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 - Teslaite

Pages: [1] 2
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: March 01, 2019, 05:07:03 AM »
We've had two 'Super' full moons already this year and a third due this month. Many millions of people have viewed them and it is probably reasonable to assume that the next will be too.

With such a large sample size, will the society be gathering good statistical evidence of the claimed dangers of exposure to moonlight?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: March 01, 2019, 04:57:04 AM »
I have no issue with a burn under water. The water is a resistance to the effects of the burn of the powder and oxy.

You're not helping yourself by using a water burn.
We are talking about the rocket using NOTHING as a resistance to its ejected mass of fuel and oxy, remember.
Let's stick with that.

So, can you accept that rockets can burn without an external source of oxygen?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 28, 2019, 04:59:12 AM »

You are duped into believing rockets carry their own oxygen for fuel mix to burn and you're made to forget the fact that external atmosphere is absolutely required in order for this to work, because you are duped into a belief that this mix will simply eject and push the rocket with no need for a resistance to that push externally to it.
It's absolutely nuts that people who study this cannot see the dupe.

Most of the model rockets on the market use black powder (gunpowder) as the fuel. If, as you imply you believe, this fuel needs atmospheric oxygen to burn, would black powder burn underwater?

It is fairly simple to try for yourself:

Get a firework.
Pull the fuse out.
Light the fuse.
Drop the fuse into a basin of water.

So 53.1ml or 417g of water displaced?

May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
Nope. An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The volume would be classed as porosity on top of the actual porosity in the actual structure itself, no matter how tiny.
The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.

I have on the bench in front of me a steel block. It measures 59x30x30mm and has a mass of 417g.  If I put it into a jug full of water will it displace 53.1ml (53.1g) or 417g (471ml) of water?

How can I determine the 'dense mass' of the block?


For something to exist in water it has to displace the water. Right?
Whether it's a fish or a crab or a plant or a rock, etc, etc, etc.

The same goes for atmosphere.
The dense mass (structure) of any object will displace it's own dense mass of atmosphere, or water.
Very simple to understand but maybe too simple to admit to because to start to admit to it all destroys the globe and all it's nonsensical additions which were and are intended dupe the public.

May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
In your model, without gravity what prevents all fluids of high density expanding and fluids of low density being compressed, until all fluids reach a uniform density and pressure?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE says brainwashing
« on: July 27, 2018, 03:46:39 AM »
Which publication is your first quote pulled from?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE says brainwashing
« on: July 27, 2018, 03:43:50 AM »
So analogously similar then, not in any way connected?

Flat Earth General / Re: why use latitude and longitude
« on: July 27, 2018, 03:41:26 AM »
Because a square grid doesn't conform to a curved surface. Like a Globe for example.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE says brainwashing
« on: July 27, 2018, 03:33:28 AM »
Sandokhan, this looks like more of your science fantasy to me. I followed the link to your FE advanced theory thread, then the links in that thread to Whittaker papers “ON AN EXPRESSION OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD DUE TO ELECTRONS BY MEANS OF TWO SCALAR POTENTIAL FUNCTIONS” and “On the Partial Differential equations of Mathematical Physics”. In neither of those papers could I find any mention of gravity or gravitation.

Can you provide any evidence that Whitaker made any connection between Gravity and electrical or magnetic forces? Can you provide any evidence that Whitaker hypothesised that Gravitational forces are propagated by waves?

This is a serious thread derail. The bathroom scales problem you suggested has been clearly and adequately resolved.

Jimster, I suspect FEers who attack conventional science confuse ‘understanding’ with ‘brainwashing’.

Flat Earth General / Re: Questions about a Rowbotham claim
« on: June 27, 2018, 08:54:42 AM »
Also; where did you derive your figure of 70' for the elevation of Corsica? In the video you have linked to Torre Piacentini is below the observer, in the right hand side of the foreground. The tower is 108m above ground level. Do you have a figure for the elevation that the video is taken from? Why have you not done your maths from this height?

Flat Earth General / Re: Questions about a Rowbotham claim
« on: June 27, 2018, 12:14:50 AM »
Bishop. Unable or unwilling to answer my questions?

Flat Earth General / Re: Questions about a Rowbotham claim
« on: June 26, 2018, 06:58:09 AM »
Give it up, Bishop.
Corsica is very mountainous, with Monte Cinto as the highest peak at 2,706 metres (8,878 ft) and around 120 other summits of more than 2,000 metres (6,600 ft). Mountains comprise two-thirds of the island, forming a single chain.

So a fair bit above your 5245 feet.

For someone who claims to champion independent thought, you are displaying blind faith in Rowbothams work. Why are you arguing that the measurements must have been taken from points of similar height? Monsieurs Arago and Biot are the men who actually took the measurements, so why are you dismissing the probable sites from analysis of their work?

Do you understand what Arago and Biot were trying to achieve? Why would they choose lower summits than those suggested?

Flat Earth General / Re: Questions about a Rowbotham claim
« on: June 25, 2018, 02:05:19 AM »
Tom Bishop, Rowbotham attempted to argue that the measurements of Arago and Biot were not possible and hence the Earth must be flat. It is demonstrable that the measurement is possible. Therefore the Earth could be spherical.

Flat Earth General / Re: Questions about a Rowbotham claim
« on: June 19, 2018, 04:29:41 AM »
The highest peak of Desert de les Palmes is 729m. If Camprey or Campvey refers to Camp Vell, a mountain near the North West coast of Ibiza, then 400m. The highest point on the island is 475m.

Not what I would call ‘nearly the same’ elevations.
If two points are mutually visible where:
Or 105 miles. So, on a globe, the two points would be visible to one another at 100 miles apart.

The question is, did Rowbotham make mistakes or did he handle the truth awkwardly?

I’ll try again, Are there any real machines I can go and see, which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to do useful work?

I still call bullshit. If all satellites were using Biefeld-Bown drives then it would be well known and understood in industry and Honda R&D would not be verifying the effect as real in 2007. I had a scan through the document and Honda achieved a 3% reduction in the apparent weight of the capacitor. To keep a satellite up you would need to achieve significantly greater than 100%.

I admit to not reading through the bits of ‘Flat Earth advanced theory’ you have linked to. Get a basic position and movement of Sun, Moon and stars above your flat earth, that can be verified by observation from any point on Earth and then I’ll have impetus to go further.

Neither the text ‘Ionic Wind: Force to Small’ nor the Honda document mention double torsion fields. Is this something to do ‘Torsion field (pseudoscience)’ as Wikipedia describes it?
“torsion field theory has been embraced by some as an explanation for claims of homeopathic cures, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, clairvoyance, ESP, and other paranormal phenomena. The harnessing of torsion fields has been claimed to make everything possible from miracle cure devices (including devices that cure alcohol addiction) to working perpetual motion machines, stargates”
Sounds too good to be true.

I’ll try again. Are there any real machines I can go and see, which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to do useful work? If it was in use for satellites how come we don’t have levitating personal transport based on the principle?

The Honda R&D link is talking about experimental devices in 2007. Satellites have been up there since the late 1950s.

Cosmic rays and solar emissions according to spherical Earth sciences. If you believe in them, then why not gravity and orbits?

I am a great admirer of Tesla and his work. Most of my working life I have spent on equipment directly descended from his designs, however some of his ideas were little more than flights of fantasy! I have never seen any evidence that his cosmic ray/free energy idea ever produced worthwhile results.

Ball lighting is an atmospheric phenomenon, not a cosmic one. Where are you going with that? Ball lighting is a rare occurrence and not one I would rely upon to keep one satellite up, let alone 3000. All the time.

Biefeld-Brown effect is explained by ion streams between charged plates.

LimitedLife, My day job involves industrial electromagnetic devices and two obvious flaws in the idea come to mind.

1;   To levitate a device with an opposing magnet to the Earth would require an extremely powerful magnet and we have yet to discover or invent a material that can be sufficiently magnetised to build a viable machine.

2;   Such ‘Satellites’ would exert such a powerful magnetic field that it would be possible to track their progress across the sky with a compass. Watch a compass needle as the ISS goes over and decide for yourself if what you suggest has any merit.

Sandokhan, if there were any examples of a practical application of the Biefeld-Brown effect, I might give your suggestion a little more credit. I would suggest that the idea is impractical. I don’t know what limits Flat Earth physics put on electromagnetic transmissions, but the system would require a very large or multiple large ground stations. Where are these stations and why can we not power our inductive charging devices from them? The ground station(s) would either have to direct the ‘cosmic rays’ , simultaneously at 3000 different targets or flood the sky with an enormous amount of power to get something like 150MW up to the satellites. Neither sounds feasible without large and easily located ground stations.

Flat Earth General / Re: About spinning and gravity
« on: June 06, 2018, 02:31:40 AM »
By way of experiment, lie on the floor with your legs supported by a chair. Then go and accelerate 0-60 in a McLaren Senna or a Tesla Model S (0-60mph in 2.8s roughly equivalent to 9.81m/s2). Compare the two experiences.

I think the quickest car I've been in was a Zetec engined Westfield, 0-60mph in about 6 seconds (4.63m/s2 equivalent). That felt considerably more exciting than lying on the floor!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The round earth model is so damn accurate.
« on: June 05, 2018, 02:25:00 AM »
Ski. It is interesting that you choose the Humber road bridge as an example. It is a suspension bridge, with a curved deck, so little use for measuring a curve. The span over water is only 1.9km, an online curvature calculator gives me 28cm of curve on the Earth. The towers are 1.4km apart so curvature is only 8cm. Mr Hill's reply is unsurprising.

I have a few comments on your hypothesis;
If the Earth flipped regularly, how are the oceans not lost over the edge?

To maintain acceleration at significant fractions of light speed would require a constantly increasing force. To anyone with a better understanding of Relativity than mine; would I be right in thinking exponentially increasing?

To accelerate the Earth in opposite directions would require two alternating, opposite mechanisms or a mechanism attached to the underside of the Earth. Which and what?

If the Moon is mounted below the Sun, why do we not see a shadow of the arm on which the Moon is mounted?

There is no landmass at the North Pole, only constantly moving Ice formations. Hence there is nowhere for the base of the pillar.

If there was a supporting pillar, it would have to be of considerable diameter to be self-supporting and thousands of miles tall.  Surely someone must have found it by now. Is there any evidence for its existence?

Flat Earth General / Re: Van Allen radiation belt
« on: May 31, 2018, 12:43:02 AM »
Ironically a couple of minutes reading reveals that the Van Allen belts don't preclude safe space travel. At the mission planning stage much of the risk can be avoided and exposure time can be limited. A quick look at the figures and the Apollo astronauts complete single mission exposure was something like 10-20% of a years worth of background radiation here on Earth.

I shall watch this thread with interest.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Honest question
« on: May 29, 2018, 02:15:31 AM »
John Davis,  "I both don't ignore them, and I understand them. If you could bring up one in particular, I'd love to get to the bottom of this misconception."

Your article;
and your reply; "Yes, quite a few over the years. The arguments around the antipodes for example. More modernly, every single round earth that claims people are in Australia knows that either they are hanging by their feet, or Australians must be a fabrication. "  from the thread:

suggest there are several things you don't understand.

Gotham, two examples;

The sun sets.
Round earth: The Earth is spherical and rotates. On the surface of the Earth this can be observed as the Sun disappearing below the horizon.
Flat earth: The Sun is above us, but appears to fall below the Earth because light bends in a way we can’t explain or demonstrate

Objects fall.
Round earth: All bodies attract other bodies in proportion to their masses, hence objects fall. The orbits of man-made satellites , Moons and Planets are also predictable by the same force.
Flat earth: Things just fall. They just do.
Neither of these seem to me like FE is backed by proven truths.

Scientific knowledge of which the round earth is a part is all based on demonstrable, repeatable and independently verifiable experiment, measurement and calculation. How do you argue it is unproven theories?
I don’t fear that FEers will re-take Earth dominance. It just isn’t going to happen. I do worry that young people who have not fully understood aspects of science will take FET seriously and jeopardise their education and employability.

I think you are being very ungracious to the sciences that produced the device you made your post on, the internet that you circulated it on and many of the technologies that make your daily life more comfortable than it was for your ancestors.

The people who are admitting they don’t yet have all the answers are not the same people who realised that the Earth is round. Just because our understanding of the formation and composition of our entire universe is incomplete, it doesn’t follow that our measurements of our own planet are flawed.

 The scientists that you are attacking are looking into the structure of a system far beyond the limit of human sight and the progression of an event that happened thirteen billion years ago. Should you be mocking them, when you are unable to deduce the true shape of an Earth only twelve thousand kilometres in diameter?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise/sunset, distances, eclipses
« on: May 03, 2018, 05:11:34 AM »
Blackpool tower's observation deck has a glass floor and a westward sea view. With a camera with suitable zoom, perhaps it would be possible to video sunset at the base of the tower via a mirror, then level the camera and wait for sunset at the top? Looking at the tower opening hours, it would be a winter project.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measurements
« on: April 18, 2018, 03:49:04 AM »
Sorry BOTD, but your claimed compass experiment, do you mean this one: ?

You mention repeating the test three times and do not include the first result, stating it must be wrong. Your second and third results are given as 102 and 85 km (depth of the magnetic centre of the Earth). Before you can claim to have disproved anything, I would suggest that you need to improve the accuracy of your equipment and gather some repeatable results.

Flat Earth General / Re: Meteors in antiquity ?
« on: April 18, 2018, 03:14:56 AM »
In 20 years of professional displays I have never encountered any firework remnants that look like that.

Flat Earth General / Re: what makes the earth flat?
« on: April 13, 2018, 06:59:42 AM »
Apologies for the off thread posts.

As far as I can see, the FE argument against the formation of a spherical earth is that gravity does not exist as Newtonian physics describes it. The chief reason FE dismisses gravity seems to be that the natural shape for a planet to form, by the influence of gravity, would be a sphere, therefore gravity must be false.

That sort of circular reasoning does seem rife in FE hypotheses. I have yet to see a plausible idea for the formation of a finite Flat Earth, let alone an infinite flat plane.

We are waiting in anticipation.

Pages: [1] 2