<<  >> (p.772)
    Author Topic: Flat Earth  (Read 1095239 times)
    notbatman (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2212
    Merit: 1038



    View Profile
    November 27, 2019, 04:07:36 PM
    Last edit: November 27, 2019, 04:34:41 PM by notbatman
     #15421

    ^^^ Instead of spouting nonsense about a theory that's been experimentally falsified (relativistic gravity), why don't you explain to us how a gyroscope proven to maintain its position in space with a 15 deg/hr rotation doesn't register the claimed spin of the earth?

    After you're finished explaining that doozy you can explain how a pressure gradient can exist without a container next to a vacuum. There's nothing (including the falsified theory of gravity) to prevent everything from blowing off into space.

    While you're at it you might also explain how the sheer forces present in a 4,000 mile wide radius flywheel with a 1,000 MPH rim speed don't cause it to instantly explode.

    The shitty arguments you promote for a spinning globe earth and outer space are worse than those propped up to support the theory of evolution, worse by a factor of many magnitudes. You're a huge cuck and a sellout!


    Gyroscope explanation is easy. Most airplanes use gyroscopic action for guidance in one way or another. It works.


    Relativity and gravity in theory have been falsified to the extent that these theories remain theories. Since they are theories, the falsification lies in their application to the REAL phenomenon of relativity and gravity. To say it in a simple way, there aren't many people who think about relativity and gravity theory. Rather, the people think about relativity and gravity. The theory might be wrong regarding reality, but it is right in that it is theoretical. But the reality includes real relativity and real gravity, which have nothing to do with something that is theoretical.


    The answer regarding your flywheel is gravity. The earth is almost 8,000 miles in diameter. An object weighs very little less at the poles than it does at the equator. This alone shows that the centrifugal force is insignificant when compared with the force of gravity. So, why isn't everything crushed by gravity? Molecular resistance is much stronger than gravity. Gravity is the weak force with regard to molecular and atomic resistances.


    Why is it that you can't take the spinning-ball-on-the-table example, and disprove it right at the example? It's because your whole idea of the way centrifugal force works is wrong. If you were right, the change in direction of the pistons in a car engine would cause the whole engine to explode. But the engine doesn't explode... so you are shown to be wrong.


    Cool

    "hey look it's an airplane!" isn't an explanation for the missing rotation.

    Thanks for pointing out I stated the diameter but gave a radius, corrected. My point about sheer stress stands, this area of engineering is clearly out of your league. You're neck deep in theoretical bullshit and can't change a fucking light bulb to save your life bruh.

    I can't make sense of your last paragraph, you appear to be rambling incoherently.



    The gyroscope is proven to react to 15 deg/hr, where's the rotation?

    The P900 can see too far, where's the curve?
Page 771
Viewing Page: 772