Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 28550 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #210 on: February 09, 2018, 10:44:03 PM »
Each and every user should take a long look at this.

Two users are modifying the hypotheses of a well known and established experiment, the Sagnac, to suit their own purposes.

This is more than just trolling, or not debating in good faith: it is called scientific illiteracy.

rabinoz deserves a long ban for this: after the moderator stipulated clearly that she locked the thread, he opens a new thread and also comments here, using the same scientific illiterate arguments.


*

rabinoz

  • 24865
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #211 on: February 10, 2018, 01:41:22 AM »
Each and every user should take a long look at this.

Two users are modifying the hypotheses of a well known and established experiment, the Sagnac, to suit their own purposes.
You are totally incorrect, Mr Sandokhan, the results that I have been presenting are exactly in agreement with the accepted ideas on the Sagnac delay.

Read again!
Sagnac Effect, E. J. POST, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475 (1967) – Published 1 April 1967 we have
Section III. General Aspects of the Theory, near end p. 478
Quote
Summarizing, the experiments of Sagnac, Pogany and Michelson-Gale and the results of Harress, as re-interpreted by Harzer, demonstrate beyond doubt the following features  of the Sagnac effect. The observed fringe shift
a) obeys formula (1);
b) does not depend on the shape of the surface A;
c) does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;
d) does not depend on the presence of a comoving refracting medium in the path of the beam.

Please note that E. J. POST specifically states,
          "does not depend on the shape of the surface A;"
          "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;"
Care to explain in your own words what 
"does not depend on the shape of the surface A" and  "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation" mean?

Quote from: sandokhan
This is more than just trolling, or not debating in good faith: it is called scientific illiteracy.
Just who is trolling? Much of what I present is from papers, many that YOU sourced.
You are the one showing totally scientific illiteracy.

I am debating with 100% good faith,
but you are denying what has been known and proven experimentally right from Sagnac himself on!

Quote from: sandokhan
rabinoz deserves a long ban for this: after the moderator stipulated clearly that she locked the thread, he opens a new thread and also comments here, using the same scientific illiterate arguments.
Please show just what "scientific illiterate arguments" I have presented.

And while you are at it read: The Scaling Theory VIII: The Sagnac's Interference and Michelson and Gale Experiment.
In that paper, in 14.5. Rotation About an Arbitrary Point, you will find the derivation for the Sagnac delay of an arbitrarily shaped polygon rotating about an arbitrary point and look at the result:

Yes, exactly what JackBlack, I and all the references say.

Do you want me to repeat all the quotes again that say over and over that all say:
Quote
In most textbooks result (5) is expressed by the fringe shift in units of the wavelength λ0
∆Z = 4 A · Ω/(c λ0)
where, in general, the scalar product of the oriented area A enclosed by the light path with the vector angular velocity Ω enters. One can show that the fringe shift is independent of the shape of A and of the position of the rotational axis, but depends on the cosine of the angle between A and .

Just face facts, all the references say, the fringe shift is independent of the shape of A and of the position of the rotational axis.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #212 on: February 10, 2018, 01:51:17 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752

"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"

Have difficulty counting, don't you, rabbibot?

Here's a definition of the the term physical object that will prevent you squirming out of your shocking blunder:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body

Not looking good for you, is it?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 24865
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #213 on: February 10, 2018, 02:45:39 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V. And over 3,000,000 litres of fuel.
Looks like you fail again!

Quote from: Papa Legba
Have difficulty counting, don't you, rabbibot?
I do take a while to get to 3,000,000!

Quote from: Papa Legba
Here's a definition of the the term physical object that will prevent you squirming out of your shocking blunder:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body
I made no blunder, but what is the relevance of your link?
So what?
When a rocket comprises numerous components, and a tremendous mass of fuel that can be burnt and ejected a very high velocity.

Quote from: Papa Legba
Not looking good for you, is it?
It's looking fine for me, you're the one that didn't do his homework.

I guess you didn't read and understand this bit
No Mr PapaBot, you are not correct! And you simply can't understand, Momentum Conservation in Explosions.
If you did, you might understand rockets.
But, make sure you read it all! Right down to the bits on the cannon and the carts.

So stand in the corner till you have learned all your homework!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #214 on: February 10, 2018, 03:08:02 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.

New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...

kek

Definition of physical object:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body

What will the rabbibot do next?

Strip the 3,000,000 parts down to their constituent molecules and count them?

It is busted...

But will it give up?

No .

That would violate its shillgorithm programming.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 24865
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #215 on: February 10, 2018, 03:37:39 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".

So once again you fail miserably and I told you to stand in the corner till you learned all your homework.
Now you have to include a remedial reading course.
Here this seems right up your alley! An Introductory Course In Haitian Creole.
Now you take care that you sit in that corner till you learn every word!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #216 on: February 10, 2018, 07:28:01 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".

It's pretty clear what you said, rabbibot.

As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.

And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.

Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:

https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun

Clue there for you maybe?


I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 16771
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #217 on: February 10, 2018, 08:20:01 AM »
Looks like you have zero reading comprehension. And I wouldn't say anything about physics if I was you.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 24865
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #218 on: February 10, 2018, 05:42:03 PM »
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
Nope, all totally irrelevant.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #219 on: February 11, 2018, 01:07:25 AM »
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
Nope, all totally irrelevant.

So the fact that you are a proven liar is irrelevant?

I'd say it invalidates every single thing you write.

Your shillgorithm army will doubtless disagree...
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #220 on: February 11, 2018, 03:32:03 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".

It's pretty clear what you said, rabbibot.

As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.

And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.

Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:

https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun

Clue there for you maybe?

A singular noun often describes an object that comprises of multiple other objects under a collective description. For example:

“A loaded gun” describes a single object consisting of a gun and one or more pieces of ammunition. Would you argue that a loaded gun could be unloaded or fired and thus the separate parts would then be described as a gun and some ammunition as discrete objects.

The same applies to a rocket.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

rabinoz

  • 24865
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #221 on: February 11, 2018, 03:45:58 AM »
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
Nope, all totally irrelevant.

So the fact that you are a proven liar is irrelevant?
And where did I say that, Mr Arch Deceiver? I could suggest that:
  • Sandokhan was lashing out to cover his total failure.
  • dutchy is known for his totally incorect "on-line" assessments.
  • The Voodoo Priest's claim was totally irrelevant!

Quote from: Papa Legba
I'd say it invalidates every single thing you write.
Your shillgorithm army will doubtless disagree...
And I could remind you that we know
Quote
Legba is the promoter of verbal facility, of double talk, the arch deceiver, not malicious, but a jokester, a prankster--the preeminent trickster god—like John the Conqueror, the guileful scourge of the Louisiana and Mississippi plantation owners—the trickster who will make a fool of you or scare the hell out of you, either just for laughs, or to teach you a lesson about life.
So we are prepared for your deceptive antics Mr Voodoo Priest!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #222 on: February 11, 2018, 09:48:43 AM »
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
Nope, all totally irrelevant.

So the fact that you are a proven liar is irrelevant?
And where did I say that, Mr Arch Deceiver? I could suggest that:
  • Sandokhan was lashing out to cover his total failure.
  • dutchy is known for his totally incorect "on-line" assessments.
  • The Voodoo Priest's claim was totally irrelevant!

Quote from: Papa Legba
I'd say it invalidates every single thing you write.
Your shillgorithm army will doubtless disagree...
And I could remind you that we know
Quote
Legba is the promoter of verbal facility, of double talk, the arch deceiver, not malicious, but a jokester, a prankster--the preeminent trickster god—like John the Conqueror, the guileful scourge of the Louisiana and Mississippi plantation owners—the trickster who will make a fool of you or scare the hell out of you, either just for laughs, or to teach you a lesson about life.
So we are prepared for your deceptive antics Mr Voodoo Priest!

You were proven to be a liar when you stated that a rocket represents 3,000,000 separate objects within a Newton's third law scenario, psycho.

Which is why you cut that part out of my post when you quoted it.

You started off with a rocket being two objects, which was bad enough, but then you went full retard and now everyone knows you are a mad liar.

If you don't like that fact, then stop spamming mad lies.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 16771
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #223 on: February 11, 2018, 10:05:31 AM »
You are one to talk. You provide sources that disagree with you.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #224 on: February 11, 2018, 11:00:05 AM »
A singular noun often describes an object that comprises of multiple other objects under a collective description. For example:

“A loaded gun” describes a single object consisting of a gun and one or more pieces of ammunition. Would you argue that a loaded gun could be unloaded or fired and thus the separate parts would then be described as a gun and some ammunition as discrete objects.

The same applies to a rocket.
Only an idiot RE-tard would write "rocket," = "loaded gun."

God, you RE-tards are fucking desperate!
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

sokarul

  • 16771
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #225 on: February 11, 2018, 11:02:21 AM »
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #226 on: February 11, 2018, 03:29:39 PM »
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 16771
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #227 on: February 11, 2018, 04:07:32 PM »
Wat?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 24865
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #228 on: February 11, 2018, 06:50:29 PM »
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Incorrect!
Quote
The system of this invention reduces the recoil.
Yes, reduces the recoil, but does not eliminate it!

Even a blank will have some recoil from the gases and wadding and the above patented mechanism could eliminate much of that recoil.
But it can have no effect on the recoil caused by the momentum of the projectile.

I realise that the PapaBot AI never has the intelligence to pursue the rest of these topics.
Just like going only half-way with thermodynamics and conservation of momentum.

I know that the PapaBot AI uses very dated and primitive AI algotithms, so it's understandable that it gets confused about advanced topics, like Rocket Science.

But, really, PapaBot AI, you would be stable AI if you just kept within your design parameters and stuck to Voodoo Rituals.
Carrying on this way risks permanent damage to your positronic brain - and we can't allow that.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #229 on: February 12, 2018, 12:51:44 AM »
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Incorrect!

More lies from the madman.

The patent states quite clearly that the main cause of recoil in a gun is from atmospheric gasses re-entering the evacuated barrel after the bullet has left.

You claim that shpayze rokkitz work by the same mechanism.

You are wrong, and now you are lying about the matter.

Again...
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 24865
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #230 on: February 12, 2018, 04:42:35 AM »
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Incorrect!


The patent states quite clearly that the main cause of recoil in a gun is from atmospheric gasses re-entering the evacuated barrel after the bullet has left.


And you claim that a Patent Application is necessarily scientifically correct? Pull the other one!

There have been numerous patent applications for Perpetual Motion Machines.

And you might read
Quote
Over-unity energy motor-generator, EP 1821391 A1
ABSTRACT
An over-unity motor-generator is provided. The over-unity motor-generator includes a motor circuit unit, a motor-generator unit for generating an electric energy by rotating by an electric energy, and a generator circuit unit for commutating an alternating current generated from the motor-generator unit and outputting a direct current. The motor-generator unit includes a stator including a motor winding having n-phases, the motor winding being magnetized by receiving an electric power from the motor circuit unit and wound in an independent, multi-phase parallel distribution manner of an n-phase and a generator winding having 2n-phases and supplying the electric energy to the generator circuit unit, the generator winding being wound in an independent, multi-phase parallel distribution manner, a rotor having stacked silicon plates, flat permanent magnets buried in the stacked silicon plate and arranged in a radial direction, and a shaft located on a center of the stacked silicon plates, a commutation encoder having detection regions and non-detection regions and disposed on an end of the shaft of the rotor, and 2n-number photo sensors for transmitting an optical sensor signal to the motor circuit unit by, when the commutation encoder rotates together with the shaft, being turned on at the detection regions and off at the non-detection regions. . . . .

Read the rest in: Over-unity energy motor-generator, EP 1821391 A1
No Mr Demented Voodoo Priest, there is nothing necessarily scientific about a Patent Application. A good shonky lawyer, like our Mr Deceiving Voodoo Priest can manage to patent almost alything.

*

rvlvr

  • 1553
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #231 on: February 12, 2018, 05:08:58 AM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

"Recoil (often called knockback, kickback or simply kick) is the backward movement of a gun when it is discharged. In technical terms, the recoil momentum acquired by the gun exactly balances the forward momentum of the projectile and exhaust gases (ejecta), according to Newton's third law, known as conservation of momentum."

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #232 on: February 12, 2018, 05:21:17 AM »
Watch:



The gun does not recoil until ten bullet is well out of the barrel.

So, yet another lie from the rabbibot and his sockpuppet Chum.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rvlvr

  • 1553
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #233 on: February 12, 2018, 05:25:51 AM »
So now you are questioning what causes recoil?

Yeah, I'm out of here.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #234 on: February 12, 2018, 07:31:52 AM »
Yeah, run away from the evidence...

See ya!

Now for another Lie from the rabbibot...

This time it is claiming that satellites will not be in free fall because they are sitting on a table or something:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523

It is mental.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #235 on: February 12, 2018, 07:54:00 AM »
Yeah, run away from the evidence...

See ya!

Now for another Lie from the rabbibot...

This time it is claiming that satellites will not be in free fall because they are sitting on a table or something:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523

It is mental.
Yet satellites provide us with broadcast tv and navigation.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #236 on: February 12, 2018, 07:58:43 AM »
The RE should not be mentioning guns at all, especially rail guns.

In the one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century, Dr. Graneau proved that energy efficiency equation of the rail gun disproves the theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1993276#msg1993276

*

sokarul

  • 16771
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #237 on: February 12, 2018, 08:04:55 AM »
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Incorrect!

More lies from the madman.

The patent states quite clearly that the main cause of recoil in a gun is from atmospheric gasses re-entering the evacuated barrel after the bullet has left.

You claim that shpayze rokkitz work by the same mechanism.

You are wrong, and now you are lying about the matter.

Again...
They will claim whatever they want to get the patent.
If air caused recoil then different grain bullets would recoil the same. Gunpowder amount would also not matter.

Can you just think for once. Please?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sokarul

  • 16771
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #238 on: February 12, 2018, 08:06:05 AM »
The RE should not be mentioning guns at all, especially rail guns.

In the one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century, Dr. Graneau proved that energy efficiency equation of the rail gun disproves the theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1993276#msg1993276
Why do you show face here? You ran away from the moon bounce thread.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #239 on: February 12, 2018, 08:11:33 AM »
They will claim whatever they want to get the patent.
If air caused recoil then different grain bullets would recoil the same. Gunpowder amount would also not matter.

Can you just think for once. Please?
Wait a minute...

You are claiming the amount of air displaced is the same for a .44 Magnum bullet as it is for a .22 Long Rifle bullet?

Please elucidate the audience!
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.