1
Flat Earth Community / Re: RESEARCH - Do you agree with this statement? Your main reason for believing
« on: October 08, 2018, 07:32:34 PM »
no
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.
2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax
« on: September 24, 2018, 06:48:28 PM »If satellites are "Fake", explain why there are so many pictures of them from space missions and the ISS?
i am not aware of any pictures taken of satellites from the ISS, care to provide a link? what pictures of satellites from space missions? you mean the pictures they show of them deploying them?
3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax
« on: August 31, 2018, 03:31:41 PM »OK, so the news is full of the story regarding the ISS springing a leak in the last day or so, and how one of the Russian astronauts put his 'finger in the dyke' to borrow a fable, so .....
What do those who disbelieve make of this? Do you think that NASA and Roscosmos conjured up the story as a diversion to make the "ISS hoax" look more plausible?
its just the drip drip drip of stories created by the PR depts for these space agencies. if there are not constant little stories then people forget about the space programs and interest ($$$$) fades. we are due for more "breaking news" on a Mars discovery in about 5 months, right on schedule.
4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pope decries death penalty
« on: August 25, 2018, 12:13:14 PM »
Thork, you don't think banging pre teen boys is rape?
5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pope decries death penalty
« on: August 25, 2018, 01:08:46 AM »The bible is very specific about putting people to death for sleeping with animals, for men sleeping with men, for people sleeping with each other out of wedlock, it isn't even keen on masturbation ... but I can't think of any reference anywhere where God says "thou shalt not touch children". It just isn't there. So the church wanting to abuse children ... doesn't actually seem unCatholic to me. Well, not in the same way as abolishing the death sentence. That is as unCatholic as it gets.
So you're stance is you believe the bible is pro rape? And adolescent at that....
6
Science & Alternative Science / Re: In-compressible fluids
« on: August 24, 2018, 07:50:05 PM »
Right, so liquids are in the set of incompressible fluids, which is why it is titled as such.
Are you asking? seems like you are asking, not stating a fact. which is wrong BTW
7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pope decries death penalty
« on: August 24, 2018, 06:53:51 PM »Condemning the death sentence is the biggest rejection of the bible I think I have ever seen from the church.
i dont know, i think the fact that they employ a LOT of people to deal and manage with all the cases of child abuse is probably worse. And that they spend millions a year alone in the USA lobbying to fight the repealing of statute of limitations for child touching.
or the fact they had to create a freaking "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People"...hey sickos...you dont need a charter...stop touching kids. pretty simple. yeah, right here...30 pages about what to do when someone touches a kid: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/Charter-for-the-Protection-of-Children-and-Young-People-2018.pdf
can you imagine if your employer had a huge dept of paid employees thats entire job was to review child molestation and pay off there silence.
can you you imagine if your employer released a written publication that explained to you that you shouldnt touch kids?
the whole thing is so messed up...
8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: There is no such 'thing' as energy.
« on: August 24, 2018, 06:43:07 PM »missed a lot of basics physics here buddy. so much is wrong here wouldnt know where to start.
easiest one to debunk that you state is you are incorrect, energy isnt dependant on mass. how do you explain light? it has no mass, but has energy...in fact its pure energy. and it doesnt einsteins lawas since that equation for objects not a rest should be E2 = m2c4+(pc)2
my point is, your entire foundation of your argument is flawed.
Wrong again. The dependence of energy on mass is a known function, and demonstrates that light through a vacuum should have zero mass. But the Universe is not a complete vacuum, is it? Hence, the photon acquires a non zero rest mass. You following me?
Thus, the photon acquires a non-zero mass and hence a non c value for speed through the Universe.
I like talking to you.
Based on the OP's original two posts in this thread, i am pretty sure he wasnt getting that technical to bring up invariant mass, resting mass or relativistic mass.
9
Science & Alternative Science / Re: There is no such 'thing' as energy.
« on: August 24, 2018, 05:44:06 PM »
missed a lot of basics physics here buddy. so much is wrong here wouldnt know where to start.
easiest one to debunk that you state is you are incorrect, energy isnt dependant on mass. how do you explain light? it has no mass, but has energy...in fact its pure energy. and it doesnt einsteins lawas since that equation for objects not a rest should be E2 = m2c4+(pc)2
my point is, your entire foundation of your argument is flawed.
easiest one to debunk that you state is you are incorrect, energy isnt dependant on mass. how do you explain light? it has no mass, but has energy...in fact its pure energy. and it doesnt einsteins lawas since that equation for objects not a rest should be E2 = m2c4+(pc)2
my point is, your entire foundation of your argument is flawed.
10
Science & Alternative Science / Re: In-compressible fluids
« on: August 24, 2018, 01:48:52 AM »
Since the cats out of the bag, check this thread for the history of that equation/nonsense. Page 6 of this : https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9809.msg159853#msg159853
11
Science & Alternative Science / Re: In-compressible fluids
« on: August 24, 2018, 01:41:18 AM »I don't see that in this equation, the setting it equal to zero part... dp/dt is the derivative correct? God there's something I'm forgetting about the "dt"....
Sorry for sounding so elementary... getting old sucks. :-(
it's a statement about mass conservation. all this says is that if the fluid is incompressible (ie the density of the fluid doesn't change over time), then the divergence anywhere in the flow is zero. this implies that there are no sources or sinks of mass in the system.
Baby Thork would disagree
12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: In-compressible fluids
« on: August 23, 2018, 02:22:00 AM »If you, or anyone else is unable to provide an explanation, a proof, an example, or even a brief description of the variables in play, then, by default, you accept defeat and we all move on.
Seriously? We didn't create that, it's pretty well known. Sorry you can't follow along
13
Science & Alternative Science / Re: In-compressible fluids
« on: August 22, 2018, 06:06:09 PM »Some of the more well known folks here have come up the following formula for the momentum of an in-compressible fluid - which is quite interesting!
I have inquired about this equation, and the folks here have generously agreed to give us a demonstration of how this works, and how it can be used in FET.
Please, I welcome your input!
that is a well known derivation to a common equation. you claim to be well versed in physics, but you dont recognize it?
14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Force of Gravity Real or Fake?
« on: August 22, 2018, 06:04:54 PM »The force of gravity being fake is completely ridiculous, what do you think keeps us on the ground?
Please read the FAQ and wiki. You are expected to know at least the basics if you are going to post in the upper fora. Warned.
Sorry to say, but reading the FAQ and Wiki doesn't answer his question, because they do not answer what pushes the earth and objects on the earth towards each other. To claim that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards does not solve the problem. If two objects A & B are accelerating towards each other, in physics it doesn't really matter which one of those objects is accelerating. Is A accelerating towards B, or B accelerating towards A, or both accelerating towards each other? What matters here is the question: "What force is causing the acceleration, what is pushing or pulling those objects towards each other?"
In nature the acceleration of an object is an increase of the kinetic energy of that object, which only can be done by a force delivering that energy. (That's why your car needs a powerful engine to deliver the kinetic energy to your car to accelerate, and strong breaks to take that energy out again and transform it into another energy, like heat.)
So no matter if a falling apple is accelerating towards the earth, or the earth accelerating towards the falling apple, in both cases we need a force to make that possible, and this force is what Newton called the "gravitational force". If that force would not exist, nothing would keep us on the ground, because nothing would push your feet towards the earth or the earth towards your feet. Actually, there would be no ground at all to keep us on, neither feet.
you clearly havent read the wiki or taken any time to try and understand universal acceleration (UA). UA is based on the fact there is force that is accelerating earth "upward"
15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?
« on: August 21, 2018, 03:42:30 PM »unfortunately i dont think there is an answer to your question. there is no official/verified flat earth map, so if you are going to compare the sizes you are left to round earth sources, so we wont agree with that. what further makes it more difficult is that its not a very populated area in the sense of roads/travel and being able identify distance by means of car time, airplane travel times from one side to the other, etc.
So are you saying that we don't know how big Greenland is compared to Africa?
Do we not know that Greenland is much, much smaller, regardless of the Earth shape you believe in?
What about Norway and Samalia? (greenland is the most obvious example, but there are many northern countries that look too large when compared to countries or other areas near the equator)
you are basing this on what? thats my point, we dont have an official flat earth map that has been verified yet, so these exercises are pointless.
16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?
« on: August 21, 2018, 02:30:44 PM »Hey everyone,
So, I am pretty sure that everyone here has agreed at some point that Google Maps works. You can select a and b and get between them using your transportation of choice.
Google have recently changed their web version of maps to a globe. I am not saying the Earth is a globe because Google says so, so please read on...
On Google's flat version of maps, it shows that Greenland is huge. Like really huge. on their flat version (still available on Android) Greenland is almost the same size as Africa. On their new version of web maps, Greenland is dwarfed by Africa.
As I understand it, this is an issue with transposing round Earth to a flat surface. The way Google chose to do this was to have a scale that changed depending on where you were looking on the map at the time, therefore making things further from the equator appear bigger than they are.
So, why am I posting this? Good question sir! I wanted to find out how it is possible that, assuming the Earth is flat, Greenland appears to be as big as Africa when the scale could not possibly change.
If scale changes then it shows that there is a difference in curvature.
Please note that I am not trying to start an argument here, I am trying to understand. This is just something that has triggered my interest lately.
unfortunately i dont think there is an answer to your question. there is no official/verified flat earth map, so if you are going to compare the sizes you are left to round earth sources, so we wont agree with that. what further makes it more difficult is that its not a very populated area in the sense of roads/travel and being able identify distance by means of car time, airplane travel times from one side to the other, etc.
17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Force of Gravity Real or Fake?
« on: August 20, 2018, 08:11:45 PM »When physicists define a force, what they are really doing is making a statement about energy. I know that sounds strange, but hear me out!
A "force" in physics is a gradient of a potential field. There is a connection between a potential field and energy. Hence, it is convenient to speak about this using forces.
However, if you are a particle physicist, then you have a different approach, because you can measure specific gauge bosons which transmit forces. So in this regime you would say that forces are transmitted by particles exchanging these bosons. Then the forces play out in a intuitively tractable dynamic fashion.
Which view is ultimately correct? That is hard to say. Both describe reality very well in certain regimes. I do not know of any description which has predictive power and abandons the idea of forces.
thanks for regurgitating definitions you can find in a community college physics class, but that really wasnt an opinion/answer/etc to the OP's original question. how about your thoughts on the question?
18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax
« on: August 16, 2018, 04:45:09 PM »The SR-71 was in service from 1966. It was only disclosed to the public in 1999.
Just because the first reports are from 2012 doesn't mean the government haven't been using them longer. The laser was invented in 1960. I would be quite confident they have had lasers capable of drawing stars in the sky since before 2012.
thats not correct BT. i went and personally saw a SR71 back in 1988-89
19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« on: August 07, 2018, 01:10:24 PM »Planes at 20,200km high?how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
Calm down Round Eyes. I haven't responded for a very good reason, you are mixing me up with someone else in this thread. Go talk to panicp from Thread reply 31.
My bad. But on a positive note, you're finally correct
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
20,200 km high? no. obviously not. very apparent from my argument that i do not believe the height/elevations that are noted for satellites are correct. but i think you already know that.
and before you say you can verify the height based on geometry by observing the angle from two locations and then calculating the height....my question would be...have you?
with all you round earthers on this forum, you would think a few of you would team up for a fun exercise to do this...but nothing.
20
Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« on: August 07, 2018, 12:23:56 AM »how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
Calm down Round Eyes. I haven't responded for a very good reason, you are mixing me up with someone else in this thread. Go talk to panicp from Thread reply 31.
My bad. But on a positive note, you're finally correct
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??