Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

If the always of motion don't refer to it at expansion and contraction level then the law of motion does not apply to it at a stationary level because stationary means nothing in terms of motion, so we can scrub that.

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.

Because it is acted upon,. It will always be acted upon. It will never ever become a time when it's not acted upon.

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.

It does.
Don't create a law if the law refers to fiction.

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.

We've dealt with that. It's meaningless because it has no reality to it.

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.

Meaning action and equal and opposite reaction.

Law 3. If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

As above.
One law covers two and the first is a nonsense.

How on earth are 2 and 3 the same.....you have no clue.

As I just explained.

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?

It doesn't matter what's said about it. It's pretty simple.
One law which to be as basic as possible is, for every effort you put in you get the exact return of that effort. For every action there is an EQUAL and opposite REACTION.

And do exhaust gases pass through this barrier or not

That depends on what you mean by exhaust gases.
Exhaust means spent, so are you arguing for the after effects of the burn or the external burn itself.

Just to be clear so I can answer it properly.

 

[ned_werby]

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?

And there we have it. He's not just a flat-earther and a covid denier (shame he caught it and ended up hospitalized), he's also a full on conspiracy theorist and swivel-eyed loon. One question though @Nukehasslefan - who put the can of worms down the rabbit hole?

 

[Nobby]

That depends on what you mean by exhaust gases.
Exhaust means spent, so are you arguing for the after effects of the burn or the external burn itself.

Just to be clear so I can answer it properly.

The gases exiting the engine through the exhaust nozzle during its normal operation

 

[legend7]

Aye but who's following north to then see their compass change to pointing south?
It's ok looking at a globe and saying it happens...but do you know if it does?

Yeah it does, magnetic North actually moves slightly but be it magnetic North or true North if you keep walking towards it then contune going past it your compass/GPS then points south in front of you and North behind you.
As I say I know someone who has been.
And as to your other question, planes fly over it and even if they were in the area I'm assuming your crystal generator is probably rather large to be able to heat the whole planet and bathe whole continents in light at any one time, so would be visible from a good few miles away.
We used to be able to see the SOL lights from miles and miles away.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The gases exiting the engine through the exhaust nozzle during its normal operation

Are we talking the whole exiting burning gas or the absolute burnt exhaust gas.

Be clear.

 

[Nobby]

We are talking about everything exiting the exhaust nozzle

 

[Kevj]

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?

He struggles to comprehend SI units, their origins and interdependencies. Until he acknowledges it he fundamentals that demonstrate scientific facts, then there’s no benefit in trying to explain slightly more advanced notions to him.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yeah it does, magnetic North actually moves slightly but be it magnetic North or true North if you keep walking towards it then contune going past it your compass/GPS then points south in front of you and North behind you.

And you're sure about this, right?
North or magnetic north. What does that actually mean to you. We know what we're told but what does it actually mean, because to me it tells me a lot.

As I say I know someone who has been.

You may know many people that's supposedly been to the centre. I can simply say they're mistaken about it and pass that off as reality of a central trek and you can basically treat it as nailed on fact, if you want.
Don't expect me to accept it though.
It's like someone telling me their uncle Chris has been to the space station so they know it as fact. I'm surely not expected to say " ahhh ok, that's that then" am I?

And as to your other question, planes fly over it and even if they were in the area I'm assuming your crystal generator is probably rather large to be able to heat the whole planet and bathe whole continents in light at any one time, so would be visible from a good few miles away.

It doesn't do it at any one time. It moves around as you see and there's many places that are extremely cold...etc.

We used to be able to see the SOL lights from miles and miles away.

?

We are talking about everything exiting the exhaust nozzle

Are you talking about the actual thrusting burn or the spent gases after the burn. It matters.

He struggles to comprehend SI units, their origins and interdependencies. Until he acknowledges it he fundamentals that demonstrate scientific facts, then there’s no benefit in trying to explain slightly more advanced notions to him.

No need for advanced notions to deal with simplicity.

 

[Kevj]

No need for advanced notions to deal with simplicity.

I concur. One thing you have consistently demonstrated is being simple.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I concur. One thing you have consistently demonstrated is being simple.

The best way to advance is to be simple.

 

[legend7]

If the always of motion don't refer to it at expansion and contraction level then the law of motion does not apply to it at a stationary level because stationary means nothing in terms of motion, so we can scrub that.

Because it is acted upon,. It will always be acted upon. It will never ever become a time when it's not acted upon.

It does.
Don't create a law if the law refers to fiction.

We've dealt with that. It's meaningless because it has no reality to it.


Meaning action and equal and opposite reaction.


As above.
One law covers two and the first is a nonsense.

As I just explained.

It doesn't matter what's said about it. It's pretty simple.
One law which to be as basic as possible is, for every effort you put in you get the exact return of that effort. For every action there is an EQUAL and opposite REACTION.

That depends on what you mean by exhaust gases.
Exhaust means spent, so are you arguing for the after effects of the burn or the external burn itself.

Just to be clear so I can answer it properly.

I think you may need help mate

 

[Nobby]

Are you talking about the actual thrusting burn or the spent gases after the burn. It matters.

It doesn't matter, we are simply talking about all of the gas ejected from the engine nozzle during operation. Is it all stopped by the atmospheric barrier or not

 

[legend7]

And you're sure about this, right?
North or magnetic north. What does that actually mean to you. We know what we're told but what does it actually mean, because to me it tells me a lot.

You may know many people that's supposedly been to the centre. I can simply say they're mistaken about it and pass that off as reality of a central trek and you can basically treat it as nailed on fact, if you want.
Don't expect me to accept it though.
It's like someone telling me their uncle Chris has been to the space station so they know it as fact. I'm surely not expected to say " ahhh ok, that's that then" am I?


It doesn't do it at any one time. It moves around as you see and there's many places that are extremely cold...etc.

?

Are you talking about the actual thrusting burn or the spent gases after the burn. It matters.

No need for advanced notions to deal with simplicity.

Your whole reasoning for saying Australia existed was because you know someone who has been or lives there.
So what's the difference?
Simply because there is actually evidence you change tact yet again.
So why do they begin to point south as you cross north/ your central crystal non existent nonsense area, and no matter which country you set off from to cross that area, always the same result?
So how big do you think the central generator is for it to heat the whole planet by bouncing stuff from a helium dome, how many miles across roughly?
You're one of the thickest and closed minded people I've ever known, and you say we just follow a narrative
Is your alleged wife inflatable by any chance, there is no way she could be daft enough to put up with you man

 

[taipeisafc]

He struggles to comprehend SI units, their origins and interdependencies. Until he acknowledges it he fundamentals that demonstrate scientific facts, then there’s no benefit in trying to explain slightly more advanced notions to him.

He is a moron sadly - just schooled in the narrative and incapable of thinking for himself.

 

[BigPete]

This thread has shown that there are some very clever people on this forum.

Fair play to you

 

[DaveH]

Wow, so this morning we have the reasons why Newton got it wrong - the damn idiot he was. No mathematics or experiments to show why he was wrong, just Newton, what a wanker.

 

[What A Waster]

Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.
Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything. Reject everything.

 

[ned_werby]

Wow, so this morning we have the reasons why Newton got it wrong - the damn idiot he was. No mathematics or experiments to show why he was wrong, just Newton, what a wanker.

Newton was a wanker,
Denied the earth was flat,
Made up some laws,
They were full of flaws,
Said "what you think of that"?
Along came NukeyEinstein,
Disproved the f***ing lot,
Said "the Earth's a cell,
The Sky's like gel,
Proof? I've not a lot"

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Let's start with Santa.
Yeah I know, it seems irrelevant....but is it?

Yes, yes it is. unless you are going to argue that he cant live at the North pole because his compass points South.

stationary means nothing in terms of motion, so we can scrub that.

Logon or register to see this image

That depends on what you mean by exhaust gases.
Exhaust means spent, so are you arguing for the after effects of the burn or the external burn itself.

Just to be clear so I can answer it properly.

Yeah that's not going to happen though is it?

It doesn't matter what's said about it. It's pretty simple.
One law which to be as basic as possible is, for every effort you put in you get the exact return of that effort. For every action there is an EQUAL and opposite REACTION.

because you still don't get it, simple and basic as it is.
You're not getting it because you don't want to believe in space.
You refuse to accept space exists but you know better than Newton how stuff would behave while in it.

 

[DaveH]

DaveH said:
Ok so 24 hours for a rotation (we call this a 'day'). Do you accept that the given diameter of the earth is 7917.5 miles or have a circumference of 24,873.6 miles at the equator?

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..

All right. So linear speed is distance over time, someone standing on a spinning earth at the equator will travel 24,873.6 miles in 24 hours, so:
24,873.6/24 = 1,036.4mph
or rounding it for convenience the 1,000mph you keep parroting. You said earlier you didn't know where the figure comes from, that is how we work out the 1000mph. Happy with that calculation?

Now here is something I think is going to blow your mind. This is not quite the image I was looking for, but you can imagine a sphere as a load of discs of different sizes stacked on top of each other, a little bit like:

Logon or register to see this image

You can see in that image that the largest disc is in the middle and there are smaller ones to where we could imagine the poles to be if it were a globe planet. The smaller disc has a smaller circumference so someone standing on one of those would travel a smaller distance in 24 hours. Applying to the real world, Sunderland is at a latitude of 54.9 degrees so that gives a smaller distance travelled per day for Sunderland, which in turn means a lower speed. Someone at Sunderland travels at 598.2 mph [1] which is approaching half the speed of people at the equator, and pretty close to the speed of a commercial aircraft. We don't get pinned back in our seats when flying, except a little while accelerating up the runway. What about other people? People in Newcastle are slower than people in Sunderland.

If you go to Svalbard (I really want to go there), you are only at 78.9 degrees latitude. Your speed is then 200 mph. We are approaching fast train speed here. Once you approach the pole, your speed gets lower and lower. Certainly within the realms of what we would consider a speed we would not really expect to notice.

Now what would happen if there was a straight line of people north to south, hand in hand from the northern tip of Russia down into Malaysia? For each person, the person on one side would be going faster than them and the person on the other would be going slower. How can that be? Would the people in the north act as an anchor for the whole line to stop the people at 1000mph flying away? What then if they all jumped? You said someone jumping the earth would spin under them, so if they all jumped at the same time to the same height, then would the straight line land in a diagonal? What if they carried a rigid bar between them, would this shatter as soon as they jumped?

Clearly that whole concept is absurd. So what is going on here?

We have been using linear speed to measure angular velocity and it works differently. The angular velocity of the spin of the earth is very small. 360 degrees in 24 hours, 15 degrees per hour, 0.25 degrees per minute or 0.004 degrees per second.

Using the same method, you can also picture the hands on a large clock. The tip of the minute hand travels slower than the bit that joins the hub. Does that make any sense? No, of course not. Spin a solid ball and the inside rotates slower than the outside, so does it just pull itself apart? No.

Essentially linear speed is bollocks when it comes to a rotating body. The earth spins very slowly and saying whoa 1000mph is just a load of crap. And again, we feel forces acting on us, not speed. Speed is mass x acceleration and if your speed is constant, acceleration is zero so there is no force. Like what I said above, you feel a plane accelerate up the runway but when at cruising speed, despite being over 500 mph, you can walk about the plane without feeling a thing. Zero force.

[1] Rotation speed at latitude calculator at

You must be logged on to see external links

, including the formula. Yes I can prove this from first principals and agree with it, yes it can be tested on a sphere of any size, but I didn't feel the need to go into that.

Newton was a wanker,
Denied the earth was flat,
Made up some laws,
They were full of flaws,
Said "what you think of that"?
Along came NukeyEinstein,
Disproved the f***ing lot,
Said "the Earth's a cell,
The Sky's like gel,
Proof? I've not a lot"

Genius