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 - Salviati

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Flat Earth General / Re: "Hubble image"
« on: November 17, 2015, 02:56:18 AM »

Also, any ideas how to produce an optical image of Earth using a radio telescope?

Talking to RE folks is such a pleasure...


Hubble Space Telescope is not a radio telescope, it's an optical telescope. It has a mirror of about two meters diameter. No wonder its images are in the optical range.

Anyway, HST is not aimed at the Earth, your image presumably was taken by a satellite.

Talking to FE folks is not such a pleasure...
The usual boring compilation of random bullshit.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Nothing that keeps us on the ground.
« on: July 16, 2015, 02:58:00 AM »

Salviati Actually that formula only works for incompressible fluid, but the explanation is absolutely correct. Here is the formula if you want to consider compressible fluid and (for some reason) consider the fact that gravity reduces slightly if you go higher.

Nice explanation for most part. It's such a shame you had to add gravity into it. Anyone with a brain SHOULD be able to see that gravity is not needed.

sceptimatic Bouyant force exist from the fact that dp/dz >< 0, and gravity plays a role in there. Here is the derivation

If you are really sure that gravity should not be in the formula, then show me your formula and the derivation.

Thank you for the formulas, very interesting, i saved them.

Consider however that they contains triple integrals, and here we are on a forum of flat earthers... :-)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of gravity
« on: July 11, 2015, 04:32:02 AM »
I hate bullies.

And the rest of the world hates brain damaged idiots that say the sun doesn't exist and it's just a reflection.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Nothing that keeps us on the ground.
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:40:07 AM »
Alright, pressure is acting all upon us, from all directions. But say you are at 5 meters floating on the ground, for the sake of argument, since we're ignoring gravity here anyway. Wouldn't the hundreds of kilometers of atmosphere above you overcome the pressure pushing you from below, negating any buoyant effects, even from objects lighter than air? Enlighten me in this question.

The explanation of this fact was discovered by Archimedes of Syracuse, Sicily, more than two centuries b.C., and is so simple even a child can understand it. It works both for liquids (e.g. water) and gases (e.g. air).

The figure is explicative enough. Anyway, let's begin with some facts. Pressure acts in all directions. Pressure depends by the height of the column of air or water above us (scuba divers know that if they are twenty meters deep the pressure is double respect if they are ten meters deep).

Let's say for sake of debate that the atmosphere is hundred kilometers high. There is an object buoyant in the air. Let's say it's one meter tall. Well then, on top of it (from above to below) there is the pressure of hundred kilometers of air. On bottom of it (from below to above) there is the pressure of hundred kilometers of air PLUS ONE METER. This is the key concept! The pressure from below is bigger than the one from above, due the dimension of the object, and this principle is universal, it works for every object immersed in a fluid.

If we want to say it more exactly, let's say that the force exerted by the fluid from below to above is equal to the weight of the fluid removed by the object (e.g., if the object is one cubic meter it removes one cubic meter of air or water, depending where it is immersed).

The case of the helium balloon. Let's say it is one cubic meter in volume, that is it removes one cubic meter of air. One cubic meter of air weighs about one kilogram, and then the balloon get a force from below to above equal to a kilogram. But the helium is lighter than air, and the entire balloon (the wrapping and the helium inside) weighs say half a kilogram.

And now let's put it all together.

Gravity attracts the balloon with a force of half a kilogram (because the balloon weighs half a kilogram); the atmosphere pushes the balloon from below to above with a force of a kilogram (because it removes one cubic meter of air that weighs one kilogram).

Net result: the balloon get pushed from below with a force of half a kilogram, and it goes up.

If the object has a density bigger than air... well, i strongly hope you can elaborate it yourself.

Let me add that believing gravity doesn't exist and we stay on the ground due to the atmospheric pressure is really a shame.


There IS a proof of a globe earth. It was already pointed out by Rayzor and Jet Fission. I never ever did read a convincing response to this proof from flat earthers.

I'm talking about the rotation of the celestial dome around both North Celestial Pole and South Celestial Pole. When facing this argument usually flat earthers get lost or they answer with a random bullshit. There is no way to grasping at straws trying to explain this. This observation alone destroys all flat earth theories for good.

The rotation of the dome around two celestial poles is possible only if we live on a sphere PERIOD.

Dear fellows fe'ers, did you understand the question? Are you zetetic, meaning you believe only what you see with your own eyes? Well, let's go zetetic.

In the northern emisphere if you observe the stars for some hours at night you notice that they rotate around a point.

In the southern emisphere if you observe the stars for some hours at night you notice that they rotate around a point.

And, i would add, the angular distance between stars doesn't change, and this too you can see with your own eyes.

Well, your turn fellows fe'ers, explain how the hell is possible this fact on a flat earth.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space and solar panels.
« on: March 20, 2014, 01:47:47 AM »
So, now we are in agreement that dissipating heat in a vacuum does not work very well at all, right?
A) Dissipating heat in a vacuum works wery well when:
1) the radiating surface is facing open extraterrestrial space, this does mean with no fucking reflective coating that bounces IR rays back and
2) there is great temperature gradient (open space is only few grades above zero Kelvin) because due to Stephan-Boltzmann law the radiating surface emits IR rays but receives nearly nothing in exchange;

B) Dissipating heat in a vacuum doesn't work wery well when:
1) there is a fucking reflective coating that bounces IR rays back and
2) there isn't a great temperature gradient between inside and outside, that is, the content of the thermos and the environment.

Bottom line: orbiting satellites have nothing to do with thermoses, but this is a too hard concept to grasp to a fe'er.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space and solar panels.
« on: March 20, 2014, 01:18:42 AM »
Yes, but it kind of defeats the purpose of reflecting the infrared light when it is painted onto the back of a surface that infrared light does not penetrate very well anyway, now doesn't it?  It is needed on glass because infrared light can penetrate it.
It defeats absolutely nothing. If anything, if it's blocking IR rays this is just the job of a thermos, and if thermos exist it does mean they work and they don't defeat phisics laws, and i will not answer to these idiocies anymore.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space and solar panels.
« on: March 20, 2014, 12:58:48 AM »
Nice try, but both of those pictures have the reflective surface painted onto glass to keep infrared light from the liquid from penetrating the glass.  Are satellites made out of glass?  No?  They are made out of metal, like my thermos, are they not?
You can put a reflective surface upon what you want, glass, metal, plastic, ceramics...

Flat Earth General / Re: Space and solar panels.
« on: March 20, 2014, 12:24:36 AM »
What about the inner surface of the outer shell?  Is that dull or is that reflective?

I don't know, I don't have x-ray vision.  I can not find any information for vacuum vessel having that surface shinny, so I would just assume not.
Both surfaces that face the inner cavity are reflective. This keeps the content of the thermos either cold or hot. Of course you should assume yes, because is so that thermos work.

This shows 1907, but i'm aware that for Fe'ers 1907 is way too modern to accept.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space and solar panels.
« on: March 19, 2014, 05:41:19 AM »
Solar panels in SPACE or solar panels in a big space FLASK. Do you get it now? How about explaining again or do you want to admit that you have no clue and use google images to put a point across without even knowing what you are saying.
Swearing will not help you.
Go fuck yourself. You are only a poor brain-damaged idiot.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space and solar panels.
« on: March 19, 2014, 05:28:28 AM »
So basically what you are telling me is, my flask is defying the laws of space nature and in fact should be cooling much more rapidly inside the flask. Thanks for that, I'll be sending my flask back and asking for a refund, telling them that my tea stays hot for ages when it should be cooling down much more efficiently than if I left it on the table in a cup.
What the hell are you talking about? A flask? I gave you an answer to your question about solar panels and now you are talking about a fucking flask? This is clearly an admission of defeat. You don't have an idea about what to reply to me.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space and solar panels.
« on: March 19, 2014, 05:20:23 AM »
It's relevant because the  so called ISS does not have the capability to do this, nor do so called satellites. Obviously some silly answer will be made up that it uses what's needed and stores excess in some kind of batteries, but what happens when those batteries can't store any more charge? Where do they dump the excess?
To get rid of electricity is a child's play. It's sufficient to close a circuit.

Flat Earth General / Re: Space and solar panels.
« on: March 19, 2014, 04:40:57 AM »
Can anyone explain how solar panels are cooled down in space? You see, what we are told about space, is that it's a virtual vacuum and heat can't be dissipated , so how can the thin strips of aluminium cool down or stay constant?
Heat is transferred from a body to another in three ways: by contact, by convection and by radiation.

First case: a warm body touches another cooler body; heat goes from the hotter to the cooler one until both reach the same temperature. Easy.

Second: a warm body creates a current of warm air that brings the heat elsewhere. This is a too short explanation but i hope you got the picture. Example:

This phenomenon can be very complex, i don't want to make a too long story. Of course this can happen only in the atmosphere.

Third: a body, all bodies (unless they are at absolute zero temperature, that is 0 Kelvin) emit infrared rays, and in doing this they get cooler. Note that due to the Stephan-Boltzmann law the heat emitted by a body by radiation in the fourth power of the absolute temperature, in othe words, is sufficient a small difference in temperature between the bodies to create a big energy transfer. Cooling by radiation is also a common experience. In winter, when car's windshield gets covered by ice, if the evening before you park the car with the front faced a house, at few meters, the next morning the windshield isn't covered by ice. What happened? The wall of the house (i mean a inhabited house) is slighty warmer than the air, and it emits infrared rays which warms the windshield enough to avoid freezing. Of course i'm not speaking about too cold environments. I live in Europe exactly on the 45 parallel and this is a normal experience for me.

Back in topic. The solar panels can get cooler only by radiation. If anything, in space the cooling by radiation is very efficient, much much more than on earth. Why? Because solar panels emit heat by infrared rays, and how much they receive in exchange? Almost nothing, because if they are faced to open space, the space is at a temperature only a small bit higher than absolute zero. In other words, solar panels lose heat very quickly. No fear they can melt down.

Molecules are not free moving like footballs just bouncing about.
In a gas molecules are free moving bouncing about. Basic science no one ever argued against.
They expand and contract according to friction.
Molecules don't expand or contract. A molecule of oxygen, or nitrogen or carbon dioxyde or other atmospheric gases are ever the same size. Basic science no one ever argued against.
They are all connected at all times.
In a gas, they are free to get closer or farther according to temperature and pressure. Basic science no one ever argued against.
There is no free space between them at any time.
In gases there is free space between, mainly in very rarefied ones. In certain interstellar zones there is a single atom of hydrogen per meter cube. Oh, i just forgot, you don't believe in space...
Before we move on, do you accept this?
You don't have a clue about anything.

It's being resisted (weakly) by atmospheric pressure. It's a push on push effect, always.
This sentence is meaningless, as usual from you. No word in it refers to something clear, well defined, measurable.

Anyway, i repeat: atmospheric pressure, and water pressure as well, exert a push from bottom to up on every material body immersed in it (water or air). No brainwashing, no shoehorned science, no conspiracy, no hard mathematics, only the old Archimedes principle:

and in air:

it's the same principle! Understand? A push bottom-up, not the other way around! No way to argue this, sorry for you. The only way to negate this is to stick your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA! Do you want stop saying bullshit at last and open your eyes? Saying air pressure is responsible to push down objects is outrageous! Okay, i repeat, no brainwashing, no shoehorned science, no conspiracy, no hard mathematics, this is a first grade level experience that everyone on earth can prove beyond all doubt, it was discovered more than 2.000 years ago, and nobody ever did refute it. Oh my god, this guy is driving me mad.

In a post of few minutes ago you say:
The simplest way to use it is to think of weight as a measurement of mass. If you have a brick you are holding mass. If you want to know what the mass in weight, you measure it by putting it on scales. Simple!
Speaking about mass and weight is speaking about gravity! The weight is the force that pushes a body towards the centre of the earth. The air pushes it bottom-up!

If you put a paving stone on a scale plate, you measure the weight of that paving stone, bearing in mind it's area is being pushed down by atmospheric pressure, also.
If you put a paving stone on a scale plate, you measure the weight of that paving stone, bearing in mind it's area is being pushed UP  by atmospheric pressure, also.

It's exactly so, trust me.

A vacuum cannot exist inside Earth. The best that can be hoped for is extreme low pressure, which will naturally create much less resistance on a falling object, allowing it to fall faster. It's the reason why a feather and a coin can drop pretty close to each other, because the feather is encountering very little resistance.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I can't believe it!! Scepti said something right!!

Flat Earth General / Re: Effects on the body after being in space.
« on: March 12, 2014, 08:56:08 AM »
Air pressure acts equally from all directions it has nothing to do with the effects we see of gravity.
The fun thing is that air pressure works the other way around than as supposed by Scepti. It's the good old fluidostatic principle discovered by Archimedes of Syracuse, which no one ever argued against, being it supported by everyday's experience of anyone on earth since mankind exists.

Flat Earth General / Re: Difference of 0 G on earth and on the ISS?
« on: March 10, 2014, 12:45:34 PM »
You are right but it is to show that you can't fake 0 g on earth like the real 0 g on the ISS.
I agree on that.

Flat Earth General / Re: Difference of 0 G on earth and on the ISS?
« on: March 10, 2014, 09:26:54 AM »
In the vomit comet ( 0G ) there is always a tiny bit of gravity:
In the vomit comet the gravity is exactly as it is on the earth surface, minus perhaps a mere 0.3% due to the heigth of the plane, let's say 10,000 meters.
People are not bouncing around because there is no gravity.
On the ISS the gravity (meaning the gravitational field) is only about some 12% lower than on the earth's surface.

In both cases the apparent lack of gravity is due to free falling.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Are FE'ers boring compared to RE'ers?
« on: March 02, 2014, 12:31:02 PM »
Why is it nonsense that the earth would be approaching the speed of light? Seems no more ridiculous than the universe expanding at an increasing rate by magical "dark energy".
Usual example of non sequitur. This site is about the shape of the earth, or better, about debating if the earth is a globe orbiting around a sun distant 1.5 x 10exp6 Km, or if it is flat, the sun is 32 Km diameter and so on.

What does have to do the structure of the universe with the shape of the earth? To begin with, the universe isn't expanding by magical dark energy,  but due to big bang energy. Don't you agree with big bang theory? No problem, there are some astrophysicists which don't agree either. But the solar system is the same even the big bang isn't true.

Back on topic. You're wondering why the UA is nonsense? Because it is easily debunked! It' sufficient a sensible enough dynamometer and a stone. If you weigh the stone in different part of the earth you will find different results. The same object weighs more at poles than at equator, due to centrifugal force. The same object weighs less at the top of a mountain than at sea level due to inverse square law. The same object weighs differently in different parts of the earth due to the uneven distribution of the masses in the earth's inner. Note that this is not theory but an experiment already performed many times; it's not too hard to do, remember, a dynamometer and a stone, you can do it yourself, if you want. All that is totally incompatible with the pitiful attempt to substitute gravity with the Universal Acceleration. U.A. destroyed forever, no way to save it. Don't you agree? Okay, explain convincingly why an object weighs differently.

Bottom line: the same dynamometer-stone experiment proves that gravity is real.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Curvature for a Rounder
« on: March 02, 2014, 01:25:00 AM »
Are there any Round Earther's on this forum that really do believe you can see the earth's curvature whilst standing at sea level on a beach?
Isn't possible to see the earth's curvature from sea level, you have to go very, very high. From ISS (400 km) it's possible, but the more convincing fact is not a single, still image from ISS, but observing the globe of the earth rolling by. Go on youtube and insert earth from iss or something, you will find plenty of such videos that clearly show a globe. Needless to say, they are all faked by the conspiracy.

It is perhaps necessary to add that there are now hundreds of men and women who have been on iss and recounted their experience, but of course they were all threatened with death and are lying.

Anyway, even from sea level we can indirectly see earth's curvature, because we see a crisp line separating sky and ground. This is possible only on a globe. If the earth was flat, sky and ground should be separated by a fuzzy, blurry strip.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does Satellite TV Work?
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:24:04 AM »
Can you tell me how many satellites are used to cover the full UK. Just say how many there are.
I don't know, i'm not a satellite expert. Perhaps in one of those links there is the answer to your questio. I think these satellites are of the serie Astra, if you download the program WXtrack

in his database it has several Astra satellites and you can see their position.

But seriously, if they are 3, 4, 5, 10 or 50 what's the difference?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does Satellite TV Work?
« on: February 27, 2014, 05:01:26 AM »
It's a dish, it can be taking a signal from many angles that a transmitter is pointing to. That's why it's a dish.
Just for starters, they aren't dishes, they are parabolas, and are highly directional.

Millions of people live on the coast of the ocean and many of them have parabolas pointing at the sky above the ocean.
If you give a nudge to the parabola the signal get lost, and you get it back if you re-align the parabola exactly as it was before. No towers at all in the middle of the ocean.
Well then, what are they pointing at? Answer please.

Flat Earth General / Re: The flat Earth movement is growing
« on: February 24, 2014, 07:17:56 AM »
I'm starting to get the impression you're only here to play mind games with people, rather than take part in any meaningful dialogue.
No doubt Sculelos is cheerfully taking the piss. His comments are top notch idiotic and inconsistent.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: February 08, 2014, 07:40:33 AM »
Just inflate the plane now and you get the convex spherical Earth.
Good one! I was thinking the same thing.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: February 06, 2014, 04:07:19 AM »
Also, Celestial Gears was a popular theory at one time.
Angular distance between stars doesn't change.

Celestial Gears
refuted for good.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: February 04, 2014, 01:07:19 PM »
Did you bother searching the site? There are lots of discussions regarding the poles. Here's a good one
I did read the entire thread (yep, i had to put up with tom bishop's piffle) and i have to repeat myself: no answer whatsoever from fe'ers about this topic. No one even tried to answer this:

Sky rotates around North celestial pole;


Sky rotates around South celestial pole;


Angular distance between stars doesn't change.

And please let's notice that North magnetic pole is not North celestial pole and South magnetic pole is not South celestial pole.

Well then, is there someone that can explain clearly and with facts how is possible on a flat Earth the bi-rotation of the sky? (Hint: it's not possible).

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: February 04, 2014, 06:43:41 AM »
This is skimmed over by Samuel Rowbotham in his "Zetetic Astronomy," but what is the current explanation within a flat-Earth model?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Time Lapse South Celestial Pole
This is FET's worst nightmare. The bi-rotation of the sky around both North and South celestial poles doesn't have any convincing explanation whatsoever from a FET point of view, and is sufficient to destroy mercilessly any hypothesis of a flat earth.

I posted this argument several times and each time fe'ers suddenly got lost, no answer from them.

This fact (yeah, it's a fact) is possible only on a round earth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5