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 - SoNic

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Flat Earth General / Re: I bet I can prove the ISS is real.
« on: November 02, 2012, 01:36:06 PM »
In any reference frame you cannot reach speed of light with a material object. Not even light cannot pass the value of speed of light in vacuum.
So it is possible to accelerate at infinite and still be below speed of light as seen from an external frame.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: I bet I can prove the ISS is real.
« on: November 02, 2012, 01:10:30 PM »
That's where theory of relativity comes in place... You CAN accelerate forever and still don't reach speed of light.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dark Energy and Atmospheric/Atmolayer Travel
« on: November 01, 2012, 06:56:44 PM »
Your GPS instruments (via satellites programmed by US Air Force)  will compensate for you... And the "straight and level" flight is very hard to discern from "very slightly curved and tilted" by a slope of 1/10000 or so).

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« on: November 01, 2012, 03:15:57 PM »
I am a pilot. Do you understand what straight and level means?
Do you? What's the sensitivity of your artificial horizont? Can it show a diference of 2 parts per million from true level?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round and Flat
« on: October 31, 2012, 07:15:00 PM »

wut.

Your affirmation was that MANY, including you saw the curvature like that. I flew over the Atlantic 20 times with commercial flights (35k feet) and NEVER saw a curvature like that. So I know that you lied with purpose to advance your agenda.

Then you show a picture of Felix to support your agenda. That is irrelevant because you wasn't there. You didn't see that, you didn't see the lens that took that picture. You just agree with that and say is true because it looks like it supports your BELIEF.

I did say that the difference in air density can "bend" the light like THAT. You look from vacuum into a fluid.
You choose not to accept that, because it doesn't fit your BELIEF system. And that's fine...

PS: This is what everyone that flyes with commercial planes at 35000 feet see:

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Live -- Felix Baumgartner makes record jump
« on: October 31, 2012, 08:18:01 AM »
Is Felix in on the conspiracy? Did he see a flat horizon that he has to shut up about?
What one's eyes see is not necessary the scientific truth. Illusions, mirages, refraction in atmosphere with different density...

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round and Flat
« on: October 31, 2012, 08:15:10 AM »
I saw many things "with my eyes" that ended up being false. They are called usually mirages, optical illusions... so on.
Senses are not a good scientific tool. But they can be great belief tools.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can anyone provide an explanation for this
« on: October 31, 2012, 07:30:18 AM »
Grab a screen and draw a line on it, like I did.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can anyone provide an explanation for this
« on: October 31, 2012, 06:38:49 AM »
From that short distance inside cockpit (some 2 feet), I would say that definitely that was at least a wide-angle lens.
And then... curved Earth? I don't see it. Look, I even draw a straight line on the screen grab to show you the illusion.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Personal experience contradicts the FE hypothesis
« on: October 31, 2012, 05:00:00 AM »
The left bank would be so small that you wouldn't notice it. It is several magnitude orders below your instruments precision.

11
we still have very convergent results with the hull disappearing before the mast. if air is so variable, which it is, we should have a lot of different results concerning the horizon. Which we don't
Density of air varies with altitude - it is more compressed near Earth due to constant upwards acceleration (you might call that gravity). Therefore is not optically the same and generates the refraction that curves the light "downwards" like a half-lens put on top of Earth, between the two points - source and observator.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Tide - Moon and Sun gravity?
« on: October 30, 2012, 10:38:23 AM »
The official science explanation for the tide is the Moon and Sun gravitational "pull". They fail to explain why there are two high tides a day and offer just a good explanation for ONE tide (Moon "pulls" water located under it). But they brush off the opposite side of the tide with explanations as "gravitation pull of Moon deducts for Earths one".
Well... no. That deduction is true for the first case, for the second case the gravitational pull would ADD up, being vectors pointing in the same direction, generating a low tide on opposite side of Earth from Moon, not another high tide.

Per FE theory, tides would be better explained with a under-side gravitational objects (counter-Moons) to create the two low tide points at 90deg off. The "high tide" point opposite of Moon would be just the "normal" level of oceans, higher than lower tides of counter-Moons and lower than high tide of Moon.

Is that all? Can it be something more?

13
Flat Earth General / Flat Earth got on Yahoo first page
« on: October 29, 2012, 09:25:12 AM »

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: G
« on: September 18, 2007, 04:45:20 PM »
I cannot take advantage of people like that.
I have here on the table 2 small magnets. I did try to make them obey the so-called gravity, but nothing... They are doing some veird things.
Also in the air, the atoms of O and N don't obey gravitation but they stay stuck in pairs...
A, and He atoms to be more rebel leave Earth completelly... just for fun I guess.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: G
« on: September 18, 2007, 04:26:07 PM »
Magnetism atraction exists between SOME materials (magnets). Polar attraction exists between SOME liquid molecules (but not for OTHERS). Microgravitation atraction exists between SOME materials (lead is one of them).
The ammount of lead on the Earth doesn't make for the acceleration that we observe - maybe just one ppm or so...

Why is that a funny supposition? Is funnier that you can assume that all the materials on the Earth wil act the same way in regards to gravitation but different in regard to other forces.
Don't you need some proof for that very strange asumption? Based on what I can see in nature there is NO other force that will act so "universal"...

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: G
« on: September 18, 2007, 03:30:31 PM »
Cavendish experiment measures the atraction between two balls of lead. That doesn't prove that the Earth has gravity (Earth is not made of lead).

17
Flat Earth General / Re: VW test track flat but curved!
« on: September 18, 2007, 03:21:32 PM »
VW have a test track which is 5 miles long and completely level, however the other end cannot be seen due to the curvature of the earth....which...isnt......there!
http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/03/21/super-secret-volkswagen-test-track/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehra-Lessien
The facility features 96 kilometres (60 mi) of private tarmac which includes a large variety of road surfaces and curves, such known as test tracks to test vehicles. More significantly, there is an unbroken straight of 9 km in length, on which the top speed of several of the cars developed may be determined.Though this portion of the track is absolutely flat and leveled, when standing on one side of the straight, the other end cannot be seen due to the curvature of the Earth. It also includes a banked turn, which is supposedly used to get the cars settled for their final pace at the straight.

I looked on your links and I cannot see where the curvature of the Earth is visible. Or you just ASSUME that because... I don't really care why.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 17, 2007, 08:32:38 PM »
Gullivar and sokarul - you are both just bigmouths... you cannot prove any of your affirmations but demand proof from others. And when you got it, you still act like you are "special"... and you can choose what to see or not to see.
Till you can produce some mathematical equations (like you wold know what those are) that are proving that I am wrong, I will not pay anymore attention to you.
Wish you all the best and happy "friendship"...

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: More RE nonsense
« on: September 17, 2007, 03:08:49 PM »
You might want to read up on Newton's Laws regarding motion because your post is inane--as usual. An acceleration applied over hours results in a greater distance of travel than an acceleration applied over a second or so.
And you should think more about the fact that ocean water RISES also on OPPOSITE side of Earth. Souldn't be water there LOWER since it is attracted by the same Moon (that is o the opposite side of the Earth so its gravitation pull will add to the Earth gravitation pull)?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 17, 2007, 03:04:30 PM »
Thanks for proving my point. I put your personal attack in bold font to help you with your recall. (You might consider reading what you post.)

That was NOT a personal attack. It is the BARE TRUTH about sokarul - doesn't know physics or math worth a lick...
I think it is in high school somwhere at 11-th class (he cannot undestand a derivative), not at "college" as he pretends...
As for you... I begin to think that you are sokarul's lawyer or something. Don't worry, I won't bite him.
PS: I know that his maternal language is not english, even more I susspect it might be the same as mine (because of his nick). Therefore his attack at my typo/misspelling followed by major misspelings from his side was stupid - and I have pointed that at that time.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 17, 2007, 02:44:09 PM »
Your memory is faulty. You started the personal attacks, but I really don't care.
See who started? Check you reality circuit breaker... it is triped from overload.

Actually object in orbit do "glide" forever.  But since there’s no air up there, they just fall forever. 
RE sais: Only if you have a certain speed you can orbit forever - it's the speed where the centripete force cancels tha gravitational pull. So even in RE, it's just a special situation, a space shuttle falls back to RE by reducing the speed...

You're not very good with phisics, even the RE one... easy target :)
Even I know its "says" not "sais".  Also "centripete" is also not a word. 
Ok now on to your argument.  I know all about orbit.  I said, "object in orbit do "glide" forever.  But since there’s no air up there, they just fall forever.".  So you can see objects in orbit will fall forever.  If the object loses orbit then it won't be in orbit and it wont fall forever. 

Nice try on trying to act like you know something. 

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 17, 2007, 02:34:30 PM »
No there are IDENTICAL in the final effect. In the end plane will reach a constant speed RELATIVE to the Earth that will lead to the plane crashing on the Earth... That's the final effect that will be observable in ANY refference system.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 17, 2007, 02:26:51 PM »
blablabla
Dude, there is no difference in those two scenarios... nobody can prove nothing. Except sokarul that proves that doesn't have the math skills for this discution.
You need to go back to class if you can't see the difference in the two "scenarios". sokarul has demonstrated superior understanding to yours in many cases. You may want to try humility, and a spell checker.
You are (or pretended to be) retarded if you cannot understand such basic things and go on personal attacs about spelling (that you started first).
Air PUSHED up by the plane or plane ATRACTED down by gravitation - how are those different as per final effect - the friction force against the plane (that force will produce acceleration)?

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 17, 2007, 02:01:00 PM »
blablabla
Dude, there is no difference in those two scenarios... nobody can prove nothing. Except sokarul that proves that doesn't have the math skills for this discution.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What happens when the Earth stops accelerating?
« on: September 17, 2007, 01:38:28 PM »
In FE wa are all floating about already
I guess you didn't pass the physics class about the acceleration and inertia?

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 17, 2007, 01:36:03 PM »
Why can't you get it through your head that the plane has to be accelerated to 9.8m/s2 to match the earths?  Air doesn't have to be solid to accelerate objects.  The thread you missed, I bought up indoor skydiving.  People are "accelerated" at 9.8m/s2 to counter act gravitation. 

So Im going to ask again, how can a plane reach terminal velocity if the earth is accelerating towards it?

Dude you are....? By the same way you reach terminal veolocity in a vertical wind tunnel - air is pushed upwards by Earth (like a piston) so at some point the plane will reach 9.81 m/s2 BUT at a latter momment than the Earth (air will take a while to get the plane there), so it will be a difference in their speeds (terminal velocity) that will allow Earth to catch up the plane. I guess you cannot follow simple math equations because you keep asking the same dumb question - that was answered already by those equations.
Go to school, learn about derivative of a function and come back...

Or special for you: in order to produce the plane accelartion of 9.81, the air MUST push with a certain force on the plane - as in F=m*a. In order to produce that force, the friction of the air on the lane MUST be equal with m*9.81 (m is plane mass). In order to maintan that force, since the air resistance is proportional with the speed, the air MUST flow by the plane with a certain speed. That speed is terminal speed... Doesn't matter if the air is PUSHED past the plane or the plane is ATTRACTED to the Earth, all that maters is that the air has a speed RELATIVE to the plane.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence of a conspiracy
« on: September 16, 2007, 04:35:13 PM »
There is an ETERNAL YOUTH FOUNTAIN over the Ice Wall. Elvis moved there. Marlin Monroe is there too playing bingo with Stalin and Lenin... Kennedy alas was killed for real. It's warm and cozy and birds are singing in the sky...
But there is not enough space and miracle water for everybody so... you figure.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions for Flat Earthers
« on: September 16, 2007, 03:54:53 PM »
1. Did the government conspiracy workers have Photoshop in 1969?

(Protip: Optical Illusion doesn't cut it.)

How about this one dude?



PS: I did it in Paint. With just copy/paste... It could be done manually in 1969 with no problems.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 16, 2007, 03:50:40 PM »
I am really sorry for you... so young, so...
Air accelerates the plane/falling object till it reaches a certain accelaration - of course smaller than Earth's because air is not a solid (to transmit 100% of the energy/acceleration). So the difference is the terminal velocity as in the equations above.
Actually if you would know math at high scool level you would look over the equations. I guess you can't...

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with FE's "gravity"
« on: September 16, 2007, 11:37:59 AM »
Wrong.
Simply answer question 2. 
In the post above it is stated what means terminal velocity - in any model (FE or RE) is the moment when the delta speed between Earth and plane is constant.
You want the whole quote? Here, with red marks:
Quote
Ok, for people that want to complicate thinghs more with the air resistance (noted here r):
For plane: Sp=S0+r(a(t-t0))2 - because the air resistance varies with square of the speed (I am simplyfing here). See, the air is accelerating the plane upwards, and the friction force will add to the original speed.
For Earth S=S0+a(t-t0)
Now the relative speed of plane  to Earth will be Sp-S
That means Delta S= r(a(t-to)2-a(t-t0)
When this relative speed will be constant (terminal velocity)? When it will not be variable in time. So derivative of this function with the variation of time is zero.
That means r(a(t-to)/2-a=0
So the time when speed will be terminal (constant) t=2/r+t0 - so depends only of the resistance of the plane in air (given by it's shape and position).

Pages: [1] 2 3 4