Quote (ChivasRegal @ Jul 23 2017 11:53pm)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, since you're the one claiming this is evidence that the earth is spinning – I require you show the entire pendulum including the fulcrum and if you can't, the magic trick is exposed as a fraud, a magic trick by covering up the true mechanics.
LMAO! A simple, frequently reproduced experiment is an "extraordinary claim." Sorry bub, but "it's a conspiracy" is the extraordinary claim. I'm not biting on "I require you... or..." That's just your construction of a convenient dodge. You said it's easy to prove a Foucault pendulum doesn't prove axial rotation, so prove it. I mean, not long ago, your pal tard_sultan was going all on about precession in a gyroscope, but suddenly, you want to ignore precession when it yields inconvenient truths?
Quote
You haven't shown any curvature – even balloons launched to 130,000 feet don't show it. Nasa photos are just composites and CGI-ed. Vsause said in his latest video that we cant see the entire earth till past 250,000 miles so that begs the question what are we shown because NASA admits the cant get a man past 400 miles up.
I haven't shown? Stop lying. Here's a NON-COMPOSITE photo by a Russian weather satellite:
NASA doesn't need a MAN that high, just a satellite. DERP.
Quote
When are you going to wake up to the deception? Optical perspective is not physics, in the way I use it, it is the difference between the way our eyes see between a 2d reality and our 3d depth perception.
Holy fucking special pleading, Batman! Physics works for everybody, not just some people. Optical perspective IS physics. It is explained by physics. You don't get to make up unspecified rules that only YOU "understand" to explain the world. You can't even specify how your version of perspective works in the real world so that an experiment can be conducted to prove its veracity.
Quote
Rail gun proof:
That proves that rail guns exist. Doesn't prove anything else though. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure of what you THINK it proves either. My point still stands. Rail gun projectiles are subject to gravity like everything else.
Quote
So the air inside your house is moving at 1000 mph too? I guess that's why everything in my house is stuck to the east walls.....
If the air is relative to the spin of earth we must be in a closed environment like inside a car, since NASA claims they went to the moon and send satellites all over the place clearly we are just in an open environment. The vacuum of space cannot make earth a closed environment because all vacuums prove more powerful than the force of gravity, and since our atmosphere is not sucked into the vacuum of space, obviously NASA is just making up stories that you have complete faith in.
Moving 1000 mph RELATIVE TO A FIXED POINT ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. Can you please try to keep up?
We are in a de facto closed environment, yes. Not a de jure closed environment, just a de facto one. Do you even know what de facto means?
All vacuums are NOT more powerful than gravity. Try using a suction (vacuum) pump to lift a column of water more than 33 feet. I'll wait. I mean, this is a very simple experiment you can even do at home. Get a 40 foot long transparent tube, put a plunger type device in the middle (like in a syringe), and see how high the water goes if you stick one end in a pool.
Quote
Actually your ad-hominem personal attacks are done to discredit. A better term of what I do by questioning the dogma of NASA is blasphemy and heresy of your sacred religious cult.
No and no. My personal attacks are to insult, not discredit. Don't pretend like you know what I'm thinking. You absolutely ad hom NASA. There's no way around this. You attack the source of the data rather than the data. Textbook ad hom.
Quote
You would do well to read too:
Quote
Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideological bases. Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community.
Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity have included alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, and alleged errors of the theory. According to some authors, antisemitic objections to Einstein's Jewish heritage also occasionally played a role in these objections. There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community.
So no, I don't see a debunking in this. As a matter of fact, if you were to read the article, the criticisms are shown to be themselves debunked. Thanks for playing.
Your second link hasn't disproven Einstein, though they are certainly working on trying.
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-einstein-physics.htmlHere's the author of that youtube:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._CrothersStephen J. Crothers (born 1957) is a handyman/gardener and part-time amateur scientist who claims that black holes do not exist, and are neither predicted by nor compatible with General Relativity. His body of work consists primarily of articles that he posts at either viXra or his own personal website,
thus steering clear of the peer review process. He has also been a frequent guest speaker at the annual EU conferences held by the Electric Universe crowd.
LOOOOOL
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.