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 - macrohard

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
91
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Really?
« on: August 17, 2014, 03:47:49 PM »
Satellite signals operate at extremely high frequency.  This is necessary for the amount of data that is transmitted.  FM works great for low fidelity audio but doesn't cut it for HD video and such.

Higher the frequency, the less it can bend around corners.  Satellites require close to direct line of sight for this reason.

92
It is also worth noting that the glass ceiling, by his calculation of .008 miles, is about 42 feet above the surface.

Perhaps he meant 8 miles.  Even 0.8 is overcome by modest mountains.

93
down to a maximum of about a 1:205,482,893,205,482,893,803 ratio

It is generally safe to omit the word "about" when you have 21 significant figures.

94
The vast majority of materials actually grow when heated (thermal expansion).  There are very few exceptions, mostly occurring during phase transitions (FCC to BCC, for example).

As for the rest of my feedback, please refer to the previous two posts.

95
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Open minds are welcomed, others should move on
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:55:06 PM »
I can't get enough of this forum.

96
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: August 01, 2014, 04:14:48 PM »
Scepti, how I love reading about your ideas...
You say there are no "pull" forces, only "push" ones. How does this cope with magnetism/electrostatics? Do air molecules go "hey, guys, there are magnets over there! let's push this iron ball towards them"?
Magnetism is just a more intense push of atmospheric force. You see, people just assume that air molecules are atmospheric pressure. It takes all molecules to play the part and all are in huge states of change of pressures and frequencies.
Some are trapped under pressure...they can't be released into the atmosphere because they are trapped under dense conditions inside dense material on the surface as  well as under the surface under even more pressures.
This is your magnetism.
A magnet is a rush of force acting on a dense object that has trapped molecules, such as hydrogen for instance or helium, etc inside them, except these molecules have been trapped almost by themselves and are not part of other gaseous molecules that make up the atmosphere in full, yet they require equalisation.
Just like the window clamp stuck to your window by atmospheric pressure applied to the outer clamp against it's own initial strength of how much atmospheric pressure was forced out, leaving a low pressure.

This is what magnets are, only in super tiny and many trapped lighter elements inside a dense object.
Atmospheric pressure is pushing against that object to equalise that pressure so it creates a force. If you put that object (which would define a magnet) close to a similar object, the atmospheric force will push one into the other.
If one was turned to repel, it means the atmosphere works against itself because as it pushes in to fill the void, it creates a deflection all the time around it that acts like a spring effect.

It's similar to me mentioning about a fast moving car that compresses air in front and it compresses to the back and smashes into the lower pressure air behind the car.

I know it takes a lot of getting your head around but Earth science is not as complicated as is being made out. It's fascinating but it could be made easier and explained easier if  the science world had not filled it full of garbage like gravity, inertia, warped space time and all the rest of it.

It's all friction/vibration, frequency. It's all about how tightly or loosely packed molecules are when trapped inside a more dense material and how vibration/friction acts upon that compression to determine the range and frequency of whatever material and energy given out in heat.

I'm simplifying it, obviously because it's the best way for people to grasp it if they decide they want to.

Let me explain a simple way to understand in baby language.
Take a look at the magnetic trains and how they look like they float on magnetic coils against the metal rail.
We are talking intense energy to create a repelling...but it's no more complicated than playing air hockey on one of those tables, except one is loosely packed molecules acting as the rail as in air holes against the disc.
We feel the air from those, loosely. In terms of the train, the frequency of the electricified coil is trapping and losing the lighter elements all of the time and compressing them into the rail, except the dense rail is repelling them enough to stop them meeting. It's why the rail can be left magnetically charged in a weaker way as some have been forced in.
There's a bit more to it but I'm keeping it simple so people can start thinking.

Can we get off the meaning of time discussion and get back to this remark?  'Cuz this post is mad cash cray cray yo.

97
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: RE Q&A
« on: August 01, 2014, 04:06:22 PM »
Q:  Why is it that every physical experiment, every distance measurement, and every observable phenomenon explained by the round earth model not just conceptually but also with mathematical calculations and predictions?

98
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: airplanes flying around a flat earth
« on: August 01, 2014, 04:01:50 PM »
What is the point?  The point is entertainment value for the RE population that visits this forum.  It's the main reason we are here.  We like reading claims that our photos are doctored, fish-eyed, or irrelevant.

99
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A grave situation
« on: August 01, 2014, 12:39:18 PM »
Gravity is slightly less at the equator how is this possible on a flat earth.

The sun rotates more or less around the equator.  The mass of the sun slightly pulls upwards and tricks gravity sensors into reporting a slightly lower downward pull.  For proof, read up on Spring Tides.

I'll buy this answer for now.  I'm curious what scepti's explanation is considering he doesn't believe in gravity.

100
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunsets and Sunrises
« on: July 31, 2014, 04:51:13 PM »
Let's start with why there are times in the year where places near the ice wall (our south pole) experience days that last 20+ hours as the sun scrapes along the horizon.

The sun moving in a circle above us works fine and makes sense in the northern hemisphere, but cannot be reconciled by an observer in the southern hemisphere.  Same goes for southern stars circling around the south pole, and those same stars being visible on the opposite side of the flat earth, but that is for another thread.

101
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A grave situation
« on: July 31, 2014, 04:39:33 PM »
UA.  The earth accelerates more at the imaginary line called the equator than at the center and rim of the disc.

102
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:50:32 PM »
I'm always up for a good beatdown of sceptimatic's denpressure theory and his inevitable deluded rants that follow, but we've wandered pretty far afield from the OP at this point. Besides scepti's self-admittedly inexpert opinion that they are impossible, is there any real reason to suggest that all the shuttle missions were fake?
Plenty of logical reason but all get immediately denied by people like you that have no intention of even wanting to know the truth.
Your goal is to deny anything against your masters. It's as simple as that. You question absolutely nothing.

You have a very selective memory then, as I can't even begin to count the questions I have asked you about denpressure. Of course I have questioned the prevailing theory as well. Especially as a kid I was a ball of questions. In the last few years especially I've only gotten better at it as I've gained more knowledge which allows one to ask better questions. I can't tell you why gravity exists, but it's clear that a force exists between masses, which has something to do with the nature of space and time. A theory and mathematical framework exists that has unprecedented explanatory power.

Meanwhile, "denpressure" isn't even consistent in itself, and can't answer the most basic questions like, "why doesn't my weight depend on the barometer?" and "if air pressure pushes us down, why doesn't a high pressure system to the east of me push me to the west?".

A pressure gradient does push to the side... just not on a noticeable scale.  This applies to both denpressure and mainstream science.

If the amount of pressure created above a rock the instant it is lifted is great enough that it should be sending the rock hurdling toward the earth, then a simple pressure gradient should send cars flying sideways everyday.

That's because gravity/UA is what causes the rock to fall.

Gravity is explained by UA.  Bouyancy is explained by denpressure. (I use the term "explain" loosely.)

To be honest I do not have a problem with these notions.  At least they are in the realm of conceivability.  It is the assertion that there are no satellites and the earth is flat... this statements are irreconcilable with reality.

103
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:28:01 PM »
I'm always up for a good beatdown of sceptimatic's denpressure theory and his inevitable deluded rants that follow, but we've wandered pretty far afield from the OP at this point. Besides scepti's self-admittedly inexpert opinion that they are impossible, is there any real reason to suggest that all the shuttle missions were fake?
Plenty of logical reason but all get immediately denied by people like you that have no intention of even wanting to know the truth.
Your goal is to deny anything against your masters. It's as simple as that. You question absolutely nothing.

You have a very selective memory then, as I can't even begin to count the questions I have asked you about denpressure. Of course I have questioned the prevailing theory as well. Especially as a kid I was a ball of questions. In the last few years especially I've only gotten better at it as I've gained more knowledge which allows one to ask better questions. I can't tell you why gravity exists, but it's clear that a force exists between masses, which has something to do with the nature of space and time. A theory and mathematical framework exists that has unprecedented explanatory power.

Meanwhile, "denpressure" isn't even consistent in itself, and can't answer the most basic questions like, "why doesn't my weight depend on the barometer?" and "if air pressure pushes us down, why doesn't a high pressure system to the east of me push me to the west?".

A pressure gradient does push to the side... just not on a noticeable scale.  This applies to both denpressure and mainstream science.

104
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 28, 2014, 12:19:48 PM »
Denpressure directly responsible for plant growth.  I'm done.

105
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 28, 2014, 10:13:18 AM »
The spring scales are sitting on the bottom of the 30m deep lake.
So what are you trying to say?
Think. They are not affected by a human body.
They are still affected by the difference in density of water against air, aren't they?

The reason it feels lighter is because there is some buoyancy.  Whatever you are weighing, take the volume and subtract out the buoyant force and bing boom you get weight.

Your denpressure concept is a combination of gravitational force, buoyant force, and density.  You're combining the Pv in Pv = RT.  It's actually quite clever and conceptually sound come to think of it.  The problem is there is no one equation to apply it and there are special cases where pressure or density can be zero but the other parts would still apply.

106
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:58:15 AM »
I'm still not seeing an answer as to why a lead weight at 30m underwater doesn't weigh 4x more than it does at sea level?

Weight is pressure based, according to denpressure hypothesis, no?

This should be the test to verify your hypothesis. A lead weight at 30m depth should weigh 4x more than at sea level, since at 30m depth you are at 4 atmospheres pressure.
How would you weigh it?
The same way you'd weigh anything... with a spring with a known constant.  The displacement is proportional to the downward force (weight).

107
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:27:18 AM »
I'm still not seeing an answer as to why a lead weight at 30m underwater doesn't weigh 4x more than it does at sea level?

Weight is pressure based, according to denpressure hypothesis, no?

This should be the test to verify your hypothesis. A lead weight at 30m depth should weigh 4x more than at sea level, since at 30m depth you are at 4 atmospheres pressure.

You're forgetting the den part of den pressure.  It's a function of density as well as pressure.  The more dense water somehow counteracts the increased pressure.

108
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 27, 2014, 01:21:21 AM »
If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?
For the same reason that boats don't sink, buoyancy.
I'm glad you mentioned that. You see, this buoyancy ensures that the lightest elements end up on top. Which means that the lightest elements have to end up on top of your globe. Your space has particles in it we are told, like tiny meteoroids and rock like substances. This sort of nullfies helium and hydrogen being the lightest elements, so they should be simply lost to space and all of the particles in your space would take their place.
If those particles are heavier than the atmosphere at the top then Earth has to be slinging all it's gaseous atmosphere into space.
If gravity can't work on a helium balloon, it's not going to work in keeping atmosphere either, on your rotating globe.

Holy hell.  You can't be serious.

Helium is less dense than air (mostly nitrogen).  Outer space is essentially noting, which is less dense than helium.

Saying space must be dense because of the occasional asteroid is like saying your head is dense because of the occasional brain cell.

109
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: July 25, 2014, 12:25:03 PM »
I got my engineering degree from UCI, so I guess I'm part of the indoctrinated conspiracy.

Sad face.

110
...or something much simpler like water pressure.
pgh

111
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 24, 2014, 06:43:51 PM »
Conservation of momentum always applies, even in a vacuum.  Rockets in space work the same as rockets on land.  You do not need to push off anything.

112
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 24, 2014, 12:38:50 PM »
FYI, for both RE and FE alike out there...

What moves objects forward via jet propulsion is a conservation of momentum.  This can occur in a vacuum.

The lift that keeps a plane in the air is caused by redirecting the air flow downward. It has very little to do with higher pressure under the wing.  This is a large misconception that has even been taught in classrooms and television, and many "educated" people strongly believe that bernoulli's principle is the primary source of lift.

Source: I'm an actual aerospace engineer.

113
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did the Earth become a flat plane?
« on: July 23, 2014, 01:08:54 PM »
From zetetic observations that flat things do not form naturally (unless sitting on another flat object), I can conclude that the earth is unnatural and therefore created by a divine power.

114
Flat Earth General / Re: A zetetic world.
« on: July 21, 2014, 06:02:55 PM »
Scientific:
Claims are validated by observations.

Zetetic:
Observations are validated by claims.

115
Probably would get a similar reaction

116
Flat Earth General / Re: MH17 related conspiracy theories already...
« on: July 21, 2014, 05:30:10 PM »
Are you saying that I have to believe in Satan in order to believe that Satanists exist? 

Briefly, yes.  That's the normally understood definition of a "Satanist".  You even capitalise Satan yourself, as a proper noun.

And which is why I said:  "Can you please give me your personal definition of the word Satanist.  Or are you using the term in a metaphorical sense for all/any evil-doers?"

So... your definition of a Satanist is...?

For one I actually agree with jroa 100% on something.  You're in the wrong on this one Geoff.  He believes NASA is likely a conspiring organization with anti-God motives.  He never implied that he himself subscribes to satanism, quite the opposite in fact.

On topic...

My wife's initials are MH, and MH is also an abbreviation for macrohard.  I may be unknowingly involved somehow.

117
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Thickness of the Flat Earth
« on: July 21, 2014, 01:49:50 PM »
Yikes.  Not sure how I missed that.  I'm dumber than I look.

118
Flat Earth Q&A / Thickness of the Flat Earth
« on: July 21, 2014, 01:04:01 PM »
Given the world is flat...

Approximately how thick is it?  I'm assuming nobody knows for sure, but I'm interested in your guesses and why.

:)

PS: RE, please do not derail this thread.  I'm looking for the FE viewpoint and theories.

119
My telescope does not have a camera attachment.  It is old and rather inexpensive, but still good enough to see Saturn and Jupiter clearly, rings and all.

120
As an FE, how do people react when you share your theories?  I'm referring to real life and in person relationships.

How do your coworkers respond?
Family members?
Potential romantic interests?

Do you tell them your views on the first date?  Do you keep it a secret forever due to fear of rejection from the ignorant and indoctrinated populace?  Would you be willing to be involved with someone who did not take your position seriously?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5