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 - Jet Fission

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
Oh, so NASA is too cheap to use video cameras while "walking in space"?
Considering their budget, actually, yes. That's part of it.

2
I highly suggest you take a physics class at least your local community college.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are the evidence AGAINST a round earth ?
« on: September 03, 2015, 08:02:03 PM »
  If I thought the theory of gravity was correct, why would I consistently point out all of it's flaws? I came to these conclusions on my own, your conclusions were spoon fed to you and are regurgitated at anyone who doesn't believe them. There are plenty of others here that also disagree with the theory.

You see, that's the problem with you flat earthers. You seem to think that you are critical thinkers and that nobody else has come to conclusions on his own or has ever questioned in his mind what he has been taught, and in this arrogance, you miss the obvious flaws of your theories.

Now I ask you again: can you give me a single major problem with gravity?

I never said that, and I apologize if that is what you think I am saying. Of course anyone can come to their own conclusions. I doubt very much that most people question their scientific schooling very much. What I was specifically saying is that you are simply regurgitating what you were taught as fact, and implying that others here who question the theory of gravity are ridiculous.

To give you an example again on this thread let me choose the last one I had mentioned, objects in space are floating because they are in free fall. Anyone can see they are floating. Objects in space can float in any direction. I would not consider this falling, nor would almost anyone else before they were taught all the nuances of the theory of gravity.

So because it doesn't seem like falling to you, gravity isn't real?

And no, I'm not regurgitating anything.

   Ok then, since you came to your conclusion that objects are in free fall instead of floating in space, please explain why they will float in all directions. Where are they falling towards? What makes them fall?

All objects whose parent is the Sun are falling towards the Sun. The Sun, as well as all the objects orbiting the Sun are all falling towards the center of the Milky Way (of which billions of other stars are falling towards). The Moon is falling towards the Earth, etc.. All this is irrelevant, really.

The real issue I see with your stance is that you don't truly accept FE because of gravity- besides, FE falls apart completely thanks to southern circumpolar stars- it's that you accept FE through a conspiracy which you have no evidence of. Gravity to you isn't real because you believe in a conspiracy. This is just invalid.

In reality, where it's obvious the Earth is round thanks to video, photography, southern circumpolar stars, modern science etc. you do not claim gravity is non-existent because it cannot be explained (which it can). And because it cannot be explained, the Earth must be flat. You can argue for anything using this logic. It's not logic at all.

This presupposition is the basis of your flawed beliefs. So first, prove the conspiracy. Then we can talk gravity.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Computers don't work how we are told
« on: September 03, 2015, 07:40:34 PM »
Mike is correct and can you believe they are making computer chips from wood now? who would have thunk?

Please tell me you're joking.

Not at all. Here is one site that talks about it.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/these-new-computer-chips-are-made-from-wood-180955471/?no-ist

Uh, CNF isn't wood the way you think of it.

And they haven't even made a working CPU out of it. It is technically possible, but it would bump us back a few decades because of how much larger transistors would have to be. "Thousands of transistors" is nothing compared to the standard of a few billion in modern processors.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Computers don't work how we are told
« on: August 30, 2015, 03:31:00 PM »
Mike is correct and can you believe they are making computer chips from wood now? who would have thunk?

Please tell me you're joking.

6
So have you gotten that telescope yet?

7
And of course he skips my rebuttal to argue semantics.

8
Your alleged experience of viewing of the iss thing irrelevant to me.

I never claimed it was, in fact I was stressing its irrelevancy.
Plus, I haven't even told you I've seen it. Nice job.

As should my claimed experience be to anyone else.

I never claimed it should be to anyone else, in fact I stressed that it was relevant to your own own fundamental understanding.

the argument from personal experience fallacy states that you (the unbeliever) must experience the truth first hand. There is no other way, the fallacy tells us.

Correct, which is why I asked you to look at the ISS yourself to experience the truth first hand. Still struggling?

9
How does it feel that your entire world view could be destroyed with 50 dollars worth of equipment?

I mean, you have a ton of people around you taking photographs and video of this thing which disproves the framework of your faith, how can you not get up and say "Eh, feck it. Maybe there's something here I need to investigate?"

So much of your time being wasted arguing, when in one night you could enlighten yourself with the truth, and that would be it. No more making assumptions, no more accusing us as being liars, just one night.

And what would be the harm or risk in doing it? It's not like using telescopes or binoculars takes years out of your life. It's almost like you want to be ignorant. You don't want to admit you're wrong.

Ah, the Argument from Personal Experience fallacy again! I've bolded the reason why this fallacy is quite useless in a debate.

Quote
The argument from personal experience, also known as personal revelation, is the sensation of a direct experience of God or the supernatural. This can be a feeling of divine presence or in the form of conversation, vision or creative inspiration. This argument is particularly common among certain branches of Christianity where things like possession and levitating have been reported. Many believers do not have personal revelations and have other foundations for their beliefs.

Personal experiences are subjective and, as such, cannot be directly shared, only anecdotally shared. One popular form of the argument is from near-death experiences.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_personal_experience


You idiots really have nothing, do you? Except your irrational beliefs of course.

Edit: To clarify, if PL comes back to the thread and claims he has viewed the iss with a telescope and it looks exactly like what we see on the highly suspect images floating around the internet, his claims can be rejected as anecdotal. He knows this, I know this, and some other members know this. It is only the space cultists who would even suggest that the argument from personal experience fallacy will settle a matter.

What the hell are you talking about? When did I use my personal experience as an argument? Can you read?

Quote
How does it feel that your entire world view could be destroyed with 50 dollars worth of equipment?

Quote
...how can you not get up and say "Eh, feck it. Maybe there's something here I need to investigate?"

Quote
So much of your time being wasted arguing, when in one night you could enlighten yourself with the truth, and that would be it.

Quote
And what would be the harm or risk in doing it? It's not like using telescopes or binoculars takes years out of your life.

It's painfully obvious the entire premise of my argument was to coerce YOU into trying it yourself. Not once did I use personal experience.

Now please, go out there an try it yourself. Then you would be justified in calling us liars.

10
How does it feel that your entire world view could be destroyed with 50 dollars worth of equipment?

I mean, you have a ton of people around you taking photographs and video of this thing which disproves the framework of your faith, how can you not get up and say "Eh, feck it. Maybe there's something here I need to investigate?"

So much of your time being wasted arguing, when in one night you could enlighten yourself with the truth, and that would be it. No more making assumptions, no more accusing us as being liars, just one night.

And what would be the harm or risk in doing it? It's not like using telescopes or binoculars takes years out of your life. It's almost like you want to be ignorant. You don't want to admit you're wrong.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Computers don't work how we are told
« on: August 28, 2015, 11:09:10 PM »
Then what is the purpose of this:



And are modern handheld calculators magical as well? Where is the line drawn?
I've created my own computing system using logic gates and flashed my own little OS on to it. And you could to. How do explain this?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Explaination Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 05:20:49 PM »
mikeman is correct for a change.  I think he is finally learning a thing or two about theoretical physics.  :-)

Is this a debate related answer? Are you actually a mod?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Explaination Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 04:42:33 PM »
Technically we'd be moving faster than the speed of light at this point with that acceleration.

With classical physics you are right, but relativity ensures that it's impossible because space and time change the definition of meters and seconds to ensure that even a constantly accelerating object never reaches light speed.

Of course, though since I was arguing for flat Earth I threw away modern science all together as tradition goes.

Besides, if we really were going .99% of the speed of light our world would look a lot different.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Explaination Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 03:04:17 PM »
The height one falls from wouldn't change the rate of acceleration beyond the rules of gravity.

No one said it did. What height does change is the speed at which you hit the ground. All of this is accounted for in their crazy explanation.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Explaination Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:53:01 PM »
The first portion of your post had little relevance to the original question. We're not going to argue real round Earth science.

The upward spiral theory makes 0 sense because I would die from jumping off my couch. And somehow the earth disc doesn't run through the floating clouds.

Again you clearly don't understand what one means by acceleration. If you jump off your couch and flat Earth hypothesis were correct, you would fall at the same rate if you fell on a round Earth. You would fall off your couch, and then begin to accelerate. It's not instant, and none of their explanation would suggest it.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Explaination Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:39:51 PM »
When you jump off a building you had the momentum of the Earth spiraling upwards already, so it takes time for the acceleration to then catch up to you. It's not a 'constant' 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration of 9.8 m/s per second.
But in the FAQ it says constant rate.

"The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared)."
Oh, so the rate of the upward spiral depends on how high you are falling from. Got it. See, the law of gravity does debunk the upward spiraling. Can't dispute science haha.

I don't think you understand; they say the disc is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2. Technically we'd be moving faster than the speed of light at this point with that acceleration. So when you jump off a building, since the disc is accelerating upwards towards you, you will begin to fall at that 9.8m/s^2.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:33:42 PM »
If I traveled east or west long enough I'd end up back where I started. It's gravity that holds me to the earth so I wouldn't exit into outer space. On a flat earth you'd hit the undiscovered ice wall.

If you traveled east to west on a flat Earth you would end up where you started because you're trying to travel directly west. By nature you are going to curve around the disc and get back where you started, because you're holding your heading west.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Explaination Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:31:06 PM »
When you jump off a building you had the momentum of the Earth spiraling upwards already, so it takes time for the acceleration to then catch up to you. It's not a 'constant' 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration of 9.8 m/s per second.
But in the FAQ it says constant rate.

"The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared)."

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:27:22 PM »
If I traveled any direction at a constant rate on a flat earth I would reach the ice ring that's yet to be discovered. If you travel around that big iceberg continent down south you won't make a revolution around the earth, just that continent of ice.

Sure, in the same way that if you traveled in any direction at a constant rate on a Round Earth you would end up in space.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ice Ring Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:16:26 PM »
This probably belongs in Q&A

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:15:27 PM »
Use the search function, please.

You're dealing with zeteticists, first of all. Second, if you went east to west on a flat Earth you would end up where you started.

And correct, there is no proof that the Earth is flat, and they for some reason don't want to conduct any experiments to provide some proof.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Explaination Debunked
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:11:22 PM »
When you jump off a building you had the momentum of the Earth spiraling upwards already, so it takes time for the acceleration to then catch up to you. It's not a 'constant' 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration of 9.8 m/s per second.

23
This question has been asked by myself and others many times.

The reason they wanted you to move into debate instead of Q&A is because they don't have an answer.

It's probably one of the best empirically demonstrable pieces of evidence for RE. No need to trust anyone but your senses. Ironically, just the way they like it.

24
If all the space agencies were a great conspiracy, why would they hire "soo bad" actors and use "shitty" effects and animations. Why would they make so many mistakes if they are trying to manipulate the whole of humanity? Why hire people who don't know what they're doing, when they could hire specialists and geniuses like you who see the "fakery", you who obviously knodd everything soo much better than those so-called experts?
I ask the question, why has there been no advance in air speed for 50 years?

Me and Mike just explained it to you. Twice.

Why do you keep asking the question if you're not going to listen to the answer?

25
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything
« on: July 09, 2015, 08:25:18 AM »
Quote
Hououin Kyoma!
How do you know that name?

Do you remember him? You might know him better as Rintarou Okabe, unless he never told you of his real name.

26
Funny how planes have not been able to increase top air  speed since 1964, that's over 50 years ago. Bit like going to the moon.
What do you think stopped the progress?

Their progress is stopped by air resistance.  Space ships don't have to contend with it and they have giant expendable boosters to propel them.
Space ships don't have to contend with air resistance, interesting?
Guess that's why they don't get too hot at 17,000mph doing a big arc to leave the earth.

The final velocities of spacecraft are not reached while they are in the atmosphere. The majority of the change in velocity in fact occurs when the spacecraft surpasses 100km in altitude, because of air resistance.

27
Do you have any idea why planes are still so slow?

That's easy, it's because planes don't have sky scraper sized multi stage expendable boosters behind them and planes have the atmosphere to contend with.
Funny how planes have not been able to increase top air  speed since 1964, that's over 50 years ago. Bit like going to the moon.
What do you think stopped the progress?

1. What's the point?
2. There's only so much you can do with air resistance.

28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything
« on: July 07, 2015, 06:57:50 AM »
Hououin Kyoma!

29
If you ever looked at a nasa launch you would see that the rockets are curving sideways
Not strait up thus meaning they aren't exploring space but are infact exploring the giant icy infiniteness that is antarctica

Rockets have to turn sideways so they can accelerate to orbital velocity.  How else do you think they get going 17,000 miles per hour?
A space ship at 17,000mph makes the SR71 Blackbird at just over 2000mph a slow old jigger don't you think?
That is a massive difference and both have people sitting in the seats.
Do you have any idea why planes are still so slow?

First, rocket engines are extremely powerful. Ridiculously powerful. It's awesome actually.

To put it in perspective, the solid fuel boosters from the Shuttle's launch stage exhausted five metric tons of fuel every second, generating 2.5 million kg of thrust.
This comes at a price; most of these machines can only burn for minutes or even just seconds before exhausting their fuel. Rocket staging, coupled with the immense power of the engines will eventually get you into orbit- with little fuel left over.

Jet engines are in fact more efficient than rocket engines, however nowhere near as powerful.

Second, and most importantly, there is little air in space.


30
I definitely oppose it.

Wow, I had respect for you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18