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 - JackBlack

Pages: 1 ... 761 762 [763] 764 765 ... 767
22861
You're welcome.

 ;D

22862
you are almost 100% right and i couldn't agree with you more... except oxygen is definitely used in mitosis unless you are exercising rather vigorously in which case muscle cells will perform anaerobic respiration.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with how quickly you breathe. Breathing a lot isn't going to magically make your cells start dividing.

22863
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 02, 2016, 05:14:30 AM »
If 1 then the cosmos is just another word for God! - What is wrong with such ludicrous identification? This is what is wrong: - The true meaning of a word "God" is: A being which cannot not to be!!! Such Being can't be created since God has no need to have been created, He exists outside time, but the cosmos HAS NEED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED and IS submitted to the second law of thermodynamics!
No. It isn't just another word for God.
"God" is a name given to a particular sentient entity capable of defying the laws of nature.

If the cosmos isn't sentient, then it isn't a god and thus not God.

Your definition is just a pathetic attempt at defining God into existence.

Saying God doesn't need a creator but the cosmos does is merely special pleading. Your god needs it just as much as the cosmos.
Saying your god exists outside of time means it is unable to do anything.


Of course, there is one necessary "exception"
And any exception will disprove the rule. As such, things can come into existence out of nothing.
As such, the universe can come into existence out of nothing and there is no need for your imaginary fiend.

Trying to say your god can violate it but nothing else can is merely special pleading.

Ultimately, there is either an infinite series of causes (or things) extending into the past and thus your god is not needed.
Or things can exist without cause and thus your god is not needed.

So if we are going to have a necessary exception (the only option if we exclude an infinite series of past events), why not leave it at the universe, rather than resorting to primitive childish nonsense?

Which is more likely to exist without cause:
A simple singularity,
or a massively complex, thinking, sentient entity?

- In the philosophy
- In "the book of nature" (creation)
- In the Bible (in history)
Philosophy indicates God is a useless, needless, complication.
There is no honest indication nature is a creation.
The Bible is a work of mythology, not history.

God even became one of us, and took our sins away! It is hard to understand such a great love, but it is possible for us to believe that such a perfect love can exist! Creation itself is a token of God's perfect love towards us!
That is because it isn't love.
God, by virtue of being omnipotent and the judge of everyone, could merely forgive us and not send us to hell.
Instead he created a being (which was himself) for the primary purpose of having it tormented and killed.
That isn't love.
Additionally, this being was only dead for a few days before coming back more powerful.
How is that a sacrifice?

The whole story of Jesus is pure nonsense.
It only makes sense if God was not omnipotent and thus needed to sacrifice to something greater than itself, Jesus was working against God (such as by being or working with Satan), or as propaganda (and that is ignoring the more obvious option of it is all a load of shit).

The Biblical God is a horribly abusive, corrupt evil tyrant that no decent human being would ever worship.
He set up Adam and Eve to fail.
He turned a woman into a pillar of salt just for looking back.
He commanded someone to kill their son.
He tormented the Egyptians to show off.
He commanded or carried out countless acts of genocide.
And then rather than forgive people, he instead decides to demand a blood sacrifice.

Do you know what loving is?
You appear to be suffering from battered wife syndrome.

I will go so far as to contend that religion goes astray the moment it relinquishes its just rights in the so-called natural domain nowadays occupied by science.
Religion has no right in the domain occupied by science. Science seeks the truth. Religion seeks indoctrination into pure bullshit which it claims as truth.

I believe that the contemporary crisis of faith and the ongoing de-Christianization of Western society have much to do with the fact that for centuries the material world has been left to the mercy of the scientists. This has of course been said many times before (YET NOT NEARLY OFTEN ENOUGH!)
Yes, and in doing so we discovered the Bible is complete nonsense which contradicts reality.
We also have answers to previously unknown questions which people previously resorted to religion to find answers, and are living much better lives and thus have less need for the false hope of religion.

The primary cause of the de-Christianisation of western society is because Christianity is baseless bullshit.

It was not by any accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls. - Max Planck
Read more : http://todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm
Except they weren't.
The ones of the past typically were or at least presented themselves as such. That is because they lived in a time with lots of religious persecution where people would be treated appallingly if they weren't religious, being dismissed as insane or stupid, or tortured or killed.

In modern times, most of the greatest thinkers are atheists.
And it doesn't really matter what those people say.

The simple fact is that belief in god is one of the most unscientific things one can do.

God is a necessary existence!
No. There is nothing necessary about God. That is just a pathetic attempt at defining God into existence

Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil.
And so far, no one has been able to find a solution for it.

Let's see what prominent philosopher William Lane Craig has to say on this problem :
Really? A blatant conman with no integrity at all, happy to blatantly lie and misrepresent things just to push his own views.

He also has a much simpler solution for the problem of evil, and that is to effectively render omnibenevolent (or any term containing "good") into a meaningless tautology when it comes to God by declaring good to be whatever God commands.
So if God commands you to murder, rape and pillage, then that must be good.
The real issue with that is the bullshit claim that this is somehow an objective moral standard.

So, since i can't find any logical flaw in the reasoning above, i would very gladly accept the claim that the earth is spherically shaped if someone managed to convince me (scientifically) that this is really the truth and not just a theory.
But until then, you outright reject reality because it contradicts your fantasy?

There is also a rather simple way around it.
Accept your god is an evil tyrant that lies to mankind.

Because the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, so if the earth is not flat then the Bible is wrong, and if the Bible is wrong then stupid (according to my reasoning) story about man's fall is wrong also, and if stupid story about man's fall is wrong then christianity is also wrong, and if christianity is wrong then we are fucked up...
I at least like your honesty with this.
The same also applies to other things, like evolution (contradicting Adam and Eve), archaeology (contradicting the flood), homosexuality being acceptable (rather than an abomination punishable by death), slavery being bad (rather than something that was fine, even beating a slave to within an inch of death was fine).
But so many Christians these days ignore all that "interpreting" (by which they really mean perverting/manipulating) the Bible to suit themselves.
If when Christians first realised the Bible was wrong they discarded it, the world would have been a much better place (and it would deal a significant blow to this FE nonsense)

But unlike you, rather than reject a round Earth, which was backed up by plenty of evidence, I rejected the Bible, which was backed up by indoctrination. (no, not even the Bible containing some historical things is proof. Harry Potter contains London. Avatar contains Earth. Lots of works of fiction contain real places. And if you are trying to sell it as the truth, you would want that to make it more convincing)

I am afraid that you are frightened to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, since you are christian, aren't you RABINOZ?

Since you believe in spherical shape of the earth, you are frightened to death to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, aren't you RABINOZ?
Because like so many Christians they suffer from cognitive dissonance.
They are confronted by 2 conflicting views.
One is their religion which they hold deeply and are heavily indoctrinated into and do not want to let go of.
The other is all the evidence and modern science indicating Earth is round.

People naturally dislike believing 2 contradictory things, so they try and find a way to solve this.
For the most (and often also the least) rational, that is to discard one.
For some people, things like this is the moment they discard their religion or start to have serious doubts about it.
For others, it is the part where they begin to reject reality because they want their religion to be true.

But for some of the most dishonest they come up with other crap, like "interpreting" their holy text to mean something else, like it doesn't say circle it says sphere, it doesn't say flat it says egg-shaped.

Or alternatively, they accept that it is wrong, but come up with other excuses, like it is just a metaphor, or it is a tale with a moral and not meant to be taken literally, or it no longer applies.

22864
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH
« on: December 02, 2016, 04:34:50 AM »
1. "The good thing about the shape of the earth is that it's surface is flat whether or not you believe in it!." - NEIL SMARTASS TYSON
No. It is round regardless of if you believe it or not.
Your photos have conclusively proven that.
All that is left to discuss just how round it is and what the effects of refraction and the like are.

Are you just going to make repeated crappy quotes, or actual arguments?
I will skip your quotes as they have no merit.

Especially as I have already pointed out the pure bullshit in them.

5. ZIGZAG argument is SIMPLE AND 100 % VALID PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST!!!
So simple, you can't even explain it here. Are you sure it is?

And I highly doubt that it is even 10% valid.
It can't be proof Earth is at rest because of all the proof we have it isn't.

If you want me to consider it, explain it here, nice and simply.

Is it this crap?
Quote from: bullshit artist
During day, sun should move as normal, going east to west.
At night (during midnight sun times), sun should move opposite, going west to east.

If so, that is pure bullshit. At it is the same in both a flat Earth and round Earth model, regardless of if the sun is moving or Earth is.

6. AIRY'S FAILURE WASN'T a FAILURE for no GOOD REASON!!! It was a FAILURE for a VERY GOOD REASON!!!
It was a failure because he failed to take into effects like refraction.
In the Earth centred reference frame, no additional correction is needed as the light is going straight in.
In the star centred reference frame, as the telescope is at an angle, the water surface will cause refraction.

The simple fact of stellar aberration indicates this experiment can't prove Earth is stationary.

If we are stationary and the aether is moving, it is still moving even in the water filled telescope and thus the same correction would need to be applied.

It wasn't a null result, it was no result, i.e. a complete failure.

Good luck with your self-deception!
Sure, My self deception, when you are the one continually spouting pure bullshit, using completely fake numbers and failing to address serious flaws in your case, such as the missing mountains (or sections of them) and the height order being wrong.

I have heard EVERY argument that a ball earth proponent can come up with and it still doesn't tell me why out of the hundreds of thousands of satellites, we see none. why nasa, in at least TWO separate NASA MADE videos state that they can go NO HIGHER THAN LOWER EARTH ORBIT when they claim to be ON MOTHERFUCKING MARS!?!?!?!?!
What did they claim can go no higher than LEO?

And if you want to see a satellite, you need a decent telescope/good binoculars, and you need to know where to look. Plenty of people have seen them.

To give you an idea, the ISS is 400 km up, and its longest axis is roughly 108 m long. It is also one of the largest artificial satellites in existence.
This would make it roughly 56 arc seconds.
The human limit of resolution is roughly 60 arc seconds.
So it would appear as a single blurry point in the sky if you don't have any help. And that is only if it is significantly brighter than the sky.

Typically something easier to see is a flashing light moving across the sky. That can be a plane, or a satellite. Some satellites spin such that they reflect the sun off them which hits Earth and bounces back up to them for them to take a picture. That makes it look like a strobe light moving across the sky.

But your only hope to see one in any detail is with some magnifying device, which then needs to be pointed in the right direction, which itself is quite hard, especially considering it is moving at a speed of roughly 7.67 km/s (again, using the ISS as an example.
So you are looking for something that is 56 arc seconds, moving roughly 11 degrees a second, so roughly 708 times its size.

Do you really expect to easily be able to find it without any effort?

A. If the earth is stationary round-earth geometry falls to pieces!
No. It doesn't.
Round Earth geometry works regardless of if Earth is moving or not.

B. There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!
Sure. There isn't a single one. There are loads.
All of the imagery on Google Earth are pictures of Earth from space.

But I assume you mean one showing the curve of Earth, or almost a hemisphere.
But they exist as well, you just dismiss them as fake.
This is because you don't care about the truth, you just want to deny it.

Now, you have to ask yourself this : What is more likely :
C) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is ROUND (although stationary)?
D) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is FLAT and stationary?
Or you are just spouting pure bullshit and there actually are authentic pictures of Earth from space which you ignore, with Earth moving and round.

-If the earth is round, it wouldn't matter if the earth were stationary, would it? If the earth were round (although stationary) there would be no problem (for NASA or anyone else) to present to us at least ONE SINGLE (if not thousands) AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space!
Except getting there, and getting people like you to accept them when you have made it clear you have no interest in doing so as it goes against your religion which you care more about than reality.

-On the other hand, if the earth is flat, there would be a huge problem to show us ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!
Nope. That would be quite easy as you wouldn't need to go up all that far to be able to easily see all of Earth.
The question is why haven't flat Earthers gotten a picture which shows all of Earth?

1. Heliocentric theory is wrong, absolutely wrong, there is no doubt about that! - THE EARTH IS STATIONARY!!! NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT!!! NO DOUBTS - WHATSOEVER!!!
Yes, Heliocentric theory is wrong. This is because the sun is not the centre of the universe. It moves as well as Earth.
Earth moves. There is no doubt about that at all to any rational human being (other than the general doubts about the universe in general which puts literally everything in doubt).

2. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT.
No. That isn't in question either to any rational human beings. Again, it is round, without a doubt.
The only thing in question is the exact shape.

There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round, but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle :
So don't bother with a geocentric round Earth model.

Alternatively, as you have thrown some physics and rationality out the window to make a geocentric model, why not bother with the rest?

Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h. In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well.
i.e. you can't understand how it works so you discard it.

How would your senses tell you that?

It is simply because you are used to seeing objects close to you, and thus can't comprehend the distance to the sun.
If your math is right (which I'm not going to bother to check as it is irrelevant), then your senses indicate that the sun is moving that fast, at least if you know the distance, or at least your senses would be consistent with that model.

Just do the math, with that how fast should it appear to move? 15 degrees an hour.
How much does it move? 15 degrees an hour.

If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up!
Yes, which is why rational people would then jump to a heliocentric model, and then when the question of the galactic core comes into it, put that in the centre and so on.
But again, as you are throwing physics out the window to even start to use a geocentric model, why not keep throwing it out the window here?

1. Airy's failure experiment proves that there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun!
2. ZIGZAG argument proves that there is no rotation of the Earth on it's axis!
3. There is no tilt of the Earth!
4. The Earth is flat!

If 1 then 2!
If 2 then 1! (also)
If 1 then 3!
If 2 then 3! (also)
If 3 then 4 !!!!?
Like I said, all pure bullshit.
Airy's failure was a complete failure. It didn't prove anything.
ZigZag is likewise pure bullshit that proves nothing.
1 does not prove 2 nor does 2 prove 1.
If either 1 or 2, you get 3, as the tilt is a measure of the angular difference between Earth's axis of rotation, and the axis of Earth's orbit.
4 doesn't come from any of it. It is just thrown in because it is what you want.

I'm not going to bother with your copy-paste bullshit.

You want some new stuff?
No. I want you to focus on 1 thing, and deal with that until you realise that you were wrong about it and can admit it rather than spouting so much crap and ignoring so much.

Here it is, just for you (and Jack) :
[RAILGUN!!!]
So the same bullshit I have refuted before?

nearing the velocity needed for an object on the surface of the planet to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.
So 11.2 km/s straight up?


One question for you and Jack :
If our railgun (which is capable to shoot projectiles at 9 km/s) is fastened at 2 m high platform (let's say that the railgun barrel is at 3 m height), and our target is enemies tank (which is 2 m high) which is located 18 km away from us...Now, the time needed to hit the target is 2 sec, and the total amount of the curvature is 25 meters...NOW, JACK, WOULD YOU BE KIND TO DEPICT FOR US THE TRAJECTORY OF OUR RAILGUN BULLET ON THE WAY TOWARDS OUR 18 Km DISTANT TARGET (EVEN IF OUR BATTLE TAKES PLACE NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN BOLIVIAN SALAR DE UYUNI DESERT/LAKE)???

Well, first it wouldn't be shooting it at 9 km/s.
In order to accurately calculate the trajectory, I would need more info.
This includes the actual location, the orientation and most importantly, the aerodynamic properties of the round.

You have provided none of this so I will make a few assumptions:
1 - The test is being carried out inside a vacuum, so the air can be ignored.
2 - They are firing it on the equator, going with the rotation of Earth.
3 - I am simplifying the acceleration due to gravity to 9.8 m/s^2. Obviously they would use the real number.
4 - I'm ignoring the height difference as well.

This still provides loads of trajectories they could use (infinite really).
So I will just say one, the simplest one.
They fire it, with an elevation of 0, at a speed of roughly 7440 m/s.
At this speed, their actual speed (so adding Earth's rotation) will be roughly 7900 m/s.


In reality, they would need an elliptical path, which I can't be bothered calculating, but I can depict.
Again, there are several options.
As the target is below us, then the simplest one is to fire at an angle of 0 degrees, but with a slightly slower speed. This will allow the bullet to drop the 1 m in its orbit.

But basically, for this simple one, draw an ellipse which intersects your target and gun, which has a focus in the centre of Earth.
Then you get to use standard orbital mechanics to figure it out.

I'm not going to bother with your links and cut and paste.

3. Are you trying to tell me that first second of it's flight railgun bullet would fly in upward direction, and then in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory in downward direction? If you really believe that this is possible, you are the stupidest jerks who ever walked on this earth...THE RAILGUN BULLET IS NOT A GUIDED MISSILE!!!
That depends on exactly what you mean by "in no time the bullet would change it's trajectory".
It would follow a ballistic trajectory.
That means it starts going at one angle and gravity will pull it down. This is continuous.
Assuming it started going up, this means it slowly approaches a point where it is going neither up nor down, and then starts heading down.
It's just like a normal bullet in that regard, or an arrow or even a ball.

So no, we aren't the stupid jerks.

It doesn't magically change in that instant, the change is continuous.

4. Now, if you want to use railgun to intercept missile which flies at high altitudes, how do you think you can hit such fast moving (and so small) target without being able to shoot bullet (which is not guided missile) in PERFECTLY STRAIGHT trajectory???

It is going to drop due to gravity regardless.
So again, all this would serve to do is show a railgun is impossible or impossible to do that. It says nothing about the shape of Earth.
I have pointed this out to you before, but you ignore it.

Like I said before, in the test where it went 7km before hitting the ground, do you think it just flew through the air perfectly straight, then magically stopped at the 7km and fell to the ground?

The biggest factor is likely going to be wind resistance. They will have a hard time hitting any target like that.

One concept I saw will use explosive rounds which blow apart shortly before hitting the target causing it to be blasted with shrapnel.

Now, before you try and respond with this railgun BS, be able to explain how they fire it in a straight line and avoid the influence of gravity. Not even firing at escape velocity will do that.

22865
Forget time zones :



You won 1 day.
Okay, lets forget time zones (you didn't, you still used them).
Lets measure everything according to a single time-zone, say UTC (or if you would prefer, we can use linux time).


Ignoring the time required to travel, you start out (in UTC) in the morning.
So say, 29th Feb 2016, at 9 am UTC.
You move around the world a bit (but we are ignoring how long this takes).
The time is still 9 am UTC (the sun rises and sets here at different times).
You keep on going, through night, evening, noon and to the morning.

The time is still 9 am on the 29th Feb 2016, UTC.

Notice how the time hasn't changed at all?

Number of breaths determine lifetime;

Number of sun risings determine age.

NASA is hiding the result of experiment. Instead of discussing with me ask NASA for the result of the twin experiment.

No. Number of seconds determines actual age.
However age as measured by various things (such as governments) is merely measured by what the time is now, and the time of your birth. Some will factor time zones in, some wont and will just pretend you were born in the same time zone as they are in.

The twin experiment has nothing to do with time travel.

Why i do relevant with number of breaths to lifetime?

because every breath refreshes some of your cellulars. Scientists say that some of cellulars have Number of final renewals. After over it, cellular start to die. They turn into cancerous cells.

So Cellular renewal isin't Rejuvenation, oppositely it causes getting old.

No.
Every breath brings in oxygen which your body takes up in your blood stream to pump to various cells which in turn convert it (along with sugar) into energy, carbon dioxide and water.

It has nothing to do with the limits of replication of DNA due to telomere shortening or the like.
And cancer is completely different again.

The only link between breathing and cancer is that we have an oxidative metabolism which can cause oxidative damage to DNA which can in turn cause cancer.

But it doesn't matter if you breathe slowly or quickly, how many breaths you take and so on. It is to do with how much sugar you burn.


And again, you ignore the key point:
THIS WORKS THE SAME ON A FLAT AND ROUND EARTH AS BOTH HAVE TIME ZONES!!!!
All this would serve to do (assuming your argument about time zones and time travel was sound) is disprove time zones, but we know they exist, so all it proves is that you don't understand it at all, and can't even make slightly valid arguments.

22866
You really think you're funny, but you should hear my wife's comments when I complain of the  ;) non-scientific rubbish in some so-called Sci-Fi books  :P! She says, "It's only fiction!" But, in my opinion, Sci-Fi should not totally un-scientific. To be classed as my sort of Sci-Fi, it should reasonably with current science, but then extending it imaginative ways. That's why I called Star Wars Space Westerns, not Sci-Fi.

I feel somewhat the same way.
Current sci-fi needs to be broken into 2 categories, sci-fi and sci-fa, which is science fantasy.
All the stuff which has actual scientific merit can go into sci-fi (and possibly be re-evaluated and put into sci-fa later). All the stuff which includes elements of pure fantasy, like the force, goes into sci-fa (and if we really want, can be re-evaluated later if it magically becomes possible).

22867
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Spinning really fast!
« on: December 02, 2016, 02:56:35 AM »
If I recall correctly from elsewhere, if humans were magically not effected by gravity but everything else was, an 80 kg person would need to carry roughly 2.7 kg to counter the rotation.

If humans were magically not effected by gravity, why would it matter what they weigh?

(sometimes I wish I was less effected by gravity.  ;) )

Because they would still have inertia and mass (just magically not effected by gravity) which would generate a fictitious force (due to chosen frame of reference) which is apparently pulling/pushing them away from Earth.

;D No, the 2.7 kg  ;D is
:P just the weight of all that cold weather gear you strip off (sure hope you've something  8) decent on underneath  8)),  :P when you move to the equator.
The lost weight due to reduced "g" is only about 0.4 kg.
I was talking about the weight that would be required to counteract the spinning.

However, it seems I remembered wrong. It is 2.7 N or roughly 270 g that you need.
I was just trying to point out that that "gravity needs to be so strong it would crush us" argument really doesn't hold water as it is such a small amount of weight that would be needed to stop it.

And that is ignoring the issue of us evolving here so we adapted to this gravity and that is why our bones and the like are the way they are.
If we had the bones of a mouse, then (I think) gravity (not that force required to stop us flying off into space), would crush our bones.

22868
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 02, 2016, 02:49:55 AM »
And some seem definitely to insist that the earth is Flat:
Quote from: Logical Thinker
Proof that the Quran thinks the Earth is Flat 29 Jan, 2008
I have read many articles over the last year where different people have tried to explain that the Quran is describing a flat earth. Countering this, many Muslims like Dr Naik have tried to prove that the Quran is describing a spherical model as we know it today. What I find with Dr Naik’s arguments is that he makes too many assumptions and tries to manufacture Quran verses to fit his model. This is both dangerous from religious and scientific viewpoints.
From Proof Quran thinks Earth is Flat

Actually, he typically uses the word which can be used to describe how an Ostrish flattens the ground to make its nest to claim that Earth it states Earth is egg-shaped, and claims that Earth is egg-shaped, ignoring the fact that eggs are stretched instead of squashed.
Often this argument is accompanied by a picture of an egg (on its side) along with either a distorted or carefully chosen "picture" of Earth.

All he seems to care about is bringing people to Islam, regardless of what he has to say to do so.

22869
One more thing I have thought of but not sure exactly how much effect it will have.


A spinning metal (possibly other as well) object will interact with magnetic fields (including Earth's) and generate an EMF and force, which may affect the drop, especially if it is done in a metal tube.

Hopefully this won't be significant, but I know that an ordinary magnet can produce quite a significant force (or a piece of metal falling through a very strong magnet).

Also, if this does generate a significant effect, it should be against the acceleration due to gravity, potentially making it harder to tell the spinning and non-spinning apart if dePalma was right and a spinning object does fall faster.

22870
Yes this is a public forum and everybody can act as how he want. I can't stop your interrupting my conversations but you can't stop i ignore you. So i said it as an advice but it is not important if you do not care about my ideas, i do not ever care about yours. You were ignored by interrupting my conversation. You have a right to ignore me too as how i do or you can go elsewhere.

Yes, you can ignore me if you choose, but it just shows your dishonesty and inability to refute things.
If you were rational you would respond to my objection.

I have better question, how come that the relative vacuum of cruising altitude dont suck up all the air from ground level ?

Not sure if this was meant to be directed at me, but you can consider that it does, just not all (but again, it is the air below keeping/forcing it up)

Lets pretend for a second that vacuum (or pressure) would do nothing to air, it wouldn't expand it at all.

This would mean all the air would sink to the surface, just like water.

But it doesn't. Instead it bounces around, pushing it all around forcing some to go up higher.

As you go up higher, there is less air so it pushes up less.

Eventually there is so little air you basically have a vacuum.

22871
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Spinning really fast!
« on: December 01, 2016, 01:53:45 PM »
Okay, honest question here so honest answers only please. So if the Earth is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference and it completes one rotation every 24 hours, that would mean that any given point on the globe would be traveling at over 1,000 mph...wouldn't that be a little noticeable? Wouldn't gravity have to be so strong as to crush us?

Do you have the math to illustrate your point?

If I recall correctly from elsewhere, if humans were magically not effected by gravity but everything else was, an 80 kg person would need to carry roughly 2.7 kg to counter the rotation.

I would hope these people don't get crushed by that considering some clothes cant weigh near that much (warm jackets and the like).

22872
I think the biggest obstacle would be the large vacuum chamber. However I am wondering if that is really needed (other than to say control the structure) as we just need to find a difference between the 2 (or show it doesn't exist).

If we have the spinning object enclosed, such that the spinning and non-spinning one appear the same to the wind, would a vacuum chamber be needed?

It may require a more aerodynamic object thought.
A spinning object in a fluid can create a small vortex around it, which would press the fluid outwards and decrease the pressure below the object. The bearing would probably not cause a noticeable effect, but maybe the spin-mechanism could... So if there was a way to shield the dropping environment from the spinning mechanism, that might be enough, and a really smooth bearing to decrease friction with the air. Though maybe we shouldn't underestimate the power of aerodynamics.

I was thinking along the lines of the gyro-drop experiment.

They didn't just spin the gyro and drop it, it was cased in a housing.

Perhaps have double pane glass walls on it (or something equivalent) to prevent any pressure issues on the edge.

As long as the 2 present themselves the same to the atmosphere it shouldn't be a problem.

However, one thing I did overlook is that the air has to be the same each test.
And we need to be sure the device wont be damaged at all.

Also, one other thing I just thought of was that the spinning device, as it slows down due to friction, might try to make the casing spin.

So would putting in 2 counter-rotating gyros (one on top of the other) be overkill?
Would it introduce more errors?


Also jackblacks point of how a millimeter can kill the test, since the drop height won't be terribly high is a concern. I had already planned on building a structure to hold it, so the drop height would be static..that is also why I said it would need to be the exact same object..one time spinning and the other not.

The most important point is to keep it the same.
If it is off by 1 mm, that would mean our number is off. But if it is consistently off by 1 mm, that would mean our number for both, the spinning and non-spinning would be off to the same extent (assuming they fall the same).
If it changes between tests, then we are screwed.

That is why I am thinking to not focus too much on the dropper and instead have it cross 3 points with the time precisely measured and the distance between them precisely measured. That way the dropping mechanism isn't an issue as once it clears that regardless of what velocity it has, it will be in free fall for the other points.

However, if done in air, it may cause issues if their velocities are somewhat different due to different air resistance.

I was thinking for my suggested setup:
A vacuum chamber or tube, with 3 sensors, with 3 m spacing (possibly be optimised to more square like numbers, e.g. 2.5 and 4.5, but not sure how important that is).
The item drops from above, passes the first sensor, with that time recorded as t0, it passes the second sensor (at distance x1 from the first), at time t1 after t0, and then the third sensor (at distance x2 from the first), at time t2 after t0, and then falls a bit more and hits a cushion or something to stop it breaking.
The acceleration is given by 2*((x2/t2)-(x1/t1))/(t2-t1).

I have also done some of the math.
They have a difference in acceleration observed of 0.032614 m/s (stated to too many sig figs but who cares), so we want to try and get better than that.

If you drop it from a height of 10 cm above the first sensor (assuming it drops perfectly), it will already have a velocity of 1.4 m/s when it passes the first sensor.
If you change that from 9.5cm to 10.5 cm, in increments of 1 mm, that changes the initial velocity between 1.36 and 1.43.
Just doing a bit of testing in excel, that gives an error range of roughly 0.01, so 1/3rd of the error.

Rather than trying a bunch of other things, I figured I would just do a semi-proper error analysis.

For addition and subtraction, add absolute errors. For multiplication and division, add relative (or percentage) errors.

We have an error in x1, and error in x2 (which depending on how it is measured may be 2 times the error in x1), as well as an error in t1 and an error in t2. As the final formula isn't dependent on velocity, I am hoping the errors cancel (and the error from above is actually an error from the timing). Also, due to counting from t0, the error in t1 and t2 is twice what you would expect, but not in all cases. (so rather than accurate to 0.0001 seconds, it will be accurate to 0.0002 seconds. (which actually increases the error from before to 0.0134).

So we have x/t, this means we need to add percentage errors. I will just let this temporarily be v. So dv/v=dx/x+2dt/t. (and the error in t is twice as much as you think, hence the 2dt).
Then we add 2 of these, so we have dvt=dv2+dv1.
That then gets divided by t2-t1. Each of these has just the error you think (e.g. the 0.001), because it is actually (t2-t0)-(t1-t0) which becomes t2-t1.
So dDt=2dt.
Then to add the errors in division: we have da/a=dvt/vt+dDt/Dt.
So that would be da/a=(dv2+dv1)*vt+2dt/Dt
=((dx/x2+2dt/t2)*x2/t2+(dx/x1+2dt/t1)*x1/t1)*(x2/t2-x1/t1)+2dt/(t2-t1)

So da=(((dx/x2+2dt/t2)*x2/t2+(dx/x1+2dt/t1)*x1/t1)*(x2/t2-x1/t1)+2dt/(t2-t1))*a

Man that is big and complex.
Could someone please check it.

Leaving dx as 0, the error in measurement using time which counts at 1/10000th of a second so it would be say 0.0004+-0.00005, then it gives an error of 0.023 m/s. Not very good. (but this helps explain their results, and of course, you would expect that error to be accounted for in their standard deviation).
So we need a better timer than them. Lets say counting in 10 us (1/ 100 000th of a second).
That cuts the error down to 0.0047.
Roughly an order of magnitude lower than theirs.

But now error in distance. Lets say 1 mm.
That increases our error up to 0.044. Above their difference.
So we need the distance controlled to better than 1 mm. Lets try 0.1 mm.
That gives us an error of 0.009. Still not great, but better than theirs and hopefully enough to detect the difference they have.
If we cut the timing back to 4 us, that gives us an error of 0.005, which I think is getting to an acceptable level.

So what this means is that we need a timer accurate to 10 us (keep the cord lengths for each sensor as close to identical as possible.
Use interrupts rather than polling, and all the interrupt does is store the time given by micros (if using an arduino).

And then get the lengths accurate to 0.1 mm
For glass, the coefficient of thermal expansion is between 4 and 9 E-6. So for a 6m piece that gives 0.024-0.054 mm per K.
So for a glass vacuum tube, you need the temperature controlled to within 2-4 K (or degrees C).
If you want to use aluminium, that is 22 so it needs to be accurate to within less than 1K.
Steel ranged between 10 and 17, so again, less than 2K.

This is going to be hard.

22873
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Vendee Globe
« on: December 01, 2016, 12:14:06 PM »
Check the tracking of the race, the two leaders are now two thirds of the way between South Africa and Australia. On a flat earth how far would they have travelled since this thread started? In fact a direct route would probably take them through Dubai like FE'ers claim for the direct flights.
Remember, these people aren't rational or sane.
If anything shows their viewpoint to be wrong, they will make up some crap to ignore it.

In jroa's case, that would claiming it is all a conspiracy.
If he did it himself, he would likely claim that it is a conspiracy and people moved the continents.

They don't care about the truth, all they care about is their insane beliefs.

22874
Firstly, your picture is confusing/wrong. (not sure exactly what you are trying to indicate).

The International date line, can be simplified as dividing regions which are +12/-12.
It is halfway through that region, as the boundaries are actually at what would be +11.5/-11.5.

Yes, when you cross that line, the date changes, but you are not travelling through time.

Yes. If you go from East to west, you lose a day.
That is because the time goes from say 12 pm on the 30th of November, to 12 pm on the 1st of December.

The same applies as you cross all the other diving lines.
When you cross into +11 UTC, that will put you to 11 am on the 1st of December.
When you cross into +10 UTC, that will put you to 10 am on the 1st of December.

And so on.

All you would be doing is changing what the time offset is for you. It isn't actually changing the time.

So this isn't travelling through time any more than changing the time on your watch is.

To get a better understanding, forget about the time offsets and instead just use UTC.

You start out at 0000 UTC on the 1st of December (which for your time offset of -12 is 12 pm on 30th November). You travel west, across the date line, and it is still 0000 UTC on the 1st of December (while your clock is now +12 UTC, so it would show 12 pm on the 1st of December).

Do you notice how the actual time hasn't changed at all. It is just your time offset.

In reality you wouldn't be able to go instantly.
So maybe you will take 1 minute to cross the date line, and go from 12 pm 30th Nov to 12:01 pm 1st Dec. (This can actually allow you to entirely skip a day if you do it just right, such that 1 second you are at 11:59:59 pm, 30th Nov, then the next second you have crossed the date line and gone to 12:00:00 am 2nd Dec).


But most importantly, just like so many of your other "proofs" against a round Earth, this works exactly the same on a flat Earth with time-zones (the most commonly accepted models now have those time zones).

So either this disproves both models, or neither.

22875
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 01, 2016, 11:58:58 AM »
That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.

So you have been indoctrinated into a childish, nonsensical fantasy and that is why you refuse to accept reality and instead continually pedal dishonest bullshit.

22876
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 01, 2016, 11:54:12 AM »
The people stating that Earth is a globe aren't hiding anything. They are merely accepting the results of scientific research.
People have reached space. No God came to stop them.

However, that is one of the reasons some people lie and claim Earth is flat.
Their religion, which was invented by ignorant people that didn't know Earth was curved (even though some simple thinking would have let them realise), says that Earth is flat (or portrays it as such).
If they admit Earth isn't flat, to be honest and rational, they need to admit that their religion is wrong.
But they are too heavily indoctrinated to do that, so when reality and their religion contradict one another, they discard reality as wrong.

Also, that's a great, often overlooked, story in the Bible. God didn't want people working together to achieve something wonderful. So he confounded them by making them all speak different languages so they couldn't work together. Remember, every time you learn a new language (or try) you are going against God.

22877
Yes this is a public forum and everybody can act as how he want. I can't stop your interrupting my conversations but you can't stop i ignore you. So i said it as an advice but it is not important if you do not care about my ideas, i do not ever care about yours. You were ignored by interrupting my conversation. You have a right to ignore me too as how i do or you can go elsewhere.

Yes, you can ignore me if you choose, but it just shows your dishonesty and inability to refute things.
If you were rational you would respond to my objection.

22878
So what kind of rotation axis are we even talking about? Vertical or horizontal?

I expect it is meant to be such that the axis of rotation is the same as the direction of motion.
So in the simple case of dropping a spinning thing, it would be vertical.

I'm starting to wonder if that may have caused issues with the parabolic trajectory.

Awesome thanks Jack, I was hoping you would get in on this.
Welcome to the FES if no one has said it already.

Thanks.

I think the biggest obstacle would be the large vacuum chamber. However I am wondering if that is really needed (other than to say control the structure) as we just need to find a difference between the 2 (or show it doesn't exist).

If we have the spinning object enclosed, such that the spinning and non-spinning one appear the same to the wind, would a vacuum chamber be needed?

It may require a more aerodynamic object thought.

22879
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH
« on: December 01, 2016, 01:43:36 AM »
Seriously, you just copy and paste/repeat the same crap.

You aren't trying to explain anything.

You even have to resort to blatantly lying about me.

The equation you linked to had nothing to do with the Sagnac effect.

Like I said.

Pick one thing to discuss (for example, the Sagnac effect), and explain it yourself.

I am not going to bother with your copy-pasted crap or your pathetic links.

22880
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH
« on: December 01, 2016, 12:31:34 AM »
jack black, you are just trolling around.

You are no scientist.

You tried to bullshit your way around offering the WRONG equations in the Sagnac experiment description.

Now everybody knows you are a fake.
No. I'm refuting your bullshit.
Very big difference.

I am a scientist, with publications. But that is irrelevant as arguments stand on their own merit.
So far you have provided no merit. You repeatedly assert crap and I continually refute it.

I have not offered the wrong equation. I don't recall offering any.

Which topic do you want? The Sagnac effect considering you seem to think you are so smart with it and it causes a massive problem (unlike the others which would just indicate some other force exists as well rather than refuting any previous science)?

You are trying to bury your opponents in massive amounts of text which require no effort on your part, in the hopes that they give in.
I'm not going to. I'm just going to ignore you massive amounts of text.

Like I said, if you aren't going to put in any effort, I see no reason why I should.

I am done with your massive walls of text with you just repeating the same refuted bullshit.

Lets pick one topic to focus on, and address that before moving on.
Okay?
Which do you want?

22881
You need to get it pretty darn accurate.
Changing the height of the release mechanism by 1 mm either way takes the time (using the numbers provided for the distances, and a as 9.8) from 0.661617806 to 0.662588965 s.

But of course, we are looking to find a.
They try it with d=vi*t+1/2at^2.
The issue is that this is one equation with 2 unknowns.

They try and get around this by using the accepted value for a to determine what the vi was, and from that the distance to the top.
But that requires keeping that release height constant, so they encounter the same issue. If it was a little higher, then the second one would fall faster.

My way around that is to forget the exact height at the top.
Instead, have it drop through 3 points and measure the time as it goes past each. That we we get 2 equations with 2 unknowns and can solve it.


It also requires that the heights all remain the same.
Again, a change of a few mm, out of 3.24 m is enough to get the results they have. So you need the length controlled to a factor of 0.1% at leas (for these lengths)

22882
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I thought perpetual motion didn't exist.
« on: November 30, 2016, 10:20:56 PM »
"Without the science behind it, engineering is effectively nothing. You need the scientific foundation to build upon with engineering."  Yes JackBlack, that's what I meant, Engineering is applied science, the science behind it has to work or the machine, or whatever it is, will not work...again, the proof is in the pudding, if the machine works the science is sound, there is no debate...now if the machine starts to run and then explodes then there is a problem with the science. I wasn't implying that there weren't any other scientists that have had valuable contributions to society, that is obviously a ridiculous notion, I just think Tesla was in a class all by himself, that's my opinion, I'm sure there are those who would disagree and that's just fine.

I apologise.
I misunderstood what you meant.

22883
Why doesn't the air pour off the sides?
Because it's frozen and creates a barrier from floor to ceiling.

Why doesn't this alleged frozen air reaching to an alleged ceiling sublimate into the vacuum of space?
The so called vacuum of space beyond the frozen dome would contain NOTHING.
To understand it, all you have to do is look into how liquids react when placed inside a chamber with atmosphere evacuated to extreme low pressures.

Yes, which shows that the ice would sublimate (over time), and not act as an impenetrable barrier locking the atmosphere in.

As such, this problem would exist for a round and flat Earth. But a flat Earth doesn't have gravity to explain it.

22884
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH
« on: November 30, 2016, 02:23:29 PM »
2 posts due to the extent of your crap.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.

How about you try and explain what that means, and what would be observed for the orbit (using math).
Not copy and paste. You explain it yourself.

Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.
Record, or correct for only to undo the correction for Earth?

If such had been the case, do you really think that the editors at the British Scientific Research Association Journal would have even taken into consideration the publication of Dr. DePalma's paper?
You are yet to prove they published it or even exist.

i.e. they do not need to be adjusted to the sun centred reference frame.
As such, the orbital motion around the sun can be ignored.


To show the utter nonsense of this statement, I will go to even greater lengths.

By doing what you always do. Put in no effort and just link and copy loads of crap.
Which I will just dismiss as a load of crap.

Try addressing my arguments rather than repeatedly copying and pasting crap which doesn't even come close.

The assembly then was given a precisely measured thrust and photographed in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light.

A precisely calculated beforehand thrust of the assembly was used.

Really?
They carefully calculated the thrust his hand and the spinning cup would impart, including any possible bending of his wrist?

The assembly was released by hand, but the entire setup had a precise momentum/projection angle, as was verified by the editors of the journal.
Prove it. So far all you have are baseless claims.

My previous answer still stands correct.

If such had been the case, do you really think that the editors at the British Scientific Research Association Journal would have even taken into consideration the publication of Dr. DePalma's paper?

No. Your previous answer still stands as a bullshit deflection ignoring the argument.
Do these editors even exist?
You are yet to prove that.

Also, are you aware the editors for nature communications once let in a paper with a serious of photoshopped TEM images?

You simply do not understand the business of scientific journals.

They are in constant competition with one another.

The British Scientific Research Association Journal would have become the laughing stock of the entire scientific world, by publishing an experiment where the thrust was similar to that of throwing tennis balls into the air (what you are implying).

Some publish complete crap.

Instead it is just a no-body that can't even be shown to exist.

[quote author=sandokhan link=topic=68459.msg1841891#msg1841891 date=1480432574
None other than Dr. Edward Purcell also checked out DePalma's experiment, and Dr. Purcell was the leading Harvard physicist at that time.
[/quote]
And that is just another baseless claim.

You are missing the moral of the story.

The moral of the story is that in order to defend your bullshit, you are resorting to spouting pure bullshit with no proof at all and continually failing to address serious issues raised by your bullshit.

The fact that Newton’s laws do not distinguish between the spinning and the non-rotating
object.
Which not even this experiment demonstrated was false.

Gravitons are NOT electrically neutral: they come in pairs, the dextrorotatory subquark/magnetic monopole causes terrestrial gravity, while by activing the laevorotatory subquark (by torsion, DePalma/Kozyrev experiments, by electricity, Biefeld-Brown-Nipher effect, by sound, cymatics) we can access the antigravitational force, the missing holy grail of modern physics.
1 - Prove it.
2 - Notice how now you are accepting that gravity is real?

Your first task at hand, since you like to investigate margins of error, would be to find out how Kepler faked/forged his ENTIRE SET OF DATA on planet Mars.
Why? So you can continue to deflect and refuse to defend your crap?

There are no margins of error in the DePalma experiment: do you understand what that means?
I understand. It means he didn't bother with any margins of error as it would show his experiment to be crap without a conclusion. It wouldn't be a null result, it would be no result.

Unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!
Yes, because they were not launched identically.

In the gyrodrop experiment you have to understand that it takes a certain period of time for the ether strings to accumulate/resonate with the spinning gyroscope.
Which would have had to occur for all experiments/runs, and doesn't explain why the first few runs it went slower.

If we eliminate the first runs, the statistical data will show exactly the existence of ether.
i.e. if you ignore the results that disagree with your conclusion you get the conclusion you want.
That is pure dishonesty, and will be dismissed as such.

Even if we add the other runs, the authors do specify:

On the basis of the Standard Deviations of the data from this experiment, one can say with a 97% level of confidence that a fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.
And as I explained, if they only did the first 2 runs for the experiment, they would have a 99.7% confidence level that it falls slower.
If you cut them off at 7 runs each, for an honest result. You have a 83% confidence level.

It appears to be a very dishonest experiment where they got a result they liked, and then kept running the other experiment to boost the confidence level.

If you generate a set of random numbers in the same way, you can get a nice high confidence interval.

And there is no mention of the actual error of their setup.

The simple fact is that the results are the same within error.

Runs 3-7 simply were not supposed to happen within the framework of newtonian mechanics.
No. With the result of random errors within experiments they were.

You are ever ready to call others "stupid", "moron", and the like.
Yes. When people repeatedly act stupid I will be ready to point it out.

Yet, you have shown here in front of everyone, that you do not understand the meaning of the Sagnac experiment.
No. I have shown that I do understand it, while you just repeat the same crap without addressing any of my concerns.

And I'm not going to bother with your copy-paste or links.

Explain it yourself or otherwise I will conclude you are just copying crap which you don't understand.

22885
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH
« on: November 30, 2016, 02:22:36 PM »
You are refusing to accept the results of a clearly described experiment.
No. I am refusing to accept your bullshit conclusions about this clearly described experiment, where the description shows they were clearly not launched identically.
One steel ball was launched from a spinning cup. The other was launched from a non-spinning cup.
How is that identically? (I'll give you a clue, it isn't).
Also, it was launched by hand, as far as I can tell, just once. Resulting in so many possible variations on the launch. If his hand jerked a little bit, it can give the spinning ball a lot more momentum.

And the photo clearly shows that they were not launched the same.

This experiment was accepted by the British Scientific Research Association Journal.
Yet you are yet to specify anything more about this, such as volume, issue and page number, and I can find nothing on it. I can't even find any evidence of the British Scientific Research Association Journal even existing. As such, I will dismiss this as just another baseless bullshit claim.
So stop appealing to it.

Even if it was true, it is still just a baseless appeal to authority. You are yet to even try to answer my objections.

I will skip over your repeat of the same crap.

The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.
NO IT WASN'T.

The result is pure bullshit, and even if it wasn't, it would just show some other force acting as well. It doesn't magically mean gravity is violated.

Do you also think a parachute disproves gravity?
How about just holding something up with your hand, or with flowing air?

You cannot complain about the momentum imparted by the cup, using baseless accusations.
Yes. I can.
It is not a baseless accusation. It is a serious issue with the design of the experiment.

You FAILED to address the gyroscope experiments performed by Dr. Kozyrev and which do verify the DePalma experiment.
You mean the experiment that shows the results are the same within error, the selective choice of choosing more runs for one experiment than the other, you picking and choosing which runs to focus on?

Pretty sure I pointed out all that crap.

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.
N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories.
Kozyrev torsion fields: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html
Except, it didn't.
From your link:
Quote
It should be noted that reports stating that the weight of a spinning gyroscope does not change are also known. Analysis of these reports shows that experimenters have simply not fulfilled the conditions required to achieve the expected effect. N.A.Kozyrev, A.I.Veinik and other researchers who obsered the change of weight emphasized repeatedly that the rotation must be non-stationary. For instance, N.A.Kozyrev and A.I.Veinik used special vibrations, and H.Hayasaka experimented with moving (falling) gyroscopes
So it isn't the spinning which is causing an apparent variation in weight, it is repeatedly vibrating it.
Vibrations are known to upset balances and can cause an error in the reading.

So no, once again, it doesn't show that the spinning gyroscope has a different weight. Instead, it shows the exact opposite, that a spinning gyroscope has the same weight as a non-spinning one.
And due to one source mentioned (the falling gyroscope crap), I suspect these "small" differences are within experimental uncertainty as well.

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.
Yet more baseless claims.

You cannot DENY the Galaev ether drift experiments: they are real and do prove the existence of ether.
I don't need to deny them. I am sure they were real test. They just had flaws and did not prove the existence of aether or its drift.
In order to control for various things, you would need to effectively block out the aether.

And skipping over your copy-paste.

The charge produces an electric field, which interacts with other charges resulting in a thrust.
In the atmosphere, it will interact with air, with the field drawing particles to it due to an induced dipole, transferring charge to the particle and pushing it away or towards the other electrode.
In a vacuum, there are still particles which can then still be ionised and pushed away.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL ATTRACTION?
Yes. Do you? Because you are sounding like a complete moron.

The universal law of gravitation states that objects are attracted to one another with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The constant of proportionality is known as G, the universal gravitational constant, which I don't know off the top of my head.

If you do, then you will understand that the Biefeld-Brown effect CONTRADICTS/DEFIES/VIOLATES this supposed law of attractive gravitation.
No. It doesn't.
That is akin to saying holding something up violates gravity.
It is merely an additional force. A force which counters the force of gravity.
So no, it doesn't violate it.

FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE CAPACITOR, in full vacuum, this same capacitor ROTATED (in the Gravitec experiment) or THRUSTED UPWARDS (in the T. Brown experiment performed in France) in full defiance of Newtonian mechanics.
BULLSHIT.

Full vacuum is impossible. Even very high vacuums (and thus low pressure) have particles in it.

We are being told that GRAVITY is NOT related to ELECTRICITY.
No. Currently the link between gravity and electricity is unknown. People are trying to formulate theories of everything which tie the 2 together.

Using ONLY the force of electricity, GRAVITY WAS DEFIED, a clear antigravitational effect was being measured.
No. Not defied, overcome. There is a big difference.
Using only the power of electricity, lifts (or elevators) overcome gravity every day, numerous times a day.

An additional force does not magically mean gravity no longer exists.

There are no more particles for you to rely upon in VACUUM to dream of an ion wind effect, no such thing will save your day.
Good thing they never achieved a perfect vacuum.
And then you have the issue of the asymmetric capacitor.


The motion of the gas molecules themselves will cause mixing without needing wind.

You have totally lost it.
No. I haven't. I am just accepting facts. Facts you need to outright reject and declare nonsense to pretend your worldview is sane.

You have no knowledge of the Brownian motion paradox.
Because there is none.

"Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.
Why?
This shows complete ignorance/dishonesty
Take a ball that bounces.
The reason it doesn't keep on bouncing when you drop it is because of energy which gets disapated as heat, i.e. vibrations of molecules in the ball.

Yes. Gravity attracts it, causing it to gain momentum. It then hits it, undergoes a perfect elastic collision (as there is no where for the energy to go), resulting in it bouncing off with the same momentum it had when it hit.
In order for gravity to stop it, it needs to get rid of that momentum, but then it is just back where it started.

Gravity doesn't cause things to magically lose energy.

There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction."
Again showing ignorance/misunderstanding/dishonesty.
The conversion is 2 way. The translation motion can be converted to vibration motion and it can be converted back. (and it only applies to multi-atomic gasses, not single atom ones like Helium).
In order for the gas to stop moving (transitionally) so it can fall to Earth, it would need to transfer all that energy into vibrational energy. But that will heat it up, a lot. This will then cause it to transfer vibrational energy back into translation energy. (just think, if something is vibrating and hits something, it will likely cause that something to move).

So again, pure garbage.

The moment the wind stops, the gases will be TOTALLY affected by gravity.
They are always affected by gravity.
That doesn't mean they need to separate due to their random motions and constant collisions.

Again, do the math, see how quickly they should separate due to gravity, and how quickly they would mix due to their random motions.

The other issue is all the space between them.
What would stop nitrogen, the lighter one, falling to fill the void between the oxygen molecules?
It isn't like a boat in water. It doesn't need to push the oxygen molecules out of the way as there is already a gap there.
As it tries to fly up, it will hit a molecule and be knocked back down.

No scientist at the present time can explain why the gases do not separate according to their specific gravities ONCE the wind subsides.
Plenty can. Even I can. You just reject it because it doesn't fit into your delusions.

I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out your bullshit.

You cannot use the Brownian motion argument, since that is a sure proof of the existence of ether.
No. It is proof of the molecular nature of gasses and other substances.
It has nothing to do with aether.
You really seem to like trying to claim that everything is proof of aether.

And you are still yet to provide a viable alternative for gravity.

This is because they don't have the kV of charge needed nor a power source to give them it.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
So? This doesn't help your case.

Also, at 0.01 mm in diamter, it has a volume of 4 pl, and a mass of roughly 4 ng.

If it falls to a region without water vapour, it will begin to evaporate. The vapour pressure of water at 25 C is roughly 0.03 atm.
At 1 atm, a mole of gas occupies roughly 22.4 L So a mole of gas at 0.03 atm (the vapour pressure of water) would occupy 0.672 l.
Now then, you have roughly 0.23 nanomoles of water in that droplet. (or 2.3E-10 moles). This should occupy (as a gas) roughly 146 pl.
So, if it gets to a region of space which contains 146 pl, without any water in it (or a larger region with a small amount of water) it will evaporate, turning back into gas, and rising again.

And then you also have the up-draft which got them there in the first place.
Due to their small size, they have a very large surface area (or cross sectional area) to mass ratio.
A piece of paper, with its surface area of 1 m^2 (on a single surface), will have a mass of 80 grams.
Some up-drafts are capable of lifting up a piece of paper quite easily.

Your water droplet, assuming it is a sphere, has a cross sectional area of 314 um^2 for a mass of 4 ng. That equates to roughly 13 g per m^2.
So if an up-draft can lift a piece of paper it could easily lift an evaporating water droplet, or even a non-evaporating one.

The droplets don't just sit there.
They constantly fall, evaporate, get lifted back up (either as smaller droplets or as vapour), and reform. This cycle keeps repeating until the water dissipates such as due to the atmosphere heating up from the sun, or until they get so big they fall as rain.

So no, they don't defy gravity.

Your explanation also lacks a key point, why they eventually fall.


The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.
No. They are made of water molecules.

I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.
Yet you can explain no basis for this electrical nature.

ONLY the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain HOW clouds weighing billions of tons manage to float above the ground.
No. It can't. It has no explanation for the source of the electric field, nor does it have an explanation for why it eventually falls as rain.

i.e. they do not need to be adjusted to the sun centred reference frame.
As such, the orbital motion around the sun can be ignored.


You are embarrassing yourself by showing that you do not understand the meaning of the orbital Sagnac effect.
Nope.
You are embarrassing yourself by repeatedly appealing to complete crap.

Again, I am not going to bother even reading your massive slabs of copy and paste, nor your crappy links.

Yes, there is Sagnac effect for Earth's orbit around the sun.
This applies to both the satellites in orbit and Earth itself.
As such, no correction is needed to keep the satellites in sync with Earth.

Until you can explain yourself why there should be a correction needed, you have no argument.
(Note: Yourself. Not copying and pasting crap.)

All you have is baseless crap which doesn't even begin to address my argument.

One more note due to just how often you repeat the same shit. It isn't based upon your velocity, but upon the angular velocity. For Earth, that is roughly 360 degrees a day for the rotation and 360 degrees a year (or roughly 1/365th) for the orbit. So the correction needed for the orbit (which again, it isn't as Earth is orbiting as well) is tiny.

YOU HAVE TOTALLY FAILED TO ADDRESS THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

If you just copy pasted a bunch of text, I would have just ignored it.

Like I said, you don't put in the effort-I won't either.

22886
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ULTIMATE PROOF AGAINST THE SPHERICITY OF THE EARTH
« on: November 30, 2016, 12:15:23 PM »
What if the Earth frame (lab,ECEF) itself were the absolute frame??!!
It is rotating so it can't be.

MMX misinterpretation: …” the Michaelson - Moreley MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion..

No. It did not detect any motion of Earth relative to a hypothetical stationary aether.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.” 
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:

No. A null result does not need to be 0.
Remember, there is plenty of other evidence that Earth is moving which you are ignoring.

No. It wasn't one sixth to one tenth. It was certainly less than one 4th.
That is merely in part due to the limit of uncertainty of the instrument.
They cannot provide a lower limit, just an upper one.

As for the later experiments, they yield varying results sometimes positive, sometimes negative, even at the same location, all with large errors.

Einstein said
Stop talking about what people said.
It doesn't really matter what they said or who said it.
Arguments stand on their own merit.

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.
No. It measured the Sagnac effect, which works regardless of the inertial reference frame you have chosen.
It does not show the existence of aether, nor does it show that either drifts.

there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain
both MMX and MGX!
It just has the issue of all the other experiments and observations which show Earth is rotating around its axis and orbiting the sun.

Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos
Which we don't.

I see you are resorting to pathetic strawmen again some other random guy that is definitely not cikljamas.

If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.
No. They don't.
The observed aberration is a result of the change in apparent position due to a change in velocity. It is not simply a result of the velocity.
For Earth's rotation around the sun, the velocity change is roughly 60 km/s. (in a simple linear fashion, i.e. backwards and forwards, making it nice and simple, rather than a more complex angular fashion).
This works out to an aberration of roughly 41.28 seconds of arc (using somewhat rough numbers, and a simple circular orbit, and the difference in angle, i.e. what we would notice).

The sun's orbit around the milky way is much larger and takes a lot longer.
It's speed is around 220 km/s. However its period is roughly 225 (small estimate, large estimate is 250) million years.
As such, over a period of 1000 years, its orbit would have changed angle  by 5.76 seconds of arc.
The difference in velocity would be a mere 6.14 m/s, with the majority of that being in the direction perpendicular to the original orbit.
The aberration we would expect for this would be a tiny 0.004 seconds of arc (assuming my math is correct)

Do you really think people had the ability to measure that accurately 1000 years ago?
If we limit it to 100 years, that drops down to 0.0004 seconds of arc. Do you think we can even measure that accurately now?
Our best space based telescopes can get to an accuracy of 0.001 seconds of arc.

So, give it 250 years, and we might have a chance or measuring it.

Otherwise you are relying upon us having magical knowledge of where the star actually is to be able to measure the angle from where it is to where we see it.

So no, it isn't proof that the sun is stationary at the centre of the universe. It is merely evidence that Earth orbits the sun.

However, this does raise a very serious problem for you. It shows that there is a yearly motion, not just a daily one.
So why haven't your BS aether experiments detected that?

And you are still yet to respond to the serious problems with your photos which clearly show Earth can't be flat.
Such as why so little of Elba is shown.
And why the mountains, in height order, would be Elba, Capraia, and then Gorgona. But in the picture, they are the opposite, when the picture was taken from a height between Capraia and Elba.

This makes no sense for a flat Earth, not even perspective can save you (at least if you do it honestly rather than using bullshit perspective which is just a way to compensate for the curve of Earth which then give you the problem of "MISSING PERSPECTIVE").

22887
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Size of the earth - wrong calculations?
« on: November 30, 2016, 11:26:32 AM »
All of us don't accept same shape. We need a research organization for a  complete proof.

I calculated it like this. But you are still free to accept everything.


The problem is your calculations are using non-direct flight paths, and using the times of the flights as distance. It doesn't work like that.

22888

I just gave an example about small powers effect low causes generally nothing. It is compatibled what you say but for a reason you are excited. In the otherway it is a conversation with another one. It did not suit you to intervene.

Regardless, this doesn't help your case. If this force is so tiny, why is it pushing boats (and everything else) down, rather than up?

We can find out everykind of reasons for we don't want to accept. Like jetstreams, refraction, perspective, etc. But these reasons can't change the truth.
Yes, you can find all sorts of nonsense to justify your flat Earth nonsense, but it won't change the truth.

Round Earthers (or Realitiers) have evidence and facts to back up their claims.
All you have is pure nonsense.

22889
A vacuum is not a force. It cannot suck. This thread can though.

Ahahah ahahah ahahah a vacuum is not a force. Ahahah you are true but what about diffusion? Vacuum is not a force but causes diffusision which stronger than your father gravity.  ;)

10 cm^2 vacuum take over about 500 kg. Calculate what does it do to you? It throws you out of other corner of your space.  ;D

No. The vacuum is not a force. Air is.

For a 1m^2 plate, air exerts a force of roughly 100 kN or around 10 000 kg.

Do not interrupt my conversations. Try to start another one.

This is a public forum where anyone can comment.

If you want a private conversation, take it elsewhere.

22890
A vacuum is not a force. It cannot suck. This thread can though.

Ahahah ahahah ahahah a vacuum is not a force. Ahahah you are true but what about diffusion? Vacuum is not a force but causes diffusision which stronger than your father gravity.  ;)

10 cm^2 vacuum take over about 500 kg. Calculate what does it do to you? It throws you out of other corner of your space.  ;D

No. The vacuum is not a force. Air is.

For a 1m^2 plate, air exerts a force of roughly 100 kN or around 10 000 kg.

Pages: 1 ... 761 762 [763] 764 765 ... 767