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 - RealScientist

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 03, 2014, 07:35:13 AM »
Why would you even care what jacket he is wearing?  He could be in his underpants and the distinction between being funny and being serious is the same.  You are the only one on this planet who would associate wearing the same jacket to doing the same job.
It is very simple for you to show you don't really need the tin foil hat. Show us another person with a similar jacket in a serious presentation. If nobody does the same distinction I do, it is very simple.

We are all still waiting for you to show Math Boyler doing anything other than comedy or graphical art. You have not even shown us why you chose him as an example of a whistle blower inside NASA.

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 03, 2014, 05:21:59 AM »
This is Math Boylan doing doing comedy.  Notice how he is not trying to prove we are being lied to and people are laughing hysterically.

He understands how comedy works.  You tell a short joke, make some noises, and drunk people laugh at you.  It is completely different from the first video I posted.

I tried to find the video of him lecturing in a college auditorium, but it is gone too.  Now, this video along with his two interview videos are missing.  Makes me wonder if someone from NASA found out about them.  They were there in March.
Care to explain why in both occasions he is using the same jacket, the one who nobody would use in any kind of serious presentation?

Who says Math Boylan has ever done a serious presentation? You are the only one in this planet who does. And who is saying that the lost interviews were serious? Only you do. They must be right by your tin foil hat. My suggestion is: put the hat on, check the interviews without any alien controlling your mind, and report back to us.

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 03, 2014, 04:34:05 AM »
Are you ever going to substantiate anything you say?  All you are basically saying is, "He's a comedian so it must be a joke."  A must equal B and there can be no other options, right?  Well, guess what, comedians do not just tell jokes all day long.  They have serious lives as well.

I bet you put your finders in your ears while reading my post and say LALALA, don't you?
What I am saying is simple. When a comedian is doing comedy, he is making jokes. When a comedian is not doing comedy, he is not, in general, making jokes. When someone like you is trying to look dumb and taking a comedian's jokes seriously, he deserves the title of "Town Fool" that others in this thread have placed on you.

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 03, 2014, 03:33:59 AM »
He made no outrageous claims about his employment.  In fact, he does not even claim to have been an actual NASA employee.  He only claims to be an Artist and that he was contracted by NASA periodically to do Artwork for them over a period of 8 years.  If he was simply making something up for comedy reasons, would it not make sense for him to have claimed that he was the Chief Engineer for Research or something?
Math Boylan is making no outrageous claims whatsoever. He is doing some comedy. He is being presented as a comedian. He is clearly and explicitly stating that his work for NASA consists in doing graphics.

You, on the other hand, are making one outrageous claim after another. You are the only one in this planet claiming that Math Boylan is doing something other than artistic work. You are the only one in this planet who claims Math Boylan is some kind of insider with respect to NASA. You are the only one in this planet who believes there is a reason for Math Boylan to hide his expertise in anything whatsoever.

Since he is doing comedy, he can declare himself whatever he wants to. He can declare himself "King of the Universe", or "Lowlier than an Amoeba", or whatever else he can come up with. Only delusional people, like you try to show yourself to be, find in his not inventing an engineering degree a claim to something.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 02, 2014, 08:22:46 PM »
You are assuming that it is a comedy routine simply because it goes against your view of the world.  Did you even watch the video?  He brings up many valid points.  Yes, he slips in a joke once in a while, as anyone who wants to keep the attention of his audience would, but for the most part, he is being serious and the audience is taking him seriously.
In the video he is presented as "Math Boylan, Hyper Realist Artist". and he is literally presented as "one of the best comics I have ever met in my life". There are lots of explicit mentions to him as a comedian and some to this show as a "show" and a comedy routine. There is not one reference to him as a researcher of anything, or as an engineer. Not even a mention to him as a technician of any kind. He is a graphic artist and a comedian.

And quite frankly, the only indication the audience is giving towards seriousness is due to the poor quality of many jokes, like the ones about Hawking's problems with communication.

Again, this whole thread only shows your lack of capacity or inclination towards making a scientifically sound argument.

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 02, 2014, 06:42:47 PM »
Are you saying that Dr. William Henry (Bill) Cosby Jr. could never have given a serious lecture or presentation simply because he was also a comedian?
I am saying that a comedian, when doing comedy, is explicitly staying away from the requirements of veracity that non-fiction works have. He or she can use sarcasm, invent totally fictional stories with real life people in them, or just about anything that a reasonable person would consider artistic freedom.

Whatever you consider a serious message or an attempt at a joke in Bill Cosby's comedies, that is up to you. That is called "artistic freedom". If he ever did any lectures in his capacity as honorary Doctor in Education, he surely was evaluated in that capacity, and the lecture was clearly publicized as such.

On the other hand, you are showing all of us that you are willing to take comedy as a lecture. And you are willing to take anyone who never worked for NASA as a NASA insider. This speaks volumes about your intellectual laziness.

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 02, 2014, 11:04:25 AM »
Starman, I did not realize you were a psychiatrist and you had the ability to diagnose someone as "loony" based on a 45 minute lecture. 

I was asked to provide one name which I did.  Next thing I know, I am being insulted as not being as good at FET as TheEngineer, what ever that means, and all you can do to refute his claims of being a NASA whistle-blower is to call him a loony and question the licensing of the video.  WTF is going on here?
So, now a comedy show presented by an acknowledged stand-up comedian is a LECTURE?

You were not asked for one name. You were asked for the name of one whistle blower.

Or should I accept that String Theory is dead because Sheldon Cooper, the fictional character in another comedy, says it is so?

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 02, 2014, 06:03:28 AM »
What difference does it make?  It could be licensed as a Greek Tragedy and it would not change the message.
This is stupid, insulting trolling. Not only is he NOT an insider, but he is not even making a CLAIM, whatsoever.

Now I remember why I stayed away from this forum. Even in its lunacy, when TheEngineer and others were participating you got something to discuss. But now, this is what you get.

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 02, 2014, 02:05:35 AM »
There are already plenty of NASA whistle blowers out there.  Do a search on youtube. 

I am probably already on NASAs watch list.  Why would they hire me, other than to execute a trap?
Please give me a single name. A whistle blower is not a conspiracy theorist, he is someone who is inside the organization, telling us the outsiders about it.

There are some whistle blowers who talk about inefficient or dangerous practices in NASA, but not even one saying that the shuttles do not orbit the Earth.

All in all, your claim is pure bull excrement. The only lists you probably are in are not hit lists of any kind. They are more like spam lists.

40
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Mapping in the 21st century
« on: October 24, 2013, 06:52:22 PM »
The very article you posted explains that current maps often show things hundreds of feet (sic) away from where they should be.

Are you... arguing for FE? Which side are you on?!

That said, it's a neat project that I haven't heard about. Very relevant to my interests as a computer scientist, completely irrelevant to this forum (as it's entirely inconclusive, and in fact shows evidence of the current maps inaccuracy). Can I request a move to T&I?
And how accurate are the FE maps, if you even acknowledge their existence? In fact they have inaccuracies of thousands of kilometers.

By the way, an error of a hundred feet (some 30 meters) in a 12600 km Earth is something like 0.0002% error, much better than pretty much any measurement you can make with any equipment except for the very best laboratory equipment. Just to make a comparison, if you make a chair with the best equipment a carpenter can have you still have a 0.1% error in most measurements.

This argument (if you are not totally right then you are totally wrong) is probably the worst of all the stupid arguments you find in this forum.

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: September 15, 2013, 01:23:33 AM »
Quote from: ERTW
Great, so then it seems that if I remove all air from a container, and I have a small steel ball on a scale, the scale will read zero? If you agree with this, I will happily do this experiment. If not, please clarify your model. My understanding of your model is still that the air above us is pushing down on us, causing the appearance of weight. If I misunderstand, please provide more details.
Good luck with removing "ALL" matter from a container.

You can evacuate as much air as you want but it's still not enough to create a perfect vacuum, so any experiment you conduct, will be conducted with an atmosphere. The big difference is atmospheric pressure being much much lower, so any experiment done in that, will differ from one done outside of it.

You will never test anything out in a perfect vacuum, because a perfect vacuum becomes a non existence.
No matter. No life. No movement. No nothing.
Who said anything about a perfect vacuum? All matter? All I am looking for is a noticeable effect. If the weight even decreases 1% I could easily measure that. My question to you is very simple, is the weight caused by air pressure? If the answer is yes, then changing the air pressure should change the weight. If I change the air pressure by 10X, is the weight going to change 10X? What does your theory predict? Honestly, if I can change the air pressure in a container by 10X and the measured weight doesn't change at all, I would call that conclusive proof that air pressure is an insignificant factor in the weight of objects. Do you agree? If not, please explain. If you agree, I will be happy to conduct this test.
By trying to think as a true scientist in a discussion with sceptimatic you are barking up the wrong tree.

For sceptimatic, the atmosphere is a magic substance that transmits or produces the exact amount of force in the exact place to simulate gravity. It does not matter whether it is an atmosphere with some grams of gas per cubic meter, as we have around us right now, or an atmosphere of some thousands of molecules per cubic meter. Magic is magic, and the magician postulates his rules. If he wants to declare that a molecule per cubic mile is enough to call a vacuum "an atmosphere" then nobody will be able to get him out of his magic world.

In reality there is vacuum everywhere because the space between atoms is empty. Even the space inside the atom is almost completely empty. The great majority of the known universe (much more than 99.99999% if I remember correctly) is empty space between or inside atoms. The disgust that sceptimatic shows towards waves traveling through a vacuum is just the tantrum of a lazy ignorant who wants the Universe to care about him and his tantrums.

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 07, 2013, 06:55:35 AM »
Gravity does not exist. It is atmospheric pressure.
The tides are due to the same thing, by huge high and low temperature changes created by energy (sun) in the centre of what people believe is the north pole.
This high pressure pushes down on the sea as the  energy (sun) slowly pulsates down and releases the pressure on the sea as it rises. Also known as electro magnetism.
That's my thought, anyway.

Atmospheric pressure acts in all directions so forces cancel out
It doesn't act equally in all directions though.
Incorrect.
Please do not feed the trolls. We have dozens of threads with no more than "yes, it is atmospheric pressure"... "no, it is not"... "yes, it is"... "no, it is not"....

We are not just inundated with inane threads where only sceptimatic "comments" (a.k.a. trolls) the FE side, but we now have these threads with sceptimatic's comments deleted.

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 07, 2013, 05:14:43 AM »
What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.

I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.
Saying that scientists cannot measure the exact value of G is not the same as saying that scientists can not measure G at all or that the value of G measured is not useful.
Furthermore, we do not know any physical constant exactly. The whole charade about G being "inaccurate" without saying what is considered "accurate" is just a sophism of distraction. If we were incapable of finding G to a precision better than 50% or so we could ask ourselves if it exists at all, but when we have known G to a precision better than 0.01% for more than 200 years we can safely declare that it exists and has a value close to 6.67 x 10-11 in mks units.

And while we are critiquing constants, do you know what value the Bishop Constant has? Maybe somebody can give a value with better than 1000% accuracy? In fact, does anyone have an actual formula that we can use to calculate it at all? I didn't think so.

44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 07, 2013, 03:05:21 AM »
No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.
This is the kind of hilarious posts that only Tom Bishop can do. He destroys all the foundation of the FE "theory" in one simple, short sentence and does not even grasp the enormity of his contribution to real science.

As Tom Bishop clearly implies, we don't need any of the four basic forces of nature to be non-mysterious. We can work with them just fine as they are.

And just as Tom Bishop tells us, gravity is mysterious, not non-existent. Forces can be as mysterious as gravity or magnetism, pushing and pulling objects at a distance without us knowing how, and still be as real as the coin I am holding in my hand.

I don't follow. I didn't say gravity was mysterious, but not non-existent.
So, you are saying that gravity has every mysterious quality that magnetism has, but that gravity does not exist and magnetism does. Should we help you count the logical fallacies you are making, or do you want to count them by yourself?

PS. Of course, if something is clearly non-existent it is also non-mysterious. Like the dragons, once you are sure they do not exist (and never did) the only remaining mystery is... why some people were so superstitious that they believed they exist?

45
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: September 06, 2013, 08:36:37 PM »
No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.
This is the kind of hilarious posts that only Tom Bishop can do. He destroys all the foundation of the FE "theory" in one simple, short sentence and does not even grasp the enormity of his contribution to real science.

As Tom Bishop clearly implies, we don't need any of the four basic forces of nature to be non-mysterious. We can work with them just fine as they are.

And just as Tom Bishop tells us, gravity is mysterious, not non-existent. Forces can be as mysterious as gravity or magnetism, pushing and pulling objects at a distance without us knowing how, and still be as real as the coin I am holding in my hand.

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Strange Google Earth image
« on: June 16, 2013, 06:05:25 PM »
Here's my thought. I think it's a picture of a flat earth. Imagine an atari asteroids game where flying off one side brings you to the other side. This picture would require two cameras Flying from the center to each side of the screen where the screen ends the pictures are joined together.

Nanobot

This is how silly conspiracy theories start. There is absolutely nothing strange or unexplainable here. But even if there were, there is no way in hell you could demonstrate a flat Earth or a round Earth ( or a banana-shaped Earth, for that matter) in a photo of a couple of blocks. It is like saying you can see how crooked your aunt Mathilda has become from a photo of one of her fingernails.

If you want to say Google alters the photos, you will probably see some place that Google says they alter the photos. Big conspiracy! The conspiracists admit their alterations before even being compelled! If you do not like it that the shadows are similar in the two stitched photos, tell us what does that prove. The two photos were probably taken less than a few minutes apart, from an airplane or satellite flying above these buildings on a northbound or southbound direction. That is not much of a mystery.

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain retrograde loop
« on: June 16, 2013, 01:53:28 PM »
I do not agree that that alone falsifies FE, but it does falsify planets and stars that are very close.
I agree that this does not falsify a flat Earth. But it does demolish the models of flat Earth proposed in this forum. In combination with other evidence, this is evidence of something other than a flat Earth.

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain retrograde loop
« on: June 16, 2013, 08:36:52 AM »
It rathrr does. There is no preferred frame.
This seems to be a totally automatic comment where you push a nice phrase like "no preferred frame of reference" just because it sounds sciency.

In truth, people pay as much as 10 times more for some seats in a stadium than for others. And people would see a totally different pattern of movement of the planets from the Equator than from the poles if this FE "model" were true.

In reality people see the same movements of the planets from every place on Earth. This alone should be enough to discard and bury the "FE model" once and for all.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain retrograde loop
« on: June 12, 2013, 09:40:37 PM »
Penguin,

I'm saying that the tiny round Earth in the geometrical image of the planets' movement should be flattened and enlarged.  The cosmos moves in the same pattern ABOVE Earth.

Muppet Man,

No because the sun moves.  You have to consider all of the FET when speaking of a FE.  You can't mix RET in with it.

You are not including in your argument the fact that things look different when seen from a totally static, totally centralized point of view (as Ptolomey claimed) compared with a point of view that moves all around the diagram.

It is like saying that a football match looks just the same whether you are standing still in the exact center of the court or you are walking around the seats all through the match.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Differences in local acceleration
« on: June 10, 2013, 02:55:13 PM »
You weigh more on mountains irregardless of which model you subscribe.

I beg to differ.   Gravity decreases as you move further away from the center of mass,  so objects would be lighter on a mountain.
I thought the same until I researched the subject. Being on top of a mountain made of low density materials, like sand, makes you weigh less if you are on top. Being on top of a dense, rocky mountain makes you weigh more. The gravitational pull from the mountain itself more than compensates the effect of being farther away from the center of the Earth.

On the other hand, if you take a plane and pass above a spot on Earth at different altitudes, the higher you are, the less gravity you feel.

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain retrograde loop
« on: June 10, 2013, 02:31:37 PM »
Wow, look at that geometrical design!  If that is accurate, then I consider that evidence of a master Creator!  What are the odds!  Ok, so on a flat Earth, just enlarge the tiny Earth in that drawing to have a circumference equal to the diagram.
Yes, that is incontrovertible proof of a creator. The creator of a child's game called Spirograph.

According to Ptolomey, the point of view from which the movements of the planets resembles closely what that diagram shows is the exact center of the diagram. If you can imagine yourself as an ant in the spot marked Earth, you will see all the planets moving forward or in reverse with respect with each other, but always in a line (called the Ecliptic). If you want to see the diagram from below, as you would in a flat Earth, you would see the planets moving in circles around the Sun.

Now, ever since the Babilonians, or probably before that, we know that the planets do not move in apparent circles around the Sun. If you draw an imaginary line in the sky plotting the path of the Sun, you will see all the planets always close to this imaginary line (again, this is called the Ecliptic). Even Ptolomey, about two millenniums ago, had a better model of the Solar System than what FE'ers here have. It must be very depressing to be more than 2 millenniums obsolete.

52
Exactly. You have no intention of climbing any mountain, either physically or metaphorically.

You see you have an ego, as we all do, but you do not see your ego does not let you attempt any skeptical research. I, on the other hand, have done some real skeptical research. I even permitted the idea of a flat Earth to enter my head as a subject that needs evidence (for or against) and did some experiments. What a surprise, no experiments gave a hint towards FET and all gave evidence towards RET. And I am only mentioning experiments done by myself, without the influence of any conspiracies whatsoever.
I only have your word on this now, don't I. Mr ego.
That is exactly the point. You have spent months in this forum and declared yourself an expert in just about everything and done... no experiments at all. You cannot show a single experiment you followed through, documented and used to intelligently support any theory of yours. You do not accept what others have demonstrated through experiments, and that is sometimes good. But you do not fill that void with your actual experiments, and that is your ego telling you that what you believe magically becomes true, without even having to try an actual experiment.

Make a simple experiment: measure and tabulate just about anything about the apparent position of the stars, planets, Sun or Moon and check it against known predictions from real Science. Check whether the Sun or Moon are some 10 or more times brighter at Noon (or the analogous for the Moon) than just before dusk. Or just about any one of the many experiments shown in this forum.

53
I had an argument with Thork over this a few months ago, but I was using an example I have done. I was part of a group that weighed an object at sea level and then weighed it again at altitude (at the top of Snowdon) and we measured a decrease in weight.

He started by calling me a liar even though the experiment is perfectly repeatable with little effort by measuring a mass at the bottom of a sky scraper and then again at the top, then he started babbling about measuring gold and getting confused about the difference between weight and mass. Essentially he just flat out denied variation exists.

I've seen some FE people posit that celestial gravity could cause local variations though why they would believe in celestial gravity on 1 hand and disbelieve gravity on the other seems strange.
Why would it decrease in weight?
Give it a try, you'll be amazed :)
Some people are optimists! I have long decided sceptimatic is not going to try a single thing. He should change his name, since a true skeptic is also skeptic of his own preconceptions and, most importantly, of his own ego.
We all have an ego. If we didn't, we would have no stance on anything. You have no clue what I try but trying a weight experiment on a mountain will require me to go to a mountain, correct?

Seeing as I have no wish to climb a mountain and one not being anywhere near me, I'll have to pass this one up.
Exactly. You have no intention of climbing any mountain, either physically or metaphorically.

You see you have an ego, as we all do, but you do not see your ego does not let you attempt any skeptical research. I, on the other hand, have done some real skeptical research. I even permitted the idea of a flat Earth to enter my head as a subject that needs evidence (for or against) and did some experiments. What a surprise, no experiments gave a hint towards FET and all gave evidence towards RET. And I am only mentioning experiments done by myself, without the influence of any conspiracies whatsoever.

54
I had an argument with Thork over this a few months ago, but I was using an example I have done. I was part of a group that weighed an object at sea level and then weighed it again at altitude (at the top of Snowdon) and we measured a decrease in weight.

He started by calling me a liar even though the experiment is perfectly repeatable with little effort by measuring a mass at the bottom of a sky scraper and then again at the top, then he started babbling about measuring gold and getting confused about the difference between weight and mass. Essentially he just flat out denied variation exists.

I've seen some FE people posit that celestial gravity could cause local variations though why they would believe in celestial gravity on 1 hand and disbelieve gravity on the other seems strange.
Why would it decrease in weight?
Give it a try, you'll be amazed :)
Some people are optimists! I have long decided sceptimatic is not going to try a single thing. He should change his name, since a true skeptic is also skeptic of his own preconceptions and, most importantly, of his own ego.

55
Flat Earth General / Re: Space telescopes.
« on: May 26, 2013, 09:35:32 AM »

EDIT: I just thought about it, and I have to imagine that to anyone who has no clue about physics, normal sentences like ours must sound exactly like the senseless FET statements like "the sun is black and possibly a hollow electromagnetic converter". No wonder there's a problem...
Exactly. These guys believe the words have power by themselves and that by saying "the solar wind does it" you have an actual explanation of something. Never mind that, as you said, the force is in the opposite direction as the one needed, has the wrong magnitude and its interaction with a planet is of the wrong kind. If you can answer the question of what keeps the Earth in an orbit with less than 10 monosyllable words you call that an explanation and do not bother yourself with the fact that it is the wrong explanation.

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLASS in the sky?
« on: May 24, 2013, 11:27:14 AM »
DNS,
Those are all good questions.  I'm just pondering his claims and presenting them here for the rest of you to do as well.

Meanwhile, ponder another question. Do you have any idea how hard it is to do a glass dome? Do you have even some understanding of the fact that humanity has not got the technology to even design a viable dome that size? The glass would probably collapse no matter what the thickness you give it. If it is just a few kilometers thick, its weight will make the whole structure collapse. If it is hundreds or thousands of kilometers thick the pressure of all that glass on itself will melt the glass. In fact, there is no substance in the known universe that could resist the pressures involved.

We are not even capable of making a 100 meter long dome of glass unless we reinforce it with steel or aluminum.

And remember, we are not even talking about the procurement of the glass. Just the structural soundness of such a sea of silica.

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If The Sun Is Black...
« on: May 22, 2013, 08:23:09 PM »
Are you kidding me?  Of course it does. Because of one thing....AIR.  There is only 3% gravity in space.  So the rate of "fall" is much slower.
No, I think you are trying to kid all of us. In fact, I am starting to believe you are an alt for ... dare I even suggest him?

Gravity in space due to the Earth is anywhere from 99.9% of Earth's standard gravity to 0% depending on the distance to the planet. And you need at least a giant gas planet like Jupiter to get any significant gravitational pull from a gas. The air inside the ISS has a mass of something like a kilogram per square meter. All the air in the station is comparable to a couple of bars of gold.

That number, 3%, is just a number you got out of your ass.

58
Flat Earth General / Re: Space telescopes.
« on: May 22, 2013, 07:26:32 AM »


I did come across this a couple of weeks again that posits an alternative to the conventional gravity model of planetary orbits:

http://morethangravity.com

This is quite a transparent equivocation. You just rename "gravity" as "solar wind" and suddenly you have a theory. Unfortunately it is not much of a theory because it does not explain the moons of the planets, the Cavendish Experiment, or just about anything other than planetary orbits.

Also, we know what solar wind is and we know that it cannot pull the planets into orbits. It is just not enough, has no "pulling" power and has a lot more electromagnetic influence than short range gravitational effect.

In short, this is an attempt to hijack the real scientific work that discovered solar wind to lend a scientific appearance to an unsustainable hypothesis.

59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If The Sun Is Black...
« on: May 21, 2013, 06:08:06 PM »
RealScientist,

You're not very polite, are you?  Of course I read the answers.  You expect everyone to accept your answers without question.  Maybe you are a scientist or someone in an authority position but I could care less. We are all human.  I never said or implied that I believed they float like we do on water.  Would "hovering" be a more correct term?  Actually what DO you call what they are doing, Mr. Smartie Pants?  Anyway, I will never believe they are doing what you say they're doing until someone I know and trust, who has more interest in me than my tax dollars, goes up in the ISS.  Thank you and goodnight.
I would be thrilled to see you actually looking at the answers you got and analyze them skeptically. I know that if you really look at the answers you will not repeat the same argument about the effect of the air or the vacuum in people's apparent floating inside the spacecraft.

You are intelligent enough to understand that if the station orbits the Earth and the person is at the same height and velocity as the station it will follow the same orbit. Even if you do not believe that the station is in orbit, you can understand that this would be the result if Newton's Laws were true and the Earth were round and the station were in orbit. Work the mathematics assuming that the model of Newton's Laws were true and you will see that people would seem to float inside the station, whether you believe the station is up there or not.

It is you who wants to avoid the questions because your model of reality does not stand to much inspection at all. And yes, I am not polite when I think my politeness will look like an excuse for you not to do your homework.

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If The Sun Is Black...
« on: May 21, 2013, 03:47:26 PM »
Let me explain what I'm confused about.  The ISS is filled with air so they can hear each other.  They are moving at 17,000 mph but it doesn't affect them (same as flying on an airplane) and yet they FLOAT inside?  WHY do they float?

Even though you already received two answers explaining your error, you have decided not to read them. People do not float inside the ISS in the same way as they float in water or balloons float in air. In fact, the word "float" is commonly used in this context but not the best, or if you prefer, incorrect.

The astronaut is orbiting Earth, just as his craft is, creating the appearance of a person floating in water. The person is not held off the floor by buoyancy. Whether the ISS is filled with air, oxygen, water or none of the above (a vacuum) there is no buoyancy and it is not the fluid what permits people and objects stay unattached from the floor and walls.

This is a common pattern of thinking among those like you who reject science. Things have to work just as they work in your everyday experience or you cry conspiracy. The laws of Physics are the same here and in orbit. The everyday experiences are not.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14