Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Get in the Ring → Ringside seats → Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

 (Read 190623 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 25 26 2728 29 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #780 - September 04, 2015, 11:51 AM
    Quote from: bogart on September 04, 2015, 11:27 AM
    The pull of gravity increases and decreases due to distances of an object and that of the gravity well. As a rocket gains altitude it is gaining distances from the gravity well. Hence the thrust to weight ration decreases in relation to the pull of gravity and the distance of the object from the source of gravity.

    If the rockets thrust is not high enough to gain more altitude then it will hover, providing enough fuel and reliability of the engine to overcome thrust bleed-off.

    You confuse the speed of the rocket with inertia provided by the gravity well, like I said you know nothing of Newtonian physics. The answer is the same for both cases provided there is no force causing drift in any direction other than up and down.

    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html


    Sorry but it seems like you may have misread the question. Forget about the engine and fuel. Just accept that the rocket is hovering at a fixed altitude.

    The rocket at a higher altitude has to have a higher speed if it is to remain over position X since it has a longer distance to travel. Geostationary satellites are travelling much faster than around the earth than something which is near the surface hence they both complete one revolution at the same time.

    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #781 - September 04, 2015, 12:25 PM
    I forgot nothing. Your vagueness regarding the engine and rocket causes issues as I do not know what it's weight is thus how much thrust is required for it to hover. The mass of the rocket and thrust matter regardless of whether you think it does nor.  You question is fallacious since it is ambiguous and based on your own ignorance of physics

     Contextual fallacy, A satellite is not a rocket nor is the altitude the same.  Beside the inertia of gravity provides relative speeds in relation to altitude as long as no direction force is used or is an effect. A satellite has been effected by directional force. Force 1 is from the rocket launch and it's stages. Force two are positional thrusts prior to decoupling. Again, as I told you 5 times now, the answer is the same. Inertia dictates the speed if there is no direction force. All satellites are placed into orbit using Newtonian laws of motion, like I told you.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #782 - September 04, 2015, 12:41 PM
    Wow.

    I didn't realise it would be so hard to explain this.

    Do you accept that the rocket has a higher speed at a higher altitude than it does when it's on the earth's surface? If the earth was stationary they the rocket would not have a higher speed.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #783 - September 04, 2015, 12:54 PM
     Speeds increase as the pull of gravity decreases due to distances of the object to the gravity well and due to inertia from the rotation and gravity. If there was no rotation you argument has no point what so ever as there is no inertia.

    The only reason you are having issues is due to you having no idea what you are talking about and refuse to learn from what I have told you. You are willfully ignorant due to your religious bias and presuppositions you hold. You fail to understand inertia. It is why when you jump you do not move to the east but land in the same spot. It is why when in a 100 story building you do not need to move faster to account for your altitude. Why you do not go flying backwards when walking in a flying plane. All are simple principles of Newtonian physics, something you refuse to learn about.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #784 - September 04, 2015, 12:57 PM
    Just to clarify I am not talking about the vertical speed of the rocket.

    When the rocket is stationary it is still travelling at speed. Check this out - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.html

    It might make it clearer as to what I am trying to say.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #785 - September 04, 2015, 01:09 PM
    I provided answers for both.

    Your link is exactly what I am telling you. Here are key parts you probably do not understand

    "The result was the graphic that reveals the speed of a point on Earth's surface for any given latitude as a result of the rotation of the Earth about its axis. "

    This is inertia

    "After that, speed due to rotation was calculated by multiplying the speed at the equator by the cosine of the latitude at the point."

    Location inertia due to the shape of the Earth

    Again you just provided evidence you have no idea what you are talking about. If you did you would have figured out the relation to the dumbed down terminology, for people like yourself, with the technical terminology, which I have been using. You also provided a source validating what I have told you. You just cited evidence for all my points. Thanks for proving me right.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #786 - September 04, 2015, 01:33 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 04, 2015, 12:57 PM
    Just to clarify I am not talking about the vertical speed of the rocket.

    When the rocket is stationary it is still travelling at speed. Check this out - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.html

    It might make it clearer as to what I am trying to say.


    Ted  Are  you  again talking nonsense?..

    but suppose and I & everyone accepts everything you say/write is right and truth and.... and you are right all others are wrong.,

      Now .. then what is YOUR EXPLANATION FOR  for.eg
    Quote
     
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 04, 2015, 12:41 PM


    Do you accept that the rocket has a higher speed at a higher altitude than it does when it's on the earth's surface? 

     
    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 09, 2015, 10:13 AM
    "Yup, just because we are not capable of doing something does not mean it is impossible. We can not make a star but that does not mean stars do not form. We can not make planets but that does not mean planets can not form."

    Sorry but you're confused. It's about whether we can use our understanding of the universe to replicate the things and phenomena we observe in the universe. It's interesting that you mention the formation of stars and planets. As I understand it the current scientific understanding is that dust in the universe came together over millions of years and form bigger bodies. We know gravity exists, we know matter exists so it's a given that this is how stars and planets formed.

    But let's take a step back and let's see how much of this is true. When you get some dust and put them together do you observe bigger and bigger bodies forming? Please do enlighten me.

    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 10, 2015, 09:50 AM
    They're not related.

    My understanding now is that the earth's gravity is not a natural phenomena but something unnatural. In other words it's not possible for stars and planets to form simply by the action of gravity acting on dust particles. This should be easy to disprove. So far no one has been able to cite any experiment that can be done to confirm that dust or rocks naturally form bigger masses. What we have is just assumptions and people blindly accepting assumptions as scientific fact.

    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 09, 2015, 10:46 PM
    The first experiment. What do you mean by "take your sand and rock outside earth's gravity". Can this be done? If so how?

    The second one is just a demonstration of the effects of gravity of the earth. What I asked for was experiments to show that dust/sand naturally clump together to form bigger masses which in turn attract more mass.

    The third experiment is not valid as magnetism is not the same as gravity.

    The cloud of dust in which stars form, you do realise that they are in a gravitational field don't you?


    ...

    So what is your explanation for all that planet formation... origin of life...origin of universe....or for that silly satellites sitting in geostationary orbits??

    and what is your explanation of  you writing zillion stupid posts in to CEMB?
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #787 - September 04, 2015, 01:38 PM
    Back to ignore with you Ted. Your arguments have regressed to the point that you are providing evidence for the very answers I provided but due to your lack of education you are oblivious to this. You can try again in a month.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #788 - September 04, 2015, 01:43 PM
    It's OK I don't plan on hanging around here. I need to get on with my life. This forum is taking too much of my attention. It's enjoyable but hugely distracting for me.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #789 - September 04, 2015, 01:51 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 04, 2015, 01:43 PM
    It's OK I don't plan on hanging around here. I need to get on with my life. This forum is taking too much of my attention. It's enjoyable but hugely distracting for me.

    wait..wait..  that is all ok...

    .............BUT DO NOT BLAME  OTHERS FOR YOU WRITING ZILLION STUPID POSTS IN TO THIS FORUM...
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #790 - September 05, 2015, 06:52 AM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 04, 2015, 01:43 PM
    It's OK I don't plan on hanging around here. I need to get on with my life. This forum is taking too much of my attention. It's enjoyable but hugely distracting for me.


    Yes you have wasted an number of days and post all while not presenting a single shred of evidence for your claims and nattering on about rockets. Stick around here any longer you may end up linking evidence for evolution when trying to babble about how it doesn't have evidence.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #791 - September 07, 2015, 03:39 AM
    The gems!!

    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 23, 2015, 10:06 PM
    Seems like you guys never really studied the Quran/Bible properly.

    The ice-caps is more to do with weather/climate. Weather is a "divine" process. No computer modelling or understanding of  science will ever bring us to predicting weather. The weather you see is not obeying natural laws hence you can never predict weather. Bizarre? Yes I know but forget that for now and see where the science leads you. The science won't lie.


     Cheesy

    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 22, 2015, 11:36 AM
    The speed of the rocket is faster when it's 100000m above the earth if the rocket remains over X. Question is where does the rocket get it's extra speed from if not from the atmosphere?


    Jesus Christ, Ted.

    Please pick up any middle school level physics book.

    Find the part where they teach you velocity. They usually give examples like: person A is sitting on a train, what is his speed?
    train v + earth rotation v

    Also, gravity gets stronger the deeper you go to the core. This is also freaking basic physics.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #792 - September 07, 2015, 07:16 AM
    Lol.

    I think it's you has no clue about science. I've already been through the rocket question on other forums. I know the answer.

    You and the other guys are funny on this forum claiming to know science. 

    I'm not sure if it's worth going through the answer with the attitude and level of science people have on this forum.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #793 - September 07, 2015, 08:16 AM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZuktUfF0nE
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #794 - September 07, 2015, 09:03 AM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 07:16 AM
    Lol.
     
    You and the other guys are funny on this forum claiming to know science.      

    Ted again you are writing NONSENSE.. no one claimed that .. no one is claiming that .. Any student   of science.... any fellow working in science WILL NEVER CLAIM THAT "HE/SHE UNDERSTAND  EVERYTHING IN EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCES"

    only fools do that  .. So again Question to you....

    Are you acting like devil's advocate or are you acting like a fool?   or..or you are NOT acting etal??

    stop writing nonsense.. Would you like to debate with me .. the same thing what you are doing with QSE??  you are running wild  running amok in that folder
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #795 - September 07, 2015, 09:39 AM
    Feel free to answer the rocket question. If you can do that then I know you have good knowledge of maths and physics.

    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #796 - September 07, 2015, 09:49 AM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 09:39 AM
    Feel free to answer the rocket question. If you can do that then I know you have good knowledge of maths and physics


    I don't need knowledge in Physics/math to answer your questions in Science .. I use commonsense that seems to be lacking in your posts..

     Now ask the question again.... write it down here..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #797 - September 07, 2015, 10:03 AM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 03, 2015, 04:10 PM
    What does gravity have to do with the speed of the hovering rocket?
    Forget about escape velocity and how the rocket is able to hover over point X. Imagine it's got some special engine which can let it do so.

    Let's say point X is on the equator. Given that info you should be work out the speed of the rocket on the earth which can be done by using the diameter of the earth - 12,742 km and the time it takes to do one revolution, 24 hours. You should then also be able to work out the speed of the rocket when it is hovering over position X at an altitude of 100,000m above the earth.



    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #798 - September 07, 2015, 10:05 AM
    So what is the speed of the rocket when it is on the equator and when it is hovering 100,000m above it?
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #799 - September 07, 2015, 10:11 AM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 10:05 AM
    So what is the speed of the rocket when it is on the equator and when it is hovering 100,000m above it?

    You know the answer,  don't you Ted?? your allahgodramkishanmonkey holding the rocket  when it is on the equator  and is hovering 100,000m above  the earth with his .........


    Unlike you I do many things in life Mr.Ted..
    So wait for answer and until then don't write nonsense in other folders ..
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #800 - September 07, 2015, 01:15 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 07:16 AM
    Lol.

    I think it's you has no clue about science. I've already been through the rocket question on other forums. I know the answer.

    You and the other guys are funny on this forum claiming to know science. 

    I'm not sure if it's worth going through the answer with the attitude and level of science people have on this forum.


    Seriously what are you trying to accomplish here? Giving a middle school physics question to test bogart?

    Why should anyone answer that, given the condescending tone?

    You still haven't given any proof of your concept of God. You're still babbling about your Islamic God the Creator without any proof, while ranting about molecules, physics, and biology that you know nothing about. You have given no proof that Islamic God is even the "creator" that you're talking about. You just want something to satisfy yourself so you can feel good about it.

    You just said weather is a divine process that nobody can predict.  This is the great scientific attitude you're talking about? Have you ever talked to a meteorologist? Do you watch weather forecast? Do you consider weather forecasting to be 'scientific'?

    Science is divine for you, isn't it? It's this thing that nobody else but you can know. Every other scientists got it wrong. Biologists, those evolution peddlers. Pesky scientists! They know nothing about science!


    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 23, 2015, 08:16 PM
    Seems like you both love to state the obvious but when you're taken further you crap yourselves and resort to ridiculing instead of actually answering the question.

    No one here has been able to refute anything I've said regarding the science.


    Quote
    Sorry Quod but I don't think science was your strong subject at school so I don't think it's worth going any further.


    There is probably no point in discussing science with Ted. Even after being proven as a fraud who doesn't understand basic middle school biology, he just... keeps on peddling with even crazier "answers" to his own scientific "questions". All of which have NOTHING to do with his God.

    Like, every answers to his own crazy questions is the "divine". Since you know, science have no explanations for this (according to him) and this proves his God (Huh???).

    Fallacy overload.

    Quote
    Regarding the quran/bible I don't really like discussing it with people who don't believe in God because there is so much they will never accept or understand. Would be pointless waffling of opinions and thoughts which no one can ever prove or disprove.


    Yeah, after all you only have subjective 'proofs' for this. Of course nobody shares your opinion, and it is always their fault. Never yours.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #801 - September 07, 2015, 01:28 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on September 01, 2015, 09:30 PM
    You can predict weather. I was caught up in hurricane Sandy back in 2012 when it hit the US east coast. Everyone was expecting it and preparing for the outcome because people could, and they did, predict it hitting.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #802 - September 07, 2015, 01:36 PM
    It's not just that, Quod.

    Airline companies and insurance companies. They literally rely their whole business on predicting freaking weather.

    Also, hurricanes can be predicted, as well as earthquakes.

    For God's sake.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #803 - September 07, 2015, 01:52 PM
    Looks like you are both clueless as each other when it comes to science and you can't even use google. Amazing. But I got to give it you, you are both good at waffling.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #804 - September 07, 2015, 02:10 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on August 14, 2015, 07:02 PM
    So Ted, I'm going to try to explain something that may help us along. The reason you've been unconvincing with your arguments is that you have no arguments. You make claims and don't back them up. I can do that as well.

    Well Ted, looks like you are clueless when it comes to science and you can't even use google. Amazing. But I got to give it you, you are good at waffling.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #805 - September 07, 2015, 02:36 PM
    I guess you need to play the part if you're Jester of the Month.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #806 - September 07, 2015, 04:56 PM
    The crown is mine.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #807 - September 07, 2015, 07:10 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 01:52 PM
    Looks like you are both clueless as each other when it comes to science and you can't even use google. Amazing. But I got to give it you, you are both good at waffling.


    You mean when you used google and cited a source confirming what I told you?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #808 - September 07, 2015, 07:12 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 07:16 AM
    Lol.

    I think it's you has no clue about science. I've already been through the rocket question on other forums. I know the answer.


    Do tell. Until you demonstrate otherwise I will dismiss your empty statements for what they are. Also considering your basic mistake in science I am justified in doing so.

    Quote
    You and the other guys are funny on this forum claiming to know science. 


    So saith the geocentric supporter, hilarious.

    Quote
    I'm not sure if it's worth going through the answer with the attitude and level of science people have on this forum.


    Cop-out.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #809 - September 07, 2015, 07:40 PM
    Quote from: bogart on September 07, 2015, 07:10 PM
    You mean when you used google and cited a source confirming what I told you?


    Lol.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Previous page 1 ... 25 26 2728 29 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »