Messages from @MR VLAK (Discord ID: 246661342516215808)
771 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/4 | Next
@Deejay from Earth as n vlieg in jou kar teen die windscreen sit en jy ry 120kmph, hoe vinnig vlieg hy?
Dan waai hy weg. Maar as die vlieg in die kar is en hy sit still dan vlieg hy mos nie?
dalk moet ek dit beter vra.. As die kar met die vlieg verby jou kom dan is hy die spoed van die kar,ne? Maar as jy in die kar sit en na hom kyk dan sit hy stil, ne?
wag ek moet eers jou lughawe storie gaan lees. gee my n oomblik
Okay okay so @Deejay from Earth jy se dat die aarde nie rotate nie want n vleigtuig kan nie in n mach 1.3 head wind op stuig nie. Se my gou.. daai vleig in jou kar wat teen 120kmph ry, kan die vlieg op stuig (ja die vensters is toe)
@Deejay from Earth okay jammer as ek miss verstaan het. Maar die voorbeeld van die vlieg bly. Voel die vlieg met sy sintuie dat hy 120kmph beweeg in n toe kar? Nou dink die vlieg was daar van n maggot op n vrot mango in die rear en hy het nog nooit iets anders beleef nie (soos jy op die aarde) hoe sal hy dit experiance?
maybe the new flag is hate speech as well? <:hmm:468405359523135488>
Wel sien ek het gehoop jy beantwoord my scenario eers. Dit sou dit makliker gemaak het om na dit jou te verduidelik wat ek glo, daarin le die beginsel van wat ek glo. Maar jy moet dalk nie aanneem wat ek glo nie 😜
@Deejay from Earth Well hoe meet jy dit as jy niks het om teen te meet nie. Soos die kar met die vlieg... die vlieg kan nie meet hoe vinnig hy gaan in die kar as hy nie uit kyk nie en n refrence kry buite die kar nie. Maar as die vlieg net sy spoed meet teen die binnekant van die kar dan staan hy stil.
Okay great. jy is in n kar en jy weet jy beweeg want jy kan uit kyk en voel die kar beweeg. As jy in die kar gebore is en teen n konstante spoed beweeg en jy kan nie uit kyk nie. Sal jy glo jy staan still of beweeg? Jy kan aanvaar dat daar n moontlikheid is dat jy wel beweeg al is daar niks fiesiese tekens dat jy wel doen nie?
Ek se nie jy beweeg nie, maar daar is n moontlikheid ne?
Kom ons stel dit so, as jy die konsep wat ek jou gegee het kan verstaan sal jy verstaan dat niemand die rotasie sal voel nie. Die ding van n object in motion is nie van toepassing in die scenario van hoe jy die rotasie voel nie.
My plan was nooit om in wetenskap in te gaan nie. Ek wou net he jy moet n konsep verstaan en hoe dit van toepassing kan wees aangesien jy sintuie gesels het. As jy nie n moontlikheid kan visualise en question van albie kante af nie sal mens nooit met jou debate oor die onderwerp nie.
as jy teen mach 1.3 in n kar ry teen n konstante spoed in n vacuum sal jy fine wees en dit nie regtig voel nie,ne? Maar wat sal gebeur as jy van daai spoed stop?
hoekoem is dit dan nie onderste bo of in n ander orientasie as daar nie gravitasie is nie?
Ek verstaan die concept mar die feit dat iets wat swaarder is onder is.. w=mg?
Ek dog dalk sal jy my convince om n flat earther te word
@Deejay from Earth okay dit lyk goed en alles. maar hoe weet ons die correction van die fish eye was nie over corrected nie en wel volgens die lens specifications gedoen?
hoe kan jy die twee vergelyk? Hoe kan jy se albei cameras is 90deg na die opervlak?
Ek kan sien die aarde draai elke oggend wat ek sien hoe op kom die son oor die see op, elke aand wat ek die sterre sien still staan relatief tot die aarde wat beweeg. Elke dag wat die son se angle verander soos die tilted angel teenoor die son verander. Elke dag wat ek sien hoe hoe die weer systeme weerk die direction van weer stelsels in die suidlike vs noordlike halfrond.
Ek stem met daat lasste pic van jou.. maar soos ek se niemand hoe die camera op 90degrees nie... die punt van die photos is om die aarde af te neem nie reg nie?
nee ek kan nie. Ek het nie die gereekskap nie. Kan jy enige van joune?
most of those proofs only work in the absence of gravity
okay ek will meer verstaan oor die density theory.
As alles volgens density/boucancy organise. Hoekom is die see so diep op plekke? Is die dieper water meer dense?
Ek verstaan die beginsel. ek se theory dat dit gravity disprove
ok dankie. ek probeer jou kant verstaan. nie stry nie
is die see 2km diep meer dense of dieselfde volgens wat jy verstaan?
Ek moet maar een laaste idea hier los om oor te dink vir ons. As ek werk op die density konsep wat se alles word arrange volgens density wat waarheid het, dan se ons dat die see irrelavent van diepte dieselfde density is (1027 kg/m3) wat waar is tot n mate. Hoekom increase die pressure dan as mens dieper gaan (met een atmosphere per approx elke 10m)? die density bly altyd dieselfde doen dit nie en as dit nie doen nie dan sou sekere voorwerpe net tot n seker diepte (density) kon sink en nie verder gaan nie in die selfde tiepe fluid. Maar alles wat meer dense is as water sink tot heel onder.
Hoe kan mens dit verduidelik? Gravity... density en gravity moet saam verstaan word. As n helium ballon vry gelaat word dan gaan hy op want hy #1 is less dense as die lug #2 die krag wat hom op trek na n less dense plek is meer as gravity.
As iets in water val is dit dieseldfe konsep. Iets sink nie tot n sekere diepte nie, dit gaan al die pad af want #1 dit is meer dense as water plus #2 gravity trek dit af.
Pressure verander nie in n fluid nie oor die density van die fluid change nie (dan sou dit dalk in n ander state of matter wees, dink aan pressurised gasses wat liquids word, or liquids na solids) maar oor gravity. Hydrostatic pressure at any height below the water surface is calculated by P=hdg where h is the height below the open water surface, d is the density of water and g is the acceleration due to gravity
dit is soos om water uit n klip te tap.
jy seker jy is nie in die EFF debate span nie?
@Deejay from Earth dit was lankal persoonlik van jou kant af. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/469490581899575297/476490804890959913/DQUZmZeUIAAqSh2.jpg
@Deejay from Earth jou persoonlike opinie en photos van die internet af maak ook geen verskil aan bewysbare feite nie
Ek het nie data om nou te kyk nie. Maar in beginsel stem ek saam
@Deejay from Earth ek kort meer info oor daai goed. Daai link se net dit is 'n lieg storie
Die savage article help nie dit verduidelik nie
@Deejay from Earth die article is ja. Maar hy verduidelik nie vir my die counter teen die nie "The pendulous vanes do not care what causes the misalignment which may be due to precession, harsh manouvers, extended periods of turning or the movement across the curvature of the Earth"
Okay sal maar dit moet kyk dan vanaand
OK ek praat strooi. Maar is daar 'n beter source?
@Sheamus Well... atleast you cant become a addict i guess. lol
@Deejay from Earth from what i understand there is a point after smoking that you need more to get you over the wall and feel the sense of leaving your body behind? From what I understand of it, its called a break through i think
Do you feel it changed you or your perception of the world? I have only experienced Acid which I feel it as close to something similar I can get here
@Sheamus leaving your ego. Thats a break through?
@Deejay from Earth I am glad you could experience that. Hopefully one day I can do the same.
@Deejay from Earth more info please?
I will be back, I need to research this stuff some more!
I can follow that logic. But a cloud is the same thing as fog on the road and a cars headlights shining on/in it cant penetrate through it very far as it is water vapor and water droplets scatter light in random directions due to their shape and voids between particles which is the reason it interacts differently than light through pure water. So I dont agree fully.
When you ask Hilter if the earth is flat
Yeah those comments are funny. Its like moths to a flame, they cant help themselves.
I do not understand why a expedition will be documented by a governing body of sport? http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/history/transglobe.html
book a cruise or flight and go check it out https://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/ships
How far does the FE model say it would be?
from what i find (http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2015/05/aerial-circumnavigation-of-antarctica.html) 60000 miles
okay but there are actually races doing this with records like i had shown, there are more than one such race. some form Oz, some from Europe.
a sail boat averges 6-8miles per hour, that speaks to the 16k miles form Albany around Antarctica and back taking 102 days. If would take a sail boat 300 plus days if the size is more than 60k miles
3-4 years is still 3-4x how long it will take in todays yachts so it doesn't really add any merit
69k miles @ 6mph = 11500hours, divided by 24hr a day = 479 days/ 365days =1.3 years
Yeah I am also glad the rotation of the earth and its axis as we move through the universe together with our solar system and adjacent systems is constant
the dopper effect. Light is waves, sound is waves.. easy to grasp
It explains how wave frequency changes depending on if a object moving to or away your viewing point.
that extract of your is meaningless and assumes that everything contained in the earth atmosphere is not a closed system. Remember the fly in the car example?
Doppler effect proves that the stars and we are moving through the universe.
If FLat Earthers believe in the doppler effect, then they should believe that the starts are moving based on the same logic
That's what's interesting about your logic. You start from a proven base and when it doesn't match your agenda you turn to another direction. I have shown it in our discussion multiple times.
I have come to the conclusion you are in to deep and by accepting even the slightest possibility of anything else would be in too much of a conflict of your beliefs.
If that is so why do you not accept that you can be right and wrong?
Why would we be conditioned to believe a round earth?
Gravity... Once you understand this, then everything else you understand will be questioned
its not the person I am showing you. I am showign you objects falling in a vacuum. Saying you dislike the person and therefor do not entertain it proves Shaemus' point
there no person I dont even know that you hate
Open your mind. I will sent you some DMT to restart the system
Two objects of different densities falling at the same acceleration.. gravity..
why at the same acceleration if the densities are different? you said objects sort themselves by density
a vacuum increases the effect of your density theory
I tried, but I cannot get over the fact that most of those only work in a world without gravity which I unfortunately cannot accept does not exist.
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research
gravity does not rely on magnetism...
i want to get to the magnetic gravity story...
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge
Its been tested, I have given you three videos with the same results (repeated).
anyhow I wan to come back to the FE understanding that gravity is magnetic
you can go do the research about whom verified it or go to any high school in the world where they will show you experiments that do the same
lets get back to your magnetic gravity story... please
I ignore them like you ignore your misunderstanding of gravity
not some extract from a theorist blog
They assume that the experiments have been correctly interpreted, and never go and look them up for themselves. The experiments say nothing about a flat Earth, and the original experimenters would be shocked to think that their work was being used in that way.
share the actual experiments and conclusions for us both to read
okay your job is to find out what gravity is then, we will come back later and chat
we both have jobs to do, lets go do them
True. @Deejay from Earth you got anything for me against Einsteins Theories that proves luminiferous aether exists? I am still reading, but missing this
Yeah okay but those other experiments you referenced doesn't prove luminiferous aether exists either
They are only relevant is luminiferous aether is proven to exist
that is not important, I need a model that proves it does exist please
I would believe the test if they took a measure ment at diffrent intervals. you cannot say that the laser was setup level and they hit the board on the other side first try, so any change after level setup will make the results false
plane - (of a bird or an airborne object) soar without moving the wings; glide.
he plays with the laser, hear what he says at 17min
Bring a boat and measure at intervals like the experiment I shared
you want me to say sea level right?
Height above mean sea level. Height above mean sea level (AMSL) is the elevation (on the ground) or altitude (in the air) of an object, relative to the average sea level datum.
mean is another word for average...
words have multiple meanings, you spoke about a airPLANE... i gave you the reference
yeah cause you spoke about a AIRplane
So I checked out your experiments...
I cannot come to a conclusion as there is no proof that aether exists and as such the fact that those experiments do not have a concise conclusion does not tell me the earth is not moving. If anything it could possibly be used to prove that Luminiferous aether does not exist or is not required for light to move through out the universe. All these possibilities could be right or wrong including the possibility that the earth is not moving. So sorry it did not help me 😔
what is your views on Gravity? anything new?
@Deejay from Earth but you understand that gravity has nothing to do with magnetism now?
Okay this is gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
its different from magnetism as that works on the different states of molecules (+/-)
here is a experiment you can do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_qreV5A4gA
No worries. a ruler is hung from a ladder at its centre with two identical masses on either side to balance it. Two larger objects (masses) are placed evenly spaced from the masses on the ruler on opposite sides till it is not moving. Once a equilibrium is found one can move one of the large masses away and document the movement of the ruler. What is happening is that mass on the ruler is still closest to the large mass that did not move gets pulled towards it. The counter acting gravitational force on the opposite end was moved and weakened it such that the equilibrium is broken, this makes the ruler move.
dude.. the closer the object is to a mass the more the force. It is exponetial
no. it does not explain or attempt to explain rotation of planets only orbiting of planets
I hope we can get past the definitions of theories and laws in science. I am looking into your last comment, give me a moment I cant remember all the laws etc
Its not a floppy tape, its a wood ruler. The only thing that is moved is the large mass at one point that never touched the ruler
So "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium), or is undergoing a reversible process."
how does this relate to the solar system in your opinion?
you noted the lack of drag when objects fell in a vacuum right?
i could not share all the sources as Discord has a text limit
i will check on google earth for 3-6km line of sight
because they can do it with a lader, ruler and a few masses
Telescope and Gyroscope i cannot answer
its the cavendish experiment... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society
Cavendish, H. 'Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, (part II) 88 p.469-526 (21 June 1798), reprinted in Cavendish 1798
what peer review happened in 17th century lets be honest
I don't think scientists spend much time on items they learn in school and can repeat anytime they have a ladder, some string, ruler and weights. But I am speculating here
no my model is based on the fact that masses are pulled to each other, this explains gravity and why solar objects orbit. Then gravity explains how water can be around a sphere
proving the earth moves is irrelevant to me in proving the earth is a sphere
If I can make a ball with a mass large enough i would show you. I need to break the earth gravitational force first to show you
Gravity does not require the earth to rotate... the experiment is no-rotating objects... get that, thanks
Nah dude I am done. For a man that started his conversations last night by saying you know the earth is flat and not moving based on your senses sure made me wonder about those senses when you said your use of drugs changed your way of thinking. Sure trust those senses hey... I proved my point a multitude of times already. Anyone that indulges you just needs to come read the last two days to save them a waste of time and effort. A man is but the product of his thoughts; what he thinks, he becomes. - Ghandi (I am sure you will like that one)
says the man linking scientists showing results are null to prove the earth is not moving based on a unproven hypothesis that Luminiferous aether exists even though they never stated that themselves
to estimate the speed one considers the movement of the stars compared earth
i also showed you your scientific fact being a made up fallacy by FEs as the very scientists that did the research never came to the conclusion you preach
It takes 1 day to complete one rotation, total angular displacement is 2Π rad.
Time interval Δt = 1 day
Angular displacement of the Earth ΔΘ = 2Π rad
average angular speed is the average rate of change of the angular displacement
Average angular speed Wav of Earth is 2Π rad / day
Lets convert days to seconds
1 day = 24 hours = 24 x 3600 = 86400 seconds
Earth angular speed
Earth angular speed is 7.27x10-5 rad /s
if you cannot convert or understand it then I do not believe you should be reading any scientific literature. I guess therein lies your problem, you understand only what is explained to you by FE theorists
you cherry pick science that aligns to your FE theories in the face of observations to the contrary that speaks 100% the globe model.
Which one of your earth stand still scientist have a proven theory?
lol I just find it enlightening to speak to beings like you
Leaving this for @Deejay from Earth for tommorow to learn the concept of level to a plane https://www.metabunk.org/curvature-and-refraction-in-surveying-and-leveling-through-history-old-books-etc.t8856/
771 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/4 | Next