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.

 

Physics of Ionising Radiation.

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

oh you measured it?? so umm are you saying you are the guy in the video??? because there is no one else in the video.. you clearly could not have measured it from the video as it does not move at all off the base, the guy in the video makes no mention of it lifting whatsoever..

which is weird.. why do you claim you measured the lift but the guy in the video doesnt even mention any lifting of the base?

but anyway what exactly was the measurement??

what tool did you use to measure it?
how did you measure it?




posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Dude I measured the rise of the base. Go figure
a reply to: choos

Ah, so it is your video. That's yet another lie you've now been caught in.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Lol the base of the frame above the spring.
Same clock gauge. Rise same as wt you see in the video
a reply to: choos



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

that explaination you gave is so poor..

so you think there are two clock gauges in the video being used?

i see one being used and its measuring the top of the machine only.. the video does not look beneath the machine at all at any point..

surely you are not lying again right?? two clock gauges??
whats your explaination that at the end of the video to confirm his belief that the machine has permanently risen and lost weight, that he only checks the top clock gauge and the scale but doesnt even mention the bottom clock gauge???

take a screen shot of the second one, or give me a time to check it out myself.

p.s. when you say it rises the same do you mean the needle was rotating clockwise just like the top gauge?
edit on 29-3-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Your intelligence is appalling
a reply to: choos



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

thats great to hear considering your background of lying.

but where is the second clock gauge?

ETA: i should say where in the VIDEO is the second clock gauge? since i can already guess that you wont give the answer and reply with yet another attempted insult
edit on 29-3-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Your intelligence is appalling
a reply to: choos


Not half as appalling as your understanding of elementary level science or the evidence (or lack thereof) you've presented thus far. The fact that you've now resorted to outright personal attacks rather than presenting verifiable evidence to back up your ignorant claims speaks volumes...



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Lol i already said SAME clock gauge. I think you better quit
a reply to: choos



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Some dim witted stills on display. Lo and behold. Ats at its best
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

i did NOT ask for what the clock gauge LOOKED LIKE.. i asked where it is in the video..

ill ask again since you didnt understand the question:

where is the second clock gauge in the video that is measuring the rise of the bottom of the machine?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Appalling. If the same gauge was used, how many gauges would you see in the video? Hombre go back to school.
a reply to: choos



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

you just cant stop the incessant lying can you? whatever lets play..

so you think its a good idea to claim that one clock gauge was used to measure both the rise in the top of the machine AND the bottom of the machine??

why isnt this in the video?? why isnt there a video of the clock gauge on the bottom??

also did the clock gauge turn clockwise or anti clockwise?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Using the same gauge for top and bottom (Same physical gauge) means you don't understand the science of actually taking measurements. Two devices, cross calibrated should be used, mounted on a stable fixed base. So ultimately this device should be operated on a stable concrete base.

Nochzwei, you have gone from claiming to have found the video and being somewhat uncertain of its validity in your first post regarding it. To making claims of, or, making the impression to others that you are in possession of said device, made the video, and made the measurements.

So... which is it? Going to straighten it all out?

You have also frequently deflected questions that you cannot answer or don't understand by "You are not asking the right questions" or "You are not an engineer" or "You are dumb"... these add more fuel to what people have been saying all along about this whole saga...

The device can be explained by known physics, and your evidence has been well and truly refuted. You clearly show little to no understand of basic scientific and engineering concepts, and defend yourself in a way that proves it.

So, please, bring more than insults to the table when discussing things if you want to be taken seriously.

My analysis of this remains the same as it always has... Thermal expansion...



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Thermal expansion? Bollocks
a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Thermal expansion? Bollocks
a reply to: ErosA433



Great argument there... so your whole argument and evidence for your argument is... Bollocks... interesting, well ill go and do some study, but, I don't think that is a good argument or evidence for much



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Have you noticed that when you ask for evidence you get insults? Or when you explain what is actually happening you get insults? Or when you point out a serious flaw in what he said you get insults?

Seems like there's a common theme, but I can't quite put my finger on it.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
Yeah must admit, that there is some kind of trend... I mean, Im a scientist and i still cant quite put my finger on it either
Maybe we need a linguist in the room to check.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
You know. I really have to give it to this guy. Going on 10 pages of straight-up trolling scientists and well-educated people.
But you just can't stop can you?
I know I cant.
His replies Are just enough to keep me exasperated and posting lest the Casual reader believe this garbage.
We're stuck here guys.
No hope. No Escape.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

Well it does get a bit intense inthe science and tech 'ask any question about physics' in which people are wanting to have serious debate and discussion, either on things they might not understand, or just want to bat around ideas... its great and its been an interesting thread. Then comes along a couple of posters who basically always say

"Oh its easy do X"
"Oh GR is wrong"
"Oh you are all idiots"

The issue is mainly that no evidence is given and people can quite seriously start then down a dark place of zero evidence other than confident zeal... it just spreads misinformation and has a whole layer of issues.

I do love discussion of fringe ideas, they often have a great deal to bring to the table... but... being so fringe you are quite possibly outside of reality.... thats different.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Lol. Are you all blind? Geez



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join