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.


Messages - Tumeni

Pages: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 81  Next >
61
Technology & Information / Re: Just look at this...
« on: March 17, 2020, 04:14:08 PM »
I see depictions of orbits up to around the 55sec point.

Why don't you see them?

62
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 17, 2020, 01:39:23 PM »
Regardless, there is no requirement for people to be insured.

A lot of people I know go without it by choice.

So what? Your question was "how many" in the country, and I told you (approximately).

What happens in your close circle is not relevant to this
You told me a number...

A highly doubtful number...

Kinda matches up with the reported number of illegal immigrants in the country.

I gave you an approximation, which is that between 25 and 35% of the country have NO or INADEQUATE health insurance. They are unable to pay for their healthcare, and therefore must go without healthcare.

63
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 17, 2020, 01:36:47 PM »
No, you've misunderstood the intent of my bolding, so I shall re-do this

Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

If the exhaust pushes atmosphere away from the craft, it cannot be getting an opposite reaction from it.

To use your analogy, how much push can you get off the wall if the wall is on frictionless castors, and moves away from you when you push it?

64
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 17, 2020, 12:09:45 PM »
Regardless, there is no requirement for people to be insured.

A lot of people I know go without it by choice.

So what? Your question was "how many" in the country, and I told you (approximately).

What happens in your close circle is not relevant to this

65
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 17, 2020, 12:04:21 PM »
Jets take in air, add fuel (or even sometimes extra fuel, known as afterburners) and that hot air is ejected out the aft, pushing against the atmosphere, resulting in an opposite reaction called thrust, causing the jet to move forward.

No. Like the rocket, the jet exhaust pushes the atmosphere away from the engine. Large quantities of exhaust move large quantities of air, with the associated high volume of sound that goes with it. There's a lot of sound because there's a lot of movement of the air, away from the craft.

If the atmosphere resisted, this would not occur.


66
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 17, 2020, 09:56:16 AM »
Further quotes from popular science sources;

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html

"In brief, you can see that each main part of the engine does a different thing to the air or fuel mixture passing through:

- Compressor: Dramatically increases the pressure of the air (and, to a lesser extent) its temperature.
- Combustion chamber: Dramatically increases the temperature of the air-fuel mixture by releasing heat energy from the fuel.
- Exhaust nozzle: Dramatically increases the velocity of the exhaust gases, so powering the plane."



"When we talk about jet engines, we to tend think of rocket-like tubes that fire exhaust gas backward. Another basic bit of physics, Newton's third law of motion, tells us that as a jet engine's exhaust gas shoots back, the plane itself must move forward. It's exactly like a skateboarder kicking back on the pavement to go forward; in a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick". In everyday words, the action (the force of the exhaust gas shooting backward) is equal and opposite to the reaction (the force of the plane moving forward); the action moves the exhaust gas, while the reaction moves the plane."

67
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 17, 2020, 09:35:01 AM »
You're off by about 100 million. Its about 320 million in America.

OK, that's fine. 82/320 = approx 25%, not 35%

68
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 17, 2020, 09:31:52 AM »
The reason the publication is called "Popular" Science, and not "Applied Science", "Complex Science" or "Advanced Science" is specifically that it is targeted at the General Populace. The man in the street. The average citizen.

It's not a research paper, it's not a comprehensive text on the topic, it's a broad-brush summary, where complex matters are simplified, and set out in terms that are understandable to that audience.

With simplification comes lack of precision with regard to descriptive terms.

This has to be borne in mind when quoting from it and claiming absolute certaintly with regard to isolated phrases pulled from it.

69
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 17, 2020, 12:12:58 AM »
Because you guys keep writing about the need for this stuff, but seem to not have the actual specifics about WHO is involved.

How many of these people exist in the US?

Millions. What do you want? Names? Numbers? Cities most affected? States most affected?

EDIT
Alicia suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and is uninsured. She has two children (ages 10 & 12) who take care of her at home. She is confined to a wheelchair and can't afford home care.

44 million Americans are uninsured, and eight out of ten of these are workers or their dependents. Why is being uninsured a problem?

About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.


(https://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html)

44+38 = 82 million.

Population is, I believe, total 240 million or so, so that is (82 divided by 240) = 35% of the country with no or inadequate health insurance.

35%.
 

70
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 14, 2020, 09:19:04 PM »
Can you point specifically to who needs it?

FFS, anyone who needs medical treatment and CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT....

Why does this need to be clarified for you?

71
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 14, 2020, 04:58:27 PM »
I am not sure what you mean, as all maps are flat.
And all flat maps are very definitive.
It has been years since I have run across an inaccurate flat map.

The same can be said of any technical drawing, architect's drawing, or schematic of a device or item of manufacture.

All have, at least until the advent of CAD, been drawn on flat sheets of paper, as a representation of a 3D object.

That maps are drawn the same way does not make what they represent flat.

72
Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth
« on: March 12, 2020, 04:27:41 PM »
I just quoted your post, word for word.

How does that constitute "making up my own version"?

By what you wrote, AFTER you quoted me.

73
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 12, 2020, 04:10:22 PM »
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?

By setting it in motion, such that it moves from (say) Point A to (say) Point B.

Do you see some difficulty or obstacle preventing this?
Yeah I do.

Show me otherwise.

You want me to show you that you see some difficulty or obstacle?

How do I do this, without you telling me what difficulty or obstacle you see?

74
Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth
« on: March 12, 2020, 03:27:26 PM »
I am not making up an RE claim.

You wrote..."There's sufficient wooliness to the imagery to assert that the camera is picking up the light, in the atmosphere, from the lights without necessarily having a direct sightline to the lights themselves."

That specifically means that the lights are at appropriate levels for a globe shaped earth (RE).

As such, that would mean bendy light.

No, you're making up your own version of what I'm saying, and arguing against that, not against what I actually said.

75
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 12, 2020, 03:22:16 PM »
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?

By setting it in motion, such that it moves from (say) Point A to (say) Point B.

Do you see some difficulty or obstacle preventing this?

76
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors
« on: March 12, 2020, 08:31:24 AM »
I tried that at first. Haley’s comet has a 1/4 Width to length ratio.  That’s more like a U -turn than it is to a circle. And I couldn’t get the ball to do that.

You couldn't get a ball to behave in the way that was clearly described as an "analogy" ?


77
https://www.mnealon.eosc.edu/RocketSciencePage5.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of this page - it's about the saturn v5 flight path . At the end you will see the graph of altitude against range .

It's rocket science .

...and the point is ... what?

78
Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth
« on: March 11, 2020, 04:47:01 PM »
8 miles away, the refraction would need to account for 29 feet of bendy light...wait...I thought RET accused FET of bendy light...

I didn't mention refraction, nor bendy light.

Again, stop trying to make up RE claims to argue against. Discuss what I actually write, not what I don't.

79
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 11, 2020, 03:55:25 PM »
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...
You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....

Like this;



It deals with explosives and high explosives, but the same principles apply.

80
Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth
« on: March 11, 2020, 02:35:58 PM »
Quote
As I see it it, you really don't have an anti-refraction argument here. As to me, the lights seem pretty refracted. But that's just me.

RE must argue that the lights were coincidentally lifted at different heights from below the horizon, in accordance with the distance to the observer, to be on the same plane.

No, it must not. Stop trying to make RE's arguments for it.

There's sufficient wooliness to the imagery to assert that the camera is picking up the light, in the atmosphere, from the lights without necessarily having a direct sightline to the lights themselves.

The presumption that because one can see a particular colour of light means you have a direct sightline to that light source is an erroneous one. 

Pages: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 81  Next >