Gravity Debunked - Topic

what balls? what is supposed to be happening here? what are you refuting? you think this random Microsoft paint image is a credible source for anything at all?

card_sultan

Member

Posts: 63,097

Joined: Jan 11 2005

Gold: 9,765.00

Warn: 60%

#134

Jun 25 2016 11:04pm

Quote (majorblood @ Jun 25 2016 11:51pm)

what balls? what is supposed to be happening here? what are you refuting? you think this random Microsoft paint image is a credible source for anything at all?

What are these words? You think that grouping letters together is a credible source for anything?

MaliceMizer

Member

Posts: 13,231

Joined: Feb 1 2010

Gold: 4.77

#135

Jun 25 2016 11:09pm

Quote (majorblood @ 25 Jun 2016 23:51)

what balls? what is supposed to be happening here? what are you refuting? you think this random Microsoft paint image is a credible source for anything at all?

It's perfectly clear to someone who knows what a diagram is and how to read.

You're still back here trying to argue for an iron core, mono directional, parallel lines, and negatively charged particles cancelling out positively, remember?
Let's get over this speed bump in your road to learning first.

Or do you need an authority controlled experiment of auroras?

This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jun 25 2016 11:18pm

majorblood

Member

Posts: 53,598

Joined: Jun 5 2006

Gold: 5,388.33

#136

Jun 25 2016 11:18pm

Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 25 2016 09:04pm)

What are these words? You think that grouping letters together is a credible source for anything?

i'm not attempting to source something in that post, a refutation of gravity definitely needs an incredible amount of credibility

Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 25 2016 09:09pm)

It's perfectly clear to someone who knows what a diagram is and how to read.

You're still back here trying to argue for an iron core, parallel lines, and negatively charged particles cancelling out positively, remember?
Let's get over this speed bump in your road to learning first.

Or do you need an authority controlled experiment of auroras?

http://i.imgur.com/1xwXIxh.png

can you answer my questions?

Quote

what balls? what is supposed to be happening here? what are you refuting? you think this random Microsoft paint image is a credible source for anything at all?

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 25 2016 11:19pm

MaliceMizer

Member

Posts: 13,231

Joined: Feb 1 2010

Gold: 4.77

#137

Jun 25 2016 11:26pm

Quote (majorblood @ 26 Jun 2016 00:18)

i'm not attempting to source something in that post, a refutation of gravity definitely needs an incredible amount of credibility

can you answer my questions?

Source to original article of experiment:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.phy.mtu.edu/alumni/history/DMGPlumbLines.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjKhuLU-MTNAhVB22MKHYJEAkcQFgghMAI&usg=AFQjCNG5Dxm2eR1ueq_a0o3_aVNEHMok5g&sig2=1MrwtrvW923yrYepaeQ2rw

Tamarak mines experiment has been done and done again to show once you achieve a certain depth with a plumbing line, they dielectric weights at the end of the line begin to converge, instead of diverge, like mass relativity necessitates.
Deebunkt

majorblood

Member

Posts: 53,598

Joined: Jun 5 2006

Gold: 5,388.33

#138

Jun 25 2016 11:34pm

Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 25 2016 09:26pm)

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm here is a write up on it after an equal google search

from the article

Quote

Professor Fred W. McNair (1862-1924), physicist and president of the Michigan College of Mines

McNair pays special attention to up/down air flow in the shafts. He did experiments comparing the results with reduced air flow and with the plumb lines located differently with respect to air flow from convection currents. He found consistent results to confirm that hypothesis, and even to show the differences between January and September, the currents being stronger in January.

Far from being "baffled", McNair concludes

It seems therefore that a very simple cause was at the bottom of the divergence. The remarkable fact is that the currents of air should be so constant in their action. When, however, the great depth of the shafts is considered, also the constancy for considerable periods of time of the temperatures which may influence these currents, it seems reasonable that this steadiness should exist.

the article goes into detail about the divergence and everything related to this experiment if you are interested.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 25 2016 11:56pm

Flameyes

Member

Posts: 47,627

Joined: May 29 2012

Gold: 5,475.04

#139

Jun 25 2016 11:35pm

you can post as many massive pictures with no meaning behind them as you want, it's not gonna do much for your retarded arguments

FaceDeath

Member

Posts: 7,855

Joined: Apr 25 2016

Gold: 222.46

#140

Jun 26 2016 12:01am

Quote (Hubris @ Jun 25 2016 04:46pm)

because gc automatically equates to stupid right?
it's just people who don't have any care and post whatever they want.

I never said it equates to stupid I meant it was filled with people with less science knowledge than science
Which is obv

Go Back To General Archive Topic List