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 ... 198
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pentagon shooting
« on: August 03, 2021, 07:45:30 PM »
"The suspect was identified by multiple law enforcement officials as Austin William Lanz, 27, of Georgia.

The officer was ambushed by Lanz, who ran at him and stabbed him in the neck, according to two of the law enforcement officials. Responding officers then shot and killed Lanz. Investigators were still trying to determine a motive for the attack and were digging into Lanz’s background, including any potential history of mental illness or any reason he might want to target the Pentagon or police officers.
"
https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-lockdown-gunshots-846e71a1b78370611ba13beb28aa77a9

Apparently the suspect had some recent priors, but still, no clear motive.


2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ancient internet?
« on: August 03, 2021, 07:38:39 PM »
What I really want to know is how efficiently could porn be streamed on this Ancient internet?

Ditto. The ancient internet would have probably more porn-y than now - They were a saucy lot back then.

3
The tradition of the apprentice and master is a good example of this. Experts are not magically created out of thin air instead they are a product if dedication.

I think you kind of answered this futile conversation yourself; Experts are a product of their dedication. Hence, in the tradition of the master/apprentice paradigm, said master must have achieved his/her mastery at some point, through dedication to their craft, no doubt. To the betterment of it, to the discovery of efficiencies and techniques through said dedication. There was a first master, as they did not enjoy the benefit of a master upon which they could rely as they were, well, the first master. So therein and unto itself proves that a master must not need an expert/master to become one. As there must be a beginning.

You're basically saying everything is derivative. And yes, the vast majority of everything is, but not everything. The part you are failing to see is the "but not everything".

If you disagree, how did the first master come to be?

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Rothschilds evil beginnings
« on: August 02, 2021, 06:00:04 PM »
More likely they changed the name because Bauers were already known as thieving scum.

How might it be more likely?

5
The Lounge / Re: A year ago, we lost a legend
« on: August 02, 2021, 10:16:24 AM »
I know, same. I saw "year" and was like, "That's impossible." Miss Rab!

6
Would have been better if megaphone guy pulled out a gun and shot bicycle guy.

That's why I'm guessing it was staged. Because normally around this here U S of A it seems like a real encounter like that would have totally ended in a firefight. Bicycle tire smashing window, though impressive, seems so daintily 2015...

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Rothschilds evil beginnings
« on: August 01, 2021, 05:46:39 PM »
So I learned their original name was Bauer, 'farmer' in German.
One day around 300-400 years ago, the story goes that one of them
found his Father dead with the red shield (Rothschild) symbol and Hexagram (Asmodeus) emblem.

This story that goes that you mention, where might I find it? I'd like to read it.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: New model of the Universe.
« on: July 30, 2021, 01:57:46 PM »
Another small but very interesting fact that indirectly confirms my model of the Universe. On the American continents, there are armadillos in the wild, but no hedgehogs. In Africa and Eurasia, hedgehogs are found, but there are no armadillos.

How so?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: THE 1ST DOME IS NOT AS HIGH AS YOU THINK
« on: July 30, 2021, 08:59:09 AM »
Why do people try and argue against such a clearly idiotic statement? The person who posted that claim has a track recorded of posting similar deranged claims. He is wrong end of story. Of course mountains and flights all go above 17000! But the main fact is that there is no dome, never has been and never will be!

Aren't you at least interested in why he thinks this? How he may have arrived at it? I am.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Tilt Illusion
« on: July 29, 2021, 05:29:33 PM »
So what happens exactly? we cant really see the light "rays"(?) in between...


11
Flat Earth General / Re: THE 1ST DOME IS NOT AS HIGH AS YOU THINK
« on: July 28, 2021, 09:46:43 PM »
Rethink about the data which you haven't verified, including "the height" of mountains.
Altimeter is not an exact device.
Go to the top of tall building. Make an estimation about a distance based on your sight & real distance on land.

My last flight was at a cruising altitude of 37,000 feet. Are you saying that plane altimeters are all off by about 20,000+ feet? If so, there would be planes crashing all of the time, no?

As well, you didn't address stank's question, how did you come up with 17,000 feet?

12
The Lounge / Re: For an idiot, New England, or the South?
« on: July 28, 2021, 02:02:10 PM »
They do have a good clam chowder.

Just for the record, we pronounce it, "chowdah".

Here's a quick New England primer, pretty much everything you need to know:


13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« on: July 27, 2021, 10:33:44 AM »
Ok to get to my point is to explain my atmospheric set up.

The magnet is like an evacuation chamber.
Instead of a pump pushing atmosphere away and allowing natural expansion of molecules within the chamber, the magnet is created by Forcing atmosphere back by process of heating to expand molecules from within, leaving a low pressure that is consistently pushed against by the external atmosphere, just like a chamber would.


Let's see if you're getting what I'm saying at this point because we need to clarify as we go.

Now remember, this is from my side so try and grasp it rather than use mainstream ideals to counter anything.

Ok, I'm not sure how to address this, but I'll try. So the magnet is heated which creates a low pressure around it. That low pressure pushes against the normally higher atmospheric pressure around it, then what happens?

As an aside, what is generating this heat that is creating the low pressure around the magnet?
Not quite. It'll take some explaining and I won't be explaining clearly so it make take some time.


To make a magnet you have to push away atmosphere and trap the remaining broken down molecules within the magnet which means the atmosphere is always trying to equalise.

To heat up is to agitate molecules, like any heating method.

Are you with me so far?

Got it. Is there something about a specific type of material that pushes and traps and agitates its own molecules as opposed to other materials that don't. In other words, what makes some materials magnetic and others not?

If I understand, in its agitated state, the magnet is pushing away the atmosphere around it. What happens next after the magnet's molecules are agitated?
It all comes down to what is trapped and potential release. Like a big vortex where you push one end and it pushes back or you push the other and you are pushed in but in ding so you push out as you go, meaning you create a cycle of breaking a vortex and turning it inside out to become the opposite vortex.


This is all down in extreme broken down molecular state which allows atmospheric pressure to consistently try to equalise.

And I'm well aware I may be being obscure but this is where we'll have to work hard at it.

Ok, that's a lot to take in and digest as agnostically as possible.

So skipping over why some materials do this and some don't, how do these released vortices act physically between magnet A and magnet B? Why does orientation cause them to push together and push apart? Diagram? I'll try and pull one together once I understand more about the physicality.
On a smaller molecular scale it's like push and rush of a bicycle pump or even a evacuation chamber.

Basically you are scaling up and down with variations of pressures in terms of molecular breakdown into their more to less packed set up within.
Think of the gobstopper. Now think of lots of them but in stacks where layers are lost as they stack.

Basically it's like one container can hold a pressure of more broken down molecules but cannot release due to more compact molecules which are pushing.

Anything in that path will be pushed and repelled which will create the opposite effect on the opposite side.


I'm still well aware that this will take time. Just keep to the way you're going and lets see where we end up.

The pressure is contained within and released, I think. In magnet A the pressure is released. In magnet B it is contained. So when magnet A releases, it pushes on magnet B causing it to move toward magnet A. I'm not sure I have it right.

Questions:

- What triggers magnet A to release its vortex?
- If A is triggered or constantly releasing its vortex, a couple of things;
    - How does it replenish its vortex to fire again when needed?
    - If it's a constant release, what is constantly feeding it to do so
    - I guess a side question is what is it about A that is different than B? Or are they both releasing their own vortex?
- Lastly, it's still unclear to me how the A vortex only pushes on the far side of B. Why does it not push from some other direction?

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Big Tech Censorship
« on: July 24, 2021, 01:38:44 PM »
If you want to abolish Columbus, you basically need to change Western Hemisphere as we know it, changing the names of countless cities and towns, including the country of Columbia, good luck on that one.

You said that the Spanish wiped out Aztecs? No man the Spanish colonization of Central and South America was very different then Anglo Saxon practices in North America. You see Spain is Catholic and as long as Natives converted to Catholicism they went unharmed and actually married European Spanish people. Do you even know that most people in Latin and South America are a mixture of white Spaniards and native Americans. Most Mexicans are actually completely Native with no European blood, so how did the Spaniards wiped them out? Ridiculous.

What happened to those who would not convert to Catholicism?

15
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So you never thought to build a large scale proof of concept demonstrator to prove to the USCG that you had a better design.  You also refused to sell your patent when you had a chance.  Good to know.
We had proven to the IMO, Intertanko & Co that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker was much better than US double hull. I was just the designer of the concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the patent but it was not accepted.

Your Coulombi Egg tanker design, though impressive, wasn’t approved by the IMO as a "much better” or superior design to a double hull design. It was approved simply as an “acceptable alternative” and only in “principle”:

IMO MEPC OKs Coulombi Egg tanker design
Author: Neil Sinclair
1997/10/06


LONDON (CNI)—The Coulombi Egg tanker design, an alternative to the double hull, has been approved in principle by the International Maritime Organization's marine environment protection committee (MEPC), it was confirmed Monday.

The Coulombi Egg design is based on a series of centre and wing tanks, divided by horizontal bulkheads. Upper wing tanks form ballast tanks which act as emergency receiver tanks for cargo should lower tanks be fractured.

Although the MEPC has ruled that the Coulombi Egg is an acceptable alternative to the double hull design, its view is not shared by the US. It has said ships built to the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in US ports.


https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/1997/10/06/40203/imo-mepc-oks-coulombi-egg-tanker-design/
Thanks for your info. I was there at the IMO/London 1997, when the Coulombi Egg concept was fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc, and we celebrated until next day when USCG informed the IMO that furture Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports for ever. Life is full of surprises. What a fantastic and fast US decision.

I can't find anything where it says that the IMO stated that "the Coulombi Egg concept was "fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc". So as it stands, you are making a false claim.

Like I said, very impressive that your design was "approved". And it's a bummer that the US completely trumped the IMO which has lead to no builder wanting to take a very costly risk in building ship designs that could equal or even surpass double hulls. But the US had their reasons which are well documented. And not unfounded.
The IMO was never happy with its rule about double hull tankers and added a rule that other designs could be approved when fulfilling strict requirements. The kingdom of Sweden proposed the Coulombi Egg oil tanker design on my behalf and it was September 1997 unanimously approved to provide equivalent or better protection against oil spills than double hull.
See 3.28 of https://heiwaco.tripod.com/MEPC40report.pdf .
You cannot do better than that.

No where in the report does it state that.

Here's the entirety of what the report you referenced says about your design:

"Coulombi Egg" tanker design concept
3.28 The Committee approved the design concept of the "Coulombi Egg" tanker in principle, in
accordance with MARPOL 73/78 regulation I/13F(5) as an equivalent to the basic double hull
requirement. As a result, the Secretariat was instructed to issue an MEPC circular approving the design
concept, in principle, and including the description and diagram shown at annex 11 to BLG 2/15.

3.29 The delegation of the United States stated that it does not consider the "Coulombi Egg" tanker
design equivalent to the double hull design. The "Coulombi Egg" design was evaluated by the United
States in its study and report to the United States Congress on tank vessel designs and has not been
found acceptable as equivalent to double hulls. Therefore, tank vessels meeting the "Coulombi Egg"
design as an equivalent to the double hull design will not be allowed in United States ports.


Nowhere does it state that the "Coulombi Egg" design provided "better protection against oil spills than double hull," as you claim. That's your claim, not the IMO's so your IMO claim is false.
You haven't understood how the IMO Marpol rules works. Evidently any Coulombi Egg oil tanker must be approved/certified to fulfill the Marpol regulations according to the principles of my description of the design. To do that you must show that it spills less oil in accidents than allowed by the IMO. As my design spills less oil than any US OPA90 double hull tankers, it is of course better. It also costs less to build and maintain. In spite of this, such tankers cannot enter US ports. USCG refuses to discuss the matter.

All your claims are yours and yours alone. Please cite where the IMO stated that your design would spill less and cost less than the US OPA90 double hull tankers. That's nowhere to be found.
Or even where the IMO tacitly states that for your design to be approved by them it has to spill and cost less than the US OPA90 double hull tankers. As well, nowhere to be found.

As stated by the IMO, your design was approved "in principle" and as "equivalent" to the basic double hull requirement. Not surpassing it. Again false claims made by you and you alone. Typical.

16
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So you never thought to build a large scale proof of concept demonstrator to prove to the USCG that you had a better design.  You also refused to sell your patent when you had a chance.  Good to know.
We had proven to the IMO, Intertanko & Co that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker was much better than US double hull. I was just the designer of the concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the patent but it was not accepted.

Your Coulombi Egg tanker design, though impressive, wasn’t approved by the IMO as a "much better” or superior design to a double hull design. It was approved simply as an “acceptable alternative” and only in “principle”:

IMO MEPC OKs Coulombi Egg tanker design
Author: Neil Sinclair
1997/10/06


LONDON (CNI)—The Coulombi Egg tanker design, an alternative to the double hull, has been approved in principle by the International Maritime Organization's marine environment protection committee (MEPC), it was confirmed Monday.

The Coulombi Egg design is based on a series of centre and wing tanks, divided by horizontal bulkheads. Upper wing tanks form ballast tanks which act as emergency receiver tanks for cargo should lower tanks be fractured.

Although the MEPC has ruled that the Coulombi Egg is an acceptable alternative to the double hull design, its view is not shared by the US. It has said ships built to the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in US ports.


https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/1997/10/06/40203/imo-mepc-oks-coulombi-egg-tanker-design/
Thanks for your info. I was there at the IMO/London 1997, when the Coulombi Egg concept was fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc, and we celebrated until next day when USCG informed the IMO that furture Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports for ever. Life is full of surprises. What a fantastic and fast US decision.

I can't find anything where it says that the IMO stated that "the Coulombi Egg concept was "fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc". So as it stands, you are making a false claim.

Like I said, very impressive that your design was "approved". And it's a bummer that the US completely trumped the IMO which has lead to no builder wanting to take a very costly risk in building ship designs that could equal or even surpass double hulls. But the US had their reasons which are well documented. And not unfounded.
The IMO was never happy with its rule about double hull tankers and added a rule that other designs could be approved when fulfilling strict requirements. The kingdom of Sweden proposed the Coulombi Egg oil tanker design on my behalf and it was September 1997 unanimously approved to provide equivalent or better protection against oil spills than double hull.
See 3.28 of https://heiwaco.tripod.com/MEPC40report.pdf .
You cannot do better than that.

No where in the report does it state that.

Here's the entirety of what the report you referenced says about your design:

"Coulombi Egg" tanker design concept
3.28 The Committee approved the design concept of the "Coulombi Egg" tanker in principle, in
accordance with MARPOL 73/78 regulation I/13F(5) as an equivalent to the basic double hull
requirement. As a result, the Secretariat was instructed to issue an MEPC circular approving the design
concept, in principle, and including the description and diagram shown at annex 11 to BLG 2/15.

3.29 The delegation of the United States stated that it does not consider the "Coulombi Egg" tanker
design equivalent to the double hull design. The "Coulombi Egg" design was evaluated by the United
States in its study and report to the United States Congress on tank vessel designs and has not been
found acceptable as equivalent to double hulls. Therefore, tank vessels meeting the "Coulombi Egg"
design as an equivalent to the double hull design will not be allowed in United States ports.


Nowhere does it state that the "Coulombi Egg" design provided "better protection against oil spills than double hull," as you claim. That's your claim, not the IMO's so your IMO claim is false.

17
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So you never thought to build a large scale proof of concept demonstrator to prove to the USCG that you had a better design.  You also refused to sell your patent when you had a chance.  Good to know.
We had proven to the IMO, Intertanko & Co that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker was much better than US double hull. I was just the designer of the concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the patent but it was not accepted.

Your Coulombi Egg tanker design, though impressive, wasn’t approved by the IMO as a "much better” or superior design to a double hull design. It was approved simply as an “acceptable alternative” and only in “principle”:

IMO MEPC OKs Coulombi Egg tanker design
Author: Neil Sinclair
1997/10/06


LONDON (CNI)—The Coulombi Egg tanker design, an alternative to the double hull, has been approved in principle by the International Maritime Organization's marine environment protection committee (MEPC), it was confirmed Monday.

The Coulombi Egg design is based on a series of centre and wing tanks, divided by horizontal bulkheads. Upper wing tanks form ballast tanks which act as emergency receiver tanks for cargo should lower tanks be fractured.

Although the MEPC has ruled that the Coulombi Egg is an acceptable alternative to the double hull design, its view is not shared by the US. It has said ships built to the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in US ports.


https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/1997/10/06/40203/imo-mepc-oks-coulombi-egg-tanker-design/
Thanks for your info. I was there at the IMO/London 1997, when the Coulombi Egg concept was fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc, and we celebrated until next day when USCG informed the IMO that furture Coulombi Egg tankers could not enter US ports for ever. Life is full of surprises. What a fantastic and fast US decision.

I can't find anything where it says that the IMO stated that "the Coulombi Egg concept was "fully approved as better, safer, less costly than double hull, etc". So as it stands, you are making a false claim.

Like I said, very impressive that your design was "approved". And it's a bummer that the US completely trumped the IMO which has lead to no builder wanting to take a very costly risk in building ship designs that could equal or even surpass double hulls. But the US had their reasons which are well documented. And not unfounded.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Marjorie Taylor Greene is nuts
« on: July 23, 2021, 04:26:34 AM »
https://www.thedailybeast.com/seth-meyers-mocks-marjorie-taylor-greenes-covid-19-vaccine-excuse

“Your first question is a violation of my HIPAA rights,” Greene said earlier this week. “You see, with HIPAA rights, we don’t have to reveal our medical records, and that also involves our vaccine records.”

Watching all these Republicans desperately squirm and avoid admitting they took the vaccine that they are pushing their own voters not to is just surreal.

As well, there's this:

What Marjorie Taylor Greene doesn't know about HIPAA is, well, a lot
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-hipaa/index.html

The title of the article pretty much says it all, but Cillizza lays it out in no uncertain terms.

The squirming will not cease...ever.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« on: July 23, 2021, 04:18:41 AM »
Ok to get to my point is to explain my atmospheric set up.

The magnet is like an evacuation chamber.
Instead of a pump pushing atmosphere away and allowing natural expansion of molecules within the chamber, the magnet is created by Forcing atmosphere back by process of heating to expand molecules from within, leaving a low pressure that is consistently pushed against by the external atmosphere, just like a chamber would.


Let's see if you're getting what I'm saying at this point because we need to clarify as we go.

Now remember, this is from my side so try and grasp it rather than use mainstream ideals to counter anything.

Ok, I'm not sure how to address this, but I'll try. So the magnet is heated which creates a low pressure around it. That low pressure pushes against the normally higher atmospheric pressure around it, then what happens?

As an aside, what is generating this heat that is creating the low pressure around the magnet?
Not quite. It'll take some explaining and I won't be explaining clearly so it make take some time.


To make a magnet you have to push away atmosphere and trap the remaining broken down molecules within the magnet which means the atmosphere is always trying to equalise.

To heat up is to agitate molecules, like any heating method.

Are you with me so far?

Got it. Is there something about a specific type of material that pushes and traps and agitates its own molecules as opposed to other materials that don't. In other words, what makes some materials magnetic and others not?

If I understand, in its agitated state, the magnet is pushing away the atmosphere around it. What happens next after the magnet's molecules are agitated?
It all comes down to what is trapped and potential release. Like a big vortex where you push one end and it pushes back or you push the other and you are pushed in but in ding so you push out as you go, meaning you create a cycle of breaking a vortex and turning it inside out to become the opposite vortex.


This is all down in extreme broken down molecular state which allows atmospheric pressure to consistently try to equalise.

And I'm well aware I may be being obscure but this is where we'll have to work hard at it.

Ok, that's a lot to take in and digest as agnostically as possible.

So skipping over why some materials do this and some don't, how do these released vortices act physically between magnet A and magnet B? Why does orientation cause them to push together and push apart? Diagram? I'll try and pull one together once I understand more about the physicality.

20
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
So you never thought to build a large scale proof of concept demonstrator to prove to the USCG that you had a better design.  You also refused to sell your patent when you had a chance.  Good to know.
We had proven to the IMO, Intertanko & Co that the Coulombi Egg oil tanker was much better than US double hull. I was just the designer of the concept. A US oil company wanted to buy the patent but it was not accepted.

Your Coulombi Egg tanker design, though impressive, wasn’t approved by the IMO as a "much better” or superior design to a double hull design. It was approved simply as an “acceptable alternative” and only in “principle”:

IMO MEPC OKs Coulombi Egg tanker design
Author: Neil Sinclair
1997/10/06


LONDON (CNI)—The Coulombi Egg tanker design, an alternative to the double hull, has been approved in principle by the International Maritime Organization's marine environment protection committee (MEPC), it was confirmed Monday.

The Coulombi Egg design is based on a series of centre and wing tanks, divided by horizontal bulkheads. Upper wing tanks form ballast tanks which act as emergency receiver tanks for cargo should lower tanks be fractured.

Although the MEPC has ruled that the Coulombi Egg is an acceptable alternative to the double hull design, its view is not shared by the US. It has said ships built to the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in US ports.


https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/1997/10/06/40203/imo-mepc-oks-coulombi-egg-tanker-design/

21

So a third of those involved were FBI!
It kind of strays into the realms of parody, like much of what happens there, one of the guys was second in command of the militant group.

You can see where the paranoia comes in, how can you have a bit of fun running around in the woods cosplaying Rambo when the fucking feds take over and sucker you into invading Canada.

Wow, this is one of the FBI agents involved in the kidnapping plot https://wwmt.com/amp/news/local/fbi-agent-accused-of-attacking-his-wife-after-a-swingers-party-according-to-authorities

And another article about the same incident https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/07/19/fbi-agent-whitmer-kidnap-case-arrested-following-domestic-incident-richard-trask/8013618002/

I thought we figured out how to avoid the double-secret entrapment trap way back with Abscam...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam#Conclusion

And DeLorean...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeLorean#Arrest_and_trial

Apparently not.

22
So I designed and patented the Coulombi Egg tanker to make some money out of the incident.
How much money did you wind up making from your design?
The day after the United Nations' International Maritime Organization, the IMO, including USA, approved my design as better, safer and more economic than double hull (the US OPA tanker standard), September 1997, US Coast Guard informed that such tankers were illegal in USA and could not enter US ports. Anyone trying to enter into USA on a Coulombi Egg tanker would be arrested, etc. as a serious threat to the US and world marine environmental protection. I was put on an CIA/FBI/USCG black list as an environmental terrorist and it seems I am still on it, in spite of the >1 million viewers of this thread.

In other words, $0.00 made.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« on: July 22, 2021, 06:57:46 AM »
Ok to get to my point is to explain my atmospheric set up.

The magnet is like an evacuation chamber.
Instead of a pump pushing atmosphere away and allowing natural expansion of molecules within the chamber, the magnet is created by Forcing atmosphere back by process of heating to expand molecules from within, leaving a low pressure that is consistently pushed against by the external atmosphere, just like a chamber would.


Let's see if you're getting what I'm saying at this point because we need to clarify as we go.

Now remember, this is from my side so try and grasp it rather than use mainstream ideals to counter anything.

Ok, I'm not sure how to address this, but I'll try. So the magnet is heated which creates a low pressure around it. That low pressure pushes against the normally higher atmospheric pressure around it, then what happens?

As an aside, what is generating this heat that is creating the low pressure around the magnet?
Not quite. It'll take some explaining and I won't be explaining clearly so it make take some time.


To make a magnet you have to push away atmosphere and trap the remaining broken down molecules within the magnet which means the atmosphere is always trying to equalise.

To heat up is to agitate molecules, like any heating method.

Are you with me so far?

Got it. Is there something about a specific type of material that pushes and traps and agitates its own molecules as opposed to other materials that don't. In other words, what makes some materials magnetic and others not?

If I understand, in its agitated state, the magnet is pushing away the atmosphere around it. What happens next after the magnet's molecules are agitated?

24
The camera lens is not at the windows.
The camera is away from the windows so what you're saying makes zero sense.

Explain why.

Do you understand how a fisheye lens works? In this case an 8MM one. Which is a fisheye lens on steroids, the Nikkor 8 mm f/8 has a field of view of 180°.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: View from space
« on: July 22, 2021, 12:06:39 AM »
Here's them moving about a bit. Looks like fun:



You can do that on the 'vomit comet' rides flying at altitudes millions of plebs have done before

True. But the Vomit Comet maxs out at like 30 seconds of weightlessness throughout each parabolic flight pattern. These blokes (and one dame) had about 4 minutes of sustained weightlessness and no parabola - Probably why no one puked.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« on: July 21, 2021, 11:59:12 PM »
Ok to get to my point is to explain my atmospheric set up.

The magnet is like an evacuation chamber.
Instead of a pump pushing atmosphere away and allowing natural expansion of molecules within the chamber, the magnet is created by Forcing atmosphere back by process of heating to expand molecules from within, leaving a low pressure that is consistently pushed against by the external atmosphere, just like a chamber would.


Let's see if you're getting what I'm saying at this point because we need to clarify as we go.

Now remember, this is from my side so try and grasp it rather than use mainstream ideals to counter anything.

Ok, I'm not sure how to address this, but I'll try. So the magnet is heated which creates a low pressure around it. That low pressure pushes against the normally higher atmospheric pressure around it, then what happens?

As an aside, what is generating this heat that is creating the low pressure around the magnet?

27



You have to basically ask yourself what is actually real.
A curve from a supposed ISS at supposedly 420 km.

And then you have JB and Stash's efforts.

What to believe?
Thank you for posting this.

Herein lies the issue with the image - It's shot with a Nikkor (Nikon) 8mm Fisheye lens. Examples have already been shown as to how much spherical distortion can be created by fisheyes. Heck, fisheyes are the number one FE argument against all images that show earth curvature, but that's for another debate. Back to the ISS...

As seen in this photo, 2 Soyez vehicles are docked (Red boxes). Also showing is the proximity and orientation of the docked Soyez's to the Cupola. As well the direction of view through the top of the cupola (Red arrow):



Notice how the view through the Cupola (Red arrow) is straight down toward Earth and runs parallel to the long sides of the Soyez's. And the angle of the side windows.

Now look again at the hyper fisheye picture and notice one of the Soyez's is clearly visible through a side window of the Cupola (Red box):



Now ask yourself how much spherical distortion must be present:

1) To show the Cupola side windows, given their actual angle, as almost flattened on the same plane as the center window
AND
2) To show one of the Soyez's jutting into the image at an angle when it is actually parallel and out of view unless one is looking sideways out of the Cupola, not straight down and through the top of the Cupola like how the image was captured.

That's how much an 8mm fisheye lens spherically distorts images...A lot.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: View from space
« on: July 21, 2021, 10:44:28 PM »
Here's them moving about a bit. Looks like fun:


29
I would argue that there is nothing hotter on or in earth than the innards of a chicken pot pie. Though the crust is merely warm to the touch, the molten potatoes, carrots, and poultry mash are the magma of the culinary world.

30
I think it would seal the deal if they could somehow make gun syringes.
Sorta like this?


Kinda, but accurate from perhaps a CDC helicopter running low and fast tracking unwilling targets moving quickly across the American tundra, aka, mall parking lots.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 198