Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Well duh, it's flat !
https://www.infowars.com/shock-poll-1-3-of-millennials-not-sure-if-earth-is-round/
Pulled from your FAQ page on January 14th, 2018 at 3:45 p.m.: "The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity exists in a greatly diminished form compared to what is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.
There are also other theories of flat earth thought that maintain that the earth sits on an infinite plane, with the sun moving overhead. Gravity works much like it does in a round-earth model, and the earth will never form into a sphere because the plane is endless.
Due to special relativity, this is not the case. At this point, many readers will question the validity of any answer which uses advanced, intimidating-sounding physics terms to explain a position. However, it is true. The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1. This means that velocity can never reach the speed of light, regardless of how long one accelerates for and the rate of the acceleration."
Due to your accepting that the Earth is constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 and that an object's velocity can never exceed the velocity of light, which is 300,000,000 m/s, you cannot say that the Earth is doing such a thing. If an object accelerates at a starting velocity of 0m/s and accelerates at 9.8m/s^2 for 30,612,245 seconds, then its velocity will equal 300,000,001m/s. So, how do you explain gravity, then?
Kal_9000,QuoteThere's a metric crapton of evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
Further reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."
"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."
More evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors
Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.
Well, of course you can present something as real and factual if you are presented only one side of the story. It is important to hear out all sides and think critically. I am not going to address the holocaust here in much detail because that's a separate debate. What I will say is that if you look at the evidence for yourself without opinionated input, with objectivity, and through a historical context, you'd realize how ambiguous and biased they are. I don't deny that minorities and political enemies in Germany were imprisoned in labor camps and that many died (no evidence for genocide, though). I just see no evidence that Jews were singled out and tortured and killed for being Jews. There are many "holocaust survivors" such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden who deny the holocaust. Furthermore, the early investigations of the holocaust were performed by the allied nations (international military tribunal), and the declassified Nazi info and holocaust testimony were revealed by anti-Nazi resistance. So, you can't rule out fraudulent practices by the allied nations or by the anti-Nazi resistance. What makes you think that the anti-Nazis of German-occupied territories didn't fake their information in order to slander Nazis and get nations to fight the third Reich? I firmly believe that the allied nations faked the holocaust in order to crush German resistance and to get the Germans to willingly embrace the Versailles agreement again, which is what they essentially did to some extent. Guilt is an effective method in psychological warfare. No, I'm not an anti-Semitic. I just don't accept things from biased investigators and paramilitary groups. I try to think critically for myself.
To quote the Wikipedia article on Holocaust denial,
"Critics of Holocaust denial include the Auschwitz SS"
Do you know what the SS is? Or Auschwitz?
I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?Quoteand nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,
Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:
"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."
"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."
(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).
I think if you have to tell people you're a genius (especially a 'stable' one), you probably aren't one...
10. You still don't understand basic chemistry and haven't made a good-faith effort to read my previous post.Let me explain this as I would to a fourth-grader because you refuse to wrap your head around it.
The chemical equation for the combustion of water is 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O(\Delta H = -572 kJ / mol)
The reverse reaction has an enthalpy change of 572 kJ / mol. If you debate this, then you need to learn basic chemistry.So let's assume that we fed 10000000000000000 metric craploads of H2 and O2 in a 2:1 stoichiometric ratio into the Sun.It'll literally just ionize into a plasma (or just stay gaseous if it stays at the surface) because it'sso damn hot. The H2 and O2won't combine, as per basic chemistry. I don't understand why you don't get this. But let's assume that 4 mol of H2 gets combusted, just to explain basic chemistry to you.So the Sun gets a temporary extra 1144 kJ of energy. But because it'sso damn hot, the 4 mol of water just separates into H2 and O2 or even just back into the plasma (if it gets hot enough). Thermolysis is a real thing, you muppet.Guess what happens when 4 mol of water separates again? The Sun loses that 1144 kJ. Any water you put into the Sun will be decomposed by the thermal energy of the Sun back into hydrogen and oxygen, at the expense of some of the heat energy in the Sun. This is a consequence of the First Law of Thermodynamics. As long as the Sun is hot enough to decompose water very quickly, you cannot gain energy by putting H2 and O2 into the Sun.
11. How hot do I think the Sun is? 15 million K at its core.
Of course, you won't believe this because you don't understand any of the science involved and just want to argue with me over an indefensible position.
So I'll use a VERY conservative lower bound of 5700 K, which can be easily proven.
You should know this from my previous posts, but you're clearly not a good reader...
12. If you don't understand how Le Chatelier's principle is relevant to the discussion, that means you don't know what it is  So get studying. You'll find that at the temperatures in the Sun, which way is the equilibrium? (Of course, normally combustion isn't reversible, but when it gets that hot, the H2 + O2 reaction is)
13. If you don't understand why I've brought up thermolysis, MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ. It's because in the Sun, thermolysis of water ensures that you cannot get energy out of combusting stuff into water. Is this so hard to understand?
14. I'm not scared. I'm exasperated. You write in your signature that you're a genius and then proceed to trash established science that people have worked so hard on without even understanding an inkling of what's going on. Do you understand why I find your antics disgusting? My physics professor dedicates herself to not only her research in dark matter but also explaining basic mechanics and relativity to a bunch of clueless students (including me).
If you don't know something, the first step to getting better is admitting it and having an open mind instead of trashing things that don't seem intuitive to you.
15. You really don't know anything, and the fact that you still insist that you do (and even guess that you know more than I) is a major feature of Dunning-Kruger.
At least I recognize that I'm no expert on GR, can only do some SR, don't understand a lot of things to do with rotation, and I'm no physicist/chemist and trust the peer-reviewed consensus instead of trashing their work because it doesn't make sense to me. I honestly suggest to you, as I've done to Tom Bishop, to try to take the AP Physics 1 and AP Chemistry practice tests (as I see you've supposedly taken the SAT recently) and see how well you do. I doubt you'll do too well. I certainly know very little about chemistry and only slightly more in physics.
16. You are the product of a failed education system if you even lend credence to Holocaust denial.
Not only that, this is a clear example of Dunning-Kruger: you think that whatever little research you did compares to the literal millions of witnesses (I mean victims) of what happened.
From the American and Soviet soldiers who liberated the camps
to the camp guards to the piles of rotting bodies in hastily prepared graves to the ashes of those who died in the incinerators to the more fortunate who survived,
there are PLENTY of people who know that the Holocaust happened and that it was targeted toward the Jews.
There are even recordings of Adolf Hitler preaching his vitriol.
Your supposed SAT score has nothing to do with that. The fact that you cannot put aside your worldview and just for once consider the evidence shows that you have failed not only elementary logic but also basic humanity.
17. You still haven't addressed the primary problems (in descending order of importance) with your hypothesis: 1)Putting hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun doesn't give it energy at the temperatures it's at. It'll only sustain a lower temperature Sun. This is not an assumption. This is an experimentally verifiable FACT.
2) You don't have an energy source for the Sun.
3) There's too much matter involved because combustion yields such little energy.
I suggest you educate yourself, and stop this silliness. You're in an argument against 99%+ scientists in the world. I could beat you just by referring to Wikipedia.
1. You are a liar. The essay is scored separately from the other sections (and it's 8 points, so it makes no sense to add to something with 10-point increments). It isn't reported as part of the -/1600 score. Stop trying to cover it up.
Please PM me a screenshot of your SAT score report and I'll reconsider.
As I said before your SAT score has little to do with your knowledge in chemistry and physics.
2. Nobody has the patience to deal with someone who won't do the slightest bit of research and/or read posts carefully.
3. You have not.
You don't even know why combustion doesn't work in the Sun, as evidenced by your continued belief that what you said is scientifically correct. Please re-read my evisceration of your hypothesis AGAIN.
4. Do you even know how water electrolysis is performed? It requires at bare minimum an anode and a cathode and an electric current flowing from the anode to the cathode, and both have to be immersed in water.
Let me ask you, do you see any of that in space? No.
As I've said before, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd see how improbable it is for a potential difference to be maintained to continue the electrolysis reaction. Electrolysis is very unlikely to occur in large quantities in nature simply because it requires a certain structure.
Thermolysis (how many times have I said this already?) and even a chemical reduction of the hydrogen is far more likely.
IF you think that there's an electrolysis reaction, then you also have to explain what generates the electric field... You clearly don't have anything beyond a cursory understanding. Do you not realize how much charge has to be transferred to electrolyze thousands of solar masses of water?
5. REGARDLESS OF THE MECHANISM, there needs to be an energy source. You're not addressing anything; you're just trying to muddy the waters.
6. You are using the strawman. If you understood anything about the conservation of energy and had read my post carefully, I said that regardless of where the water is decomposed, you STILL need an energy source to do it.
Therefore you are simply moving the problem with your argument from inside the Sun to outside.
The fact that you have NO ENERGY SOURCE is a MAJOR PROBLEM with your argument. Understand?
7. You cannot read carefully. I am asking how the supposed water gets transported to the place that it gets "electrolyzed" without us seeing any of it, and how the hydrogen and oxygen get transported back, since you made up the outlandish hypothesis that the water is "electrolyzed" outside the Sun. Are you trying to evade my question? I'm fairly sure I made this clear.
Regardless of how fire spreads in zero-gravity, there is still a CRAPLOAD of matter that needs to be transported, and anything that large (thousands of solar masses) would CLEARLY be visible.
Probably because it makes more sense.
Probably because hydrogen fusion has been demonstrated on Earth
and it makes a TON more sense than water floating in space going in and out of the Sun.
Perhaps it's because you still don't understand why a very large electrochemical cell is so hard to find in nature. Perhaps it's because you don't really understand how an electrochemical cell works. When you cite lightning as an example of natural electricity, do you realize how much smaller lightning is compared to the astronomical electric current any water electrolyzer would need to power the Sun? What charge pump (that is, something that generates and holds a strong electric field) could you even conceive to keep the voltage at a high enough level? There is none. This is why I find thermolysis at least a more informed (yet still garbage) mechanism to explain the separation of water.
9. 10000 solar masses of water vapor would be very noticeable in space. It would block a lot of radiation and cause major problems with any sort of celestial astronomy.
Also you haven't proposed what keeps the water vapor from simply dispersing; what keeps it flowing back and forth between the Sun and whatever magical source you have?
So many Flat Earthers claim that NASA is lying to us. But in the first place, why would they lie? They don't gain anything from this 'conspiracy' anyway.
Firstly, Round Earth has already been proven true by our ancestors like Eratosthenes. One such case is how Eratosthenes could calculate the circumference of the Earth. As the Earth was round, he was able to measure the shadow of a rod at another location (let's call it location A) as the sun was directly overhead a well at Syene (Which had no shadow). From there he was able to conclude the circumference of Earth.
If Earth was flat (like a frisbee) , then there would be no shadow at BOTH the rod at location A and the well at Syene. Thus, the Earth could not be flat.
These were later proven to be very accurate with the help with modern technology. Firstly, if the Earth was flat, how would the Satellite orbiting Earth go in a full circle? If the Earth was flat, the Satellite would not be able to orbit properly, and will crash into flat Earth (or the other side of the flat Earth)
Next, if the Earth is flat? Why are we the only planet that is flat? Doesn't make sense right?
Gravitational pull will cause the cosmic dust or rocks in space to clump together into a sphere like shape. This is because a sphere has the least surface area to volume ratio and is very stable.
In other words, if the Earth was flat, the gravitational pull of the Earth will be very unstable.
~Your fellow Round Earther
(Hope more flat Earthers will finally see the truth)
douglips,
What you say is right. But it implies that if Pickel elaborated her hypothesis it could somehow have a semblance of feasibility. Unfortunately, that's not true.
The main problem, as I see it, with her argument is literally that throwing hydrogen and oxygen (even if we could magically conjure it up from nothing) would not keep the Sun at its current temperature; at the current temperature, adding that fuel doesn't actually give it energy that it can use, and the Sun would have cooled to a much lower temperature. The fact that she doesn't know this means that she hasn't done adequate research before coughing up an ad-hoc explanation for the energy of the Sun. Only when the Sun cools to the point when the combustion is hard to reverse will the combustion actually put energy into the Sun and keep the temperature stable.
And as for the confusion whether the decomposition of the water happened inside or outside:
Regardless of where the decomposition of water happens, the same problem arises: where does the energy come from? This was literally the question asked. Just as nobody cares about the aluminum transmission cables if you claim to have a free energy device, quibbling over whether the decomposition of water happens in the Sun or in some magical fantasy land is a waste of time. The water has to be separated somewhere.
And then, there's the content of my previous post pointing out all of the errors in terms of scale and the inconsistency with observation. There are just so many reasons why this hypothesis is bunk, and the fact that Pickel can't see them means that she needs to really review intro chemistry/physics.
Regardless of where the decomposition of water happens, the same problem arises: where does the energy come from? This was literally the question asked.No, the question asked was "what is the energy of the Sun?" And I have answered that. "What is the energy of the natural electrolysis?" is a separate debate.
First, you're a liar. The SAT is scored in ten-point increments, so it's impossible to get a 1595. Second, the SAT has little to no correlation with how much physics/chemistry you know because it doesn't test it.
Third, I have lost my patience with you.
You haven't done even the most fundamental research to back up your claims, and are just spouting pseudoscientific junk without even the slightest conception of how things work.
Let's eviscerate your hypothesis one more time:
1. You say that "something" iselectrolyzingdecomposing (since electrolysis requires a rather impossible electric setup; do you see that you can't even get basic terminology correct? What does that tell you about how much you know about chemistry?) water into hydrogen and oxygen outside of the Sun.
Well, where does this "something" get the energy to do so?
You've just moved the problem outside,
and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,
and you still haven't proposed how this thing outside gets its own energy and why it wouldn't shine like the Sun.
2. Nobody has observed the Sun sending back water to the "something" because it can't.
The Sun is too hot for water to exist in it, so it cannot produce or send it back.
3. You cannot gain energy by sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun; it will only get slightly bigger.
Combustion doesn't work if the products are reversed to the reactants almost instantly. Anyone taking a basic chemistry class can tell you this. The temperature is simply too high for water to exist;
thermolysis converts it back. If combustion were the main source of the Sun's energy, it would have to be at a far lower temperature than is currently observed.
4. You do not understand how much hydrogen and oxygen you need to combust to achieve the necessary power output. As I said before, you would need over 1000 cycles of free energy production through combustion to get just the current thermal energy of the Sun. Do you realize how much matter has to move out of the Sun for this to happen (1000 solar masses of hydrogen, and 8000 solar masses of oxygen)? Do you also realize that each 9000 solar masses will only sustain the Sun for 30 years? How much stuff has to move? Of course, this is a moot point because as I've said a million times before, combustion in the Sun yields no appreciable energy increase because the reaction is so heavily favored to a slurry of atoms.
Maybe you should study simple stuff like Le Chatelier's principle (although that's not exactly how it works here, it's a good starting point) instead of stubbornly holding dearly to your misconceptions and ignorance about basic science.
The fact that you cannot browse a simple Wikipedia article about thermolysis shows that you are not making a good-faith effort to learn why you are wrong.
As I've said before, you suffer from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.
You think you know far more than everyone else but you really don't
and most RE people are trying to patiently explain that to you (I'm already over that) while you continue to argue over minor points and refuse to consider what is being said (or refuse to try to understand it by looking up some basic science).
Also, please don't brag about your SAT score (whatever it is) or GPA; it has no relevance to the current discussion and is quite tacky.
Yes. I know. You didn't explicitly say it occurred in the sun, and some people assumed incorrectly how your model worked. I appreciate that your model does not have the water splitting occur inside the sun, and the quote from me illustrates this. Do I still need to show you something that I'm not asserting?
I said "People pointed out your mechanism can't occur in the sun", I didn't say you asserted it occurred in the sun. I AGREE WITH YOU.
Basic chemistry and physics. Specifically:
We know the energy released by burning hydrogen and oxygen and producing water. This is a basic concept in chemistry.We know the energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Here are all the ways to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The amount of energy required is always greater than or equal to the amount of energy you get by burning hydrogen and oxygen.Even if we didn't know those quantities, the laws of thermodynamics tell us that nothing is perfectly efficient, you can't gain energy by going through this cycle, and in fact due to inefficiencies you can't break even - you will be wasting energy.
If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.I agree with you on the electrolysis of h2o requiring more energy than the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. That was not subject of my original request for you to elaborate.
Does that make sense? We know that to power some water splitting thingie, we'd need more energy than you get from burning hydrogen to produce the water. Agree or disagree?
We also know that if you have some energy-using thingamajiggy, the laws of thermodynamics tell us it can't be 100% efficient, so it would be producing a lot of waste heat. Agree or disagree?
These things are just how hot things and chemical reactions work.
Now, I want to make it clear, I'm not accusing you of using ad hoc fallacies in whatever you post next, I want to make it clear that instead you simply have not told us enough of your proposed model of how the sun works.
People will object to the obvious problems in the portion of the model you have presented, and then as you present more of the model people will present more problems that the new portions of your model present.
The reason this will keep happening is that the fundamental rules of chemistry and physics make it very difficult for to have such a model.
So, if I may, I'd love to ask you to completely enumerate your model of the sun burning hydrogen, so that it won't appear (incorrectly, of course!) to others that you are committing ad hoc fallacies as people pick apart the current level to which you've explained your model.
https://www.facebook.com/xicanisma/posts/1630630620311008 (read the comments too)
Terrifyingly hypocritical.
I totally did not know this:
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/21/515625917/supreme-court-to-decide-if-mexican-nationals-may-sue-for-border-shooting
Summary:
Border Agent sees kids playing near the US/Mexico border.
Border agent grabs one through the fence, shoots at another hiding behind a concrete column holding up a railroad track.
Kid is shot in the head, dies, and border agents(who arrived later) leave.
The us refuses to extradite him or punish him in any way. Border agent claims it was self defense cause he was surrounded by rock throwing kids.
Cell video says otherwise.
"Fermi’s Paradox is the apparent contradiction between the high probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of contact with such civilizations."
It makes a lot of sense, right? On the surface it does, but it has never been convincing to me. Here are some of the things I think it overlooks:
- There IS evidence in our field of view. Our detection methods are just too primitive
- They don't want us to know about them
- They are too far away to be contacted/observed
- They made their presence known in the past and decided we were weak sauce
- Earth is an afterthought. Like an anthill you don't notice while driving through the Nevada desert (the ants don't notice you either)
- They don't want us to hack their data centers (lols)
I don't think the Fermi paradox fully appreciates just how big the universe is.
The absolute madmen did it!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41780116
What happens next? A civil war? Spain backing down? Catalan leaders not actually knowing what to do now that they're simultaneously "independent" and literally fired?
Why so many atheists? I don't get it unless there is trolling going on
(Just a heads up, I am entering this discussion with a Biblical perspective. I am evaluating facts in relation to the text of the Bible. However, I am willing and wanting to hear other varying opinions and perspectives. Each are worthy and valid in their own right.)
Hey! Extremely brief backstory: I grew up in church and always avoided the Old Testament of the Bible because it was dense, irrelevant and confusing. Occasionally I would skim through to feel like I was extra spiritual for suffering through the extensive genealogies, but would never stay longer than I had to. This year I heard a comment about NASA never leaving "low earth orbit" and it introduced me to the "conspiracy" rabbit hole which eventually led me to Flat Earth. This prompted me to revisit Genesis, Job, Exodus, and all of those chapters of the text I avoided and really see what the Bible said and supported.
I found that the Biblical text aligns itself more with the Flat Earth dome model than the heliocentric model. It also showed me why it is so hard for people to accept the Bible as truth. How can something be true when it gets the most fundamental thing, the shape of earth, wrong? I wrestled with that question for the past few months and I am more inclined to believe the Bible. Not out of a fear of having my belief disrupted, but out of a analysis of the integrity and character of the sources of knowledge. What I mean is that the Bible, the people, stories, prophesies ring true throughout. (And yes, I thoroughly vetted the text before accepting it as truth.) NASA, the U.S. government, and the media have been caught lying, stealing, cheating time and time again. This could seem like a biased conclusion, but "if they'll lie about the small things, then they'll lie about the big things." I don't believe everything is a hoax, but I do believe common sense has been a dormant source of reasoning for far too long now.
That's what I've found anyway. How does the Flat Earth Theory effect you and your religious beliefs? Does it support them or call them in to question?
Before people start fighting me over the subject, I first want to say that actually I am a Christian and I go to church every Sunday and participate in many of the church's activities. However, I am really convinced that if we go back the moment humans were created on this earth, and take away every religion, there will be world peace... I don't know about you but I would really love to know your opinions.
