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 - FETlolcakes

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
31
Flat Earth General / Re: Is this video real?
« on: January 27, 2017, 02:36:28 PM »
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJvfW_5A6vE/

Please comment

Real? Ha.

Where are all the other shatellites? Unreal level of gullibility required to not feel only contempt for this video, it's creators and it's viewers.

As Rab stated, what satellites orbit below the ISS?

Once you admit your glaring error, please admit to being retarded and that the earth is oblate spheroid.

Thanks in advance.

Why are most flat earthers completely devoid of any sense of scale, proportion or perspective?

Because they're flat-earthers. See how that works?  ;D  ;)

32
In response to your retarded bullshit, İntikam, please watch the video in my sig.

Please don't breed you dumb cretin.

33
Flat Earth General / Re: The experiment of roof
« on: January 25, 2017, 08:12:05 PM »
You can not claim that something is wrong without revealing why that thing is wrong. Now put 20 dollars in your pocket. Perhaps you'll buy the gum with it.
Well, Mr İntikam, I can claim that it is wrong! Here is why you are completely wrong and it has no possibility of working.

The is absolutely no way you are going to even see 8 cm with an aneroid altimeter,  let alone measure it accurately.

You might learn a bit from the FAA, they happen to be experts on high accuracy altimeters.
Take a look in Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, e-CFR data is current as of January 18, 2017 where you will lean that the allowed tolerance on aircraft altineters is 20 feet.

Look at the dial of an analog altimeter:
Quote
The tick marks are every 20 feet. One could easily eyeball 20 foot increments, and even 10 foot increments (with the pointer directly between two ticks). Similarly the pressure settings are marked every 0.02 inches of mercury (or 1mb), allowing for a fairly precise setting of the value.

Digital altimeters are extremely precise (often offering one-foot precision in their display, and 0.01 inches of mercury for the pressure setting).

From Aviation Stack Exchange
An altimeter would be quite useless for what you want.

Now an ordinary spirit level is not nearly good enough, you would have you get a surveyors quality level, something like the Nikon AS-2/AE-7 Series Automatic Levels, with a telescope of:
Resolution power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AS-2/2C: 2.5", AE-7/7C: 3" (2.5" is 2.5 seconds of arc)
A 1 km distance would normally be levelled as a number of shorter runs.
The STANDARD DEVIATION in 1-km double-run levelling is about ±1.0 mm±(3+3)ppm).
The complicated looking error boils down to better than ±7.0 mm over 1 km, but this is not a local hardware store type of level.

Given a highly professional surveyor, you might manage it, but the altimeter is completely useless for small changes like this.

So now, please admit that you are completely wrong.

By the way, a geodetic surveyor can prove that the earth is not flat very easily!
He would just measure the dip angle to the horizon, as Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī did in measuring the radius of the earth over 1,000 years ago!

I wholeheartedly agree with this, İntikam.

Rab just destroyed you. My condolences.

34
Flat Earth General / Re: The experiment of roof
« on: January 25, 2017, 11:03:37 AM »
I think İntikam is a cave troll hired by NASA to make the FES look even dumber than they already look.

Exactly how many more moronic threads are you going to make? Each one seems to get progressively more asinine.

I think by the simple virtue of disagreeing with whatever İntikam has to say makes the other party automatically correct.

PS- Feel free to add me to your ignore list; I don't feel I've tried hard enough to get on there tbh.

35
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 16, 2017, 06:51:05 AM »
Anyone care to do the experiments under my instructions?

I know babymonkey has refused, so I'm wondering if anyone would like to tried it my way.
No problem if nobody does but it would give a good insight into what's really happening.

The reality is that density/mass displaces atmosphere. It also displaces water the same way...AS LONG AS IT'S ALLOWED TO BE ALLOWED TO FIND IT'S OWN BUOYANCY LEVEL.

The buoyancy level is dependent on how much trapped air the water CANNOT crush/squeeze.

Putting dense mass inside a container of sealed atmosphere and creating a false bottom to arrest it's fall is dishonest or at best, naive of anyone doing so.

What false bottom?

Let me make this clear because you've accused me of dishonesty several times now: both those videos are exactly as shown. Nothing has been fiddled with, or modified, or faked. The equipment was what I had lying around.

Quote
But here's the key.
The dupe by using the jug can easily be seen if it's marked correctly because there will be a very slight difference in displacement between the two dense masses placed into the container.

To the eye and bad focus, (which babymonkeys was) you will never see the difference because it's minor due to the false bottom arresting the fall of the object, as I mentioned.

I have a better idea: you do it.
If you don't want to do it that's fine. Just stop with the dishonesty, it doesn't impress me.

Again with the dishonesty shit - where is it dishonest?

The videos demonstrate very simply that the amount of water displaced by an object depends on the volume of the object. Density, mass, weight, whatever has got absolutely nothing to do with it. What's dishonest there?

Do your own video if you don't like how other people interpret your gibberish.
Density of an object is what displaces the water. It does this due to atmospheric pressure being displaced against the density of the water itself which pushes the dense object under the water and the more the object is pushed down (squeezed) the more atmosphere is released from the mass until that mass resists the squeeze.
Only then will you get a true reading of the entire density of that mass.

If an object cannot push against the atmosphere due to it being less dense, it will float and displace less water.

I honestly thought you couldn't get any more delusional. I stand corrected.

Of course an object floating on water is going to displace less water than one that is submerged. Who has even remotely suggested anything otherwise? That's nothing but a strawman. Not only that, that isn't even the argument.

You were shown, on two occasions, that you're wrong about density determining how much water is displaced. Now you're tap dancing and calling others dishonest for doing a simple demonstration that proves you wrong. The only dishonest person here is you.

It's a testament to how far gone you are. Anything that proves you wrong is incorrect and/or the person who performed the demonstration/experiment is being dishonest. You've had some laughable faux pas' before, but this one is turning into another scepti special.

To wade through your crap, let's just bottom line this: Describe a demonstration/experiment that can be done with everyday items which will properly demonstrate your claims that it is density that causes displacement and not volume.

Since I know you'll never do this yourself and expect others to do it for you (after which you will call them dishonest if the results are contrary to your claims), please just answer the above request as simply and clearly as you can.

36
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 16, 2017, 02:17:14 AM »
OBM destroyed your bullshit claims in a 40s video, scepti. Your ideas are that easily destroyed. Now all you're trying to do is backtrack to save face.

Displacement has nothing to do with density. This is so demonstrably easy to show that I can hardly believe you've tried to assert it.

Are you really trying to say that an 1m3 of cube of lead will displace more than a 1m3 cube of aluminum?

37
Flat Earth General / Re: Explain our tides?
« on: January 13, 2017, 11:29:21 PM »
BAHAHHAHAHA oh that is gold! TL is denser than a fucking neutron star. What an idiot.

Here's a clue you dunce: F= G m1 M2 / r2. I promise it's not witchcraft; it's just showing you to be a clueless moran. Since I like watching trainwrecks, I'm not going to explain why it proves you wrong.

Just keep blathering and avoiding questions like you always do; it's your defining characteristic sort of like your twin bot papalegbone.

Next up on TL's list of baseless, demonstrably incorrect claims: Newton's third law doesn't exist  ::)

38
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 13, 2017, 04:05:26 AM »
You hint that it's friction which is also resistance and then you say it's nothing to do with it

Um, what? I clearly stated friction has nothing to do with inertia, merely that friction is an example of an outside, unbalanced force. Nothing more.


Quote
and then go on about objects in motion straying in a constant motion without any energy applied to do this.

Yes, this is axiomatic. Remember how you agreed with how an object put in motion closer to the ground will slow down more quickly than the one high above it? Yea, that's inertia. You agreed with it. It took a while and a lot of tap dancing, but you eventually agreed with it.

Quote
It's silly. It's pathetic and it's only like this because it does not have a real life explanation that actually makes it work. It's fantasy. Imaginary.
Inertia is just like your gravity. Nonsense explanations that have no real life results but is adhered to by people who are gullible enough to simply accept the nonsense.

Nice little rant.

Heavier objects requires more effort/energy to move, yes.

Great, that's what we call inertia! We agree again!

Quote
They do not just carry on moving forever until some unbalanced force slows them

This makes no sense. You agreed that an object set in motion with minimal outside resistance will continue moving longer than one that is subjected to more resistance, did you not? If so, why is it impossible for you to deal with the idea that, the closer and closer we get to 'zero' outside resistance (and I know how much you hate absolutes, but whatever) , the longer and longer the object will continue moving? Picture an asymptote on a graph. Is it not a logical conclusion that, absent less and less external force, an object will continue moving for longer and longer?

As markjo stated, we may not be able be able to reach zero in the real world, but in a mathematical model we can.

Quote
they are constantly slowing down due to resistance.

Again, to ram the point home, if the measured resistance starts getting closer and closer to zero, what will happen to the object?

Quote
Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

Yep, ditto. This is why I asked you about the golf ball and why it continues moving after leaving contact with the club. If you agree it should continue moving then again you agree with inertia.

39
Flat Earth General / Re: I was told about meteor impacts on Earth.
« on: January 13, 2017, 03:54:36 AM »
Let's just concentrate on those huge craters that I put up as pictures. One's like that.

Ah yes, because it's far easier to wildly speculate about photos than it is to refute videos like that above, correct?

Quote
Now instead of you spouting off about BLIND belief, just understand that those craters beg questions. They absolutely require questioning as to what they are and what caused them.

Well, so far I haven't seen anything that makes me doubt that meteors caused them, nor can I think of any plausible reason why people would make up such things if they a) weren't true, b) having nothing to gain and c) happened thousands of years ago and thus have no affect on the here and now.

But hey, enthrall us!

Quote
To do this we have to try and make sense of them and not just accept what is told about them by people who do not know but like to pretend they do.

Still not much seeing much reason to doubt anything we not only simply told about, but have seen.. but sure, ok!

Quote
I could think of a number of reasons as to why they were caused, from the feasible to the outlandish thoughts that many would never comprehend.

Comprehend, or not entertain the idea because it's absolute made-up bullshit pulled from your backside with no evidence whatsoever?

Tough choice.

Quote
However, I want to deal with what we are told made them, which is space rock, or meteors, etc coming in at thousands of mph and impacting the Earth.

Ok, let's do it!

Quote
Now given that we are told the Earth is spinning at around 1000 mph, then the meteor could not come in like a dropped vertical stone and land to make a indentation in the ground like in those pictures, whether people say it was an explosion or not. An angled impact, which it would have to be in all cases due to the supposed rotation alone, would skew any rock and force it to make a impact sloping like dragging a rock along soft ground and watching it go deeper as it goes forward.

Ah yes, that hair-whipping 0.00069 rpm I mentioned earlier! Despite how many times this has been put into perspective, despite how many different ways this has been explained and by how many different people, it still doesn't stop you using the rotational speed of the earth as an argument from incredulity. 1600km/h might so impressive, but the Earth has a circumference of ~40,000km, which makes the former seem somewhat less impressive once put into perspective. The earth completes a full rotation once a day. That's not fast. Since you assert this would somehow cause creators caused by meteors to become distorted/non-circular, would you care to back this up from anything other than your incredulity?

Didn't think so.

Quote
However, we see  a round crater in all pictures, so we can absolutely rule out fictional space meteors.

That's quiet the leap you've made there! From A to Z in a single logic, reason and evidence-free bound!
Let's leave it to the rational people to view. That's all that really counts.
You can relax now.

No argument then. Got it.
Meteors are real.
/End thread.

40
Flat Earth General / Re: I was told about meteor impacts on Earth.
« on: January 13, 2017, 02:15:12 AM »
Let's just concentrate on those huge craters that I put up as pictures. One's like that.

Ah yes, because it's far easier to wildly speculate about photos than it is to refute videos like that above, correct?

Quote
Now instead of you spouting off about BLIND belief, just understand that those craters beg questions. They absolutely require questioning as to what they are and what caused them.

Well, so far I haven't seen anything that makes me doubt that meteors caused them, nor can I think of any plausible reason why people would make up such things if they a) weren't true, b) having nothing to gain and c) happened thousands of years ago and thus have no affect on the here and now.

But hey, enthrall us!

Quote
To do this we have to try and make sense of them and not just accept what is told about them by people who do not know but like to pretend they do.

Still not much seeing much reason to doubt anything we not only simply told about, but have seen.. but sure, ok!

Quote
I could think of a number of reasons as to why they were caused, from the feasible to the outlandish thoughts that many would never comprehend.

Comprehend, or not entertain the idea because it's absolute made-up bullshit pulled from your backside with no evidence whatsoever?

Tough choice.

Quote
However, I want to deal with what we are told made them, which is space rock, or meteors, etc coming in at thousands of mph and impacting the Earth.

Ok, let's do it!

Quote
Now given that we are told the Earth is spinning at around 1000 mph, then the meteor could not come in like a dropped vertical stone and land to make a indentation in the ground like in those pictures, whether people say it was an explosion or not. An angled impact, which it would have to be in all cases due to the supposed rotation alone, would skew any rock and force it to make a impact sloping like dragging a rock along soft ground and watching it go deeper as it goes forward.

Ah yes, that hair-whipping 0.00069 rpm I mentioned earlier! Despite how many times this has been put into perspective, despite how many different ways this has been explained and by how many different people, it still doesn't stop you using the rotational speed of the earth as an argument from incredulity. 1600km/h might so impressive, but the Earth has a circumference of ~40,000km, which makes the former seem somewhat less impressive once put into perspective. The earth completes a full rotation once a day. That's not fast. Since you assert this would somehow cause creators caused by meteors to become distorted/non-circular, would you care to back this up from anything other than your incredulity?

Didn't think so.

Quote
However, we see  a round crater in all pictures, so we can absolutely rule out fictional space meteors.

That's quite the leap you've made there! From A to Z in a single logic, reason and evidence-free bound!

Edit: typo

41
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 13, 2017, 01:44:51 AM »
Inertia is either friction or it does not exist as a force in any way at all.

That's correct, inertia is not friction nor does it exist as a force.

Inertia is the name given to the resistance of mass to changes in velocity, which leads us to...

If inertia is resistance of a mass to move then the mass must be up against resistance, which means it is under friction that has to have a force to move it.

No. Friction is not the source of the resistance. Inertia is a property of mass itself. That's why a greater mass requires a greater force to produce an equal change in velocity.

The friction associated with an object's situation may add to the resistance, but the resistance due to inertia is separate to that.
It makes no rational sense for very good reason. It's nonsense. It really is nonsense.

What the hell are you talking about? You agreed not a page ago with the concept of inertia. You agreed that a moving object will slow down faster when subjected to stronger outside forces than one that is subjected to weaker ones. That's it. That's one part of the concept with the other of course being objects at rest and it surely is (even for you) axiomatic that objects with a large mass (ie. objects with more inertia) require a stronger force/impulse to get moving than objects with a smaller mass (ie. less inertia). You accept this thus you accept inertia.

Given this, what the hell are you prattling on about? Now it's all bunk/garbage/lies?? You understand this is all measurable/calculable and has been done for centuries, right? Please explain how something that is made up bullshit is concurrently able to make calculable predictions in/about the real world? Don't ask for examples because you've been given countless before.

To preempt you, it's irrelevant if we don't yet know the exact underlying cause of gravity, so please spare us your dross about that.

I'm very, very sorry if agreeing with something in the mainstream has made you feel like a less special person but it's something we all deal with. Rest assured, I'm sure you'll get over it in time.

Quote
You people use resistance and friction in every answer and then discard it to leave a mass just acting independently of any force whatsoever.

As others have said, friction has nothing to do with inertia. It's simply given as an example of an outside, unbalanced force acting on objects. Enough with the strawmans.

Quote
Your own rational mind should see this as garbage but for some reason it's the same thing.It's a fear of going against the grain.

::)

42
Flat Earth General / Re: I was told about meteor impacts on Earth.
« on: January 13, 2017, 01:15:39 AM »
..and the convoluted RE subterfuge continues! Impact craters not caused by meteors? Then what praytell are they caused by, scepti?

Please don't leave us dunderheads in suspense; we need your incredible acumen to see through the ruse!

I know of course that you're not just rejecting impact craters caused by meteors because it goes against everything you prattle on with. This definitely isn't another argument from incredulity and another and this definitely isn't going to turn into another 50+ page monster-thread where you constantly beg the question and droll out needless analogies and give lectures about indoctrination and/or the lack of 'free-thinking'. Definitely not. The scepti faithful among us just know this won't be one of those times.

So, let's have it scepti. What causes these craters? I'd assume you would agree that whatever causes them, there are significant energies involved, correct? I'm sure you'll tell us how icicles falling off the dome (for whatever reason) will provide sufficient energy to cause such craters.
Before I need to get into what causes them I need to get into what DOESN'T create them and I think any rational person should be able to understand that an incoming meteor from outer space can simply drop vertical and make a round indentation, not to mention also having a supposed 1000 mph rotation to contend with.

Get your head out of the magic books and actually start thinking for yourself. Use your logical mind. Can you do this?

Sure, but I have no idea what the rotation of the earth has to do with this. What exactly is the meteor 'contending' with? If a meteor is on a collision course with the earth (or any planet for that matter), it will impact it no matter how fast it is rotating. Or are you perhaps trying to infer that the mighty-fast rotational speed of the earth (a whopping 0.00069rpm) should cause a distortion of the shape of the crater? If the latter, you are really going have to explain that one.

Lastly, why all this pretense about wanting to understand what causes them? I think you should just cut to the chase and tell us your thoughts because... well, frankly, that's the most entertaining part.

43
Flat Earth General / Re: I was told about meteor impacts on Earth.
« on: January 13, 2017, 12:38:07 AM »
..and the convoluted RE subterfuge continues! Impact craters not caused by meteors? Then what praytell are they caused by, scepti?

Please don't leave us dunderheads in suspense; we need your incredible acumen to see through the ruse!

I know of course that you're not just rejecting impact craters caused by meteors because it goes against everything you prattle on with. This definitely isn't another argument from incredulity and another and this definitely isn't going to turn into another 50+ page monster-thread where you constantly beg the question and droll out needless analogies and give lectures about indoctrination and/or the lack of 'free-thinking'. Definitely not. The scepti faithful among us just know this won't be one of those times.

So, let's have it scepti. What causes these craters? I'd assume you would agree that whatever causes them, there are significant energies involved, correct? I'm sure you'll tell us how icicles falling off the dome (for whatever reason) will provide sufficient energy to cause such craters.

44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's see if you remember this
« on: January 12, 2017, 10:46:14 PM »
I'd say this is a classic example of someone with a persecution complex. You fit the bill almost perfectly, JR.

Though, to be fair, so do most FEers, especially the colossal failure that is our resident-retard intikam.

I've had this discussion with you before, but what you have isn't a model. Not by a long shot. At best it's a hypothesis.

As JB has said, you are projecting all your bullshit on REers. Most of the threads on your model consist of you raging about people either asking questions, misunderstanding you and/or being dishonest. From an objective standpoint, that simply isn't true; anyone can see that. Sure, some have trolled you, but that is because you are so easy to bait. It seems that if you can't handle an occasional troll on an internet forum, you should stop using the internet especially to stop purporting an idea as laughable asinine as yours.

You can claim that 'no one has refuted your model', but again that's just demonstrable empty rhetoric. Anyone who cares about objective fact and evidence knows this. Your 'model' begins and ends with a magical aether which does whatever it needs to do for the model to 'work'. I'm sure people would have a lot more respect for you and your 'model' if you simply called the aether 'magic' and be done with it; at least then you would be being honest. Your repeated assertions about your 'model' (yes, using quotation marks around the word model when referring to your ad hoc drivel is required) being logically deducted is delusional gobshite. Let me demonstrate this with a simple question: have you ever been to the equator? No? Then how can you claim any of what you assert happens there if you've never even observed it?!

As another aside, what you think constitutes evidence for your 'model' is also delusional gobshite as has been repeatedly explained to you. You literally just shoehorn your 'model' into all the evidence for a RE and say 'it fits for DET'. Total gibberish.

In sum JR, if you can't handle internet trolls from time to time when you attempt to discuss your ripe-for-the-picking fantasy DE, you either need to give up DE for the sake of your sanity, or disconnect your internet. There are no doubt many more options but I just don't care.

45
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 12, 2017, 12:58:49 AM »
I'm sorry scepti, but I consider your 'response' a clear deflection.

You haven't engaged with what I've said at all. I'm not going to do any calculations because all you'll do is dismiss it out of hand a priori. You've done it a thousand times before.

The reason I said you appear to agree with the law of inertia is that you agreed not half a dozen posts ago that objects that are subjected to an impulse will slow down/stop more quickly if subjected to greater resistance/friction (ie. a force) than one that is subject to less resistance/friction. If you agree with this (and you did), you agree with inertia. It's not complicated.

So, would you like to try again and engage in the discussion this time?
I've answered questions related to what you said and will only do exactly the same.

How about you calculate how inertia works on the simplest form of an object.
Just let me know exactly what I'm dealing with in real science terms because I'm seriously none the wiser in knowing what inertia actually is.

Debate tactics again. Deflecting. Avoiding. Shifting the burden.

Yawn.

Anyway, you agree with the premise of inertia as discussed which is: an object subjected to less external force will continue moving longer than one that is subject to more external force. It's as simple as that. If you agree with this you agree with inertia. No denpressure needed.

God, I'm talking like such a dullard just so you can understand... and desperately not trying to introduce more variables into picture so you can try and muddy the waters further.

So, please explain what denpressure has to do with any of this. It's completely redundant in the examples I've hypothesized because the law of inertia explains it simply and completely.

46
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 12, 2017, 12:10:00 AM »
Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.
Nope. I'm a fan of Newcastle United football club, though, if that helps.

Moving onto my questions about your denpressure 'model', the only inference I can come up with in regards to my golf ball experiment is that you believe that the ball will stop moving the instant the club stops making contact with the ball. Is this a correct assertion? Do you really believe that?
I never said that at all. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this.
Are you mixing it up with me saying that the ball is under maximum acceleration once the club stops making contact?


Regarding the bowling ball example I hypothesized, since it hasn't displaced any atmosphere directly below where it's about to be dropped, what will the bowling do? Float? Still drop for some reason?  ??? ???
It will still drop because the ball was lifted unnaturally, meaning it's raised and held by an energy force.
It's now potential energy as we perceive it.

You state inertia doesn't exist. I'm asking why the ball keeps moving after the club makes contact with it if inertia is simply a hoax/lie.

Still on the golf ball in an evacuated chamber hypothetical, with such a low-pressure environment, we know there will be very minimal resistance/friction to stop the ball moving. Thus we know that, absent any outside forces, the ball will keep moving indefinitely. This is a logical deduction, which you purport to be fond of, is it not? We observe the ball slowing down much more quickly in an environment where resistance/friction is high, and we observe the ball being able to travel much much further in an environment where resistance/friction is low. Ergo, is it not logical to conclude that, absent any outside forces, the ball will continue to move indefinitely?

Since I can see your response coming a mile away, I'll address it here: I know such an environment absent of any outside influences is not theoretically possible, but that isn't the point here. The above deduction is a great illustration of Newton's first law of motion ie. the law of inertia. Evacuation chambers are a fantastic confirmation of this also since we can very effectively reduce external influences for the experiment.

To put the experiment another way, let's imagine we have a car traveling down a stretch of road at constant velocity of 60km/h. Now imagine the driver takes his foot off the accelerator. We know what will happen from here: the car will eventually come to a stop due to the friction force of the road on the tires, atmospheric drag etc. This can be easily calculated if we knew the variables. Now imagine the same car traveling at the same speed this time on a stretch of very slick ice. Again, the driver stops applying gas and lets the car continue on from its initial speed of 60km/h. What happens this time? Since we know the friction force between the ice and the tires is significantly less than the force between the road and the tires, the car will continue moving much, much further than it did on the road. Is this not a perfect illustration of Newton's first law? It seems we don't need to denpressure to explain any of this. In fact, we can make predictions because we can use calculations (gasp) based on the law of inertia!!

What calculations could we use for denpressure to make predictions about any of the above?

It seems to me that you actually agree with the above to a certain extent with that extent being that the less resistance/friction an object encounters, the further it will travel. To my indoctrinated eye, it seems you agree with the concept of inertia! We don't require denpressure to explain any of it! Hooray!

Glad you could join us in reality for perhaps the first time in your life, scepti  :D :D
To agree to something I'd have to know what that something is to agree with it. I clearly do not know what inertia is as anything. I really don't. I also do not know how you can calculate by using it.

I'd like you to do the simplest calculation to show me you are calculating inertia. No gobbledygook, just a simple explanation as to how this inertia is calculated to come to a real life end figure.

You see, I'm in no way trying to be funny here. It's more like I'm asking something like "so what is a black hole and how do you know." Only for someone to explain it all in detail then turn round and say "well that's the theory." And I say, " well there's no theory, it's imaginary and has no meaning other than a fantasy."...."No, no, no, it's there but it hasn't been discovered" is the reply.

It's bizarre and yet it's all pushed out as a truth, just like gravity is and special relativity and so on and so on. It's all nonsense as a reality but clever as a fantasy thought at the same time.

Baffle the brains of people to a point where they simply cannot argue for the truth until they can find out a falsity.
In cases like this it's easy to see it's meaningless but mass opinion (by severe indoctrination) makes it extremely hard to show people that it's exactly that.

I'm sorry scepti, but I consider your 'response' a clear deflection.

You haven't engaged with what I've said at all. I'm not going to do any calculations because all you'll do is dismiss it out of hand a priori. You've done it a thousand times before.

The reason I said you appear to agree with the law of inertia is that you agreed not half a dozen posts ago that objects that are subjected to an impulse will slow down/stop more quickly if subjected to greater resistance/friction (ie. a force) than one that is subject to less resistance/friction. If you agree with this (and you did), you agree with inertia. It's not complicated.

So, would you like to try again and engage in the discussion this time?

47
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 11, 2017, 07:55:52 PM »


I interrupt this conversation to announce that your sig caused me to watch Billy Madison over the holidays. I predict that every viewer is now dumber for having watched it. I award it no points and may God have mercy on our souls!

I apologize good sir. I'm sorry you subjected yourself to such dross. However, surely you knew it was only directed toward FE'ers, right?!?

Given that, I can't take on full responsibility... as much as I'd like to  :-*

48
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 11, 2017, 07:35:17 PM »
Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.
Nope. I'm a fan of Newcastle United football club, though, if that helps.

Moving onto my questions about your denpressure 'model', the only inference I can come up with in regards to my golf ball experiment is that you believe that the ball will stop moving the instant the club stops making contact with the ball. Is this a correct assertion? Do you really believe that?
I never said that at all. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this.
Are you mixing it up with me saying that the ball is under maximum acceleration once the club stops making contact?


Regarding the bowling ball example I hypothesized, since it hasn't displaced any atmosphere directly below where it's about to be dropped, what will the bowling do? Float? Still drop for some reason?  ??? ???
It will still drop because the ball was lifted unnaturally, meaning it's raised and held by an energy force.
It's now potential energy as we perceive it.

You state inertia doesn't exist. I'm asking why the ball keeps moving after the club makes contact with it if inertia is simply a hoax/lie.

Still on the golf ball in an evacuated chamber hypothetical, with such a low-pressure environment, we know there will be very minimal resistance/friction to stop the ball moving. Thus we know that, absent any outside forces, the ball will keep moving indefinitely. This is a logical deduction, which you purport to be fond of, is it not? We observe the ball slowing down much more quickly in an environment where resistance/friction is high, and we observe the ball being able to travel much much further in an environment where resistance/friction is low. Ergo, is it not logical to conclude that, absent any outside forces, the ball will continue to move indefinitely?

Since I can see your response coming a mile away, I'll address it here: I know such an environment absent of any outside influences is not theoretically possible, but that isn't the point here. The above deduction is a great illustration of Newton's first law of motion ie. the law of inertia. Evacuation chambers are a fantastic confirmation of this also since we can very effectively reduce external influences for the experiment.

To put the experiment another way, let's imagine we have a car traveling down a stretch of road at constant velocity of 60km/h. Now imagine the driver takes his foot off the accelerator. We know what will happen from here: the car will eventually come to a stop due to the friction force of the road on the tires, atmospheric drag etc. This can be easily calculated if we knew the variables. Now imagine the same car traveling at the same speed this time on a stretch of very slick ice. Again, the driver stops applying gas and lets the car continue on from its initial speed of 60km/h. What happens this time? Since we know the friction force between the ice and the tires is significantly less than the force between the road and the tires, the car will continue moving much, much further than it did on the road. Is this not a perfect illustration of Newton's first law? It seems we don't need to denpressure to explain any of this. In fact, we can make predictions because we can use calculations (gasp) based on the law of inertia!!

What calculations could we use for denpressure to make predictions about any of the above?

It seems to me that you actually agree with the above to a certain extent with that extent being that the less resistance/friction an object encounters, the further it will travel. To my indoctrinated eye, it seems you agree with the concept of inertia! We don't require denpressure to explain any of it! Hooray!

Glad you could join us in reality for perhaps the first time in your life, scepti  :D :D

49
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 10, 2017, 02:40:04 AM »
Yea, more of the same crap. Endless blathering; avoiding answering meaningful questions; more 'requests' to explain inertia/gravity.

Fellas, please stop falling for his obvious debate tactics. He's got half a dozen of you stuck in a never-ending tautology. In how many more ways do you think you can explain Newton's laws of motion and that inertia is a property of mass? No matter how succinct, factually-correct or eloquent you are in answering his questions about the aforementioned, the response is almost exactly the same every time.

I'd love to explain it to you but from what you've just said there, considering the years I've spent explaining and using all kinds of analogies and you haven't grasped any of it.

It feels like I'm talking to programmed robots.
Come back to me when you can show the ability to think away from your program.

Are you a fan of David Icke by chance? Just askin'.

Anyway, there's a very good reason why I'm not grasping the shit you're shoveling scepti and that's because it's empirically, demonstrably incorrect. You haven't provided any experiments or evidence of denpressure. None. If we all simply took your word for it, we'd be guilty of the exact thing you accuse everyone of every second goddamed post: that being an ability to swallow whatever we're told without question.

Essentially, you are asking that we throw out all the known laws of geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology all on the basis of your word alone. You. A proven liar. Some guy... on an anonymous internet forum. Yea, we're really the programmed robots you blather on about.

Moving onto my questions about your denpressure 'model', the only inference I can come up with in regards to my golf ball experiment is that you believe that the ball will stop moving the instant the club stops making contact with the ball. Is this a correct assertion? Do you really believe that?

Regarding the bowling ball example I hypothesized, since it hasn't displaced any atmosphere directly below where it's about to be dropped, what will the bowling do? Float? Still drop for some reason?  ??? ???

50
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 09, 2017, 09:17:39 AM »
Because energy was applied to elevate it and that displaced atmosphere by the object has just become a weaker resistance to it.

I've asked you this before, but why only in the downward direction? Am I not displacing atmosphere by walking forward? Clearly I am in your model because all molecules are stacked in every direction from the dome, yet the atmosphere doesn't push me back like it does when I jump up. Why? What's the difference here? This of course applies to any direction that isn't up, too. For instance, I can throw a ball at say a 45o angle which is again displacing atmosphere but it doesn't come back to me, it just keeps on going as far as its momentum will take it whilst eventually falling to the earth.

In your above response to the evacuated chamber experiment, what if the balls weren't directly hoisted up like they were and instead they were vertically lifted from, say, 10m from where they will ultimately be dropped? What would happen here? To elucidate, this would mean they haven't displaced any atmosphere directly below them, they've been taken to that spot from a horizontal position several meters away. What happens when they're let go?

Also, another question: Let's say we're in the same evacuated chamber with the pressure extremely low (eg. 1x10-10pa). We've set up a golf ball on a tee with an automated swinging arm holding a golf club. What happens to the ball when the club/arm makes contact?


51
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: January 09, 2017, 08:54:44 AM »
It seems weird how you people have went into mental overdrive over me asking you to explain gravity and inertia as to what they ARE.

Your delusions are showing again, Scepti.

No one is going into 'overdrive' because of your regurgitated drivel; if anything, it's more a long-winded sigh.

You have been asking the same questions about inertia and gravity for literally years verbatim. It's nothing but a debate tactic to both try to deflect the burden of proof which sits squarely on your shoulders (you're the one making the claim that air pressure is gravity after all) and avoid actually answering questions put to you in any meaningful way. It goes something like this:

Q: What causes this stack to push down in the first place?
You: <Gives a vague, hand-waving analogy with a healthy dash of ramblings about indoctrination/brainwashing/peer pressure> But what causes gravity?
Q: <Multiple people give reasonable explanations about gravity, usually with references/sources, freely acknowledging the exact underlying cause is unknown>
You: Not good enough. Explain in your own words.
Q: <Explains in his/her own words> Now, can we go back to the original question which you didn't answer satisfactorily?
You: No, because you're not telling me what gravity actually is. <More ramblings about lies/programming and further insistence no one has explained themselves properly>

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

Then we have your go-to card which is to run away from people asking follow up questions to the 'answers' you give them. If they don't agree with your given verbose, labored analogies, they're just too indoctrinated/brainwashed/scared of what others think of them to accept your evidence-free ramblings on an internet forum.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

As fun as it is to read your, errr- um, thoughts, about things, it doesn't stop you being a dishonest charlatan which you have demonstrated countless times on this forum alone.

I'd suggest to others to stop falling for his stalling/debate tactics and start to nail him down to his assertions. Any explanation he asks for from you concerning a scientific theory has already been explained to him dozens of times before and you know he's going to reject it a priori anyway.

52
Flat Earth General / Re: Do you deny this man?
« on: December 24, 2016, 09:06:36 PM »
Poor scepti... either so mentally retarded as to not understand what evidence is or so angry and bitter at the world because incoherent blathering about conspiracies/indoctrination and fakery aren't accepted as truth by thinking people. No wonder you're a bitter little tool.

Literally nothing you've asserted in this thread is anything more than your personal incredulity. That's it. Nothing more. You haven't even provided a modicum of deductive reasoning for anything you've shat out your backside. This is what you sound like to people who actually require more than incredulity and a lot of sanctimonious garbage:

Quote from: sceptimatic
WAAAAAA! I DON'T BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE TRUE BECAUSE REASONS!!! YOU'RE ALL SO INDOCTRINATED *&^@&^ WHY WON'T ANYONE LISTEN TO MEEE??? WAAAAA

You've been asked half a dozen times to present evidence and you admit you have nothing more than a gut feeling??? Who exactly is suppose to buy what you're shoveling, then? People without critical-thinking faculties? People who believe everything they read on an internet forum? People who don't give a shit about reality and will happily ignore it in favour of a nice-sounding yarn from a clearly delusional person on the internet? Yea, I guess any one of those types will do. That's your target demographic, scepti, hows it feel?

I've said this to you before but since I like wasting my time, I'll explain it again: Reality happens and exists independently of your ability to understand it. It doesn't care about your incredulity. It doesn't care you can't understand relative motion, a frame of reference or basic engineering problems. It just doesn't care, scepti. It's not reality's fault you can't understand these rather basic concepts.

You've made some rather fantastic claims about people witnessing space launches to say the least. You've strongly inferred if not outright said that even if a person witnesses, photographs or films a rocket launch, they don't know what's actually being launched... according to you, it's just something that vaguely looks like a rocket/shuttle, correct? That, to me, is a desperate claim made by a very desperate man frantically trying to shore up his belief about his made-up Ice DomeTM. No evidence, no deductive reasoning, just wild speculation not worth a brass farthing. There are plenty of YT videos of amateurs filming these launches and some are done very well with high-end equipment, filming the rocket/shuttles for several minutes after launch with some great camera work. Certainly enough to make out the rocket/shuttle in detail (check out Red's Rhetoric as an example). So, your claims about people not knowing what they're looking at/filming are summarily dismissed out of hand... but thanks for playing.

Tl;dr : Thanks for sharing your worthless, evidence-free opinion, scepti.

53
I HAVE A BIGASS SIG, LOOKIT ME!!!
I just wanted to say, as a fellow poster, your sig is offensively large. Please remove that stupid YouTube vid from it immediately, thanks.

It used to be a hyperlink, but the formatting changed or something. If you know of a way to fix it, by all means post it here.

In the meantime, build a bridge, as they say.

As an atheist, you dismiss all religious claims period. Evidence exists but will never rise to the level you will accept for similar reasons as to why an FEer rejects science. Not because the evidence is there or even in substantial quantity but rather because it breaches one of your fundamental tenets which ironically is... faith. In your case faith in your own self above all else.

Evidence exists that Jesus was the son of a god? Start with that.

I'll also note your sidestepping of my claim that you're also an atheist in respect to every other religion aside from your own. You also reject the claims of other religions (with prejudice, in fact), you just accept the claims of one.

Gotta love the insecurity of the religious... it seems they have a hard time admitting they rely purely on faith and have to make up spurious arguments in an attempt to feel more secure in their faith that the non-believers are just like them!

Quote
Ive asked this before and will do so again. What level of evidence would you accept as evidence of the existence of God?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Says it all really. This isn't some trivial banality after all. And guess what? The burden is all on you. You stupidly claim my position is ignorant and ardent, but offer no justification for this. Apparently, asking for evidence for extraordinary claims is unreasonable.

Quote
I know what you will say. It will be a variation on a theme and you will demand a level of proof beyond that which you would accept most other claims. Like I said before, this is not my first time at bat and I've heard it all before.

Ditto, and for very good reasons too. You understand, of course, that folks of different religious faith make the same claims of certainty you do, right? And, you understand that nearly all religions (of thousands) are mutually exclusive? This leaves you in the very tenuous position of not only declaring that your religion is true, but the only one that is true, correct?

Faith indeed.

54
and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?

You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.

Ouch.. hit a sore spot, I see. So, no evidence for your religion or anything it claims... got it!

Again, the irony of your posts. Let us not forget what religious institutions gave the world when it predominantly ruled over its respective flocks with an iron fist, whilst crucifying (literally) the non-believers amongst them. You know what they say about glass houses, right? Yikes.

Finally, are you implying that without the bible, we wouldn't know morality? Tell me you're joking. I do wonder how we as a species survived hundreds of thousands of years without any god/religion if we thought that murder, pillaging and theft were actually good things!

Another religion-derived logic fail.

The least you could do is get a basic education in history rather than the vain imaginings you repeat. The difference between you and som FEers is less than you would hope. They are ignorant and dismissive and you are... ignorant and dismissive.

That projection though...

It's ok though, I understand. Must be tough to end every conversation about your faith with 'Well, I have faith it's all true and if you don't believe it, you're ignorant and dismissive'.

As an atheist, I am dismissive of religious claims made without evidence.. sort of like I am with FE! If you call that ignorant and 'dismissive', there really isn't much else to discuss, is there?

55
and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?

You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.

Ouch.. hit a sore spot, I see. So, no evidence for your religion or anything it claims... got it!

Again, the irony of your posts. Let us not forget what religious institutions gave the world when it predominantly ruled over its respective flocks with an iron fist, whilst crucifying (literally) the non-believers amongst them. You know what they say about glass houses, right? Yikes.

Finally, are you implying that without the bible, we wouldn't know morality? Tell me you're joking. I do wonder how we as a species survived hundreds of thousands of years without any god/religion if we thought that murder, pillaging and theft were actually good things!

Another religion-derived logic fail.

56
If you wish to disprove that claim then it is up to you. I do not need to or want to go into yet another circular argument with the ignorant who are relying (ironically) not on science but on atheism.  I think we would find that the difference between ardent (and uninformed) athiests and flat-earthers is far less than you might find comfortable.

Of course you could address the actual thrust of the OP, but I guess your favourite hobby-horse is far more fun - like denspressure.

Yes, ironically, the religious folks among us seem to think there is some sort of burden on the non-believers to disprove their religious claims. The burden, good sir, has and always will be on the religion making the claims of which they all do. You claim the bible, in whatever capacity, has some sort of veracity, thus it is up to you to provide evidence for such a claim.

Speaking of irony, calling non-believers ardent is rather hilarious. You, too, are a non-believer for every religion other than your own, correct? Therefore, you're an atheist in respect to Hinduism, Judaism etc etc ad infinitum, are you not? Oh yea, you are. What were you saying again?

Lastly, atheism is the most rational position a person can hold due to, get this, the lack of evidence for every claim every religion makes, including the most important part: that being evidence their purported deity exists in the first place. Atheism is axiomatically the least ardent position.

If you truly think the position I hold is ardent or irrational, you need a bit of a reality check.

57
I still find it hard to believe that in this day and age, an ancient book of desert fables is looked upon as some sort of beacon of truth and the word of some god. It's almost as unbelievable as people truly believing the earth to be flat because it requires just as much faith IMO, not to mention a penchant for ignoring or denying the evidence.

I say all this to explain Scepti et al and their absolute refusal (and inability) to accept the real model of the universe and a spherical earth. It is faith. Pure, absolute faith.

Much like your faith that the bible is 'inerrent, the Word of God and literally true', correct? For the record, I don't think scepti actually subscribes to any religion or god. Based off of what he's had to say, I would lable him as agnostic but I'm happy to be corrected.

Anyway, that's all I have to add. Enjoy debating semantics on passages from the book of printed excrement better known as the bible.

58
Flat Earth General / Re: Pie 1......Dome 0
« on: December 23, 2016, 09:10:31 PM »
I think they're eating humble... pie! Oh snap!

59
Flat Earth General / Re: Forces of nature, Brian Cox - pt2.
« on: December 08, 2016, 11:39:10 AM »
Which means a helicopter simply hovering overhead is magically locked to the spinning globe with a invisible clamp fixed to the ground and is hurtling away from the sun at 650 mph rather than standing still.

Another flatard who doesn't understand the simple laws of motion.

This is the same as thinking 'when I jump, why doesn't the earth move underneath me at 1000mph???' Before taking off to hover, the helicopter has momentum because it and everything else is moving with the earth which is spinning (remember?). I suppose you forgot that objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an external force? What force is making the helicopter lose its momentum? I think you'll find, for all intents and purposes, there is none.

There is no magic here to anyone with even the slightest rudimentary understanding of Newton's laws of motion. But, since you're apparently a FE'er, all of these grade-school concepts have to be explained to you.

60
Guys, best not to feed the very obviously broken bot. It's only going to spew the same refuted garbage it's been crapping out for many months now. It has been debunked at least 20 times in this thread alone; nevermind the other 90+ page monstrosity where I'm sure the number of debunks reached quadruple digits.

Best to report a fault and hope for a service call. Cross your fingers that whoever gets around to it might actually load up a working knowledge of physics, at least to a 3rd grade level, then we all might expect a wholehearted, unreserved apology from it and an admittance that there isn't some wacky global conspiracy from space agencies to hide the twoof that rockets can't work in a vacuum.

... one can dream, right? :D

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8