WHY would the government trick us?

Ffs

If i said "i believe there os an earth"

Can YOU accept there is an esrth?

Ffs

If i said "i believe there os an earth"

Can YOU accept there is an esrth?

Is that you drunk again? Ask a sensible question and I'll give you a sensible answer.

Or

Are you looking for a more philosophical discussion about existence?

I am led to believe there is an earth that we all live on which all the evidence points to it being a spinning globe....so what?

What the hell has that got to do with Black being a hypocrite?

So yesterday, in our small town, after about two weeks of the NOAA-sponsored weather being wrong about rain coming (we had a drought) Accuweather detected the rain correctly and up to the the minute using independent research.

The NOAA lit into them, saying they should be the ones providing weather data. Right, you were wrong for two weeks, but we should trust the science because you say so. The same science that wants us to follow Greta Thunberg's nonsense all the way to the Stone Age, where we sit in our huts, unable to be cool in the summer or warm in the winter because it might offend some idiots.

This is your government. "Why should they want to trick us?" you ask. Maybe uhhh because they haven't your interests at heart, and if they could, would try to abolish the actual independence day of July 4th, an independence day for everyone, in favor of the divisive Juneteenth which can only really be celebrated by black people because it shames and alienates everyone else. This your government, whose leader forgot (or refused to acknowledge) July 4th, instead focusing more on Pride Month. This is your government who let you down for two weeks on weather forecasts. And btw, this is your government who in the next township over, allowed a county that functions as the bread basket for the Rivah to have its water rights taken over by some tech company in the next county. It's one company it turns out, but they're rerouting water, so even when they release it, it might not get back to us. This is your government. This is #NotMyGovernment, whether or not I was tricked into voting for them, because they don't represent my small town. They gutted a nearby town and killed our own town's local pharmacy with their COVID restrictions.

The answer from a historical perspective in relation to governments is a yes, in that they have been shown to distort and bend the truth to their own will, to discard evidence they don't like and suppress any bad news that may put both them and their beliefs in a bad light.

Not from a historical perspective. From a current events perspective. If you think only in ancient times government has been corrupt, you are the delusional one. I can show you recent events where they either failed spectacularly or betrayed the public. If you were honest, probably so could you.

Space flight is real. The space industry that spans the globe is real that employs millions. The hundreds of launches all on YouTube are real. Video showing craft landing on the moon and other bodies is real.  Satellites in their thousands orbit the earth are real.

None of that is real. Like you say, it's an industry that employs millions. So is the New Jersey tourism division. They have park rides for Wildwood, restaurants, games (some of which are very rigged), and basically non-fungible casinos for kids. These tickets can only be used to buy prizes, usually at a fraction of what they are worth. Their beaches and various attractions brings in revenue that allows (used to be Ukrainian, now mostly Muslim) immigrants to be employed.
What's real is that the payment of people, but like the circus, the process of getting money is a bit of a con. Come see the Jersey Shore! Come experience the excitement! That we mostly manmade. Without the boardwalk, you'd have only natural wonders. Leaming's Run burn down and closed, and the beaches are nice but other areas have warmer water. And there are sometimes jellyfish. And yet, yes we do visit the Jersey Shore, year after year. Just like some people are steady patrons of Disney World or theater (whether local or Hollywood/Broadway).
A thing doesn't have to be real to make plenty of money. And it's okay if you want to support such a thing.

What isn't okay is not having a say. Having other people tell you what you can and can't believe in.

I happen to know where most of our "satellite" comes from. We have cellphone towers. These are not receiving towers, collecting from "space" but rather there is such a thing as broadcasting towers. The numerous towers (I think I counted at least five within a mile, including a difficult to spot one in the woods, and probably a few fake trees) don't need space to send signals, they can do it perfectly fine through the various 5G relay stations... erm, "smart meters". And it can also do it through landline wifi, which piggybacks off the electrical line. Through weather balloons and blimps, through planes flying by. These overhead things all provide a better signal than some distant orbiting satellite, that could get knocked off course by meteors or your imaginary aliens.

I have never seen a space station or satellite. What I have seen are high altitude (and by high altitude, I do not mean 500 miles up, but more like 30 miles up... around where stealth planes can fly) broadcast devices that you can call "satellites" if you want. These things are readily seen at night, but you are a fool if you think you can tell the difference between layers of atmosphere when the night sky severely inhibits depth perception.



See this model? The mesosphere is about our vision limit for the most part, even at night. "Satellites" can easily fly in the stratosphere without being seen during daylight hours. That's what you're seeing with binoculars, which again are based on magnification not zoom. The auroras in the thermosphere are difficult to see without a camera, because they are behind layers and layers of stuff. These "satellites" are not in the exosphere, as that area is too difficult to maintain flight. But they work just fine about three layers closer, well within the Karman Line (the actual firmament)

You need to get your eyes checked. You think you can see much farther than you actually can.

The main one being the small flat earth sun 32 miles in diameter. Tell me how this tiny body has kept producing all that energy for the last 4.75 bn years? Tell me through what mechanism has it been able to hold all the planets in their respective orbits? You of course won't answer as you can't. What evidence and facts could you provide?  The answer to that is none, so you ignore dealing with the question, so much for being a skeptic!

 "With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 The "planets" are a fiction by NASA and their shills to prop up a Nine Realms cosmology. We don't see any sign of them, we see a bright star sometimes that we are told is Jupiter or Venus (for some reason, nobody ever seems to talk about how bright Mars is), then they slam sheets of evidence on our table like at a police drama. Look, this is Saturn! And this is Pluto! (Wait no, Pluto, you're not a planet anymore)

The problem is, someone came up with this model. That is, well before your "satellites" went deep into "space" to check out these planets, we'd already decided this was a thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solar_System_formation_and_evolution_hypotheses

The history of scientific thought about the formation and evolution of the Solar System began with the Copernican Revolution. The first recorded use of the term "Solar System" dates from 1704.

Well before accurate satellites, well before a telescope was frankly better than a spyglass, some guy says he sees something, and the Catholic church is like, "Will it enable us to rule over the masses?" And Copernicus is like, " Well, I guess. But it's based off Norse mythology... "

And the Catholic church is like, "Good, good..." and allows it.

 So, on to your questions, how has the sun allowed each of them their respective orbits? It doesn't have to. The geocentric model means the Earth has its own sun and moon. It also means these nine worlds (if any of the others actually exist) each have a sun and moon. Or several suns or several moons. Or no sun and one moon. Or whatever. These orbit the planet and allow for life (or not). Not the other way around. Muspelheim doesn't have a sun, for instance, the entire planet basically is like a sun. Helheim (which they depicted in red for some reason) is cold and lifeless, a world of death. The other worlds have different mixes which may or may not be consistent with what your science says about these planets, because the theory is soft-peddling Norse cosmology. The point is, they may be there, but I don't have to care about them as an Earthling, because they aren't in orbit with me, and don't affect me in this model.

How is the sun about to provide light for billions of years? It isn't. As I said before, the sun's light is projected. First, into the parabola. But if we were to pick apart what the sun is, outside what we see, it's actually two parts:
1. אור מאלוהים (Light from God).
https://www.christianlearning.com/ohr-is-the-hebrew-word-for-light/
2. A reflective (refractive?) gold disc.

The sun doesn't produce energy. If it had, even your big huge sun model would have exhausted itself over tens of thousands, much less billions, of years of light and heat output. Light from the sun comes from an eternal source (not the sun itself), and is projected through a filter (the disc of the sun), which is in turn projected into the area (the parabola) where we can see the sun. The moon in turn has light in a similar way (though the moon is more of an nonreflective object than a reflective one, which is why the light it gives off is less intense and more pleasant to the eyes).

Not only can I do this, but these things are easy. Such information is what is called inspiration (to blow, breathe upon, or in spirit, or the immediate influence of God). I know these things because God inspired me, not because of books. Books are the dead writings of dead people. I read plenty, but I decide for myself (with God's help).

Your model, on the other hand, has a juggling problem. Good luck with that.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 05, 2024, 04:44:47 AM

Ffs

If i said "i believe there os an earth"

Can YOU accept there is an esrth?

Is that you drunk again? Ask a sensible question and I'll give you a sensible answer.

Or

Are you looking for a more philosophical discussion about existence?

I am led to believe there is an earth that we all live on which all the evidence points to it being a spinning globe....so what?

What the hell has that got to do with Black being a hypocrite?

At no point did i mention or hypothesize the shape nor did i cite or conclude the shape.
All we can do is agree -
There is an earth.



Step1 to writing a lab

release it, it might not get back to us. This is your government. This is #NotMyGovernment, whether or not I was tricked into voting for them, because they don't

if youre a member of the country it is your government.

Its called democracy.

Not-who-you-voted-for is different from not-your-govt.

Quote

The main one being the small flat earth sun 32 miles in diameter. Tell me how this tiny body has kept producing all that energy for the last 4.75 bn years? Tell me through what mechanism has it been able to hold all the planets in their respective orbits? You of course won't answer as you can't. What evidence and facts could you provide?  The answer to that is none, so you ignore dealing with the question, so much for being a skeptic!

 "With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 The "planets" are a fiction by NASA and their shills to prop up a Nine Realms cosmology. We don't see any sign of them, we see a bright star sometimes that we are told is Jupiter or Venus (for some reason, nobody ever seems to talk about how bright Mars is), then they slam sheets of evidence on our table like at a police drama. Look, this is Saturn! And this is Pluto! (Wait no, Pluto, you're not a planet anymore)

The problem is, someone came up with this model. That is, well before your "satellites" went deep into "space" to check out these planets, we'd already decided this was a thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solar_System_formation_and_evolution_hypotheses

Quote

The history of scientific thought about the formation and evolution of the Solar System began with the Copernican Revolution. The first recorded use of the term "Solar System" dates from 1704.

Well before accurate satellites, well before a telescope was frankly better than a spyglass, some guy says he sees something, and the Catholic church is like, "Will it enable us to rule over the masses?" And Copernicus is like, " Well, I guess. But it's based off Norse mythology... "

And the Catholic church is like, "Good, good..." and allows it.

 So, on to your questions, how has the sun allowed each of them their respective orbits? It doesn't have to. The geocentric model means the Earth has its own sun and moon. It also means these nine worlds (if any of the others actually exist) each have a sun and moon. Or several suns or several moons. Or no sun and one moon. Or whatever. These orbit the planet and allow for life (or not). Not the other way around. Muspelheim doesn't have a sun, for instance, the entire planet basically is like a sun. Helheim (which they depicted in red for some reason) is cold and lifeless, a world of death. The other worlds have different mixes which may or may not be consistent with what your science says about these planets, because the theory is soft-peddling Norse cosmology. The point is, they may be there, but I don't have to care about them as an Earthling, because they aren't in orbit with me, and don't affect me in this model.

How is the sun about to provide light for billions of years? It isn't. As I said before, the sun's light is projected. First, into the parabola. But if we were to pick apart what the sun is, outside what we see, it's actually two parts:
1. אור מאלוהים (Light from God).
https://www.christianlearning.com/ohr-is-the-hebrew-word-for-light/
2. A reflective (refractive?) gold disc.

The sun doesn't produce energy. If it had, even your big huge sun model would have exhausted itself over tens of thousands, much less billions, of years of light and heat output. Light from the sun comes from an eternal source (not the sun itself), and is projected through a filter (the disc of the sun), which is in turn projected into the area (the parabola) where we can see the sun. The moon in turn has light in a similar way (though the moon is more of an nonreflective object than a reflective one, which is why the light it gives off is less intense and more pleasant to the eyes).

Not only can I do this, but these things are easy. Such information is what is called inspiration (to blow, breathe upon, or in spirit, or the immediate influence of God). I know these things because God inspired me, not because of books. Books are the dead writings of dead people. I read plenty, but I decide for myself (with God's help).

Your model, on the other hand, has a juggling problem. Good luck with that.

Ah… god spoke directly to you! So that’s how you know all these things!

Do you know how that sounds?

Exactly as I said pure delusion. And you claim to be a Skeptic! Why not start being sceptical about what you posted? that totally ignores all human knowledge.

Stop for a moment and think. Who is more likely to be correct. You with no evidence or the whole of human validated knowledge? It’s not a claim to authority I’m making, as it’s more a claim to sanity.

In a nutshell, pun intended, you reject all validated human scientific knowledge in favour of something YOU  yourself just made up.

It basically all boils down to the history of accumulated scientific knowledge  vs  a load of stuff you have put together! And you say you are a skeptic! As I said why not start bring skeptical with what you believe in.

Dismissing knowledge out of hand simply because you don’t like or agree with it cuts no ice.

To overturn solid facts backed by solid evidence you need more than.  ‘Because I said it is’

That’s basically  all your non-argument stands on.

Governments don't really care about tricking you..They don't care about you at all. They care about control and being in control. Ask why they don't force a "vaccine" on you any more..Chemtrails? The more they hide from you,the more they can tax you for "science" and the more control they have.

Governments don't really care about tricking you..They don't care about you at all. They care about control and being in control. Ask why they don't force a "vaccine" on you any more..Chemtrails? The more they hide from you,the more they can tax you for "science" and the more control they have.

When did anyone "force" a Covid vaccine on anyone... well, in the US anyway?  It was strongly encouraged, to help prevent deaths... many deaths. 

What about "chemtrails"?  Do you believe they are anything other  than the exhaust from jet airplanes? 

Why do people have to make up such paranoid delusions?

Don't you get it though?

Because you believe in idealized principles, you believe that an object (the rocket) can stay in motion until it gets to destination. But that is ideal, not real. 

I could be wrong, it you seem to have the ridiculous notion that science doesn't know or teach the difference between theory and practical.  I wonder why that is.  Are you really that silly?  Or could it be that you're just trolling?

Back to topic. Unless you can flush utopian ideals from or grasp of science, you shall always being a part of theoretical science, not practical science. 

Theory and practical science are equally important.  After all, how can you have a practical application of science if you don't understand the underlying theory?  How can you tell how efficient your practical application is if you don't know how it should work under ideal conditions?

The best example of Newton's first law in reality? A downhill slope, using skis. Now, let's think through this. I keep sliding downhill because the snow is slick, and the slant of the hill. But you, firm believers in gravity tell me going upward can somehow produce a frictionless system.

Why would you say something that silly?  Seriously, why?  At this point you have got to be trolling because I can't believe that you're that stupid.

Quote

The main one being the small flat earth sun 32 miles in diameter. Tell me how this tiny body has kept producing all that energy for the last 4.75 bn years? Tell me through what mechanism has it been able to hold all the planets in their respective orbits? You of course won't answer as you can't. What evidence and facts could you provide?  The answer to that is none, so you ignore dealing with the question, so much for being a skeptic!

 "With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 The "planets" are a fiction by NASA and their shills to prop up a Nine Realms cosmology. We don't see any sign of them, we see a bright star sometimes that we are told is Jupiter or Venus (for some reason, nobody ever seems to talk about how bright Mars is), then they slam sheets of evidence on our table like at a police drama. Look, this is Saturn! And this is Pluto! (Wait no, Pluto, you're not a planet anymore)

The problem is, someone came up with this model. That is, well before your "satellites" went deep into "space" to check out these planets, we'd already decided this was a thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solar_System_formation_and_evolution_hypotheses

Quote

The history of scientific thought about the formation and evolution of the Solar System began with the Copernican Revolution. The first recorded use of the term "Solar System" dates from 1704.

Well before accurate satellites, well before a telescope was frankly better than a spyglass, some guy says he sees something, and the Catholic church is like, "Will it enable us to rule over the masses?" And Copernicus is like, " Well, I guess. But it's based off Norse mythology... "

And the Catholic church is like, "Good, good..." and allows it.

 So, on to your questions, how has the sun allowed each of them their respective orbits? It doesn't have to. The geocentric model means the Earth has its own sun and moon. It also means these nine worlds (if any of the others actually exist) each have a sun and moon. Or several suns or several moons. Or no sun and one moon. Or whatever. These orbit the planet and allow for life (or not). Not the other way around. Muspelheim doesn't have a sun, for instance, the entire planet basically is like a sun. Helheim (which they depicted in red for some reason) is cold and lifeless, a world of death. The other worlds have different mixes which may or may not be consistent with what your science says about these planets, because the theory is soft-peddling Norse cosmology. The point is, they may be there, but I don't have to care about them as an Earthling, because they aren't in orbit with me, and don't affect me in this model.

How is the sun about to provide light for billions of years? It isn't. As I said before, the sun's light is projected. First, into the parabola. But if we were to pick apart what the sun is, outside what we see, it's actually two parts:
1. אור מאלוהים (Light from God).
https://www.christianlearning.com/ohr-is-the-hebrew-word-for-light/
2. A reflective (refractive?) gold disc.

The sun doesn't produce energy. If it had, even your big huge sun model would have exhausted itself over tens of thousands, much less billions, of years of light and heat output. Light from the sun comes from an eternal source (not the sun itself), and is projected through a filter (the disc of the sun), which is in turn projected into the area (the parabola) where we can see the sun. The moon in turn has light in a similar way (though the moon is more of an nonreflective object than a reflective one, which is why the light it gives off is less intense and more pleasant to the eyes).

Not only can I do this, but these things are easy. Such information is what is called inspiration (to blow, breathe upon, or in spirit, or the immediate influence of God). I know these things because God inspired me, not because of books. Books are the dead writings of dead people. I read plenty, but I decide for myself (with God's help).

Your model, on the other hand, has a juggling problem. Good luck with that.

Books are also written by people still living, ignoramus.

Believe me, luck isn't needed. The world has been mapped and it is a globe. Flat Earth adherents like your good self, are clinging to a dinner plate fresh out of the dishwasher with nothing on it.

"The one thing we do know, it's flaaaaaaaat". Ain't that right?

Quote from: truthseekermichi on July 05, 2024, 10:43:41 AM

Governments don't really care about tricking you..They don't care about you at all. They care about control and being in control. Ask why they don't force a "vaccine" on you any more..Chemtrails? The more they hide from you,the more they can tax you for "science" and the more control they have.

When did anyone "force" a Covid vaccine on anyone... well, in the US anyway?  It was strongly encouraged, to help prevent deaths... many deaths. 

What about "chemtrails"?  Do you believe they are anything other  than the exhaust from jet airplanes? 

Why do people have to make up such paranoid delusions?

"Take it or be fired"

Its not, but it is if you want med benefits or employment insurnace benefits.
Usa big corp monopolies on employment is very predatorial in that sense.

Wow How is this for an example of pure hypocrisy from Jack Black!

Nope, just another example of your pathetic dishonest and delusion.
I do answer questions.
You just hate the answers because they show you are wrong so you lie by claiming I never answered.

What you are actually describing is your own hypocrisy, where YOU refuse to answer simple questions which so clearly show you are wrong, while demanding other answers questions only to ignore their answers.
Grow up.

So yesterday, in our small town, after about two weeks of the NOAA

I see you yet again run off to irrelavent BS.

What does this have to do with your inabilty to answer simple questions that show rockets do work in a vacuum?

Weather is a quite complex system, and no prediction is perfectly correct.

The NOAA lit into them

Citation needed.

"Why should they want to trick us?" you ask. Maybe uhhh because they haven't your interests at heart

Specifically why would they want to trick us into thinking the shape of Earth is wrong?
What interest do they have that makes them want to have people think the shape of Earth is not the shape it realy is?

None of that is real.

Yet you have literally nothing to show it isn't real.
Instead you just have wilful rejection of reality.

I happen to know where most of our "satellite" comes from.

No, you don't. You have your delusional beliefs and lie to everyone about them.

These overhead things all provide a better signal than some distant orbiting satellite, that could get knocked off course by meteors or your imaginary aliens.

So now you just appeal to more delusional BS.
Meteors are quite rare, and can hit things on Earth as well as orbiting satellites.
Likewise, if you want to appeal to aliens, they can do the same.

As well as all that there are countless weather issues which can destroy land based transmitters and balloons and the like.

And more importantly, there is the issue of number.
Satellites work well for broadcasting to a large area.
Cell towers work well for lots of individual connections.

I have never seen a space station or satellite.

Because you choose to remain wilfully ignorant.
If you wanted to you could easily find them.

What I have seen are high altitude (and by high altitude, I do not mean 500 miles up, but more like 30 miles up... around where stealth planes can fly) broadcast devices that you can call "satellites" if you want.

i.e. you have probably seen satellites, but because they don't fit your delusional fantasy you pretend they are something else.

our vision limit

Again, we don't have a magical vision limit.

And remember, in your delusional fantasy, the vision limit is around 5 km, well below that.

as that area is too difficult to maintain flight.

They don't fly, they orbit.

Why would they want to be in an atmosphere with loads of drag slowing them down instead of in space where they can orbit with virtually no atmosphere to slow them down?

You need to get your eyes checked. You think you can see much farther than you actually can.

You need to get your brain checked. You seem to think your eyes have a magical distance limit, which magically changes depending on what you want to see.

The "planets" are a fiction by NASA and their shills to prop up a Nine Realms cosmology. We don't see any sign of them

Because you choose to remain wilfully ignorant.
You can get a telescope and resolve them with it.

The problem is, someone came up with this model.

Because it matched observed reality. And it has nothing to do with Norse Mythology.

The geocentric model

doesn't work without loads of magic.

The sun doesn't produce energy.

i.e. you appeal to pure magic.

even your big huge sun model would have exhausted itself over tens of thousands, much less billions, of years of light and heat output.

Based upon what?
Yet again you just baselessly assert crap with no justification at all.
Why should it last only 10s of thousands of years?
Why not trillions? Why not only 10 s?

You have no justification at all.
Instead, you just want to dismiss reality so you spout this crap.

Not only can I do this, but these things are easy.

It is trivial to spout vague crap which answers nothing.
But you have had it repeatedly explained how your parabola fails entirely. You cannot make it work, and you just flee from things showing that.
Meanwhile, the RE model works with you unable to show a fault.

I know these things because God inspired me

i.e. you don't know it at all and instead just believe because a voice in your head told you.
i.e. what you believe is not based upon evidence or rational thought. It is just the fantasy you want.

Your model, on the other hand

Works fine, with you still yet to show a fault.


Now care to stop with all the pathetic deflections, and instead address the questions that show you are spouting dishonest, delusional BS:

WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

Books are also written by people still living, ignoramus.

Believe me, luck isn't needed. The world has been mapped

Yes, I remember writing a few. But the moment you start relying on what they say, you're a packrat clinging to artifacts.

I seem to remember that being said in the Truman show.

That's a good way to keep people trapped so they won't explore. "Nothing left to see!" No islands we've missed, etc, etc.

Yeah right. The world isn't stable. Islands can erode away. New ones can form from volcanic activities or tectonic plates moving. The government has several hidden bases, and this map system leaves something to be desired when you get that Google Maps/Earth not only has areas that are literally blacked out but also several visual glitches where areas look copypasted.

Yeah right. The world isn't stable. Islands can erode away. New ones can form from volcanic activities or tectonic plates moving. The government has several hidden bases, and this map system leaves something to be desired when you get that Google Maps/Earth not only has areas that are literally blacked out but also several visual glitches where areas look copypasted.

None of which makes rockets not work.
Again:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

Only sorcerors talk of magic.



Lemme see your bathrobe, Jack.

As for me, I can readily see that no such thing as frictionless perpetual motion exists. For there to be motion, there must be friction. The only situation resembling what you're talking about with momentum continuing is due to ice. Guess what? Friction is actually the key to ice's ability to make things slide.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/20
So, let's review. More friction actually means more momentum. But friction also causes loss of motion through conversion of energy. No friction, no momentum. Frictionless vacuum of space, supposedly allowing infinite motion? Not a chance. Motion is either absent or finite.

Magic? No, there's nothing magic about this, sorceror.

A rocket in turn loses energy as it burns the same fuel, forcing more fuel to be burned.

Only sorcerors talk of magic.

No, plenty of people do.
Now care to stop with the BS and instead try addressing the issues raised?

As for me, I can readily see that no such thing as frictionless perpetual motion exists. For there to be motion, there must be friction.

You have already had that shown that to be pure BS.

Again, the force accelerating an object doesn't need to magically continue to cause friction after.
You are appealing to 2 different points in time to pretend they are the same.
It is dishonest BS.

The only situation resembling what you're talking about with momentum continuing is due to ice. Guess what? Friction is actually the key to ice's ability to make things slide.

No, it's not.
Intermolecular forces and temperature are.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/20

This does not support your delusional BS at all.

More friction actually means more momentum.

No, it doens't.
Friction has no direct bearing on momentum.
But more friction means a greater force trying to stop relative motion, which typically acts to stop things.

Motion is either absent or finite.

And as explained repeatedly, finite varies from less than 1 second, to more than a trillion years.
Motion being finite is not enough to claim space travel is fake.

Magic? No, there's nothing magic about this, sorceror.

A rocket in turn loses energy as it burns the same fuel, forcing more fuel to be burned.

There is no magic about the diagram, wich clearly shows sources of friction, sources which either entirely don't exist for the rocket because the rocket is not tied to a string, or is insignificant due to the negligible air pressure.

A rocket gains kinetic energy as fuel is burned.

Again:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

You literally looked at this picture above and asked me those questions.



Look at the picture again.

Kinetic energy doesn't "go". It converts into heat. Less kinetic energy each swing. And before you say "But in space..." No. We've already seen friction from the vacuum pendulum. Friction is needed for the shuttle to move, so yes, this same thing happens.
 Momentum works hand in hand with kinetic energy. Except for high friction areas (see the aforementioned ice and snow), momentum results in kinetic energy lost to conversion with not much aftereffect. With ice and snow, and an angular snope, it is rather difficult to lose momentum. But if you are to skate for several hours without intervention, building up more and more speed, you'd slow down when heat generated by your motion exceeds the surface. That seldom happens though, as melted ice turns into cold air that refreezes the ice. In other words, not in "frictionless" space, but in high friction ice would you most likely see Newton's fantasy play out. Even then, motion does stall out given enough distance. Even if you could somehow loop a hill so you keep skiing down it, you would eventually lose all motion to transference of heat.
What force? Haven't you been listening? Look at the picture again.

Each swing reduces energy a little further. Like so...







No force needed to stop it. I would need force or energy, even the tiny amount of kinetic energy from moving my arm, to restart it again.

 What's that? You still have questions? Keep looking at this pendulum.

amazing!


well the hand with the string is assumed to be on earth in an air surrounded environment.
so air friction would slow it down.

in space, with no air, there would be no air friction.



amazing thoughts!

You literally looked at this picture above and asked me those questions.

Because a rocket is not a pendulum.

You literally looked at this picture above and asked me those questions.

Yes, because you still don't understand.

Look at the picture again.
Kinetic energy doesn't just magically vanish. Nor does it just magically convert into heat.
Instead, various forces/interactions convert the kinetic into heat, i.e. friction and air resistance.
i.e. friction converts the kinetic energy into heat which is then lost to the environment.
Friction is a force.

And again, this pendulum is quite different to a rocket in space.
This picture clearly highlights 2 significant sources, (although one is more viscoelastic behaviour with deformation causing conversion to heat), the pivot where the string is bending/sliding/whatever, and air resistance.

But again, in space, that air resistance is negligible, and far more importantly, THERE ISN'T A STRING ATTACHING IT TO A PIVOT!

We've already seen friction from the vacuum pendulum.

You mean we have seen friction from the pivot attached to the pendulum.
That has no bearing on a vacuum or not.
So no, we have not seen vacuums causing friction.
We have seen a pivot causing friction.

Friction is needed for the shuttle to move, so yes, this same thing happens.

Again, stop acting like the engine is running the entire time pushing on the rocket trying to stop it.
You cannot just say "Hey look, under these highly specific circumstances there was friction (ignoring that it accelerates the rocket), so there is always going to be massive amounts of friction to stop it".

Again, the shuttle accelerates due to a rocket engine producing high pressure gas to push the rocket.
Once that engine shuts off, there is no more high pressure gas. Instead you just have the negligible (near 0) pressure of space. That is not a significant source of friction.

So no, we don't expect it to just stop after a few minutes.
With the friction being negligible we expect it to take an incredibly long time to stop. Plenty of time for space travel.

Except for high friction areas (see the aforementioned ice and snow)

Ice is low friction, not high.

momentum results in kinetic energy lost to conversion with not much aftereffect.

Again, notice the key part, it needs to be converted.
It doens't magically vanish.
You need some kind of interaction to convert the kinetic energy into heat.

With ice and snow, and an angular snope, it is rather difficult to lose momentum.

i.e. with minimal friction, it is rather difficult to lose momentum, because you don't have a force trying to stop you.

in high friction ice

Again, ice is low friction.

Vacuums have even less.

What force? Haven't you been listening? Look at the picture again.

Yes, look at the picture again.
Notice what it says?
One source is air resistance, which is effectively removed (made almost entirely insignificant) in a vacuum. So that clearly can't be what is stopping the shuttle. And from the tests, we see that isn't significant for most pendula either.
The other source, is stated in the diagram as "string bending at fulcrum". This is the main source of friction stopping most pendula.

Ignoring that fact wont change it.

No force needed to stop it.

So now you just blatantly lie?
Friction is a force.
The diagram shows this friction, with this friction taking away the kinetic energy, turning into heat.

So yes, YOU DO NEED A FORCE TO STOP IT!

All the evidence you need a force to stop things.
No evidence at all shows things magically stop without a force.

What's that? You still have questions? Keep looking at this pendulum.

The pendulum supports my question and shows your argument is pure BS.

Again, remove the pivot, and remove the air, and you don't have the friction to stop it, so it should keep going.

Now again:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

Asked and answered.

Kinetic energy doesn't just magically vanish. Nor does it just magically convert into heat.

More of that hippie-dippy voodoo magic science. You can literally see where it converts to heat, you dispute a picture that you guys sent me. Is the picture accurate or not?

As for me, it seems accurate, because I remember a science teacher also explaining that when making machines, there is always conversion into light or sound, so no invention was considered 100% efficient.

And again, this pendulum is quite different to a rocket in space.

You and markjo both say so, yet never clarify that position. Friction is not simply a force that stalls out motion. Strictly speaking, it is the rubbing of two things against each other. For example, a jet moving in the air has the object moving against the surface of air. A skate on ice has kinetic friction and static friction, moving against the surface of ice.

Stack Exchange has this to say:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/194291

Friction that allows us to walk depends on gravity to convert our mass to weight which holds our feet against the surface where static friction enables the soles of our shoes to push off against the surface of the Earth.

Hahaha! "Gravity."

Even when ice skating, kinetic friction keeps the blades sliding against the ice in a forward direction, and static friction allows the skates to push off to propel the skater forward.

Some friction is caused by molecular attraction, such as when Vibram soles are able to maintain grip on smooth rock. This is the result of electromagnetic forces in the rubber molecules of Vibram attracting rock molecules.

As they mention, friction is not just responsible for stopping, but also responsible for things like sliding on ice. This means, yes, the pendulum converting energy thing is still in effect.

Even a rocket engine, which otherwise could be used to propel you in a frictionless environment, depends on the difference in force between friction caused by great pressure of propellant exhaust on a small area (exit pressure) and the lesser friction of propellant exhaust flowing through a larger area (free stream pressure). The equation for rocket thrust shows this:

rocket thrust=mass flow rate×exit velocity+(exit pressure−free stream pressure)×exit area.

The coefficient of friction is a measure of how strongly two surfaces will stick together. It's the ratio between the force necessary to induce sliding, and the pressure holding the two surfaces together. It can be used to calculate the amount of friction:

f=μN

where, f is the friction, μ is the coefficient of friction and N

is the normal force (perpendicular to both surfaces, which presses them together).

If surfaces could slide with no force at all, the numerator of their coefficient of friction would be zero, the coefficient itself would be zero, and the frictional force between those two surfaces would be zero. Here is a list of coefficients of friction of various materials. The maximum coefficient of friction is one, and the minimum is zero.

Friction exists everywhere in the universe. To have no friction, there would have to be no gravity, no electromagnetic force, no gluons to hold atomic nuclei together, and no bosons to allow the buildup of heavy nuclei in stars. All would be chaos. Newton's third law would be inoperative. The universe would be a soup of uniform density with no structure. Entropy would tend to be maximal. You would not be able to walk.

It is cohesion and buoyancy responsible for what he calls gravity, but his point stands (from what I understand of it). Outer space may not have air resistance (so unlike the jet, it wouldn't be moving against the air), but it very definitely does generate friction through the motion of atoms (specifically through the exhaust and the body of the craft itself).

The idea that a rocket has no friction is nonsensical at best, and devious at worst. Whenever it moves, friction moves it, and also stops it. But I don't consider stopping it the act of a force. It stops because of loss of energy which is the result (effect) of the force (cause) of friction.

As I say. Asked and answered.

Asked and answered.

Quote

Kinetic energy doesn't just magically vanish. Nor does it just magically convert into heat.

More of that hippie-dippy voodoo magic science. You can literally see where it converts to heat, you dispute a picture that you guys sent me. Is the picture accurate or not?

As for me, it seems accurate, because I remember a science teacher also explaining that when making machines, there is always conversion into light or sound, so no invention was considered 100% efficient.

Quote

And again, this pendulum is quite different to a rocket in space.

You and markjo both say so, yet never clarify that position. Friction is not simply a force that stalls out motion. Strictly speaking, it is the rubbing of two things against each other. For example, a jet moving in the air has the object moving against the surface of air. A skate on ice has kinetic friction and static friction, moving against the surface of ice.

Stack Exchange has this to say:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/194291

Quote

Friction that allows us to walk depends on gravity to convert our mass to weight which holds our feet against the surface where static friction enables the soles of our shoes to push off against the surface of the Earth.

Hahaha! "Gravity."

Quote

Even when ice skating, kinetic friction keeps the blades sliding against the ice in a forward direction, and static friction allows the skates to push off to propel the skater forward.

Some friction is caused by molecular attraction, such as when Vibram soles are able to maintain grip on smooth rock. This is the result of electromagnetic forces in the rubber molecules of Vibram attracting rock molecules.

As they mention, friction is not just responsible for stopping, but also responsible for things like sliding on ice. This means, yes, the pendulum converting energy thing is still in effect.

Quote

Even a rocket engine, which otherwise could be used to propel you in a frictionless environment, depends on the difference in force between friction caused by great pressure of propellant exhaust on a small area (exit pressure) and the lesser friction of propellant exhaust flowing through a larger area (free stream pressure). The equation for rocket thrust shows this:

rocket thrust=mass flow rate×exit velocity+(exit pressure−free stream pressure)×exit area.

The coefficient of friction is a measure of how strongly two surfaces will stick together. It's the ratio between the force necessary to induce sliding, and the pressure holding the two surfaces together. It can be used to calculate the amount of friction:

f=μN

where, f is the friction, μ is the coefficient of friction and N

is the normal force (perpendicular to both surfaces, which presses them together).

If surfaces could slide with no force at all, the numerator of their coefficient of friction would be zero, the coefficient itself would be zero, and the frictional force between those two surfaces would be zero. Here is a list of coefficients of friction of various materials. The maximum coefficient of friction is one, and the minimum is zero.

Friction exists everywhere in the universe. To have no friction, there would have to be no gravity, no electromagnetic force, no gluons to hold atomic nuclei together, and no bosons to allow the buildup of heavy nuclei in stars. All would be chaos. Newton's third law would be inoperative. The universe would be a soup of uniform density with no structure. Entropy would tend to be maximal. You would not be able to walk.

It is cohesion and buoyancy responsible for what he calls gravity, but his point stands (from what I understand of it). Outer space may not have air resistance (so unlike the jet, it wouldn't be moving against the air), but it very definitely does generate friction through the motion of atoms (specifically through the exhaust and the body of the craft itself).

The idea that a rocket has no friction is nonsensical at best, and devious at worst. Whenever it moves, friction moves it, and also stops it. But I don't consider stopping it the act of a force. It stops because of loss of energy which is the result (effect) of the force (cause) of friction.

As I say. Asked and answered.

A pendulum will not work without gravity. What changes the direction of the wight, at end of the string?

Magic?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 12, 2024, 08:52:13 AM

Asked and answered.

Quote

Kinetic energy doesn't just magically vanish. Nor does it just magically convert into heat.

More of that hippie-dippy voodoo magic science. You can literally see where it converts to heat, you dispute a picture that you guys sent me. Is the picture accurate or not?

As for me, it seems accurate, because I remember a science teacher also explaining that when making machines, there is always conversion into light or sound, so no invention was considered 100% efficient.

Quote

And again, this pendulum is quite different to a rocket in space.

You and markjo both say so, yet never clarify that position. Friction is not simply a force that stalls out motion. Strictly speaking, it is the rubbing of two things against each other. For example, a jet moving in the air has the object moving against the surface of air. A skate on ice has kinetic friction and static friction, moving against the surface of ice.

Stack Exchange has this to say:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/194291

Quote

Friction that allows us to walk depends on gravity to convert our mass to weight which holds our feet against the surface where static friction enables the soles of our shoes to push off against the surface of the Earth.

Hahaha! "Gravity."

Quote

Even when ice skating, kinetic friction keeps the blades sliding against the ice in a forward direction, and static friction allows the skates to push off to propel the skater forward.

Some friction is caused by molecular attraction, such as when Vibram soles are able to maintain grip on smooth rock. This is the result of electromagnetic forces in the rubber molecules of Vibram attracting rock molecules.

As they mention, friction is not just responsible for stopping, but also responsible for things like sliding on ice. This means, yes, the pendulum converting energy thing is still in effect.

Quote

Even a rocket engine, which otherwise could be used to propel you in a frictionless environment, depends on the difference in force between friction caused by great pressure of propellant exhaust on a small area (exit pressure) and the lesser friction of propellant exhaust flowing through a larger area (free stream pressure). The equation for rocket thrust shows this:

rocket thrust=mass flow rate×exit velocity+(exit pressure−free stream pressure)×exit area.

The coefficient of friction is a measure of how strongly two surfaces will stick together. It's the ratio between the force necessary to induce sliding, and the pressure holding the two surfaces together. It can be used to calculate the amount of friction:

f=μN

where, f is the friction, μ is the coefficient of friction and N

is the normal force (perpendicular to both surfaces, which presses them together).

If surfaces could slide with no force at all, the numerator of their coefficient of friction would be zero, the coefficient itself would be zero, and the frictional force between those two surfaces would be zero. Here is a list of coefficients of friction of various materials. The maximum coefficient of friction is one, and the minimum is zero.

Friction exists everywhere in the universe. To have no friction, there would have to be no gravity, no electromagnetic force, no gluons to hold atomic nuclei together, and no bosons to allow the buildup of heavy nuclei in stars. All would be chaos. Newton's third law would be inoperative. The universe would be a soup of uniform density with no structure. Entropy would tend to be maximal. You would not be able to walk.

It is cohesion and buoyancy responsible for what he calls gravity, but his point stands (from what I understand of it). Outer space may not have air resistance (so unlike the jet, it wouldn't be moving against the air), but it very definitely does generate friction through the motion of atoms (specifically through the exhaust and the body of the craft itself).

The idea that a rocket has no friction is nonsensical at best, and devious at worst. Whenever it moves, friction moves it, and also stops it. But I don't consider stopping it the act of a force. It stops because of loss of energy which is the result (effect) of the force (cause) of friction.

As I say. Asked and answered.

A pendulum will not work without gravity. What changes the direction of the wight, at end of the string?

the guy also thinks water falls off (aka UP!) the south pole in teh globe model...

Quote

And again, this pendulum is quite different to a rocket in space.

You and markjo both say so, yet never clarify that position.

A pendulum is a lot closer to a rocking chair than to a rocket.  They can both go as fast as you want for as long as you want, but you won't get anywhere.  Come to think of it, it's a lot like trying to teach you physics.

A rocket is free to move as far as the thrust and propellant supply allow.

Friction is not simply a force that stalls out motion. Strictly speaking, it is the rubbing of two things against each other.

Actually, friction is simply a force that opposes motion by rubbing things together.  Not sure why you insist on arguing the simplest of definitions.

Asked and answered.

Quote

Kinetic energy doesn't just magically vanish. Nor does it just magically convert into heat.

More of that hippie-dippy voodoo magic science. You can literally see where it converts to heat, you dispute a picture that you guys sent me. Is the picture accurate or not?

As for me, it seems accurate, because I remember a science teacher also explaining that when making machines, there is always conversion into light or sound, so no invention was considered 100% efficient.

Quote

And again, this pendulum is quite different to a rocket in space.

You and markjo both say so, yet never clarify that position. Friction is not simply a force that stalls out motion. Strictly speaking, it is the rubbing of two things against each other. For example, a jet moving in the air has the object moving against the surface of air. A skate on ice has kinetic friction and static friction, moving against the surface of ice.

Stack Exchange has this to say:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/194291

Quote

Friction that allows us to walk depends on gravity to convert our mass to weight which holds our feet against the surface where static friction enables the soles of our shoes to push off against the surface of the Earth.

Hahaha! "Gravity."

Quote

Even when ice skating, kinetic friction keeps the blades sliding against the ice in a forward direction, and static friction allows the skates to push off to propel the skater forward.

Some friction is caused by molecular attraction, such as when Vibram soles are able to maintain grip on smooth rock. This is the result of electromagnetic forces in the rubber molecules of Vibram attracting rock molecules.

As they mention, friction is not just responsible for stopping, but also responsible for things like sliding on ice. This means, yes, the pendulum converting energy thing is still in effect.

Quote

Even a rocket engine, which otherwise could be used to propel you in a frictionless environment, depends on the difference in force between friction caused by great pressure of propellant exhaust on a small area (exit pressure) and the lesser friction of propellant exhaust flowing through a larger area (free stream pressure). The equation for rocket thrust shows this:

rocket thrust=mass flow rate×exit velocity+(exit pressure−free stream pressure)×exit area.

The coefficient of friction is a measure of how strongly two surfaces will stick together. It's the ratio between the force necessary to induce sliding, and the pressure holding the two surfaces together. It can be used to calculate the amount of friction:

f=μN

where, f is the friction, μ is the coefficient of friction and N

is the normal force (perpendicular to both surfaces, which presses them together).

If surfaces could slide with no force at all, the numerator of their coefficient of friction would be zero, the coefficient itself would be zero, and the frictional force between those two surfaces would be zero. Here is a list of coefficients of friction of various materials. The maximum coefficient of friction is one, and the minimum is zero.

Friction exists everywhere in the universe. To have no friction, there would have to be no gravity, no electromagnetic force, no gluons to hold atomic nuclei together, and no bosons to allow the buildup of heavy nuclei in stars. All would be chaos. Newton's third law would be inoperative. The universe would be a soup of uniform density with no structure. Entropy would tend to be maximal. You would not be able to walk.

It is cohesion and buoyancy responsible for what he calls gravity, but his point stands (from what I understand of it). Outer space may not have air resistance (so unlike the jet, it wouldn't be moving against the air), but it very definitely does generate friction through the motion of atoms (specifically through the exhaust and the body of the craft itself).

The idea that a rocket has no friction is nonsensical at best, and devious at worst. Whenever it moves, friction moves it, and also stops it. But I don't consider stopping it the act of a force. It stops because of loss of energy which is the result (effect) of the force (cause) of friction.

As I say. Asked and answered.

Do you actually believe all that drivel you go on about?

What’s strange and something you are obviously totally ignorant about is that all the world around you works in ways that go against all the crazy stuff you believe.

The made world and everything you and everyone else uses in their day to day lives were designed by engineers/designers using various principles and physical laws that are opposed to everything you believe in .

How do you account for that?

No designer or engineer would agree with anything you believe in.

How do you account for that? How do you account for the fact of all those things that you and everyone else uses all work despite what you believe!

The world operates and works despite the nonsense you believe. The fact that it all works is proof that you are wrong in all what you believe.

The other thing is you are just too stupid to realise that.

Asked and answered.

You mean deflected and fled from.

More of that hippie-dippy voodoo magic science.

No. More of calling out dishonest BS as magic.

You can literally see where it converts to heat

In that picture yes. But not for a rocket.
As already explained repeatedly.

What is the source of loss in that picture? Air resistance and the pivot.
Air resistance is negligible in space, and the pivot simply isn't there.

Is the picture accurate or not?

It is an accurate representation for a pendulum in Earth's atmosphere.
Noting the significant reduction in air resistance and making the slight modification to the picture, it would then be accurate for a pendulum in a vacuum.

You and markjo both say so, yet never clarify that position.

BS!
We have clarified repeatedly.
A rocket in space is not attached to a string swinging back and forth.

Friction is not simply a force that stalls out motion.

It is a force which resists relative motion.
So if you have a craft flying through static air, it will attempt to stop that craft.
If instead you have a piece of paper sitting on the ground and their is wind, the wind will pick up the piece of paper and move it with it.

As they mention, friction is not just responsible for stopping, but also responsible for things like sliding on ice. This means, yes, the pendulum converting energy thing is still in effect.

No, it isn't, as you don't have the picot.

Outer space may not have air resistance (so unlike the jet, it wouldn't be moving against the air), but it very definitely does generate friction through the motion of atoms (specifically through the exhaust and the body of the craft itself).

Again, that is when the rocket engine is on, accelerating the rocket. That doesn't magically continue to act to stop the rocket after.

The idea that a rocket has no friction is nonsensical at best, and devious at worst.

No, it is just a simple honest approximation given the absolutely negligible friction that is there when it is coasting through space.

But I don't consider stopping it the act of a force.

Because you are dishonest, delusional and appeal to magic.
Again, stopping requires a force. All the evidence shows that.

As I say. Asked and answered.

As I say, deflected and fled.

At no point have you answered of the questions asked of you.

Again:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Again, without something to interact with, to apply a force, you can't have the kinetic energy magically vanish.
It can't just magically turn to heat.

An answer would be clearly describing what the rocket is interacting with, while it is in motion without the engine running (so no friction from the exhaust) which acts to slow it down.
Appealing to a pendulum tied to a string with a pivot, which interacts with that pivot to lose energy is not a valid comparison because a rocket does not have a pivot.

Instead, you need to explain what the rocket is interacting with.
And from that you need to have some idea of how quickly it will stop it.
(Again, the math from before showed at least billions of years if I recall correctly, plenty for space travel).

A pendulum will not work without gravity. What changes the direction of the wight, at end of the string?

Negative buoyancy, angular momentum, and friction with the air.

Do you actually believe all that drivel you go on about?

What’s strange and something you are obviously totally ignorant about is that all the world around you works in ways that go against all the crazy stuff you believe.

The made world and everything you and everyone else uses in their day to day lives were designed by engineers/designers using various principles and physical laws that are opposed to everything you believe in .

How do you account for that?

No designer or engineer would agree with anything you believe in.

How do you account for that? How do you account for the fact of all those things that you and everyone else uses all work despite what you believe!

The world operates and works despite the nonsense you believe. The fact that it all works is proof that you are wrong in all what you believe.

The other thing is you are just too stupid to realise that.

Designers and engineers using the 1st law of motion all have to make adjustments when their inventions don't work forever. When their perpetual motion device fails because "Oh golly darns, Newton said objects in motion stay in motion but it's not doing that. I wonder what's wrong?" Uhhhhh, yeah, Newton is wrong.

Now move on and make an engine where you add energy to.
Meanwhile, whenever physics or engineering uses non-Newtonian principles, it needs no adjustment.

You can call me too stupid all you want, but you are the one too stupid to realize I'm right. 

Any real scientist understands that you are basically doing the scientific equivalent of pushing a 50 lb picture frame with a tiny bottle rocket before letting it go, and expecting it to fly rather than falling.  Even rocket people who believe in gravity give the figure of 1 lb per 22 Newtons of force (110 Newtons for only 5 lb, nevermind 50). If you don't have friction, an object certainly will no fly forever. I don't know whether it would hang in midair or simply drop to the Earth, but I know what it decidedly will not do. 

You actually see a science formula, and you still think that it doesn't work. Can you say bias?