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 - Velocio

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Foucault's pendulums
« on: August 10, 2022, 10:49:18 PM »
In relativistic models it would function as one might expect on a flat earth due to it being in a rotating reference frame.

In actuality, its almost impossible to find (or make) a legitimate enough foucault pendulum such that it would actually be doing what a round earth model describes what it should be. This can be realized by noting the plethora of magnet guided Foucault pendulums in museums world wide.

Hm-m, what exactly makes you think that they are guided by magnets? Any sort of evidence?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How far are the stars?
« on: July 27, 2021, 05:30:45 AM »
Thank you!

I guess this concept is not commonly accepted among all flat-earthers and there are some that would disagree. Maybe they have some numbers of different magnitude.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How far are the stars?
« on: July 27, 2021, 03:27:36 AM »
Well, it's been a month since I posted my question. Is there no answer? Really? Isn't there any number even an aproximate one?

Whatever the model, the universe can still be an infinite place. Lots of flat earthers are comfortable with the idea of space as you understand it with spherical planets etc as well. It's just they believe Earth to be unique or a rarity

Nothing impossible exists. A flat world in an infinite universe.... Perhaps it's not common. Perhaps we are unique - who can really say.... In an infinite universe we are observers only from our tiny fraction of it.

Then, maybe I have to reword my question - How far do you think the stars are?

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How far are the stars?
« on: July 27, 2021, 12:10:35 AM »
Well, it's been a month since I posted my question. Is there no answer? Really? Isn't there any number even an aproximate one?

5
Potential means latent or undeveloped

Gravitational potential of an object at any height:

It is just the ability of the object to accelerate falling object(s) towards its center from that height - Falling mass is not present here.
 
Using the word “potential” in the presence of falling mass is wrong.

Therefore, calling A of the subject has potential “g” = 9.8 m/s/s is wrong. Object A wouldn’t feel gravity or accelerate towards the canter of the earth if “g” were undeveloped. It is this developed “g” or = GM/d^2, due to which an object A (even blocked) is still under pressure and tries to go towards the center of the earth. Similarly, we wouldn’t use the numerical value of 9.8 m/s/s in our daily life calculation if  “g” were not fully developed. All above is not assertive but a matter of cocept.

It’s a freedom of personal choice.
So, anyone who is in agreement.

Don't forget, potential is RELATIVE. In this case, relative to Earth. You remove the Earth and the potential is gone. You replace the Earth with Jupiter, potential is changed accordingly. In either case the object would not move. So, NO, I do not agree. It is neither a matter of concept, nor is it a personal choice.

Sorry, but all these potentials, accelerations and equations seem like a total mess in your head. Sometimes try to use common sense rather than equations that you hardly understand and therefore misinterpret.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 24, 2021, 03:30:48 AM »
Any idea how big the tanks were in those supposed LM's?
Any idea how much liquid oxygen they held?
Any idea how they kept them stable in supposed minus 250 to plus 250 supposed vacuum cold and heat?

Finally, I got where Scepty is pushing us. And I give him credit for that. Obviously, the astronauts have not been breathing pure oxygen. They have been breathing AIR. Air, that has permeated all the stuff in the LM, including the walls, and being extracted when needed. So, they didn't need any containers.

In addition, this way the denpressure is reduced and the liftoff from the lunar surface is much easier. Two problems solved at one go. Amirite?

(All supposed).
So they're not breathing pure oxygen and are breathing normal air at one third norml Earth pressure?

How is this air managed from the lox tanks?

Sad. This is very sad. :( :'( You didn't recognise my attempt to promote your own denpressure theory. How disappointing! :'( :'( :'(

7
Flat Earth Q&A / How far are the stars?
« on: June 23, 2021, 03:02:57 AM »
I looked up in FE Wiki but was unable to find anything better than "the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth".

Is there any number for the distance to the stars? Or at least, are the stars farther or closer than the Sun? FE theory states around 3000 miles for the Sun, which is much better than few thousand miles for the stars.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Map Making
« on: June 22, 2021, 12:13:22 PM »
Perhaps the difficulty in creating a map of a flat plane is proof that there is some weird physics or geometry going on depending where on the plane you are. Perhaps our world is not 3 spatial dimensions after all and we are dealing with some quirky other dimension


This statement еvokes a lot of intriguing new topics. For instance, it is well known that spherical geometry is different than the planar geometry we are so used to. Maybe that is one of the main reasons for flatearthers to reject it. Or, since our world, from your recognition, is 3D why the Earth would be 2D? Why this exception? And on top of this, why do you need more dimensions when obviously even 3 are too much?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Map Making
« on: June 22, 2021, 11:45:43 AM »
Perhaps the difficulty in creating a map of a flat plane is proof that there is some weird physics or geometry going on depending where on the plane you are. Perhaps our world is not 3 spatial dimensions after all and we are dealing with some quirky other dimension

Maybe the above was ad hoc'ed out my arse in a vain attempt to sound like I knew what I was talking about. Or maybe I hit the nail on the head with it. Even a blind cat will catch a mouse some day
;D ;D ;D Not today, not today! The mouse will live very, very long. ;D ;D ;D

10

Gravity is a theory - not enough information or understanding is known about it yet to be a law

Wrong. Not having enough knowledge about its nature doesn't mean we cannot know how it works. Therefore, a law can be derived. As long as this law matches with the observations and allows for reliable predictions the law is valid.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Map Making
« on: June 21, 2021, 09:08:37 AM »
Unfortunately for the flatearthers, all modern surveying equipment has built-in software that takes into account and compensates for the Earth's curvature. All physical measurements with these instruments are processed by the software and the outcomming results are based on round Earth model. So, even if flatearthers were to produce a FE map based on such measurements, it would be inherently flawed.

I believe that all developers and producers of surveying equipment must be part of the conspiracy.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Dilema
« on: June 21, 2021, 02:18:49 AM »
All this model debate is circling. Arguments from both sides are being repeated time and again.

I propose to have a poll. Let the readers decide who is right.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 21, 2021, 01:39:28 AM »
Any idea how big the tanks were in those supposed LM's?
Any idea how much liquid oxygen they held?
Any idea how they kept them stable in supposed minus 250 to plus 250 supposed vacuum cold and heat?

Finally, I got where Scepty is pushing us. And I give him credit for that. Obviously, the astronauts have not been breathing pure oxygen. They have been breathing AIR. Air, that has permeated all the stuff in the LM, including the walls, and being extracted when needed. So, they didn't need any containers.

In addition, this way the denpressure is reduced and the liftoff from the lunar surface is much easier. Two problems solved at one go. Amirite?

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 21, 2021, 12:47:43 AM »

...Not only this but the entire time spent breathing in pure oxygen should've killed those men...


Finally, we are informed (from a very thrustworthy source) why so many people suffering from COVID 19 and treated with pure oxygen in hospitals around the world have died. We are yet to be informed why the others, treated in the same way, somehow survived.

15

Take your head out of the sand, enrol in a university course on geography or orbital mechanics, and then let's see if you still want to call it all, pfffffftttttt.

Or just continue on with your head in the sand.

It's all in vain. I have called on him to get some education on the other thread.

He has already proven he is a textbook example of Dunning Kruger effect.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 19, 2021, 01:29:30 AM »
Now that the "issue" with the life support system is resolved, you jump to another one.
It hasn't been resolved, at all. In no way shape or form.


Quote from: Velocio
Do you have any idea how much oxygen is needed? Do you have any idea to what extent a gaseous oxygen can be pressurised? Reading your "competent" questions one may be led to think you know nothing about it. Please, do dispel these doubts by answering your questions yourself first.
Do you have any idea about extreme low pressure, or the supposed vacuum in your space?

You are arguing for stuff happening in a normal environment.
This is in a supposed vacuum where these things are supposed to work without fault.

Also breathing pure oxygen for lengths of time is harmful.
It's not like those so called astronauts could add in normal atmosphere with a sniff of pure oxygen.

I'd also like to know how those back packs recycled their oxygen.
In fact I am not arguing. All those questions of yours, that supposedly put doubt on the lunar landings, are easily answered. It is just a matter of some effort. Effort that you are unwilling to make and educate yourself or you are just trolling.

I believe there's many many problems.
I absolutely know there will be answers.....but....it's about how those answers marry up as the questions go on.


If you know those answers don't marry up, show it. Analyze it. Give the answers and show how they don't match. Otherwise you are just throwing out some unsubstantiated stuff.

You have already been given some answers, that perfectly match. Pretty enough to use them as a starting point for your own inquiry.

Once again, educate yourself, find the answers and come back with your analysis!

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 18, 2021, 05:08:38 AM »

And where is the oxygen stored to keep pressurising this cabin and also their suits packs with 4 hours worth of breathable oxygen?
I can see it on the diagram but where on that LM would it be?

where does it cater for two men and their back packs as well as for the cabin for two men?


Now let's make it a bit clearer.

You have two men breathing this from the supposed command module to the supposed LM to the moon, on the moon and then doing their bit , supposedly on the moon, then lift off and rendezvous back with the supposed command module again.

Where would the tanks be to cater for all that for two men?

Now that the "issue" with the life support system is resolved, you jump to another one. How convenient! Better try to educate yourself, may be there is no issue at all. Or stop pretending there is any issue.

Do you have any idea how much oxygen is needed? Do you have any idea to what extent a gaseous oxygen can be pressurised? Reading your "competent" questions one may be led to think you know nothing about it. Please, do dispel these doubts by answering your questions yourself first.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 18, 2021, 12:21:55 AM »
Scepti, because you enjoy finding controversy where none exists, ...
What am I looking at?...

Sorry for the diversion, but I just couldn't stand it. In my native language there is a proverb - "Seeking for a calf under the ox". That is exactly what Sceptimatic is looking for.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Airlocks in the supposed LM's.
« on: June 17, 2021, 07:44:19 AM »
What exactly makes you believe that this story is made up? Do you have any other evidence except your ignorance? Which by definition is no evidence at all. And more important - how this particular "problem" proves any of your claims?

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 17, 2021, 01:44:51 AM »


Thank you. So...?

Elaborate further on my second question.
How about you elaborate on the supposed airlocks on later so called LM's.

Nah. I don't need to. As I pointed out earlier, everything one may need to know on this subject is a click away. Try google search. Unfortunately, google doesn't say anything about your point. So, it is you that need to elaborate.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 17, 2021, 01:27:25 AM »
If you are already wearing an extra-vehicular mobility unit (as both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were when they descended the LM) then why would an airlock matter to them?

As you say answer already provided by JB.
Ok, fair enough.
So why did they supposedly put an airlock on supposed further landing LM's?

Does this mean that later LM's were real, while the first one was fake? How does this help your point about conspiracy?
Did you notice the word, supposedly....?

Just in case you don't know.

supposedly
/səˈpəʊzɪdli/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
according to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement).

Thank you. So...?

Elaborate further on my second question.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 16, 2021, 11:42:51 PM »
If you are already wearing an extra-vehicular mobility unit (as both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were when they descended the LM) then why would an airlock matter to them?

As you say answer already provided by JB.
Ok, fair enough.
So why did they supposedly put an airlock on supposed further landing LM's?

Does this mean that later LM's were real, while the first one was fake? How does this help your point about conspiracy?

23
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 15, 2021, 07:28:23 AM »
Let's see how you answer these questions.

The LM.
How did they manage to get out without an airlock?
I have many questions on this so let's see you answer as I go along.

I didn't know there ever was a problem with this. Seems like this answers your questions:
https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

I suppose answers to any further questions of yours can be found in the same way - the good, old Google search machine. Try it yourself.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 08, 2021, 11:25:15 AM »
No, I don't believe the Earth is flat. The abundance of evidence leads to 100% certainty that it is round. 8)
A single evidence that the Earth is flat is yet to be provided.

Vsauce goes into this. There's some compelling arguments for the flat earth (plus the vid features this society) 8)
I am sorry to have to draw your attention to the fact that among the scientific community Youtube videos are not considered as evidence, not to speak compelling. Furthermore, I said 'evidence' not 'arguments'. Do those words mean the same for you?

What if your arguing about evidence?

I'm sorry. English is not my first language and your question is unclear to me. Would you reword it somehow?

My question is succinct. Arguing about the evidence. Would you take 'debating the evidence'?

Your English was good enough to watch the video in full and reply back to me to tell me I'm incorrect. It's good enough to understand 3 words strung together

Most probably - yes. Unfortunately for you, the video is not such evidence. Let me be clear, although I am sure you know this - evidence (or rather, scientific evidence) has to conform to certain commonly accepted requirements in the scientific world. Flatearthism is still lacking such type of evidence.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 08, 2021, 08:40:50 AM »
No, I don't believe the Earth is flat. The abundance of evidence leads to 100% certainty that it is round. 8)
A single evidence that the Earth is flat is yet to be provided.

Vsauce goes into this. There's some compelling arguments for the flat earth (plus the vid features this society) 8)
I am sorry to have to draw your attention to the fact that among the scientific community Youtube videos are not considered as evidence, not to speak compelling. Furthermore, I said 'evidence' not 'arguments'. Do those words mean the same for you?

What if your arguing about evidence?

I'm sorry. English is not my first language and your question is unclear to me. Would you reword it somehow?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 08, 2021, 08:23:15 AM »
No, I don't believe the Earth is flat. The abundance of evidence leads to 100% certainty that it is round. 8)
A single evidence that the Earth is flat is yet to be provided.


Vsauce goes into this. There's some compelling arguments for the flat earth (plus the vid features this society) 8)
I am sorry to have to draw your attention to the fact that among the scientific community Youtube videos are not considered as evidence, not to speak compelling. Furthermore, I said 'evidence' not 'arguments'. Do those words mean the same for you?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you believe the earth is flat?
« on: June 08, 2021, 06:31:08 AM »
No, I don't believe the Earth is flat. The abundance of evidence leads to 100% certainty that it is round. 8)
A single evidence that the Earth is flat is yet to be provided.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Two sunsets
« on: May 27, 2021, 07:10:10 AM »
Some claim this phenonom on the Burj Khalifa that they start ramadan 4 minutes later on the top floor or such nonsense.

Ovbiously the higher you are the greater your field of vision. That's it. On ground level you have denser air and particulates and you are surrounded by buildings, mountains, trees etc. The horizon is not always visible to 0 degrees. Go higher and you overcome these obsticles and you can see the sun briefly again
That makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense if you use logic.

Maybe your logic is different from mine.

According to many of your FE models the Sun is closer than the stars. Even in your last promoted model of the large carbon light encased in a crystal the Sun cannot be further from any possible star, as they all are reflections after all. So, as soon as the Sun sets (i.e. becomes invisible for whatever reason) right on the same spot of the sky stars (and possibly planets) begin to shine. These are much smaller even according to the FE models. And obviously, are much dimmer than the Sun. But somehow they are visible, while the Sun is not. Even with binoculars it is not to be seen, while the stars are shining right there. How that can be on a FE? Have in mind that atmospheric conditions are the same for both. Refraction, air pollution, etc. are all the same both for the Sun and the stars, aren’t they?

You know, with RE there is no problem explaining this. Simple logic.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: A simple test.
« on: December 01, 2020, 02:12:08 AM »
Hello,
I bring this topic up just to ask if somebody down there is willing to provide us with a photo of the rising/setting sun. There is still time until solstice but even now rising sun from southeast can be observed.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Sea and air pressure
« on: November 17, 2020, 08:48:19 AM »
I'm terribly sorry for intervening in this nice dispute. But I couldn’t resist the temptation and I had to register in order to put my 2 cents in.

Quote from: JackBlack
So perhaps that is a good place to start.
Consider the air right at the very top of the stack, with absolutely no air above it.
What pushes this air down?
Whatever that last part of our very own dome skin is against. Something that I can only guess at. It could be something of a liquid we are immersed in as a cell. I really don't know.

All I'm concerned with is what I believe is going on inside this cell I suspect we live in.

So, by his own admission, Sceptimatic doesn’t know what force is pushing the air so that it makes things to fall down. And he is equally ignorant about its nature. Fair enough. At least it is clear that even for him it is not the air/atmosphere that is the primary cause for things falling down. Great!

Maybe we can agree to call that unknown and mysterious (for him) force some name? Why not gravitation, Sceptimatic? Since it is of unknown nature for you, it shouldn’t matter how you call it. Agree?

I know that things are not that simple, but as an approximation of first order it may work for you. Next, you might be able to think over how that unknown force causes the air pressure to build up towards the foundation. Hint, when you press a balloon with both hands (the left hand representing the foundation and the right one representing the unknown force) the air pressure inside rises uniformly all over the entire volume of the balloon. The pressure doesn’t build up in the direction of the left hand/foundation.
I'm absolutely fine with the force. It seems you are not fine with your force because you have no clue what it is.

A new name will hardly change anything.

So, by your own words unknown force is acting by unknown means on the air/atmosphere so that it causes the things to fall down. Good. Then we are back to page 1 of this discussion. It took you 30 pages to admit that a force is causing the things to fall. Now we can ponder over the nature of this misterious force for some 30 pages more.

The name of this unknown force is of no matter. It was just a suggestion from my side. Feel free to choose a name that suits you best. But you failed to consider my second suggestion. How that force causes the air pressure to build up in the direction of the foundation? Any suggestions?

Pages: [1] 2