Quote (ChivasRegal @ Jul 24 2017 03:21pm)
Foucault Pendulum is hiding the fulcrum and until I see it, it's an obvious mechanical trick, pull back the curtain unless you're afraid it will expose your blatant lies. The only thing inconvenient about gyroscopes is that they don't show the procession of Earth. Please show proof that they do or it's just another one of your blatant lies you never provide proof for and just assume. Also explain why accelerometer that are sensitive enough to detect a 7 day rotation on a timer, do not detect any axial rotation. Also you can set level on them according to the space they re in, not level to your assumed gravity, so when they are rotated at all they detect a change. Completely un-power that and take it on a airplane for 6000 miles, it should show you are now on a different plane in space, but it doesn't. Your precious ball fantasy is falling fast, and your Space Balls and Rocket worship is obviously pretty gay.
What makes you think they're hidden? Because people film the outcome of the experiment at the bottom, where you can see what's going on? No, I know what your problem is, you think that because the big noes at museums use magnets to keep the pendulum swinging, that there's something fishy going on that explains malfeasance on the part of everyone who has ever built one (even though you can build one at home). Gyroscopes regularly show precession, that's why they're used in navigation all over the globe by both aircraft and ships. I have personally piloted a ship by gyroscope, on at least a hundred occasions. I have also witnessed the ship's navigator plot great circle courses, which I had to follow, to get us to our destinations the most efficiently. Sorry bub, but you running with a non-stop argument from ignorance is not my job to surmount.
Quote
Obvious CGI is obvious, this graven image is queerer than a 3 dollar bill. I've seen pictures of Bigfoot that seem more realistic and Bigfoot is totally fake.
Prove it's CGI. Obvious digital photo of Earth is obvious.
Quote
Optical perspective is explained by physics? Holy blatant lie, Lieman! Why do you continue to make up complete crap and never provide any proof! Oh that's right – you just completely make it up!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpticsOptics is the branch of physics which involves the behaviour and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it.[1] Optics usually describes the behaviour of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves exhibit similar properties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics#Visual_effectsOptical illusions (also called visual illusions) are characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a percept that differs from the object being imaged. Optical illusions can be the result of a variety of phenomena including physical effects that create images that are different from the objects that make them, the physiological effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation (e.g. brightness, tilt, colour, movement), and cognitive illusions where the eye and brain make unconscious inferences.
Cognitive illusions include some which result from the unconscious misapplication of certain optical principles. For example, the Ames room, Hering, Müller-Lyer, Orbison, Ponzo, Sander, and Wundt illusions all
rely on the suggestion of the appearance of distance by using converging and diverging lines, in the same way that parallel light rays (or indeed any set of parallel lines) appear to converge at a vanishing point at infinity in two-dimensionally rendered images with artistic perspective. This suggestion is also responsible for the famous moon illusion where the moon, despite having essentially the same angular size, appears much larger near the horizon than it does at zenith. This illusion so confounded Ptolemy that he incorrectly attributed it to atmospheric refraction when he described it in his treatise, Optics.
It's almost like... people study this shit and document it. Yes, perspective is explained by physics.
Quote
Sorry but the curvature of Earth is not used in targeting, gravity is just a theory that's never been proven. Simple momentum explains why a projectile drops.
You're a naval gunner now? You know something the Navy doesn't? Because the Navy knows the Earth curves, and their gunnery knows how to compensate for it, and somehow, they manage to hit their targets!
Quote
Oh look at you, trying to sound so smart by using Latin legal jargon in a debate about the nature of reality when you obviously don't understand the terms. IN FACT, if relativity was a Law, and the Air was really spinning exactly with the Earth, Airplanes traveling north would need to account for the diminishing force of the air you claim is spinning to the east, but I supposed IN RIGHT you should be allowed to keep your delusions. The DE FACTO problem here is your DE JOUR misunderstandings of most things.
Yep, I was right. You had no idea what de facto meant and had to Google it. I know this simply because you are clinging to "legal jargon." It has a real-world application. In the case of the Earth being a closed environment, it means that while there isn't a solid barrier between the atmosphere and space,
the effect is all the same due to the properties of physics, gravity and vacuum. I don't have to strive to "sound" smart.
Quote
Nice fail – comparing a small vacuum pump to the infinite vacuum of space. Old man has experience with vacuum pumps – makes sense really.......
Lol, your ignorance is showing. The "size" of the pump is irrelevant. The ability to remove pressure (up to and including ZERO pressure) above the water to be lifted is what is relevant. When you remove pressure at the top of the suction tube, it is the atmospheric pressure on top of the water outside the tube pushing down that moves the water up the tube when you remove the pressure above the tube. You really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to physics, do you?
Quote
No you personally insult people who disagree with your indoctrination to discredit, your words and arguments are childish and denote how desperate you are to keep your delusions. My blasphemy of Nasa is in no way Ad Hominem because I address what they actually say like noting they say they can't get beyond low earth orbit, that all there images are composites, by pointing out that Neil Armstrong said that all there astronauts are parrots who can't fly and that truth has a protective layer, by showing footage of how the fakery is done. These are facts you deny while you just spew copy pasta textbook learning, you are totally dishonest and demand people accept the complete and blatant lies.
Don't pretend like you know my motives when I tell you my motives are completely opposite. You aren't inside my head.
NASA says they can't get past low Earth orbit? Well no shit! They don't have the equipment anymore. As a matter of fact, it would even be correct to say that NASA can't get to low Earth orbit anymore either, because they retired their shuttles. But that in NO WAY means that we didn't, or can't again. It means NASA can't, right now. Holy shit you guys latch on to that one line thinking it means everything you faithfully believe is being held up as truth, when nothing could be more dishonest. And you talk about me as if I were lying.
No, not all, just most. This is taken by NASA and is a whole Earth shot taken from the Deep Space Climate Observatory:
Neil Armstrong is now a valid source for you? How about when he said "that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind?"
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.