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.
Water cannot hold still on a rotating ball so the earth must be flat.Sure it can, you just have to spin the ball slowly enough. Even just surface tension will do this.
I hated every minute of being an engineer and have spent the rest of my life running away from it despite becoming a senior engineer in just 5 years.I am very sorry you had such a poor experience. The truth is, there are good people and terrible people in all walks of life. Every company I have worked for has been a different experience. I have had good supervisors, and supervisors that have made my life hell. The engineering positions I have worked at I have really enjoyed. One of my friends worked at a company for 3 years, then I found out that her boss was harassing her. This is the same in any industry.
I worked at Airbus as a Flight loads engineer, an Aerodynamicist and a support engineer. Jesus Christ it was boring.
Engineers who are academics (not you) will decide the design of whatever it is you make. Now these academics are the types of people who maybe lecture at a University for a few years, then submit something that wins awards, then work in F1, then work for BAE or Rolls Royce or whatever, then move and take a job at wherever you work. They spend their whole lives studying. You absolutely will not compete with them for a job ever. Don't be fooled into thinking that being chartered will make a balls bit of difference either. You will be their computer monkey. Your job is to feed a computer with numbers and make sure those numbers fit in with other numbers you are given.
You will not be creatively designing shapes and systems.
You will have no say in the final product.
You will have no influence on how things turn out despite throwing 60 hours a week into making these academic people look great.
You will be unappreciated, underpaid, under pressure and unhappy.
You will walk around telling everyone you meet that you are an engineer for the first 4-5 years thinking that it is a job that commands respect. You will build it into your identity.
Finally you will realise how utterly worthless you are to society despite being one of the smartest people in a workforce. Once this day dawns you will never want to tell anyone what you do. You will lie about the specifics. You won't tell people that your computer is your best friend at work and that you have been copy and pasting the same bunch of numbers into the same computer program for 8 years. You won't tell people your career ground to a halt and that you find sandals and knitted jumpers extremely comfortable. You will hide behind your beard and look over your monitor to check no one can see whilst you steal 3 minutes for a game of minesweeper to liberate your soul briefly from the drudgery of your job. You will flash your coffee stained teeth in a dead-eyed grin at the latest secretary as she walks past praying you won't talk to her and you will glance at the clock desperate for either lunchtime to unwrap your boring sandwiches or home time so you can drink yourself away from your life in a revolting bedsit miles from anyone you love or care about.
I would rather make homoerotic porn videos than be an engineer again. I'd enjoy it more, have more dignity, more self-esteem and I wouldn't feel as used or dirty afterwards.
Enjoy your new career.
You do not see daylight all day long. The Sun's light has a finite distance it can travel.Exactly, that is the best evidence yet that the Earth is not flat. It gets totally dark at night. I have said several times, with the 25,000km earth and 3000km high sun, you only get a factor 8 difference in distance to the sun, max. Rayleigh scattering is very easy to measure, so I am very interested to hear your mechanisms that stop light at night, when it is still totally in line of sight and only slightly further away. Normal spherical radiation drop off is 1/r^2, plus the attenuation due to the density of air, which is roughly linear in height. That factor of 8 distance maybe best case adds up to an attenuation of 500 or so. You cant even look at the sun during the day without squinting. A digital camera has a dynamic range of 1000 or more, with your eyes being much higher than that.
I think that the most visible use of science is engineering, since engineering is concerned with utilizing science to get things done. You will have a lot more people designing bridges then you will have people figuring out how to make bridges better. There is a greater need for actual bridges to be built then there is for newer fancy bridge designs.Fair enough - it just seems to me that for the vast majority of working scientists, the end result is something that could be sold or used, whether medical or otherwise. Now, most the big guys in the fields are all for true intellectual pursuit, but I'd wager that once you move away from them and into the "average" and the "below average" its all for engineering, ignoring the very few that merely tabulate for a living.Unfortunately, engineering is the main driving force of science - not truth or curiosity.
I have to fundamentally disagree.
Even from a philosophical angle, the human race is advanced in only a few ways - one of which is the fruit of science, not science itself. If science had no application, it would not be held in the religious status it is today.
Sweet dude, good job. My favorite mechatronics thing is the relationships of the state space model of dynamics, especially mechanical compared to electrical. For some reason, everyone thinks that force is like velocity, and speed is like current. They want to think of little electrons speeding down wires or something. However, Kirchoff says that currents sum at a node, just like forces!I did my degree in Mechanical, Mechatronics Option. I am basically 40% mech, 40% electrical, and 20% computer. However, it seems I am always working with physicists. My favorite jobs so far have been the T2K neutrino oscillation experiment and magnetized target fusion.
I ended my 5 years Software engineering career to continue a master in mechatronics, it's the best thing ever, Robotics are awesome and engineers rule the world..
I'm a physicst working with engineers.Very true. There are 10 Phd's at work. They want to start every problem from first principles. I am usually thinking, can we buy this part on Digikey or McMaster-carr or something? The experimental physicists are usually better with this issue than the theory guys. Luckily, some of our experimental dudes couldn't work in their field when they finished their Phd, and so have a few years experience working as electrical engineer types.
One general thing I've noticed is that we both approach problems in a different way.
I am not arguing whether or not black holes exist. I said that light can not escape a black hole's gravitational pull, yet all of the matter (and current black holes) in the universe could not hold itself together? This seems odd, but no more odd than UA.In big bang theory, there are unknowns about the initial conditions, sure. The UA, however, is happening right now supposedly, continuously putting in energy directly below us! It is so close. The galaxy motion that implies dark energy is happening billions of light years away, we cant exactly go there to get a better measurement. The edge of this 25,000 km disk however is so completely in reach of any country today, it is just inconceivable that nobody has sailed/flown/rocketed to the edge.
The top and bottom of it is...none of us have verifiable evidence. The verifiable evidence that you support is based on the fact that you have mainstream science to back it all up with whatever is needed to back it up, even made up forces and worm holes, dark matter, black holes and white holes and expanding universe. The list is endless and it is an endless load of old gunk that logical people should see for what it is.Sure, the fringe of science is wacky and made up, but the strong root of the tree is solid. Rockets, lasers, satellites, earthquake monitoring, and global air travel are all well developed and clearly demonstrate a Earth. None of these rely on dark matter or made up forces. They rely on well tested and documented engineering that has worked for decades.
UA is possibly the least understood energy source in the universe. We can observer it's affects, but know little about it directly.Right, good point there. In UA, constant energy is required to continue to accelerate the enormous ice disk Earth. Also, some eddy of it must wrap around the Earth to land in the perfect spot to hold up the sun, as the sun rotates around us!
In RET, the farther south you go, the colder the average temperatures are.The energy from the sun will propagate outwards to infinity. It will emit light that will heat up the surface of the Earth at an arbitrary distance, assuming it is a spherical source, which it sure seems like. The angle of incidence will decrease, but never be zero. Also, the energy received in the atmosphere above the ground will make its way in all directions, also reaching the ground. Also, conduction through the ground will bring heat from our warm zone. it will never reach 0K anywhere. However, the issue here is not that it never gets cold anywhere, its just that the distance at which super cold is reached is super duper far. The air that we have has some place to go, and in that place it will end up as 50K ice.
It is the same in FET, just for different reasons. If the Earth is large enough, eventually, the temperature would be 0K, theoretically. Eventually, no sun light would even reach the ground.
Do you have an issue with the speed of light? Care to elaborate?I'm denying nothing. I'm saying that the 1.5 billion miles think is ludicrous, just as ludicrous of the light speed and light years of so called stars.Saturn clearly has rings. Photos, videos, people's accounts of what they saw. These all show rings. You can't just deny it because it doesn't fit with your model. If you still don't believe me then you can actually look at it for yourself.I'm still waiting for your answer to the rings on the planets question.What rings. I don't know of any rings, or planets. They are reflections off of the dome, whatever is seen as a planet.
1.5 billion miles by eye sight. Come on fella, have a think will you.
I don't know what people see in the sky that they say is saturn and its rings.
I've never seen anything resembling something with rings by naked eye and my telescope is about as effective as a pair of strong reading glasses.
I've seen many pictures of what they say is saturn and they all look faked images or paintings, etc.
China struggles to fake space videos (badly, I will add). They don't want to expose anyone. They just want respect like the other super powers.This is a very interesting fluid, this UA. The Earth is at least 25,000km diameter, possibly vastly more (so the air can be trapped somehow...), and yet the eddy wraps around and somehow pushes up again at an aspect ratio of 3:1 or 4:1? Interesting...
It is theorized that the sun is suspended in the eddy from the UA passing the Earth and collapsing above it. There are other theories, but this one seems most likely to me.
There should be some kind of equilibrium concerning the pressure and temperature. Like I said before, the Earth could be many times bigger than you or I can imagine.Regardless how big it is, the only equilibrium can be the outflow of gas, since there is a constant energy source of the sun, and no horizontal constraint. Arguably, just like in RET, we can lose energy by radiating heat into space. Still, the energy input from the sun will slowly heat up the whole Earth, it will spread out. The more it spreads out, the more it pushes back the ice layer, and the more air we lose. However, it is too lat and I my thermo is too bad for me to put any math behind this. Perhaps tomorrow.
I have a degree in Electronics Engineering Technology. Not exactly an engineer, but a step down.Good times. My first Co-op job was with an Engineering Technologist. I really enjoyed working with him. We built many CNC machines together, good times.
As I said, if it is possible, then someone probably has done it. It is not inconceivable that they would not tell us how far the edge is or what the UA is.The cost of this discovery would be very low compared to, for example, the LHC or ITER. Launching a rocket with a camera at orbital velocities to conclusively prove that the accepted model of the shape of the Earth is wrong? This would be very worth while to anyone who could do it. I can hardly believe that China would pass up the opportunity to embarrass the US and Russia in such an extraordinary fashion. But alas, this particular issue cannot be solved by debate.
I have thought about this. It could be that the air is in a constant state of being recycled, if you will. Some of it stays as ice and moves like a glacier. Some of it is liquid and pooling or flowing to warmer areas where it evaporates. The air could be constantly moving rimwards and repeating this cycle.Indeed. The question is simply where the energy comes from. Also, those have to be very cold liquid streams, we are talking liquid nitrogen here.
I don't believe in sustained orbit. I am fairly sure that we can go to space, but you can not orbit a flat Earth. Gravity does not work the way you have been told.One certainly could not orbit a flat Earth. However, if a rocket can achieve orbit on a round Earth, it is going 7km/s. What kind of range do you suppose such a rocket could achieve? I'm thinking on the order of a bazillion miles, easily far enough to travel to the edge of the disk. Of course, its not coming back, but anyone launching such a rocket would very quickly discover that the known Earth is not 25,000km diameter. It would only take 20 minutes, once up to speed.
For all I know, someone may have tried this experiment. I don't have data or evidence. I am just speculating right now.Well, they certainly have shared the information. NASA, JAXA, SpaceX, EADS, even China. They all claim to achieve orbit.
If it is possible, then it is likely that someone has done it. We will never know, if they have not shared that information with us thus far.
The sun is a constant energy source, heating up the air in our atmosphere. This will create a pressure gradient, pushing air outwards in all directions. The gas is forced to expand, but the UA causes the Earth to accelerate upwards and creates a vertical pressure gradient. However, there is no constraint in the horizontal direction. The energy of the sun will thus act as a constant source of force pushing air laterally, with no force to resist it. Hence, the only stable equilibrium is for all of the air to end up as frozen ice.The air would turn to liquid before it turns to a solid. Liquids can form into streams and flow back to warmer climates.So the outer disk is a big cone shape, nicely funneling the water back to us?
If the liquid went the other way, eventually the liquid would turn to a solid and block itself. It would make a dam that would not let the liquid go farther. I think it is reasonable to assume that, eventually, liquid would make its way back towards warmer climates and evaporate.
Why is the UA impossible to test? I can understand why Dark Energy and Dark Matter are very difficult, we cant travel around the galaxy at will. However, to test UA, all one would have to do is build a rocket and fly around the Earth. I can definitely make a good case that we have the technology to make a big rocket.Newtonian calculations for gravity only work on our scale. It falls apart when scientists try to explain how galaxies or even the universe works. They have to invent dark matter to fill in the gaps.You have no right to use that argument before you manage to explain what the hell UA is and how it works. For your information gravity makes much more sense than the mysterious force you describe which manages to push the earth upwards and make the sun/moon/stars move in circles at the same time...
Don't tell me what my rights are. I never claimed to have all the answers. How does dark matter work? What the heck is dark energy? Why are those needed in order for gravity to work? What exactly even causes gravity? Is it a graviton or bendy space time of what?
Why do RE'ers insist that FET can not be true unless we can explain every single little detail about things that are impossible to even test, when they can not do the same?
The RE'ers are getting very arrogant lately.
I never claimed that rockets don't exist. Can you build one that can accelerate at more than a constant 9.8m/s so it can catch back up and come around the other side?
Ok, maybe this might explain.Blankets are very stiff in tension so the blankets concentrate most of their force on the highest point of contact. Air does not behave this way, it is isometric, hence air pressure exerts an equal force in all directions.
Imagine you are stood in the street and I say to you, "ok, I'm going to drape blankets over your head and I want you to tell me what part of your body feels the most pressure as I add blanket after blanket".
Now naturally you are going to say that your neck feels more force due to the density of the blanket layers building up on top of your head, whilst the rest of the blankets are deflected down to your sides, adding some pressure to your shoulders but the rest of your body does not feel those effects, because of your head and shoulder deflection.
So your head, neck and shoulders are holding the pressure of the blankets, which transfers down the body to the feet which stop you from being pushed into the ground.
Now try and jump up with those same blankets on your head and you will find that it's harder than simply just walking with them.
That's your air pressure in a nutshell.
I really don't know, I'd be interested to find out a legitimate test to this.I will. I am curious, how do you expect the effect to scale?
What you should find is that the lead inside the partially evacuated chamber appears lighter.
Try it and post the results.
Why is the UA impossible to test? I can understand why Dark Energy and Dark Matter are very difficult, we cant travel around the galaxy at will. However, to test UA, all one would have to do is build a rocket and fly around the Earth. I can definitely make a good case that we have the technology to make a big rocket.Newtonian calculations for gravity only work on our scale. It falls apart when scientists try to explain how galaxies or even the universe works. They have to invent dark matter to fill in the gaps.You have no right to use that argument before you manage to explain what the hell UA is and how it works. For your information gravity makes much more sense than the mysterious force you describe which manages to push the earth upwards and make the sun/moon/stars move in circles at the same time...
Don't tell me what my rights are. I never claimed to have all the answers. How does dark matter work? What the heck is dark energy? Why are those needed in order for gravity to work? What exactly even causes gravity? Is it a graviton or bendy space time of what?
Why do RE'ers insist that FET can not be true unless we can explain every single little detail about things that are impossible to even test, when they can not do the same?
The RE'ers are getting very arrogant lately.
I think this leads back to a post many moons ago, if air pressure causes weight, what causes objects to have varying density? I can do another experiment with a fan and objects of differing densities but constant cross sectional areas. They will all experience the same force from the fan. Why is vertical air pressure different?Obviously not. The coin is much denser matter.@sceptiNo. What are you getting at here. I mean, are we talking about a small piece of paper or a large piece. Be specific in what you are getting at, other wise what I say can be twisted.
The force exerted by pressure on an object depends on how big the surface of that object. Do you think that a piece of paper would weigh more than a coin?
Let's say a paper with the same surface size as the coin.
I did not mean to, but I guess I implied that UA directly affects the atmolayer.Ok, we are making some progress here!
To be clear, the Earth pushes the air.
So in the UA model, the Earth experiences a constant acceleration upwards, selectively applied to the Earth, and nothing else. Am I correct?
You sort of have it. Except that the UA is not selective. The Earth shields us (and the atmolayer) from the effects of the UA.
If wind is blowing against the sail of a ship, things on the other side of the sail would not be affected by the wind itself. Can we agree on this?
I will. I am curious, how do you expect the effect to scale?
What you should find is that the lead inside the partially evacuated chamber appears lighter.
Try it and post the results.