Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

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.

But all heat is caused by friction (we were taught this before by our mighty sage). If you built a small fire on your hand or poured boiling water on your hand it heats the atoms (that I have never seen and question others for believing in, but will happily use here because it helps my argument rather than distract from your well reasoned argument) so they rub together and the friction in your hand causes a burn. It doesn't matter what generates the heat, it is all the same.

I decided to rewrite biology today.

 

[What A Waster]

But all heat is caused by friction (we were taught this before by our mighty sage). If you built a small fire on your hand or poured boiling water on your hand it heats the atoms (that I have never seen and question others for believing in, but will happily use here because it helps my argument rather than distract from your well reasoned argument) so they rub together and the friction in your hand causes a burn. It doesn't matter what generates the heat, it is all the same.

I decided to rewrite biology today.

I thought sound caused heat?

 

[taipeisafc]

I thought sound caused heat?

No sound and light are the same thing we just perceive them differently (our eyes work faster than our ears or some other twaddle) meaning one appears to be faster - funnily enough our perception of them seems to change during thunder storms where the rate at which we recognise them changes in direct proportion to the distance we are from the centre of the storm making us think light travels faster than sound.....

 

[Nobby]

Yeah friction causes heat and burning, but oil and other friction reducing liquids don't do any good as sunscreens despite reducing friction burning

 

[legend7]

I thought sound caused heat?

Sound and light are the same thing, keep up at the back

 

[payne]

But all heat is caused by friction (we were taught this before by our mighty sage). If you built a small fire on your hand or poured boiling water on your hand it heats the atoms (that I have never seen and question others for believing in, but will happily use here because it helps my argument rather than distract from your well reasoned argument) so they rub together and the friction in your hand causes a burn. It doesn't matter what generates the heat, it is all the same.

I decided to rewrite biology today.

The thread is in real trouble if you're going all conspiracy now!

 

[What A Waster]

Sorry lads. Thought sound made heat not light.
My physics teacher was a real idiot.

 

[fyl2u]

Would it throw an unwelcome cat among the pigeons if I mentioned

You must be logged on to see external links

?

:evilgrinsmileyface:

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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

I don't think all your questions are stupid. Don't put yourself down.

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?

Maybe it's not deliberate.

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.

You've read all about it and you believe it all. Nothing wrong in that but it does not garnish you with the facts.

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.

What conspiracy?
You're clearly not looking at any conspiracies. What I see you doing is doing your utmost to ensure the words, conspiracy and theory amount to other words such as nut job and lunatic....etc.

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?".

How complex was it to make the flim, armageddon?
How complex was it to make the 1951 film, when worlds collide?
I could go on.
Were those films based on reality or is it because we were told they were simply just films?

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.

By all means deck out.
You are well aware you are doing nothing more than parroting what was placed into your head in terms of what you're trying to put forward about people supposedly in the actual physical know.
I'm sure you can admit this.

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?

There's many a person came out with stuff. Are they being genuine?
Lots of accidents appear to have happened with so called whistleblowers, or are they just nutters who have zero credence....because?

You see, I can't say for certain whether all these people had something anymore than you can say they hadn't.

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?

The media can potentially spin whatever it is they need to spin based on narratives set out. I'm sure you know this is a possibility or even a probability or is some of it a reality?

Are the media only truthful when CT so called nutcases have something to say?
Do they only lie if it's something that doesn't suit you or other like minded people like yourself?

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?

How can anyone realistically record the real Earth shape?

Pretty unlikely isn't it?

Of course it's unlikely.

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.

To you, yes...but then again when you believe everything why would you think differently?

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

Water can burn you. It can friction burn you. And water can burn if you break it down.

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)

You clearly haven't taken notice.
The gases you talk of are at the finish of the stacking system of layers up to the dome.
They don't go any farther.

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)

Nice story but it's based on nothing.

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.

As funny and as clever and as sarcastic as you're trying to make out. What you're saying in this term, is the truth. He hasn't and neither have you or me.

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.

Water can burn you. It's just a case of how it breaks down.
A kettle of hot water will scald you.

But all heat is caused by friction (we were taught this before by our mighty sage).

Unless you can think of how heat can be caused without it.

If you built a small fire on your hand or poured boiling water on your hand it heats the atoms (that I have never seen and question others for believing in, but will happily use here because it helps my argument rather than distract from your well reasoned argument) so they rub together and the friction in your hand causes a burn. It doesn't matter what generates the heat, it is all the same.

I decided to rewrite biology today.

Rub your hands together and friction will heat your hands.
Rub two stick together and the same will happen.
And so on and so on.
A microwave oven agitates matter and causes friction to create heat.

Water rises because of friction and expansion.
And so on.
You're learning.

Yeah friction causes heat and burning, but oil and other friction reducing liquids don't do any good as sunscreens despite reducing friction burning

Friction reducing, not frictionless.

Sorry lads. Thought sound made heat not light.
My physics teacher was a real idiot.

Sound is vibration and frequencies which do make heat. Enough vibration and frequency and it makes light that we can see with our own eyes.

 

[What A Waster]

Sound is vibration and frequencies which do make heat. Enough vibration and frequency and it makes light that we can see with our own eyes.

How much would you need to create light?
I'd like to try that myself

 

[DaveH]

I thought sound caused heat?

Only when refracted through a prism.

You know those solid glass/perspex objects that seem to block sound but let loads of light through, clearly proving they are the same thing?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How much would you need to create light?
I'd like to try that myself

Very little.
Your eyes are not sensitive enough to see it all.
And it all depends on the material you're putting energy into in terms of force and frequency to gain the vibration/friction for you to see the resulting light back to your eyes.

 

[DaveH]

The thread is in real trouble if you're going all conspiracy now!

If you can't beat them, join them.

I've been reading my Ladybird book of retard to get up to speed.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Only when refracted through a prism.

You know those solid glass/perspex objects that seem to block sound but let loads of light through, clearly proving they are the same thing?

Totally getting the wrong idea.

It's about sound immediately creating light from it at the source, not omitting the sound by absorption or rebound.
Your eyes see the result of the vibration/friction before the vibrational frequencies hit your ear drum to register it as sound.

If you can't beat them, join them.

I've been reading my Ladybird book of retard to get up to speed.

Maybe this is where you're going wrong.

 

[DaveH]

Totally getting the wrong idea.

It's about sound immediately creating light from it at the source, not omitting the sound by absorption or rebound.
Your eyes see the result of the vibration/friction before the vibrational frequencies hit your ear drum to register it as sound.

Maybe this is where you're going wrong.

Yet you have no evidence of this idea of yours and it is not based on any experimental evidence that we can tell. Many many other experiments in the history of human understanding say this is not the case, but they are all wrong and the idea you pulled from nowhere is right?

It feels an odd way to live a life. If you don't understand something, make up shit so you feel you do, tell everyone about it and say they are wrong then when you realise the rest of the entire planet doesn't agree either, claim conspiracy and government cover up.

Do you not think there is a possibility you are mistaken?

 

[legend7]

Very little.
Your eyes are not sensitive enough to see it all.
And it all depends on the material you're putting energy into in terms of force and frequency to gain the vibration/friction for you to see the resulting light back to your eyes.

So if I wanted to save on bulbs how loud to I need my stereo to light the room?

Yet you have no evidence of this idea of yours and it is not based on any experimental evidence that we can tell. Many many other experiments in the history of human understanding say this is not the case, but they are all wrong and the idea you pulled from nowhere is right?

It feels an odd way to live a life. If you don't understand something, make up shit so you feel you do, tell everyone about it and say they are wrong then when you realise the rest of the entire planet doesn't agree either, claim conspiracy and government cover up.

Do you not think there is a possibility you are mistaken?

He will come back with some nonsense once he puts his crayons away.

 

[payne]

So if I wanted to save on bulbs how loud to I need my stereo to light the room?

He'll probably block you for this. He doesn't like a sentence rebuttable unless he's making it.

He thinks he has knowledge but in reality he's one of the stupidest people to have ever lived.

 

[legend7]

He'll probably block you for this. He doesn't like a sentence rebuttable unless he's making it.

I think I'm already blocked but I like contributing.
I feel left out and I was enjoying it

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yet you have no evidence of this idea of yours and it is not based on any experimental evidence that we can tell.

And that's why I don't hand it out as factual which I've told you so many times to try and register it with you but here we go again.
This is the difference.

Many many other experiments in the history of human understanding say this is not the case, but they are all wrong and the idea you pulled from nowhere is right?

There are none that say this.
Unless you want to name me one.

It feels an odd way to live a life.

Why?
To dare to think alternately to what we've been schooled into when there's no proof?
It's only odd because people follow a narrative en-masse and anything contrary to that is obviously classed as odd ball behaviour, as long as it has CT tagged against it, which is another case of follow the leader of the wording.

If you don't understand something, make up shit so you feel you do, tell everyone about it and say they are wrong then when you realise the rest of the entire planet doesn't agree either, claim conspiracy and government cover up.

Basically this is what a lot of people do. Some just blatantly make stuff up and pass it off as factual. People like me have thoughts based on going against those stories to find they make no sense but also know that my experiments can not push any person to alter their forced narratives, which is the correct thing to do as I cannot pass my thoughts off as factual on my model, except one main thing which has been done to death but is absolutely valid.

Do you not think there is a possibility you are mistaken?

Mistaken about my Earth shape and what not? Absolutely I could be. I could be way off.

I'll tell you what I'm not mistaken about. I'm not mistaken about Earth not being a spinning globe. 100% sure of that.

 

[payne]

And that's why I don't hand it out as factual which I've told you so many times to try and register it with you but here we go again.
This is the difference.


There are none that say this.
Unless you want to name me one.

Why?
To dare to think alternately to what we've been schooled into when there's no proof?
It's only odd because people follow a narrative en-masse and anything contrary to that is obviously classed as odd ball behaviour, as long as it has CT tagged against it, which is another case of follow the leader of the wording.


Basically this is what a lot of people do. Some just blatantly make stuff up and pass it off as factual. People like me have thoughts based on going against those stories to find they make no sense but also know that my experiments can not push any person to alter their forced narratives, which is the correct thing to do as I cannot pass my thoughts off as factual on my model, except one main thing which has been done to death but is absolutely valid.

Mistaken about my Earth shape and what not? Absolutely I could be. I could be way off.

I'll tell you what I'm not mistaken about. I'm not mistaken about Earth not being a spinning globe. 100% sure of that.

Hs starting point is the disbelief of the real world. He then invents things in his own mind and passes them off as likely (not fact though). He then dismisses the real world as a fact.

Poor Dave and everyone else are just too think to understand. Doesn't matter if they know maths, chemistry, physics and the like. You don't need to actually do any calculation or experiment. All you need to to know the earth isn't a ball cos that's just not possible. Ice Domes, Super Carbon Arcs, Projector Screen Crystals though.....definitely likely.