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.
Fliggs he's just a kid.
Go beat up some teenagers to boost your confidence if you need it so badly.
These claims of free energy devices are always entertaining because they are all so remarkably easy to debunk - if you are even slightly non-gullible. If anyone were to build such a device he would be within years, a trillionaire. Every home on the planet, every business and every vehicle would want one. But the stories they tel as all so easy to debunk. One such claim said that you could build a free energy generator to power 'half your house' and one person claimed to have done exactly that. So, if you could power half your house, why would you not build TWO of them? See? easy to debunk.
It really doesnt matter if you understand the science or not. You only need to understand the world in which we live where energy is our most important product. Free energy would revolutionise our world like nothing before it, so the motivation is understandable.
But if sandy-wall-of-text-okan could build such a device, he would be the richest man on earth and win every nobel prize for the next decade.
But he cant. No one can because they dont work, never have worked and never will work.
Even a device that could produce "only a few KW" of energy without any energy input would be invaluable in remote, and valuable in not so remote, places. The problem is, as you and I already know, they aren't possible. Otherwise, they'd be all over the place and many of our problems wouldn't be problems at all.
L.A.R.P.
Edit. ARHB is an idiot too but he's just a kid so I expect slightly less of him.
It is not a quick process. It is not instantly refreshing nor rejuvenating. It is healing and nourishing, and it takes time and adherence. That's why it is so easily dismissed. Sure I could post some phony balogna site about how it does this or that, maybe its not balogna, but you wouldnt believe it anyway. Sometimes someones word is more convincing than evidence from the most reputable source.
You've never put me on the spot. You lack the prerequisites.
I agree this site draws little attention from shills, 4chan is a different story.
I think there is at least one person monitoring this site, just my opinion.
I just hate gaslighting and online pseudopsychology.
That's all.
Do you honestly believe in the entire internet, no one is paid to push a product, opinion or narrative, honestly?
Like, seriously?
hi, after alot of research on the topic the past week i have come to terms that the earth is not as we know it, its strange as i felt an overwhelming feeling ive never felt before when my brain went tick! anyone else feel like this?? its like im lost in my own world.
First suggestion. leave this place and places like it. Then, get sleep - lots of it. Quit the drugs and the alcohol and consort with friends who have jobs, families and commonsense.
You wont feel lost for long. Your world will come back into balance when your throw the bad influences overboard.
F*ck off fliggs.
Pseudopsychologist.
hi, after alot of research on the topic the past week i have come to terms that the earth is not as we know it, its strange as i felt an overwhelming feeling ive never felt before when my brain went tick! anyone else feel like this?? its like im lost in my own world.
Or, you could just fly smaller payloads that require 50-70 tons less propellant to launch and use the leftover propellant to land the booster.You are obviously struggling with this subject so let's leave it at you didn'the include it in your calculations as you have said.
So moving on. Why do you belive the next launch will not recover the 1st stage? If they have all been faked then why not continue with this one?
Me struggling? I have shown - at my website - that recovery requires Boost-back, Entry and Landing burns consuming plenty extra fuel in space (say 50-70 tons) that in turn requires more fuel/mass to get into space (say 150-200 tons) and that you need a much smaller rocket, if you forget recovery and just put your payload - the satellite - in space. Like Arianespace!
BTW, you do realize that Arianespace is working on its own booster engine and avionics recovery system, don't you?
http://spacenews.com/meet-adeline-airbus-response-to-reusable-spacex-rocket/
I am happy that you agree you need 50-70 tons of fuel just to carry out the recovery burns. But you also need 150-200 tons of fuel to put that 50-70 tons in space, which means that you have to double the amount of fuel used to put your normal payload in orbit. It means that you have to use a rocket more than twice the size than actually needed. Crazy, to say the least.
It seems Airbus/Arianespace have abandoned the whole idea. Apart from costing too much fuel another reason is of course that the rocket is unstable coming down and you cannot apply the boost-back, entry and landing forces at the right times and in the right directions for a safe landing.
It is simple rocket science. No spacecraft can carry sufficient fuel with it to do any trip to land anywhere.
You are obviously struggling with this subject so let's leave it at you didn'the include it in your calculations as you have said.
So moving on. Why do you belive the next launch will not recover the 1st stage? If they have all been faked then why not continue with this one?
Me struggling? I have shown - at my website - that recovery requires Boost-back, Entry and Landing burns consuming plenty extra fuel in space (say 50-70 tons) that in turn requires more fuel/mass to get into space (say 150-200 tons) and that you need a much smaller rocket, if you forget recovery and just put your payload - the satellite - in space. Like Arianespace!
SpaceX has not been able to tell fuel used and to show what forces are produced at the Boost-back, Entry and Landing burns and that they are applied at the right locations, times, directions and durations to enable a landing trajectory. SpaceX has not provided any footage of the recovery. Only amateur, general public videos/pictures. Very unprofessional! A joke!
And you suggest that by reducing the temperature and increasing the density of the fuel, all is possible. And when asked how, you change subject.
Well, tell me how much fuel was used for recovery and what forces were produced and we can discuss.
The purpose of this is not to lash out at his model or anyone's model. I find the idea of buoyancy with a Twist Interesting, if I could just put my head around the issue of "down" and why it happens. So far, all I can work out is we should be able to "swim" everywhere.
Of course I hear denspressure is stupid, flat earth is stupid, really anything that goes against the mainstream consensus is "stupid" or "crazy"..These are easy examples to demonstrate either by the angry n00bs (or perma-n00bs) that frequent here alone..Not to mention in the real non digital world.
Perhaps the ideas are crazy and stupid...Perhaps not...The point is this..
Don't forget what "reality" mainstream science is pushing.
Imagine you were a 35 year old uncontacted tribal member, and someone came to you and told you this.
14 billion years ago there was nothing but this tiny incredibly hot spot of just a few inches that was magically there for no apparent reason. Then suddenly, it got so hot and energized that it started to expand 1000s of times upon itself. During this expansion, this magic hot spot started to create beginning elements. Then as it cooled, started to some how produce the basic elements for inanimate life all while continuing to expand.
Anyways, moving forward, some of this "dust and particles" decided to form the rock that is earth as well as a giant nuclear fusion furnace that is 100 times larger than the earth we call the sun...
Then the earth and the sun put together figured out how to turn inanimate matter into a simple single celled organism in a hot area of water that somehow appeared. For some reason this little cell was not happy being what it was, even though it had no thoughts or desires. So, for some reason with no intelligence or desire, it blindly started attempting to turn into a multiple celled organism which it finally did. Then on down the line until it was a form of a fish.
Finally, one day, this swimming creature with no intelligence, went for the stars and somehow morphed itself to get out of that pond!! Fresh air!! Finally!! Then from there went to form the millions of life forms we see with complex RNA/DNA instruction manuals including us!!
So here we are...A world of infinite complexity and laws, all from a couple centimeter large magic hot spot and dumb luck. [/b]
Lol you would say "dafaq"Ok...I am gonna walk this way, you don't follow me.
So let's not be so closed minded, judgemental, or high and mighty about other ideas. Because in reality, if you REALLY look at it with an open mind. The mainstream view is about as crazy as you can get.
So how crazy and dumb is the idea we could be in a pressurized capsule again??
and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?
You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.
Ouch.. hit a sore spot, I see. So, no evidence for your religion or anything it claims... got it!
Again, the irony of your posts. Let us not forget what religious institutions gave the world when it predominantly ruled over its respective flocks with an iron fist, whilst crucifying (literally) the non-believers amongst them. You know what they say about glass houses, right? Yikes.
Finally, are you implying that without the bible, we wouldn't know morality? Tell me you're joking. I do wonder how we as a species survived hundreds of thousands of years without any god/religion if we thought that murder, pillaging and theft were actually good things!
Another religion-derived logic fail.
The least you could do is get a basic education in history rather than the vain imaginings you repeat. The difference between you and som FEers is less than you would hope. They are ignorant and dismissive and you are... ignorant and dismissive.
That projection though...
It's ok though, I understand. Must be tough to end every conversation about your faith with 'Well, I have faith it's all true and if you don't believe it, you're ignorant and dismissive'.
As an atheist, I am dismissive of religious claims made without evidence.. sort of like I am with FE! If you call that ignorant and 'dismissive', there really isn't much else to discuss, is there?
I see very few people here supporting FE here mentioning the Bible as evidence. Not that there are not any here, but there seems to be few among the active posters in the debate, Q&A, and general.
I think intikam may base his belief the Earth is flat on religious text, but not sure.
I do not think I ever seen Scepti use it to support his model. I admit I could be wrong since I do not read all his post.
Edit: Forgot to add
Saying historians regard the Bible as a reliable source is somewhat misleading.
There is a reason when you find people saying it is historical accurate and reliable source to learn history tend to be rather religious and view the Bible as being literal.
I'll pick one thing:
"Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan. There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan."
Yes some cities existed and events mentioned in the Bible happened. However it seems the Bible may have combined different events, embellished some to make a better story, have them happening at the wrong time.
keep in mind that we are talking about an event from 4000 years ago and while you might not find any evidence to support it, you also dont find any evidence to debunk it. And an extensive document (the Bible) that discusses it at length I actual evidence if not proof. But, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
So if I wanted to study history and went to the Bible and I could not find any other mention of events or evidence except in the Bible I should consider the Bible a reliable source?
Do not forget the Egyptians like other civilizations recorded their history using various methods. The exodus of the Jewish slaves seemed like something worth recording.
There is plenty of events in the Bible that can not be confirmed. Usually the best a historian can confirm is that some place existed. The Bible is not exclusive in this regard. Many of the places mentioned in the Bible are mentioned elsewhere.
Please explain how the Bible is a reliable source for a history lesson. Keep in mind you made the claim the Bible should not be used for science and for a good reason. That it is basically stories to teach morals, why would this not include stories about things that happened? Stories that may have been embellished or altered for the intended narrative of the author.
Can you describe how we got the collection of books that make up the Bible? Was it written soon after the events happened or were the stories passed on orally before they were recorded? One thing to consider is Mark was not written until about 40 years after the Crucifixion. The rest of the synoptic gospels were written later.
If the stories were passed down orally for more than one generation how reliable should we consider them?
and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?
You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.
Ouch.. hit a sore spot, I see. So, no evidence for your religion or anything it claims... got it!
Again, the irony of your posts. Let us not forget what religious institutions gave the world when it predominantly ruled over its respective flocks with an iron fist, whilst crucifying (literally) the non-believers amongst them. You know what they say about glass houses, right? Yikes.
Finally, are you implying that without the bible, we wouldn't know morality? Tell me you're joking. I do wonder how we as a species survived hundreds of thousands of years without any god/religion if we thought that murder, pillaging and theft were actually good things!
Another religion-derived logic fail.
Fliggs you had to use a lot of words describing how the inerrant word of God doesn't really mean what it says.
If you want to debate you might want to try engaging a bit more and not trying TRump-style rules.You already lost the debate. Why are you still talking to me?
If you wish to disprove that claim then it is up to you. I do not need to or want to go into yet another circular argument with the ignorant who are relying (ironically) not on science but on atheism. I think we would find that the difference between ardent (and uninformed) athiests and flat-earthers is far less than you might find comfortable.
Of course you could address the actual thrust of the OP, but I guess your favourite hobby-horse is far more fun - like denspressure.
Yes, ironically, the religious folks among us seem to think there is some sort of burden on the non-believers to disprove their religious claims. The burden, good sir, has and always will be on the religion making the claims of which they all do. You claim the bible, in whatever capacity, has some sort of veracity, thus it is up to you to provide evidence for such a claim.
Speaking of irony, calling non-believers ardent is rather hilarious. You, too, are a non-believer for every religion other than your own, correct? Therefore, you're an atheist in respect to Hinduism, Judaism etc etc ad infinitum, are you not? Oh yea, you are. What were you saying again?
Lastly, atheism is the most rational position a person can hold due to, get this, the lack of evidence for every claim every religion makes, including the most important part: that being evidence their purported deity exists in the first place. Atheism is axiomatically the least ardent position.
If you truly think the position I hold is ardent or irrational, you need a bit of a reality check.
I see very few people here supporting FE here mentioning the Bible as evidence. Not that there are not any here, but there seems to be few among the active posters in the debate, Q&A, and general.
I think intikam may base his belief the Earth is flat on religious text, but not sure.
I do not think I ever seen Scepti use it to support his model. I admit I could be wrong since I do not read all his post.
Edit: Forgot to add
Saying historians regard the Bible as a reliable source is somewhat misleading.
There is a reason when you find people saying it is historical accurate and reliable source to learn history tend to be rather religious and view the Bible as being literal.
I'll pick one thing:
"Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan. There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan."
Yes some cities existed and events mentioned in the Bible happened. However it seems the Bible may have combined different events, embellished some to make a better story, have them happening at the wrong time.
So you cop out of the debate (and therefore lose). Thanks for playing. That was mighty boring, though.
Maybe you should post this shit in the religion forum next time, BTW.
Sceptimatic does not use the bible as proof for denpressure.
Not once in the 70 page denpressure thread has Scepti ever mentioned the bible.
You might be thinking about iWitness, a poster I have not seen for some months who often referred to literal pillars holding up the earth.
tl;dr
tl;dr.
Ok I skimmed it, did you start a thread in the upper fora purely to whinge about scepti?
Here have some concrete.
and harden the f**k up.
You made the original claim so you support your position first.Let's see...As the initial claimant, the burden of proof is on you.
- You said the bible is a book on history
- I said historians don't consider it to be a reliable historical document
- Now you think I made the original claim
For the record, I don't scepti actually subscribes to any religion or god. Based off of what he's had to say, I would lable him as agnostic but I'm happy to be corrected.
Exactly, what did you do like thirty seconds of research before posting flaggs?
