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.
CURVATURE IMPLEMENTATIONhttp://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-12853.pdf
An essential feature of the main linac is its curvature. With the curvature radius of the Earth’s surface of ∼6400 km and the linac length of ∼12 km the maximum trajectory sagitta is about 2.8m.
You guys sure do have a good time trying to bring each other down. Why do you do that? Is it because you've run out of answers because you've reached the end of your learning and can't think of anything else intelligent to say?
I asked the question yesterday about photons and, I forget who said it, but I think they called me stupid. I will as again to see if I get a derogatory response.
If photons are real and it takes electrons to produce them, then where are the electrons in the vacuum of space. I've heard that space is pretty much empty of everything. I wouldn't think light or radio waves could propagate in space. If you just want to call me stupid, or you don't have an answer, please don't respond.
I have been continuing to look into this matter, and it all seems a bit fishy to me. While the Qantas 28 flights are shown to be complete, the log history for the Qantas 27 flights generally tend to trail off and disappear. Note the following link:
http://i.imgur.com/zZrvzER.png
I also discovered this strangely exuberant propaganda starring none other than the late 33rd degree Freemason Ron Hubbard's poster child: John Travolta. It celebrates the wonder of this formerly illusive non-stop flight:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
These two flights also fail to show up on other tracking sites such as planefinder.net.
Although none of this added information provides definitive proof of anything, it does raise some red flags for me.
I was banned from a Facebook group because I provided formulas and facts to prove the earth is a globe. Before that I never knew anyone seriously thought the earth was flat. They knew the earth was round thousands of years ago
Oh I'd love to discuss the evidence in the young/old earth debate, but I think this is not the appropriate place to do so.
I am a YEC, so I know what it feels like to be exposed to ad hominem argumentations and irrelevant arguments. However, I do like good debates with good arguments.
I've helped construct plenty of elevator shafts, my level of education on the subject is just fine.
The Ice Ring has been debunked so many times it is so stupid it is funny. Or maybe it is so stupid it is not funny. At least a large percentage of the earth's 7 billion inhabitants think so. It just depends on what kind of sense of humor you possess.
Under the north pole. And yes, compasses work pefectly well on a flat magnet with the south pole under the north pole.
Like a FE model slooooowly morphing into a RE model.Why not? Compasses would still work, and the pole does not have to be at the "edge". This would explain a lot.The "south pole" is likely under the flat Earth.
"Under"? Why?
Why would a compass not work on something flat? Maybe you are trying to claim that compasses do not work on flat things? I have posted many pictures of the opposite of what you say. I can post them again, if you are going to make yourself look ignorant by claiming it is not possible. Perhaps you are doing this on perpose because your shill paycheck did not come in? Just wondering.
Why not? Compasses would still work, and the pole does not have to be at the "edge". This would explain a lot.The "south pole" is likely under the flat Earth.
"Under"
Okay; tell me, Liars: how do I get to join one of the tours where this conjuring trick is demonstrated?
1) What force pulls the sun and moon up and down the atmoplane?
2) What is this type of movement called? Where the sun and moon rotate around a point, but also go up and down while rotating?
3) Has the sun diameter been measured to be smaller right before and right after a solar eclipse? Or has the moon been measured larger in the same instances?
4) How far are the sun and the moon from each other in a solar eclipse? In a lunar eclipse?
5) Does the fact that during an eclipse the sun is coming very close to the moon alter the bioluminescent bacteria in some way?
6) Is there a way to predict solar and lunar eclipses taking in consideration the earth is flat, without using RE algorithm?
7) Are the effects of harmful moonlight exposure mitigated when in lunar eclipse?
Actually, the zetetic method is very similar to the scientific method, with the exception that you do not make a hypothesis first that you then try to prove.
That would be because you're either a halfwit or a troll.
You will see the tips become instantly red-hot BEFORE they are inserted.
...false ideas don't survive forever in the Scientific method whereas false ideas cannot be discarded with the Zetetic method.
The question, is once someone starts down this false rabbit hole, how in the hell do they ever get out. I suspect it's a mind trap that's inescapable.
I have gone on a Physics community and message boards challenging anyone to produce empirical evidence for a body of water arcing. Not one person can produce one example.
Can we have a link to these message board discussions, please? After reading this thread I'm guessing that, like here, you got plenty of examples but you simply chose to deny all of them without cause.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/+JamaalWilliams4Jesus/albums/6181059422475372689?sqi=110746356889816694276&sqsi=716abddc-51e3-4cf2-a1b9-2120529add88
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/flat/247064312
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/110948746616556574259/stream/3c68da36-d273-43d2-a523-b00aafd6e48e
Here is a pic of a TVI filter with the components soldered just to the coaxial cable
the copper is only there to solder the components to. In fact these types of RF filters can be made without any substrate or enclosure at all. I believe you can say this would be a non conductive working RF filter.
Incidentally, the copper is only there to solder the components to.
The topic is about the curvature of water. Not one person has provided documentation, empirical evidence of a body of water arcing on a surface.
So why do you believe water can arc over a globe when you never seen with your own eyes?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I hope you belive now that the Earth is Round.
This is from Redbull and it is real because I was there
Obviously a fish eye lens. Even before he takes off you can see the distortion. Check the cam from inside his capsule. It's not using a fish eye lens and through it you can see the horizon is a straight line.
That can easily be fake. The "photo" looks like a nice painting.
If you are going to show the earth from "space" then make sure it is not from any government agency, it doesn't use a fish eye lens, and it is video.
You might as well ask why would anyone want to see live feed of anything.
Who wouldn't want to have a full live view of the supposed planet we live? I want it.
It's 2015. NASA has received billions and billions of dollars. This should be a piece of cake for them. What are they doing with all that money?
Um, that's not empirical evidence of a body of water on a surface arcing.
Nice try though.
That doesn't count...
People will reflexively say gravity arcs water but how come it is never been demonstrated that "gravity" can curve water on a smaller scale?
And if gravity is so strong that it can make ocean water arc then how come it is not strong enough to prevent a helium balloon to rise or a little bug from flying?
The trouble with some on here is, they will not think. They refuse to go basic.
