Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles  and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:20:17 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles  and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.

Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.

The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.

Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.

Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)

Quote from: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 05:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:20:17 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles  and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.

Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.

The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.

Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.

Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)

Use Google and comment.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:41:10 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 05:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:20:17 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles  and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.

Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.

The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.

Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.

Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)

Use Google and comment.

Great answer and expected. You see, the parrot fashion is all you people can do. You have no clue about calculations for anything unless you use your friend google.

I can see how silly some of you are by the mere fact that very few of you display any logic and common sense and are devoid of humour along the way.

The type of questions I ask can only be answered by using magic formulas that any dick head can make up to fit something that nobody can ever test in reality.
Asking me to use google, the very type of thing that you people use. Hahahahaha.

Quote from: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 05:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:20:17 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles  and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.

Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.

The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.

Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.

Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)

Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:41:10 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 05:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:20:17 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles  and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.

Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.

The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.

Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.

Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)

Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?

Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.
Ok let's do this slowly.

Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?

Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?

Answer these and we can see where we are going.

Guys, guys..... c'mon!  haven't you all realised by now that sceptimatic is nothing more than an extremely persistent and irritating TROLL who's probably laughing himself silly at all our well-considered, logical, science-based comments in response to his ongoing puerile schoolboy drivel.

I can only suggest to totally ignore his comments and/or "questions" or manage to get yourselves on his "ignore" list as I did.

It'll save you a lot of bandwidth if nothing else.  And he might just go away.   

As they say... don't feed the trolls.

Quote from: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 06:25:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:41:10 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 05:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:20:17 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles  and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.

Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.

The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.

Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.

Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)

Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?

Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.
Ok let's do this slowly.

Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?

Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?

Answer these and we can see where we are going.

I agree with those things but you need to understand that every part of the sun that is facing us has some photon that also heads to earth. It isn't like a surface off to the right side of the sun only propogates lights toward your right. Most of that surfaces energy does go to the right but not all of it. The flashlight example I just mentioned should illustrate this for you easily. You could be that observer off to the right and be completely shrouded in darkness but you'd still be able to see all of the source of light coming from the flashlight.

Quote from: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 06:25:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:41:10 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on December 11, 2014, 05:30:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 05:20:17 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles  and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.

Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.

The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.

Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.

Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)

Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?

Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.
Ok let's do this slowly.

Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?

Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?

Answer these and we can see where we are going.

Round earthers believe that there is no ice wall, space just continues further and further where there are other stars making up our galaxy and many galaxies populating the observable universe, but because light only travels at the speed of light we can't see the whole universe.  If you put a lightbulb 100 feet away from you and turn it on, it only takes a portion of your field of view, so why should the sun be any different?

Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?

Close enough. Sure.

Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?

Earth receives about 0.5 X 10^-9 (that's 0.00000005%) of the Sun's light directly from the Sun. I already did this calculation for you a couple of days ago. The rest goes in other directions; whether that light is reflected off other objects or not matters how?

Answer these and we can see where we are going.

Carry on, please.

Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.
Ok let's do this slowly.

Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?

Agreed, but completely irrelevant.

Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?

Agreed.  Then again, does a street lamp send all of its light to your eyes?

Answer these and we can see where we are going.

Yes, we are going farther and farther away from you ever providing any formulas for denpressure.

Yes, we are going farther and farther away from you ever providing any formulas for denpressure.

I'm guessing by now that sceptimatic wishes to [insert deity of choice] he'd never concocted his silly fairy tale about the effects of his imaginary denpressure.        It's gonna haunt him until he reaches adulthood.

Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?

Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?

Answer these and we can see where we are going.

Sure, so now where are we going?

Quote from: markjo on December 11, 2014, 08:34:51 AM

Yes, we are going farther and farther away from you ever providing any formulas for denpressure.

I'm guessing by now that sceptimatic wishes to [insert deity of choice] he'd never concocted his silly fairy tale about the effects of his imaginary denpressure.        It's gonna haunt him until he reaches adulthood.

On the contrary, I think that he's having fun trying to milk denpressure for far more than it's worth, and then some.

Just for septic,a not so simple rocket. And a good read for the rest of you.

http://msnwllc.com/Papers/ELF_IEPC-2009-265.pdf

Before you tell me I am brainwashed septic, I think you have brainwashed yourself,short for bat shit crazy.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Sorry, was away from work.



With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Sorry, was away from work.



With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?

Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 08:46:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Sorry, was away from work.



With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?

Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.

lf you have an alternative equation then please post it.  Until then we will go with this proven one.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2014, 09:30:03 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 08:46:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Sorry, was away from work.



With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?

Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.

lf you have an alternative equation then please post it.  Until then we will go with this proven one.

Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?

Quote from: inquisitive on December 12, 2014, 09:41:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2014, 09:30:03 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 08:46:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Sorry, was away from work.



With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?

Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.

lf you have an alternative equation then please post it.  Until then we will go with this proven one.

Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?

It's how we work things out in the real world.  Do you agree equations are useful, like for calculating things?

Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?

That you're not much of a genius.

Quote from: inquisitive on December 12, 2014, 09:41:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2014, 09:30:03 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 08:46:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Sorry, was away from work.



With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?

Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.

lf you have an alternative equation then please post it.  Until then we will go with this proven one.

Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?

That you clearly don't know how to use equations?

However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.

If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.

So again, denpressures equation, please.

Quote from: inquisitive on December 12, 2014, 09:41:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2014, 09:30:03 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 08:46:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Sorry, was away from work.



With that equation you can 100% of the time predict the effect of gravity on objects. I guess I'm a magician now?

Explain how you physically prove that equation works. Explain it all.

lf you have an alternative equation then please post it.  Until then we will go with this proven one.

Proven? You've stuck a frigging equation up. What the hell does it prove?

The thing about math is that it can be proven.  That's why I have been asking you for math.

So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.

So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.

However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.

If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.

So again, denpressures equation, please.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2014, 11:23:02 AM

So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.

However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.

If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.

So again, denpressures equation, please.

Explain the equation and how it proves gravity.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 12, 2014, 11:25:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2014, 11:23:02 AM

So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.

However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.

If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.

So again, denpressures equation, please.

Explain the equation and how it proves gravity.

However, to use jroa's favorite term, don't move the goalposts. You asked for gravity's equation then you would give us denpressures equation, not to then give you personal experiences on using the thing.

If you want to verify its veracity then use it, if you would like an explanation what the variables are I will gladly tell you.

So again, denpressures equation, please.

So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.

Oh, you want the equasion explained?  Why didn't you say so?

F=(MmG)/d²

F is force
M and m are the masses of the two objects in question
G is the gravitational constant
d is the distance

The reason that d is in the denominator and squared is because of the inverse square law, which applies to light too.  Look at the link for mathematical proofs.

This equasion can account for the gravitational strength differences between different parts of the world and it also can be used to deduce orbital mechanics.

All math supports the round Earth model, unless the fundemental laws of math are being controlled by the government 

I'm sure that now, we're all waiting for sceptimatic's equation—and unit of measure—that proves his theory of "denpressure", which apparently combines the two dissimilar entities of density and pressure.

Presumably, it'll be something like  D = d + P / s,  or Ps / d,  or P/d — s,   where D=denpressure,  d = a rational number representing density, P = a rational number representing pressure, and s = a numerical value to be known as the "sceptimatic" constant.  And its unit of measure = ? ? ?

Let's wait and see shall we?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2014, 11:23:02 AM

So none of you can explain the equation which proves gravity. No wonder your heads are all battered.

Oh, you want the equasion explained?  Why didn't you say so?

F=(MmG)/d²

F is force
M and m are the masses of the two objects in question
G is the gravitational constant
d is the distance

The reason that d is in the denominator and squared is because of the inverse square law, which applies to light too.  Look at the link for mathematical proofs.

This equasion can account for the gravitational strength differences between different parts of the world and it also can be used to deduce orbital mechanics.

All math supports the round Earth model, unless the fundemental laws of math are being controlled by the government 

F+fv+EV/DM*rM

There you go. There's my formula.