BigPete
Striker
Probably thinks the Power Plant is fake too
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
Probably thinks the Power Plant is fake too
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
and the equal and opposite reaction would be....?
So you're saying the equal and opposite reaction to the gases being expelled, is the gases being expelled?
The gases are not just being sucked out by a vacuum, they are propelled out, the equal and opposite of that is their container being propelled in the opposite direction.
At the equator, you'd turn by one degree every 50 miles or so. You seriously think you're going to notice that?
It doesn't matter if it's 1000mph or 10,000mph, you and the globe you live on have been moving at that speed for as long as you've existed and you would only notice if the speed changed.
Last edited:
DaveH
Striker
So if the projectors are not at a secret location at the north pole, what does project onto the dome?
Little sparkles of friction compression hitting the helium dome causing 25mm pieces to defrost, the noise of the crackle causes light which we stupidly believe are stars.
Then it re freezes again and so on.
Doesn't happen during the so called day though, think friction only does the back shift and lates.
And these defrost in exactly the same parts of the dome in exactly the same shapes and even brightness every single night. They even manage to create separate but identical shapes (let's call them constellations) so that where ever you are on the outer edge you think you are seeing the same stars as people in other countries on the outer edge of the Earth.
It's amazing the efforts they have gone to just to fool almost everyone.
During the day that's just one big reflection. At night somebody puts a massive collander over it to create the stars.
DaveH
Striker
Well they do rotate consistently around a single point, though keep the same distances apart. But they never distort. Like the sun, moon, star clusters, nebula, planets etc. Ice does drip off the dome and makes us think meteors but even though the dome changes shape with all this stuff dripping off, it never distorts the image. Amazing superfluid flux.
Curiously on the subject of meteors, astronomers think they see so called comets moving through the sky and they think some pass close to earth. If so called comets work in the way they say with bits coming off, they would leave a debris trail. They think that when the earth passes through this dust debris left in it’s orbital path it would give a regular meteor shower at the same time every year. The fact we see these predictable ice drips is nothing of the sort. It just becomes another convenient bodge in the narriative.
Think about it logically. Wildebeest migrate on a regular cycle, they are warm and their hooves kick up lots of dust, the dust rises on an atmospheric stack updraft, rubs like sandpaper on the dome. This causes friction, gives off heat which melts the ice and sound which turns to light when it hits our eyes. It is obvious when you apply critical thinking.
OPEN YOUR EYES!
It's all there if you just look into it properly.
Put down your text books and just think, what if.......
We have a collander, lemon squeezer and orange squeezer so far, it's growing like a shit wedding presents list
Last edited:
Now that is genius, I can get on board with that
SYB_DC
Striker
You'll be delighted to know that tides are caused by someone squeezing the middle of the oceans with a giant panini press.We have a collander, lemon squeezer and orange squeezer so far, it's growing like a shit wedding presents list
We have a collander, lemon squeezer and orange squeezer so far, it's growing like a shit wedding presents list
We've always said his argument is full of holes
Logon or register to see this image
Astronaut takes photo of Mt. Everest from space.
You must be logged on to see external links
SYB_DC
Striker
You're only seeing a curve because your mind has been trained to expect a curve. Looks flat to me, and just tilting it off level doesn't change that fact.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Aye but who's following north to then see their compass change to pointing south?What
OK on your map, you set off from Greenland heading north/centre, your compass is pointing north.
You keep going and going and going..... across a "central" land mass and you keep going a bit more and you end up in Northern Russia, you can do this from varying opposing land masses.
Also as you cross and keep moving forwards you will find as you cross the central land mass/pole your compass will then start pointing South........
This is pretty simple to understand for most people and you yourself said compasses point north towards the centre, south to the outer rim, east/west in a circle around the lemon squeezer so how do you explain this?
As for planes.......
You must be logged on to see external links
It's ok looking at a globe and saying it happens...but do you know if it does?
No I don't but for the sake of arguing about it we can just go with what we are told, seeing as this argument is based on you explaining your spinning globe.
So carry on..
Your Earth is apparently spinning at 1000 mph and we don;t feel it. Why?
Because it's not spinning and it's pretty easy to understand why.
Because it's always moving and is never still, except perceived to be, to the naked eye.
Yep but it doesn't mean it is not moving within itself.
It may appear to stay there but the ball is contracting and expanding every second, albeit not noticeable to the naked eye.
Does your body stay absolutely still? No.
Now you can understand what I'm saying.
It's not going to change life. Life is what it is and one law governs everything in life. That law is simply...for every action there is and equal and opposite reaction.
As simple as that.
We've already covered the object is never at rest.
Also an object in motion will supposedly stay in motion at the exact same speed in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
An object is always acted upon by an unbalanced force.
An object can never stay in motion at the same speed without an unbalanced force.
This supposed law relies on a supposed true vacuum that offers absolutely no friction/resistance to an object put into motion. It gives an impression of an object just moving in one direction forever unless it encounters and unbalanced force.
The supposed law is a nonsense. It's fantasy and has no relevance to life....at all.
That's the first law destroyed.
two left which basically offer the very same reasoning except worded differently..
There is always an atmospheric barrier.
You're of the mind that rockets work in fictional space.
Action and equal and opposite reaction.
Your space offers none of this because space is a fantasy.
The medium is imperative to the direction of travel.
The acceleration of the balloon is solely because of what is expelled from the nozzle against atmospheric resistance, not the inside of it.
There would be no space station in the vacuum to start with so the question is irrelevant.
The dynamite becomes part of the box and will detonate against the box and the atmosphere. It will obliterate the box and itself whilst also causing a massive blat radius of compressed atmosphere by super expansion of it's own gases.
I certainly don't feel like a fool but I'm more than happy for you to believe I am and more than happy for you to shout it from the rooftops if you so wish.
Nope. The point I'm making is, 1000 mph.
Last edited:
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Are you making a point though or do you just keep saying 1000mph as if it should mean something?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Maybe something a bit more advanced than we think.
Yep. It's about basically thinking on how we as humans operate in our lives and how that comes about for us to be basically compliant.
We clearly see a big bunch of people who supposedly rule over us and its about asking ourselves if these people are capable of actually controlling a populace or are they merely puppets for something bigger.
What is progression though?
It's fine to say we've got central heating and computers and cars and machinery...etc....etc. But is that really progression?
And if so, for what end?
It's about understanding what purpose we serve to Earth and if this progression is more of us as a disease to it rather than a natural evolving.
We appear to be our very own creationists and are in control of natural evolving, or is it us that's really controlling it or are we in a belief that we are?
It depends.
How does one person become spokesperson for the group?
How does one small group become accepted as the group to control the wider group or groups?
Is the pen mightier than the sword and if so...why?
Is the power of speech of one person of great stories mightier than the power of collective masses who want something to feed upon?
Animals and especially humans appear to need something or someone to follow. To be directed and to feel they have purpose, whether that's wearing a uniform of whatever description or by being given a role that offers them a purpose to those who they accept as their controllers, on the face of it.
It depends on how people want to look at it.
It may only be a film but did you ever watch the Truman show?
Likely you have and you could look at the premise of that film and think of ourselves being controlled because we do not have the means to find out what's really what because our every move is sort of controlled.
We generally just accept it and carry on with our lives bickering with each other and basically ensuring we do our own policing of those who dare to think outside of the box.
It depends on how you want to view life itself and what you believe is your role of relevance within it.
It's about starting at the beginning and wondering what triggers the inquisitive mind.
It takes one ponder to lead to many, whether its inventing something or questioning something you believed.
Let's start with Santa.
Yeah I know, it seems irrelevant....but is it?
Why are we lied to even if it's for the supposed greater good with Santa and yet we're consistently being scared witless with news about all kinds of diseases and potential catastrophes?
It could. We could. The chances are it's not if but when.
And so on.
What I'm saying is, if we're told to follow something of a story and have no way of knowing if the story is fiction or fact..when do we get to decide?
It comes down to the bare bones of what you believed as a kid and finding out your belief's were based on lies but realising your parents followed a set pattern from their parents in order for you to enjoy a day of gifts but being so unselfish as to offer you a fat bearded man in a red and white coat and hat who came down your chimney to give you all the presents you asked for, even though your parents may have struggled to buy them.
Imagine the kids mind thanking Santa and not realising the person is a fiction.
But it's for the greater good...right?
Then you get a bit older and someone tells you Santa is that fiction. You argue it at first and tell all and sundry how you once saw him in the sky or heard him and his sleigh on the roof. Or whatever.
Then you reason that your parents were the one's that really bought you all your gifts and they were just happy to give you the mindset of knowing there was a man with a sleigh full of presents out there that deemed you important because you were good.
And so you carry on that lie for the greater good of your own kids.
Religion is similar but you're encouraged not to grow out of it.
You have to ponder what the overall greater good actually is.
It's a control by means of good cop bad cop means.... to keep the animals docile enough to understand their place.
People take a stance in life as being something, whilst others may feel their stance is not worthwhile without realising that everybody counts whether you can write neatly or can't write at all.
The writer can be a copier of words or narration.
The so called illiterate maybe just the person to invent something remarkable yet feel their worth is nothing compared to the person who can read or write.
Who gets to decide the relevance?
The pen is mightier than the sword.
The speech from one person can dictate the happenings of millions. But who writes the speech? The person themselves or are they following the narratives.
Are we compelled to simply believe what we do based on a mass build up and a following of that? The answer is....yes.
Inquisitive minds to the contrary are cast aside as the illiterates. The dummies. The backward. It keeps the masses as just that. Afraid to think outside of the box for fear they upset the apple cart.
Anyway I've went off on one here just to say, it takes one thing to ponder that goes against the masses to realise the rabbit hole may just go deeper and deeper.
When you question one thing it opens up a massive can of worms.
It always does. It has to. You only get out of something exactly what you put into it.
Been where?
Over or near?
And you're welcome to think that, obviously.
Can you answer the question.
Who do you think controls us?
Last edited:
taipeisafc
Striker
You really don't have a clue do you. An object is never at rest - I assume you are talking about atomic motion which is not what Newtons laws of Motion refer to you buffoon. An object will stay in a state of uniform motion or at rest unless acted on by an external force (the unbalanced thing is something you have either made up or copied from somewhere) - this is true. If you accelerate something to a point where the force applied exactly equals the force resisting motion then it will move at a steady speed (net force applied is zero as forces are vectored) if the force applied is the reduced to nothing the object will come to rest after a period of deceleration like when you drive a car. An object would move in one direction for ever on a infinite flat plane with no retarding forces acting on it; this obviously to our current knowledge is not possible but that doesn't make a law false. And the other two laws are not the same just you are incapable of understanding them.
From wikipedia :-
Law 1. A body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
Law 2. A body acted upon by a force moves in such a manner that the time rate of change of
You must be logged on to see external links
equals the force.Law 3. If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
How on earth are 2 and 3 the same.....you have no clue.
And some more from Wikipedia
"Newton's laws were verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years, and they are excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life. Newton's laws of motion, together with his law of
You must be logged on to see external links
and the mathematical techniques of
You must be logged on to see external links
, provided for the first time a unified quantitative explanation for a wide range of physical phenomena. For example, in the third volume of the Principia, Newton showed that his laws of motion, combined with the , explained .Newton's laws are applied to bodies which are idealised as single point masses, in the sense that the size and shape of the body are neglected to focus on its motion more easily. This can be done when the of the resultant of all the external forces acts through the center of mass of the body. In this way, even a planet can be idealised as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.
In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterise the motion of and . in 1750 introduced a generalisation of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called , later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a . If a body is represented as an assemblage of discrete particles, each governed by Newton's laws of motion, then Euler's laws can be derived from Newton's laws. Euler's laws can, however, be taken as axioms describing the laws of motion for extended bodies, independently of any particle structure.
Newton's laws hold only with respect to a certain set of called . Some authors interpret the first law as defining what an inertial reference frame is; from this point of view, the second law holds only when the observation is made from an inertial reference frame, and therefore the first law cannot be proved as a special case of the second. Other authors do treat the first law as a corollary of the second. The explicit concept of an inertial frame of reference was not developed until long after Newton's death.
These three laws hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and ) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, at very high speeds, or in very strong gravitational fields. Therefore, the laws cannot be used to explain phenomena such as conduction of electricity in a , optical properties of substances, errors in non-relativistically corrected systems and . Explanation of these phenomena requires more sophisticated physical theories, including and ."
Do you understand what a non-newtonian fluid is?
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan
Winger
It's immediate. It's all around.
And do exhaust gases pass through this barrier or not
