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 190584 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 26 27 2829 30 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #810 - September 07, 2015, 07:45 PM
    Yes it was a hilarious mistake you made.  Cheesy
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #811 - September 07, 2015, 07:57 PM
    Quote from: bogart on September 07, 2015, 07:12 PM
    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.


    You're funny.

    Like I said before I've been through it before so I was just checking if you guys could understand it and you all failed miserably. But don't worry many people didn't get it at first or even the second time. Took ages to go through some simple physics.

    Anyway it's not inertia that will increase speed of the rocket, the speed of the rocket should never increase unless aonther force is applied in the correct direction. The rocket experiment would be a test to confirm whether the earth really is rotating. IF the rocket was stationary over X at 100,000m then that means the earth is stationary. IF the rocket moves across the sky eastwards then that means the earth is rotating since the rocket has the same speed as at the surface of the earth but it's got more distance to travel to stay over X.



    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #812 - September 07, 2015, 08:02 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.


    Another error you made. You have defined the helicopter as stationary. Stationary is a reference point. So stationary to what? Stationary to a position related to Earth thus rotation inertia or stationary related to observation from the moon in which both the Earth, Moon and Helicopter are moving. In the Earth reference subjected to the atmosphere and the laws of motion. Thus it is stationary to it's position from which it lifted off.  Inertia pulls the helicopter along with it. Thus it holds a fix point by the very definition of stationary. If say wind hits the helicopter and moves it then by definition it is not stationary. If the reference point is from the moon then it is not stationary. This is a problem due to your vague reference points and mistkes as a observer reference point rather than an object reference point.

    Objects in orbit are not within the atmosphere thus inertia is less due to the lack inertia drag provided by the atmosphere. So at certain positions around the Earth objects bleed speed. However at lagrange points gravity more or less equals out to be more stable than other orbit points.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #813 - September 07, 2015, 08:08 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 07:57 PM


    Anyway it's not inertia that will increase speed of the rocket, the speed of the rocket should never increase unless aonther force is applied in the correct direction. The rocket experiment would be a test to confirm whether the earth really is rotating. IF the rocket was stationary over X at 100,000m then that means the earth is stationary. IF the rocket moves across the sky eastwards then that means the earth is rotating since the rocket has the same speed as at the surface of the earth but it's got more distance to travel to stay over X.





    Inertia is a force provided by the rotation of the Earth in the correct direction. You have it completely backwards as you discounter rotation of the Earth, the inertia provided by this, the drag from the atmosphere also providing inertia. You are repeating the refuted claims of the non-rotating earth destroyed by Newtonian 3 centuries ago. You confuse an orbit outside the atmosphere with being in an atmosphere. These difference shows the Earth is rotating. Time to go back to school, you are over 3 centuries behind in physics. This is also why satiltes have to change their orbits as the orbits decay.


    http://news.psu.edu/story/141309/2007/07/30/research/probing-question-why-does-earth-rotate
    http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/202/lectures/intro/mass.htm
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ldeo/v1011x-1/jcm/Topic2/Topic2.html
    https://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/webcasts/shuttle/sts111/iss-qa.html

    http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/Space%20Weather/Space%20Weather%20Effects/SatelliteOrbitalDecayCalculations.pdf
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/mir/mir.htm

    This is your argument "I have no knowledge of Newtonian laws or of physics dur  hur the Earth doesn't rotate."




    Like I said, you are ignorant or a troll.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #814 - September 07, 2015, 08:26 PM
    It's not a helicopter. I guess you have problems with reading.

    Yes the wind would be factor and keeping the rocket over X but you could find ways around them such as only start measuring from when the rocket is above the atmosphere or work our wind speed and factor that it.

    I have no idea what you wrote about Newton.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #815 - September 07, 2015, 08:30 PM
    Quote from: bogart on September 07, 2015, 08:08 PM
    . You are repeating the refuted claims of the non-rotating earth destroyed by Newtonian 3 centuries ago.


    How did Newton destroy the "non-rotating earth" claim, any links?
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #816 - September 07, 2015, 08:31 PM
    Here's a song for you, ted.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xf-Lesrkuc
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #817 - September 07, 2015, 08:33 PM
    Does not matter as the key issue is stationary not the object in question. Semitics while dodging the point in question. Besides you have switched the object in your own question already so is of no concern by your own switch and admission. So you contradict yourself then complain about a switch you made yourself. So in the end you are complaining to yourself about yourself. Congratulation.

    No since wind can come from any direction. Your point has no merit.

    That is because you have not taken grade school physics thus have not finished high school. So I am talking to a high school drop out. Great.... Lets start with a child's introduction course since it is obviously the closest level of knowledge you hold, which is none.

    http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_laws.html


    I should be paid for teaching physics especially since it is not my specialty or even close to it. I also demand hazard pay since Ted is the student
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #818 - September 07, 2015, 08:49 PM
    Well you're talking nonsense.  You just made a statement about Newton which you can't back up. If you actually knew that Newton had refuted the stationary earth you'd have just posted a link. But as usual you resort to the usual method of avoiding the question and writing garbage just to make yourself look intelligent like so many here.

    Why not show me where Newton refuted the stationary earth and we'll go through it. You're just confused.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #819 - September 07, 2015, 08:57 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 08:30 PM
    How did Newton destroy the "non-rotating earth" claim, any links?


    The very laws I am talking about, which he created, destroyed the non-rotating Earth idea as it provide the basic math for motion.

    http://people.atmos.ucla.edu/fovell/AOS101/downloads/Newton_rotating.pdf

    You can also look up this experiment proving it in the simplest of terms possible.

    http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmah/pendulum.htm

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #820 - September 07, 2015, 09:00 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 08:49 PM
    Well you're talking nonsense.  You just made a statement about Newton which you can't back up. If you actually knew that Newton had refuted the stationary earth you'd have just posted a link. But as usual you resort to the usual method of avoiding the question and writing garbage just to make yourself look intelligent like so many here.


    So if I do not respond in a timely manner determined by you and you alone but not voiced by you my statements are meaningless. Hilarious. Nevermind you could look this up yourself with a few key words. I guess expecting you research anything yourself is expecting too much. Now that I understand you must be fed knowledge in a spoon like a child I will cite sources for you to cover for your own incompetence.

    Also your own arguments have zero citations. Double-standards and a hypocrite. Nevermind the one citation, which was not in support but clarification, you made agreed with me. However since you lack a basic education but are arrogant enough to think it does not matter you were not able to understand what you linked. So you refuted your own argument with your own citation. Hilarious.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #821 - September 07, 2015, 09:10 PM
    Quote from: bogart on September 07, 2015, 08:57 PM
    The very laws I am talking about, which he created, destroyed the non-rotating Earth idea as it provide the basic math for motion.

    http://people.atmos.ucla.edu/fovell/AOS101/downloads/Newton_rotating.pdf

    You can also look up this experiment proving it in the simplest of terms possible.

    http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmah/pendulum.htm




    You're talking gibberish again. First of all let's clarify that Newton himself never destroyed any claims that the earth is stationary. If you think he did then cite the reference.

    Next I think you are saying that the laws Newton can be used to destroy the claim that the earth is stationary. Which is bullshit. There's no such law that can be used to prove the earth is not rotating.

    You've just demonstrated how silly you are by trying to come across that you know physics and maths. If you think I'm wrong let's go through the laws of Newton which "destroyed the non-rotating Earth idea".

    This is going to be fun.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #822 - September 07, 2015, 09:14 PM
    bogart,

    Just as a matter of interest what are your qualifications - if any?  Not that yo need any qualifications to understand basic science.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #823 - September 07, 2015, 09:18 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 07, 2015, 09:10 PM
    There's no such law that can be used to prove the earth is not rotating.


    Umm. Did you mean to say that?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #824 - September 07, 2015, 09:30 PM
    That applies as well.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #825 - September 07, 2015, 10:37 PM
    The Hadith of Ted

    One day while we were sitting on the forum, along came a man with an extremely bizarre user name and an extremely strange writing style. None of us knew him from amongst the forum members, nor did we see in him any semblance of an education.

    He sat amongst us and said, "Tell me about evolution." We said, "Evolution is the process through which life changes and adapts to its environment." He said, "You are incorrect." So we thought it was strange that he would ask a question then deny the answer without providing any evidence.

    Then he said, "Tell me about the Earth." We said, "The Earth is the third planet from the sun in the solar system. It is spherical and orbits the sun while rotating on its axis." He said, "You are incorrect." So again, we thought it was strange that he would ask a question then deny the answer without providing any alternate evidence.

    Then he said, "Tell me about hovering rockets." We said, "The ones being asked don't give any more fucks than the one asking." So he said, "Then tell me about inertia, and gravity, and Newton, and other things I should have learned in grade school." So he was provided with multiple links from reputable sources detailing the errors in his arguments. He said, "You are still incorrect."

    We were baffled as to who this stranger was. He said, "I am Ted. I came to teach you science."

    - Agreed upon
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #826 - September 07, 2015, 11:04 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on September 07, 2015, 10:37 PM
    The Hadith of Ted

    One day while we were sitting on the forum, along came a man with an extremely bizarre user name and an extremely strange writing style. None of us knew him from amongst the forum members, nor did we see in him any semblance of an education.

    He sat amongst us and said, "Tell me about evolution." We said, "Evolution is the process through which life changes and adapts to its environment." He said, "You are incorrect." So we thought it was strange that he would ask a question then deny the answer without providing any evidence.

    Then he said, "Tell me about the Earth." We said, "The Earth is the third planet from the sun in the solar system. It is spherical and orbits the sun while rotating on its axis." He said, "You are incorrect." So again, we thought it was strange that he would ask a question then deny the answer without providing any alternate evidence.

    Then he said, "Tell me about hovering rockets." We said, "The ones being asked don't give any more fucks than the one asking." So he said, "Then tell me about inertia, and gravity, and Newton, and other things I should have learned in grade school." So he was provided with multiple links from reputable sources detailing the errors in his arguments. He said, "You are still incorrect."

    We were baffled as to who this stranger was. He said, "I am Ted. I came to teach you science."

    - Agreed upon


    Narrated Gal:

    There came unto the forum some who were educated at university on the matter of psychology, and offered advice to one who was in a state of suffering. Ted entered the thread and began to issue diagnoses. We asked him, "Oh Ted! What are your qualifications?" And he said, "Verily, I have restrained my sister and kept her in a state of subjection; and you have no children!" We spoke again, and said, "Oh Ted! These are not qualifications!" And he said "Verily experience is greater than education."
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #827 - September 07, 2015, 11:19 PM
    Narrated Gal:

    And after [Ted had been warned to stop this behavior], I answered him "What does it matter if I have children? For surely, the way you treat a small child is different from the way you treat an adult." And Ted answered "Surely you do not understand. It does not matter if your child is 56, they are your child." And in my heart, I questioned, "But verily your profile says that you are but 41! Have you traveled in time, to know your child when they are 56?" Then I reasoned, "Surely this question was asked of Jesus, and he answered it with 'Before Abraham was, I am'"--which is to say, in the Aramaic, that he is one with God. And then I understood the claims of Ted of knowledge in all things.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #828 - September 07, 2015, 11:42 PM
    Fantastic Hadith. I was looking for the like button again..
    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #829 - September 08, 2015, 12:21 AM
    Quote from: bogart on September 07, 2015, 08:02 PM
    Another error you made. You have defined the helicopter as stationary. Stationary is a reference point. So stationary to what? Stationary to a position related to Earth thus rotation inertia or stationary related to observation from the moon in which both the Earth, Moon and Helicopter are moving. In the Earth reference subjected to the atmosphere and the laws of motion. Thus it is stationary to it's position from which it lifted off.  Inertia pulls the helicopter along with it. Thus it holds a fix point by the very definition of stationary. If say wind hits the helicopter and moves it then by definition it is not stationary. If the reference point is from the moon then it is not stationary. This is a problem due to your vague reference points and mistkes as a observer reference point rather than an object reference point.

    Objects in orbit are not within the atmosphere thus inertia is less due to the lack inertia drag provided by the atmosphere. So at certain positions around the Earth objects bleed speed. However at lagrange points gravity more or less equals out to be more stable than other orbit points.



    This is such a basic freaking physics it boggles me he doesn't understand it.


    Shit like this is explained in middle school. Your very first few assignments and for middle school grade physics will include earth's gravity and rotation speed, speed relative to what, etc.

    We shouldn't need to explain this.

    Oh for fuck's sake.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #830 - September 08, 2015, 05:09 AM
    You guys are clueless. You think that by writing crap like the above you have knowledge of this area. You're only deluding yourselves.

    Not one of you was able to do simple calculations.

    Bogart has reading problems as well as not understanding the crap he writes himself.

    Please return to common sense all of you.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #831 - September 08, 2015, 06:38 AM
    Ted said to us, "I have asked simple questions! Why have you not answered them?" And we said to him, "Do you not know that there are further variables besides the ones you listed that affect the outcomes of the experiments?" And he said "You have deluded yourselves, and you are deluded. Therefore, being among the uneducated." And I said, "Oh Ted! If you were to leave, there would be not one willfully ignorant amongst us."
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #832 - September 08, 2015, 08:14 AM
    Why don't you cite some verses where people are in hellfire. It's very interesting what they say.

    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #833 - September 08, 2015, 08:18 AM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOxDssdJ_3g

    Jahannam is a beautiful place, Ted. I'm not too scared to go there.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #834 - September 08, 2015, 08:27 AM
    Too scared to cite the verses then. Thought so.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #835 - September 08, 2015, 08:29 AM
    No, I just see it as pointless. I literally *just* posted a 20 minute video I made on why I'm not afraid of hell. So I don't see why you'd call me scared of hell. Oh and I know the audio is a bit garbled in the video but I added closed captions.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #836 - September 08, 2015, 08:32 AM
    OK and for some reason you don't see all your other posts as being pointless. Says a lot about you. I take it you're still a teenager then.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #837 - September 08, 2015, 08:37 AM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 08, 2015, 08:32 AM
    OK and for some reason you don't see all your other posts as being pointless. Says a lot about you. I take it you're still a teenager then.


    No, I view talking to you as pointless, at this point what I'm saying is for everyone else. (Except for this comment, which is to keep me awake and to let me know later that I was awake when it was posted, because I've been passing out a lot in the last 48 hours.) And no, not a teenager, I have a university degree.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #838 - September 08, 2015, 08:39 AM
    OK I see the problem now. I hope you get better soon.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #839 - September 08, 2015, 08:53 AM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on September 08, 2015, 08:39 AM
    OK I see the problem now. I hope you get better soon.

    great.... Ted the Psychotherapist sees the problems in everyone except within himself.,   So Ted when are you going to see problems within your self?  and I too hope you will get  get better soon.
     
    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     
  • Previous page 1 ... 26 27 2829 30 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »