E=mc^2

[Ben2503]

Summing vectors has nothing to do with work - that is a common mistake by some honest people and is a popular intentionally false argument made misinformation agents.

Until you allow yourself to to accept the indisputable facts about regauging and its purpose of creating new potential differences from the energy dissipation, you will be the one in fact who is arguing apples and oranges.

Every university, high school, etc... site says the exact same thing. Force being mass x gravity of course.

Calculating Work

Work Equation

The equation to solve work problems looks like this:

work = force x distance or W = F x d

• The SI unit for force is newton (N).

• The SI unit for distance is meter (m).

• The SI unit for work is joule (J).

Now let's look at the steps for calculating work.

If you need some review on calculating one step equations, click on the link below.

» See also: Solving One Step Multiplication Equations Steps for Calculating Work

We will continue to use the same procedure to solve work problems as we have when working other physics problems.

Remember to continue to work in a step by step manner by writing each step out.

Problem: A fork lift moves 34m carrying a 1023N box across the warehouse floor. How much work is done by the fork lift.

Step 1: Write down the equation needed to solve the problem.

W = F x d

Step 2: Insert all known measurements into the equation.

W =

(1023N)(34m)

Step 3: Solve. Carefully enter numbers into your calculator.

W = 34,782 J

The forklift does 34,782J of work.

• Make sure that all of your numbers have the correct SI unit label.
• Always recheck your answers.

The next page will give you some sample problems with the answers.

Sample Work Problem #1

Remember as you solve the following problems to keep following the steps shown on the previous page.

Problem #1:

How much work is done by a person who uses a force of 27.5N to move a grocery buggy 12.3m?

• Equation
  
  W = F x d = (27.5N) (12.3m) = ?
  
  
  • Answer
    
    W = 338.25J
    
    Did you get it correct? Try another one!

Ok,
please tell me which Force to use
a. The weight of the ball F=m*g?
b. The force to lift it F=-m*g
c. The resulting force?

[Ben2503]

@Ben you take care too

Now listen, I don't trust Gov/run/BS do you grasp that? Higher learning and sparsely populated hair follicle count on the top of one's head does not equate genius.

PHD level University training is entry to the A,B,C's of what is only half truths.

Those who find answers are moved against and large sums of money are spent to silence them if need be. As frustrating as it is, you are going to have to find out all on your own because those who already have it are not going to become the next target.

Now let us go back to the bouncing ball. Simple science as it may be the principles delivered by Aaron need to be addressed. If teachers or those claiming top positions in the real world of science can't counter these simple analogies, what does this say about these leaders?

I will tell you what it says right now and I have had 50yrs to think about it.

It says that they are so indoctrinated by their GOV/Books/strategies/theologies/so that no other outside idea is permitted. That is indoctrination.

Indoctrination is blind madness.

I am speaking to everyone Ben and I am sure you are the nicest I could ever imagine. Let me end by saying that it is okay to address the simple experiment, it is the way to finding answers outside of the "BOX".

What is this "BOX"? This box is a place that the GOV RUN MAFIA threathen people to keep them inside of. Take your vaccines, get your dam shots, you will be arrested if you don't bring your kids to GOV RUN SCHOOLS.

These same people dumb down the school curriculum while they fly UFO's around the world having all of this technology we seek for decades.

These same elites clone human bodies in a matter of weeks to full size grown ups.

We are blind and indoctrinated to think that this does not exist.

We have not even scratched the surface as to what is going on in the Aether yet GOV RUN MAFIA teaches us in so many words that with the quantum Leap that takes 3 live times to understand, we are getting really close to it all.

BS and More BS from GOV RUN MAFIA Schools. The highest Universities in OUR LAND promote Masonry and intimidation is exercised on the preschoolers all of the way up to PHD grad/school.

Now who should I trust?

Answer the simple questions about the bouncing ball and it won't make you any less of a student of the experiment, I will make you at least free to do what you have been programmed against.

Answer Now and break those bonds that someone is watching and you are worried what they will think. This in most cases in the first place intimidation is initiated, peer pressure.

We are all blind by design.

Now I could present a weak retake of Aarons bouncing ball but I think the point is made that we need to go back and read this again instead.

God Bless you Ben.

Mike

I agree with you for 90%! After 50+ years I (still) am fed up with our politicians, governments, etc.. but mostly I am fed-up with pointless discussions and a "if your not with us, then you are against us" mentality.

A fool thinks he knows it all. The wiseman knows he know nothing at all.

I was hoping to be able to contribute a little to further development of the 'free energy' or 'renewable energy' movement, by looking at what worked so well in the improvement of aviation. If this is appreciated, fine with me.

Take care!

[Aaron]

playing games

Ok,
please tell me which Force to use
a. The weight of the ball F=m*g?
b. The force to lift it F=-m*g
c. The resulting force?

This is completely dishonest.

Negative mass? Like I said, magic wands and minus signs.

I've already spelled it out and you're playing games.

Why you have such a problem with being intellectually honest with yourself is beyond me.

Good luck to you - you're obviously jaded and it obviously has nothing to do what I have said or what Dollard, Lindemann, etc... have said either.

[Beamgate]

Will try this ONE more time

Enough! with the:

• bouncing/spinning balls (although relevant and interesting when applied appropriately)
• I think
• I wish
• I believe
• COP 100
• Dishonesty
• Grocery Buggies
• the cause of WW(1-12)
• Mafia Schools
• Flat Earth

...as most of these things are either uninteresting, or we lack the truth behind them or, we lack the KNOWING to adequately explain them.

I will offer up a product of over 3 years of research which I think is relevant to the theme (though not the current, unproductive banter ) of this thread.

A field ( male + ) slower, more density
Velocity: 186,000 mi/sec
Density: 1850 / cm2

B field (female -) faster, less density
Velocity: 202,000 mi/sec
Density: 1257 / cm2

magnetism : 330,000 mi/sec

So, once again, what proportions (and differentials) do we observe here?

All we've been hacking away at is the Male. Look what SHE does!

Stop thinking about what's between your legs 'gents' and consider honestly the role: FEMALE.
The Balance!
The equalizer!
The two combined are the CAUSE of what?
Tesla might call her 'The Sister we all should have had'.
The one we have fought against a couple thousand years.

Bring them together, as Nature always does, and adapt them suite your goals and absorb your findings.
What you do with it, is up to you.
You can debate it, politicize it, thrash me all you want (but you will not get rebuttal or rebuke) but, I hope all consider the opportunity to enlighten yourselves and others WITHOUT COMMERCIAL GRATIFICATION. It's not yours, it's ours -- We are all, The ONE!

@thx1138 either GOT IT, or is (hopefully) analyzing IT!

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” - Nikola Tesla

@thx1138:
Note, I have corrected (from my previous post) 'mass' to 'density' above. May it guide you further.

[Ernst]

small issues (as usual )

Every university, high school, etc... site says the exact same thing. Force being mass x gravity of course.

Every school that I have been to did not say that!
They said Force equals Mass x Acceleration.
Gravity itself is a force, how can force be a force x mass?

Negative mass? Like I said, magic wands and minus signs.

refering to:

b. The force to lift it F=-m*g

Probably also a result of attending different schools?
As they told me: Force is a vector, meaning it has a size and a direction, mass has only a size (scalar) and g (gravitational acceleration) is also a vector, so it includes a direction.
The minus sign here means that to lift this mass, we need to apply a force in the opposite direction as its gravitational acceleration. This is entirely correct in my school and has nothing to do with negative masses.

A fork lift moves 34m carrying a 1023N box across the warehouse floor.

What is a 1023N box? Does N stand for Newton, then you surely know that Newton is a unit of Force. So does this box contain force?
Now imagine you make many small holes in the warehouse floor through which you blow air, so your 1023N box (whatever that is) can move frictionless across the warehouse floor. Now a child sneezes on this box causing a (small) force and thus acceleration on this box and some time (maybe hours) later the box has moved 34m. Did our childs sneeze do 34,782J of work?
Ps.: instead of holes in the floor you could do the same with magnets to avoid the argument that the airflow does this work. Or else perhaps an extremely slippery floor and box.
Ps2: do you see the difference between the question of the forklift and the grocery buggy?

I have been thinking about some of the ideas posted in this thread that deviate from generally accepted ideas. "Energy" defined as "Work Done" is essentially different and of course does not comply with laws in which it is defined in a different manner. Now we can define "Energy" in any way we want, but the question we should be asking ourselves is "is this new definition useful? Does is give us insights that we could not get otherwise". In other words "is it better?"
I would like you to see this BBC documentary, especially starting at 27 minutes, where it starts explaining the purpose of our current definition.
The Aaron definition, let's call it Energy (A) to avoid confusion, does not serve any purpose in solving the problems as explained in this video. For that reason I believe we are better served with "Energy (C)" (C= current definition).
Energy (A) does not travel through (or along) wires between my house and the electricity company, because the "work done" is done in my house and not anywhere else. So the electricity company does not supply the energy (A) that I am using, so why should I be paying them?
But wait, if I cut the lines I can not get any "work done" in my house, so something must enter my house through or along those wires. But it is not Energy (A), so what do you call that?

The other rather surprising view was that the Earth is flat. The north pole being the center and the south pole a circular edge. We know the length of the equator, being 40,000 Km. So if this were true, the circumference of the south pole should be 80,000 Km and distances in Australia should be about twice the size that we know them to be (you can use the apparent movement Sun to compare distances north and south of the equator).
There is no need to take anyones word for it, travel a bit and find out for yourself.

I read that people think that the general population is being kept stupid (perhaps ignorant is a friendlier term). That may be true, but to counter this by denying everything or redefine well defined terms to proof them invalid, will certainly not improve the situation.



Ernst.

[Ernst]

Huh?????

Stop thinking about what's between your legs 'gents'

I actually was not thinking about that (momentarily...).

Ernst.

[BroMikey]

Clear Thinking

Thank you Mike,

There are a lot of mental issues in academics when it comes to understandings that challenge their paradigms.

My friend has an AC electromagnetic that can pick up gold, sliver, aluminum, etc... right off the table. It picks up by electrical attraction and not magnetic attraction. His uncle developed it way back and some others have stumbled upon the same thing - basically eddy current generator into the non ferrous metal of the opposite polarity and it gets drawn to the electromagnet. This field will cause leukemia but point is - it works.

Anyway, my friend showed it to one of his professors when he was getting his degree in physics and although the professor SAW THE DEMO work, he started to scribble some math on the chalk board and tried to convince my friend not to mess with it because IT JUST WON'T WORK!

Just saw it work, yet the professor decided to believe his own pre-conceived ideas instead of the blatant obvious truth staring him in the face with an actual live demo. That is literally a mental insanity that we have to overcome, not figuratively, but literally.

The 2.0 COP example also applies to compressing air.

When we compress air into a tank, the science says that all the work we put into compressing that air got dissipated into heat. Ok, that's fine. That is our input and the compression of air worked against resistance of course and there is the heat - real energy dissipation.

HOWEVER, after the work we did to compress the air is dissipated as heat, we can turn around and connect an air impact drill and put on some lug nuts on a wheel or drill a hole through some wood, etc... and get work out of it.

We expended x joules of work that turned into heat, yet we have all that air left over compressed that can do more work that can be real dissipative work as explained above. All that heat + work the compressed air gave is over 1.0 COP so very common tasks like compressing air and the energy dissipation by the mechanical use of the compressed air is more than we expended to compress the air to begin with.

This exact concept is so universal throughout our world its crazy. Overunity processes happening all the time but most people are too blinded by the lies to recognize it. Obviously the heat from compressing the air is not the desired work we want, but it still demonstrates the basic natural truth that we did really dissipate energy to compress the air and we get real dissipated energy when we power tools with the air.

Denial of "overunity" processes are simply rooted in ignorance. Obviously, not all overunity claims are valid but the concept of overunity is more than a possibility, it is mandatory.

When we "charge" a battery - we have x joules of dissipated energy. That is some real heat and chemical charge happening. When we put the battery to a light bulb, we get real energy dissipation. So total work done is up to twice what we expended to charge the battery. Both are absolutely energy dissipating events. The intended work here is to just light the bulb. The dissipation of energy went into creating a dipole. We already got out of it what we put in and that is a charged battery. We received real dissipated energy for our input. Everything we put in is completely gone never to be seen again. The battery didn't get filled up with anything, it is a dipole that breaks the symmetry of the aether. We connect a light bulb, new polarized source potential from the aether moves to the terminals, over the wire and the bulb is lit - we get real dissipated energy all over again from the new dipole. Total work done is over and above what we put in. The work done to charge the battery itself didn't supply the light, but the point is that the sequence of events are always the same.

That is why there is no transforming of energy from one form to another and conservation of energy is a complete farce.

1. We dissipate energy to create a dipole. 2. Dipole is potential difference allowing new potential to come from the aether. 3. The new polarized aether comes in and does work.

That work may or may not be dissipated in a way that creates a new dipole. If it does not, we have up to 2.0 COP. If it does, we can have way more.

There is no way a conventional disciple of the mainstream scientific religion can ever dispute the facts that twice as much energy dissipation happened compared to what we expended. It is an indisputable fact that can be proven by actual experimental empirical evidence, can be proven with math, common sense, etc... the only thing that backs the arguments against it is rhetoric and word games.

It is overunity when we account for all work done. It is not overunity if the work we count is only our desired work of lighting the bulb, which will be under 1.0 COP. But in both cases, up to 200% work was absolutely accomplished compared to our own input to charge the battery. What work is practical or desired is in the eye of the beholder, but it can never be denied that more work is done compared to what we put in.

We even saw an admission by a conventionally trained scientist that the ball going up is work and the impact is work but used language games to define what is dissipative energy work or not - again while admitting both are work.

Not trying to talk about him as if he isn't here because I'm still waiting for my answer as to the negative 900 joules that manifest, according to his lift being negative and fall being positive, by expending 100 joules to lift a ball, we get 100 joules in impact work, so again, 900 joules (negative - according to him) of all the lifting work of the ball - we're at a negative 900 joules.

Anyway, admitting both the lift and impact on drop are work is actually more than I almost ever get from a conventional skeptic, which was a huge surprise actually. It is so blatant it can't be denied, but then a new definition of what is energy dissipation was created on the fly to simply discard all the excess work as if it wasn't there.

The principle here is universal and the model I've been sharing is able to consistently show these actions over and over in every single system whether it is mechanical, electromagnetic, heat, etc...

But on the conventional side of things, the only over 1.0 COP systems are basically heat systems, but don't you dare suggest the same principles can happen in any other system or you'll be burned at the stake.

We've always been labeled as the crackpots but it should be more than self evident by now that the real crackpots are those who are denying what is in front of our face while performing their illusions with magic wands and minus signs.

Oh you are quite welcome Aaron as you have earned it.

Clear thinking, a clear mind and a clear view to look ahead to learn is more that I ever got from a Gov run school. All they want is for you to register.

4 years of English, creative writing, endless worthless math and false data for science. Classes on classes that do nothing but put money in their pockets having nothing to do with what real learning I can for.

With the advent of the internet and sharing i have found my friends and that I was not the only one treated as if I were a retarded.

99.99 percent of the people who I ever exchanged understanding things with all conceal and belittle as a tactic to elevate themselves over the knowledge they think they had.

They are all fools, retired, and their money was an illusion as it was all tied up in interest. They can't buy much today and for their entire lives thought they were the most intelligent people on earth because of their college training.

This got them easy jobs with big money and them their delusional lifestyle that made them believe that it was because they were a genius.

These are not after the same things as you and I. As can be seen they give up easily and never had a mind to go outside.

I am digesting your post on charges. Very nice. I am trying to catch up with your views and though I am new to this I am not new to the idea that outside the box there is rejoicing far beyond the conventional trap where the myopic earth creatures only grovel for their food and water.

We are made so far above that.

Mike

[Aaron]

energy distinctions

Every school that I have been to did not say that!
They said Force equals Mass x Acceleration.
Gravity itself is a force, how can force be a force x mass?


refering to:

Probably also a result of attending different schools?
As they told me: Force is a vector, meaning it has a size and a direction, mass has only a size (scalar) and g (gravitational acceleration) is also a vector, so it includes a direction.
The minus sign here means that to lift this mass, we need to apply a force in the opposite direction as its gravitational acceleration. This is entirely correct in my school and has nothing to do with negative masses.

What is a 1023N box? Does N stand for Newton, then you surely know that Newton is a unit of Force. So does this box contain force?
Now imagine you make many small holes in the warehouse floor through which you blow air, so your 1023N box (whatever that is) can move frictionless across the warehouse floor. Now a child sneezes on this box causing a (small) force and thus acceleration on this box and some time (maybe hours) later the box has moved 34m. Did our childs sneeze do 34,782J of work?
Ps.: instead of holes in the floor you could do the same with magnets to avoid the argument that the airflow does this work. Or else perhaps an extremely slippery floor and box.
Ps2: do you see the difference between the question of the forklift and the grocery buggy?

I have been thinking about some of the ideas posted in this thread that deviate from generally accepted ideas. "Energy" defined as "Work Done" is essentially different and of course does not comply with laws in which it is defined in a different manner. Now we can define "Energy" in any way we want, but the question we should be asking ourselves is "is this new definition useful? Does is give us insights that we could not get otherwise". In other words "is it better?"
I would like you to see this BBC documentary, especially starting at 27 minutes, where it starts explaining the purpose of our current definition.
The Aaron definition, let's call it Energy (A) to avoid confusion, does not serve any purpose in solving the problems as explained in this video. For that reason I believe we are better served with "Energy (C)" (C= current definition).
Energy (A) does not travel through (or along) wires between my house and the electricity company, because the "work done" is done in my house and not anywhere else. So the electricity company does not supply the energy (A) that I am using, so why should I be paying them?
But wait, if I cut the lines I can not get any "work done" in my house, so something must enter my house through or along those wires. But it is not Energy (A), so what do you call that?

The other rather surprising view was that the Earth is flat. The north pole being the center and the south pole a circular edge. We know the length of the equator, being 40,000 Km. So if this were true, the circumference of the south pole should be 80,000 Km and distances in Australia should be about twice the size that we know them to be (you can use the apparent movement Sun to compare distances north and south of the equator).
There is no need to take anyones word for it, travel a bit and find out for yourself.

I read that people think that the general population is being kept stupid (perhaps ignorant is a friendlier term). That may be true, but to counter this by denying everything or redefine well defined terms to proof them invalid, will certainly not improve the situation.



Ernst.

Who is saying force x mass??? Why bring something up that wasn't claimed?

Force as mass x acceleration IS mass x gravity. Gravity IS an acceleration of 9.8 mss. Mass x gravity (acceleration) is force measured in Newtons. Newtons x distance is Newton meters, which is real work done - energy dissipated. Newtons is force and Newton Meters (force x distance) is work.

I understand what you are saying about the minus sign, but it is just completely ridiculous as there is no negative work when the work is actually en entropic effect. The only thing I can say about it at this point is that you are simply lied to in school - try to get over it. Unless time is reversed and entropy is reversing, there is no negative work, period.

Yes, 1023 is Newtons. Divide 1023 by 9.8 mss (acceleration) and you get the mass of the object, very simple. Obviously Newton is a unit of force.

Air blowing through the floor is not the same thing - that is energy expended to lift the object and has nothing to do with the examples I gave.

Magnets can do work just like "reactive power" can do work - it isn't a legit alternative to air blowing through the floor.

The video you post and your statement about it doesn't get around the fact that there are two diametrically opposed ideas about it that are used by the status quo. One is that energy is the capacity to do work and that means energy is potential energy. That is an indisputable fact if we are using the English language. The other is that the very measurement of WORK (joules) is the SAME as ENERGY and it is a measurement not of potential energy or the capacity to do work, but the ACTUAL activity of work being done - and that is 180 degree opposite of the definition of energy being the capacity to do work.

Energy is defined as potential energy (capacity to do work).

Joule is the measurement of work (ACTUAL work) and is the measurement of energy.

Why nobody seems to have a problem that these contradict themselves is completely ridiculous!

The video serves no purpose other than defining the conventional definition - not sure what the point is from minute 27~.

The points about energy moving over the wire is only conditionally true. Unless there is work done - dissipation, there is no energy. Why don't you just ask yourself, according to the definition of joule - which measure actual energy dissipation or work done, how many joules can be added up happening over the wires before it gets to your home?

There actually is energy happening as 50% of what leaves the power company is wasted in losses before it gets to your home so it is a bad example.

But to be honest with yourself, measure work done in joules and whenever work is done in joules, that is energy and that is the indisputable definition of what joules is. The non-measurement definition that energy is the capacity to do work is 180 degrees contradictory to the measurement of energy, which is real work done.

The energy company does not supply the energy, they supply the potential necessary for energy to happen when you apply a load. Just like the gas station does not supply the energy to power your car, they supply potential energy and when your car is running, it turns that potential energy in the gasoline into real energy measurable in joules. These are really elementary concepts.

What enters your house is a potential difference and when you apply a load, that dipole breaks the symmetry of the aether locally to power the load and beats down the dipole, which will be measured in amps.

But even with that being a fact, you are still not paying the power company for what you use, you pay for kvar, which is kilo volt amperes reactive. That is like paying for the ball bouncing whether you are putting it to use or not. Sad but true.

I believe the Earth is like a sphere squashed at both poles and has nothing to do with what I've said. But our own perceptions are definitely at the center of our own universe.

[Aaron]

mass x acceleration IS mass x gravity

Every school that I have been to did not say that!
They said Force equals Mass x Acceleration.
Gravity itself is a force, how can force be a force x mass?

What is the force of weight of a 100 kg man in earth's gravity of 9.8 m/s2?


The force is given by formula F=m*a, where m=mass and a=acceleration. For a man of 100kg on Earth, with acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, force imparted on surface will be 980 Newton.

[Ernst]

Aaron,

I believe the Earth is like a sphere squashed at both poles and has nothing to do with what I've said.

You are right here, there was someone else saying that the Earth is flat.
Doesn't matter.
Neither does our disagreement matter.
I guess we understand each other, and that is good enough for me.

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

Aaron,

You are right here, there was someone else saying that the Earth is flat.
Doesn't matter.
Neither does our disagreement matter.
I guess we understand each other, and that is good enough for me.

Ernst.

It was naughty me...

The other rather surprising view was that the Earth is flat. The north pole being the center and the south pole a circular edge. We know the length of the equator, being 40,000 Km. So if this were true, the circumference of the south pole should be 80,000 Km and distances in Australia should be about twice the size that we know them to be (you can use the apparent movement Sun to compare distances north and south of the equator).
There is no need to take anyones word for it, travel a bit and find out for yourself.

I read that people think that the general population is being kept stupid (perhaps ignorant is a friendlier term). That may be true, but to counter this by denying everything or redefine well defined terms to proof them invalid, will certainly not improve the situation.



Ernst.

Well, if and when there is something that i don't know i have no problem with plainly admitting my ignorance regarding specific not yet fully absolved questions. That characteristic is what people call honesty, and in this twisted world we have tremendous failure of that quality. I am flat earther-rookie so i haven't had enough time to study all possible difficult questions that flat earthers could face, but i am 100 % sure that round earthers have to answer much more difficult questions, and what is more these questions addressed to round earthers are just enumerable which is not the case with FET.

Regarding your question i could ask you one counter-question: Why there are no flights across "South Pole" whatsoever?
Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl_ZprYdorg
Quote 1:

A few factors all culminate to lead to the notion that flight times must take longer going from X to Y on a flat-earth model. First, you are erroneously attributing the flat-earth maps you've seen as factual maps. They are not how we think the flat-earth looks, they are simply an aid for one to understand the concept. We do not have a definitive flat-earth map as the world has only been mapped under a false round-earth model.

What if the real FE map is much closer to something like this (minus ice wall around it):
http://zaslike.com/files/u2yhet010jhyam31l0.jpg

See this:
http://zaslike.com/files/1pybutohfcj07nbwx3x1.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/4zk4i236twtyg5kvyh5u.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/ccah417b3y4jtupv0oq.jpg

Stop this video at 2 min 36 sec and try to answer to that question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxjj...XeHT2pWAwoSD3g

My comment on this video:

Rory, you are right! Geocentrists who are not flat earthers have to defend earth rotation hypothesis, otherwise they can't explain days and nights on Earth. But, if Earth doesn't spin (and it doesn't-which you've excellent explained using flight airline schedules) then they have to get rid of earth tilt hypothesis because if Sun is orbiting TILTED and SPHERICAL Earth it can't produce 6 months of North Pole daylight, it can't produce even 24 hours continuous North Pole daylight. When you get rid of earth tilt hypothesis then you could still theorized geocentric Earth, but not in the context of The Earth as we know it, because Sun which daily revolve this time UN-TILTED but still SPHERICAL Earth could produce 6 months of North Pole daylight but during these 6 months, on SPHERICAL Earth such revolving Sun couldn't cast any light not just to South Pole but to much wider/larger part of southern hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South America etc...)...So, if Earth is not spinning than it has to be flat. Case closed.

Something on Einstein you won't find in wikipedia:
e1:http://zaslike.com/files/yuyi9ump6hbcd9wwv6ed.jpg
e2:http://www.zaslike.com/files/v5mntsf0p68dxvgfcic.jpg
e3:http://www.zaslike.com/files/dadtze304ilu9i0j86rj.jpg

Anyway, my friend showed it to one of his professors when he was getting his degree in physics and although the professor SAW THE DEMO work, he started to scribble some math on the chalk board and tried to convince my friend not to mess with it because IT JUST WON'T WORK!

Just saw it work, yet the professor decided to believe his own pre-conceived ideas instead of the blatant obvious truth staring him in the face with an actual live demo. That is literally a mental insanity that we have to overcome, not figuratively, but literally.

[Ernst]

cikljamas,

I have been teaching high-school physics when I was young, and I was successful there judging from the grades of my students. Then when I was reading Aaron's posts here, I thought; let me try to explain this simple high school stuff again. I have done it before, I can do it again. But the difference is that my students really wanted to understand physics as it is taught, while Aaron really does not want so, and wishes to stick with his own definitions and theories.
Now that is perfectly OK with me, why should I force my understanding onto someone else?
I can use my energy in much better ways.

Then you come along, naughty you, who has just joined with the flat-liners... ehrm... flat-earthers-movement. You admit you do not yet know all the ins and outs but somehow you feel compelled to join them.
That has a very religious ring to it. You want to believe for maybe that gives you something to talk about?
I regret to have to tell you that I am disinclined to accept your challenge.
Neither am I going to discus whether the night is darker than the day or if there are more than 2 humans on Earth, whether or not dragons exist, whether or not your life starts when you wake up, whether or not .... well many other things that might actually touch on interesting points but are 90-100% nonsense.
I could point you to where to look for your answers, but why would I? You want to believe in a flat Earth, so please, by all means, go right ahead. I will not put anything in your way.

I once believed in so-called conspiracy theories, but reading this stuff makes me wonder...
It is difficult to maintain conspiracies and keep them secret for 100s of years, but do we really need disinfo-agents for example? A lot of the conspiracy issues might as well be created by ourselves.



Ernst.

[Ben2503]

purpose and objectives?

This is completely dishonest.

Negative mass? Like I said, magic wands and minus signs.

I've already spelled it out and you're playing games.

Why you have such a problem with being intellectually honest with yourself is beyond me.

Good luck to you - you're obviously jaded and it obviously has nothing to do what I have said or what Dollard, Lindemann, etc... have said either.

Hi Aaron.
Could you please explain to me what the purpose of this forum is and what the objectives are?

Thanks,
Ben

[cikljamas]

Dear Ernst and dear Ben2503!
Please try to figure out something very important, and that is importance of being able to make clear difference between genuine experimental-true scientific method and pure speculation and fantasy:
http://zaslike.com/files/gmdqggaxp60nhzqf91n9.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/qmjv3eq27j5otxlp1cy.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/r5clte6hnik353s8gui7.jpg

Now that you understand what is the difference between experiment and fantasy i politely invite you to see this:
http://www.zaslike.com/files/w2aaiwb1wilpsp6tgirp.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/hl58iduu4pwx21n8c5da.jpg
Maybe now you've become ready to read and understand this stunning scientific fact:

Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth's surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as a vast "hill"-of water!" The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a "hill of water" more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such "science" as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Do we need any other blatant fact to prove flat earth hypothesis ,such as this one:

"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."

Have you read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/253284-post137.html

Let me add this quote:

It is fairly clear why the Bible believers of the era saw Copernicus, Galileo, and their heliocentric theory as a challenge to Biblical authority. What is not so clear, until one looks a little deeper, is why today’s supporters of heliocentricity have to resort to red herrings and an avoidance of the truth. Unfortunately for their case many experiments were performed specifically to demonstrate and measure the motion of the earth around the sun. To everyone’s surprise and grief all of them gave the speed of the earth’s movement through space to be a stunning zero. No significant movement could be measured at all. The most famous of the experiments was done by Michelson and Morely. Typical of comments on their results are those of Bernard Jaffe "The data were almost unbelievable. there was only one other possible conclusion to draw, that the earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous."
As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.
One of South Africa’s most highly respected scientists, world-renowned cosmologist Professor George Ellis, noted "I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its centre, and you cannot disprove it based on observations." [as quoted in Scientific American, 273(4):29.].Nor can you prove it by observations.

Don't you overlook this hilarious laughter: http://www.zaslike.com/files/u134m264gdjvr111ohd.jpg

Now, try to compare this hilarious laughter with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY

Anything suspicious?

This is battle between good (truth) and evil (lying), slavery and freedom of humanity and it is all about that from the very beginning of this human drama...

[Ben2503]

Dear Ernst and dear Ben2503!
Please try to figure out something very important, and that is importance of being able to make clear difference between genuine experimental-true scientific method and pure speculation and fantasy:
http://zaslike.com/files/gmdqggaxp60nhzqf91n9.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/qmjv3eq27j5otxlp1cy.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/r5clte6hnik353s8gui7.jpg

Now that you understand what is the difference between experiment and fantasy i politely invite you to see this:
http://www.zaslike.com/files/w2aaiwb1wilpsp6tgirp.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/hl58iduu4pwx21n8c5da.jpg
Maybe now you've become ready to read and understand this stunning scientific fact:




Do we need any other blatant fact to prove flat earth hypothesis ,such as this one:



Have you read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/253284-post137.html

Let me add this quote:


Don't you overlook this hilarious laughter: http://www.zaslike.com/files/u134m264gdjvr111ohd.jpg

Now, try to compare this hilarious laughter with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY

Anything suspicious?

This is battle between good (truth) and evil (lying), slavery and freedom of humanity and it is all about that from the very beginning of this human drama...

Hi Cikljamas.
I was raised in a good catholic family and at the age of 14 decided to stay away from religions and rigid dogmas as far as I can. I have learned to distrust Politicians and Priests and other 'leaders'. My motto is: "if you think you can fool me, you're fooling yourself". I initially believe and trust everybody, but will always double check.
If you want to approach life with an open mind, you have to be able to look at everything from as many view points as possible.
If your conclusion is that we live on a flat earth in the centre of the universe, fine with me. I would still invite you for dinner or drinks if we were neighbors.

I know a little bit about commercial aviation and I know that one of the rules in commercial aviation is safety first. If polar routes are avoided, it is for safety or economical reasons only.

Have fun and take care.