ToonForum - Newcastle United Forum

Sir Bobby wrote:You seem to equate media, who of course tell lies cos their job is to sell interesting stories, with scientists who's job is to find the truth about matters.

Yes and most do a sterling job. It doesn't mean that there's some that are not being straight with us. Puppets on a string.

Sir Bobby wrote: A simplified scientific method is to test, check results, see what theories can be drawn. What they don't know they say they don't know, what they do know they say they do know (within a certain degree of accuracy).

How do you know that all this happens with all?

ghostrider wrote:

Mucky Quim wrote:I suppose all this was made up....

I believe it was all made up, yes, 100%.

Based on what? What evidence do you have that it was made up?

Ramone wrote:

ghostrider wrote: I believe it was all made up, yes, 100%.

Based on what? What evidence do you have that it was made up?

Based on many things but one that is in your face is the time it took him to get to 128,000 feet into what the pressure gauge showed us was so near to a vacuum as to be classed as one.

He took a few hours to reach his supposed height before supposedly free falling. He landed approx 73 miles away from the launch site.
If the Earth spins at over 1000 mph and we simply give benefit of doubts to time taken for height achievement and say it took 1 hour, then a simple bit of maths tells us he should have landed more than 73 miles away from launch.

Also, a supposed drop of over 800 mph to then arrest his fall with a drogue parachute before opening a main one to then land smoothly from that speed?...really?

Imagine a deep sea diver rising that fast out of the water but in this case Baumgartner in his pressurised suit and air tanks, just dropping from near zero to atmospheric sea level in less than 5 minutes.

ghostrider wrote:

Ramone wrote:
Based on what? What evidence do you have that it was made up?

Based on many things but one that is in your face is the time it took him to get to 128,000 feet into what the pressure gauge showed us was so near to a vacuum as to be classed as one.

He took a few hours to reach his supposed height before supposedly free falling. He landed approx 73 miles away from the launch site.
If the Earth spins at over 1000 mph and we simply give benefit of doubts to time taken for height achievement and say it took 1 hour, then a simple bit of maths tells us he should have landed more than 73 miles away from launch.

Also, a supposed drop of over 800 mph to then arrest his fall with a drogue parachute before opening a main one to then land smoothly from that speed?...really?

Imagine a deep sea diver rising that fast out of the water but in this case Baumgartner in his pressurised suit and air tanks, just dropping from near zero to atmospheric sea level in less than 5 minutes.

It's been explained loads in this thread but that is simply not how gravity and the orbit of the earth works.

If your only "evidence" is based on a misunderstanding of physics then you don't really have a strong case do you?

EDIT: Here's some helpful links to explain it better than I can: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... t-location

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physic ... termediate

ghostrider wrote:Sometimes - in fact, many times, it's much better to revert to basic logical thoughts when this stuff is thrown into our faces.

Seriously? After everything you have said on here you are throwing the basic logic argument at us.

It is plainly apparent that you wouldn't recognise basic logic if it can-canned into the room singing "basic logic is here again!" and sat on your face and squirmed about for a bit.

Ramone wrote:

ghostrider wrote: Based on many things but one that is in your face is the time it took him to get to 128,000 feet into what the pressure gauge showed us was so near to a vacuum as to be classed as one.

He took a few hours to reach his supposed height before supposedly free falling. He landed approx 73 miles away from the launch site.
If the Earth spins at over 1000 mph and we simply give benefit of doubts to time taken for height achievement and say it took 1 hour, then a simple bit of maths tells us he should have landed more than 73 miles away from launch.

Also, a supposed drop of over 800 mph to then arrest his fall with a drogue parachute before opening a main one to then land smoothly from that speed?...really?

Imagine a deep sea diver rising that fast out of the water but in this case Baumgartner in his pressurised suit and air tanks, just dropping from near zero to atmospheric sea level in less than 5 minutes.

It's been explained loads in this thread but that is simply not how gravity and the orbit of the earth works.

If your only "evidence" is based on a misunderstanding of physics then you don't really have a strong case do you?

EDIT: Here's some helpful links to explain it better than I can: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... t-location

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physic ... termediate

Gravity is still only a theory. Nobody knows what gravity is and nobody can explain what it is. They simply tell us what it does.
Atmospheric pressure explains everything perfectly well for gravity, except it can't be used in space. there's a good reason for that. Space does not exist as we are told.

Donkey Toon wrote:

ghostrider wrote:Sometimes - in fact, many times, it's much better to revert to basic logical thoughts when this stuff is thrown into our faces.

Seriously? After everything you have said on here you are throwing the basic logic argument at us.

It is plainly apparent that you wouldn't recognise basic logic if it can-canned into the room singing "basic logic is here again!" and sat on your face and squirmed about for a bit.

No problem.

ghostrider wrote:

Ramone wrote:
It's been explained loads in this thread but that is simply not how gravity and the orbit of the earth works.

If your only "evidence" is based on a misunderstanding of physics then you don't really have a strong case do you?

EDIT: Here's some helpful links to explain it better than I can: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... t-location

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physic ... termediate

Gravity is still only a theory. Nobody knows what gravity is and nobody can explain what it is. They simply tell us what it does.
Atmospheric pressure explains everything perfectly well for gravity, except it can't be used in space. there's a good reason for that. Space does not exist as we are told.

How does "atmospheric pressure" explain why some objects weigh more than others?

Ramone wrote:

ghostrider wrote: Gravity is still only a theory. Nobody knows what gravity is and nobody can explain what it is. They simply tell us what it does.
Atmospheric pressure explains everything perfectly well for gravity, except it can't be used in space. there's a good reason for that. Space does not exist as we are told.

How does "atmospheric pressure" explain why some objects weigh more than others?

By the displacement of it.
Think of a sponge and then think of a block of lead of the same dimensions. We know the lead weighs heavier in scales because we get told that gravity pulls more mass down and the sponge has less mass.
The real reason in my view is that the lead displaces it's own size, almost all of it of atmosphere but the sponge doesn't because it is made up mostly of atmosphere and by how much you know of it displacing atmosphere, is to squash it as compressed as possible to see that it displaces about a pea size of itself against atmosphere.

ghostrider wrote:

Ramone wrote: How does "atmospheric pressure" explain why some objects weigh more than others?

By the displacement of it.
Think of a sponge and then think of a block of lead of the same dimensions. We know the lead weighs heavier in scales because we get told that gravity pulls more mass down and the sponge has less mass.
The real reason in my view is that the lead displaces it's own size, almost all of it of atmosphere but the sponge doesn't because it is made up mostly of atmosphere and by how much you know of it displacing atmosphere, is to squash it as compressed as possible to see that it displaces about a pea size of itself against atmosphere.

A pool of water in 2mx2mx2m cube is incompressible so would displace a 2mx2mx2m cube worth of "atmostpheric pressure". As would a 2mx2mx2m cube of uranium, yet the cube of uranium weighs more. How does that work?

Part of me thinks you're just an excellent troll that manages to play the ignorant role incredibly well. I'm not sure what I'd prefer more but either way this is a thoroughly entertaining g thread

ghostrider wrote: I have no need to play with mathematics when explaining things.

That's dissapointing. I thought you had something sensible to say.

It appears that even though I absolutely disproved your theory your are still unwilling to accept it.

There is no point trying to explain to a close minded person.

Sir Bobby wrote:Part of me thinks you're just an excellent troll that manages to play the ignorant role incredibly well. I'm not sure what I'd prefer more but either way this is a thoroughly entertaining g thread

Nah this was went on far too long for him to be trolling. Just a classic tin-hat conspiracy theorist/lunatic.

Duke wrote:

Sir Bobby wrote:Part of me thinks you're just an excellent troll that manages to play the ignorant role incredibly well. I'm not sure what I'd prefer more but either way this is a thoroughly entertaining g thread

Nah this was went on far too long for him to be trolling. Just a classic tin-hat conspiracy theorist/lunatic.

Where's your evidence though?

Ramone wrote:

ghostrider wrote:By the displacement of it.
Think of a sponge and then think of a block of lead of the same dimensions. We know the lead weighs heavier in scales because we get told that gravity pulls more mass down and the sponge has less mass.
The real reason in my view is that the lead displaces it's own size, almost all of it of atmosphere but the sponge doesn't because it is made up mostly of atmosphere and by how much you know of it displacing atmosphere, is to squash it as compressed as possible to see that it displaces about a pea size of itself against atmosphere.

A pool of water in 2mx2mx2m cube is incompressible so would displace a 2mx2mx2m cube worth of "atmostpheric pressure". As would a 2mx2mx2m cube of uranium, yet the cube of uranium weighs more. How does that work?

Even microscopic pores contain atmosphere and one block of some metal will have more or bigger pores than others which creates more or less displacement.

Sir Bobby wrote:

Duke wrote:
Nah this was went on far too long for him to be trolling. Just a classic tin-hat conspiracy theorist/lunatic.

Where's your evidence though?

Nothing can be proven you idiot. There is no evidence for anything because everything is based on theories and those theories are based on other theories and the people who wrote these theories can't be trusted. If I told you how I knew he was a tin-hat I might be shunned by my peers or assassinated. You just have to accept that I think he's a tin-hat but feel free to argue otherwise, if you prove me wrong though rest assured I will be here to refuse to believe you.

Sir Bobby wrote:Part of me thinks you're just an excellent troll that manages to play the ignorant role incredibly well. I'm not sure what I'd prefer more but either way this is a thoroughly entertaining g thread

I've no need to troll. I'm just creating debate or conversation.

Hjl wrote:

ghostrider wrote: I have no need to play with mathematics when explaining things.

That's dissapointing. I thought you had something sensible to say.

It appears that even though I absolutely disproved your theory your are still unwilling to accept it.

There is no point trying to explain to a close minded person.

No problem. The topic is there for people to think about and put their thoughts into You believe you've disproved what I've said so fair enough for you. I'm always willing to accept stuff if I feel it makes sense. Too much doesn't and I'm questioning it.
Anyway, cheers for your input.

Duke wrote:

Sir Bobby wrote:Part of me thinks you're just an excellent troll that manages to play the ignorant role incredibly well. I'm not sure what I'd prefer more but either way this is a thoroughly entertaining g thread

Nah this was went on far too long for him to be trolling. Just a classic tin-hat conspiracy theorist/lunatic.

That's basically how it works, so I'll go along with that.

You are a f***ing maniac!!!