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 - Didymus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?
The lot of it.
What does a hovercraft sit on?

Ah! Maybe we should change the name of this thread to "Hovercraft can't fly in a vacuum".
Might be less than 80-odd pages then.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Are all the pilots part of the conspiracy?
« on: November 05, 2019, 12:08:48 PM »
There is nothing about being a pilot that would reveal the shape of the earth to you. A previous moderator, TheEngineer, has testified to this as well as various pilots who have come by over the years.

If that is intended to dispel the myth that you could fly high enough to see the alleged curve, then that is correct.
There are other things about being a pilot that would provide evidence.
The top of high mountains gradually appearing above the horizon.
This is no different from the much discussed ships' sails but is much more apparent.
The inability of weather radar to give the complete structure of a thunderstorm at a range of more than about 100 miles.
But the short answer to the original question is "no".

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Do flat earthers belive in chemtrails?
« on: September 28, 2019, 02:24:55 AM »
I'd like to hear from some of the 5 (at present) who voted Yes.
Particularly if they are thinking something other than "Aircraft sometimes leave trails, and they consist of chemicals".

4
Within clouds there are flying solid bodies like an aircraft.

Suppose the earth is round, those flying bodies need to be navigated by operators AKA Angels to maintain the altitude like airplanes do (at least "as what they told").

If REers still don't believe in FE yet, at least they are supposed to believe:

Round Earth + Angels

Why?

Rationality urges them to hold such belief.
If it's true that in airplane there is a device for maintaining the altitude based on earth's curvature, the same case will apply for a solid flying body within cloud, otherwise those clouds will look going higher and higher.

Just to be sure we are on the same page here, tell us how you think this device works.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Do flat earthers belive in chemtrails?
« on: September 25, 2019, 07:09:48 AM »
Some do, some do not. By making this a poll you will have mostly RE voting, which is probably not what you are looking for.

What I tell people who ask this sort of question is that most conspiracy theories are believed in by round earthers.

That could mean that round earthers would tend to believe in conspiracy theories.

Or it could mean that of the people who believe in conspiracy theories, most are round earthers.

It's an interesting concept but needs tidying up.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Do flat earthers belive in chemtrails?
« on: September 25, 2019, 07:05:00 AM »
So, you concede that you are denying your eyes in favor of an illusion then?

No more than if a box you can see contains, or does not contain a cat that you cannot see.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: September 02, 2019, 01:36:01 AM »
Of course it would cost many billions of dollars
I imagine that's all that's both the US and the UK back. But if the US had adopted it everywhere back in 1866 things might have been different.
Quote
In 1866, the U.S. Congress authorized the use of the metric system and almost a decade later America became one of 17 original signatory nations to the Treaty of theMeter. A more modern system was approved in 1960 and is commonly known as SI or the International System of Units.
Great Britain didn't authorise it officially until after the SI system was introduced.
Quote
British Imperial System, traditional system of weights and measures used officially in Great Britain from 1824 until the adoption of the metric system beginning in 1965.

Quote from: Shifter
but hell you could at least standardise it for use in science.
Almost all science in the US already does use the SI. There are some exceptions, including NASA ::) who still use a mixed system even on the ISSUE.

Tee hee!
Well it's a rather brisk 288K where I am, Rab.
What's it like in OZ, at 0.57 radians, bearing in mind your blood temperature is a toasty 310K.
Meanwhile I guarantee the shiny jets flying over are measuring their altitude in good old feet (well, flight level if we are being really pedantic).

8
There's a lot of discussion here about why light bends.
Whether it is because of Gravity, UA, Refraction, or Black Energy seems irrelevant to the importance of the effect described in the first post, or the video link at #32.
My question is which way is light supposed to bend under all, or any of these influences?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 05, 2019, 02:31:55 AM »
There you go again: "Fantasy space".
You already agreed that there is effectively no air above the Karman line. (We used 200 miles just as an example, didn't we?).
So what is the point in using terms such as fantasy?
No I didn't.

No I didn't what?

 
Quote
I don't believe the atmosphere goes that far up.

Your own post at #1317

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 04, 2019, 02:57:26 AM »
Watching the videos doesn't require him to go anywhere. If he was really sure they were wrong he would show where and how. Instead he dismisses blindly.
I dismiss it for reasons I've stated. Rockets do not work in your fantasy space, so obviously the people who say they've measured a space station against the moon, have not. Of that I'm certain for reasons I've already stated, as I've already said but feel the need to reiterate it.

There you go again: "Fantasy space".
You already agreed that there is effectively no air above the Karman line. (We used 200 miles just as an example, didn't we?).
So what is the point in using terms such as fantasy?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 03, 2019, 04:17:10 PM »

Even in your world, what sort of atmosphere do you suppose exists 200 miles up?
None. I don't believe the atmosphere goes that far up.

First reasonable thing youíve said.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 03, 2019, 07:57:26 AM »
Quote
Energy/Force = RESISTANCE over mass x acceleration

So, the greater the mass, the less the force required?
That's what that equation is telling us.

And:

Why does a spring gun recoil more than a gas gun? (It's been a few days now. Any time you like.)

And:

The constant references to "so called space" and "sci fi space".
Well, what we are talking about here is near vacuum.
Even in your world, what sort of atmosphere do you suppose exists 200 miles up?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 02, 2019, 03:10:58 AM »
Be careful with your terms here.
No work is done holding something in position against a force.
And still, if it's not hard to see how it works, there's no explanation for why the spring gun recoils more than the gas gun.
I've just explained it to you.


Quote from: Didymus
So, it doesn't rely on air resistance. You keep changing your mind on this.
No I don't change my mind. I simply enhance a resistance to show you recoil. I used the cushion to replicate more air resistance to show you how a spring uncoils and then recoils when hitting a resistance.

Take away that resistance and there's no recoil. It's so simple and wrecks so called space vacuum in an instant.
You didnít explain it. The extra recoil has to come from somewhere.
The air resistance is present in both types of gun.
The difference in recoil can only be explained by the mass of the spring.
You are changing your mind.
You mention replicating air resistance.
Good point.
In a rocket you are replicating the air resistance in part by providing the solid surface of the diffuser. Which is where the expanding gas does itís work.
In fact this work is done more efficiently in a vacuum.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 02, 2019, 01:54:55 AM »

Next time you fly, take your air gun with you and see if the recoil is the same!
All of which fails to explain why the recoil is greater on a spring gun than a gas gun.
If a spring hits a barrier it will recoil. Simple as that.
Hmm. Only earlier you were saying that barrier was air.
The same as the barrier for a rocket exhaust is air, allegedly.
The barrier is always air. Always, no matter what. It just depends on the how it impacts.
A spring in your hand held by your fingers  and released will hit air above but it will create marginal effect against your hand. Enough to dismiss.
All you hand will be is a foundation.
The uncoil of the spring is by it's own expansion from the compression that you created with your hand in the first place.
Your hand did it's work in holding it after compression.
Releasing it allows the spring to do it's work but it will only waste it against the atmosphere if you don't add something as a decent resistance.
This would be a piston in a gun that would compress air and propel the pellet.
Put a cushing near the spring and let loose and you'll feel recoil a little as it hits the cushion which arrests the decompression by resisting it, creating that push back.

It's not hard to see how it works.
The rocket explanation is absolute nonsense but a definite good dupe of those that don't think on it.

Be careful with your terms here.
No work is done holding something in position against a force.
And still, if it's not hard to see how it works, there's no explanation for why the spring gun recoils more than the gas gun.

Quote
Put a cushing near the spring and let loose and you'll feel recoil a little as it hits the cushion which arrests the decompression by resisting it, creating that push back.

So, it doesn't rely on air resistance. You keep changing your mind on this.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 01, 2019, 01:42:58 PM »

Next time you fly, take your air gun with you and see if the recoil is the same!
All of which fails to explain why the recoil is greater on a spring gun than a gas gun.
If a spring hits a barrier it will recoil. Simple as that.
Hmm. Only earlier you were saying that barrier was air.
The same as the barrier for a rocket exhaust is air, allegedly.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 01, 2019, 09:57:21 AM »
We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.
Yes the spring will give a reaction because it has to hit something to attain that reaction, like a piston that compresses the air to release the pellet, so it's different to the spring in the hand and certainly to how it would work in so called space, because the spring recoils one way using only the base as mere holding foundation.

And this?
Quote
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.
Nope. You would have no piston compression to create it. No recoil.
Next time you fly, take your air gun with you and see if the recoil is the same!
All of which fails to explain why the recoil is greater on a spring gun than a gas gun.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 01, 2019, 06:12:36 AM »
We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.
Yes the spring will give a reaction because it has to hit something to attain that reaction, like a piston that compresses the air to release the pellet, so it's different to the spring in the hand and certainly to how it would work in so called space, because the spring recoils one way using only the base as mere holding foundation.

And this?
Quote
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 01, 2019, 05:19:04 AM »
Bet you cant draw a simple and basic diagram to illustrate your longwinded description

He really shouldnít need a diagram if he has the concept nailed.

The spring argument defeats itself. There will certainly be a recoil. Who has not ever fired an air gun?
The operative word is "air" gun.

Quote from: Didymus

Heís had it explained to him twice now, once with, and once without a diagram.
He still doesnít get it. Or rather can not get it due to confirmation bias, hypothesis lock, or whatever you like to call it: rockets can not work in a vacuum and thatís it.
Otherwise itís one domino in the chain falling.
Of course I've had it explained. The explanation is 100% wrong.
You lot are being duped and you can't/won't see it.
I've explained what really happens and that should be clear to anyone who cares to want to know reality.
Whatís the point about air gun?
The spring being released gives a recoil. So what you said about the spring being released not giving a recoil is wrong.
And:
Newtonís third law is how many percent wrong?
Try the spring in your hand like I said and you'll have that experiment literally in your own hand, so no need to argue that one.
As for the air gun. It's the spring that is compressed which locks inside ready for release against a piston to force air onto the pellet to compress it against it.
That's your recoil.


As for Newton's 3rd law. The law of action and equal and opposite reaction is only true if there's a resistance for action and a resistance for reaction. It has to start by using applied energy which requires a resistance in itself then the resultant equal reaction to that resistance which is the result of that energy applied.

We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.

We can ref ladder guy again.
Haha
Cracks me up



Oh, man...
Physics sure can suck.
Use responsibly.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: February 01, 2019, 03:19:00 AM »
Bet you cant draw a simple and basic diagram to illustrate your longwinded description

He really shouldnít need a diagram if he has the concept nailed.

The spring argument defeats itself. There will certainly be a recoil. Who has not ever fired an air gun?
The operative word is "air" gun.

Quote from: Didymus

Heís had it explained to him twice now, once with, and once without a diagram.
He still doesnít get it. Or rather can not get it due to confirmation bias, hypothesis lock, or whatever you like to call it: rockets can not work in a vacuum and thatís it.
Otherwise itís one domino in the chain falling.
Of course I've had it explained. The explanation is 100% wrong.
You lot are being duped and you can't/won't see it.
I've explained what really happens and that should be clear to anyone who cares to want to know reality.
Whatís the point about air gun?
The spring being released gives a recoil. So what you said about the spring being released not giving a recoil is wrong.
And:
Newtonís third law is how many percent wrong?
Try the spring in your hand like I said and you'll have that experiment literally in your own hand, so no need to argue that one.
As for the air gun. It's the spring that is compressed which locks inside ready for release against a piston to force air onto the pellet to compress it against it.
That's your recoil.


As for Newton's 3rd law. The law of action and equal and opposite reaction is only true if there's a resistance for action and a resistance for reaction. It has to start by using applied energy which requires a resistance in itself then the resultant equal reaction to that resistance which is the result of that energy applied.

We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: January 31, 2019, 09:49:42 AM »
Bet you cant draw a simple and basic diagram to illustrate your longwinded description

He really shouldnít need a diagram if he has the concept nailed.

The spring argument defeats itself. There will certainly be a recoil. Who has not ever fired an air gun?
The operative word is "air" gun.

Quote from: Didymus

Heís had it explained to him twice now, once with, and once without a diagram.
He still doesnít get it. Or rather can not get it due to confirmation bias, hypothesis lock, or whatever you like to call it: rockets can not work in a vacuum and thatís it.
Otherwise itís one domino in the chain falling.
Of course I've had it explained. The explanation is 100% wrong.
You lot are being duped and you can't/won't see it.
I've explained what really happens and that should be clear to anyone who cares to want to know reality.
Whatís the point about air gun?
The spring being released gives a recoil. So what you said about the spring being released not giving a recoil is wrong.
And:
Newtonís third law is how many percent wrong?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: January 30, 2019, 11:01:34 AM »
Bet you cant draw a simple and basic diagram to illustrate your longwinded description

He really shouldnít need a diagram if he has the concept nailed.

The spring argument defeats itself. There will certainly be a recoil. Who has not ever fired an air gun?

Heís had it explained to him twice now, once with, and once without a diagram.
He still doesnít get it. Or rather can not get it due to confirmation bias, hypothesis lock, or whatever you like to call it: rockets can not work in a vacuum and thatís it.
Otherwise itís one domino in the chain falling.

22
He says they do fuel up equal amount of fuel to aircrafts go nearest or longest distance.

After we have talked more, then he said he thinks aircrafts are not using any fuel in flight, and they use fuel only lifting and landing.

He has gave an example about aircrafts never down by insufficient fuel.

I didn't say I was a flat earther, but I said that I was agreeing him. He has definitely shocked after listened my explanations about aircraft types, airline companies and conspiracies about aircraft companies like Qantas and Latam. He said he hearded these names but never worked with them. So and so...

I've decided to create an aircraft company and organize flights between Istanbul and New York in cost of 100$. Since aircrafts fly to Ankara from Istanbul in amount of 50$, why can not be they go to New York for 100 dollars?  It is currently more than some thousands of dollars. Because it seems possible. I just need a credit support for this project.

 8) Do you see the big picture?  8)
I do see the big picture? YOUR GUY LIES. My brother is a pilot for the RAF and he says planes use plenty of fuel. Have you heard of planes dumping excess fuel in the sea before it lands.

Don't take my word for it, why not take flying lessons. In the uk its about £100.

I'm glad to see i'm not on your ignore list anymore.

Your brother is a pilot. Yeah, right!  ;D

What is your issue here?
Pilots don't have brothers, or what?
It might pay to exercise the same level of cynicism before accepting some of the drivel you repost.

23
Yet another idea based on a global conspiracy involving millions of people, thousands of companies, faking data/observations/records, defying well established principles of physics ....

It all just "seems right" to wise, who claims to have IQ 180, and laments that people who disagree with him are just too simple to understand.

There's a name for that.

Certainly there is, according to messrs Dunning and Krueger.

24
Wise have you considered this?  Ask your airport crew friend about this video please. It could explain his observations as well as your own observations!  It may well be worth its own entire forum post if you are able to research it a little more. 



Not sure how to feel about the idea that everything in the US of A is only half as grand as it's owners are making out...

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: January 29, 2019, 08:40:36 AM »
Quote
If there's nothing under that thrust then there's absolutely no work done.

Yes there is.

You don't need a drawing or fancy formulae.

Imagine the combustion chamber as a sphere full of gas trying to expand.
Cut a hole in the bottom.
Now the gas can expand, and in doing so does work, hence the reaction.
That wouldn't be very efficient as the gas is still burning and expanding after it has left.
So make an ogival diffuser (sometimes incorrectly called a nozzle).
Now the expanding gas will push against the angle of the diffuser and be deflected downwards.
More reaction.
You can try it yourself.
Get a funnel (like you use to put oil in your car) raise your hand with fingers together, and balance the funnel, spout pointing up. Spread your fingers. What happens to the funnel?
Your fingers are the rocket exhaust and the funnel is the rocket.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: enjoying this site
« on: November 08, 2018, 03:36:03 AM »
Fair enough.
I was concentrating on that one particular post.
Of course we should encourage anyone to disagree where appropriate.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: enjoying this site
« on: November 07, 2018, 03:48:14 AM »
What did he say that was silly?
I also didnít see where he was against debate.
I donít have issues, and find some of the debates here interesting, but like the OP, I do object to knee jerk dismissal of rigorously obtained, established thought, and to offhand claims.
Even when these offhand claims are tempered with ďprobablyĒ, without any reference to how this probability has been obtained.
Now thatís silly.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Himawari-8 Satellite
« on: October 30, 2018, 06:34:32 AM »
Could I ask Sandokhan, or anyone who agrees with what he is trying to say, to have a think about how, and why clouds form in the first place, and get back to us.
Without muddying the water (sorry) also have a think about why salt doesn't cover the seabed or why all the dust in the air doesn't drop out by lunchtime.
And, re-think the bit about why the upper air keeps up with the rotating lower air.
Why wouldn't it?
What's holding it back, aerodynamic drag?

29
Right.

1) "It's minutely possible they were duped up until that point and then the plug was pulled from under them when launch day was upon them."

Which might stand up as one of the wilder tin hat speculations except, as you know (I hope) 8 years went by between the first alleged manned launch and Apollo 11.

2) "nobody has ever went up in a big rocket into space of any kind."

So where did they go, then?

30
FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

This is a great point, futhermore using science you can make a prediction and then get that exact same result for example calculating how long it would take for a ball to hit the ground if it were droped from 100 ft. I challenge flat earthers to give me a method which can do this.

9.8 m/s^2

Tee Hee!
Fair play.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6