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 - Tommyocean

Pages: [1] 2
John's posts have been getting more and more bizarre lately, but it looks like he's finally gone off the deep end.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: August 30, 2019, 10:28:52 AM »
So you're going to cite an experiment you never even attempted to perform as proof of something?  No wonder Tom Bishop and you can't stand each other.

Why do you say that combustion cannot take place in a vacuum?  If it's because of lack of oxygen then how do you explain welding torches that work underwater?

Flat Earth General / Re: Evidence of flat earth
« on: August 13, 2019, 06:18:28 AM »
Have you ever directly experienced anything in your entire life that would lead you to believe you were living on a sphere hurtling through space? If you hadn't been repeatedly told it was true, would you ever suspect that it was?

There is your answer: Your own eyes.
You're going to have to do better than that Tom.   If someone who was unaware of commercial air travel suddenly woke up in a jumbo jet at cruising altitude, would they suspect they were travelling through the air at 600 mph at 35,000 feet?  If not, does that mean they must be still sitting on the runway because it feels that way?

Flat Earth General / Re: Sun is neither a firing nor a spinning ball !
« on: August 04, 2019, 09:40:35 AM »
Sunspots are not black.   They emit a large amount of light.   The only reason they appear dark is because you are seeing them in contrast with the surrounding area which is several thousand degrees hotter.  If you've ever seen a Mercury or Venus transit while sunspots were present, you could easily see the difference between the color of the planet which is truly black, and the sunspots which appear much lighter.

Flat Earth General / Re: Artemis Project
« on: July 26, 2019, 12:07:57 PM »
It is just how we are taught about Escape Velocity. Look at this page from Georgia State:

Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?

One way to phrase it is that the object needs to go straight up, or away from the earth, at 7 miles per second. It is simply what needs to be done. A description of Escape Velocity as commonly taught and nothing more. I can change the "straight up" in the sentence to "away from the earth" if it makes it more clear.

I think I'll go by the actual velocities quoted and not information as in the document for Apollo 11: APOLLO/SATURN V POSTFLIGHT TRAJECTORY - AS-506

That 10,843 m/s is 24,255 mph still below, but close to escape velocity.

What you quoted says space-fixed velocity.

If you stood on a high mountain and threw a rock horizontally at 25,000 mph it would escape the Earth as well. (disregarding air resistance of course)  It does not have to be "straight up"

1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.

Source of graphics used for above diagram:

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."


"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".

2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)

Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:

QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:

"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm≤ or 10 tons on an area of 1m≤. The reason why we donít feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body."

Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m≤". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.

But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.

Rocket engines create thrust by pumping fuel into a combustion chamber where it burns and expands rapidly.  This is where the pressure comes from, not pressurized fuel tanks.   Yes, the combustion chamber is "always open" but the fuel tanks are not.  The rate of fuel consumption is controlled by valves and the turbo pump.   Also, a vacuum is not a "force"  It is the absence of force such as air pressure. 

Flat Earth General / Artemis Project
« on: July 25, 2019, 08:56:23 AM »
If the Artemis Project achieves its goal of placing a crew on the moon in the next 5 years or so, how is the FES going to view it?   Are they going to simply brush it off as yet another fake conspiracy? 

Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.
You honestly believe that electric motors need air to operate?   Why?

Flat Earth Q&A / Satellite Visibility
« on: April 10, 2019, 08:38:40 AM »
In the RE model, satellites are able to be seen long after sunset because they are at an altitude where the sun in still above the horizon at that location.  How does this work in the FE model?   If the sun were really a spotlight wouldn't the objects be in the dark and thus not visible?   Even if they are just balloons, etc. and are at a lower altitude how can they still reflect sunlight?   Please don't try to explain by saying they emit their own light.

Flat Earth Q&A / Mountains on the Moon
« on: March 25, 2019, 05:10:03 AM »
I have heard many flat earth folks claim that you cannot see mountains more than a couple of hundred miles away because air is not truly transparent.  If this were the only reason, then why can I clearly see mountains on the surface of the moon if it's 3000 miles away as you claim?   

Flat Earth General / Re: Vagueness in FE
« on: February 03, 2019, 05:26:11 PM »
My new quest is to get you to stop spamming new topics that are all the same fricking topic.
Just maybe if Jimster got any FE answers we might see fewer new topics.

I know your knee jerk reaction is to defend all RE, no matter how retarted they are, but have a look at this thread. It is several threads merged together. There's no FE topic. There aren't any FE questions. He just moans about flat earthers all the time.
  You should learn to spell the word "retarded" before calling people by that name.

Flat Earth General / Re: Super Wolf Blood Moon Check-in
« on: January 29, 2019, 08:06:36 AM »
Is there a single documented case of someone being physically harmed by looking at the moon?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Time travel
« on: November 13, 2018, 09:09:43 AM »
Time travel makes great science fiction.   People always talk about going back in time and becoming rich doing things like betting on all of the major sporting events (since you already know the outcome)  Actually it would be much more simple.  First, wait until the lottery gets up to several hundred million dollars. Then watch the drawing on TV and go back in time 1 hour and buy a ticket.
This way you have little chance of screwing up the future (like Marty McFly meeting his parents)

Flat Earth Q&A / Comets
« on: October 11, 2018, 12:25:58 PM »
What is the latest flat earth explanation for comets?   I checked for old posts and they were all ten years ago.

Flat Earth General / Re: Just Curious
« on: September 14, 2018, 07:44:16 AM »
Iím a flatearther and Iíve never been to an astronomical observatory, and I never will.  Last thing I need is some doctored telescope or cheap cgi try to bamboozle me.

Maybe the real reason is that you're afraid the telescope will prove you wrong.  I find it sad that you will never get to enjoy the view of objects such as Saturn's rings and the moons craters and mountains.  If you're so convinced that observatories are "doctored" then borrow a small scope from a friend and have a look for yourself. 

Flat Earth Debate / Crater Shadows
« on: August 24, 2018, 10:05:07 AM »
This has probably been discussed before (I actually did search for it) but here goes.  If the moon is self illuminating as many believe, then why are there visible shadows from the mountains and in the craters?  They are easily seen with a telescope.  Wouldn't the surface show evenly distributed lighting if the light source was the moon itself?   The shadows correspond very well with a sunlit surface.

Flat Earth General / Re: How Many More Planets Will NASA Invent?
« on: August 16, 2018, 09:44:37 AM »
NASA has only existed since 1958.  How could they have had anything to do with the naming of the planets of our solar system?
Disney has a patent on the character Pluto [aka Mickey's dog] not the name.

Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: August 14, 2018, 12:55:33 PM »
When the moon appears as a thin crescent, the Earth is almost at the full phase when seen from the moons dark area.  You know how bright the full moon is?   The full Earth is even brighter.  It is bright enough to partially illuminate the dark portion of the moon.  This effect is sometime referred to as "The old moon in the new moons arms"

Flat Earth Debate / Re: i will believe if my 2 questions are answered
« on: July 16, 2018, 09:00:04 AM »
The difference in the distance to the sun between the equator and the northern or southern latitudes is way too small to affect temperatures on a RE.  Seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis which varies the angle at which the sun shines on the surface and the length of day and night. You can easily simulate this with a globe and a flashlight.  Even the difference between aphelion and perihelion (the Earth is actually closest to the sun in January) is only about 3% and has only a nominal affect on temperature.   

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The dark side of the earth
« on: June 14, 2018, 10:01:06 AM »
I have to admit that I do agree with the last part of your post where you state "You may think I'm crazy"

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Going through the 'dome'?
« on: May 15, 2018, 01:13:17 PM »
I understand why you think space travel would be impossible with a dome, but why do FEs who do not believe in a dome think it is impossible?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Undeniable proof
« on: May 15, 2018, 10:08:43 AM »
Why is it that FEs reason that if the Earth was rotating and you jumped up, you would instantly lose all of your momentum while the Earth continued to move beneath you.  Didn't you learn anything in high school physics?

Whenever you attempt to illustrate a globe on a flat map, the continents near the edge become distorted.   The map with Australia elongated is called "polar projection"   Maps where the equator is a horizontal line through the center are called "Mercator Projection"  On those maps you'll notice that Greenland is greatly enlarged and distorted. 

Flat Earth General / Re: A question that RET can't answer
« on: April 20, 2018, 09:27:56 AM »
The sun is indeed a yellow star but this does not mean it only emits yellow light. It's not the same as placing a yellow filter in front of a light source where only the yellow color would be allowed to pass.  The Sun's output peaks in the yellow part of the spectrum but most of the light is spread out over all of the visible wavelengths which when combined (as you remember from science class) produces white light. 

A vacuum is not a force or energy.  It is the absence of pressure.   When you drink through a straw, you are not pulling the liquid up through the straw, you are reducing the air pressure in it which allows the atmospheric pressure pushing down on the liquid in the cup to push it up through the straw.   In the same way cold is not energy, it's the absence of heat.  You do not "add cold" to something, you remove heat.   Dark is not energy, it's the absence of light.   When you turn off the light switch in a room you're not "adding dark" to the room.   You're removing light.  Rail tank cars collapse because they are subjected to almost 15 lbs per square inch of pressure on the outside of a tank that's designed to hold pressure within.

This diagram explains why a rocket does not need anything to push against.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar Eclipse (Earth vs. Jupiter)
« on: February 08, 2018, 12:01:54 PM »
As I recall there was an electrical cable on the Viking lander that did not appear to be the correct color when first photographed so NASA adjusted the camera's settings which made the landscape more red.

Here is an experiment you can try that may help.  The sun's diameter is 400x the moon but is also 400x more distant.  This results in both objects having the same angular size as seen from Earth.   We can simulate this effect with a couple of sheets of paper.  You do not need to use the number 400 as long as the ratio of diameter/distance is the same.  In other words, you can use a model of the sun that is twice the diameter of the moon and place it twice as far away.   So, cut a 10 inch circle out of yellow paper to represent the sun, and a 5 inch circle out of black paper to represent the moon.  Place the moon 10 feet away from you and the sun 20 ft away.  When viewed side by side, they will appear to be the same size.  Now, orientate yourself so that the moon just covers the suns disk.  This simulates a total solar eclipse.   Carefully move your head from side to side and note how far you have to move before any part of the yellow disk comes into view.   This represents the size of the moon's umbra.  You will see that the distance required is less than 5 inches because the umbra shadow requires that the entire disk of the sun is covered. 

Flat Earth General / Re: Cold Moon Light
« on: March 01, 2017, 06:56:46 AM »
The reason the plate on top of the table cools off is because it is exposed to the sky and thus loses heat.  Try doing the same experiment on a moonless night and you will find the same result.  It's caused by the laws of thermodynamics and has nothing to do with moonlight.

Pages: [1] 2