Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #160 on: December 13, 2020, 09:48:52 PM »
I got to say I'm a bit disappointed.  What could be an interesting thread on the relative arguments FE/RE, has degenerated over the last few pages and weeks into a futile attempt to help a correspondent understand basic (generally unchallenged?) physics regarding Newton's Laws and the nature of vacuum. 

More disappointing is that there are a couple of heavy-hitters on the FE side who's understanding of these concepts is respected, but who's input has so far been confined to debating the timeline of Tweets about an album cover and the personal integrity of a retired member of the Canadian Space Agency.   

Any contribution on gas law and Newtonian physics Gents?

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #161 on: December 13, 2020, 11:29:50 PM »
I got to say I'm a bit disappointed.  What could be an interesting thread on the relative arguments FE/RE, has degenerated over the last few pages and weeks into a futile attempt to help a correspondent understand basic (generally unchallenged?) physics regarding Newton's Laws and the nature of vacuum. 

More disappointing is that there are a couple of heavy-hitters on the FE side who's understanding of these concepts is respected, but who's input has so far been confined to debating the timeline of Tweets about an album cover and the personal integrity of a retired member of the Canadian Space Agency.   

Any contribution on gas law and Newtonian physics Gents?

You criticize the debate yet you yourself have contributed nothing. Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #162 on: December 13, 2020, 11:40:30 PM »
Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

I refer you back to reply #155 on the previous page, which you seemed to miss, and where I invited you to start that discussion
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1384
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #163 on: December 14, 2020, 01:31:22 AM »
Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
I refer you back to reply #155 on the previous page, which you seemed to miss, and where I invited you to start that discussion

From the FES Wiki:

Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.
Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
Davis Plane

This model states that there is an infinite plane of exotic matter somewhere below the disk, pushing in the opposite manner of traditional gravity. This is a recent theory, and is in progress.

If you choose to believe in Universal Acceleration as per the FET then how could space be empty?  There has to be some form of energy out in space pushing the Earth and accelerating it continuously.  Why couldn't a rocket's thrust just push against the same energy that is allegedly accelerating the whole mass of the earth?  Most rockets take off and then head off in a definite direction and not continue straight up.  Why couldn't those rockets just be heading off towards the edge of the flat earth where is could enter the presents of the 'dark energy' so the rocket could continue it's travels?

That would solve the mystery of how a rocket could actually work in space!

Perhaps the same 'dark energy' could be pushing on the outside of a pressurize space suit and making it a lot easier for an astronaut to move around in as well. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #164 on: December 14, 2020, 04:13:56 AM »
@DuncanDoenitz, well said. I'm happy to discuss Newtonian physics, but I'm also curious if other FE proponents support or reject some of Mark's claims. Mark said he didn't really read the FE wiki so I think he has a unique approach.

That being said, the FE movement is pretty decentralized, isn't it? I'm pretty new here but I get the impression that most here are free thinkers and that there's not much dogma in FE theory

@Mark, still very interested to hear your response to my #151 whenever you have time

Also about the direction of this thread, a bunch of really interesting talking points was being carried on the FE side by jack44556677 who hasn't been around in a while. I outlined them back in #93, where they still lie completely unanswered

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #165 on: December 14, 2020, 10:18:40 AM »

You criticize the debate yet you yourself have contributed nothing. Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

I can't explain rocket theory to you with any more eloquence than the other correspondents. 

And at least half of a debate consists of listening.  And understanding. 

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #166 on: December 15, 2020, 02:41:56 PM »
Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

Not really clear what you mean by space being a vacuum violating Newton's 1st law. His 1st law is simply that objects stay at a constant velocity unless acted on by a force.

Rockets generate thrust by two mechanisms, in a similar manner to jet engines, namely momentum and pressure. Momentum is simply the mass and velocity of the exhaust flow. If you stand on a skate board and throw a bowling ball backwards, you will go forwards. This doesn't depend in any way on the ambient pressure, or lack of it.

The pressure term in the rocket thrust equation is the static pressure of the exhaust flow, minus the ambient static pressure, multiplied by the exhaust nozzle area. Notice that in this case the thrust increases as the ambient static pressure reduces - you get more thrust, all other things being the same, in a vacuum.

Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #167 on: December 15, 2020, 03:14:30 PM »
If you stand on a skate board and throw a bowling ball backwards, you will go forwards. This doesn't depend in any way on the ambient pressure, or lack of it.

We've been here. See #123 for Mark's latest comments on the skateboard example. I still haven't had a chance to fully respond to this, but maybe you want to take a shot at it?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #168 on: December 15, 2020, 04:21:40 PM »

We've been here. See #123 for Mark's latest comments on the skateboard example. I still haven't had a chance to fully respond to this, but maybe you want to take a shot at it?

Thanks. Yes, I saw that.

On the skate board example, Mark doesn't seem to understand momentum. If you throw an object backwards like the man in that video, assuming zero or at least near zero friction, your mass times your velocity will be equal and opposite to the mass times the velocity of the ball. This is easily testable and demonstrable - kids the world over learn this stuff in physics lessons, indeed I vividly recall playing about with ticker tape timers and various model rail carts with different masses in my teenage physics lessons. If air pressure was involved in some way we would see very different results at different ambient air pressures, or indeed if we used different gases surrounding the experiments, but we don't see that at all.

Moreover, Mark is completely ignoring the other term in the equation, namely the pressure component. This actually increases the rocket thrust as pressure reduces. Again, this is easily testable stuff, although the equipment needed for this isn't going to be found in your average school lab.

Mark also seems to have completely misunderstood the issue of how 'strong' or how 'powerful' a vacuum is. From a structural perspective, all that matters is the forces involved. If we are talking about the ability of a container to not crush due to an internal vacuum, then those forces are given by the external pressure and the internal pressure. For a vacuum, or a near-vacuum, that internal pressure is essentially zero - there is negligible difference between the various classes of vacuum listed in the table, as they are all very close to zero. There is nothing inherently special about a vacuum from a structural perspective - we could just as easily recreate the same forces on a container by having, say, atmospheric pressure inside the container and a larger pressure outside it. As other posters have said, vacuums don't suck, it is atmospheric pressure that is doing the crushing. The same is of course true for pressurised vessels, like the ISS, in outer space. The pressure differential is not that remarkable - around 14psi, which isn't that much more than an airliner at cruise altitude (eg 787 typically around 9psi differential).

It is of course true that it is very difficult to create a perfect vacuum. It can't really be done by any machine, although you might of course achieve some localised vacuum space where there are no particles. But this difficulty doesn't mean vacuums are magic - it's just very hard to completely prevent small numbers of gas molecules leaking in to a low pressure environment. Indeed, space itself isn't a perfect vacuum, there are small numbers of (mainly) hydrogen molecules kicking around out there. I daresay spacecraft like the ISS leak a fair bit out into space, but the amount of leakage will be trivial in comparison to the capacity of the onboard systems. 

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #169 on: December 17, 2020, 02:56:11 PM »
@all

Thank you for your responses! I owe you all responses in kind - that will be forthcoming - but I thought this response to the OP ought come first.

@james38

Quote
I just need some way to categorize people! :)

You really don't, and you reduce/dehumanize them attempting to do so.  If you MUST put the people into stifling little boxes, at least try your best to make them fit.

I propose GEP (globe earth proponent) and GED/GES (globe earth denier / globe earth skeptic) or perhaps REP and RED/RES.

Quote
We should all humbly admit our own bias

It is harder than simply "admitting", sadly.  First you must make the implicit explicit, then evaluate it objectively (ALSO no small feat), THEN you have the chance to possibly "humbly admit" your recognized (the tricky bit) bias.

We should earnestly and diligently try to find our own biases and help each other to point out the ones we inevitably miss!  There is no shame in recogizing our subjective nature and great harm in denying it.  We ought to be able to point out/criticize one anothers biases and offer thanks for the service.

Quote
Speaking of common ground, we all need to back up our claims.

And just like that, a long meandering tangential thread returns to its central topic! The burden of proof falls on the claimant.  We all need to defend, explain, and support our positions - however citing published journal articles (nor any other particular source) is not required to do that.

I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation.  If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it.  In any case, strong independent research skills are vital and required in this subject (in truth, they are vital for all subjects and shamefully neglected by most)

Quote
There are many approaches to think about the shape of the Earth.

Endless, yes. But that's only in THINKING about the shape of the earth.  Actually determining it only has the one way - rigorous and repeated measurement (of the world, not the sky or any other damned thing that is NOT the world)!

Quote
It's counter-productive for anyone to call someone else's approach a red herring.

Not when it is!  When the line of thinking/inquiry IS in fact red herring - letting others know is extremely productive - if only in saving time from being wasted.

Quote
it looks like possibly 10-20% of Americans might believe the moon landings were faked.

I suspect it is somewhere around 30.  In england and other "friendly" european nations, the percentage is higher - around or above 50.

The Conspiracy: Thomas Baron
 
Quote
Statistically speaking, coincidences are inevitable. That's why a single coincidence is not strong evidence.

The longer you live the better you will likely learn/internalize that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  In any case, the thomas baron "incident" is not a sole example demonstrating "fishy" things surrounding apollo.

Quote
There are statistical methods to answer whether a pattern of events is coincidental or meaningful.

Your bias rears its ugly head.  There are methods to ESTIMATE - not answer nor determine.

In any case, statistically or otherwise, there is no reason to conclude the thomas baron incident is "merely coincidence".  You can argue that it is merely suspicious, and not "proof" of anything in particular - but when the independent oversight's family is murdered and all copies of the exhaustive and recently completed scathingly critical report mysteriously vanish - it is hardly a wild leap to conclude/deduce/speculate that something is very rotten in denmark.

The Conspiracy: Mars Rat

Quote
But you do not know it is a rat.

Sure, in the same way that you do not KNOW that it is a picture from mars.

It is plain to see, however - which is why this is, perhaps, the quintessential example.  There is maybe no better worshack/litmus for the "space madness" than this picture.

Any child or otherwise unindoctrinated/unconditioned/uninfluenced person will tell you it is a rat in that photo.  "Double blind", that is a rat.  I agree that does not certainly make it a rat, but this highlights the problems with pictures as evidence more than anything else.

ONLY the "educated"/conditioned interpret the photo in an unnatural/corrupted manner - required as a dogma of their faith.  No dissent, discussion, or further investigation is permissible.  It's a rock... It simply has to be... Otherwise - "houston, we have a problem".

When rocks look like other things, they still look like rocks. Paradoilla is defensible in the case of the picture of the lizard (due to its natural camouflage to blend in with rocks), but not with the rat.

Societal Opression

Quote
If I've only learned one thing here, it's that we as a society have not been welcoming enough to FET.

One of the first things we learn as young children is the lie that our primitive ancestors thought the world was flat and were afraid to fall off the edge if they sailed too far.  We are conditioned to mock and deride anyone who questions our modern "advanced wisdom" of the shape of the earth (or most anything else) from a shamefully tender age.  This is not coincidence, and is the reason there is the opposite of "welcoming" and consideration/evaluation for this subject.

Quote
Mark said, "no scientific journal or phd student would risk their livlehood researching [FET]". This couldn't be farther from the truth!

I hope that you are right and there are those with the bravery and conviction to risk all for the benefit of mankind - however my experience with reality (including academia) has been distinctly less grandiose.  People generally do what the money tells them to because they are too poor to object.

Quote
If there was a technically feasible experiment that could challenge the theory the earth is a globe, someone would conduct it.

There are many such observations (NOT experiments, as we have discussed) that can and have been made in the past.  I will leave the puzzle of why they are not replicated to you.  Personally, I think discovery happens wherever you look thoroughly, and it is through philosophy/creation myth that we influence where/how to look and the bounds on what can be hoped to be found.  The reason the research groups don't take a chance on measuring the shape of the world rigorously (which would almost certainly garner them some attention!), is because their creation myth/philosophy/world view informs them there is no need to.

Quote
But the bottom line is, you cannot claim that academia is acting oppressively against FET without evidence.

The evidence is in every primary school in the world.  As I explained, it is one of the first things all students learn.

Quote
since the 1st amendment (apologies if you aren't American) protects the freedom of speech.

Does it though? (he asks, knowingly)

Quote
Would anyone mind sharing instances that this happened to you?

I can direct you to many threads containing demonstration/examples of common/typical responses to flat earth research.  Dissent is not tolerated, and many people froth at the mouth as a result of their conditioning to that effect through rote under the guise of education.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2020, 03:03:51 PM by jack44556677 »

Offline Horhang

  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #170 on: December 18, 2020, 02:32:20 AM »
Jack, how do you propose yo directly measure the shape of the Earth? Many indirect measurements have been made, but you seem to reject them as they do not directly measure the Earth.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #171 on: December 18, 2020, 10:09:52 AM »
If you MUST put the people into stifling little boxes, at least try your best to make them fit.

I propose GEP (globe earth proponent) and GED/GES (globe earth denier / globe earth skeptic) or perhaps REP and RED/RES.

The burden of proof falls on the claimant.  We all need to defend, explain, and support our positions ...

Surely some setting up a website called The Flat Earth Society has already put themselves in the box?

And surely setting up such a site makes the FEP the claimant?

I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation.  If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it.  ...

... back to previous threads, and, despite my repeated asking of you, you have NEVER provided a source, nor elaborated on the detail of any "research" you have done. You always ddoge away from this.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 10:16:00 AM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12603
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #172 on: December 18, 2020, 10:37:58 AM »
And surely setting up such a site makes the FEP the claimant?
For the avoidance of doubt: no, that's not how conversation threads work, and you know that very well. Since this was an obvious attempt at hijacking yet another thread, I'm giving you one final warning. Play nicely or don't play at all.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #173 on: December 18, 2020, 12:50:58 PM »

I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation.  If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it.  ...

Presumably you meant something else. Elucidation is always welcome, elaboration can be useful, but obfuscation is no help to anyone.
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #174 on: December 30, 2020, 12:45:47 AM »
Do you accept the principle that explosives and fuels, when detonated or ignited, generate rapid and significant expansion of gas product, from the chemical reaction initiated by detonation or ignition?

Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

I refer you back to reply #155 on the previous page, which you seemed to miss, and where I invited you to start that discussion

I didn't miss it, I'm just not interested in having a discussion about how explosives work on earth and then making assumptions that they work the same way in a near perfect vacuum scenario. This is no different to the bowling ball/gun recoil argument - it skews the readers interpretation of what may happen when the reality is quite the contrary.


From the FES Wiki:

Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.
Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
Davis Plane

This model states that there is an infinite plane of exotic matter somewhere below the disk, pushing in the opposite manner of traditional gravity. This is a recent theory, and is in progress.

If you choose to believe in Universal Acceleration as per the FET then how could space be empty?  There has to be some form of energy out in space pushing the Earth and accelerating it continuously.  Why couldn't a rocket's thrust just push against the same energy that is allegedly accelerating the whole mass of the earth?  Most rockets take off and then head off in a definite direction and not continue straight up.  Why couldn't those rockets just be heading off towards the edge of the flat earth where is could enter the presents of the 'dark energy' so the rocket could continue it's travels?

That would solve the mystery of how a rocket could actually work in space!

Perhaps the same 'dark energy' could be pushing on the outside of a pressurize space suit and making it a lot easier for an astronaut to move around in as well.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. I'm not a member of any flat earth organisation and I'm certainly not going to let myself be categorized into whatever you think a "flat earther" is.





@Mark, still very interested to hear your response to my #151 whenever you have time
I'm obsessed with keeping these conversations a little organized so first here's the short list again of the side conversations that we never really finished:
  • My questions to Jack
  • rockets and newtons laws

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of.

Honestly, this comment took me by surprise. Your giant syringe example was your attempt to take a basic physics principle and apply it to your understanding of the physics of space, not mine. And it was your misunderstanding of that basics physics principle that, as you explained yourself, made the concept of space absurd to you.

I gave your giant syringe example some serious thought. I approached it with an open mind. To be honest, I thought it was an incredible point. I'm not a physics guy, and I actually thought you were right at first. I never really thought about it... if you pull on a syringe the pulling force does rise exponentially, doesn't it? So I took your point seriously and looked into it a bit more and discovered Boyles law, etc. After I discovered why we were both actually wrong (because I believed you at first), then I tried to walk you through exactly where your understanding of pressure was wrong in my mind.

The fact that you merely pushed the whole thing aside without even acknowledging that you misunderstood the way pressure works made me feel discouraged from continuing the conversation. I will try to continue for now, but only as long as we can agree that open-minded debate is a two-way street. We both have to be willing to admit when we are wrong.

And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself!

Can I ask you your source on this one? I just want to read more so I understand where you are coming from.

This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.

So when you say "this is a problem", I think you mean the problem of how to understand the physics of space from the surface of the Earth? I agree it's a fascinating question. Maybe you are correct that the effects of quantum physics become non-negligible at this level of a vacuum. This is probably way beyond what I can do with my freshman college level of physics understanding, but I'd definitely be down to try for fun.

But let's stay focused here: this conversation is centered around your thesis that spacesuits could not possibly work in space due to the high pressure. That's why my response to your syringe problem was so important because whether you admit it or not, your thesis seems to be now unfounded.

I hope I'm not coming off as overly aggressive. I'm just stating the fact here that your thesis as stated above, as it currently stands in this conversation, is based on no evidence or argument. If you still stand by the syringe example, why? If you think quantum physics would cause the spacesuits to not work in a vacuum, why? Just because quantum physics might become non-negligible is not on its own supporting your thesis that the spacesuits would not work in space.


There are just too many questions here, the answers to which need a lot of time and prerequisite knowledge (even more than what I have myself). I'm not saying it goes beyond our level of understanding, but it's hard to go into detail on this when there is such variation in people's background knowledge of the topic. Besides, I think I touched on a lot of your questions in post #157

If you read the article in this link:
https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html
The first paragraph he describes how some industrial vacuums are equivalent to increasing the volume of a cubic meter of gas to 200 times the volume of the grand canyon. Industrial vacuums require a lot of engineering to ensure they don't collapse in on themselves. But why? Why not use a perspex box like some of the videos shown earlier in the thread if the difference in pressure is as minimal as is suggested?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2020, 01:15:39 AM by Mark Antony »
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #175 on: December 30, 2020, 12:55:51 AM »


In any case, statistically or otherwise, there is no reason to conclude the thomas baron incident is "merely coincidence".  You can argue that it is merely suspicious, and not "proof" of anything in particular - but when the independent oversight's family is murdered and all copies of the exhaustive and recently completed scathingly critical report mysteriously vanish - it is hardly a wild leap to conclude/deduce/speculate that something is very rotten in denmark.

The Conspiracy: Mars Rat

Quote
But you do not know it is a rat.

Sure, in the same way that you do not KNOW that it is a picture from mars.

It is plain to see, however - which is why this is, perhaps, the quintessential example.  There is maybe no better worshack/litmus for the "space madness" than this picture.

Any child or otherwise unindoctrinated/unconditioned/uninfluenced person will tell you it is a rat in that photo.  "Double blind", that is a rat.  I agree that does not certainly make it a rat, but this highlights the problems with pictures as evidence more than anything else.

ONLY the "educated"/conditioned interpret the photo in an unnatural/corrupted manner - required as a dogma of their faith.  No dissent, discussion, or further investigation is permissible.  It's a rock... It simply has to be... Otherwise - "houston, we have a problem".

When rocks look like other things, they still look like rocks. Paradoilla is defensible in the case of the picture of the lizard (due to its natural camouflage to blend in with rocks), but not with the rat.


I find it interesting how you regularly bring up the rat as I feel there is some kind of inside joke around it at NASA and spaceX. A rat has appeared on a number of occasions in the space footage. Here is one example to examine from a few months back while I try and find another one from a few years ago:

See from 3:16:20 onwards on the left panel there appears to be a rat on the thruster in outer space!



Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2020, 01:07:10 AM by Mark Antony »
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1907
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #176 on: December 30, 2020, 03:59:46 AM »
Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?

Ice. Happens all the time - More 'rat' ice:



Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #177 on: December 30, 2020, 07:42:28 PM »
Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?

Ice. Happens all the time - More 'rat' ice:

Have you a source for this footage?
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1907
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #178 on: December 30, 2020, 09:22:47 PM »
Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?

Ice. Happens all the time - More 'rat' ice:

Have you a source for this footage?

Same place your "rat" footage came from.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #179 on: December 31, 2020, 01:23:21 AM »
Same place your "rat" footage came from.
At which time point in the video? I can't find it.
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare