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 - Stash

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 86
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« on: Today at 01:49:00 AM »
But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

You'd be surprised at just how little you know about Venus.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised, I know very little about Venus. But are you really saying that Venus is this big:


2


That's not answering the question of "When I slam the valve shut at the moment it hits 45 the previous no definitive reading just so happens to match exactly to the now definitive one..of 45?"

How does the no definitive reading always match exactly the definitive reading when the valve is closed?

It does answer but you simply don't see it as an answer.

If you see someone rising up a vertical tube you can say there's positive pressure under that person.
If, at the top of that tube there was a spring loaded piston that pushed a gauge needle with readings that say a pressure push of 100 and it's held, then you call that a positive pressure of 100.

If you open the valve at the bottom and allow pressure out, the persons simple falls with the pressure and the piston simply rests upon the person and falls with him. This reading will have no positive push on it. It will read a negative drop....until you shut that valve....and then you can say it's now a positive pressure reading because it's set and now the person is back to pushing against the piston due to the pressure on him staying stable.

Yet again, that doesn't answer the specific question using your nomenclature: How does the no definitive reading(your term) always match exactly the definitive reading when the valve is closed? How is the pressure reading going down 'not definitive'? And how does it become definitive and match exactly the not definitive reading when the valve is closed?

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« on: Today at 01:27:11 AM »
It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck

The Sun, stars, planets are much smaller in FET; they have to be.

Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).

So, obviously that the planets are even smaller than that.

But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

4
Quote from: Stash
So gauge watchers around the world should really be saying when a needle is going down, "We've got a resistant gas negative reading of 50 PSI..."?
Nope. If it's going down there is no definitive reading until it ceases.

What in the world does this mean?
So as the gauge is going down on my container, the gauge reads 50, 49, 48... I can't say that my pressure is at 45 when the gauge hits 45?  And when I slam the valve shut at the moment it hits 45 the previous no definitive reading just so happens to match exactly to the now definitive one..of 45? What kind of stuff are you now making up on the fly?
You can say anything you want as your gauge drops but the fact is the gauge pointer is decreasing, meaning there is no positive pressure on it.

I'll make this simple.
If you push on someone against a spring  and they move back as you keep pushing you can be said to be applying positive continuous building of pressure.
If you push on someone who directly pushes back until you both can't push into each other anymore you can say both pushes are equally under that pressure which is a positive pressure.

However, if the person pushing against the person on the spring, decides to lessen his push, then the person on the spring starts to push back against that person, whos is no longer applying positive pressure, only a resistance to person now being pushed into him by the spring.

That's not answering the question of "When I slam the valve shut at the moment it hits 45 the previous no definitive reading just so happens to match exactly to the now definitive one..of 45?"

How does the no definitive reading always match exactly the definitive reading when the valve is closed?

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« on: Today at 12:29:58 AM »
It is very easy to debunk your failed statements.

It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck:


6
Quote from: Stash
So gauge watchers around the world should really be saying when a needle is going down, "We've got a resistant gas negative reading of 50 PSI..."?
Nope. If it's going down there is no definitive reading until it ceases.

What in the world does this mean?
So as the gauge is going down on my container, the gauge reads 50, 49, 48... I can't say that my pressure is at 45 when the gauge hits 45?  And when I slam the valve shut at the moment it hits 45 the previous no definitive reading just so happens to match exactly to the now definitive one..of 45? What kind of stuff are you now making up on the fly?

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« on: November 21, 2019, 10:58:25 PM »
But Tenderloin ain’t nice, man.

Don't be capping on the Tenderloin, that's where the action is.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« on: November 21, 2019, 03:16:55 PM »


Something about this doesn't seem to fit with reality.

9


Again, the world's gauges aren't designed to work the way you want them to. They NEED to have pressure applied to the gauge to register a reading no matter whether the pressure is going up, going down, or stable. If there is no pressure applied, the reading is 0. The gauges won't work under your theory.
The gauges work exactly as you say, with pressure applied or pressure applied and held and contained.

So clearly I have zero issue with this.

The issue is in the gauge having negative pressure applied to it once there is a breach to the container or a valve opened, to me specific.

From that point on the gauge becomes the pusher against a resistant gas to that push, not the gas applying positive pressure to the actual gauge piston and spring.
This results in the piston and spring simply causing the needle to continually show a negative reading because it reads no definitive set number and not a number run to the positive.

"Resistant gas" is simply a euphemism for pressure. So when you close the valve, how does your "resistant gas" magically turn back into pressure? What's the difference?

A "negative reading" would be less than zero. Like a thermometer, "It's negative 10 degrees out, better bundle up..."

The world over relies on pressure gauges to tell them how much pressure there is in a given system, often times critical systems, whether it's going up or going down. So gauge watchers around the world should really be saying when a needle is going down, "We've got a resistant gas negative reading of 50 PSI..."? And when they slam the valve shut, "Okay, we have a positive pressure reading of 50..."?

10

The presure gauge is not sentient either.
It doesnt know its moving in a specific direction.
Unless you claim otherwise?
You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
Quote from: Themightykabool
"Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge."

So althoug in reality a gauge shows positive vlaues in a set (aka negative rate 100, 99, 98...) in your statement above there is no gas pushing on the gauge.

It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring. It is not applying positive pressure.

Unfortunately for your theory that is not how pressure gauges are designed, manufactured and used. Pressure reading on a gauge is there because pressure is being applied. If there is no pressure, the gauge reads 0. In other words, pressure gauges the world over would have to be redesigned to work with your theory. They would have to be redesigned to show a pressure reading when no pressure is applied. So, sorry, the world's gauges do not currently support your theory.
My theory is pretty sound, as far as I'm concerned.
All you've just done is state the obvious of applied pressure and zero pressure. I'm not arguing applied or zero pressure.
Look back as to what I am arguing.

Again, the world's gauges aren't designed to work the way you want them to. They NEED to have pressure applied to the gauge to register a reading no matter whether the pressure is going up, going down, or stable. If there is no pressure applied, the reading is 0. The gauges won't work under your theory.

11
You really haven't a clue about this sort of thing have you? And you pretend that your famous website has all the answers - what a joke!
Topic is my Challenge about visiting the Moon + return Earth. Let's look at the latter.
I couldn't care less about your stupid unwinnable challenge! NASA used dozens of experts with data that I don't have.
Some, such as ephemeris data could easily be found and the rest could be dug up but the calculations of precisely where the Earth and Moon are and their velocities is outside my capabilities. Plenty of people would know and most competent astronomers could handle it and have the appropriate applications.

Nobody could prove it unless it was flown and YOU know that, so YOU will always wriggle out of paying anyway so toss you silly challenge in the bin!

Hm, if the NASA data is easy to find, find it and win my Challenge. But let's face it. All NASA data is just fantasies, lies, propaganda and nonsense to fool people. It is big business. But just Fake News!

It's all in here:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029.pdf

Just start scrolling through the Statistical Tables starting on page 260 or so.

12
Arts & Entertainment / Re: 3D glasnegatives, 1900s mountain climbers
« on: November 20, 2019, 07:02:28 PM »
These are crazy awesome, Den. Keep up the good work. You should create an online repository/museum for all of these photos you've resurrected.

13

The presure gauge is not sentient either.
It doesnt know its moving in a specific direction.
Unless you claim otherwise?
You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
Quote from: Themightykabool
"Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge."

So althoug in reality a gauge shows positive vlaues in a set (aka negative rate 100, 99, 98...) in your statement above there is no gas pushing on the gauge.

It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring. It is not applying positive pressure.

Unfortunately for your theory that is not how pressure gauges are designed, manufactured and used. Pressure reading on a gauge is there because pressure is being applied. If there is no pressure, the gauge reads 0. In other words, pressure gauges the world over would have to be redesigned to work with your theory. They would have to be redesigned to show a pressure reading when no pressure is applied. So, sorry, the world's gauges do not currently support your theory.

14
The Lounge / Re: Fakeness in movies explained by astronaut
« on: November 20, 2019, 06:05:23 PM »
Some complaints about the new movie Midway is that the airplane flights are way over the top.

A Roland Emmerich flick, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an extreme climate event, Gozilla, and some aliens show up.

15
How do you know Musk has not made the decisions himself? And a loan of 28 000 does not exactly stink of untold riches. People loan more for houses and apartments, even cars. Quite telling, though, if you consider a loan of 28 grand equal to a trust fund. Then again you think CEOs are some otherwordly rich and select group, too. Your job must be interesting.

Also, I’d say your definition of ”self-made” is curious. Pretty sure the majority does not see it that way.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-made

So, unless his parents were billionaires, Musk is a dictionary perfect example of a self-made billionaire.

EDIT: Less than 2 percent of the U.S. population receives a trust fund, usually as a means of inheriting large sums of money from wealthy parents, according to the Survey of Consumer Finances. The median amount is about $285,000 (the average was $4,062,918) — enough to make a major, lasting impact.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/04/what-its-really-like-to-have-a-trust-fund.html


You are from Finland so please don't comment on what is going on in America, you don't know. And no I do not think that all CEO's are Vedic gods, you have taken my posts out of content.

I live in the US and have all my life, born and raised and I know what I'm talking about; a $28k loan turning it into $150 million dollar company is not 'trust fund' it is decidedly self-made. And even though rvlvr is Finnish he is spot on in his assessment here. Where as you are decidedly spot off in yours. 

16
I've been sticking to one specific thing for pages; the pressure gauge and how it works.
You are claiming there is no "positive" pressure. There's no such thing. The folks that manufacture pressure gauges do so with the intent that pressure is pushing on their gauge to register a reading.

 Whether the gauge is moving up or down. That is critical to how the gauges work, how they are read by the observer for millions of systems around the world. Critical.
And you come along and say, without evidence, that those millions of gauges are not registering a pressure on the gauge but some made up "negative" pressure. That's not how the device is designed nor used.
Well let's clarify positive and negative pressure from my side in terms of the gauge.

Let's assume a gauge with a piston on a spring just for the sake of argument.
You know you have to apply/positively push something (gas in this in stance) against that piston in order for it to move the spring to allow the pointer to move forward or to read a positive measurement on that gauge.

I'm assuming you'll accept this.

Ok, that's all positive pressure in a sealed container or a container with pressure added.

Open a valve and all that positive pressure is now pushing against the atmospheric resistance due to the gas on gas expansion of molecules inside the container all trying to expand but having to wait their turn to fully do it to equalise outside atmosphere but are all channelled towards the exit.

Behind them is the gauge and this gauge is no longer showing positive pressure on the needle, the piston or the spring. It's all negative because now it's simply a resistance to the spring compression.

That's all fine and cool, but that's not how the manufacturers of pressure gauges build their gauges to work nor is it how they are read by millions of systems/humans around the world; When the gauge is going down, it is still reading pressure which is still pressing equally on all sides of the container, including the gauge. Otherwise, as designed, the gauge would read 0. Simple.

That's what the gauges of the world do and are designed to do and that's what the people of the world who critically rely on them expect.

So unless you can show any evidence to the contrary other than you just saying, "It doesn't fit my theory", I'm afraid you lose. Because the evidence against your theory is overwhelming and you have yet to show any, not even a smidge.


17

But that's the thing, they don't work how you say they work. Humans design and manufacture such devices to work specifically by showing the level of pressure whether it's going up or going down or standing still. That is the point of a pressure gauge and why people have them.

For instance, from Marshall, a company that manufactures gauges:

"How Does a Mechanical Gauge Work?

Mechanical gauges utilize an internal bourdon tube. One end of the bourdon tube is connected to a gear and shaft assembly that moves a pointer. When the pressure inside the bourdon tube increases, the bourdon tube uncoils slightly. The amount of uncoiling that occurs is proportional to the pressure inside the bourdon tube. As the tube uncoils, its motion activates the gear and shaft system that turns the pointer on the gauge. While all that you see when you look at the gauge is the pointer moving, you should understand that there is a small, bent tube (the bourdon tube) that's coiling and uncoiling with each change in the pressure inside that tube.
"
http://www.marshallinstruments.com/faqs/detail.cfm?id=22

You see, the makers of such devices do so to register pressure going up and down. Which means pressure on the pressure gauge either way because that's how it is designed to work. And here you are claiming that no, there's no pressure as it's going down yet there is still a pressure reading? The way these gauges are designed, if there is no pressure the gauge reads 0. That's the fact jack. Unless you have something other than you just saying so, like evidence, your notion is directly contradicted by the makers of the devices.

No I'm not claiming there's no pressure. I'm claiming there's no positive pressure on a gauge that is part of an open system.
This is what you need to understand and don't mix it all up.

Too many people are placing obstacles in their own way them calling foul on me.
Stick to one specific thing and deal with that before going into others. It's be much less frustrating.

I've been sticking to one specific thing for pages; the pressure gauge and how it works.
You are claiming there is no "positive" pressure. There's no such thing. The folks that manufacture pressure gauges do so with the intent that pressure is pushing on their gauge to register a reading. Whether the gauge is moving up or down. That is critical to how the gauges work, how they are read by the observer for millions of systems around the world. Critical.
And you come along and say, without evidence, that those millions of gauges are not registering a pressure on the gauge but some made up "negative" pressure. That's not how the device is designed nor used.

Bottomline, the device, as designed, if it has a reading, it has pressure on it. There's no such thing as positive and negative pressure when the reading is above 0. That is a simple fact.

So unless you have evidence to the contrary and not just, "well that doesn't fit my theory," I'm afraid the standard of simple pressure gauges blows up your theory. As all evidence points to you being wrong.

18
If the gas is resisting the piston in any way it is pushing, applying pressure and registering pressure in the gauge. You literally cannot win the gauge argument.
It's resisting the push just like all the gas molecules are doing all the way through.
The issue is, it's not creating a positive push on the gauge and this is the key.....unless the pressure is sealed or pushed against the gauge by force.
I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.

Quote from: Stash

There is too much evidence against it. The gauge builders build gauges used everywhere being able to show pressure and pressure must be applied to the gauge whether it be moving up of down.
I could build a gauge and so could you. It doesn't mean you have to know the exact molecular workings. All you have to know is whether it can move a needle when force is applied. Hold the needle when applied force is sealed or show a negative movement when that force is channelled opposite to that gauge.

Quote from: Stash
  Sorry, your claim that gauges don't work as designed when they do everywhere is unaccepted and unacceptable.

Here, look at how different gauges work:



You just can't claim pressure gauges work differently than the people who design and make them, especially by just saying so with no evidence.

They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.
Nobody has proved me wrong.

But that's the thing, they don't work how you say they work. Humans design and manufacture such devices to work specifically by showing the level of pressure whether it's going up or going down or standing still. That is the point of a pressure gauge and why people have them.

For instance, from Marshall, a company that manufactures gauges:

"How Does a Mechanical Gauge Work?

Mechanical gauges utilize an internal bourdon tube. One end of the bourdon tube is connected to a gear and shaft assembly that moves a pointer. When the pressure inside the bourdon tube increases, the bourdon tube uncoils slightly. The amount of uncoiling that occurs is proportional to the pressure inside the bourdon tube. As the tube uncoils, its motion activates the gear and shaft system that turns the pointer on the gauge. While all that you see when you look at the gauge is the pointer moving, you should understand that there is a small, bent tube (the bourdon tube) that's coiling and uncoiling with each change in the pressure inside that tube.
"
http://www.marshallinstruments.com/faqs/detail.cfm?id=22

You see, the makers of such devices do so to register pressure going up and down. Which means pressure on the pressure gauge either way because that's how it is designed to work. And here you are claiming that no, there's no pressure as it's going down yet there is still a pressure reading? The way these gauges are designed, if there is no pressure the gauge reads 0. That's the fact jack. Unless you have something other than you just saying so, like evidence, your notion is directly contradicted by the makers of the devices.

19
28k is a ludicrous amount of money to be gifted.

What's not a ludicrous amount to be gifted? And, apparently it was a loan, not a gift:

"The local business Internet service software company was founded by Musk and his brother Kimbal after taking out a $28k loan from their father."
https://www.gq.com.au/success/career/5-times-elon-musks-business-ideas-failed/image-gallery/24ebfb0bfd644ac98889666eb731c016

20
In 1995 he co-founded Zip2, a web software company, with his brother Kimbal, which was acquired by Compaq for $340 million in 1999. Musk then founded X.com, an online bank. It merged with Confinity in 2000 and later that year became PayPal, which was bought by eBay for $1.5 billion in October 2002.

His mother, Maye Musk, was a prominent dietician and his father had his own engineering practice.

Specifically, In 1995, Elon Musk and his brother Kimbal founded Zip2 with $28,000 out of their father's bank account.

And on and up from there. If New Earth considers an initial $28k from his Dad a trust fund baby move, well, I have a much different definition of such.

Seems to me Elon is pretty much self-made and quite good at it.



Self made means zero start. 28K is not a lot of money but its something many people never see.  Like I said he is a hipster with rich parents, I see his kind every day in my city.

Like I said, your definition is different than mine. I think parlaying $28k, whether it was a gift, an investment, stolen or from gambling winnings, into a $340 million dollar company is pretty much the definition of self made.

21
In 1995 he co-founded Zip2, a web software company, with his brother Kimbal, which was acquired by Compaq for $340 million in 1999. Musk then founded X.com, an online bank. It merged with Confinity in 2000 and later that year became PayPal, which was bought by eBay for $1.5 billion in October 2002.

His mother, Maye Musk, was a prominent dietician and his father had his own engineering practice.

Specifically, In 1995, Elon Musk and his brother Kimbal founded Zip2 with $28,000 out of their father's bank account.

And on and up from there. If New Earth considers an initial $28k from his Dad a trust fund baby move, well, I have a much different definition of such.

Seems to me Elon is pretty much self-made and quite good at it.

22
Heiwa has ended all your pathetic arguments and trapped you all. Maybe you guys should stop embarrassing yourselves, suck up some humility and admit that Heiwa is right

Why would we capitulate to an individual who peddles in out-and-out conspiracy theories; who devises ‘challenges’ that could never be won because he is the sole judge. Makes it easy to say no when you’e the only one judging. So he will never say yes. i.e., means his challenge(s) are a sham. Which calls into question, “Why would someone put a sham, unwinnable contest out there around moon landings, 911, etc, all the heavy hitters in conspiracy world. Why, just publicity? Publicity for what? Curious indeed.

Cast a bait.
Wait.
Hook up.
Fight.
Gaff.
Spike and gut.
Cook.

You are all stupid fish.

Fair point.

23
Heiwa has ended all your pathetic arguments and trapped you all. Maybe you guys should stop embarrassing yourselves, suck up some humility and admit that Heiwa is right

Why would we capitulate to an individual who peddles in out-and-out conspiracy theories; who devises ‘challenges’ that could never be won because he is the sole judge. Makes it easy to say no when you’e the only one judging. So he will never say yes. i.e., means his challenge(s) are a sham. Which calls into question, “Why would someone put a sham, unwinnable contest out there around moon landings, 911, etc, all the heavy hitters in conspiracy world. Why, just publicity? Publicity for what? Curious indeed.
Thanks for asking. Reason for my website is the sinking of M/S Estonia in the Baltic 1994 killing ~1000 persons. The Swedish government immediately announced - Fake News - that the ship was in perfect order but that the bow visor had fallen off sinking the ship. In an article by me published in the biggest daily Dagens Nyheter August 1996 I showed that it was not the case. The government was covering up the real cause. It was not popular and I was accused of many things including creating conspiracy theories. Media would then not publish my response to the government attack. This case is still going on. In the mean time I studied some other Fake News - atomic attacks 1945, Americans on the Moon 1969, 911 collapses 2001, etc, and found they were also Fake News.
I am quite serious in my analysis of Fake News, particularly when it is about safety at sea. The US Dept. of Homeland Security doesn't appreciate it.

The reason for your website may be personally profound based upon your experience researching a maritime disaster which I believe you have experience in. But it seems you have extrapolated everything you found fishy about one event and applied it across the entire spectrum of humanity, a trait conspiracy theorists seem to share: "If they lie about this, they must be lying about everything."

Fair enough. But here in lies the conundrum with your challenges. They are carnival games, ring tosses, un-winnable as designed by the game designer. No matter or leverage of evidence would ever get you to a point where you would say, "Oh, you win!" Like I mentioned before, you are the sole judge so you can adjust the dance-floor as needed and when needed.

Bottom-line, you may have your conspiratorial notions that all fall into the classic bucket of conspiracies (Is there anything about JFK on your website, I haven't looked. But if there isn't, you're missing out and you need to add asap), but your challenges are bunk. A sham. Un-winnable carnival/parlor trickery that should be boycotted from the get go from any and all. And I will lead the charge to personally dismantle your sway on this perilous ground you consider your own, and by all logic and reason should be removed from your influence. Your bullshit contest days are numbered.

Sorry to break your fantasy but the government lies to you.

I'm fully and painfully aware of that as are most folks.

But that doesn't take away the fact the challenges are un-winnable and really just carnival games.

24
I propose March 03. On this day in 2016, the greatest contributor and the reason why the Flat Earth Society is powering on strong despite all the attacks, and the controlled opposition joined.

I call this day

Wise Day  8)

I second the notion. Wise Day!

Wise, I may disagree with, well, pretty much everything you believe, but you are an FE'r who is stalwart in their belief and puts a lot of effort into it. You deserve a day of honor.

3/3 is Wise day.

What do you want for celebrations?

25
Heiwa has ended all your pathetic arguments and trapped you all. Maybe you guys should stop embarrassing yourselves, suck up some humility and admit that Heiwa is right

Why would we capitulate to an individual who peddles in out-and-out conspiracy theories; who devises ‘challenges’ that could never be won because he is the sole judge. Makes it easy to say no when you’e the only one judging. So he will never say yes. i.e., means his challenge(s) are a sham. Which calls into question, “Why would someone put a sham, unwinnable contest out there around moon landings, 911, etc, all the heavy hitters in conspiracy world. Why, just publicity? Publicity for what? Curious indeed.
Thanks for asking. Reason for my website is the sinking of M/S Estonia in the Baltic 1994 killing ~1000 persons. The Swedish government immediately announced - Fake News - that the ship was in perfect order but that the bow visor had fallen off sinking the ship. In an article by me published in the biggest daily Dagens Nyheter August 1996 I showed that it was not the case. The government was covering up the real cause. It was not popular and I was accused of many things including creating conspiracy theories. Media would then not publish my response to the government attack. This case is still going on. In the mean time I studied some other Fake News - atomic attacks 1945, Americans on the Moon 1969, 911 collapses 2001, etc, and found they were also Fake News.
I am quite serious in my analysis of Fake News, particularly when it is about safety at sea. The US Dept. of Homeland Security doesn't appreciate it.

The reason for your website may be personally profound based upon your experience researching a maritime disaster which I believe you have experience in. But it seems you have extrapolated everything you found fishy about one event and applied it across the entire spectrum of humanity, a trait conspiracy theorists seem to share: "If they lie about this, they must be lying about everything."

Fair enough. But here in lies the conundrum with your challenges. They are carnival games, ring tosses, un-winnable as designed by the game designer. No matter or leverage of evidence would ever get you to a point where you would say, "Oh, you win!" Like I mentioned before, you are the sole judge so you can adjust the dance-floor as needed and when needed.

Bottom-line, you may have your conspiratorial notions that all fall into the classic bucket of conspiracies (Is there anything about JFK on your website, I haven't looked. But if there isn't, you're missing out and you need to add asap), but your challenges are bunk. A sham. Un-winnable carnival/parlor trickery that should be boycotted from the get go from any and all. And I will lead the charge to personally dismantle your sway on this perilous ground you consider your own, and by all logic and reason should be removed from your influence. Your bullshit contest days are numbered.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Society neglects its responsibilities
« on: November 19, 2019, 12:59:20 AM »
I wonder which 'Society' CNN tried to contact. I assume TFES.org, because they have a more active Twitter feed. But I will say, if new posts are a measure of anything, which I'm not sure they are, TFES has been a ghost-town for a few months now. Maybe it's a cyclical thing. Maybe the societies should hug it out and make it one? And more of a force in the FET ecosplane.


27
Heiwa has ended all your pathetic arguments and trapped you all. Maybe you guys should stop embarrassing yourselves, suck up some humility and admit that Heiwa is right

Why would we capitulate to an individual who peddles in out-and-out conspiracy theories; who devises ‘challenges’ that could never be won because he is the sole judge. Makes it easy to say no when you’e the only one judging. So he will never say yes. i.e., means his challenge(s) are a sham. Which calls into question, “Why would someone put a sham, unwinnable contest out there around moon landings, 911, etc, all the heavy hitters in conspiracy world. Why, just publicity? Publicity for what? Curious indeed.

28
Let's make it crystal clear, you're claiming that the gauges that are designed by people with the notion in mind that for their gauge to have a reading, pressure must be placed on the gauge. You're claiming that they built something that has to have pressure applied to it for it to work correctly and yet no pressure is applied and it still works? Even though it's built to only work when pressure is applied?
Nope, not at all and you know this because it's been told time and time and time again.

There is pressure applied to the gauge by two means to push against a piston and spring to give a positive reading of pressure either pushing into the container or sealed into the container.

Can't be any simpler than that and in no way am I saying gauges don't work. So let's make that crystal clear.


However, once the valve is opened the gas all follow in that direction by natural expansion/decompression away from the gauge and the gauge shows this by showing a negative pressure drop.

The reason for this is because the gas is no longer pushing against the piston with the same positive force. The piston is pushing against the gas and the gas is now resisting that push as it expands behind other gases.

If the gas is resisting the piston in any way it is pushing, applying pressure and registering pressure in the gauge. You literally cannot win the gauge argument.

There is too much evidence against it. The gauge builders build gauges used everywhere being able to show pressure and pressure must be applied to the gauge whether it be moving up of down. Sorry, your claim that gauges don't work as designed when they do everywhere is unaccepted and unacceptable.

Here, look at how different gauges work:



You just can't claim pressure gauges work differently than the people who design and make them, especially by just saying so with no evidence.

Sorry, you lose and therefore lose the rocket in space debate because your notion of pressure inside a container, when applying Newton's 3rd can allow for a reactionary movement in the opposite direction based upon gas being mass.




29
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
I should have picked this up earlier but you claim "it means it has negative pressure upon it".
But there can never be a negative pressure in a gas. The pressure can be less than atmospheric pressure and many pressure gauges read only the difference.
In a solid a negative pressure is quite possible and is called tension.
Under rather special conditions, even a liquid cab sustain a negative pressure but gas can never sustain a negative pressure.
Let's make this clear.
If the gas is not applying a positive pressure to the gauge then the gauge will either show a needle fall or show zero.
If it applying positive pressure then the gauge needle will stay put over zero or advance forward of zero. It's as simple as that.

Let's make it crystal clear, you're claiming that the gauges that are designed by people with the notion in mind that for their gauge to have a reading, pressure must be placed on the gauge. You're claiming that they built something that has to have pressure applied to it for it to work correctly and yet no pressure is applied and it still works? Even though it's built to only work when pressure is applied?

30
I mean his Tesla sucks, his space X will never happen...

What do you mean? Space X has already happened. They've had a couple of dozen successful missions. As well, I was in a Lyft about a month ago and the car was a Tesla 3. I had never been in a Tesla. It was really nice, great ride, quick, nimble. I was impressed. I'm not sue what your basis is for they suck.


Wow that just shows you how stupid people are. He could afford Tesla and yet drove for Lyft? LOL

It's strange, I've been picked up with lyft (and Uber) by a mercedes, bmw, audi, you name it really. Tesla 3 base is $35k. That's a lot, for sure, but it runs the gamut in the city where I live. You could get picked up by a corolla or lexus, economy or luxury vehicle and everything in-between.

The driver was young, maybe University age, perhaps his parents car. Who knows. Seems odd that you would race to the judgement of stupidity.

All that said, take a ride in a Tesla before you say it sucks. I found the one I was in was really nice.

And, don't forget Space X has already 'happened'...a lot. Here's a list of their missions, dozens of them:

https://www.spacex.com/missions

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 86