Is the World Flat? The Flatlander's theory..

Status
Not open for further replies.
714steadyeddie

714steadyeddie

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
Awesome. Thanks for proving my point for me: if something is 7 times as big and has 7 times the thrust, that would make it proportional to the smaller plane. 7 times 1/7 equals 1. So it's a one to one ratio. What uni gave you that bachelor's again? I'm bringing a class action suit against them. I've read Newton's stuff on gravity, Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned his theory, but please don't try to absorb that, who know what could happen. Plus, gravity doesn't exist, so those fools were wasting their lives, right? School's back in, go take a potty break...
Click to expand...
Have you read Nikola Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity ?
 
Mellowman2112

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
Awesome. Thanks for proving my point for me: if something is 7 times as big and has 7 times the thrust, that would make it proportional to the smaller plane. 7 times 1/7 equals 1. So it's a one to one ratio. What uni gave you that bachelor's again? I'm bringing a class action suit against them. I've read Newton's stuff on gravity, Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned his theory, but please don't try to absorb that, who know what could happen. Plus, gravity doesn't exist, so those fools were wasting their lives, right? School's back in, go take a potty break...
Click to expand...
Yes but you said gravity affects larger object MORE than smaller objects. That is the reason smoke doesn't get sucked down to the ground by gravity. That it affected larger objects quantitatively more than smaller objects. Otherwise we would be turned to jello by a gravity powerful enough to hold the oceans in as they bend around a 7500 mile curve of the earth. You can't have it both ways retard. I'm debunking gravity, that was our discussion yesterday where you claimed gravity acted differently on larger objects. If that were the case the 777 should have to have much more power than only 7 times the power of the object weighing only 1/7, as in the 737.
 
Mellowman2112

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
I opine with Tesla on Einsteins Theory of Gravity

''Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.''


tyler.durden said:
Awesome. Thanks for proving my point for me: if something is 7 times as big and has 7 times the thrust, that would make it proportional to the smaller plane. 7 times 1/7 equals 1. So it's a one to one ratio. What uni gave you that bachelor's again? I'm bringing a class action suit against them. I've read Newton's stuff on gravity, Einstein's general theory of relativity overturned his theory, but please don't try to absorb that, who know what could happen. Plus, gravity doesn't exist, so those fools were wasting their lives, right? School's back in session, go take a potty break...
Click to expand...

I opine with Tesla on Einsteins Theory of Gravity

''Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.''

-Tesla

The FBI thought highly enough of Tesla to rob his notes before his body was even cold.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Mellowman2112 said:
Yes but you said gravity affects larger object MORE than smaller objects.
Click to expand...
I'll try to glow slowly here - gravity DOES affect objects with more mass more than objects with less mass. How much more depends on the extra mass. Remember the my dumbbell analogy? The 10 pound weight has twice the mass of the 5 pound weight, so it takes TWICE the force to lift it. No one said gravity is acted exponentially, which is what you seem to assume here. Gravity acts proportionally...

That is the reason smoke doesn't get sucked down to the ground by gravity. That it affected larger objects quantitatively more than smaller objects.
Click to expand...
This is wrong, and why you should have listened to your teacher regarding basic facts instead of plugging your ears and making up your own. Gravity does act on smoke with a good amount of force, but the ash particles are so small that they tend to float on air for a long while before they fall to the ground. In a vacuum, smoke would fall much faster. I think I may be going to fast...

Otherwise we would be turned to jello by a gravity powerful enough to hold the oceans in as they bend around a 7500 mile curve of the earth. You can't have it both ways retard. I'm debunking gravity, that was our discussion yesterday where you claimed gravity acted differently on larger objects. If that were the case the 777 should have to have much more power than only 7 times the power of the object weighing only 1/7, as in the 737.
Click to expand...
The oceans weigh billions of tons, you weigh dozens of pounds. Gravity is acting proportionally, as it should. If you weighed billions of tons gravity would act proportionally greater on you. You are so amusingly stupid. I'm sending you an invoice for the lessons and my time...
 
Last edited:
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Mellowman2112 said:
I opine with Tesla on Einsteins Theory of Gravity

''Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.''





I opine with Tesla on Einsteins Theory of Gravity

''Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.''

-Tesla

The FBI thought highly enough of Tesla to rob his notes before his body was even cold.
Click to expand...
What did that fool Tesla know? He believed in gravity, the moron...
 
Mellowman2112

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
I'll try to glow slowly here - gravity DOES affect objects with more mass more than objects with less mass. How much more depends on the extra mass. Remember the my dumbbell analogy? The 10 pound weight has twice the mass of the 5 pound weight, so it takes TWICE the force to lift it. No one said gravity is acted exponentially, which is what you seem to assume here. Gravity acts proportionally...



This is wrong, and why you should have listened to your teacher regarding basic facts instead of plugging your ears and making up your own. Gravity does acts on smoke with a good amount of force, but the ash particles are so small that they tend to float on air for a long while before they fall to the ground. In a vacuum, smoke would fall much faster. I think I may be going to fast...



The oceans weigh billions of tons, you weigh dozens of pounds. Gravity is acting proportionally, as it should. If you weighed billions of tons gravity would act proportionally greater on you. You are so amusingly stupid. I'm sending you an invoice for the lessons and my time...
Click to expand...
So gravity is this discerning force that knows we are smaller than the oceans and larger than carbon particles. I call bullshit!!!
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
.
Mellowman2112 said:
~snip~ USA would never win on the ground ,, history has shown USA never won a ground war EVER ~snip~

I do not know what to think or really say to buck guy there from looking at Every post he has made its always Jews and Racism
all i can really say is Dude snap the fuck out of your  Repetitive ways
i mean  its sad when your on the losing side and only got Racism to use
Click to expand...
These folks might take issue with the bolded.


Slipup420 said:
But back to this topic i think there is allot not being told to us as in universe our space , and earth

i dare anyone of you to purchase a telescope set it up and leave it set up to the North star
No matter the day or night or month when ever you look into that telescope its there

why would or how can that happen when they show video's and the stars passing us like a cloud
YET any tme of the day or month the northern star is there
Click to expand...
False. Polaris is offset about 45 minutes of arc from the true celestial pole. Neither of my telescopes has a sufficiently wide field to hold Polaris in the field unless I use the hugely annoying and annoyingly huge 40mm Wide-Field I bought in '84.
 
Mellowman2112

Mellowman2112

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
.

These folks might take issue with the bolded.



False. Polaris is offset about 45 minutes of arc from the true celestial pole. Neither of my telescopes has a sufficiently wide field to hold Polaris in the field unless I use the hugely annoying and annoyingly huge 40mm Wide-Field I bought in '84.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'm sincerely curious, Is the true celestial pole different than magnetic north? Have you ever taken photographs of the stars from the telescope? You probably need some kind of special attachment to do so. I would love to see some if you have. Really no bs. I saw some footage from one guy and what I saw I could not believe. I need footage from an independent source such as yourself.
 
sunni

sunni

Administrator
Staff member
name calling, and graphic photos arent allowed people ya'll know this respect the rules or suffer what comes to your account fromit
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Mellowman2112 said:
Thanks, I'm sincerely curious, Is the true celestial pole different than magnetic north? Have you ever taken photographs of the stars from the telescope? You probably need some kind of special attachment to do so. I would love to see some if you have. Really no bs. I saw some footage from one guy and what I saw I could not believe. I need footage from an independent source such as yourself.
Click to expand...
1) Yes. Celestial north is the projection of geographic north. Magnetic north is something different. Magnetic north indexes on our planet's (iron, spherical) core. The core has "weather" and that is why magnetic poles can swap ends at unpredictable intervals. (Honest. The phenomenon opened up tectonic science in the 70s. Such cool, wow.)
2) Yes. (No attachment. Eyepiece projection into a suitable digicam.)
3) I do not have footage or stills ... that was 3 computers ago.

You might not like me as an independent source. I am, at this time, firmly in the spherical-planet camp. I could tell you a few ways to verify the sphericity of our home ... but seeing how many folks shrug that off as some sort of reptilo-Zionist conspiracy of logical perversions ... I despair. Good night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top