Board Logo
« Water, atmosphere and life on the moon »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 21st, 2017, 11:36pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52  ...  59 Notify Send Topic Print
 locked  Author  Topic: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon  (Read 45860 times)
pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #735 on: Jul 11th, 2016, 12:12pm »

And it makes Matt Kowalski's death very ironic.

User IP Logged

INT21
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3068
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #736 on: Jul 11th, 2016, 1:23pm »

...Just like INT, you are wrong. Try it and tell me it "didn't work".
And don't use carrots, use something at least 1kg in weight.


Ah yes. Maybe a kilo of lead.

You logic seems to imply this will weigh more than a kilo of carrots.

Maybe you can explain this in some detail for thickos like myself who always assumed that a kilo of anything weighed a Kilo.

HAL
INT21
User IP Logged

Isn't it midnight, on the other side of the world.
Do you remember
the face of a pretty girl ?
pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #737 on: Jul 11th, 2016, 1:55pm »

Is that the best you got? Lol, that's just so desperate. My comment implies that he takes a solid, denser object for testing, not a sack o carrots he cannot even firmly hold a grip on and would probably fall apart under inertial forces. He mentioned carrots as a joke, you clearly didn't get it, lol. I simply suggested him to perform the experiment seriously.

I suppose you still deny the phenomena..you got yourself in a deep hole, there is no way out but admitting you ARE WRONG.

on Jul 11th, 2016, 1:23pm, INT21 wrote:
...Just like INT, you are wrong. Try it and tell me it "didn't work".
And don't use carrots, use something at least 1kg in weight.


Ah yes. Maybe a kilo of lead.

You logic seems to imply this will weigh more than a kilo of carrots.

Maybe you can explain this in some detail for thickos like myself who always assumed that a kilo of anything weighed a Kilo.

HAL
INT21
User IP Logged

ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8200
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #738 on: Jul 11th, 2016, 3:15pm »

grin

User Image

SHALOM...Z
User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #739 on: Jul 11th, 2016, 3:32pm »

If anything you now know you can LITERALLY swim to the Moon. smiley

on Jul 11th, 2016, 3:15pm, ZETAR wrote:
grin

User Image

SHALOM...Z
User IP Logged

purr
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

..you talkin' to me...YOU TALKIN' TO ME..??!


PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 4821
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #740 on: Jul 11th, 2016, 3:51pm »

on Jul 11th, 2016, 09:56am, pos1tr0n wrote:
This literally means that by "swimming" in space you can go in any direction you want. Have you tried it Purr? Swing those swords real good, may the heads fall off. wink


Haha, I have tried your experiment. No worries about heads falling, I have a fairsized training room, Pos1tr0n.

Not much of use to report I'm afraid. (I had an office chair on multidirectional wheels available for our test.)

I swung both swords right to left and back, horizontally over 180 degrees, and they do consistently with each swing, provide some forward (center direction!) momentum, seeming to 'pull' me forward.

Doesn't show anything though related to your embedded video. There's no measurable entropy, because my body torque is causing the swinging, back and forth continually, and I make every swing identical. (Until I tire, but it is meaningless to wait for that.)

The forward motion/pull(?) imo is caused by my aiming to make the forward position of both swords, moving synchronous, the point of highest velocity.

I don't think this was helpful. The video you showed us was, though I lack the physics background to positively conclude anything.


purr
User IP Logged

Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.

-RONALD REAGAN
pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #741 on: Jul 11th, 2016, 4:16pm »

On the contrary, it was very useful, but you should not move your body, only your arms. That pull is centrifugal force pulling you, just don't go over 180, after 180 it pulls you backward. In fact, circa 150 is enough for a good swing, after that, resultant force is more "pulling you apart" than pulling you forward.

It is directly related to the video, as those swords are equivalent of the pendulum swinging on the right side. For best result, just try keep your body still and swing your arms horizontally.

on Jul 11th, 2016, 3:51pm, purr wrote:
Haha, I have tried your experiment. No worries about heads falling, I have a fairsized training room, Pos1tr0n.

Not much of use to report I'm afraid. (I had an office chair on multidirectional wheels available for our test.)

I swung both swords right to left and back, horizontally over 180 degrees, and they do consistently with each swing, provide some forward (center direction!) momentum, seeming to 'pull' me forward.

Doesn't show anything though related to your embedded video. There's no measurable entropy, because my body torque is causing the swinging, back and forth continually, and I make every swing identical. (Until I tire, but it is meaningless to wait for that.)

The forward motion/pull(?) imo is caused by my aiming to make the forward position of both swords, moving synchronous, the point of highest velocity.

I don't think this was helpful. The video you showed us was, though I lack the physics background to positively conclude anything.


purr
User IP Logged

pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #742 on: Jul 11th, 2016, 6:31pm »

Not intended as an insult, i truly feel sorry for you.

on Jul 11th, 2016, 4:54pm, talingid wrote:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IRejectYourReality

Not intended as an insult, but it does seem to describe this entire topic pretty well.
User IP Logged

pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #743 on: Jul 12th, 2016, 03:55am »

Actually, in reality, WE gave birth to all that is, and i truly feel sorry for you.

on Jul 11th, 2016, 8:00pm, talingid wrote:
That was the first mistake. To consider ourselves better than the universe which gave birth to us.
User IP Logged

pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #744 on: Jul 12th, 2016, 05:48am »

What's up INT, you still claim it will not pull you forward? grin
User IP Logged

GhostofEd
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

You know, I'm like a smart person


PM


Posts: 1392
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #745 on: Jul 12th, 2016, 08:20am »

Any comment on this paper? Is it applicable to this discussion(?)?

http://web.archive.org/web/20111030093616/http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214390.pdf

From the paper:

Conclusion
Unsolicited submissions of claimed breakthroughs that are based on errant interpretations of mechanical forces are common. Two devices in particular involve oscillating masses that claim net thrust and gyroscopic devices that claim antigravity effects. The oscillation thrusters are misinterpretations of differential friction, while the gyroscopic devices misinterpret torques as linear thrust. To help reduce the burden on reviewers and to give would-be submitters the tools to assess these ideas on their own, examples of these devices, their operating principles, and testing criteria are offered. By putting the burden of proof on the submitter and using these examples to help, the submitter has a better chance of learning how their devices truly operate.


The introduction is also interesting as it gives one answer why NASA does not respond to a lot of claims people direct to them.

The average person does not have the scientific background to truly understand the physics of these devices and apparent effects demonstrated in youtube videos, etc. You often need to weed through the technobabble employed. To rely on such demonstrations and interpretations of what effect may be observed or experienced by personal experiments does no necessarily prove the claim is true. Sure, a person may do a simple experiment and it agrees with a claim but it does not prove the explanation given for the cause of the effect or that it is applicable under different conditions and controls.

This topic is often discussed on physics and other scientific based forums. The results seem always the same.
User IP Logged

"The concept of shaking hands is absolutely terrible, and statistically Ive been proven right."

~ D. Trump 2004
pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #746 on: Jul 12th, 2016, 08:34am »

NASA.GOV? I prefer to read SATAN.GOV.

Use your own mind, don't let NASA do the thinking for you.

Do the experiment, FEEL THE PULL.

on Jul 12th, 2016, 08:20am, GhostofEd wrote:
Any comment on this paper? Is it applicable to this discussion(?)?

http://web.archive.org/web/20111030093616/http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214390.pdf

From the paper:

Conclusion
Unsolicited submissions of claimed breakthroughs that are based on errant interpretations of mechanical forces are common. Two devices in particular involve oscillating masses that claim net thrust and gyroscopic devices that claim antigravity effects. The oscillation thrusters are misinterpretations of differential friction, while the gyroscopic devices misinterpret torques as linear thrust. To help reduce the burden on reviewers and to give would-be submitters the tools to assess these ideas on their own, examples of these devices, their operating principles, and testing criteria are offered. By putting the burden of proof on the submitter and using these examples to help, the submitter has a better chance of learning how their devices truly operate.


The introduction is also interesting as it gives one answer why NASA does not respond to a lot of claims people direct to them.

The average person does not have the scientific background to truly understand the physics of these devices and apparent effects demonstrated in youtube videos, etc. You often need to weed through the technobabble employed. To rely on such demonstrations and interpretations of what effect may be observed or experienced by personal experiments does no necessarily prove the claim is true. Sure, a person may do a simple experiment and it agrees with a claim but it does not prove the explanation given for the cause of the effect or that it is applicable under different conditions and controls.

This topic is often discussed on physics and other scientific based forums. The results seem always the same.
User IP Logged

pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #747 on: Jul 12th, 2016, 09:19am »

Just found and uploaded this to YT

User IP Logged

jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #748 on: Jul 12th, 2016, 10:22am »

on Jul 12th, 2016, 08:34am, pos1tr0n wrote:
NASA.GOV? I prefer to read SATAN.GOV.


And there, Casebookers, is the fundamental problem: A failure to agree on standards of evidence. When that is the case, progress cannot be achieved, much less resolution. You're not speaking the same language in the first place.

While this thread is admittedly an extreme example of the dilemma, I present for consideration that it's an applicable example of the problem of failing to agree on standards of evidence throughout ufology. A unanimous rebuttal cannot be composed on the work of ufology hypnotists, for example, because their work should never be seriously considered to begin with; the scientific and professional research community do not recognize such antics as respectable work from the get go.

Attempts to alter the terms of pseudo-science, fold and shape it into professional research, ultimately result in complete misrepresentations of how the dictionary tells us terms such as "science", "objectivity" and "bias" are defined. See MUFON and virtually any UFO conference conducted in the last 40 years.
« Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2016, 10:24am by jjflash » User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
pos1tr0n
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 117
xx Re: Water, atmosphere and life on the moon
« Reply #749 on: Jul 12th, 2016, 10:51am »

Who's standards of evidence? NASA? Or maybe mainstream "science"? You seem to disagree NASA is a satanic (deceptive liars) government agency.

THEY ARE LAUGHING AT YOU...and they have every right to do so considering your lack of understanding of natural phenomena and your blind obediance to "authorities" to do the thinking for you.

NASA "FLYING SAUCER"

User Image

on Jul 12th, 2016, 10:22am, jjflash wrote:
And there, Casebookers, is the fundamental problem: A failure to agree on standards of evidence. When that is the case, progress cannot be achieved, much less resolution. You're not speaking the same language in the first place.

While this thread is admittedly an extreme example of the dilemma, I present for consideration that it's an applicable example of the problem of failing to agree on standards of evidence throughout ufology. A unanimous rebuttal cannot be composed on the work of ufology hypnotists, for example, because their work should never be seriously considered to begin with; the scientific and professional research community do not recognize such antics as respectable work from the get go.

Attempts to alter the terms of pseudo-science, fold and shape it into professional research, ultimately result in complete misrepresentations of how the dictionary tells us terms such as "science", "objectivity" and "bias" are defined. See MUFON and virtually any UFO conference conducted in the last 40 years.
« Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2016, 10:54am by pos1tr0n » User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52  ...  59 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls