experiment that disproves flat earth
« on: April 16, 2019, 11:46:18 AM »
Breeze (troll?), you are incorrect. The shadow direction is absolutely consistent with the mainstream globe model. Can you provide more details what you mean exactly? draw a sketch or something to illustrate what you mean?

Wise (troll), also incorrect.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: a simple experiment that disproves flat earth
« on: April 15, 2019, 10:37:36 PM »
You said you wanted a video, but you have no rebuttal?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: a simple experiment that disproves flat earth
« on: April 04, 2019, 10:39:44 AM »
In spite of some low-content replies, you can see my results. Proof of concept only, as it's very roughly done.





4
Flat Earth Debate / a simple experiment that disproves flat earth
« on: March 28, 2019, 09:27:56 AM »
Put a long nail in a board slightly, sticking up so it casts a shadow. get it as straight as possible. Then place the board on the ground and level it. Mark the shadow every hour for a whole day. The next day, mount the board on an equatorial mount telescope so that the shadow aligns with one of the marks. Align the equatorial mount and then spin the assembly. The shadow will track correctly and the marks will be 15 degrees apart. This is something anyone can do on a low budget, and it is inconsistent with any flat earth models or theories. You can build your own equatorial mount with some boards and a segment of pipe.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 18, 2019, 01:20:47 PM »
Quick question scepti: have you ever fired a model rocket, firecracker, or anything similar?

6
fwiw I did get close to performing the experiment. I got as far as having parts in my amazon shopping cart. My enthusiasm was lost because my personal fe friend wasnít interested in denpressure or that experiment. Itís basically beads in a spinning dish with a rim. Sceptis problem is that under vacuum, they bounced out instead of holding against the rim. I proposed a modification to the experiment where the beads were attached by fishing line to a spinning hub, and scepti seemed open to that version. I donít mean to derail the conversation with this, just FYI. Letís see the house diagram updates!
So you didn't try any of the experiments?

Which part didnít you understand?

7
fwiw I did get close to performing the experiment. I got as far as having parts in my amazon shopping cart. My enthusiasm was lost because my personal fe friend wasnít interested in denpressure or that experiment. Itís basically beads in a spinning dish with a rim. Sceptis problem is that under vacuum, they bounced out instead of holding against the rim. I proposed a modification to the experiment where the beads were attached by fishing line to a spinning hub, and scepti seemed open to that version. I donít mean to derail the conversation with this, just FYI. Letís see the house diagram updates!

8
scepti, I want to chime in here and remind you that just because something is mystical to you, does not mean it is fiction. Your points about rubber stamping history is an interesting one, but math, science, and engineering are different. The whole goal of the scientific method is to remove human elements. Engineering methods are even more tangible than math and science to the layperson. Experiments are repeatable, so it doesn't matter who rubber stamped what; because you can verify those results for yourself. If I test something and it works, I may use it. I don't necessarily care why or how, but I have verified it works. I think the point you are missing, is that most physics models didn't start as thought experiments; but from observations and experiments. You assert that "globe theory" is fictional, because you don't understand it. Worse still, is that you are unwilling to repeat the experiments. Those are truly pitiful mistakes to make. It's akin to being continually be beaten in a game and insisting you were the better player.

9
Iím happy to learn that you accept masses will tend to move toward each other. To me, itís that simple. Letís leave it at that for now, and you can have one less parallel conversation.
Yep, just as long as we are all clear on masses moving towards each other on a pivot does not equate to it being a fictional force (imo) called gravity.

As mentioned before, the key here is if both denpressure and gravitation can explain the physical reality then itís not a good test to prove one right and one wrong. Iím not familiar with how denpressure could explain the behavior of masses moving horizontally toward each other, so Iím happy to just talk about the physical results of the experiment and stop short of making any conclusions on it.
Ok fair enough.

Denpressure explains it due to how Earth works under denpressure theory.

We live in a pressurised whirlpool at the centre which spans out as far as life itself can live as the outer dome foundation slopes up,
Basically agitated from the centre where our carbon arc sun is inside the centre of that slope. We call that the north pole and the outer slope (dome foundation) would be a supposed south pole, yet in theory the south would be down the north pole slope where the central Earth sun is that is feeding from the atmospheric whirlpool.

This naturally creates pressured movement by agitation/vibration of matter which would be felt in varying ways from large to extremely small...including the minutely moveable pivoted masses.

I donít think the world you just described can explain predictable movement of masses toward each other. And if masses do move together in a predictable way, thatís a simple definition of gravity. So either, denpressure includes gravity or youíre caught in a lie youíve told to yourself to maintain your position against the observable evidence

10
Iím happy to learn that you accept masses will tend to move toward each other. To me, itís that simple. Letís leave it at that for now, and you can have one less parallel conversation.
Yep, just as long as we are all clear on masses moving towards each other on a pivot does not equate to it being a fictional force (imo) called gravity.

As mentioned before, the key here is if both denpressure and gravitation can explain the physical reality then itís not a good test to prove one right and one wrong. Iím not familiar with how denpressure could explain the behavior of masses moving horizontally toward each other, so Iím happy to just talk about the physical results of the experiment and stop short of making any conclusions on it.

11
My first question is pretty short and simple, and I basically want to know why wouldnít you go ahead and try a cavendish like experiment to see what happens.
I don't know what the experiment proves, so why do it?

Quote from: defender_of_truth
My second question is: do you deny that the masses will attract in the cavendish experiment?
No I don't deny it. My reasoning is "why" they attract.
You say it's gravity. Ok fair enough, then you explain to me how you know it's gravity.
All I'm asking is for you to explain to me how you know it's gravity.

Quote from: defender_of_truth
  If you deny that, back to question one; why not try it? If you donít deny that the masses attract, itís a totally different conversation.
It is a different conversation because you have to know how my Earth hypothesis works to understand why mass will move towards mass on a pivot.

It's been mildly explained, just look it up.

However, forget about that for a minute. I want you to explain to me how you know you, yourself, prove gravity with your Cavendish experiment. Tell me how you did your experiment to prove it.

Iím happy to learn that you accept masses will tend to move toward each other. To me, itís that simple. Letís leave it at that for now, and you can have one less parallel conversation.

12
Scepti is ignoring me I guess
I only ignore those who are hell bent on deliberately skewing stuff.
If that's not you then what's your question?

My first question is pretty short and simple, and I basically want to know why wouldnít you go ahead and try a cavendish like experiment to see what happens.

My second question is: do you deny that the masses will attract in the cavendish experiment? If you deny that, back to question one; why not try it? If you donít deny that the masses attract, itís a totally different conversation.

13
Scepti is ignoring me I guess

14
Scepti, itís not clear to me one thing:

Do you deny that the cavendish experiment does show masses moving toward each other. For sake of conversation, lets forget any ideas why it happens or how fast it happens. Do the masses move toward each other?

15
Scepti probably also has opinions about movies he hasnít seen yet

16
Scepti must be conspiring against himself also, since he could verify both cavendish and acceleration tests in a low pressure chamber yet chooses not to.

17
Do you mean when filling the container with air, it takes time for the container to reach the same PSI as the inflow?  Well, Duh.

However the pressure inside the container will increase equally throughout until either the inflow stops or the pressure inside equals the inflow pressure.

If you mean something else, like one side of the container will have a higher pressure then the other and it takes time for the pressure to equalize inside.  Hmm, I've never heard that for a sealed container.  If that's the case, surely there is a measurable rate and formula.  Can you please provide them Jane the mathematician?
So.
The inflow has a higher pressure than the rest of the container. We agree on that.
But the whole container then increases at a uniform rate regardless of distance from the inflow? You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Apparently there are Den Pressure specific physics that you failed to mention all the way through your balloon analogy.
Well duh. Gave you a link. Not particularly interested in trying to explain even more to someone who's happy to die on the hill of "Any inflated chamber reaches equilibirum in an instant."

If the flow is high velocity, it could be lower pressure than the rest of the downstream air in the balloon and therefore flow is opposite the pressure gradient. See: navier-stokes equations, Bernoulli, etc

Imo, youíre making it more difficult for confused people to learn how the physical world actually works. Simply put, I believe your activity on this forum is damaging to them by feeding their delusions

18
Coincidentally, at work today I was reading about water vapor transmission rates in porous materials. Astm e96, provides a way to test porosity of materials. Scepti, how does denpressure explain the variable permeability of porous materials? Try the test method with a material that is nonporous and let us know what you find?

19
Scepti, Iím trying to focus on identifying an experiment that would have different results if gravity or denpressure so that we can test it. As others have said, an explanation of something that cannot be confirmed or denied is practically meaningless.

Hereís a question scepti: why not try a version of cavendish like experiments? Try to clear your mind of any comments or explanations, and just do the experiment. I imagine cost of materials is quite low for this, and time invested will be much less than you spent on the forum in one week.

20
You said a whole lot that goes into your explanations of why you think things happen they way they happen, but I want to exclude that from the discussion for the time being.

Question: does 1cm cube of steel weigh more in air or at the bottom of a pool?

21
I think we need to separate this into two parts. Let's talk about physical behavior separately from any notions of why what we observe is happening. If we do this, we can lock into what exactly where the confusion is coming into play. Scepti, let's try and find an isolated physical behavior that i've listed that you don't agree on.

Things we probably all agree on:
  • a metal bucket will sink in a swimming pool if allowed to fill with water
  • a submerged inverted metal bucket with (sea level) air trapped inside will have an upward force
  • a lidded, sealed bucket (in water) with air trapped inside will have an upward force
  • a lidded, sealed bucket with (low air pressure in water) vacuum "inside" will have an (extremely weak) upward force (and be clamped hard to the bottom of a pool by downward pressure/squeeze)
  • the (water) pressure at the bottom of the pool is higher than at the surface
  • the (air) pressure at sea level is higher than at high altitude
  • air is compressible
  • water is practically incompressible at the pressures we are talking about
  • the air pressure inside an open inverted bucket will increase as the bucket goes deeper into the water
  • the pressure change per unit height/depth, is more severe in water, than in air
  • it would be difficult to pop open the lid of either the vacuum or air bucket while submerged
  • it would be not so difficult to open the lid of the bucket if you had first closed it while submerged

There's more I'd like to add, but let's continue after your response to this set. I'm trying to stick to things that are easy to test without special equipment for now.
I've tweaked it a little, in bold.

I'll agree with the first two points with your additions.

For the sealed bucket with "vacuum" or "low pressure air", are we talking about it sealed to itself or sealed to the bottom of the pool? I think it's two different scenarios. For it sealed to itself, I think we wouldn't notice much difference in the upward force whether the bucket was sealed with "sea level air", "vacuum", or "low pressure air". The variation of upward force could be compared between the three as minor (as a percentage), but the total force in all three cases is strong. I will avoid explaining why this is the case with accepted models, and stick to verifiable experimental evidence.

For the case where an inverted, lidless bucket is sealed to the bottom of the pool with vacuum, or "low pressure air", I don't think a swimmer would have a chance in hell of removing it from the bottom with brute force. In that case there is a lot of pressure on the outside of the bucket pushing it downwards, and essentially none on the inside pushing it upwards. The catch here is that this would only work in practice if the air/water were pumped out of the bucket after it was submerged and sealed.

I'll add a third case for consideration. If the bucket is inverted and submerged with "sea level" air pressure and then pushed to the bottom of the pool, something interesting happens. The air in the bucket compresses, and without air bubbles leaving the bucket, some water will make its way into the bucket. You can invert your thinking, and view this as the "air level" of the bucket decreasing from full to partially full. The interesting thing is that no air has left the container, so the same amount of air is now taking up a smaller space. Maybe i went too far, but let's see what you have to say about it.

22
I think we need to separate this into two parts. Let's talk about physical behavior separately from any notions of why what we observe is happening. If we do this, we can lock into what exactly where the confusion is coming into play. Scepti, let's try and find an isolated physical behavior that i've listed that you don't agree on.

Things we probably all agree on:
  • a metal bucket will sink in a swimming pool if allowed to fill with water
  • a submerged inverted metal bucket with air trapped inside will have an upward force
  • a lidded, sealed bucket with air trapped inside will have an upward force
  • a lidded, sealed bucket with vacuum "inside" will have an upward force
  • the (water) pressure at the bottom of the pool is higher than at the surface
  • the (air) pressure at sea level is higher than at high altitude
  • air is compressible
  • water is practically incompressible at the pressures we are talking about
  • the air pressure inside an open inverted bucket will increase as the bucket goes deeper into the water
  • the pressure change per unit height/depth, is more severe in water, than in air
  • it would be difficult to pop open the lid of either the vacuum or air bucket while submerged
  • it would be not so difficult to open the lid of the bucket if you had first closed it while submerged

There's more I'd like to add, but let's continue after your response to this set. I'm trying to stick to things that are easy to test without special equipment for now.

23
I haven't read all of these 75 pages, but it's clear to me that the pressure on an object on the "bottom" is higher than the pressure on the "top". Whether you agree that it's due to gravity or not is immaterial. The point is that the pressure gradient of a fluid around an object creates a net upward force, aka. buoyancy. It's that simple.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: A flat earther with a telescope
« on: August 26, 2018, 02:11:21 PM »
Update:

I picked up the telescope from him and had it assembled the same night. I can confirm:

-Saturn has rings
-Mars is reddish
-everything moves roughly around the same axis at 15 deg/hr when the telescope is polar aligned
-equatorial mounts are cool
-astronomy is cool
-flat earthers are scared of telescopes

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 20, 2018, 08:09:00 AM »
What logic? The only thing rabinoz in his attempted explanation was to say that the sun and the moon are so far away that they appear close to the observer and will be therefore be subject to close range perspective effects. That is not logical at all.

There is no Round Earth model of this. This phenomenon cannot be explained with the Round Earth model at all. The equation from that article that predict the tilt doesn't even use the Round Earth model. The distances to the celestial bodies do not matter at all for the result.

You guys keep spamming close range perspective examples, without showing how it applies to the Round Earth model.

I expected you guys to be able to explain this with your model, and so far you have failed to do so, except to pretend that your model does not exist and that the sun and moon are close to the earth. Clear failures on your part.

How about addressing the fact that the original image is manipulated?

How about addressing the fact that this "illusion" only occurs in wide angle/fisheye photography?

How about addressing that the line perpendicular to the moon terminator always points to the sun if you are using your actual eyes and are actually outside?

p.s.: Tom, don't look at the sun!

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 18, 2018, 09:55:14 PM »
Tom, can you present an image with the supposed "illusion" that does not have a wide-angle lens? Why do you conveniently ignore my claim that the originally presented image is 'shopped and deceptive?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Discussions by Tom: Moon Terminator Illusion
« on: August 16, 2018, 09:18:59 PM »
Also, in case you missed it in previous threads; the image used in the faq is edited. Itís actually a screen grab from a video that animates the moon rotating to exaggerate the effect. Just more fe dishonesty. Moon terminator illusion only exists in photos with wide angle lens. Go outside and use your damn eyes flat earthers!

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE says brainwashing
« on: July 29, 2018, 08:08:18 PM »
I  have come to the conclusion that sandokhan is the greatest danger to this website.

That is exactly why we must encourage him!

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Helping Flat Earth People
« on: July 28, 2018, 01:49:04 PM »
I sent a telescope to a flat earther to try and help. He uses the unopened box as a footrest while he watches YouTube videos of of a guy watching videos of a guy looking through a telescope. No joke, real life.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: The secret of coming reality shift
« on: July 27, 2018, 09:28:33 PM »
New earth, correct me if Iím wrong:

You agree that all of the observable evidence supports spherical earth and a heliocentric solar system, but that there is something more beyond/behind what we observe. We are rats in a cage, with no windows to know whatís outside the observable environment (the universe)?


People say that Gleason map or AE map is basically unfolded globe. But actually its the other way around. The globe is folded flat earth map. Globe was taken from early flat earth maps and basically rolled into a ball. You see when I talk about Globe Matrix its very important that you understand exactly what I mean. You are correct in saying that there is something more beyond what we observe. So this is why Gleason or flat earth map comes handy. Because it shows Antarctica not as a continent but rather as the border of our cage. Globe earth is precisely the cage and Heleocentric model was created to support the cage, cause you are not going to tell people that they live on a globe without creating astronomical system that explains and supports the idea of round earth. Infinite earth is the true reality, it will always be true reality, cause earth is all there is. When you look at the ground beneath your feet you are looking at the floor of the universe.

Now to the one who calls himself "Here to Laugh at You" You should really laugh at yourself because you have no concept of money or how much things cost. Even if they let you create your own aerospace company it will take billions. So even if I make millions a year I still can't do it. So yes most people are on so called Burger King salary when it comes to Aerospace. You should really watch the movie Astronaut Farmer, its a fictional story but depicts very well how hard it is to do anything on your own.

I think you missed my main point. The first part is more clearly stated ďdo you agree that all observable evidence supports globe and heliocentric models?Ē From your post history, it seems that you do. Was hoping for confirmation

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12