Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,450 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 882,197
Pageviews Today: 1,436,885Threads Today: 574Posts Today: 10,051
08:00 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Globe Earth debunked

 
LHP598

User ID: 77436004
03/14/2019 08:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Astro can’t even debunk this, never mind prove a globe earth


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


You don't need an equation to show that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

In fact, having an equation can confuse the issue, because the equation may pertain to an issue not related to the action reaction principle.
 Quoting: Ball Master 77455278


Does math confuse you? Perhaps rocket science isn’t your thing. As for “every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction”

You are saying that a person that weighs 75kg is deadlifting 100kg and he drops it from a height. Did the person get lifted off the ground? Because that’s basically what you are saying
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77455063


its cute that you think dropping an object where the movement comes from an outside force is the same as a highly energetic continuous explosion and expansion of fuel.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33790028
United Kingdom
03/14/2019 08:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
I'll be staying to my own threads from now on and you won't have to be bothered by all these "hidden posts" you can't handle, except for my threads.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Awwwww...
 Quoting: 74444


It's for a good reason, a very positive thing has come up but I won't be able to reveal what it is for quite a while. You guys keep fighting the good fight though.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Fight whoever you want.
Objective reality really isn't up for an argument, fight or debate it just is what it is.
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/14/2019 09:01 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
I'll be staying to my own threads from now on and you won't have to be bothered by all these "hidden posts" you can't handle, except for my threads.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Awwwww...
 Quoting: 74444


It's for a good reason, a very positive thing has come up but I won't be able to reveal what it is for quite a while. You guys keep fighting the good fight though.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Fight whoever you want.
Objective reality really isn't up for an argument, fight or debate it just is what it is.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33790028

You have no idea what this is about and I wasn't talking to you so shut the fuk up.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77456453
United States
03/14/2019 09:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
The rockets doesn’t even go to space in your video. How pathetic
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77433193


Yes, they do. And in the second video you dishonestly ignore it's already in space to start with.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


The second video looks like a video game from the early 90s
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/14/2019 09:55 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
The rockets doesn’t even go to space in your video. How pathetic
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77433193


Yes, they do. And in the second video you dishonestly ignore it's already in space to start with.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


The second video looks like a video game from the early 90s
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456453


No, it does not. It shows a satellite being inserted into geostationary orbit. The telescope is tracking it based on its transfer orbit and the satellite is rapidly accelerated out of the view when the engine is lit to insert it into its final orbit. Your insults carry no weight.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77456453
United States
03/14/2019 09:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Astro can’t even debunk this, never mind prove a globe earth


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


You don't need an equation to show that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

In fact, having an equation can confuse the issue, because the equation may pertain to an issue not related to the action reaction principle.
 Quoting: Ball Master 77455278


Does math confuse you? Perhaps rocket science isn’t your thing. As for “every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction”

You are saying that a person that weighs 75kg is deadlifting 100kg and he drops it from a height. Did the person get lifted off the ground? Because that’s basically what you are saying
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77455063


Vacuuming a hole in the side of a tube on earth isn't proving the math of spaceflight wrong, it's just demonstrating a massive ignorance of force vectors. As is your example. What is the velocity of the weight the moment he lets go? 0 m/s. Doesn't matter if it accelerates to the ground after that, the velocity of the mass was nil when it left his hands. You don't even understand how f=ma works.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


The equation states that mass flow in an area is a force. Exit velocity no longer matters. Just mass flow and pipe diameter.
In order for the weight to leave my hand, the weight has to move (velocity). Otherwise it would still be in contact with the tip of the finger i didn’t let go.


Gravity and pressure are both potential energies. Movement occurs when You release it
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/14/2019 10:13 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
The equation states that mass flow in an area is a force. Exit velocity no longer matters. Just mass flow and pipe diameter.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456453

Wrong. Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance. Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitute something else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction mass matters. Thank you for continuing to prove how stupid you are.
In order for the weight to leave my hand, the weight has to move (velocity).
 Quoting: Idiot

Nope. You let go, the instantaneous velocity is 0, you only released it, you didn't throw it. Velocity starts increasing AFTER your hand has released it.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77456542
Canada
03/14/2019 10:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
The equation states that mass flow in an area is a force. Exit velocity no longer matters. Just mass flow and pipe diameter.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456453

Wrong. Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance. Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitute something else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction mass matters. Thank you for continuing to prove how stupid you are.
In order for the weight to leave my hand, the weight has to move (velocity).
 Quoting: Idiot

Nope. You let go, the instantaneous velocity is 0, you only released it, you didn't throw it. Velocity starts increasing AFTER your hand has released it.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.

I’m holding the weight between two finger. The weight is contacting my fingers and the hand space between the two fingers. I move one finger, the wieght moves away from the hand space between the two fingers and falls sliding down the finger I didn’t move. How did the wieght move away from my finger if the velocity was 0? Where’s the opposite force?
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/14/2019 10:41 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
The equation states that mass flow in an area is a force. Exit velocity no longer matters. Just mass flow and pipe diameter.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456453

Wrong. Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance. Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitute something else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction mass matters. Thank you for continuing to prove how stupid you are.
In order for the weight to leave my hand, the weight has to move (velocity).
 Quoting: Idiot

Nope. You let go, the instantaneous velocity is 0, you only released it, you didn't throw it. Velocity starts increasing AFTER your hand has released it.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542

Wrong. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
I’m holding the weight between two finger. The weight is contacting my fingers and the hand space between the two fingers. I move one finger, the wieght moves away from the hand space between the two fingers and falls sliding down the finger I didn’t move. How did the wieght move away from my finger if the velocity was 0? Where’s the opposite force?
 Quoting: fuckingretard

So apparently you failed basic physics and never understood basic force diagrams even for simple cases, like rolling something off a ramp.
[link to www.physics.usyd.edu.au]
Got it. That doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong and physics works just fine. But for the previous example if you simply let a weight go it will have no velocity at the moment you release it. Now you're trying to change the example since I proved you wrong.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72810610
United States
03/14/2019 10:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Grab two pairs of polarizing sunglasses
Line them up and look directly above you into the sky when the sun is at 10 o clock relative to your position

Rayleigh scattering predicts light will be polarized linearly when traveling through a spherical medium i.e. the atmosphere because of nitrogen/oxygen dipole transmittance. A jones vector matrix reduction can quickly show this

Tell me what happens when you rotate the sunglasses perpendicular to each other.

Come back here with your results..
Remedial_Rebel

User ID: 77275768
United States
03/14/2019 11:23 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542



Here's something that maybe, just maybe you'll understand....


Since you like FE university of youtube, Explain the movement of the water hose........

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]



Any objective person will conclude the flow of water is causing opposite reaction force that makes the hose move. Mass flow rate is force. This is high school physics.

Last Edited by Remedial_Rebel on 03/14/2019 11:28 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73852158
United States
03/14/2019 11:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
There is no scientific proof of a spinning water ball Earth in a vacuum. There is no observable Earth curvature. No curvature then not a ball, not a ball then you cannot call the Earth a sphere.
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/14/2019 11:52 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
There is no scientific proof of a spinning water ball Earth in a vacuum. There is no observable Earth curvature. No curvature then not a ball, not a ball then you cannot call the Earth a sphere.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73852158


Wrong.

astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 75473435
United States
03/14/2019 12:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Astromut:

"All your flat earth threads are be berong to me!"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74770227
United States
03/14/2019 12:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
There is no scientific proof of a spinning water ball Earth in a vacuum. There is no observable Earth curvature. No curvature then not a ball, not a ball then you cannot call the Earth a sphere.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73852158


Tard
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77443056
Canada
03/14/2019 12:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
The equation states that mass flow in an area is a force. Exit velocity no longer matters. Just mass flow and pipe diameter.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456453

Wrong. Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance. Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitute something else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction mass matters. Thank you for continuing to prove how stupid you are.
In order for the weight to leave my hand, the weight has to move (velocity).
 Quoting: Idiot

Nope. You let go, the instantaneous velocity is 0, you only released it, you didn't throw it. Velocity starts increasing AFTER your hand has released it.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542

Wrong. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
I’m holding the weight between two finger. The weight is contacting my fingers and the hand space between the two fingers. I move one finger, the wieght moves away from the hand space between the two fingers and falls sliding down the finger I didn’t move. How did the wieght move away from my finger if the velocity was 0? Where’s the opposite force?
 Quoting: fuckingretard

So apparently you failed basic physics and never understood basic force diagrams even for simple cases, like rolling something off a ramp.
[link to www.physics.usyd.edu.au]
Got it. That doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong and physics works just fine. But for the previous example if you simply let a weight go it will have no velocity at the moment you release it. Now you're trying to change the example since I proved you wrong.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut



So you are just going to ignore the part where velocity was substituted out of the equation?

And then you are saying I failed at physics without refuting anything with reason
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77443056
Canada
03/14/2019 12:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542



Here's something that maybe, just maybe you'll understand....


Since you like FE university of youtube, Explain the movement of the water hose........

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]



Any objective person will conclude the flow of water is causing opposite reaction force that makes the hose move. Mass flow rate is force. This is high school physics.
 Quoting: Remedial_Rebel


Can you rule out with evidence that it is not pushing off air?
Remedial_Rebel

User ID: 77275768
United States
03/14/2019 12:34 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
There is no scientific proof of a spinning water ball Earth in a vacuum. There is no observable Earth curvature. No curvature then not a ball, not a ball then you cannot call the Earth a sphere.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73852158


Total BullSh!t

I have been off the coast of Atlantic City more times than I can remember and watched the Casinos (200ft high)sink into ocean going out and rise out coming back.

To say this is optical parallax is a total fallacy. Any optical engineer who designs telescopes, binoculars, cameras, knows optical parallax can not possible cause an optical eclipse. This is true for sunsets and sunrises as well. An optical eclipse requires a physical obstruction. No matter what the distance, the most you will ever see from optical parallax, is objects (sun and horizon) will become tangent and nothing more.

Last Edited by Remedial_Rebel on 03/14/2019 12:37 PM
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/14/2019 12:40 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
...

Wrong. Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance. Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitute something else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction mass matters. Thank you for continuing to prove how stupid you are.
...

Nope. You let go, the instantaneous velocity is 0, you only released it, you didn't throw it. Velocity starts increasing AFTER your hand has released it.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542

Wrong. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
I’m holding the weight between two finger. The weight is contacting my fingers and the hand space between the two fingers. I move one finger, the wieght moves away from the hand space between the two fingers and falls sliding down the finger I didn’t move. How did the wieght move away from my finger if the velocity was 0? Where’s the opposite force?
 Quoting: fuckingretard

So apparently you failed basic physics and never understood basic force diagrams even for simple cases, like rolling something off a ramp.
[link to www.physics.usyd.edu.au]
Got it. That doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong and physics works just fine. But for the previous example if you simply let a weight go it will have no velocity at the moment you release it. Now you're trying to change the example since I proved you wrong.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut



So you are just going to ignore the part where velocity was substituted out of the equation?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitute something else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction mass matters. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77443056
Canada
03/14/2019 12:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
...


Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542

Wrong. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
I’m holding the weight between two finger. The weight is contacting my fingers and the hand space between the two fingers. I move one finger, the wieght moves away from the hand space between the two fingers and falls sliding down the finger I didn’t move. How did the wieght move away from my finger if the velocity was 0? Where’s the opposite force?
 Quoting: fuckingretard

So apparently you failed basic physics and never understood basic force diagrams even for simple cases, like rolling something off a ramp.
[link to www.physics.usyd.edu.au]
Got it. That doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong and physics works just fine. But for the previous example if you simply let a weight go it will have no velocity at the moment you release it. Now you're trying to change the example since I proved you wrong.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut



So you are just going to ignore the part where velocity was substituted out of the equation?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitute something else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction mass matters. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


I didn’t try, I did. Using a valid equation. The end result is that it doesn’t work because one equation is wrong. That equation is the nasa equation
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77456542
Canada
03/14/2019 12:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
...


Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542

Wrong. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
I’m holding the weight between two finger. The weight is contacting my fingers and the hand space between the two fingers. I move one finger, the wieght moves away from the hand space between the two fingers and falls sliding down the finger I didn’t move. How did the wieght move away from my finger if the velocity was 0? Where’s the opposite force?
 Quoting: fuckingretard

So apparently you failed basic physics and never understood basic force diagrams even for simple cases, like rolling something off a ramp.
[link to www.physics.usyd.edu.au]
Got it. That doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong and physics works just fine. But for the previous example if you simply let a weight go it will have no velocity at the moment you release it. Now you're trying to change the example since I proved you wrong.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut



So you are just going to ignore the part where velocity was substituted out of the equation?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitute something else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction mass matters. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Velocity due to flow rate is described in the video.
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/14/2019 01:09 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
...

Wrong. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]
...

So apparently you failed basic physics and never understood basic force diagrams even for simple cases, like rolling something off a ramp.
[link to www.physics.usyd.edu.au]
Got it. That doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong and physics works just fine. But for the previous example if you simply let a weight go it will have no velocity at the moment you release it. Now you're trying to change the example since I proved you wrong.



So you are just going to ignore the part where velocity was substituted out of the equation?


Exit velocity is in the original equation, just because you try to substitut
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut
ing else equal to it does not render the original equation invalid. The velocity of the reaction ma
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056
rs. You can't have "mass flow rate" without velocity.
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov (secure)]


I didn’t try, I did. Using a valid equation. The end result is that it doesn’t work because one equation is wrong. That equation is the nasa equation


Nope. Th
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut
on works just fine, substituting in a more complex formula for the velocity of the fluid does not change the fact that the result still varies with the velocity of the
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056
Adjusting exit velocity still reduces the force, you're just trying to obfuscate it by substituting a formula for the velocity of a fluid in a pipe for the exit velocity.
Exit velocity equals Me * sqrt (gamma * R * Te)
where Te = exit temperature
R = gas constant
gamma = specific heat ratio
Me = mach number
If I substitute the above equation into the original formula it doesn't change the fact that exit velocity still matters, I've just substituted in a formula that equals the same thing.
astrobanner2
syncro

User ID: 75835116
United States
03/14/2019 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
I took sugar, and milk, and cocoa powder, and made hot chocolate. Now it's hot chocolate. Where is the sugar? Someone is lying. Prove it's not true. You can't address this.
LHP598

User ID: 77436004
03/14/2019 01:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
There is no scientific proof of a spinning water ball Earth in a vacuum. There is no observable Earth curvature. No curvature then not a ball, not a ball then you cannot call the Earth a sphere.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73852158


You mean none you'd accept.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72810610
United States
03/14/2019 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Grab two pairs of polarizing sunglasses
Line them up and look directly above you into the sky when the sun is at 10 o clock relative to your position

Rayleigh scattering predicts light will be polarized linearly when traveling through a spherical medium i.e. the atmosphere because of nitrogen/oxygen dipole transmittance. A jones vector matrix reduction can quickly show this

Tell me what happens when you rotate the sunglasses perpendicular to each other.

Come back here with your results..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


I restate this because no one has addressed it and it at least proves atmosphere is spherical
Fluffy Pancakes

User ID: 77376617
United States
03/14/2019 03:12 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Grab two pairs of polarizing sunglasses
Line them up and look directly above you into the sky when the sun is at 10 o clock relative to your position

Rayleigh scattering predicts light will be polarized linearly when traveling through a spherical medium i.e. the atmosphere because of nitrogen/oxygen dipole transmittance. A jones vector matrix reduction can quickly show this

Tell me what happens when you rotate the sunglasses perpendicular to each other.

Come back here with your results..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


I restate this because no one has addressed it and it at least proves atmosphere is spherical
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


That would be the same for either FE with a dome or Global model with an atmosphere wrapped around the ball, so I'm not sure why you want people to do this in this thread?

Astro, the reason I put you on ignore is that you often post tons of videos, and aren't very gracious about conversation. And since I have very limited bandwidth, I am not interested in watching tons of videos, and I also don't like getting into protracted hostile altercations.

My observations are MY observations. And I don't care to proselytize anyone. It just seems that people don't even want to let other people discuss things that they see that are not inline with what we are taught. There is no logical reason why discussion should be such an affront to anyone.

The shape of the Earth shouldn't be such a difficult thing to prove. If it's a ball, there are plenty of things in space that should be able to show a clear video of it spinning without the use of CGI. It should be relatively simple according to all the things we are told are certain about space.

In my daily life, the shape is irrelevant.
Things are bad enough, there is no need to make anything up.

"Never interrupt an enemy in the process of destroying himself."...Q
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77275768
United States
03/14/2019 03:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Yes it does because it shows that the NASA thrust equation is simply stating mass flow rate is force. This is wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77456542



Here's something that maybe, just maybe you'll understand....


Since you like FE university of youtube, Explain the movement of the water hose........

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]



Any objective person will conclude the flow of water is causing opposite reaction force that makes the hose move. Mass flow rate is force. This is high school physics.
 Quoting: Remedial_Rebel


Can you rule out with evidence that it is not pushing off air?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77443056


Utter complete Bullsh!t.

1 gallon of air(at sea level) is about 0.09 lbs.

1 gallon of water is about 9.0 lbs.

The molecular density/mass of water is 100 times that of air. Pushing against air is insignificant and immaterial.

If rocket thrust was from pushing off air, the forward air résistance would cancel that out.

Get a high school physics book and READ IT!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73852158
United States
03/14/2019 03:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
A guy that was going to prove rockets work in a vacuum failed 3 times, he then put the rocket in a tube of air, put the tube in the vacuum chamber, rocket fired, he then said see it works, ha

There are plenty of experiments that show combustion does not work in a vacuum, even with things that have their own oxidizer.

The idea of rockets working by pushing off the combustion chamber walls is complete nonsense, the force would be pushing against all surfaces, sides front back top bottom except exit hole, thus negating any directional force.

A spinning water ball Earth in a vacuum is beyond the pale of nonsense.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73852158
United States
03/14/2019 04:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
State survey is done flat plane
telescopes are aimed flat plane
weather is forecast as flat plane
hurricanes are modeled as flat plane
tornado's are tracked as flat plane
construction is done as flat plane
ball people give it up, Earth it's flat
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

03/14/2019 04:08 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Globe Earth debunked
Grab two pairs of polarizing sunglasses
Line them up and look directly above you into the sky when the sun is at 10 o clock relative to your position

Rayleigh scattering predicts light will be polarized linearly when traveling through a spherical medium i.e. the atmosphere because of nitrogen/oxygen dipole transmittance. A jones vector matrix reduction can quickly show this

Tell me what happens when you rotate the sunglasses perpendicular to each other.

Come back here with your results..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


I restate this because no one has addressed it and it at least proves atmosphere is spherical
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72810610


That would be the same for either FE with a dome or Global model with an atmosphere wrapped around the ball, so I'm not sure why you want people to do this in this thread?

Astro, the reason I put you on ignore is that you often post tons of videos, and aren't very gracious about conversation.
 Quoting: Fluffy Pancakes

Based on how you are addressing that AC, it seems you think that is me posting while not logged in. You had better read this post so that I may disabuse you of that mistaken notion. I do not use sock puppets and I do not make AC posts to try to get around your decision to put me on ignore. This is the one and only statement I will make about this, do not continue to talk to others as if they are me. They are not me and if you want to talk to me you know how to do so. As I said before, my participation in this thread and every other thread that isn't mine is rapidly drawing to a close. I will not allow you to go on pretending that I'm secretly still in these threads posting using sock puppets and if you persist in that behavior then there will be infractions coming your way. I frankly do not care if you fail to read this post because of your childish decision to ignore a moderator, the consequences you will reap will be your own for your short-sighted decision to ignore a mod.
My observations are MY observations. And I don't care to proselytize anyone. It just seems that people don't even want to let other people discuss things that they see that are not inline with what we are taught.
 Quoting: Pancakes

If I didn't want people to discuss things I would have simply removed the whole thread. It's posted by a banned user anyway, but I'm far more patient than you give me credit for and I am always slow to lay down bans and delete threads except in extreme violations. That said, I do tire of people who refuse to accept concrete answers backed up by proof and continue to repeat the same questions ad nauseum. It illustrates a lack of open mindedness and wastes everyone's time.
The shape of the Earth shouldn't be such a difficult thing to prove. If it's a ball, there are plenty of things in space that should be able to show a clear video of it spinning without the use of CGI.
 Quoting: Pancakes

It isn't difficult to prove and many such videos do exist, in fact there are new images of it taken every day by a variety of satellites, but you've already admitted you block my posts and refuse to watch such videos. So you can stop pretending that it hasn't been answered, the fact is you're just stubborn and refuse to accept any answer.

Last Edited by Dr. Deplorable Astromut on 03/14/2019 04:09 PM
astrobanner2