|
|
Post by heathen on May 2, 2015 3:40:42 GMT
I'll go back over sceptimatic's gun argument again at some point when I have more time. To understand it better. But I think I get it, maybe partially.
I think the gun would have to be "airtight". At least where the bullet being fired is concerned. If it is not "airtight", than the energy being released from the reaction would spread out from the non-sealed areas extremely fast, because there would be no atmospheric resistance in space to slow the energy being released inside the gun. No atmospheric resistance means instant free expansion of energy. With no energy left to propel the bullet forward. That's what I got so far. Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 2, 2015 7:27:26 GMT
I'll go back over sceptimatic's gun argument again at some point when I have more time. To understand it better. But I think I get it, maybe partially. I think the gun would have to be "airtight". At least where the bullet being fired is concerned. If it is not "airtight", than the energy being released from the reaction would spread out from the non-sealed areas extremely fast, because there would be no atmospheric resistance in space to slow the energy being released inside the gun. No atmospheric resistance means instant free expansion of energy. With no energy left to propel the bullet forward. That's what I got so far. Makes sense to me. Exactly what I'm saying. You see, this is where aliveandkicking is either deliberately missing the point or simply can't get his head around it. As I said before...it takes a person to actually literally use their own basic common sense and discard (at least for the time being) the stuff that's put into text books. What aliveandkicking can't or won't get his head around is, his space is a huge area of basically nothingness as we are told. A virtual vacuum - or to keep it close to their fantasy, it's zero psi. So as you say with the gun. It's a metal unit designed to allow a bullet to exit the barrel after the trigger basically detonates it. The very nano (pick a special second) second that this happens in his space, all is lost. All energy is lost (as you say) out of all the nooks and crannies of the gun because there is no atmospheric pressure (resistance) against that. It's in his space which means it has FREE expansion of his gases. Free expansion of any gases means no work done. It's lost to space because it's natural thing is to try and equalise the environment it is in, just like a human climbing a mountain would start to breathe harder to expand his chest to take in more air due to it being less psi. Eventually if a human could be transported higher, his body would expand and basically spew all of his cells out to match the pressure of environment he's in. Basically they expand until they fill the environment. In this case it would never happen in fantasy space. This astronot testing in Vacuum chambers and such, is bullshit. Look in a bell jar with a marshmallow and see what happens when the pressure is evacuated. This is the fate of an astronot if he ever went into the so called vacuum of space. Seriously this space crap is exactly that. We've all been duped and some people simply like to live on the fantasy. Most probably collect star wars toys and star trek toys, as well as having all the DVD's of them all and can recite every single word ever said. I'm not kidding either. This is why they regurgitate what's been put before them in mainstream text books. Took as gospel truth for no other reason than blind faith. Most of these so called press conferences with the "blue shirts" of NASA and such. You know, the rocket propulsion crew and the mars boffins, etc. They are probably just hand picked star trek buff's who have the uncanny ability to memorise any old clap trap thrown at them, so space will be a breeze for these high foreheaded clowns. Take a look at their press conferences. It's easy to see the lies spewing out of their stupid mouths. Money talks and money can make most people lose their scruples for a while. Most of these people who are lying to us will regret it over time. The problem is, they're stuck. They jumped on the roller coaster and it does not stop. They're on it for life. The only way off for these people is to un-strap and jump. Some probably do. We see that as " astronaut goes crazy over love split." You know, shit like that. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 2, 2015 7:41:21 GMT
I'll go back over sceptimatic's gun argument again at some point when I have more time. To understand it better. But I think I get it, maybe partially. I think the gun would have to be "airtight". At least where the bullet being fired is concerned. If it is not "airtight", than the energy being released from the reaction would spread out from the non-sealed areas extremely fast, because there would be no atmospheric resistance in space to slow the energy being released inside the gun. No atmospheric resistance means instant free expansion of energy. With no energy left to propel the bullet forward. That's what I got so far. Makes sense to me. 1. With no atmospheric resistance the bullet travels faster down the barrel. 2. A gun uses a brass ammo cartridge because the brass: A) Expands to form a gas seal against the gun when the gun is fired and B) The properties of brass enable the brass to spring back once the bullet has left the gun to enable the cartridge to be removed from the gun. Consequently very few combustion gases can leave the gun other than via the end of the barrel. These things were worked out centuries ago to enable a shooter to put his eye to a gun and avoid injury or fear of aiming the gun. 3. Free expansion of the combustion gases can only happen once the bullet has left the barrel apart from a very small % of the gases. 4. Ammunition explosive does not detonate. It must burn or the gun will be destroyed. The gun requires slower burning low explosive. You cannot use faster reacting high explosive in a gun. 5. In a gun the hammer strikes a capsule container a primer to ignite the low explosive that will burn without exploding the gun. 6. To blow things up using high explosive, a detonator is placed inside the high explosive which in turn chemically reacts as fast as a shockwave can pass thru the high explosive. It is fast but not instantaneously fast. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 3, 2015 8:59:18 GMT
I'll go back over sceptimatic's gun argument again at some point when I have more time. To understand it better. But I think I get it, maybe partially. I think the gun would have to be "airtight". At least where the bullet being fired is concerned. If it is not "airtight", than the energy being released from the reaction would spread out from the non-sealed areas extremely fast, because there would be no atmospheric resistance in space to slow the energy being released inside the gun. No atmospheric resistance means instant free expansion of energy. With no energy left to propel the bullet forward. That's what I got so far. Makes sense to me. 1. With no atmospheric resistance the bullet travels faster down the barrel. With no atmospheric resistance there is no gun nor any faster anything. No resiatance, no life at all. Get this into your head and things will become easier.2. A gun uses a brass ammo cartridge because the brass: A) Expands to form a gas seal against the gun when the gun is fired and B) The properties of brass enable the brass to spring back once the bullet has left the gun to enable the cartridge to be removed from the gun. In your space this becomes irrelevant.Consequently very few combustion gases can leave the gun other than via the end of the barrel. In your space, this becomes irrelevant. Get your head around it.These things were worked out centuries ago to enable a shooter to put his eye to a gun and avoid injury or fear of aiming the gun. Appealing to history won't help you.3. Free expansion of the combustion gases can only happen once the bullet has left the barrel apart from a very small % of the gases. It's clear you aren't up on what free expansion actually means. You never get free expansion in Earth's atmosphere...ever. A true free expansion is an exapansion of gas against NO resistance of gas/atmosphere. Get your head around this and you will sart to understand.4. Ammunition explosive does not detonate. It must burn or the gun will be destroyed. The gun requires slower burning low explosive. You cannot use faster reacting high explosive in a gun. If you want to argue explosions and detonations and burns, then do it the correct way and stop twisting things. Encase energy inside a container and expand it by ignition or burn and you get an explosion. Now, if that explosion happens inside an encased shell...like a hand grenade, you end up with a shattered hand grenade shell as well as what is inside it being scattered. In a bullet you don't have this as such. You have a projectile (bullet) snugly pushed into a brass shell casing. The powder is ignited but doesn't blow the shell up because it's projectile is easily dislodged from the shell. You could call the bullet a safety valve if you wanted, assuming you were trying to tell people your aim was not to shatter the brass shell casing.
Explosive force is created when pressure builds up to the point of rupture or kick in of safety valve, in this case the bullet is released once the pressure build up is greater than what the bullet and snug fit inside the shell can resist.
It's pretty simply if people use their basic logic and don't get carried away into the technicalities that science throws at us. 5. In a gun the hammer strikes a capsule container a primer to ignite the low explosive that will burn without exploding the gun. It can only explode the gun of the bullet is welded in the casing or the gun is fractured/faulty. Other than that, the bullet is the safety valve.6. To blow things up using high explosive, a detonator is placed inside the high explosive which in turn chemically reacts as fast as a shockwave can pass thru the high explosive. It is fast but not instantaneously fast. To you, it is instantaneously fast because you never see the build up of pressure until that bullet is released follwed by the noise.
Let me explain about your ready to fire bullet and you may understand. I doubt you' agree because you're just not built that way to go against your masters.
Imagine sitting across a table with your arm up and fist facing your face. Someone pulls back on your arm and tells you to resist that pull. Can anyone remember this where they leave loose and you smack yourself in the face, lol.
Ok, so the person pulling back on your arm is the cordite ignited and building up pressure in the shell. The very second that arm is released is the bullet ejecting under that pressure. That finally snap of pressure that the bullet can resist.
Now that bullet is at full force follwed by the gases that built up behind it. They are like a spring that's went boing due to decompression.
Your barrel aids in the trajectory of the bullet to stabilise it or make it spin, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 3, 2015 9:25:43 GMT
As you say the bullet is like a safety valve which begins moving before full pressure is obtained.
If full pressure is obtained before the bullet moves the gun is destroyed
To understand explosives you need to see the difference between:
1. A detonation - a shock wave causes chemical reaction. Happens in high explosive only
and
2. rapid burning . a combustion waves travels thru the powder which is much slower than a shock wave.
High explosive produces a shock wave thru the air after the blast
Low explosive does not produce a shock wave thru the air after the blast
|
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 3, 2015 9:50:49 GMT
A gun cannot use high explosive which reacts faster than low explosive. A gun needs a slower reaction to avoid exploding the gun Try not to twist what I'm saying. Forget about your high explosize stuff. I've never mentioned anything like this, just high compression due to expansion of gas inside the shell.As you say the bullet is like a safety valve which begins moving before full pressure is obtained. Yes and you're trying to make out that a rocket just moves due to a constant barrage of bullet safety valves going off. How many times could you use a shell casing in a gun?
Can't you see how silly this recoil bullshit is?If full pressure is obtained before the bullet moves the gun is destroyed The bullet ensures this doesn't happen, not to mention the exact amount of cordite needed to eject it.
Let's get back to the rocket itself instead of guns because this is going nowhere with you. You tell me exactly how a rocket works in space. Here's what I want to know. I want to know where this recoil action originates and what it hits in terms of action/reaction that kicks this rocket into space. Nice and simply with as much detail that a kid could understand, tell me the process and we'll have a laugh about it and go on from there |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 3, 2015 9:59:13 GMT
A gun cannot use high explosive which reacts faster than low explosive. A gun needs a slower reaction to avoid exploding the gun Try not to twist what I'm saying. Forget about your high explosize stuff. I've never mentioned anything like this, just high compression due to expansion of gas inside the shell.As you say the bullet is like a safety valve which begins moving before full pressure is obtained. Yes and you're trying to make out that a rocket just moves due to a constant barrage of bullet safety valves going off. How many times could you use a shell casing in a gun?
Can't you see how silly this recoil bullshit is?If full pressure is obtained before the bullet moves the gun is destroyed The bullet ensures this doesn't happen, not to mention the exact amount of cordite needed to eject it.
Let's get back to the rocket itself instead of guns because this is going nowhere with you. You tell me exactly how a rocket works in space. Here's what I want to know. I want to know where this recoil action originates and what it hits in terms of action/reaction that kicks this rocket into space. Nice and simply with as much detail that a kid could understand, tell me the process and we'll have a laugh about it and go on from there The recoil of a gun involves the exact same simple action/reaction physics as a rocket. The gun accelerates large bullets. The rocket accelerates smaller particles. There is no hitting in a guns recoil. The gun or cartridge move in the opposite direction to the bullet. I tried to explain before that a jack hammer and a gun are not comparable. Forget about hitting. The gun goes backwards when the bullet goes forwards. >>what it hits in terms of action/reaction that kicks this rocket into space. You are stuck on this idea of hitting. Hitting has nothing to do with a guns recoil or a rocket >>I want to know where this recoil action originates and what it hits in terms of action/reaction that kicks this rocket into space. Nice and simply with as much detail that a kid could understand, tell me the process and we'll have a laugh about it and go on from there I have tried to explain this as a child would understand it by explaining that a guns recoil and rocket power are the same physics. The beginning point therefore is to show how a gun recoils and for you to demonstrate you can understand that in sufficiently simple terms that we can move on. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 3, 2015 10:35:25 GMT
aliveandkicking. I'm not explaining it to you again. I've seen this bullshit time and time again with people like you. Let's just leave it at that because my issue isn't about showing you anything...it's about allowing free thinkers to see the truth from the fiction that people like you try to push. You talk bollocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 3, 2015 10:37:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 3, 2015 10:57:20 GMT
Nah. You regurgitate lies and misconceptions. Simple physics is what you people turn into riciculous physics by adherence to mainstrean scienctists ludicrous assertions as to what keeps a rocket in space. If people really knew what a rocket does and is, the word "rocket scientist" would never be used to make out that something is scientific genius. A rocket is nothing much more than a firework. That's it. No atmosphere, no rocket. It can't be any simpler. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 3, 2015 11:29:20 GMT
You regurgitate lies and misconceptions. I present first principles that a child can understand. You probably already know a tiny rocket has been shown to operate in a 'vacuum' on TV And you already had heard of the physics explanation for why a gun/rocket recoils in space, but it is clear with your kick back and hitting, pneumatic drill and Baron Munchausen comments you do not actually understand anything about recoil at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 3, 2015 14:29:51 GMT
You regurgitate lies and misconceptions. I present first principles that a child can understand. Come on the rocket man. I asked you earlier to explain how a rocket works in child language, so everyone can be clear. Tell me how it creates it's action/reaction effect for flight. What goes on inside of it to make it fly given the so called excuse that it does not push against atmosphere and that huge flame coming out of its arse end is simply a by product of burned gases as exhaust and has no bearing on the actual propulsion.
Explain what does in enough detail so people can grasp it.You probably already know a tiny rocket has been shown to operate in a 'vacuum' on TV Nope but I'd be happy to see one you put up to shut me up of this tiny rocket in a vacuum. Before you do show me something, please make sure that it's not a silly rocket motor operating against what we are told is a vacuum chamber, because let me explain something to you.
A vacuum like your space is supposed to be, is devoid of matter or as good as. Zero psi as you people bang on about. Now if you were to stick a rocket nozzle into a vacuum chamber of low psi, then that chamber is soon filled with exhaust to high psi but was already low psi and not a vacuum at all.
Take your time reading what I'm saying here. I don't want you getting mixed up or twisting things.
Anyway, I'll look forward to you showing me this TV tiny rocket in a vacuum show.And you already had heard of the physics explanation for why a gun/rocket recoils in space, but it is clear with your kick back and hitting, pneumatic drill and Baron Munchausen comments you do not actually understand anything about recoil at the moment. The old Munchausen syndrome is back again. Just call me a retard and hit where you think it hurts. Us conspiracy theorists can handle this shillery. It's meat and drink from people like you and shows you up for the idiot that you are and the shill that you are.
I think the sensible people looking in who are of the thought to question and think for themselves will look at all of this and start to grasp how silly your regurgitated explanations are and they will see the truth of the lies you spew for your masters.
The bolded stuff should allow the genuine people to understand the truth against your bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 3, 2015 14:57:41 GMT
>>that huge flame coming out of its arse end is simply a by product of burned gases as exhaust and has no bearing on the actual propulsion.
The propulsion is as a result of that huge flame. I have honestly tried my best to explain how it works but i am obviously totally failing. There is a massive force blasting out the back of the rocket. That is the propulsion method. Material is being ejected from the rocket at great speed with enormous chemical power. Exactly the same as with a gun where flames and material come blasting out of the barrel and the gun goes back.
>>I'll look forward to you showing me this TV tiny rocket in a vacuum show.
No doubt you can think of other reasons why you will reject the tiny rocket in a 'vacuum' on TV. It would be better if you list them all now.
>>The old Munchausen syndrome is back again
Sorry did i get the name muddled up? I thought you and LIT used that name? Munchausen does not sound right now that you bring it to my attention. I see the name LIT used is Muchausen. Sorry about that.
Anyway the point stands. Your comments about kick back and hitting and people pulling themselves up by their hair show you dont understand recoil. As above with your 'huge flame' comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 3, 2015 15:44:42 GMT
>>Tell me how it creates it's action/reaction effect for flight. What goes on inside of it to make it fly
A rocket cannot fly if the only process happening is inside the rocket. It would then be like a pneumatic drill that does nothing other than make a noise when on the trolley. The relevant process is the huge release of material that we can see blasting out of the large rockets
The rocket works by ejecting material at high velocity.
|
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 4, 2015 7:56:07 GMT
>>that huge flame coming out of its arse end is simply a by product of burned gases as exhaust and has no bearing on the actual propulsion. When you quote me, make sure you quote it all instead if snippets that make me look like I'm saying something I'm not. I know your game so just play it.The propulsion is as a result of that huge flame. I have honestly tried my best to explain how it works but i am obviously totally failing. You're failing because you're lying or regurgitating the bullshit text books you read. You haven't explained anything as to how your rocket works, just that they work in a vacuum, as you pretend.
There is a massive force blasting out the back of the rocket. That is the propulsion method. Material is being ejected from the rocket at great speed with enormous chemical power. What do you mean "enormous chemical power"...? the rocket burns its fuel and that's that. It does nothing other than burn fuel. Exactly the same as with a gun where flames and material come blasting out of the barrel and the gun goes back. Ahhh ok, so what you're saying is, the rocket is the gun and cartridge without the bullet. It's a blank. So it's firing blanks to make it shoot into the sky, because we don't see any bullets flying out the back of it, do we?
If you're not thinking this way, then explain how the rocket mopves vertically ater ignition. Tell me what's happening for action, then reaction to move it if it's not using atmosphere.
>>I'll look forward to you showing me this TV tiny rocket in a vacuum show. No doubt you can think of other reasons why you will reject the tiny rocket in a 'vacuum' on TV. It would be better if you list them all now. I'm not rejecting a tiny rocket in a vacuum, I haven't seen one or a video or TV documentary of it, so show me how this works. You've obviously seen it, so show me and explain what's happening, then I can play with you.>>The old Munchausen syndrome is back again Sorry did i get the name muddled up? I thought you and LIT used that name? Munchausen does not sound right now that you bring it to my attention. I see the name LIT used is Muchausen. Sorry about that. No need to play silly. Just let it all out. I'm used to this stuff by people like you. It's laughable when you can't get the better of someone so you resort to all methods of attempted ridicule. That's why I like to play you people back.Anyway the point stands. Your comments about kick back and hitting and people pulling themselves up by their hair show you dont understand recoil. As above with your 'huge flame' comment. |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 4, 2015 7:59:25 GMT
>>Tell me how it creates it's action/reaction effect for flight. What goes on inside of it to make it fly A rocket cannot fly if the only process happening is inside the rocket. It would then be like a pneumatic drill that does nothing other than make a noise when on the trolley. The relevant process is the huge release of material that we can see blasting out of the large rockets The rocket works by ejecting material at high velocity.
Don't evade this. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 4, 2015 8:13:13 GMT
>>Tell me how it creates it's action/reaction effect for flight. What goes on inside of it to make it fly A rocket cannot fly if the only process happening is inside the rocket. It would then be like a pneumatic drill that does nothing other than make a noise when on the trolley. The relevant process is the huge release of material that we can see blasting out of the large rockets The rocket works by ejecting material at high velocity.
Don't evade this.Obviously i am evading nothing at all A gun recoils because material is ejected at high velocity. When material is ejected from an object it recoils |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 4, 2015 8:49:31 GMT
Yes it ejects fuel at high velocity into the atmosphere. Tell me what reaction it gives inside that rocket to push it up if that burning fuel in the atmiosphere is doing nothing other than being released and having no effect on the rocket.
Don't evade this. Obviously i am evading nothing at all A gun recoils because material is ejected at high velocity. When material is ejected from an object it recoils I'm going to take this as you not being able to explain why rockets supposedly work in space, because I've repeatedly asked you to explain it and you come back with the same crap. All you free thinkers looking in at this, can you see this crap for what it is yet? If not, jump in and ask questions and I'll happily provide you with the reality. aliveandkicking is just a regurgitator of mainstream nonsense where this stuff is concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 4, 2015 9:07:53 GMT
Obviously i am evading nothing at all A gun recoils because material is ejected at high velocity. When material is ejected from an object it recoils I'm going to take this as you not being able to explain why rockets supposedly work in space, because I've repeatedly asked you to explain it and you come back with the same crap. All you free thinkers looking in at this, can you see this crap for what it is yet? If not, jump in and ask questions and I'll happily provide you with the reality. aliveandkicking is just a regurgitator of mainstream nonsense where this stuff is concerned. A childs self propelled swinging on a swing works by the same principle used in combination with the pendulum effect. A rocket works by very very simple physics |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 4, 2015 9:09:30 GMT
I'm going to take this as you not being able to explain why rockets supposedly work in space, because I've repeatedly asked you to explain it and you come back with the same crap. All you free thinkers looking in at this, can you see this crap for what it is yet? If not, jump in and ask questions and I'll happily provide you with the reality. aliveandkicking is just a regurgitator of mainstream nonsense where this stuff is concerned. A childs swing works by the same principle used in combination with the pendulum effect. A rocket works by very very simple physics What the hell are you talking about? explain yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 4, 2015 9:10:47 GMT
A childs swing works by the same principle used in combination with the pendulum effect. A rocket works by very very simple physics What the hell are you talking about? explain yourself. When the childs legs go forwards and stop, the child has gone backwards a small amount Similarly a dildo vibrates because the weight is off centre |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 4, 2015 9:18:44 GMT
What the hell are you talking about? explain yourself. When the childs legs go forwards the child goes backwards Similarly a dildo vibrates because the weight is off centre So your rocket is a vibrating dildo or a person on a swing? Hopw about explaining what's happening with the rocket for it to work like this, because to me, it looks like you don't have it in your to explain more than a few words of nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 4, 2015 9:22:05 GMT
same with a mexican jumping bean
To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Movement in one direction creates an equal and opposite movement in the other direction
|
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 4, 2015 12:34:34 GMT
same with a mexican jumping bean To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction Movement in one direction creates an equal and opposite movement in the other direction For all you genuine free thinkers. I think you can see what this person is all about. This aliveandkicking is now playing silly little games using pathetic videos as if to show how a rocket works in a vacuum. Now, this is enough for me to finish dealing with this dipshit, because it's as clear as day he cannot explain how a rocket works in his space. It should be clear to those taking notice that a rocket emits a powerful fiery exhaust because it has to create a massive push against atmospheric pressure to expand that atmosphere and compress it , which is your action. the reaction is the atmosphere pushing back, or squeezing back against that exhaust and giving the rocket something to push against until the burning fuel is spent. Put something like that in supposed space and you have no atmosphere to push against, meaning your rocket is a dud. Anyone who thinks a rocket can kick itself up it's own arse...who classes themselves as some kind of scientist, I feel sorry for you for allowing yourself to be duped and not wishing to understand why and how. All those that are here to think and who have been duped...now is your chance to see the truth against the bullshit you've been coaxed into accepting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 13:00:04 GMT
I understand how one can get excited while defending what he perceives as the truth, but the problem is that we won't all agree on what is the truth.
He's been doing a lot of work, here and on other threads, to thoroughly explain and document his view of the truth - without condemning other people's views. I think he is in good faith, and I wouldn't apply any derogatory terms to define his thoughts, their written expression, and the supporting documents he produced. Instead I think we owe him gratitude, as we owe gratitude to you for doing the same thing. Also, we must acknowledge that not all those who disagree with us, are necessarily in bad faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on May 4, 2015 13:46:51 GMT
I understand how one can get his excited while defending what he perceives as the truth, but the problem is that we won't all agree on what is the truth. He's been doing a lot of work, here and on other threads, to thoroughly explain and document his view of the truth - without condemning other people's views. I think he is in good faith, and I wouldn't apply any derogatory terms to define his thoughts, their written expression, and the supporting documents he produced. Instead I think we owe him gratitude, as we owe gratitude to you for doing the same thing. Also, we must acknowledge that not all those who disagree with us, are necessarily in bad faith. Ok, I'll accept that. here's where I stand. I can handle the odd one or two people like aliveandkicking to spread their mainstream stuff and I can bypass it. I'll make a point of totally ignoring him from now on because I don't follow the same thoughts as you about him. But, I won't put him down, I'll leave hijm to carry on his quest in keeping mainstream scientific lies intact. If anymore people like him are allowed to infest this place, then I'm gone for good and I'd be surprised if many free thinkers stay. If this happens, then this becomes no different to any other site, allowing globalists and mainstream shills to take over , unhindered with the storyline from people like you of, " well they're only speaking their views just like we are and put good points across." We've all heard these points till we're blue in the face and is the reason why we're questioning it all, because we have a sneaking suspicion that most of it is bullshit. Are there any people on my side here because I'm losing faith in this site with every passing second. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 14:02:08 GMT
I am a flat earther, too (look at my signature, where you can click and see my best proof of flat earth). But I believe in hearing different opinions, without belittling them. And I try to encourage others to do the same. I have to say that I appreciate this compromise you proposed, and that aliveandkicking is a special "globalist", in that he will argue extensively with us, but he won't put us down for our flat earth beliefs, so we definitely should not gang up on him for his beliefs, especially after he has put so much effort into providing his best evidence in support of his opinions. We should all learn to disagree and still be friends. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 4, 2015 17:10:39 GMT
You should all know that i have very directly called LIT a liar for the way he has said one second space travel is a joke and then claims to have not said it etc. He likes to call others out for not debating but refuses to debate himself. I am no saint.
But the idea i am working for flat earth central is just stupid.
I was just interested in explaining simple physics
A rocket recoils like a gun recoils, and people knew in detail 300 years ago why a cannon ball makes a cannon recoil
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 18:30:22 GMT
Let's all apologize to one another once and for all, and forgive each other for the past offenses.
I forgive you all, even those who haven't apologized.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 4, 2015 18:39:52 GMT
Let's all apologize to one another once and for all, and forgive each other for the past offenses. I forgive you all, even those who haven't apologized. It is by our actions that we are known, not by our words |
|
