WHY would the government trick us?

https://www.sciencealert.com/higgs-particles-and-tiny-black-holes-could-have-destroyed-our-universe

Basically, they hint that LHC can create Higgs particles and cause micro black holes... for a fraction of a second.

Hmm...  The article seems to be talking about Higgs and micro black holes in the primordial universe, not our current universe.  So, no need to panic.

Recent measurements of particle masses from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern suggest that such an event might be possible. But don't panic; this may only occur in a few thousand billion billion years after we retire.

Simply allowing this to become stable is not enough of a stretch to even be called science fiction, whereas I've repeatedly explained how trying to use "escape velocity" to just sorta continue momentum outside atmosphere is a pipe dream.

So you can accept CERN creating micro black holes and Higgs bosons, but you can't handle escape velocity?  That's just weird.

NASA, Space Force, same difference. All part of the same agenda trying to explore Mars.

See, I told you that you don't know either.  Again, research the things that you're trying to debunk.

The point being if you ask any Trekkie how scientifically accurate Star Trek is, they are convinced it's close to real science. Just more proof that people believe in the science they want, not what is actually true.

Well, good science fiction is based on good science.  You would probably be surprised as to how much science in Star Trek is either real or how much real science and technology was inspired by Star Trek.

Not all of Star Trek is one hundred percent scientifically accurate, but a startling amount of its science is tied to the real world. Rather than make things up out of whole cloth, the series creators work closely with scientific experts for realistic, in-depth worldbuilding. Even the parts that are the most far-fetched, like gravitons, have a basis in theoretical physics. Others, like PADDs and Captain Pike's chair, predicted existing technology long before its time. Even though it isn't here yet, there could be a day when we have ships powered by lithium crystals, antimatter reactors, and more.

Btw, if you don't think NASA has been using science fiction as the model for what they can do, you haven't been paying attention.

Or you have just been grasping at BS, yet again, because you can't refute reality no matter how much it upsets you.

My understanding was "SPACE FORCE" was just Trump's dick waving contest.
But what you should really be looking at is WHY is the logo like that?
Is it that they are copying, or are they merely taking the same inspiration?
Have you looked into the history of the logo, and logos of other US things?

Simply allowing this to become stable is not enough of a stretch to even be called science fiction

Yes, it is.
That is because the current understanding of blackholes allows them to form easily in experiments like this, but they would evaporate before they can get the matter needed to stop them disappearing.

So it requires quite a lot to make it stable, putting it well into the realm of science fiction.
And even if you did make it stable, that is not a traversable wormhole.

whereas I've repeatedly explained how trying to use "escape velocity" to just sorta continue momentum outside atmosphere is a pipe dream.

You mean you have repeatedly asserted childish BS and fled from refutations of that BS, instead appealing to BS false analogies to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.

Again, the questions you need to answer to "explain" how that is a "pipe dream":
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Until you have an answer, which can withstand scrutiny, your "explanation" is a pipe dream.

Again, in space, the only source of friction is the insignificant air resistance which will allow it travel for billions of years.
That is plenty to reach other planets.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 05, 2024, 01:43:49 PM

https://www.sciencealert.com/higgs-particles-and-tiny-black-holes-could-have-destroyed-our-universe

Basically, they hint that LHC can create Higgs particles and cause micro black holes... for a fraction of a second.

Hmm...  The article seems to be talking about Higgs and micro black holes in the primordial universe, not our current universe.  So, no need to panic.

Quote from: https://www.sciencealert.com/higgs-particles-and-tiny-black-holes-could-have-destroyed-our-universe

Recent measurements of particle masses from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern suggest that such an event might be possible. But don't panic; this may only occur in a few thousand billion billion years after we retire.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 05, 2024, 01:43:49 PM

Simply allowing this to become stable is not enough of a stretch to even be called science fiction, whereas I've repeatedly explained how trying to use "escape velocity" to just sorta continue momentum outside atmosphere is a pipe dream.

So you can accept CERN creating micro black holes and Higgs bosons, but you can't handle escape velocity?  That's just weird.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 05, 2024, 01:43:49 PM

NASA, Space Force, same difference. All part of the same agenda trying to explore Mars.

See, I told you that you don't know either.  Again, research the things that you're trying to debunk.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 05, 2024, 01:43:49 PM

The point being if you ask any Trekkie how scientifically accurate Star Trek is, they are convinced it's close to real science. Just more proof that people believe in the science they want, not what is actually true.

Well, good science fiction is based on good science.  You would probably be surprised as to how much science in Star Trek is either real or how much real science and technology was inspired by Star Trek.

Quote from: https://www.towerfast.com/press-room/the-science-of-star-trek

Not all of Star Trek is one hundred percent scientifically accurate, but a startling amount of its science is tied to the real world. Rather than make things up out of whole cloth, the series creators work closely with scientific experts for realistic, in-depth worldbuilding. Even the parts that are the most far-fetched, like gravitons, have a basis in theoretical physics. Others, like PADDs and Captain Pike's chair, predicted existing technology long before its time. Even though it isn't here yet, there could be a day when we have ships powered by lithium crystals, antimatter reactors, and more.

Good science? Hah! Don't you understand?

The public thinks people fly in space from films, not from any real science. "Zero gravity," they say. In actuality, if you're gonna call this gravity, the mass of a space shuttle will always be more than the air, meaning it should only rise if propulsion pushes it harder than the air around it. But in a vacuum, there is no air, so motion only happens via Newton's "equal and opposite " reaction, that is, by expending fuel or energy, or both.

I think you Trekkie fanboys are too fixated on the science you would like to have happen, and confuse it with the science that actually is. Which is to say, if we were actually examine Star Trek technology, fabricators due not work bwcause of conservation of matter ("matter cannot be created or destroyed") and space travel does not work because thermodynamics doesn't allow perpetual motion or perpetual energy. That is, in order to keep Kirk's Enterprise moving through space requires a constant burn of fuel, and there is simply no efficient way to do this. Rare resources are by definition rare. Too far away from a world means you can't mine them. And any energy system that doesn't use resources has to use some tricky perpetual energy system. Except...

It's fun to dream. But science fiction actually is fiction, not "fiction based on good science. Your "good science" is science fiction.

Its not a LACK of gravity.

Its the FEELING of gravity.
Becaise the shuttle is falling along with you.



Just like "go up that street".
Is not literally UP off the ground like a helicopter.


Spectacular.

Can you repeat it back in your own words to show that you understand?


Or will you contibue to misrepesent things?

Its not a LACK of gravity.

Its the FEELING of gravity.
Becaise the shuttle is falling along with you.



Just like "go up that street".
Is not literally UP off the ground like a helicopter.


Spectacular.

Can you repeat it back in your own words to show that you understand?


Or will you contibue to misrepesent things?

You never feel gravity. You feel inertia, which is to say the lack of Gravity. Must you continue to misrepresent things?

The public thinks people fly in space from films, not from any real science.

No, the public thinks that people fly in space because over 500 people have flown in space, including well over a dozen tourists that have been to orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_space_tourism_trips

"Zero gravity," they say. In actuality, if you're gonna call this gravity, the mass of a space shuttle will always be more than the air, meaning it should only rise if propulsion pushes it harder than the air around it. But in a vacuum, there is no air, so motion only happens via Newton's "equal and opposite " reaction, that is, by expending fuel or energy, or both.

Have you managed to do a pushup against air yet?  No?  Then why would you expect a rocket to?

I think you Trekkie fanboys are too fixated on the science you would like to have happen, and confuse it with the science that actually is.

I have no trouble telling the difference between science fiction and science fact.  It seems that you do, however.

Which is to say, if we were actually examine Star Trek technology, fabricators due not work bwcause of conservation of matter ("matter cannot be created or destroyed")...

No one is claiming that the replicators or transporters are real.  BTW, energy can be converted to matter and vice versa.

... and space travel does not work because thermodynamics doesn't allow perpetual motion or perpetual energy.

Does thermodynamics allow coasting in space?

That is, in order to keep Kirk's Enterprise moving through space requires a constant burn of fuel, and there is simply no efficient way to do this.

That depends on what kind of moving the Enterprise is doing.  If the Enterprise is orbiting a planet, then it's just coasting and using its momentum and the planet's gravity to maintain a stable orbit.  Perhaps you're referring to the various episodes where they lose power and talk about their orbit decaying.  In reality, the only way that should happen is if they're so stupid as to be far enough inside the planet's atmosphere to encounter significant atmospheric drag.

It's fun to dream. But science fiction actually is fiction, not "fiction based on good science. Your "good science" is science fiction.

I'm trying to decide whether Dunning-Kruger or Poe's law applies to you.  What does everyone else think?

The public thinks people fly in space from films, not from any real science.

Depends on the public.
People like you might go for fuel, but others do you science.

"Zero gravity," they say.

No, zero g.
Also known as free fall.

I think you Trekkie fanboys are too fixated on the science you would like to have happen, and confuse it with the science that actually is.

Quite the opposite.
We are focusing on real science, while you reject it all and cling to the science you want.

Which is to say, if we were actually examine Star Trek technology, fabricators due not work bwcause of conservation of matter

You mean if you take a superficial glance?
Replicators take matter and rearrange it.

space travel does not work because thermodynamics doesn't allow perpetual motion or perpetual energy.

We have been over this countless times.
Thermodynamics means energy can't be created or destroyed.
That means once something has energy it can't just magically vanish.

This ties back to the questions you keep on ignoring:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Until you have an answer, which can withstand scrutiny, your "explanation" is a pipe dream.

Again, in space, the only source of friction is the insignificant air resistance which will allow it travel for billions of years.
That is plenty to reach other planets.
Modify message

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 09, 2024, 11:41:07 AM

Its not a LACK of gravity.

Its the FEELING of gravity.
Becaise the shuttle is falling along with you.



Just like "go up that street".
Is not literally UP off the ground like a helicopter.


Spectacular.

Can you repeat it back in your own words to show that you understand?


Or will you contibue to misrepesent things?

You never feel gravity. You feel inertia, which is to say the lack of Gravity. Must you continue to misrepresent things?

Well no...
Thats incorrect.
In contect:
We have the sendation of change where roller cosatsers are "interesting" when accelleration changes are felt.
A "fast" roller coaster is not as intersting as one that is consrantly changing direction.


The changes in accelleration, as you commet, are notcied.


But in context to what is said - "weightlesd" is not an absense of mass or absence of grsvity.
Bulma has proven himself to be a moron.
This is antlother case of not undersranding context.

(Too much post gave 503 error)

No, that's not why. The public thinks that way because they've been made to watch 500+ takeoffs. NASA's plans today is announced with great fanfare. It is talked in marketplaces. It does its deeds to be seen by others. It likes to take a place of honor in school rooms and places of science. It lays heavy (tax) burdens on people's shoulders, but is not willing to lift them.

If NASA were going to launch a rocket up, I would hear from no less than four people, one of them my mom, another a stranger, then the newspaper, then people on the TV talking about it. We'd be made to watch the news since she still believes in NASA like some kids still believe in Satan in his red suit giving presents, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. Them we'd go out and have to watch. Then I grew up and realized Santa and Satan are anagrams, and the thing is a lie by parents. Like the other three.  That rockets go up, but what goes up must come down.

Like Christmas and Easter (except the real one), this is a marketing hoax to make money. And ultimately, in all cases, the people who most get hoaxed are the children, and the people who pay are the taxpayers.

Have you managed to do a pushup against air yet?  No?  Then why would you expect a rocket to?

That is a good question. Yet a rocket must do worse. They have to do a pushup against empty space. A plane can push itself up by creating directional drafts, a jetski propulses against water. But the only way to push in a vacuum is to bring something with you. A balloon weakly lurches forward when releasing air (compared to an oxygen-rich environment), while a drone trying to fly by pushing air is earthbound. You say "but the balloon moved forward, that proves..." nothing. It proves nothing. That balloon had to contain gas, whether air or helium or hydrogen. Btw, the balloon cannot fly, no matter what is in it. Only by releasing its contents can it move in whatever direction.

I have no trouble telling the difference between science fiction and science fact

Do you really? I bet if I asked you where most of the space tropes come from, you'd (wrongly) think that it most of them came from the Apollo mission. Actually well before our "space flight" to the moon, there was a film called Road to the Stars (1957), which even features people floating in space.



Still think you know what's truth and what's not? The truth is, the public was conditioned to believe these things about space, well before they took off. And ideas came from movies.

Does thermodynamics allow coasting in space?

Momentum for a few miles is far different from expecting a momentum reaction to not deplete. As a science professor staked his life on, momentum is not a thing that continues intact from the original reaction.

I'm trying to decide whether Dunning-Kruger or Poe's law applies to you.  What does everyone else think?

I think you should stop looking for laws to pigeonhole people under, and maybe listen once in awhile.

That depends on what kind of moving the Enterprise is doing.  If the Enterprise is orbiting a planet, then it's just coasting and using its momentum and the planet's gravity to maintain a stable orbit.  Perhaps you're referring to the various episodes where they lose power and talk about their orbit decaying.  In reality, the only way that should happen is if they're so stupid as to be far enough inside the planet's atmosphere to encounter significant atmospheric drag.

In the depths of space, well away from any worlds, you should still expect to encounter friction. This is because friction is a subset of cohesion. In order for stars and the like to be held together, atoms and molecules must have friction. They must be able to interact. This means heat loss of momentum, as has been explained numerous times before.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47893/why-cant-a-spaceship-accelerate-for-ever-since-there-is-no-friction-in-space#47895

1. Think about what is required in order to accelerate. You have to throw something overboard. However your engine works you will eventually run out of fuel and at that point you are done accelerating.
2. There is not actually zero friction.
You know that hydrogen gas I said the Bussard ramjet would use? There is a little drag from that, and for velocities that are significantly different than the local rest frame of the CMB...

Indeed, as you realise, there is no friction in space.. well, there is a tiny bit, because space is not 100% empty, it has trace amounts of dust, hydrogen and radiation. But this dust will not cause any significant drag unless you move really fast relative to the dust (say, at a significant fraction of the speed of light)

The problem is that since, space is so empty, there is really no practical way to have energy available for propulsion unless you carry it with you. If the rocket carries the fuel, it means that the energy spent for acceleration needs to be used not only accelerating the payload, but also to accelerate the fuel mass that you are carrying with you! This leads to something called the rocket equation, which relates the density energy of your fuel, the ratio between the mass of the fuel and the payload, and the final velocity that you can achieve.

Friction also means that at no point should you expect the enterprise run at Warp 9.6 for more than 12 hours. The reason these devices can run so long has more to do with the existence of replicators than real physics. If you could (you can't, as mentioned before) replicate rocket fuel, there should be nothing to prevent you from moving straight out into the stars. But of course there is.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/15576/what-is-the-fuel-limited-flight-range-of-the-enterprise
Stress on the ship is still a thing, and the faster it pushes itself, the more likely it is to just stop dead in the celestial waters, so to speak. Yes, even employing the infinite gas hack in Star Trek, you still can short out the space ship either over time, or trying to go a higher warp factor than the ship is built to comfortably fly.

Quote from: markjo on August 09, 2024, 03:08:00 PM

(Too much post gave 503 error)

No, that's not why. The public thinks that way because they've been made to watch 500+ takeoffs.

I didn't say 500 take offs, I said over 500 people who have been to space.  More if you include the Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic sub orbital tourist flights.  There have been thousands of unmanned satellite and space probe launches that most people probably never heard of.

Quote

I have no trouble telling the difference between science fiction and science fact

Still think you know what's truth and what's not? The truth is, the public was conditioned to believe these things about space, well before they took off. And ideas came from movies.

Where did the movies get the ideas?  From science, maybe?

Quote

Does thermodynamics allow coasting in space?

Momentum for a few miles is far different from expecting a momentum reaction to not deplete. As a science professor staked his life on, momentum is not a thing that continues intact from the original reaction.

Science professors know that momentum is conserved.  Obviously you don't.

Quote

I'm trying to decide whether Dunning-Kruger or Poe's law applies to you.  What does everyone else think?

I think you should stop looking for laws to pigeonhole people under, and maybe listen once in awhile.

I'll listen when you have something worth hearing.  I'm still waiting. 

BTW, Dunning-Kruger is the notion that some people are so stupid that they think that they're smarter than experts.  Poe's law says that it's impossible to tell the difference between a true believer and a dedicated troll.  One of the two definitely applies to you.  I'm just not sure which.

This is because friction is a subset of cohesion.

See what I mean?

No, that's not why. The public thinks that way because they've been made to watch 500+ takeoffs. NASA's plans today is announced with great fanfare. It is talked in marketplaces. It does its deeds to be seen by others. It likes to take a place of honor in school rooms and places of science. It lays heavy (tax) burdens on people's shoulders, but is not willing to lift them.

No, for the most part no one cares.

If NASA were going to launch a rocket up, I would hear from no less than four people, one of them my mom, another a stranger, then the newspaper, then people on the TV talking about it.

Maybe because they realise your insanity and try to have you accept reality?

That rockets go up, but what goes up must come down.

Only if they are below escape velocity.

That is a good question. Yet a rocket must do worse.

The question shows the stupidity of your claim.
It shows that a rocket doesn't need air to push off, because it doesn't push off the air.
Instead it uses high pressure exhaust and pushes off that, more like how the wind can blow things around.

Do you really? I bet if I asked you where most of the space tropes come from, you'd (wrongly) think

You mean you will invent a fantasy to attack people because you can't actually refute them?

Momentum for a few miles is far different from expecting a momentum reaction to not deplete. As a science professor staked his life on, momentum is not a thing that continues intact from the original reaction.

Why only a few miles?
Can you give us a more definitive distance for just how far a rocket would be able to coast for in space?

As for that professor, I wouldn't say he staked his life on it, and it was it not getting more energy. At least if it is the one I'm thinking of.

I think you should stop looking for laws to pigeonhole people under, and maybe listen once in awhile.

Maybe you should try following that advice.

In the depths of space, well away from any worlds, you should still expect to encounter friction.

Not any significant amount.

In order for stars and the like to be held together, atoms and molecules must have friction.

So don't fly through stars. Problem solved.
Notice how that is where the matter is?
But away from the star, with negligible matter there is negligible friction?

So if you fly through the star you interact with lots of matter and slow down.
If you don't fly through the star, you don't get that interaction with lots of matter.

Again, if you want your BS to have any chance, you need to tell us what the ship is interacting with.
The key questions:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

If it is friction, then it needs to interact with something.
This will give a certain frictional force slowing it down.
And that will lead to a certain time and distance it can go before stopping.

You say a few miles, but you have absolutely no basis for that.

Warp

Warp is currently science fiction, and is the ship manipulating space itself.

Where did the movies get the ideas?  From science, maybe?

Some from science, some just from their ideas, which were later turned into science, and some from ideas still not science.

I didn't say 500 take offs, I said over 500 people who have been to space.  More if you include the Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic sub orbital tourist flights.  There have been thousands of unmanned satellite and space probe launches that most people probably never heard of.

This is why reading comprehension is a must. 500+ is not the same as 500. 500+ means more than 500, that is, at least 500 people have taken off, not including botched launches like Challenger. But how many of these people have been to space? Why, none of them, of course.

Quote

I have no trouble telling the difference between science fiction and science fact

Still think you know what's truth and what's not? The truth is, the public was conditioned to believe these things about space, well before they took off. And ideas came from movies.

Where did the movies get the ideas?  From science, maybe?

Hint: I mentioned the date for a reason. This Russian import film has the idea that people in space can float about... in 1957. But here is a timeline of the events in Russia.

1957: First intercontinental ballistic missile and orbital launch vehicle, the R-7 Semyorka.
1957: First satellite, Sputnik 1.
1957: First animal in Earth orbit, the dog Laika on Sputnik 2.
1959: First rocket ignition in Earth orbit, first man-made object to escape Earth's gravity, Luna 1.
1959: First data communications, or telemetry, to and from outer space, Luna 1.
1959: First man-made object to pass near the Moon, first man-made object in Heliocentric orbit, Luna 1.
1959: First probe to impact the Moon, Luna 2.
1959: First images of the Moon's far side, Luna 3.
1960: First animals to safely return from Earth orbit, the dogs Belka and Strelka on Sputnik 5.
1961: First probe launched to Venus, Venera 1.
1961: First person in space (International definition) and in Earth orbit, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, Vostok program.

Doggo in a tiny probe wouldn't be able to comment about zero gravity a year before. So there is literally no evidence that objects in space have "zero gravity." They made it up.

BTW, Dunning-Kruger is the notion that some people are so stupid that they think that they're smarter than experts.  Poe's law says that it's impossible to tell the difference between a true believer and a dedicated troll.  One of the two definitely applies to you.  I'm just not sure which.

Yes, I do actually believe in what I write. Poe's Law is out. Though the same cannot be said for you lot. I am convinced you are not only trolls, but paid trolls.

As for the second, like "Islamophobia", this is a fake phenomenon. Islamophobia is a fake thing, because of the implication the this is an irrational fear. But if you've seen your countrymen taken over by Islam or read any history, you would recognize this buzzword for what it is.
This so-called rule has the false implication that experts actually are experts. But since that cannot actually be proven, what you actually have in appeal to authority. A logical fallacy that says that because Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson (Mike Tyson's little brother, as far as I'm concerned) said it, it must be right. Sorry, but there are a few problems with that:
1. Suppose I work for the FDA. I would therefore be an expert in food inspection. Would I be an expert in astrophysics? Geometry? No, not necessarily. I might not even be an expert in conceivably adjacent fields like chemistry, nutrition, or biology. Those things I might only be able to figure out by running tests and not intuitively knowing.
2. Suppose it is my field. FDA food inspection, and I'm being told to check a particular chemical for safety. Now suppose I am underpaid (the FDA is in fact underpaid), and the chemical Beta-Omega Phosphate 12 has been shown to cause brain hemorrages. But BO Foods is willing to pay me to overlook, or outright lie about the results I find. "The FDA has determined Beta-Omega Phosphate 12 is fine in moderation."
3. Now suppose it is my field (this time let's say astronomy) but due to the nature of my field, I am too busy doing one thing, like writing reports.  Statistically, more amateur astronomers seem to discover new stars. If I were cynical (I am), I would say that many of these new stars are made up by the NASA elite, and just given new names over and over. But otherwise, there's the fact the professionals are too busy to have discovery time. Likewise, inventors typically don't keep inventing, as at some point production demands consume all their time.
4. Lastly, when it comes down to it, even if someone is an expert, is not being bribed, and is not too busy, the word of an expert is still secondary to personal opinion. No, I am not an expert. But I know the world that I see.

Also, I bothered to look it up...

In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence, instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.

It's more about skill level and how it leads to poor decisions. Like thinking you're a great motorcycle driver, and trying to jump a bridge or something. Or thinking because you took one class of first aid as an elective in high school, you can do an emergency surgery like the kid on the Good Doctor. It's not about thinking you're better than experts, it's about trying to do things that are way outside your expertise. Like picking mushrooms to eat, and expecting not to die.

The really funny thing about this is that it's about the "better than average" mindset and how it leads to terrible decisions. But here you are, cherrypicking which scientists you say are right, and ignoring others that I tell you are still relevant, while you tell me to make the terrible economic decision of handing my money to NASA.
It is precisely because I know that I don't know everything about science, and what I do know makes it somewhat clear that I shouldn't support such things without question, that I withhold any support to them. Meanwhile, your blind leap before you look approach is actually exactly what is being talked about here in the Dunning–Kruger effect. You learned from these experts what's what, you think, so why hesitate? EVER?!?
Maybe because people with any sense know that when given two options, inaction is better than wrong action. Idiots don't know how to put the brakes on their actions. In politics, they cause senseless amounts of suffering from their impulse-control problems. Instead of asking "Should we raise taxes?" they always say "of course we should!" while citing some plan on what they intend to do with these taxes, such as mandating electric cars even though they have never even pretended to look into whether such a thing is not in fact more wasteful than just leaving things alone. Electric cars involve tearing up land to look for rare metals. That alone is reason not to use them, especially when more car parts can be recycled. If we in turn recycle oil as fuel, we never have to mine for either, not for quite awhile. We could in turn research cleaner filters for gas emissions. But no, you want to tear up the soil for cars that take hours to charge.

I had a little kid at my house this week. He too had no impulse-control because his parents didn't like to say no, so he was incredibly entitled and wouldn't accept anyone telling him to stop anything. This usually meant his brother fought him (he should have clobbered him, hard, so he'd knock it off already), and often meant he hurt himself.

This is Dunning–Kruger effect. An arrogance in a specific subject that leads to dumbfuck decisions like investing billions in attempting to fly to Mars or Venus, when in fact people (like me) tell you that it is not only probably impossible but an enormous waste of money that could instead be used to invent labor-saving devices. Too damned much theoretical science, and way too much unethical science driven by this same "we know best" mindset. Why don't you fucking listen when people tell you something is dangerous? Or a waste of time? Or a scam? FFS.

This is why reading comprehension is a must. 500+ is not the same as 500.

And you still seem to fail at it.
You are still focusing on the "500" part, rather than it being people in space, not launches.

The government isn't making anyone watch.

But how many of these people have been to space? Why, none of them, of course.

That is just your fantasy, where you dismiss them all as liars, because otherwise they destroy your fantasy.

So there is literally no evidence that objects in space have "zero gravity." They made it up.

No, they understood it.
As you still clearly don't.
People in space are in zero g for the same reason objects in the vomit comet are.
They are in free fall.

It isn't "magical zero gravity because they are in space" like you want to pretend.
It is zero g because they are in free fall.

All it takes is some simple understanding which you refuse to do, because it hurts your fantasy.

Yes, I do actually believe in what I write. Poe's Law is out.

So pure stupidity then?

Though the same cannot be said for you lot. I am convinced you are not only trolls, but paid trolls.

Why?
Because we can so easily see through your BS and refute you, with you still fleeing from simple questions which destroy your fantasy?

But I know the world that I see.

Except you clearly don't.
You "know" the world you want to see, while rejecting the world you do.

It's more about skill level and how it leads to poor decisions. Like thinking you're a great motorcycle driver, and trying to jump a bridge or something. Or thinking because you took one class of first aid as an elective in high school, you can do an emergency surgery like the kid on the Good Doctor. It's not about thinking you're better than experts, it's about trying to do things that are way outside your expertise. Like picking mushrooms to eat, and expecting not to die.

And also about having a little understanding and thinking you know everything.

It is precisely because I know that I don't know everything about science

And if that truly was the case, and you understood that, you wouldn't be spouting such utter crap with such confidence.

You either don't know, don't understand, or are just wilfully lying to everyone by saying crap you know is false.

Maybe because people with any sense know that when given two options, inaction is better than wrong action.

You mean a very little sense.
Inaction can be worse than the wrong action. It depends on what the action is, how wrong it is and the consequences of inaction.

leads to dumbfuck decisions like investing billions in attempting to fly to Mars or Venus, when in fact people (like me) tell you that it is not only probably impossible but an enormous waste of money

Yet you cannot show why it is impossible, and just keep repeating the same pathetic BS while continually being refuted.
All while being terrified of a few simple questions which show you are spouting pure BS.

Why don't you fucking listen when people tell you something is dangerous? Or a waste of time? Or a scam? FFS.

Have you considering it could because these people don't know what they are talking about and keep repeating the same refuted BS, like you have been?

Someone telling me something is dangerous or waste or a scam or the like is entirely worthless.
If they want me to take them seriously, they need to explain why it is.

Hint: I mentioned the date for a reason. This Russian import film has the idea that people in space can float about... in 1957.

And where did the film makers get the idea of zero gravity in space?

BTW, Destination Moon fairly accurately explained the basics of a trip to the moon, including floating about in space... in 1950.  People have been thinking about how to get to the moon for almost 2000 years.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/lunar-tales-the-first-imaginative-moon-landings/

Yes, I do actually believe in what I write. Poe's Law is out.

Then you are that stupid.  Got it.

Also, I bothered to look it up...

Quote

In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence, instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.

It's more about skill level and how it leads to poor decisions. Like thinking you're a great motorcycle driver, and trying to jump a bridge or something.

Or knowing just enough physics to think that you know more about physics than actual physicists.

No, they fucking made it up. "Herp derp, space is like really thin air right? So then gravity should be practically nonexistent away from the Earth."

Yeah, that's the assumption of someone who has never been anywhere and knows nothing, not something who actually explored space.

I've been in water and I've been atop mountains. Guess what? It is harder to climb upward, than it is to not have something float. In other words, water pressure is higher than air pressure. Water gets things to float, whereas the less air pressure there is, the harder a climb is (consistent with buoyancy, not gravity). I once climbed up the mountain in Massanutten. I was totally out of breath, like I was pushing something up a hill. Years later, in context of flat Earth, that makes sense with what I know. My body struggled because I am more dense than the air but less than the ground. Rather than thin air being freeing, I most definitely did not feel like I could jump twenty feet. I would rather have been at sea level, swimming at a pool.
You are not pushing against gravity, which will suddenly release its hold when you get in space. No, the thinner the air, the more trouble things like hot air (or even helium) balloons have rise, until they can no longer rise because they are heavier than their surroundings. I know that you can't send a helium balloon to the moon. But your "zero gravity" should make it not only possible, but easy. The farther away from the Earth you are, the less resistance you should have to continuing to rise. That doesn't pan out.

They didn't come up with this using science. This was an assumption that a movie made the same year that zero people had made it to space. Or more precisely, before they were able to fake someone going to space, they already came up with a mythos about how people are able to fly around in space. I've climbed a few mountains in my life (Tashan Mountain in Yantai, Old Rag, Massanutten, a mountain near Mexico border, etc) and I don't ever recall a sense of lightness. Rather, the view was wonderful, but when I was carrying a bag, it felt heavy. I thought it was tiredness, but no it was a persistent sense of a bag pressing down on me, whereas downhill climbs always feel easier. Zero gravity is based on assumptions. Not observable reality.

Ask yourself this: why would outer space have the same properties as eight feet under a pool; why would it have the same properties as inside a parabolic plane? Why should Earth's spinning not create the same upheaval as inside a gravitron ride? None of this makes sense! Meanwhile, human beings can leave the ground given enough motion or enough pressure, but are forced back to  earth by decreasing pressure. The further up you get, the stronger the feeling of "gravity". That's decreasing density of air, compared to density of objects. What happens when air density approaches zero?

Why does anyone continue to argue with people like this, people who literally have no understanding of science?  Does anyone expect to change the minds of flat earthers, who think  like this?

Why does anyone continue to argue with people like this, people who literally have no understanding of science?  Does anyone expect to change the minds of flat earthers, who think  like this?

I live in faint hope of trying to educate the science illiterati, but some make it harder than others.

Like teachers everywhere, you confuse "education" for the indoctrination you yourself have been given.

Education is for the purpose of cultivating young minds to do their own thinking. An educator who teaches a child to draw, paint, make music, or about literature frees those minds up to one day do their own thinking and make things of their own.

Indoctrination, on the other hand, puts minds into a prison. "You will paint/draw/write/sing only about things that the mass market wants." Like Taylor Swift and her hundreds of songs about some boy leaving her. More importantly, though, is the commandment to think that way.

You, who write only what the likes of George Soros want, have no right to "educate" me about what is right or wrong about the model of this world. You are shills of the highest degree, dependent on the state from cradle and probably will remain so to the grave.

No, you will not "educate" me, and I bemoan the fact that I will likely never be able to free your mind to truly think for itself. Do I expect you to agree with how I think? No, but it would be highly refreshing if you would think at all, rather than just parroting off your so-called education.

So I see you have finally reached the point of running out of delusional BS to spout about space travel being impossible due to thermodynamics, so now you are back to spamming the same refuted BS about gravity?

No, they fucking made it up. "Herp derp, space is like really thin air right? So then gravity should be practically nonexistent away from the Earth."

No. You have had this delusional BS of yours refuted countless times.
Why do you insist on continually repeating it?
No sane person things that.

Again, it is free fall which creates zero-g experiences.

Yeah, that's the assumption of someone who has never been anywhere and knows nothing, not something who actually explored space.

i.e. YOU!

And it seems the vast majority of your post is based upon this delusional BS with no connection to reality.

They didn't come up with this using science.

Are you sure?
Because science makes it quite obvious and straightforward.
And by that I mean actual science, not your delusional BS.

Again, in free fall the person and craft are accelerated by gravity together, so there is no transfer of force across them, so it is zero-g.
This is not zero gravity. Gravity is still there.
Gravity is still acting on the moon, making it orbit Earth.
Gravity is still acting on the ISS, making it orbit Earth.

Or more precisely, before they were able to fake someone going to space

And more dishonesty BS.
There is no basis at all to think it is fake.
The sole reason you do is because it contradicts your fantasy.

Ask yourself this: why would outer space have the same properties

Ask yourself this: Why do you keep clinging to this delusional BS?
Why don't you ever listen to what has been said?
Why don't you ever listen to the explanations of why you are wrong?

Once more:
IT IS NOT THE VACUUM OF SPACE WHICH MAKES IT ZERO-G!
IT IS IT BEING IN FREE FALL!

This is vastly different to being under water. But it is identical to being inside the vomit comet, because the people in the vomit comet are in free fall.

Why should Earth's spinning not create the same upheaval as inside a gravitron ride?

Because it rotates far too slowly.
It creates the same kind of upheaval as a 24 hour analogue clock.

None of this makes sense!

Your BS pretty much never does.

Meanwhile, human beings can leave the ground given enough motion or enough pressure, but are forced back to  earth by decreasing pressure.

No. That is physically impossible.
If the pressure below is higher than the pressure above, that pressure difference pushes up.
That is one of the many things your delusional BS cannot explain.

The further up you get, the stronger the feeling of "gravity".

Pure BS.
Got any proof of that?

Like teachers everywhere, you confuse "education" for the indoctrination you yourself have been given.

Projecting again.
You are confusing actual education, with indoctrination.

Education is for the purpose of cultivating young minds to do their own thinking.

Something you seem incapable of.

You are shills of the highest degree

Why?
Because we so easily refute your delusional BS?

No, you will not "educate" me

Yes, you have made it clear that you have no interest in the truth. That you will continue to spout blatant lies, no matter how little sense they make. All to pretend your delusional fantasy is true because you can't handle reality.

but it would be highly refreshing if you would think at all

Perhaps you should try following your own advice?
I do think. Which is why I can so easily refute your BS.

Meanwhile, you just keep repeating the same refuted crap.



Again:
Zero-g in space is a result of free fall, not low pressure.
Objects in orbit experience zero-g because gravity acts on all of it to accelerate it together so there is no need to transfer force across it.
This also happens in the vomit comet, and is nothing like what happens under water.

Again:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must be conserved.
So once an object is in motion, having kinetic energy, that energy can't just vanish.
Likewise, momentum must be conserved.
This means you need a force to stop an object. It can't just magically stop. That would mean energy magically vanishes.
And that requires an interaction with some object to stop it.
So what is a space craft interacting with to slow it down?

And remember, gravity doesn't take away energy, it coverts between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. So you need something else to stop it.
If you want to appeal to gravity, you need the orbit to intersect an object (e.g. a sub-orbital path), with the collision with the object stopping it.

Like teachers everywhere, you confuse "education" for the indoctrination you yourself have been given.

Education is for the purpose of cultivating young minds to do their own thinking. An educator who teaches a child to draw, paint, make music, or about literature frees those minds up to one day do their own thinking and make things of their own.

So, how would you suggest educating someone about basic physics without you considering it "indoctrination"? 

No, you will not "educate" me, and I bemoan the fact that I will likely never be able to free your mind to truly think for itself.

I like to think that I have a fairly open mind about a lot of things, but when it comes to things like basic, testable physics, you are going to have an uphill battle because I've taken enough lab physics courses where I have personally performed experiments to verify some of the principles that you so reandily reject because they conflict with your chosen worldview.  Maybe you should try one of those lab physics courses with an open mind and maybe challenge what you think you know about science. 

Ignorance because you just don't know is one thing, but willful ignorance because you don't want to know is something else.  I've been around some of these FE forums for much longer than I care to admit and have heard a lot of "alternate" FE science, and none of it has ever stood the test of real world experimentation.  You keep talking about RE having so many unverified assumptions?  You may not believe this, but many of them have been verified to a much higher degree than anything that FE has to offer. 

If you really want to know how rockets can work without air to push against, then fire a shotgun and think about where the recoil came from.

So, how would you suggest educating someone about basic physics without you considering it "indoctrination"? 

Before I answer, let me tell you a story. I had a science teacher in a Lutheran private school. When asked how to reconcile Biblical creation, their official position was that the Earth may have been six days, but a day for a divine being is a geological or cosmic "day" not a day in the sense of 24 hours.
 I later learned the official evolution only and creationism only models. Eventually, I concluded that I do believe in creationism and evolution, but I am not a Darwinian evolutionist, supporting Catastrophism and maybe Theistic Evolution (as you're probably noticed, I give zero fucks about what people think is old news) instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_Darwinian_evolution

So back to the question. Basically, why do you have to teach kids what to think?  Discuss any theories fully, and let students draw their own conclusions. Hell, they might come up with their own. In World Religion class, we were given information about all faiths, including some obscure ones like Zoroastrianism and Taoism, ancient religions like Babylonian and Egyptian, and some indigenous religions. Thanks to that, I have come up with my own religious beliefs.

A teacher is supposed to inform, not make decisions. Any teacher who does the latter is trying to screw with their students. By providing an in-depth on the multiple points made by Flat Earth, Round Earth, Hollow Earth, etc and their strengths and flaws, the student is armed with the information they need to either prove flat Earth or dispute it. As things stand, I am debating with brainwashed idiots. It's not even a fun discussion, because I get intelligent-sounding stupid ideas to put up with. Frankly, you haven't received a proper education to even defend your own theory, instead being told only what your teacher wanted you to know, so you wouldn't be able to study more closely.
The Catholic church prior to the Protestant Reformation had this approach. The Bible was in Latin, and common people weren't able to study it themselves. So you had a bunch of people who weren't educated about grace being told that what they really needed to be saved was to have indulgences bought for them. When your information is bad, you can be scammed. I was lucky to be born in a world where not only do I get to look into Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, but if I want to, I can find books about Taoism, Islam, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc.

Children shouldn't be only fed cheese snacks day in and out. Likewise, the diet for their brain ought to be filling and varied, encompassing a wide variety of options, allowing them to form preferences.

Quote

So, how would you suggest educating someone about basic physics without you considering it "indoctrination"? 

So back to the question. Basically, why do you have to teach kids what to think?  Discuss any theories fully, and let students draw their own conclusions. Hell, they might come up with their own.

The thing is, in basic physics, you don't just discuss theories, you put them to the test.  That's something that FE'ers rarely ever do. because they invariably fail when they try.

A teacher is supposed to inform, not make decisions. Any teacher who does the latter is trying to screw with their students.

A physics teacher is supposed to give their students the tools they need to make informed decisions.  Those tools include, but are not limited to, Newton's laws of motion and how to conduct experiments using the scientific method as a guide.

Frankly, you haven't received a proper education to even defend your own theory, instead being told only what your teacher wanted you to know, so you wouldn't be able to study more closely.

What theory have I not defended?  Who are you to criticize my physics education when you obviously don't understand even the very basics of physics well enough to properly dispute it without grossly misrepresenting it?

Before I answer, let me tell you a story.

Why?
Why not just answer the question?

I had a science teacher in a Lutheran private school.

So you literally went to a school that indoctrinates people?
Have you considered that your perverse views are based upon that indoctrinate (i.e. religious) school?

If the school sticks to the religion, and has that as a central important part, then they don't want you to think; as that could lead you to reject that religion.
You should have tried a non-religious school, where they often encourage thinking.

So back to the question. Basically, why do you have to teach kids what to think?

For some things, it is about being able to discuss anything.
Imagine if we just let everyone decide their own words and what every word would mean. Then meaningful conversation would be impossible.

For others, it is about getting the basics down so they can do more advanced stuff.

e.g. imagine trying to go through math, where you don't teach that 1+1=2.

By providing an in-depth on the multiple points made by Flat Earth, Round Earth, Hollow Earth, etc and their strengths and flaws

You will have wasted a lot of valuable time. Time which could have been much better spent on other things.
Doing this you have to massively cut the curriculum, meaning students learn far less, or you need to massively increase the time required for classes.
And if you do it properly, you end up with the same thing, students accepting the fact that Earth is round; but perhaps with a better understanding of why that is the case, yet they will still likely forget.

As things stand, I am debating with brainwashed idiots.

No, you are the brainwashed idiot.
You keep spouting childish crap which is trivial to refute.

It's not even a fun discussion

Because you have no chance of defending your BS, because it is trivial to refute.
Nor can you show a fault with the RE model, with your lies about it trivial to refute.

And because you can't defend your BS you just resort to insulting us.

You would likely have more fun if you were discussing something you could defend.

So much so that you need to keep hiding from your delusional BS.
Again:
Zero-g in space is a result of free fall, not low pressure.
Objects in orbit experience zero-g because gravity acts on all of it to accelerate it together so there is no need to transfer force across it.
This also happens in the vomit comet, and is nothing like what happens under water.

Again:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must be conserved.
So once an object is in motion, having kinetic energy, that energy can't just vanish.
Likewise, momentum must be conserved.
This means you need a force to stop an object. It can't just magically stop. That would mean energy magically vanishes.
And that requires an interaction with some object to stop it.
So what is a space craft interacting with to slow it down?

And remember, gravity doesn't take away energy, it coverts between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. So you need something else to stop it.
If you want to appeal to gravity, you need the orbit to intersect an object (e.g. a sub-orbital path), with the collision with the object stopping it.

What theory have I not defended?  Who are you to criticize my physics education when you obviously don't understand even the very basics of physics well enough to properly dispute it without grossly misrepresenting it?

Yes, I am well aware of the "physics" that you've been taught, as I was forcibly taught it too, in the public and private education systems of greater America.

That Earth appears flat because we only see a very smal part of a globe, that we are hanging sideways and/or upside down because of gravity, that Earth is spinning 1000 mph while orbiting at a rate of 66600 mph, that air and water is kept in place by centripetal force and gravity, that the moon controls tides, and that the seasons are due to Earth's tilt.

See, because I received a balanced education (unlike some people), and was allowed to see different ideas, I recognize this fraud for what it is. Let's talk about centripetal force.
https://sciencing.com/centripetal-vs-centrifugal-force-whats-the-difference-why-it-matters-13721035.html

Centripetal force and centrifugal force are two terms that physics students commonly confuse or misunderstand.
A typical misconception is that centripetal force is directed toward the center of an object's circular path, while centrifugal force is directed outward, as though the two act in opposite directions. However, only one of these is actually a real force!
The only force causing an object's circular motion is centripetal force, which is always directed toward the center of the circular path. If a car is rounding a bend, for example, the centripetal force making it move in a curve rather than a straight line is directed along the radius of the circle the car is tracing out.
Centrifugal force, on the other hand, does not exist. Like "Back to the Future's" flux capacitor, the term was invented to help describe something imaginary, albeit based on some real observations. The effects of moving in a circle tend to make an object feel like it is "flying" outward, and the idea of an inward-directed force causing such an experience can at first seem puzzling.
Centrifugal Force Is a Feeling
When a car makes a hard left turn, passengers might feel "thrown" to the right of the car. Or at the bottom of a loop on a roller coaster, riders may feel pushed down into their seats.

Actually no. You've got it backwards. Professional auto drivers (I know because I watched a video, where drivers talked about early, middle, and later turns at high speed) show in great depth about how there is no such force pulling objects toward the middle of a curve. So you can talk all you want about how centrifugal force is a "feeling" or you can watch the car whip out of joint when it makes a hard left turn, in some cases careening into another car. Or  when a moving boat on an amusement park swings back and forth even upside down, what do you think will happen if someone tries this ride without a seatbelt. Care to wager whether the "totally real and not made up" centripetal force will keep them in the center or whether the "just a feeling" centrifugal force will toss them outside? Or how about that "just a feeling" force pushing a gravitron upward?
The fact that there are seatbelts on such rides tells volumes about what you can really expect. No we are not "feeling" these things, directional change means objects are legit forced outward.

I know centrifugal force isn't a thing either (this is all due to momentum), but the only real example of "centripetal force" is a lacrosse ball staying in the stick, and if you were to slow motion what is happening, it 's not due to any force, but rather the ball is sliding and constantly being caught. And in the case of a lacrosse stick, this is a concave catching device, not a convex surface, as a sphere would be.

So, back to the Earth's spin. Whether Earth is spinning at a constant speed (the tired explanation for why things don't feel this) or not, the facts don't change. Having been on a kid's spinning ride with my niece on a playground, I assure you, not only doe I have to hold on to keep momentum from throwing me off, but since I just had eaten, my poor churning stomach had some harsh words to say to me, as did my spinning head. Moreover, while it is true that objects can adjust to a fixed speed, what we find while driving a car is that force is encountered through velocity. This means change in speed or direction. If I slow down all of a sudden, I lurch forward; if I make a harsh acceleration, I press back; if I turn to the right or left, I shift the other direction. Seatbelts are there for a reason. A curve is not a fixed direction but a series of small changes in direction. But we are not talking about a single motion being adjusted to, as in the kid's ride which I shouldn't have eaten before going on (or been on during a hot day), we are talking about four or five different motions, all of which break direction. Not content with Earth rotating in place, it also moves around in orbit; it also wobbles and tilts; it also trails the sun in a spiral; it also follows the galaxy. This is constant and dramatic change of direction, and let's be honest about this: speed must change with all these changes in motion, no matter what you say about space being a frictionless zone. More importantly, as Earth itself has an atmosphere, friction from movement inside the atmosphere would naturally create heat. Forget "global warming," this whole process should break Earth and everyone in it. Billions of years, and chairs, buildings, people, and pets are all doing fine. Gravity doesn't seem to be observed by birds flying, who would need to fly on the underside of Earth in South America, yet clearly no bird has to struggle with flrting north or south across the equator. This would represent a dramatic curve (X° under the equator to X° Above the equator, and I am imagining a lip of a mountain that a bird does this with, and it would kinda be the equivalent of trying to reach that kid)

that you say is adjusted to because "Earth is locally flat". No, sorry, it's actually flat. The bird is overcoming your "gravity" using principles of buoyancy and aerodynamics, and is flying straight, not under and over a curve.

You "defend" these ideas poorly because you poorly understand your own position. Having encountered your position, and mine, and a few others (including what I was taught in school, which sorta but not completely matches up), I understand what you think is true, but do not accept it. Because it is not true.

https://youtube.com/shorts/vhr6fCzmJkg?si=NFOkYMX10Nvv2Enw



Mmmm calcualtions....

Okay...

So, it hasn't occurred to you that like a trained chimp or puppet, the teacher only refers to a specific example provided by a textbook.

The teacher is the real monkey here.

Science tests a method under a variety of conditions. If for some reason the conditions don't work when we do something strange, we ought to figure out if it's a mitigating event (like putting a bulletproof vest on to stop a bullet) or if the fault lies in the theory itself. If an experiment only works in the desert, not much can be said for its repeatability.

Quote from: Username on August 09, 2024, 12:41:00 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 09, 2024, 11:41:07 AM

Its not a LACK of gravity.

Its the FEELING of gravity.
Becaise the shuttle is falling along with you.



Just like "go up that street".
Is not literally UP off the ground like a helicopter.


Spectacular.

Can you repeat it back in your own words to show that you understand?


Or will you contibue to misrepesent things?

You never feel gravity. You feel inertia, which is to say the lack of Gravity. Must you continue to misrepresent things?

Well no...
Thats incorrect.
In contect:
We have the sendation of change where roller cosatsers are "interesting" when accelleration changes are felt.
A "fast" roller coaster is not as intersting as one that is consrantly changing direction.


The changes in accelleration, as you commet, are notcied.


But in context to what is said - "weightlesd" is not an absense of mass or absence of grsvity.
Bulma has proven himself to be a moron.
This is antlother case of not undersranding context.

I'm going to try to piece what you are saying together, but I'm not sure you "can you repeat it back in your own words to show that you understand" as you ask him to do.

While changes in acceleration (jerk) are felt, what you're truly experiencing is the force needed to change your body's state of motion, which is a result of inertia.

Again, you never feel gravity as it doesn't exist. You feel inertia which at times seems non-sensible so you make up a force (gravity) to explain away why you are taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one.

Okay...

So, it hasn't occurred to you that like a trained chimp or puppet, the teacher only refers to a specific example provided by a textbook.

The teacher is the real monkey here.

Science tests a method under a variety of conditions. If for some reason the conditions don't work when we do something strange, we ought to figure out if it's a mitigating event (like putting a bulletproof vest on to stop a bullet) or if the fault lies in the theory itself. If an experiment only works in the desert, not much can be said for its repeatability.

the formula is the prediction under ideal circumstances.
and if the experimental results differ, there was an unaccounted for variable.

example, newtons law:  under ideal conditions an object in motion will stay in motion/ rest unless acted on by outside force.
so when we see the ball drop when we let go.
there is a force.
the force came from somewhere.
study and experimentation show that mass attracts mass.

in space, there isn't much there.
unlike on earth there's air and water and other things.
so friction accounts for why things slow down.


amazing!

your deflection to wave away the point is obvious just because it is an example and a simplified example.
these are students learning the basics.
these aren't students being asked to construct a catapult and account for wind vectors, air density, rain, and varying object masses.
tehy're learning the super basic gravity-time formula to make a super basic prediction.
you think this monkey teacher did it in a dishonest method?



either you truly don't understand basic things, or you're extremely bad faithed.
but you're definitely not right.

Good science? Hah! Don't you understand?

The public thinks people fly in space from films, not from any real science. "Zero gravity," they say. In actuality, if you're gonna call this gravity, the mass of a space shuttle will always be more than the air, meaning it should only rise if propulsion pushes it harder than the air around it. But in a vacuum, there is no air, so motion only happens via Newton's "equal and opposite " reaction, that is, by expending fuel or energy, or both.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 09, 2024, 11:41:07 AM

Its not a LACK of gravity.

Its the FEELING of gravity.
Becaise the shuttle is falling along with you.



Just like "go up that street".
Is not literally UP off the ground like a helicopter.


Spectacular.

Can you repeat it back in your own words to show that you understand?


Or will you contibue to misrepesent things?

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 10, 2024, 01:12:58 AM

Quote from: Username on August 09, 2024, 12:41:00 PM

You never feel gravity. You feel inertia, which is to say the lack of Gravity. Must you continue to misrepresent things?

Well no...
Thats incorrect.
In context:
We have the sensation of change where roller coasters are "interesting" when acceleration changes are felt.
A "fast" roller coaster is not as interesting as one that is constantly changing direction.


The changes in acceleration, as you comment, are noticed.


But in context to what is said - "weightless" is not an absence of mass or absence of gravity.
Bulma has proven himself to be a moron.
This is another case of not understanding context.

I'm going to try to piece what you are saying together, but I'm not sure you "can you repeat it back in your own words to show that you understand" as you ask him to do.

While changes in acceleration (jerk) are felt, what you're truly experiencing is the force needed to change your body's state of motion, which is a result of inertia.

Again, you never feel gravity as it doesn't exist. You feel inertia which at times seems non-sensible so you make up a force (gravity) to explain away why you are taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one.

"explain in own words" because he said there is zero-gravity in space.
i can only infer he thinks there is a conflict in that theres an earth orbiting the sun due to gravity, but not possible if there is also zero-gravity in space.
one can only guess where his brain took two left turns.





typos corrected in 2nd post.

Yes, I am well aware of the "physics" that you've been taught, as I was forcibly taught it too, in the public and private education systems of greater America.

Yet you seem to entirely fail to comprehend it.

That Earth appears flat

It doesn't.

we are hanging sideways and/or upside down

We are not. We are standing upright.
This is you yet again inserting your delusional beliefs of a magical universal down into reality where it does not belong.
You fully accept north varies, so why not down?

See, because I received a balanced education (unlike some people), and was allowed to see different ideas, I recognize this fraud for what it is.

You mean because you received a piss poor education from a religious school of indoctrination that doesn't want people to think lest they discard their cult; you have no understanding at all, and keep repeating the same refuted BS.
You even blatantly lie about how things are meant to be working in the model, have that lie called out, and just repeat it.

Actually no. You've got it backwards.

See, this is another example of your piss poor education and complete lack of understanding.
They have it right.
This is why cars need lots of grip for high speed cornering.
Because those wheels, interacting with the ground, apply a significant force INWARDS, to accelerate the car to make it turn.
If this force wasn't there, the car would continue in a straight line.
The apparent outwards force is simply inertia.

As another example, when you are in a car and you accelerate very quickly, you feel yourself being pushed into the back of your seat. This is a perception of a backwards force but the only force existing there is pushing you forwards.

So great job showing you don't understand.

Whether Earth is spinning at a constant speed (the tired explanation for why things don't feel this)

Again, you have this refuted as well.
There are 2 key reasons you don't feel the spin.
First is the direction.
The combination of gravity and the apparent centrifugal force results in the direction of down. So the spin is felt as a reduction in weight. One of the reasons things are lighter on the equator.
The other big reason is because of how slow it is.
It is rotating at the staggering rate of roughly 1 revolution every 24 hours (approximate, not exact).
That is very slow.
You appeal to 1000 archaic units per hour to make it sound fast, but that is incredibly dishonest, as speed is only 1 part, as all racing drivers, and even plenty of regular drivers can tell you.
You can take a wider corner at a much greater speed with less of an apparent outwards force than a much sharper corner at a slower speed.

As a maximum, the acceleration due to the rotation is roughly 0.3% of g. That is roughly 0.03 m/s.
That is not significant enough for a human to feel. Especially not when they are constantly exposed to it.

This means change in speed or direction.

Yes, acceleration, NOT VELOCITY!
But there is another important factor as well, jerk, i.e. the change in acceleration.

If you go from standing still to flooring it, then you get jerked back into your chair.
However, if you have a similar acceleration, it isn't as sudden and you can adjust.

we are talking about four or five different motions

No, we aren't.
That is you lying about what motions there are.

Once more, Earth is not tilting. It is tilted.
There is a difference.

The wobble is even less significant than the rotation.

And the orbits are based upon gravity which acts on all of you at once, so you don't feel the force.

Again, all of this has been explained repeatedly, you are unable to demonstrate a fault with it.
Instead, you just entirely ignore it and repeat the same pathetic lies about the RE model.
This is because you have no actual objection to the RE model, just the same repeated lies.

But even ignoring all that, have you bothered looking at the acceleration for each of these?

Again, the acceleration for the rotation of Earth about its axis is roughly 0.03 m/s^2.
What about the orbit? Well with a period of roughly 1 year, or 30 million seconds, and a radius of 150 billion m, that gives us a mind blowing acceleration of 0.006 m/s. Roughly an order of magnitude lower than that of the rotation.
So even if you were to ignore that gravity is acting on all of you so you wouldn't feel the force, and instead you would just feel the even less significant tidal force, that is equivalent to a 100 kg person, noticing a difference in weight of roughly 60 g.

Go pour yourself a glass of water. Drink it. Do you feel heavier from that? Because that is the kind of difference you are expecting.
Or just go through the day living, trying to avoid eating and drinking during the day. Guess how much weight you lose just from exhaling carbon dioxide? Over 1 kg per day.
People do not notice that. Yet you are expecting them to notice a difference of 60 g?

For the orbit around the milky way it gets even worse.
For a orbital period of over 200 million years, even with the orbital distance of roughly 3E17 km, it works out to an acceleration of 0.0000000002 m/s^2.

These accelerations are too small for you to notice.

You would need incredibly sensitive instruments to detect them.

friction from movement inside the atmosphere would naturally create heat.

And here you go demonstrating you don't understand friction.
Friction generates heat when 2 objects move relative to each other, with the friction between them creating that heat.
Just what is rubbing against what?

this whole process should break Earth and everyone in it.

No, it shouldn't.
Due to just how utterly insignificant it is.

Gravity doesn't seem to be observed by birds flying

Sure it does, which is why they need wings.

underside of Earth

Again, there is no underside. Stop inserting your delusional FE BS into reality where it has no place.
There is no magical universal down.
There is no more reason to declare the underside to be South America than the north pole.

no bird has to struggle with flrting north or south across the equator.

Nor is there any reason for them to.

This would represent a dramatic curve

No, it wouldn't.
Assuming the bird flies at 100 km per hour, that is a change of less than 1 degree per hour.
And importantly, that is still down.

I am imagining a lip of a mountain that a bird does this with

Because you don't give a damn about reality and just want to lie about the RE model because you can't show any fault with it.

The bird is overcoming your "gravity"

With wings.