Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stash

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 96
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dem Watch 2020
« on: January 24, 2020, 01:56:26 PM »
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1220445820505546755?s=20
Quote
“I think I'll probably vote for Bernie... He’s been insanely consistent his entire life. He’s basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from.” -Joe Rogan

Weird twitter leftists are mad at Bernie for not rejecting Joe Rogan's support. I'm not going to copy and paste the replies THERE ARE TOO MANY.

Interesting take here on why or why not the Rogan endorsement is influential:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jgep94/joe-rogan-bernie-sanders-endorsement?utm_source=digg

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« on: January 24, 2020, 12:18:08 AM »
Ok, even if infinite structure will have infinite gravity and will collapse, it will take infinite time to do it.

Ad infinitum!

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth debunk
« on: January 23, 2020, 06:29:17 PM »
I wouldn’t expect much. Typical Lackey, just standing on the corner, off his meds, shouting strange inconsequential non-sequiturs at random passers-by. He remarked on the trampoline gif, "Nice altered gif” without providing a reason why he thought it was ‘altered’ nor an issue with the content. Aside from insinuating something untoward about the 2 other fellows providing the ‘double-bounce’. Insinuating what? He chose not to share - Just barked that out. No rhyme or reason.

Proceeds to provide zero response to all of the math & science around rotation and instead makes up some garbled message regarding ‘entropy’ like he just read the definition of the word for the first time, thought it was cool, and has been running around all day applying it to any and all interactions/conversations - He said to the barista, “You know, according to the laws of thermodynamics, that macchiato your making me is the perfect example of a high order substance, heated, then devolving into a lower order…” A millennial service provider eyeroll ensues.

Now Lackey, how about providing a little bit more depth to what you may consider an argument that the rest of the world considers you just blurting out random words of disapproval.

4
I take it then your not going to divulge who did the research or where we can have a look at it.

I think the original reference point is this:

Cornu Spirals and the Triangular Lacunary Trigonometric System
by Trenton Vogt and Darin J. Ulness


https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3110/3/3/40/htm

5
A space craft in a 3D space orbit doesn't know the difference between up/down, horizontal/vertical, right or left and will remain in an orbit for ever, until new forces are applied and it will go off somewhere and disappear for ever. It is one reason nobody can win topic - my Challenge.
Does inertia work differently in space?  Are you saying that gyroscopes in space can't detect changes in pitch, roll or yaw? ???
Yes. Gyroscopes behave differently in an Earth gravity field close to ground than in 3D space, where the gravity field is completely different.
So gyroscopes in 3D space haven't a clue, what is up/down, right/left and forward/aft, etc.
Thanks for keeping this thread going. You are my favorite twerp!


6
Intertial guidance!
So does it establish your location, speed and direction in your orbit around Earth in 3D vacuum space (or atmosphere if a Polaris missile)?
Of course not! Fake News as usual! But topic is my Challenge! Try to focus!
Inertial guidance is fake news? ???  I would think that a self-proclaimed expert on safety at sea would be familiar with marine inertial navigation systems like this one:
https://www.raytheon-anschuetz.com/products-systems/product-range/marine-inertial-navigation-system-mins/

Of course, let's not forget that inertial navigation systems are still widely used in commercial aircraft.
Inertial navigation systems are useless in 3D space for crafts in orbits and for fast going missiles going up 500 kms and then dropping down again to wipe out the enemy.

Why and why is the 500 kms barrier you mention relevant? 499 kms INS missiles are ok? 500+ not?

7

- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.

The 'sponge' would only be compressed in one direction, from the top, in this instance. That wouldn't make the 'sponge' rigid enough to provide a suitable resistance. There's nothing underneath the 'sponge' for it to compress against. How might the levitating 'sponge' float there under the rocket thrust with nothing beneath it?

Quote from: Stash
- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'
By compressing the opposing resistant gas into being one. As above.

See above.

Quote from: Stash
- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?
By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.

Huh? Makes no sense. See above.

Quote from: Stash
Once and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.

I have and better than what's been shown to me.

What's the hold up? Show it.

Quote from: Stash
Why do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.
Because I want to see what you lot have from your own brains and without using obscure nonsense.

Lame deflection. Super lame. A debate losing deflection at that. Rockets in space just won. Sorry.

8
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.
Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating  a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.

Again, what causes the gas to accelerate out of the rocket?
If you cannot answer this question you have no case at all.

The gas expanding, in only one direction? The crux of the biscuit:

- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'
- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?

Once and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.

Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.

Why do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth debunk
« on: January 21, 2020, 11:59:06 AM »
I thought you were meant to be a non-flat Earther?
Did you use the wrong troll account?
2 - inertia of momentum doesnt work like that

Gotta love physics:


Nice altered gif.

Altered in what manner?

Care to explain the purpose of the movements of the two gibronis standing on the trampoline?

Hint - They are not just standing.

Apparently, you've never been on a trampoline with friends. You're right, they are not just standing there, they're bouncing him higher. What do you think they are going?

Example:



The first video shows how the bouncing kid stays within the frame of the trampoline even tjough the platform is moving. Cool physics is what it is.

I'll also answer, even though non.flatearther should understand he is wrong.

1. Do you fly off a merry-go-round when it is spinning? No. The Earth is simply not fast enough.
Horse hockey.

Meet a friend down at a park and go to the merry-go-round.

You stand on the merry-go-round.

Now, have your friend set the merry-go-round a spinning.

You jump straight up as high as you can go.

No freaking way you land on the same spot.

If the merry-go-round was being spun at one complete rotation every 24 hours, I bet I would land in the same spot.

10
This particular case is extremely interesting by Trenton Vogt and Darin J. Ulness



Modifying a few variables of course, but as a general idea.

What about these:


11
Flat Earth General / Re: Those search engines
« on: January 20, 2020, 05:24:33 PM »
Ah i see, a real sleuth you might say.

If one is to purport that the world is flat based upon X observation, it better be beyond crystal clear all of the parameters that went into the observation. This particular one seems to be lacking. As I expressed before, from their own video/observation, a couple 100' oil rig disappears from the higher elevation to the lower. It is not addressed at all. A huge commission in my mind.

Where did the Oil Rig go? It disappeared from the 500'+ shot on top versus the shoreline shot below.



Seems like we should see, on a flat earth, that oil platform right in the middle of the lower shot. It's gone missing at 230'+ above the water.

I don't take kindly to omissions when someone is trying to debunk a huge chunk of scientific humanity. Extraordinary care needs to go into making extraordinary claims. Here is not the case.

As for search engines, use others than google.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Universal acceleration
« on: January 20, 2020, 05:15:46 PM »
I see statements from geophysicists who state that gravimeters are seismometers on one side, and you guys who claim that only certain gravimeters are seismometers, or that "the gravimeters are seismometers argument is not thought out" on the other side.

Couldn't you make a better argument that, "Yes, there are variations measured in terms of what 'you' call gravity. However, UA addresses these anomalies by..."

Instead, you just perpetually shit all over science. Try making an argument that falls prey to the notions of reality and science. It would be far more compelling. How about a little more about how FE explains and conforms to reality rather than how you cherry pick your way to how RE does not. Your tactic has become boring, unfounded, and has lost steam.

Perk up buttercup and lay down why UA is better and more relevant than 'gravity'.

13
Whatever, my challenge is still on! Win €1M! Just visit post #1, etc. and the money is with you ....
You've been told "how to" and "propellant used" dozens of times but if you won't believe the experts, NASA you won't believe anybody!
So you know what you can do with your Fake Challenge don't you? It's not crewed and interplanetary space flight that's fake - it's you!

But keep chattering to yourself over here. It's not the company I'd chose but I guess you have no choice.
Well, the propellant - the fuel - must be used at the right location and time in the trajectory of the trip to the target and the resulting force of the rocket engine must then be applied in the right direction ... and NASA cannot provide further details. They just say that all was done ... but how? No answers! Actually, there is no way to navigate in 3D space. Spacecrafts (and ICBMs) can only be put into one-way orbits around Earth ... and that's it.

Where's the mystery? A quick search reveals this from NASA:


https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-23a_Launch_Vehicle_Propellant_Use.htm

And there's a whole lot more where that came from. What's missing in your mind? And be very, very, very specific as you seem to suspiciously slide the goalposts around as needed. We are talking a million Euros, right?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 19, 2020, 01:16:49 AM »
How can you have a globe orbit the Sun if the GPS satellites do not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?

How can you continually cite LISA, a NASA/ESA project predicated on a probe launched from a rotating globe earth orbiting the sun? You know you can't have it both ways, right?
What sort of hypocrisy are you aiming for? Citing LISA, irrelevant to the fact that RLG's measure the Sagnac Effect notwithstanding, yet you claim a rotating globe earth doesn't orbit the sun? You do realize that LISA is designed to orbit the sun, much like a globe earth, like this:



Is LISA real? Or do you need to rework your irrelevant citation of it?

15
Why would a corporation intentionally dump fuel over populated areas?  That sort of thing couldn't possibly stay a secret and would be terrible press for the corporation, as we can clearly see.

Considering many chemtrails operations continuing and they keep it secret, it will not hard to keep this one secret too.

If many chemtrail operations are occurring and this particular one has been front-page news for days, it seems it's not much of a secret.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 19, 2020, 12:54:14 AM »
No.

Multiple arguments, amply evidenced throughtout these years during the debates.

The paper you presented displays a formula which features the area. That is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

If you want the SAGNAC EFFECT, you need a formula which DOES NOT feature the area.

Can you comprehend this much?

SSB, ECI does not matter in the least.

SAME FORMULA APPLIES.

Do you see a different formula being applied by ESA/CALTECH? Of course not.

Your silly argument does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Stick to Earth?

Ok.

Let us now imagine that the Earth is the size of the path of the LISA SPACE ANTENNA.

That is, now the LISA interferometer will be located on the surface of that Earth.

What do you have now? BOTH CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

The interferometer will be subjected to both the CORIOLIS and to the SAGNAC effects.

TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH.

Odd that you continually cite LISA, a NASA/ESA project predicated on a probe launched from a rotating globe earth orbiting the sun. How do you square that?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 19, 2020, 12:38:23 AM »
FOG, PCMs, RLGs, LISA are all light interferometers.

SAME FORMULAS APPLIES TO ALL OF THEM.

That was back in 2004.

Now, in 2018, things have changed dramatically.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km....

The paper referenced by you is obsolete: the new data shows that there are TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

Like I referenced before, you're mixing apples and oranges. LISA and the study of Solar System Barycentric (SSB) does not change the findings regarding terrestrial (earthbound) RLG's. Two totally different studies. We're talking earth rotation on its axis, not SSB. So stop citing things that are irrelevant. What is relevant to earth's rotation on its axis is:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf

Your only argument thus far is the above paper is from 2004. I think you can do better than that, don't you? If publish date were an issue, I could throw out 90% of all of your citations. So try and stick to earth and what's relevant.

Stick to terrestrial RLG's, not FOG, not LISA, but RLG's. Clearly, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable despite what you claim.


18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 19, 2020, 12:06:02 AM »
RLGs register only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, but never the SAGNAC EFFECT.

I'm not sure why we have to keep going over this, but these folks disagree with your findings. According to them the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf

Stick to terrestrial RLG's, not FOG, not LISA, but RLG's. Clearly, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable despite what you claim.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 18, 2020, 02:07:06 AM »
RING LASER GYROSCOPES MEASURE/RECORD THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Ring Laser Gyroscopes measure/record the Sagnac Effect:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf

20
You're over complicating things, making up things, all in support of a higher notion. It's not like none of us get your POV. Rockets can't work in a vacuum because that upsets your whole denpressure apple cart. We're all well aware of your sponges, springs, and sloshings.

However, at the end of the day;

- You have no science, math, diagrams, nothing to support your notions.

I do but it doesn't suit people like yourself who relies on bringing up off the shelf servings to push out. This is most likely why you cannot think for yourself and grasp stuff.


Oh just stop with the silliness. We all know you don't have any of that, so stop pretending you do. You simply deflect constantly with things like, "This is most likely why you cannot think for yourself and grasp stuff."  We all 'grasp' it. But your 'it' doesn't make any sense in the real world.

Quote from: Stash
- You repeatedly claim that only being personal taste and feel witness to something makes it real, yet no one has ever tasted or felt or even seen your carbonite sun and melting/regenerating dome - Yet you claim they are real, hypocrisy at its best.
This is a different matter but feel free to make a topic on it.

Just merely bringing up your hypocrisy when it comes to only believing that which you can experience for yourself. Yet you have a massive reality prohibitive belief system that teeters on many things you have never personally witnessed/experienced. So let's not use that argument again.

Quote from: Stash
None of this is an "inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views," as you claim. You just hide behind that contrived hubris so as not to actually have to back up your claims.
I certainly don;t hide behind anything. I merely explain my stuff to people like you who actually do hide behind the off the shelf answers in books and such like, then peek over to view the next resistance to the mainstream view, find the relevant answer and sling it out there as if you thought of it yourself.
If you want to play insults then fine but remember who the parrot is.
I can think for myself.

Arrogant much?

Quote from: Stash
How about a diagram showing how the rocket moves. Your one diagram shows it never moving. And we all know that isn't reality.
Once you show me a diagram that you do yourself showing exactly how your rocket works, making sure you point to exactly what's happening to make it move as we are told and not simply put up a copy and paste of a diagram that shows absolutely nothing.

If you can do that I absolutely promise I'll put up a diagram...in fact diagrams showing exactly what's really happening with thee rockets and what wouldn't happen in so called space.

I'm willing to do all that and I'll do it on some drawing paper with a pencil and maybe coloured pencils and even explain it all in writing, then get my wife to take a picture of it so I can put it into the forum.

How's that?

That would be great. There's a 100 pages of diagrams for you to pick from. They are all the same. There are 100 pages of descriptions of exactly how a rocket works. They are all the same. So far, there's not one from you showing how a rocket works. So let's see a drawing.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 18, 2020, 01:06:12 AM »
Not anymore.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

Make sure to mail this quote to each and every physicist who said that ring laser gyroscopes measure the SAGNAC EFFECT.

RLGs measure only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

Yes, still more.

Again, you're citing LISA which is in regard to Solar System Barycentric (SSB), not terrestrial RLG earth rotation. Apples and oranges.

Your point is moot.

Terrestrial RLG's record and measure the Sagnac Effect. Stick to earth.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 18, 2020, 12:51:05 AM »
You are trolling the upper forums.

The formula for RLGs and the CORIOLIS FORMULA for LISA are the same.

Apparently, you are trolling the upper forums.

Terrestrial RLGs register/measure the Sagnac Effect according to previously cited papers. Regardless of whether you agree or not.

23
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
I asked you to read what I said.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.

The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.

Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.

I asked you to read what I said. You didn't.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero. If there was no force on the gauge, it would pop straight to zero. Something is preventing, resisting, it from doing so. That's how pressure gauges work and how billions of people on the planet, use, and rely on them.

How is this simple notion lost on you? If there is no resistance there is no measurement. But there is a measurement. There is resistance. There is pressure. It's so bloody simple. It's not even rocket science.
I'm trying to figure out how it's all lost on you.

You have to be doing this on purpose, surely.

You're over complicating things, making up things, all in support of a higher notion. It's not like none of us get your POV. Rockets can't work in a vacuum because that upsets your whole denpressure apple cart. We're all well aware of your sponges, springs, and sloshings.

However, at the end of the day;

- You have no science, math, diagrams, nothing to support your notions.
- You repeatedly claim that only being personal taste and feel witness to something makes it real, yet no one has ever tasted or felt or even seen your carbonite sun and melting/regenerating dome - Yet you claim they are real, hypocrisy at its best.

None of this is an "inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views," as you claim. You just hide behind that contrived hubris so as not to actually have to back up your claims.

How about a diagram showing how the rocket moves. Your one diagram shows it never moving. And we all know that isn't reality.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 18, 2020, 12:24:26 AM »
Yes, you tried this before.

Take a look at the date of the article: 2004.

Now, you and these scientists have to deal with the TWO FORMULAS DERIVED FOR THE LISA SPACE ANTENNA by Professor Massimo Tinto, principal scientist at CALTECH.

The same two formulas derived by ESA.

RLGs measure the CORIOLIS EFFECT, the formula proportional to the area, nothing else.

The SAGNAC EFFECT is much larger than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

What you have cited is all regarding the Solar System Barycentric (SSB), not the rotation of the earth. Two vastly different things.

From an earth rotation and RLG perspective, as it stands, according to the following the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf

25
Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite

You seem to think that gas is pushing upon the inside of the vessel at the front end of the craft. Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls,
 pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.

How so? Do explain.

26
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.

How so? Do explain.

27
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
I asked you to read what I said.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.

The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.

Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.

I asked you to read what I said. You didn't.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero. If there was no force on the gauge, it would pop straight to zero. Something is preventing, resisting, it from doing so. That's how pressure gauges work and how billions of people on the planet, use, and rely on them.

How is this simple notion lost on you? If there is no resistance there is no measurement. But there is a measurement. There is resistance. There is pressure. It's so bloody simple. It's not even rocket science.

28
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth rotation
« on: January 17, 2020, 11:37:44 PM »
RING LASER GYROSCOPES RECORD ONLY THE FORMULA WHICH FEATURES THE AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY, THAT IS, THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The much larger SAGNAC EFFECT is not recorded.

Apparently not. According to the following the Sagnac effect is indeed registered by an RLG:

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
K. U. Schreiber, A. Velikoseltsev, M. Rothacher

The Effect of Polar Motion on Ring Laser Gyroscopes
In an active laser cavity, as is the case for our instruments, lasing is achieved when an integral number of wavelengths circumscribe the ring perimeter. Since the path length is slightly different for the co-rotating and the counter-rotating beams the lasing frequencies are also slightly different in each case and the beat frequency of the two laser beams, the Sagnac frequency is readily measurable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156.pdf

30
Of course I don't for a second think that the earth is flat.
What I'm arguing against those that claim if the earth were flat they should be able so see...

Why are you spending your free time arguing with people over an issue that doesn't affect you in any way?

Does it upset you from an ideological standpoint?

Why are you spending your free time asking people why they are arguing with people over an issue that doesn't affect you in any way?

Does it upset you from an ideological standpoint?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 96