1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Are there any pilots here? Please debunk this!

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by solarion, Jan 1, 2018.



  1. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    You are misunderstanding how a rocket works. The fuel explodes (for lack of a better word) inside the rocket engine. When it explodes it expands extremely fast pushing equally hard on any surface it comes into contact with. If the fuel exploded inside a box the box wouldn't move anywhere whether it was in space or here on earth as the rocket fuel would exert an equal force on each wall of the box and those forces would all cancel out. If the forces were strong enough it might blow the box up of course, but assuming the box remained intact it wouldn't move.

    In the case of our rocket engine though, it works by effectively leaving one side of the box open. The explosion pushes very hard on all the walls but not of course the opening, and the engine therefore accelerates in the direction opposite to the opening since no there is no force in that direction to counter the force on the opposite wall. It doesn't make any difference to the rocket whether its fuel exhaust is expelled through the opening into the air or into a vacuum - the exhaust doesn't propel the rocket by "pushing off" on the air. It does make a difference to the fuel exhaust though. In the vacuum of outer space, the fuel exhaust will hurtle at very high speed in the opposite direction to the rocket almost forever. While here on earth it will rapidly slow down transferring momentum to the air molecules it collides with.
     
  2. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Spin is measured in angular velocity at revolutions or degrees (or radians) per second. So a balloon floating straight up from the ground would not experience any change in air speed from the phenomenon you describe - the air would continue to seem still relative to the ground and the balloon itself. Except for any wind of course - but that's not what you are talking about here.
     
    Silver likes this.
  3. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,164
    Likes Received:
    4,859
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Absolutely phenomenal post there RebelYell. Another "nail meet hammer" response. You should post more often.


    What exactly is it that defies gravity?

    That's not what sol says.

    The "vacuum of space" doesn't work like that. It doesn't "suck" anything.

    Uh, yea. Gravity is what holds the atmosphere to the Earth.
    ...and some of it is lost to space, just not an appreciable amount. Probably any hydrogen released into the atmosphere, along with helium might eventually escape into space.

    Why would you think a rocket needs something to push off of? That's not how rockets work. Rockets work via the rapid expansion of gas, not because they have something behind them to push off of.
    ...and read the response by @RebelYell a couple posts above this one. He nailed it for ya.

    The difference is negligible and the power of a plane handles it just fine.

    Who said that? Gravity propagates @ the speed of light. It's not "instant". Ie: this isn't Quaker Oats were talkin' here.

    Idiot? Do we really want to go down that path? I could easily call you an idiot for believing half this stuff, but I don't. Instead I spend time trying to help you to understand the part of our World you're having trouble with. Why? Because I like ya Sol, that's why.

    To believe in flat Earth, yes.

    Yep. Just like a tossed object inside a moving car goes up and down as it moves along with the car.

    I mean really, sol. How would it be any different? According to your logic, if you are riding along in a car at 50mph and toss a small object upward, if should fly backwards at 50mph striking you in the chest. Why doesn't it do that? Answer that question and you'll have figured why a plane can land on a North/South runway on a surface moving at 1000+mph.
    ...and have you ever considered the case of aircraft landing on an aircraft carrier moving along at 20knots?
    ...and their runway is even angled, which makes it even harder. Yet they can do it all day everyday.
     
    stonedywankanobe likes this.
  4. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So we all know that Newton never finished his work before he died. We know also that Cavendish's torsion rod experiment only work when conducted by unicorns.

    There ya go. Gravity debunked.

    It's a bunch of crap maths that are never re-created in the real world. Newton took a bunch of garbage assumptions from Copernicus' model of the solar system, built some garbage maths...croaked before he could finish it and then Cavendish picks it up and creates a physical experiment that somehow magically, allegedly works for him once and we're stuck with this lemon for the next couple centuries.
     
  5. Juristic Person

    Juristic Person They drew first blood Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,158
    Likes Received:
    2,990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know based on a preponderance of evidence along with the fact that it was simply not possible in 1969 just as it is not possible today.

    Just ask NASA... ;)
     
  6. Juristic Person

    Juristic Person They drew first blood Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,158
    Likes Received:
    2,990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I appreciate you taking the time to post all this. I will get back to it later when I have more time to dissect it.

    -JP
     
  7. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Apollo stuff is like a happy fairy tale that Amerikans hold unto just for warm fuzzies.

    I rather ask NASA how the ISS is electrically grounded. Twenty years allegedly buzzing the Earth without a ground. Right.
     
  8. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I don't believe you're correct on Cavendish's experiment. It's constantly recreated in high schools and university labs around the world. I've witnessed it myself.

    Is it possible you are not keeping a sufficiently open mind yourself?

    RebelYell
     
    stonedywankanobe, Joe King and Silver like this.
  9. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    There are two aspects to grounding the ISS.

    Firstly it is necessary to ensure that each component of the ISS does not have a charge relative to any other component. This is the same problem that you have with your car, and it is solved the same way. In a car, or a plane for that matter, ground is achieved by connecting all the components to a single "sink". In the case of your car, the sink is the chassis. This ensures that voltage does not build up on any component of the vehicle relative to another so that no dangerous sparks or shocks - caused by a difference in voltage - can happen. Smaller spacecraft use exactly the same system. Larger spacecraft like the ISS use a multi point ground where there are many sinks which are themselves interconnected.

    Secondly it is necessary to prevent the entire spaceship from picking up a large positive or negative charge relative to ambient space. This is done by something called a plasma contactor unit which works by firing out either electrons or positive gas ions into space in order to adjust the charge of the spaceship. This isn't rocket science (sorry couldn't resist that one :-)). Back in the old days (i.e. more than about 15 years ago) TVs worked in a similar way - by firing a ray of electrons from a cathode, hence the acronym "CRT", or cathode ray tube.

    RebelYell
     
  10. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    PS None of this is of course proof that the ISS exists. But it does weaken your argument that it can't exist.
     
    stonedywankanobe and Joe King like this.
  11. chrisflhtc

    chrisflhtc Site Supporter Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Why don't you try talking to a battleships gunner that fires some of those 16 inch shells many miles, they most definitely have to take into account "coriolis effect, gravity magic, or Earth's alleged curvature while doing his job." All this talk is very interesting and is making me think a lot more than I normally do which I hear is good for the brain.:2 thumbs up: Thanks for the stimulating discourse.
     
  12. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was indoctrinated with ball Earth philosophy same as everyone else. The simple fact is that the experiment currently labelled "the Cavendish Experiment" is not the same experiment conducted in 1798. When people try to re-create what Cavendish claimed he did, they fail. None of these experiments are evidence that all matter attracts all matter and does so at any speed...let alone infinite speed...or even light speed.
    So, your position is that the guys in the interviews I linked...are lying then? Don't know what they're talking about? Convenient that your position doesn't require any evidence.

    Do you happen to have a battleship gunner's contact information? I'd love to discuss it with him/her. You are seemingly suggesting that Naval gunners at the battle of Jutland also took into account the alleged spin + curvature of the Earth. Any evidence of that...by chance?



    Well that's weird...wonder what's wrong with all these Navy guys?

    [​IMG]

    Navy guy above says they paint targets with a focused pencil beam radar at up to 50 miles...presumably nautical miles, but he did not specify. If any Navy guys here would like to refute that claim, now would be a great time to do so.

    Search radar at up to 200 miles. How the heck does one get a return signature from that range on a spheroid?

    I wonder how Navy ship mounted rail guns would deal with Earth's alleged curvature. lol
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  13. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the case of the ISS it's grounded to what? You use a car example, but ignore the fact that a car sits on the ground...even alleged NASA "space/time" craft don't ordinarily spend a couple decades without touching the ground. It's fairly easy to accept that the shuttle aircraft, for instance, could just ground when they next landed...that doesn't work for the ISS.

    BTW there is no source I consider to be less credible than NASA. If my neighbor told me his 2nd cousin's dog relayed information to him I'd consider it more credible than the constant lies coming out of NASA. I believe NASA has claimed recently to be in contact with Voyager 1(9.5 billion miles) ...cuz apparently they're unfamiliar with the inverse square law. The department of war seems to think everybody is dumb + gullible. Fortunately people are finally waking up to these fraudsters.

    [​IMG]

    It may be fun to theorize that the ISS wouldn't be melted into a pile of slag while hurtling around in the thermosphere @ 17k mph due to heat flux density, though I would quickly point out that humans have a far lower melting point than does aluminum. It's a weak excuse even for astro-nots just passing through, it's ridiculous to think guys could live up there for months at a time.

    Just the same, I think heat density is the excuse most oft cited for the ISS being able to remain in an environment that's clearly hot enough to melt it and the humans aboard...and do so for a couple decades uninterrupted. So if it's not melting because of lack of air density, then how does one get to turn around and suggest that the thin air there is somehow thick enough to allow for an electrical ground?

    There are dozens of problems with the notion that the ISS is traveling in the thermosphere at 17k mph and has been doing so for decades, but frankly I think the entire notion is so absurd I don't usually bother. Just watching the astro-nots pretending to be aboard the thing is enough debunking. HVAC requirements, electrical grounding, fuel resupply issues, maintenance issues(do they have a machine shop up there?), etc...

    Here's a valve guy talking about the ISS absurdities:



    There's evidence of what is being said all around us, we just choose not to notice.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  14. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Not sure you read my response properly, or perhaps you didn't understand it?

    The "sink" or common ground is used to provide a conductivity path between all the different parts of the spaceship to ensure that they are all at the same potential and thus preventing discharges between different parts of the spaceship. This is the mechanism that works the same as your car.

    It is also true that the entire spaceship might acquire a charge. This could be a problem when the spaceship interacts with other spaceships (e.g. docking craft) or even just ambient space (which is of course not an absolute vacuum) which has a different charge. Sparks could easily result which would damage delicate electrical components in the space ship - especially the exterior mounted and very delicate solar panels. This problem - as I described above - is addressed by the plasma contactor unit. The PCU literally fires rays of electrons (or positive gas ions depending on which direction it needs to adjust the charge) into space thus reducing the charge on the spaceship as a whole.

    No it's not ridiculous. As you clearly acknowledge, the atmosphere is so thin that even at these very high temperatures, not much heat is gained by the astronaut due to conductivity. In fact so little heat is gained that the heat loss through radiation vastly outweighs the heat gained through conductivity from the thermosphere.

    Heat conduction between substances at different temperatures across a surface works as follows. The sign of the temperature difference determines the direction of heat flow - in this case heat does flow from the thermosphere into the astronaut. And the rate of heat flow is proportional to the magnitude of the temperature difference - so a difference of 1000 degrees will cause 100 times as much heat to flow as a difference of 10 degrees. But that doesn't matter if the rate of heat flow at a 10 degree difference is small enough. 100 x a very, very, very small number is still a very, very small number.

    This is slightly counterintuitive because, here on earth we don't usually encounter conditions where heat conduction is negligible compared to radiation - it is usually the other way around. Nevertheless it is easy enough to show the impact of air density on the rate of heat conduction by putting some hot coffee in a thermos flask and observing the rate at which it loses heat compared to coffee in a regular container. And if you want to see what happens in an environment which conducts heat better than air, then jump into a cold lake. A lake at 40 degrees is warmer than the air at 35 degrees, but you will "feel" a whole lot colder, and lose heat a whole lot faster, and die a whole lot quicker! The thermosphere is just an extreme example of that. It hardly conducts heat at all, so it doesn't actually matter how hot it is.
    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think anybody is suggesting that the atmosphere provides the electrical ground. A PCU is used as I described above.

    That said I don't see that there is an obvious, simple relationship between the rate of heat transference from the space ship to the atmosphere and the ability of the atmosphere to act as a ground either - so - if it actually mattered - which in this case it doesn't - I think you would need to prove that there is a relationship here.
     
  15. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read it, just found it to be like 75% of what NASA claims. That is to say it's bs. I guess if you believe they actually sent 3 guys to the moon with 1960's tech then you're primed to believe most anything. It's a nice fairy tale, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    [​IMG]

    Belief structures need not be founded upon logic and reason...particularly when they make people "feel good".
     
    gringott likes this.
  16. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At some point common sense must take over right? Perhaps it is...finally.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=iss+fake+footage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab

    [​IMG]

    These fraudsters can't even say conclusively what gravity is, but they're now planning to use it to go to Mars...and apparently Alpha Centauri. lol This stuff is ridiculous.

    So you're on this allegedly spinning ball Earth and you dump your theoretical 1960's tech paper thin space/time craft into space/time on it's way, allegedly, to the moon. How does it not deal with the same forces one would expect when tossing a paper bag out a car window on the highway at 75mph? ...only multiplied exponentially? Gravity majik? How is it not ripped to shreds when it goes from the allegedly spinning atmosphere to the alleged vacuum of space/time? Sounds like hitting a wall at those speeds.
     
  17. skychief

    skychief enthusiastic stacker Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    742
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Occupation:
    Musician
    Location:
    California Coast
    Im a (private) pilot. I haven't read all 5 pages of posts, so I apologize if someone has already stated this:

    The gyros in aircraft use the center of the Earth as a reference. They are weighted slightly, so on power-up, they will begin functioning with the proper orientation to the Earth's surface - no matter where on the planet it is. If this weren't true, the artificial horizon indicators would indicate the aircraft is upside-down on a plane that flew from Seoul to Sidney! But they dont. Because the artificial horizon gyro always knows which way is up.

    The Earth is not flat. Get over it.
     
  18. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't watch any videos, doesn't refute any of the testimony, but the Earth is not flat...get over it! lol Well now that's very definitive.

    Any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Think about an aircraft traveling North across the arctic circle. Does a gyroscope just automagically flip itself over when you cross the North pole?

    [​IMG]

    So here you are with angular momentum > the decelerating atmosphere around you as you travel North and your gyro is just flip flopping as the alleged center of the Earth changes relative to your position. Come on man, not only is that directly contradictory to all the career guys whose testimony I've linked to, it doesn't even stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny.

    Agree that gyros know which way is up, but it's not because they're automagically linked to the alleged center of the Earth by a magical non-force none seem able to identify. Your argument makes the assumption that the Earth is a spheroid and proceeds from there...which is about as unscientific as can be. You do realize there's at least one moar reason a gyro would not freak out during a flight from Korea to Australia right?

    Gravity majik is just this "fix all" for everything people don't understand and don't want to confront. What sheds the thousands of miles of alleged curvature that must be dealt with during a 5k mile flight...gravity majik. Why don't gyros freak out when you're allegedly on the bottom side of a spheroid...gravity majik. What holds trillions of gallons of water to a spinning spheroid...gravity majik.

    What is gravity? Beats the hell out of me...

    Doesn't seem to bother anyone.

    [​IMG]

    Nope you're wrong! Gravity majik can fix that. Doesn't work that way because...reasons.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  19. AguA

    AguA Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    43
    @solarion

    Some people seek discourse in order to overcome ignorance, others seek only to validate their ignorance.

    You're interaction here is little more than the bratty kid who says nothing other than "why?" to every answer he's given. It's all simply for his own entertainment in the attempt to frustrate others.

    It is interesting, however, that you use the voices of "experts" whose faulty knowledge supports your play (and pre-discredit other experts that will contradict them) while failing to provide any proof to support your own ideas in your own voice. I knew a guy like once. "Sir, that's incorrect, improper, etc, and if you have a moment, Mr. So and So would be happy to explain it to you." Always someone else's voice but never his own. There wasn't any need for us to shed light on his lack of knowledge and understanding. It was the only thing in which he excelled at all by his lonesome.

    Anyway, I'm glad to have read this thread. I previously thought there was added value from you in other subject areas but no. Your excellence is in your ongoing Theatre of the Absurd. When all is said and done, you simply aim to bring this board to a conclusion of silence.

    I'm sure it's of little care to you, but, your voice is the one now fallen silent to me. I'll discuss and learn from others interested in intelligent dialog as opposed to just wreaking havoc in a sandbox.
     
  20. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kewl, thanks for sharing. I'm a bratty kid, I'm stupid and I listen to stupid people that also don't seem to understand what everyone else understands.

    Awesome arguments you have there. lol

    I'm familiar with the usual defense of gravity majik. They generally begin and end with "you're stupid if you don't accept that gravity majik can do anything...".

    What is gravity? Fux if I know, but you're ignorant if you don't believe it. #ironcladreasoning

    Just now somebody suggested that gravity magic is an acceleration. There goes Einstein right under the bus. That moron said gravity magic was a curvature of space/time...but suddenly it's an acceleration when it needs to be. Nobody seems to notice...nobody seems to care.
     
  21. skychief

    skychief enthusiastic stacker Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    742
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Occupation:
    Musician
    Location:
    California Coast
    I completely understand your frustration. Without understanding principles of gravity and gyroscopic precession, it would be impossible to understand why gyros in aircraft will always orient themselves to the center of the Earth... and they maintain that orientation until they are powered down (shut off).
     
    Silver likes this.
  22. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please contact msargent23@comcast.net 303-494-6631 so he can notify the Army guys, Navy guys, and flight instructor that they're stupid and don't understand how gyros work.

    Also while you're over there, please sort out the idiot (still active)Navy guy who's so dumb he thinks he can see targets at 26nm using infrared...at sea level. Clearly he doesn't understand how the alleged curvature of the Earth works...I mean that's 600ft of missing curvature, but of course gravity magic can fix that right up. Weird they put someone so stupid in charge of sea sparrow missile batteries.

    Also there are some stupid dummies here that don't seem to understand how gyros work...better sort them out too:

    https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/my-gyroscope-says-the-world-is-flat.90561/

    Then there's that retard Einstein you tossed under the bus.

    How would you btw land at a North South oriented runway near the equator? Just don't really care about the fact that the runway would be moving laterally at 1037 mph? Gravity magic armor will protect you?

    I know I know...I'm stupid and just don't get it because I don't understand gravity magic...like the other 7 billion people...

    Anyone want to take a crack at Halley's ridiculous orbit? No? ...didn't think so.

    Michelson-Morley? Dummies?
    Michelson-Gale? Retards?
    Airy? Idiot?
    Sagnac? pffffftttt
    Bedford level? Whatev man...

    Gravity magic pwns!

    Enjoy your involuntary sun worship. What day is that again? Sun-day is it?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
    spinalcracker likes this.
  23. skychief

    skychief enthusiastic stacker Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    742
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Occupation:
    Musician
    Location:
    California Coast
    Gravity is not magic. Its effects can be observed everywhere in the universe. If it weren't for gravity, the Moon would not orbit the Earth. It would drift away. And the Earth would drift away from the sun. We should be very thankful for gravity!

    There are four basic fundamental forces in the universe:


    • Gravitational Force
    • Weak Nuclear Force
    • Electromagnetic Force
    • Strong Nuclear Force
    They can't be seen, but we know they exist.
     
  24. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think you know a bunch of stuff about gravity magic because NASA told you so. Hey, they landed on the moon 49 years ago...you can trust them! You don't "KNOW" shit about gravity and neither does anyone else...including NASA. Hell they cannot even define it.

    Electromagnetic force is everywhere. It ain't weak...at all and it's very very easily tested. Two seconds with a statically charged rod and you can watch water bending itself. This is not mysterious at all.

    Not gravity magic though. In fact gravity magic doesn't even have a known opposite. lol

    ...don't worry about all the laws of natural science that gravity magic belief must of necessity force you to ignore. It's a fact mang!
     
  25. chrisflhtc

    chrisflhtc Site Supporter Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    18
    "Anyone want to take a crack at Halley's ridiculous orbit? No? ...didn't think so." Gravity:bombing aircraft:belly laugh:
     
    stonedywankanobe and Joe King like this.
  26. chrisflhtc

    chrisflhtc Site Supporter Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Oh I forgot thrust from the gases on the side of the comet facing the sun being flashed off from the heat being absorbed. Every time you get an answer you ask a different question. We could do this for a little over a month or until it gets tiresome.:tired:
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
    Joe King likes this.
  27. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody's making you defend your gravity god. You're doing so of your own volition.

    I've seen the tail of a comet being explained away by alleged light from the sun, but never heard anyone suggest it's causing "thrust" in an alleged space/time vacuum...that's also allegedly filled with mysterious gravitons, dark energy, and dark matter + whatever else pseudo-science needs to invent next to support their silly gravity magic crap. Thanks for the chuckle. :2 thumbs up:
     
  28. chrisflhtc

    chrisflhtc Site Supporter Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ok instead of tiresome let me call it my lack of being able to keep up because of my shortcomings. You have asked questions that are beyond my understanding to explain I can see the answer in my head but I can't properly explain it so I will leave it to guys like RebelYell. You make my head hurt.
     
  29. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like you boba fett. It's a shame we got off on the wrong foot...but I didn't start the shooting war, you did.

    ...and believe me, this stuff hurts my head too. Just sick to effing death of hearing gravity magic used as an excuse for everything we don't understand. ...and of course the usual source of bs is NASA with their firm foundation in NAZI science. They lie constantly.

    [​IMG]

    As I've said, over and over, I do not pretend to know the shape of terra firma, but I'm convinced it is not a pear shaped oblate spheroid that's 24,901 miles in circumference.



    FREAKING LOVE this old dood! LMAO

    "(curvature)...it's almost like al-ciaduh. Can't find them, but they're there!" ~old dude
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  30. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Well I have never claimed that NASA tells the truth about everything, nor that they sent three guys to the moon. Nor am I claiming that they didn't by the way. I've just put that one in the "I'll probably never know for sure" bucket and refuse to waste any more of my time on it. I just don't care. I know that every government agency lies sometimes and tells the truth sometimes - I don't really need to spend my whole life trying to figure out which statement is true and which a lie.

    I am however claiming that cathode ray technology exists because it was in every TV I watched for the first umpty years of my life. I had a science teacher at high school who took one out of a TV and used it to build a mass spectrometer too. That evidence was good enough for me that this technology exists and clearly it could be used to remove charge from a spacecraft - or anything else for that matter.

    As far as I can see, most of your argument is based on a position that whatever the government says is a lie, and therefore if the government (be it the CIA or NASA or the president himself) says it, then it cannot be true and you don't even need to investigate it.

    If only things were that simple...

    RebelYell
     
    stonedywankanobe and Silver like this.
  31. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can respect your position, I mean obviously we won't "know" the Apollo missions were filmed in a studio until the department of war is ready to admit it's so. That may be some while off yet...or it may be never, but we can still use our common sense. Like discussing 9/11, just because NIST claims they can explain away 3 steel framed skyscrapers being brought down by 2 planes, doesn't mean rational people have to accept it. One can go through the available evidence, the thousands of still photos and the poor quality video and make up their own mind about the Apollo missions. Frankly I don't see a whole lot to debate there, but you're welcome to your own opinion.

    I know what CRTs are, I still have a few around myself, I just haven't turned one on in awhile. Mater of fact I used CRT's tendency to generate magnetic fields as an argument in the NASA faked the moon landings thread.

    When NASA says they've got voyager 1 on speed dial, I mean come on. Plainly they think everyone is dumb. To me it might as well be an onion news release.

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/voyager-1-fires-up-thrusters-after-37

    [​IMG]

    I've already been called ignorant, stupid, bratty, dumb, blah blah blah. Don't care. Someone tell me how that graphic up there, that I just made in freaking paint is wrong.

    Where is the curvature?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  32. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I'm not addressing this one because I don't have the time to watch a very long video.

    This thread clearly shows the correct explanation - pendulous vanes which make continuous small adjustments to reorient the gyroscope with earth's gravitation field - for the behavior you are struggling to understand.

    I think this has been discussed before - the atmosphere moves with the earth - and the plane flies in that same atmosphere. Any motion that the plane experiences is relative to the air. When there are strong cross-winds at ground level, it is indeed difficult to land. And if the atmosphere remained still while the earth spun, it would indeed be impossible to land a plane on a north south runway - or most likely any runway. But this is not the case. You can easily see why the earth's atmosphere moves with the surface of the earth by stirring a cup of coffee with a coffee stirrer. The force between the stirrer and the coffee rapidly causes the coffee to swirl around the cup.

    No - as far as I am aware - nobody understands gravity magic - at least not completely - so that doesn't make you stupid - or at least no stupider than the rest of us :-).

    You do come across as extraordinarily certain in your own knowledge though - and most of your counter arguments to others amount to "because I say so" rather than any attempt to use reason or logic. And may of the examples you promote, upon closer inspection, don't actually show what you think they show. And your refusal to acknowledge weaknesses in your argument and then either refine your argument or abandon it is not very scientific.

    This is a pity because at the end of the day your most fundamental position is probably that the establishment is bunch of evil, lying assholes who lie to, cheat, enslave and steal from the rest of us whenever they think they can get away with it. That position is one I largely agree with - I just don't think that a round earth is one of their lies. I actually suspect that the flat earth conspiracy is likely a red herring invented by some government agency or other, in order to discredit conspiracies and conspiracists in general. So you may well be helping them - which would be a pity wouldn't it. Unless that is actually your job of course :-).

    I'm not quite sure what concerns you about Halley's comet. I thought that Halley's (who was Newton's friend) prediction of when the comet would reappear, based upon the law of gravity was one of the early triumphs of Newton's law. And the elongated elliptical shape of the orbit fits entirely with the law of gravity. And in fact all the planets' orbits are elliptical too, although they are much closer to circular than Halley's comet. Or is there something more specific which you feel is wrong with the orbit of Halley's comet?

    Can you explain how you think these famous experiments support your case? I thought they supported mine :-)

     
  33. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I'm beginning to think you are paid by the government to discredit people who disagree with them. Hopefully I'm wrong. Are you?
     
    stonedywankanobe and Joe King like this.
  34. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Totally. I adore the gubmint. Heck, why else would I speak so highly of the scumbags at NASA or the maggots in DC.
    Somehow we're just not connecting on this. It's not about crosswinds, but if you want me to accept that an aircraft that takes off in say NYC and tries to land at a North South runway in Ecuador auto-mysteriously picks up lateral velocity due to gravity magic that's supposedly spinning 300 miles of atmosphere in lock step with a theoretical molten iron core...then that will be a new one. I'd love to see that one explained in depth.

    Does this magical transfer of energy from the Earth's alleged core to the aircraft propagate instantaneously, at the not constant speed of light, or whenever the gravity god gets around to it?

    "The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.

    — Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887"
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  35. Irons

    Irons Deep Sixed Site Supporter Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    24,081
    Likes Received:
    32,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. It's really obvious 5-6 miles out on a flat Lake Michigan in a 17 foot boat.


    .
     
    Joe King and solarion like this.
  36. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was out on the jetty and fell flat on my ass. lol

    I figured it out guys. My bad!

    [​IMG]

    Someone should have told me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
    Juristic Person likes this.
  37. Irons

    Irons Deep Sixed Site Supporter Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    24,081
    Likes Received:
    32,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the world was flat you could stand on the pier in Grand Haven and see Milwaukee, or at least the lights of Milwaukee with a telescope.
    Ya can't.


    .
     
  38. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    7,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The air is still primarily nitrogen irrespective of the shape of Earth. Human vision still has limitations.

    Mount Whitney in Commiefornia is the highest point in the contiguous 48 and it's a paltry 14,505 feet.
     
  39. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Well yes - I do expect you to accept that the plane picks up lateral velocity - at least in the inertial frame of reference.

    No the energy to accelerate the plane is not transferred by gravity.

    Let's start by initially imagining a spinning, spherical earth without any atmosphere at all. On this earth you are absolutely correct that the plane, during flight, would maintain a straight line in the inertial frame of reference. To an observer on the earth of course it would appear that the plane was accelerating sideways. You can sort of see this - at least in two dimensions - see this in the animation on this web page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force.

    So yes, if the pilot did not correct for this effect, the plane would be moving sideways and very fast relative to the surface of the earth when it arrived at its destination. And if the atmosphere did not exist then - yes - pilots would have to steer the plane continuously by a very, very small amount throughout the flight to correct for the Coriolis effect.

    But the atmosphere does exist. And it spins around in lock step with the earth. You seem to be implying that this is unlikely but I don't follow your logic here. If the earth is spinning (and I understand you don't like that idea, but bear with it for a minute) then it seems to be extremely unlikely that the atmosphere wouldn't be spinning too. Why would the earth be spinning and not the atmosphere in the first place? And even if the atmosphere wasn't spinning why wouldn't the friction at the surface of the earth and the viscosity of the atmosphere itself cause it to start spinning and quickly align itself with the solid earth (just like my cup of coffee with the spoon when I stir it)? Of course if the earth were indeed not spinning, I would expect that - for exactly these reasons - the atmosphere would not be spinning either.

    So if you are willing to accept for the sake of this argument that the atmosphere spinning is at least consistent with the idea that the earth spins and therefore that if one is true so can the other be, then the plane experiences a gentle breeze as the wind speed changes (in the inertial frame of reference) as the plane approaches the equator. This breeze causes the plane to accelerate very slowly sideways, continually adjusting to the velocity of the earth's surface throughout the flight.

    In practice of course local wind effects due to pressure differences significantly outweigh the coriolis effect so its not like the pilot sees a constant light breeze the whole way. He sees updrafts, downdrafts, and sideways drafts in both directions for the entire journey so he is constantly steering to keep the plane on track. Hidden unnoticeably amongst all of that is the small wind which is caused by the Coriolis effect on the atmosphere itself which I have just described.

    If we assume the plane flies at 500 mph and needs to acquire something like 600 mph of velocity over the course of a 6 hour flight that's an acceleration of 100 mph/h. In other words the same acceleration that would produce a 0-60 time in a car of something like 35 minutes - in other words not detectable by a human. And no - I didn't bother to do all the math properly in this example - but the estimates are good enough to make the answer close enough to be useful and illustrate my point.

    So...? The end result of this experiment, and its successors, was the confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity. That
    - the velocity of light is a constant in all frames of reference
    - the aether (previously assumed to be an omni-present, undetectable medium which supported the transference of light waves, rather as water supports the transference of water waves) does not actually exist
    - the earth is indeed spinning.

    If you would rather interpret this as proof that the earth isn't moving, then you are also
    - claiming the existence of an utterly undetectable substance called aether, capable of affecting the speed of light. How is this aether magick, any better than gravity magick?
    - denying all the other proofs of the earth's motion that exist - where you haven't for example addressed Foucault's pendulum, nor the spin direction of cyclones above and below the equator, nor Cavendish's experiment (other than to say it's rubbish without providing a clear reason), nor Eratosthenes observation, nor the existence of timezones and the consequent co-existence of night and day etc.

    So I still maintain that
    - you are entirely correct about the corruption of our establishment
    - it is certainly within the bounds of possibility that we did not in fact land men on the moon
    - the government and its agencies frequently lie about all sorts of things
    - none of those things are dependent upon the earth being flat or gravity not existing
    - the preponderance of evidence weighs very heavily in favor of a spheroidal earth and gravity :-)

    RebelYell
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  40. RebelYell

    RebelYell Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    PPS I also agree that the government has clearly told lots of lies about 9/11. Another one of those "I'll never know what really happened" events - but again I don't need to know. I already know enough to know that our government is utterly corrupt and we need some kind of reset.
     

Share This Page