It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Weight

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Bravo so now you understand the fall. Orbital motion is also like that
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
geodesics is a lot of Einstein sheites
a reply to: DenyObfuscation


I understand you think that, but that's the only way an orbit could be considered a 'straight line'.

I also didn't ask you what you thought about geodesics in GR. I asked if your ''straight line'' comments are mocking it.

You can't give a straight answer to anything because your trolling relies on ambiguity.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Bravo so now you understand the fall. Orbital motion is also like that
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


Nope...You're still being cryptic.

If you can't write a post that clearly explains your position, then I'm going to have to assume you have no position and are just stringing us along for your own amusement.


edit on 1/22/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Heck I'm typing in plain English. If you grasp the bit about spacecraft, you will know in no uncertain terms my position.
a reply to: DenyObfuscation



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Heck I'm typing in plain English. If you grasp the bit about spacecraft, you will know in no uncertain terms my position.
a reply to: DenyObfuscation



You have an idea based on bad ideas that you can't even type so we can dissect, show you the faults then laugh at your hilariously flawed theory.

You've also failed to answer every single question someone has asked. Is that because you don't know the answers or you don't want your theory to be wrong so ignore anything that goes against it?
edit on 223022/1/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Heck I'm typing in plain English. If you grasp the bit about spacecraft, you will know in no uncertain terms my position.
a reply to: DenyObfuscation



You have an idea based on bad ideas that you can't even type so we can dissect, show you the faults then laugh at your hilariously flawed theory.

You've also failed to answer every single question someone has asked. Is that because you don't know the answers or you don't want your theory to be wrong so ignore anything that goes against it?
I'm truly appalled at the level and physics understanding on ats. Now did you grasp the bit about the space craft? Yes or No?



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Heck I'm typing in plain English. If you grasp the bit about spacecraft, you will know in no uncertain terms my position.
a reply to: DenyObfuscation



You have an idea based on bad ideas that you can't even type so we can dissect, show you the faults then laugh at your hilariously flawed theory.

You've also failed to answer every single question someone has asked. Is that because you don't know the answers or you don't want your theory to be wrong so ignore anything that goes against it?
I'm truly appalled at the level and physics understanding on ats. Now did you grasp the bit about the space craft? Yes or No?


Says the person who thinks GR is bunk? That's a joke.

And I got what you mean about the space craft, but you're still wrong.

It only goes in a straight line in relation to point a to point b and the planets in our solar system. It completely ignores how our galaxy is travelling. So not a true straight line at all.

It's only a straight line because it's perceived as a straight line.

It's like you saying someone sitting on a chair is not moving. It doesn't take into consideration the fact the Earth is spinning, the Earth is rotating around the Sun etc. It's relative to the person who is looking.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Lol you didn't get the bit about spacecraft, it was mentioned to prove there is no angular motion associated with orbiting bodies. so there. QED
a reply to: TerryDon79



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I'm truly appalled at the level and physics understanding on ats.


And i would say that this is appallingly Ironic


Lets once again see some answers... you want to play the roll of 'keeper of secrets' that doesn't wash in science... if you cannot explain it in a way people understand, i means you do not understand it fully yourself. So after many pages of physics questions and answers from many of the members here on ATS... lets have some answers from yourself, not simply mis-directions... Start to finish reasoning... why GR is bunk first principles with evidence and logical reasoning.

BTW... ill not hold my breath, and ill just wait for either a deflection oooor this to be ignored. There is a small part of me who hopes for a actual logical train of thought, but it gets smaller and smaller with each of your posts



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Read the thread in my signature. do you see the anti gravity machine unbending space and evidence of time dilation? For this reason GR is bunk
a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Read the thread in my signature. do you see the anti gravity machine unbending space and evidence of time dilation? For this reason GR is bunk
a reply to: ErosA433



So you're not actually going to answer the questions?

You're anti gravity thing is absolute bunk.

Now...how is GR bunk?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Read the thread in my signature. do you see the anti gravity machine unbending space and evidence of time dilation? For this reason GR is bunk
a reply to: ErosA433



So you're not actually going to answer the questions?

You're anti gravity thing is absolute bunk.

Now...how is GR bunk?
Just like your professor in college, I wont be spelling it out for you. Do it as your homework. Tell me when you finish it



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Read the thread in my signature. do you see the anti gravity machine unbending space and evidence of time dilation? For this reason GR is bunk
a reply to: ErosA433



So you're not actually going to answer the questions?

You're anti gravity thing is absolute bunk.

Now...how is GR bunk?
Just like your professor in college, I wont be spelling it out for you. Do it as your homework. Tell me when you finish it


So in other words, you have no proof.

Cheers for clearing that up.

Guess the whole thread was a waste of time, again.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Read the thread in my signature. do you see the anti gravity machine unbending space and evidence of time dilation? For this reason GR is bunk
a reply to: ErosA433



So you're not actually going to answer the questions?

You're anti gravity thing is absolute bunk.

Now...how is GR bunk?
Just like your professor in college, I wont be spelling it out for you. Do it as your homework. Tell me when you finish it


So in other words, you have no proof.

Cheers for clearing that up.

Guess the whole thread was a waste of time, again.
The anti gravity machine is the proof



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
What have you done to rule out experimental errors wrt things such as weight measurement apparatus and methods?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Nochzwei
What have you done to rule out experimental errors wrt things such as weight measurement apparatus and methods?
I've already explained to him that his "proof of anti-gravity" is the same effect that causes engineers to build bridges with expansion joints so they don't buckle when the bridge gets hot. Ever seen these on a bridge?



His "bridge" on top of his "antigravity machine" has no expansion joints, but instead of "buckling" it's sheet steel so it bows upward when he turns on some heaters inside the machine. Put a probe on top of that and measure the upward deflection and call it "anti-gravity" but it's only thermal expansion.

This is engineering 101 and even engineers who never studied bridge-building are taught this stuff, but Nochzwei doesn't seem to know it.

Then he says the displacement is greater than can be accounted for by the thermal coefficient of expansion, but he's wrong again because he's only looking at the amount of increase or decrease of the length horizontally. He hasn't figured out that this horizontal growth in length results in a vertical displacement which exceeds the horizontal growth, when the ends are fixed. He claims to be an engineer and says he can do the math to calculate the amount of "amplification" but I'm pretty sure he can't and I'm positive he never showed the math.

Anyway if he put an "expansion joint" like that on his "antigravity machine" the "antigravity measurement" would disappear. This is engineering 101 stuff which he seems to not know.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I missed all that. I've wondered for awhile but never asked, is there any way a bit of the ion lifter effect or something similar might be occurring also?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscationThe ion lifter effect of course works if you have a big power supply sitting on the ground and lift a very light object connected to the heavy power supply. The heavy power supply never gets lifted in such demonstrations so it's even less "anti-gravity" than airplanes and helicopters which don't rely on a power source sitting on the ground to fly.

There's no evidence of anything like ion lift in Nochzwei's antigravity video. It's just a big noisy heater causing thermal expansion which causes excitement by people who don't know much engineering or math.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Nochzwei
What have you done to rule out experimental errors wrt things such as weight measurement apparatus and methods?

As an engineer, they look good to me. There is no room for doubt



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Read the thread in my signature. do you see the anti gravity machine unbending space and evidence of time dilation? For this reason GR is bunk
a reply to: ErosA433



So you're not actually going to answer the questions?

You're anti gravity thing is absolute bunk.

Now...how is GR bunk?
Just like your professor in college, I wont be spelling it out for you. Do it as your homework. Tell me when you finish it


So in other words, you have no proof.

Cheers for clearing that up.

Guess the whole thread was a waste of time, again.
The anti gravity machine is the proof


You mean your heater?

Apart from that failed attempt to prove anti-gravity, I want to see actual proof.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join