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 - Mvene

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA's microwave ovens are cooking cake in Jupiter
« on: April 12, 2018, 04:03:38 PM »
This a image from the same control room with a full view

Here some Panel / Rack mounting monitors

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA's microwave ovens are cooking cake in Jupiter
« on: April 12, 2018, 01:55:10 PM »
Maybe not on a microwave but you can on a fridge.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA's microwave ovens are cooking cake in Jupiter
« on: April 12, 2018, 12:46:01 PM »

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA's microwave ovens are cooking cake in Jupiter
« on: April 12, 2018, 12:13:05 PM »
Or a simple monitor like this

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA's microwave ovens are cooking cake in Jupiter
« on: April 12, 2018, 12:11:10 PM »

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA's microwave ovens are cooking cake in Jupiter
« on: April 12, 2018, 12:06:24 PM »
Maybe these.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA's microwave ovens are cooking cake in Jupiter
« on: April 12, 2018, 10:03:36 AM »
Here is an example of a computer with handlers.

That is pretty common in industrial applications, where you need a fast way to change the whole component..

Regards.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« on: March 01, 2018, 11:40:10 AM »
It reduce measurement error due to resolution. For instance if your minimal resolution is 1 mm, your error due to that single measurement is +-0.5mm but if you increase the number of circunferentes in one measurement you will still have +-0.5mm of error due to resolution but you can divide the final measurement by N and get a lower error. Sorry if a didn't express myself but English is not my first language.

I hope the following table helps.

Be

1C + E = 10mm +- 1mm
2c + e = 20mm +- 1mm-> c = 10+-0.5mm
3c +e = 30mm +-1mm  ->c = 10+-0.33mm

But C itself has error, so this table wouldn't work. I think your point is that the scale error remains the same and the percentage error decreases, but for the real measurement you can't just divide the error by the multiple of C.

Well it actually works for real world, but i may explained wrong.  You wouldn't find the exact value of c since as you said the measurement comes with an error. but you will get a better approximation of c.

m1 =  10.1       so c = 10.1
m2 = 20.1       so c  = 10.05
m3 = 30.1       so c = 10.03333

But  the real value of c is 10.

Of course only applies if the measurement instrument is calibrated for the measured distance, and only works for resolution error.

my previous table is the same as said       c must be between 9   and 11 ; 9.5 - 10.5 ; 9.6666 - 10.333.

-What it actually does is to reduce the significance of the error in the measurement.

This is different than mesurare one c, then  start over and measure other c, then star over and measure other c, then add all three measurements together and then divide by three.

((c + e1)+(c + e2) +(c+e3))/3

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« on: February 28, 2018, 06:18:58 PM »
While I do agree with you, what I am trying to probe here is that phew is wrong. . I know there are other variables that have to be consider.
That's why a ask for a couple of days to make a good experiment.

Don't misunderstand me, You are right we won't get the exact value of Pi but hopefully, Danang will realise Phew is wrong

By the way, i think a single measurement is not enough to reduce errors but we can use R&R to find the tool confidence to find the actual radius, multiple measurements to reduce human error.

And others.

I am open to suggestions to increase the accuracy of the experiment and to reduce error due to external factors.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« on: February 28, 2018, 03:04:44 PM »
It reduce measurement error due to resolution. For instance if your minimal resolution is 1 mm, your error due to that single measurement is +-0.5mm but if you increase the number of circunferentes in one measurement you will still have +-0.5mm of error due to resolution but you can divide the final measurement by N and get a lower error. Sorry if a didn't express myself but English is not my first language.

I hope the following table helps.

Be

1C + E = 10mm +- 1mm
2c + e = 20mm +- 1mm-> c = 10+-0.5mm
3c +e = 30mm +-1mm  ->c = 10+-0.33mm

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« on: February 28, 2018, 10:23:51 AM »
Pi calculation: 2*3.1416*6*3 = 113.0976 cm.
Phew calculation: 2*3.1716*6*3 = 114.1776 cm

Try this at home repeatedly.

~ Pi is not big enough ~

Thanks danang. Please don't think i forgot about this, i am planning to do it right. Just give me a couple of days to manufacture a diam. 12 cm aluminium disc.

But i would like to add a few steps on the match.

First Mesurare with 3C, then 6C and 9C.

Second as i will post a video doing such experiment. I would like you do the same.
Third. I will upload a pdf file explaining the details of such experiments and the results.
Four. We have to define the degree of precision of such experiment since is almost a fact that we will get approximations due to measurement limitations and errors
Fifth. We have to agree that one of us may be wrong and the other right.

With regards Martin

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Match of the Century: PI vs PHEW ~
« on: February 27, 2018, 08:45:44 PM »
Ok, I accept the match, can you explain the rules?

what am I supposed to do?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« on: February 17, 2018, 12:20:43 PM »
Quote
If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Quote
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?

I think you are referring to Newtons first law

Quote
Newton's first law: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force

And papa your reference was about the second law of thermodynamics which is a complete and different topic

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: From Tromso with PHEW :)
« on: February 16, 2018, 09:08:40 PM »
The sun is being at the highest altitude, so that it and or its shine can be visible from "remote" places, i.e. northern most hemisplane because the cover i.e. clouds is overcome by the sun altitude at that time.

A lamp on the top of a building in a dark open night sky, can be seen if you go further away AND the lamp is lifted up quite high enough.

Well, I think that opens more questions into the equation like What makes the sun moves up and down? How do you explain clear sky nights? How do you explain cloudy days?  How high is the sun and how much does it move?. What is the angle of the spotlight?

How do you propose to validate/Test your claim?

I really think a round Earth is a simpler solution for midnight sun on two poles.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Black listed aircraft companies: Qantas, Lan, Latam, South African, Sichuan Airl
« on: February 15, 2018, 08:23:23 PM »
This video shows a race car been lifted and slow down by air.

It is the same principle of how parachutes work.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: From Tromso with PHEW :)
« on: February 15, 2018, 07:37:18 PM »
Thanks Danang for answering my post.

I think i get what is the problem you said,
During some months in the video, we can't see night time (we see 24 hours of daylight)

That only can be possible if the sun remains visible all day. and appears to be rotating around a pole(regardless of the direction of rotation).And since Tromso is near north it shouldnīt  be possible in a south pole centred flat earth, right?

My sincere apologies If I misunderstood what you were trying to show.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: PAT or Phew Aircraft Technology
« on: February 15, 2018, 07:24:02 PM »
Well, cellphone's companies can pay royalties and use others patents, but I don't think is the same for defence / war aircrafts, which are most of the time well-guarded secrets.

In cellular, various brands came up with touch screen new technology within two minutes after this technology was born.
That's in cellular.
In aircraft, Habibie's winglet, and then wingshark...  and then... and then...

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: From Tromso with PHEW :)
« on: February 15, 2018, 08:05:41 AM »
Sorry, but i didnīt get what the video was supposed to show?

Can you explain a little?

Watching this footage Jack & Mike will get sprue

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« on: February 15, 2018, 08:02:30 AM »
Try to read this  https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html and understand it, then we can talk about how rockets work.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Kindly explain this
« on: February 13, 2018, 12:42:10 PM »

If you can't see the video use this to search for it on youtube.

"Arctic Midnight Sun 24hour timelapse made with Olympus OMD E M1 + Zuiko Digital 8 mm f3 5 ED F"

Latest score:
Me: 9525788543
Jack: 0

Case closed. ~

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would it take?
« on: February 12, 2018, 03:35:06 PM »
I heard an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson recently (sacrilege for an FEr, I know, but in my defense I had good reason). He said in regards to debating flat Earthers and other theorists that he asks the question "What would it take to convince you?"

He asks for what would convince people that they are wrong, then if he can provide that and they reject it, then clearly they aren't ready to be convinced, so arguing with them is pointless. RErs tend to agree with Neil, right?

So I turn the question around on round Earthers. What would it take to convince you that the Earth was flat?

And before anyone asks, it would take proof that there is zero probability (including a sound mathematical proof showing the probability as zero) of a flat Earth to convince me it was round. But if you want to debate that with me, I humbly ask you do so in another thread.

I think is a fair question, but is really hard to answer when you are certain about something.  I guess i will have to go to space and see if the earth is flat or may be travel to south pole and find a wall of ice.

Just one thing, i think you should also be open to find yourself wrong. can you answer the same question in regard of a round Earth?

22
Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX: The Latest
« on: February 10, 2018, 10:27:53 AM »

Papa, man I really think you should ask to someone else to read the post's for you, and sincerely ask them if they think is an IA generated content.

I know bots has had a lot of improvements over the years, but if you analyze how the conversations go it seems obvious that is a person behind the keyboard when they reply to your post.

When a person refers to "We" in a comment he is implying that he consider himself a member of a group, like  a group of people laughing at your "bots" comments. or We as human beings capable of distinguishing reality.

23
The Lounge / Re: Bots on the forum
« on: January 31, 2018, 03:13:36 PM »
i dont know about conspiracy but Papa seams to be right "the actual contractors should be persons of interest". Im not american so i try to keep away to those subjets.

In other toughs, can someone comment on my previous comment?

How can you probe that u are a bot?

24
The Lounge / Re: Bots on the forum
« on: January 31, 2018, 02:01:30 PM »
i read through the reddit comments and found something really interesting,  " Beware that an account will likely switch between human and bot usage." so i think its really unlikely to probe that a user is real person or bot.
But i would like to put another question  regarding this comment  "It's purpose would be simple, sound as dumb as humanly possible talking about conspiracy theories, remove all legitimacy. Then when someone brings up a valid point that isn't crazy, people will automatically assume the person is just another "Heiwa" and write it off."

Dont you think that assuming a real person is a bot will also kind of desacredite valid points? I mean if the person is not able to distinguish between a real person and a bot?

25
The Lounge / Re: Bots on the forum
« on: January 31, 2018, 12:13:27 PM »
a picture of myself posting will be enough?

26
The Lounge / Bots on the forum
« on: January 31, 2018, 10:06:11 AM »
I just wondering if there is a way to prove if some members are bots?

27
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Shills claim rockets work in a vacuum.
« on: January 30, 2018, 01:47:20 PM »

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 27, 2018, 05:53:36 PM »

I did some calculations, using only three planets arranged in the simplest way to show you how much resolution would you need to have in a monitor to display those 3 planets.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't we flight from Sydney to Santiago and Johannesburg?
« on: January 23, 2018, 08:02:23 PM »

I donīt know if you can see the picture but I found  direct flights from SYD (Sidney Australia) To SCL (Santiago Chile) on 26/01/2018 and return on 23/02/2018

By the way.  YQY means Sidney Canada.

Sorry if I made a grammar mistake but English is not my first language.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Video Proof
« on: June 30, 2017, 01:03:27 PM »

Pages: [1]