Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

It will distort the dome but not distort it in a way that would offer any distorted in your face reflection back to us as if we're looking into a mirror on a ceiling with imperfections on it.


Keep leaning that way. I'm not here to please you or coax you into anything outside your own comfort zone.
You ask questions and I answer.
If you don't like the answers then that's your right. I don't like your answers, so I can easily sympathise with you.

It depends on how far the person was initiated into the program he was set in terms of actual physically knowing where it went.

Initiated into the program. Do you know how mental that sounds?

I thought this particular person was a good example because that is someone sending stuff into space. If it is a lie then he is a liar. But it was based on a question @payne asked, because what was this person’s journey? School, A-level, degree, masters , PhD and seems to be a researcher at a UK university but working in association with NASA and ESA.

There are a few things going on there. First most conspiracy loons say it works by compartmentalisation, limiting information and paint a picture of a soviet state scientist bunker where those in white coats are kept away from everyone else. They are the brains of the country. Here is someone at a university as a researcher and you would assume probably teaching, but in their research time working with two different space agencies. That involves three institutes and a number of governments, all behind him pretending he played a part in getting a better look at one particular feature of Jupiter. A bit elaborate and complex isn’t it? If you are going to lie, why cast a wide net of those on the inside? It makes it much harder to keep.

Then you have the career of the person. They don’t let you in on the lie at undergrad or below, so at some point during the PhD process he must (like many others) have been taken aside and told that all the stuff he had devoted his life to so far was faked for no particular reason and rather than being a professional space scientist like he had dreamed, he would either have to quit or agree to just spend the rest of his career making shit up in an elaborate hoax. Not one person in that situation has ever said fuck that and gone public. Nobody has ever had a mental breakdown that all their life so far has been a lie and the rest will be spreading that lie further. That would tip a lot of people over and in the process they would let slip, but it never happened.

And this is just one single person picked from an article I read. A top performing student turner professional bullshitter.

The point I’m making is that such a conspiracy spanning so many people, governments and organisations is so hard to do, it borders on impossible. They could have kept it simple but make it more and more complex every year. There is no logical reason to lie to everyone about the shape of the earth, even less so to bring in so many people and year on year invent new missions to make it even more difficult to keep. There has to be really good reason, but nobody really knows what that reason is.

More likely it is all a load of bollocks and the person who’s article I read is an intelligent person, involved in sending stuff out into space, pushing human knowledge forward, not someone who was brought inside a cult because he got too close.

 

[legend7]

Initiated into the program. Do you know how mental that sounds?

I thought this particular person was a good example because that is someone sending stuff into space. If it is a lie then he is a liar. But it was based on a question @payne asked, because what was this person’s journey? School, A-level, degree, masters , PhD and seems to be a researcher at a UK university but working in association with NASA and ESA.

There are a few things going on there. First most conspiracy loons say it works by compartmentalisation, limiting information and paint a picture of a soviet state scientist bunker where those in white coats are kept away from everyone else. They are the brains of the country. Here is someone at a university as a researcher and you would assume probably teaching, but in their research time working with two different space agencies. That involves three institutes and a number of governments, all behind him pretending he played a part in getting a better look at one particular feature of Jupiter. A bit elaborate and complex isn’t it? If you are going to lie, why cast a wide net of those on the inside? It makes it much harder to keep.

Then you have the career of the person. They don’t let you in on the lie at undergrad or below, so at some point during the PhD process he must (like many others) have been taken aside and told that all the stuff he had devoted his life to so far was faked for no particular reason and rather than being a professional space scientist like he had dreamed, he would either have to quit or agree to just spend the rest of his career making shit up in an elaborate hoax. Not one person in that situation has ever said fuck that and gone public. Nobody has ever had a mental breakdown that all their life so far has been a lie and the rest will be spreading that lie further. That would tip a lot of people over and in the process they would let slip, but it never happened.

And this is just one single person picked from an article I read. A top performing student turner professional bullshitter.

The point I’m making is that such a conspiracy spanning so many people, governments and organisations is so hard to do, it borders on impossible. They could have kept it simple but make it more and more complex every year. There is no logical reason to lie to everyone about the shape of the earth, even less so to bring in so many people and year on year invent new missions to make it even more difficult to keep. There has to be really good reason, but nobody really knows what that reason is.

More likely it is all a load of bollocks and the person who’s article I read is an intelligent person, involved in sending stuff out into space, pushing human knowledge forward, not someone who was brought inside a cult because he got too close.

I think by the number of people and each persons connections everyone in the world would know someone connected to it by one or 2 degrees of separation

 

[Kevj]

Initiated into the program. Do you know how mental that sounds?

I thought this particular person was a good example because that is someone sending stuff into space. If it is a lie then he is a liar. But it was based on a question @payne asked, because what was this person’s journey? School, A-level, degree, masters , PhD and seems to be a researcher at a UK university but working in association with NASA and ESA.

There are a few things going on there. First most conspiracy loons say it works by compartmentalisation, limiting information and paint a picture of a soviet state scientist bunker where those in white coats are kept away from everyone else. They are the brains of the country. Here is someone at a university as a researcher and you would assume probably teaching, but in their research time working with two different space agencies. That involves three institutes and a number of governments, all behind him pretending he played a part in getting a better look at one particular feature of Jupiter. A bit elaborate and complex isn’t it? If you are going to lie, why cast a wide net of those on the inside? It makes it much harder to keep.

Then you have the career of the person. They don’t let you in on the lie at undergrad or below, so at some point during the PhD process he must (like many others) have been taken aside and told that all the stuff he had devoted his life to so far was faked for no particular reason and rather than being a professional space scientist like he had dreamed, he would either have to quit or agree to just spend the rest of his career making shit up in an elaborate hoax. Not one person in that situation has ever said fuck that and gone public. Nobody has ever had a mental breakdown that all their life so far has been a lie and the rest will be spreading that lie further. That would tip a lot of people over and in the process they would let slip, but it never happened.

And this is just one single person picked from an article I read. A top performing student turner professional bullshitter.

The point I’m making is that such a conspiracy spanning so many people, governments and organisations is so hard to do, it borders on impossible. They could have kept it simple but make it more and more complex every year. There is no logical reason to lie to everyone about the shape of the earth, even less so to bring in so many people and year on year invent new missions to make it even more difficult to keep. There has to be really good reason, but nobody really knows what that reason is.

More likely it is all a load of bollocks and the person who’s article I read is an intelligent person, involved in sending stuff out into space, pushing human knowledge forward, not someone who was brought inside a cult because he got too close.

Add to that social events/ alcohol or (sad to say) mental health problems. There’s not one of these people who have willingly come forward in a hundred years with any form of evidence to contradict the accepted norms. Strange that.

 

[Nobby]

Initiated into the program. Do you know how mental that sounds?

I thought this particular person was a good example because that is someone sending stuff into space. If it is a lie then he is a liar. But it was based on a question @payne asked, because what was this person’s journey? School, A-level, degree, masters , PhD and seems to be a researcher at a UK university but working in association with NASA and ESA.

There are a few things going on there. First most conspiracy loons say it works by compartmentalisation, limiting information and paint a picture of a soviet state scientist bunker where those in white coats are kept away from everyone else. They are the brains of the country. Here is someone at a university as a researcher and you would assume probably teaching, but in their research time working with two different space agencies. That involves three institutes and a number of governments, all behind him pretending he played a part in getting a better look at one particular feature of Jupiter. A bit elaborate and complex isn’t it? If you are going to lie, why cast a wide net of those on the inside? It makes it much harder to keep.

Then you have the career of the person. They don’t let you in on the lie at undergrad or below, so at some point during the PhD process he must (like many others) have been taken aside and told that all the stuff he had devoted his life to so far was faked for no particular reason and rather than being a professional space scientist like he had dreamed, he would either have to quit or agree to just spend the rest of his career making shit up in an elaborate hoax. Not one person in that situation has ever said fuck that and gone public. Nobody has ever had a mental breakdown that all their life so far has been a lie and the rest will be spreading that lie further. That would tip a lot of people over and in the process they would let slip, but it never happened.

And this is just one single person picked from an article I read. A top performing student turner professional bullshitter.

The point I’m making is that such a conspiracy spanning so many people, governments and organisations is so hard to do, it borders on impossible. They could have kept it simple but make it more and more complex every year. There is no logical reason to lie to everyone about the shape of the earth, even less so to bring in so many people and year on year invent new missions to make it even more difficult to keep. There has to be really good reason, but nobody really knows what that reason is.

More likely it is all a load of bollocks and the person who’s article I read is an intelligent person, involved in sending stuff out into space, pushing human knowledge forward, not someone who was brought inside a cult because he got too close.

I don't believe you





Can't wait for how he rebuts this

 

[DaveH]

I don't believe you





Can't wait for how he rebuts this

You know his response. Waffle waffle nah bollocks. Perhaps try to make out that someone just throws in fake data but in a way exactly conforming to the unique devices these sort of people designed and built.

 

[Nobby]

You know his response. Waffle waffle nah bollocks. Perhaps try to make out that someone just throws in fake data but in a way exactly conforming to the unique devices these sort of people designed and built.

Yeah but it will be entertaining

 

[taipeisafc]

Keeping your mind on it at sea level will not help you understand it high in the sky.
You say helium doesn't burn but you need to understand friction burning.
Metal doesn't burn but friction glow can occur.

Up at the dome the ice will not be like ice we walk on down here. It will be ice that is the result of massively broken down matter, namely hydrogen/helium, etc.
Once that ice drops from the dome it will be under friction and it will glow and turn back to a gas, hence why you see the tail.

So much utterly wrong in so few words where do I start :-

1. Metals do burn, some very easily (Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, Aluminium) and there is no need for any friction
2. Helium doesn't burn in earth conditions, it is famously inert and that is why it is often used (coupled with it's extremely low freezing point) - they think it burns in start as stellar helium burning but as space doesn't exist this obviously can't happen
3. The ice drops (as it is heavier than) and warms up due to friction (that famously heat generating reaction of ice rubbing against gas) and vapourises at which point it becomes much lighter than air (hydrogen is 27 times lighter than air and Helium is 7 times or so lighter) so would then travel upwards
4. Friction of gas on gas is negligible, same with liquid on liquid, Friction needs a solid, non smooth (in an microscopic sense) surface to really start and gases flowing past gases do not generate any friction at all as "wet ice on wet ice" is one of the widely used markers for very low friction

So that is that theory completely shot down, next.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well I know someone who has climbed Everest, doesn't strike me as the type of lad who would lie.

He may have done.

TBH I think he'll get rumbled when they set up base camp at Shiney Row.
Just to lighten the mood a bit, what's your thoughts on this @Nukehasslefan ?

BBC News - Vikings settled in North America in 1021AD, study says

You must be logged on to see external links

So you don't know the difference between concave and convex. Or understand that lenses includes any lens, like the ones in a standard pair down at SpecSavers. Cool.

This is why I put people in ignore. It just gets a bit tedious. See you later.

It's mad because he's took this position where it's impossible to get out of.

Not in the least.

Has to reject everything presented to keep his belief going.

I can reject anything to do with a spinning globe. I can do this because it's utter nonsense.IMO.

Can't even just concede one thing presented on here could be correct because if that is correct then so is this, this and this... then it all falls down.

I can concede anything proven to be factual. Do you have any?

Other day using a quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson to prove you can't see the curve of the earth... yet Tyson would agree with absolutely nothing Nukey says.

But he did come out with, you can't see a curvature from the heights people are claiming and you people have him down as a believable scientist.
So someone is wrong. It either him as his heights or those on here who claim to have seen curvature from a plane, as well as those not from here claiming they were on concorde and saw the curvature.

Both can't be correct and maybe none are, as I believe.

I'm paraphrasing here but he said something along the lines of "well he's right about that in the video but wrong about everything else".

No, I didn't.
Take a look back.

Initiated into the program. Do you know how mental that sounds?

No, tell me about it.

I thought this particular person was a good example because that is someone sending stuff into space. If it is a lie then he is a liar. But it was based on a question @payne asked, because what was this person’s journey? School, A-level, degree, masters , PhD and seems to be a researcher at a UK university but working in association with NASA and ESA.

So someone did an A level on a person supposedly sending something to space and that's a truth. Is that what you're saying?

There are a few things going on there. First most conspiracy loons say it works by compartmentalisation, limiting information and paint a picture of a soviet state scientist bunker where those in white coats are kept away from everyone else.

Not at all.
Real scientists are what they are. Then you have a lot of other people who claim to be many other things.

They are the brains of the country.

I'm not arguing against real science.

Here is someone at a university as a researcher and you would assume probably teaching, but in their research time working with two different space agencies. That involves three institutes and a number of governments, all behind him pretending he played a part in getting a better look at one particular feature of Jupiter. A bit elaborate and complex isn’t it? If you are going to lie, why cast a wide net of those on the inside? It makes it much harder to keep.

What are you basing this on?

Then you have the career of the person. They don’t let you in on the lie at undergrad or below, so at some point during the PhD process he must (like many others) have been taken aside and told that all the stuff he had devoted his life to so far was faked for no particular reason and rather than being a professional space scientist like he had dreamed, he would either have to quit or agree to just spend the rest of his career making shit up in an elaborate hoax.

Anything is possible.

Not one person in that situation has ever said fuck that and gone public.

Do you know this?

Nobody has ever had a mental breakdown that all their life so far has been a lie and the rest will be spreading that lie further.

How do you know this?

That would tip a lot of people over and in the process they would let slip, but it never happened.

How do you know this hasn't happened on many occasions?

And this is just one single person picked from an article I read. A top performing student turner professional bullshitter.

Do you actually know the real truth of it or is this something you just read about?

The point I’m making is that such a conspiracy spanning so many people, governments and organisations is so hard to do, it borders on impossible.

In your mind, of course.
Personally I think it's pretty easy to pull off. It's just a case of understanding how. Hollywood and the like can answer a lot of those questions.

They could have kept it simple but make it more and more complex every year.

Complex as in, how?
If anything I'd say it's less complex due to CGI being much better....etc.

There is no logical reason to lie to everyone about the shape of the earth, even less so to bring in so many people and year on year invent new missions to make it even more difficult to keep.

There's no logical reasoning in your mind because you believe you're living on a spinning globe around a big ball of fire in space, surrounded by bigger balls of fire that you only see the light from as they were thousands or millions of years ago. And you don;t even think that's odd, so I understand why you would find it hard to think you could be getting sold a yarn.

There has to be really good reason, but nobody really knows what that reason is.

It's all about guessing games as to why.

More likely it is all a load of bollocks and the person who’s article I read is an intelligent person, involved in sending stuff out into space, pushing human knowledge forward, not someone who was brought inside a cult because he got too close.

The person may be super intelligent.

Add to that social events/ alcohol or (sad to say) mental health problems. There’s not one of these people who have willingly come forward in a hundred years with any form of evidence to contradict the accepted norms. Strange that.

How do you know?

So much utterly wrong in so few words where do I start :-

1. Metals do burn, some very easily (Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, Aluminium) and there is no need for any friction

I think you know fine well what I was saying.
By all means go down this route but it doesn't aid you against what I'm saying.

2. Helium doesn't burn in earth conditions, it is famously inert and that is why it is often used (coupled with it's extremely low freezing point) - they think it burns in start as stellar helium burning but as space doesn't exist this obviously can't happen

Extreme low pressure does exist and helium and hydrogen, etc are simply broken down elements due to sitting in parts of the layered atmosphere, in that extreme low pressure.

3. The ice drops (as it is heavier than) and warms up due to friction (that famously heat generating reaction of ice rubbing against gas) and vapourises at which point it becomes much lighter than air (hydrogen is 27 times lighter than air and Helium is 7 times or so lighter) so would then travel upwards

Bingo. It does,
It becomes denser and denser on the dome until it becomes too dense for that low pressure layer under it as it breaks off.
It's only then it starts to create friction due to the ice turning back into gas and taking its place back into the layer that gas already sits in.

4. Friction of gas on gas is negligible, same with liquid on liquid, Friction needs a solid, non smooth (in an microscopic sense) surface to really start and gases flowing past gases do not generate any friction at all as "wet ice on wet ice" is one of the widely used markers for very low friction

So that is that theory completely shot down, next.

Clearly not.
Payy attention.

 

[taipeisafc]

I think you know fine well what I was saying.
By all means go down this route but it doesn't aid you against what I'm saying.

Extreme low pressure does exist and helium and hydrogen, etc are simply broken down elements due to sitting in parts of the layered atmosphere, in that extreme low pressure.



Bingo. It does,
It becomes denser and denser on the dome until it becomes too dense for that low pressure layer under it as it breaks off.
It's only then it starts to create friction due to the ice turning back into gas and taking its place back into the layer that gas already sits in.

Clearly not.
Payy attention.

Frozen gases don't burn, they need to change phase before they can ignite (and for H2 get to 500 deg C) so the ice falls and warms up due to friction and vapourises then burns - hence when you can see the stuff burn it is lighter than air so has to be travelling upward.......hence in your world all metorites travel upwards. This neglects the fact that Helium does not burn, not under any know of recreated conditions on the planet. The stellar "burning" of Helium is postulated to occur in the indder core of stars at immense temperature and pressure not low pressure. And in reality is a nuclear reaction anyway

You must be logged on to see external links

As the hydrogen burns in a star, a hot, dense core of helium is formed that fuels the nucleosynthesis of the heavier elements. The first stage of this process is the so-called "triple-alpha" capture to form 12C, followed by the subsequent capture of alpha particles to form 16O. In essence, helium burning terminates there, because further alpha captures (to form 20Ne, for example) occur too slowly at these temperatures and densities to be significant.

As regards the metals you said "Metal doesn't burn but friction glow can occur." I am not sure how else I can interpret that other than metals don't burn and you have made up a phenomenon called "friction glow". Things under friction can glow as they give off energy which manifests as heat and light you can also friction weld if the mood takes you. I was merely pointing out yet more falsehoods in your musings.

"Extreme low pressure does exist and helium and hydrogen, etc are simply broken down elements due to sitting in parts of the layered atmosphere, in that extreme low pressure." you can only go to Zero - that is precisely 1 bar less than the pressure at the ground or about 10m of water column. Hydrogen and Helium cannot be broken down expect by radioactive decay (hydrogen is one neutron and one electron so what can it break down to?)- this generates immense amounts of energy as you are splitting the atoms so is nuclear fission occuring in your ice dome?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Frozen gases don't burn, they need to change phase before they can ignite (and for H2 get to 500 deg C) so the ice falls and warms up due to friction and vapourises then burns - hence when you can see the stuff burn it is lighter than air so has to be travelling upward.......hence in your world all metorites travel upwards.

Nope.
Like I said, pay attention.

This neglects the fact that Helium does not burn, not under any know of recreated conditions on the planet. The stellar "burning" of Helium is postulated to occur in the indder core of stars at immense temperature and pressure not low pressure. And in reality is a nuclear reaction anyway

You must be logged on to see external links

Anything can friction burn.
It's just a case of how it's broken down and how much vibration/friction and frequency of it.

As the hydrogen burns in a star, a hot, dense core of helium is formed that fuels the nucleosynthesis of the heavier elements. The first stage of this process is the so-called "triple-alpha" capture to form 12C, followed by the subsequent capture of alpha particles to form 16O. In essence, helium burning terminates there, because further alpha captures (to form 20Ne, for example) occur too slowly at these temperatures and densities to be significant.

Well, you know my feelings of so called stars.

As regards the metals you said "Metal doesn't burn but friction glow can occur."
I am not sure how else I can interpret that other than metals don't burn and you have made up a phenomenon called "friction glow". Things under friction can glow as they give off energy which manifests as heat and light you can also friction weld if the mood takes you. I was merely pointing out yet more falsehoods in your musings.

You are answering your own questions.
It's all about paying attention.
Trying to swerve around what I said is not helping you in any way, with me.

"Extreme low pressure does exist and helium and hydrogen, etc are simply broken down elements due to sitting in parts of the layered atmosphere, in that extreme low pressure." you can only go to Zero - that is precisely 1 bar less than the pressure at the ground or about 10m of water column. Hydrogen and Helium cannot be broken down expect by radioactive decay (hydrogen is one neutron and one electron so what can it break down to?)- this generates immense amounts of energy as you are splitting the atoms so is nuclear fission occuring in your ice dome?

It all depends on how you view matter.
Your view is different to my view.
You go on about splitting atoms.
What exactly is splitting atoms?

Do you know how an atom came about? Apparently mind.
Democritus in 400 bc. Another Greek philosopher, apparently.

How clever was he?

 

[payne]

He may have done.



This is why I put people in ignore. It just gets a bit tedious. See you later.


Not in the least.


I can reject anything to do with a spinning globe. I can do this because it's utter nonsense.IMO.


I can concede anything proven to be factual. Do you have any?


But he did come out with, you can't see a curvature from the heights people are claiming and you people have him down as a believable scientist.
So someone is wrong. It either him as his heights or those on here who claim to have seen curvature from a plane, as well as those not from here claiming they were on concorde and saw the curvature.

Both can't be correct and maybe none are, as I believe.

No, I didn't.
Take a look back.

No, tell me about it.

So someone did an A level on a person supposedly sending something to space and that's a truth. Is that what you're saying?


Not at all.
Real scientists are what they are. Then you have a lot of other people who claim to be many other things.

I'm not arguing against real science.


What are you basing this on?


Anything is possible.


Do you know this?


How do you know this?

How do you know this hasn't happened on many occasions?

Do you actually know the real truth of it or is this something you just read about?


In your mind, of course.
Personally I think it's pretty easy to pull off. It's just a case of understanding how. Hollywood and the like can answer a lot of those questions.

Complex as in, how?
If anything I'd say it's less complex due to CGI being much better....etc.


There's no logical reasoning in your mind because you believe you're living on a spinning globe around a big ball of fire in space, surrounded by bigger balls of fire that you only see the light from as they were thousands or millions of years ago. And you don;t even think that's odd, so I understand why you would find it hard to think you could be getting sold a yarn.

It's all about guessing games as to why.


The person may be super intelligent.

How do you know?

I think you know fine well what I was saying.
By all means go down this route but it doesn't aid you against what I'm saying.

Extreme low pressure does exist and helium and hydrogen, etc are simply broken down elements due to sitting in parts of the layered atmosphere, in that extreme low pressure.



Bingo. It does,
It becomes denser and denser on the dome until it becomes too dense for that low pressure layer under it as it breaks off.
It's only then it starts to create friction due to the ice turning back into gas and taking its place back into the layer that gas already sits in.

Clearly not.
Payy attention.

This whole piece is what he blocks others for. After Dave H et al gives a reasonably long account of a position he responds with a sentence or a couple worlds flat out rejecting/ignoring or asking to explain it again (i.e. what proof).

Example

SYB_DC said:
So you don't know the difference between concave and convex. Or understand that lenses includes any lens, like the ones in a standard pair down at SpecSavers. Cool.

This is why I put people in ignore. It just gets a bit tedious. See you later.

At this point I'm almost sure he's telling the truth about his beliefs but he's just illogical beyond belief

 

[Ambivalent Dave]

I see this is still going strong.
He's just loving the attention

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I see this is still going strong.
He's just loving the attention

An easy way to stop that. Don't give me any.

 

[taipeisafc]

Nope.
Like I said, pay attention.

Anything can friction burn.
It's just a case of how it's broken down and how much vibration/friction and frequency of it.


Well, you know my feelings of so called stars.

You are answering your own questions.
It's all about paying attention.
Trying to swerve around what I said is not helping you in any way, with me.



It all depends on how you view matter.
Your view is different to my view.
You go on about splitting atoms.
What exactly is splitting atoms?

Do you know how an atom came about? Apparently mind.
Democritus in 400 bc. Another Greek philosopher, apparently.

How clever was he?

Yet more falsehoods

The basic idea that matter is made up of tiny indivisible particles is very old, appearing in many ancient cultures such as

You must be logged on to see external links

and

You must be logged on to see external links

. The word atom is derived from the ancient Greek word atomos, which means "uncuttable". This ancient idea was based in philosophical reasoning rather than scientific reasoning, and modern atomic theory is not based on these old concepts. That said, the word "atom" itself was used throughout the ages by thinkers who suspected that matter was ultimately granular in nature.

taipeisafc said:
Frozen gases don't burn, they need to change phase before they can ignite (and for H2 get to 500 deg C) so the ice falls and warms up due to friction and vapourises then burns - hence when you can see the stuff burn it is lighter than air so has to be travelling upward.......hence in your world all metorites travel upwards.

Nope.
Like I said, pay attention.

Ice falls due it being denser than air (in your world in the real world it is gravity) then it defrosts and forms a lighter than air gas which then rises up - there is no credible way Helium and Hydrogen can be denser than the air surrounding them and there is no credible way that air density can ever be higher than that of Helium / Hydrogen Ice / Superfluid / utter bollocks you make up later (delete as appropriate) ergo the mythical ice falls down words, turns into a lighter than air form and rises up it cannot burn until it gets into a form where vapour is present at a higher enough level to make a combustible mixture (2% in air for H2 IIRC) so at this point it has to be lighter than air, this means either the "meteorites" fall as ice and don't burn up hence you can't see the bright light or they turn into gas / vapour and burn giving a bright light and the move upwards. There is no other way it can work......

taipeisafc said:
This neglects the fact that Helium does not burn, not under any know of recreated conditions on the planet. The stellar "burning" of Helium is postulated to occur in the indder core of stars at immense temperature and pressure not low pressure. And in reality is a nuclear reaction anyway

You must be logged on to see external links

Anything can friction burn.
It's just a case of how it's broken down and how much vibration/friction and frequency of it.

No it can't - water cannot friction burn it is impossible, it can vapourise and turn to steam but it cannot burn. Ice is the same it cannot burn, ever unless it gives of vapour. You really need a better grasp of these principles before you try and explain stuff.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yet more falsehoods

The basic idea that matter is made up of tiny indivisible particles is very old, appearing in many ancient cultures such as

You must be logged on to see external links

and

You must be logged on to see external links

. The word atom is derived from the ancient Greek word atomos, which means "uncuttable". This ancient idea was based in philosophical reasoning rather than scientific reasoning, and modern atomic theory is not based on these old concepts. That said, the word "atom" itself was used throughout the ages by thinkers who suspected that matter was ultimately granular in nature.

And you are well versed in the realities of what an atom is...right?
Or is it that you accept the reasoning for today's atom?

t can you tell me what splitting an atom is?

Nope.
Like I said, pay attention.

Ice falls due it being denser than air (in your world in the real world it is gravity) then it defrosts and forms a lighter than air gas which then rises up - there is no credible way Helium and Hydrogen can be denser than the air surrounding them and there is no credible way that air density can ever be higher than that of Helium / Hydrogen Ice / Superfluid / utter bollocks you make up later (delete as appropriate) ergo the mythical ice falls down words, turns into a lighter than air form and rises up it cannot burn until it gets into a form where vapour is present at a higher enough level to make a combustible mixture (2% in air for H2 IIRC) so at this point it has to be lighter than air, this means either the "meteorites" fall as ice and don't burn up hence you can't see the bright light or they turn into gas / vapour and burn giving a bright light and the move upwards. There is no other way it can work......

Honestly, pay attention to what I said.
Hydrogen and helium at sea level and released from that, will rise.
It does this because it's been broken down into these gases and those gases rise and sit in their layer up in that sky.
A build up of those gases creates a denser mass of ice and the denser it gets as the energy from the sun moves over it, it creates icicles on the dome which break off and friction burn back into gas which takes its place back in the layers it equalises into.

Anything can friction burn.
It's just a case of how it's broken down and how much vibration/friction and frequency of it.

No it can't - water cannot friction burn it is impossible, it can vapourise and turn to steam but it cannot burn. Ice is the same it cannot burn, ever unless it gives of vapour. You really need a better grasp of these principles before you try and explain stuff.

Can water burn you?

 

[DaveH]

He may have done.



This is why I put people in ignore. It just gets a bit tedious. See you later.


Not in the least.


I can reject anything to do with a spinning globe. I can do this because it's utter nonsense.IMO.


I can concede anything proven to be factual. Do you have any?


But he did come out with, you can't see a curvature from the heights people are claiming and you people have him down as a believable scientist.
So someone is wrong. It either him as his heights or those on here who claim to have seen curvature from a plane, as well as those not from here claiming they were on concorde and saw the curvature.

Both can't be correct and maybe none are, as I believe.

No, I didn't.
Take a look back.

No, tell me about it.

So someone did an A level on a person supposedly sending something to space and that's a truth. Is that what you're saying?


Not at all.
Real scientists are what they are. Then you have a lot of other people who claim to be many other things.

I'm not arguing against real science.


What are you basing this on?


Anything is possible.


Do you know this?


How do you know this?

How do you know this hasn't happened on many occasions?

Do you actually know the real truth of it or is this something you just read about?


In your mind, of course.
Personally I think it's pretty easy to pull off. It's just a case of understanding how. Hollywood and the like can answer a lot of those questions.

Complex as in, how?
If anything I'd say it's less complex due to CGI being much better....etc.


There's no logical reasoning in your mind because you believe you're living on a spinning globe around a big ball of fire in space, surrounded by bigger balls of fire that you only see the light from as they were thousands or millions of years ago. And you don;t even think that's odd, so I understand why you would find it hard to think you could be getting sold a yarn.

It's all about guessing games as to why.


The person may be super intelligent.

How do you know?

I think you know fine well what I was saying.
By all means go down this route but it doesn't aid you against what I'm saying.

Extreme low pressure does exist and helium and hydrogen, etc are simply broken down elements due to sitting in parts of the layered atmosphere, in that extreme low pressure.



Bingo. It does,
It becomes denser and denser on the dome until it becomes too dense for that low pressure layer under it as it breaks off.
It's only then it starts to create friction due to the ice turning back into gas and taking its place back into the layer that gas already sits in.

Clearly not.
Payy attention.

As I predicted, lots of waffle and lots of stupid questions.

No someone didn't just do an A-level and launch something in to space. You know the answer to this, so why be deliberately stupid? You were literally quoting me when I said degree, masters, PhD, job researching, etc. And they were then part of a massive cross-organisation team behind Juno, as I said.

Seems pointless going down this route. I thought after many many pages looking at real science vs random ideas pulled out your arse with no basis it would be worth looking at the conspiracy itself. How would it work by looking at just one person out of the hundreds of thousands globally working in this industry. I say it is more than pretty pictures, there is a whole host of scientific data and you claim CGI. I describe how complex making such a fake mission is and you respond "complex how?".

No point in posting the same thing again, this conversation is clearly going nowhere. We can go on for weeks and it is clear you will never take a stand on any individual I pick, never answer any questions I ask about when they became "in the know" and I'll just type the same thing over and over again before giving it up as a bad job. Best to bow out now and chalk how to make such a massive complex conspiracy work as another thing you can't explain with any details just hand waving bollocks.

I will answer what you asked, how do I know nobody didn't go public. Don't you think it would be all over the media and the internet? Here we are in an era where the media jumps on any scandal they can find and I'm posting on a forum right now where I can post any information I want, but nobody has ever had any exposure outing the shape of the planet conspiracy? Nobody has ever secretly recorded a "real shape of the earth, now this is how you must spend the rest of your life faking data" meeting and released it? Pretty unlikely isn't it? Even more so when you consider how many countries, how many governments, how many people, how many organisations, how many universities and for hundreds of years.

To believe in such a massive but water tight cover up is clearly paranoid bollocks.

Can water burn you?

please tell me you are not going to try to claim water can burn you so water can burn.

For anyone else, please make sure you check in tomorrow to find out that cows can produce milk so milk can produce cows. Just leave a bottle at the bottom of the garden and you will have your own herd in no time. Only the governments don't want people to know and when you look at milk you are only seeing what you have been schooled into seeing.

 

[taipeisafc]

And you are well versed in the realities of what an atom is...right?
Or is it that you accept the reasoning for today's atom?

t can you tell me what splitting an atom is?

Honestly, pay attention to what I said.
Hydrogen and helium at sea level and released from that, will rise.
It does this because it's been broken down into these gases and those gases rise and sit in their layer up in that sky.
A build up of those gases creates a denser mass of ice and the denser it gets as the energy from the sun moves over it, it creates icicles on the dome which break off and friction burn back into gas which takes its place back in the layers it equalises into.


Can water burn you?

As soon as the falling ice defrosts it rises again - it is lighter than air and it will keep rising until it hits the "dome" again - what about that is so hard to understand? The gases in your frankly absurd musings will layer based on density with the low molecular weight gases forming the top layers and then progressively higher molecular weight gases lower down - there is no way a lighter gas can float beneath a heavier gas unless a temporary inversion occurs. Hydrogen and Helium are the lightest gases so they will always be at the top and will always rise. Any burning gases which are shooting stars in your world would always go upwards there is no physically possible other way it can happen (I can't believe I have just typed that)

Yes splitting the atom involves breaking down a larger atom (uranium is common) into smaller elements (you can turn lead into gold using this but the gold is heavily radioactive) and the breaking of the atomic bonds between the atoms releases the energy used to hold the atom together and also releases some subatomic particles (neutrons) which crash into other atoms of the original element and cause further breakdown in a chain reaction. In nuclear power stations they used to use Boron rods to absorb the free neutrons to control the reactions (I don't know if they still do)

 

[DaveH]

As soon as the falling ice defrosts it rises again - it is lighter than air and it will keep rising until it hits the "dome" again - what about that is so hard to understand? The gases in your frankly absurd musings will layer based on density with the low molecular weight gases forming the top layers and then progressively higher molecular weight gases lower down - there is no way a lighter gas can float beneath a heavier gas unless a temporary inversion occurs. Hydrogen and Helium are the lightest gases so they will always be at the top and will always rise. Any burning gases which are shooting stars in your world would always go upwards there is no physically possible other way it can happen (I can't believe I have just typed that)

Yes splitting the atom involves breaking down a larger atom (uranium is common) into smaller elements (you can turn lead into gold using this but the gold is heavily radioactive) and the breaking of the atomic bonds between the atoms releases the energy used to hold the atom together and also releases some subatomic particles (neutrons) which crash into other atoms of the original element and cause further breakdown in a chain reaction. In nuclear power stations they used to use Boron rods to absorb the free neutrons to control the reactions (I don't know if they still do)

Have you ever split the atom yourself? No, I suspect not, so you are clearly just following a fantasy story. Just repeating what you have been told.

Now lets me tell you the real reason why the leaves on trees are green.......

It is clear that anything anyone says is dismissed as fantasy, story, bollocks, yet another global coverup and everyone is wrong despite a ton of evidence for it, including use in real life. And then it is instantly replaced by a fantasy invented in the head of a desperate paranoid lunatic and used to tell us why we are the stupid ones for not knowing that.

 

[taipeisafc]

And you are well versed in the realities of what an atom is...right?
Or is it that you accept the reasoning for today's atom?

t can you tell me what splitting an atom is?

Honestly, pay attention to what I said.
Hydrogen and helium at sea level and released from that, will rise.
It does this because it's been broken down into these gases and those gases rise and sit in their layer up in that sky.
A build up of those gases creates a denser mass of ice and the denser it gets as the energy from the sun moves over it, it creates icicles on the dome which break off and friction burn back into gas which takes its place back in the layers it equalises into.


Can water burn you?

Oh and water scalds you - it doesn't burn you, that is why we have a different word for injuries caused by water and other hot liquids.

 

[Ambivalent Dave]

An easy way to stop that. Don't give me any.

quite. It's lost on many