Can religion reject this science ?

[Subduction Zone]

You can call it thrust if you like !

Lift , thrust , all the same to me as long as it flies into space which it will. Anyway top half sphere bowl

View attachment 26847

Posting nonsense only makes you look bad.

 

[james blunt]

Posting nonsense only makes you look bad.

We are only chit chatting between I and you . A good conversation actually for a change

I call it lift because hot air rises and lifts the mass , I consider thrust is the opposite and it pushes out like a rocket engine does . Anyway I think you understand the basic idea of the design , I have left some physics out at this stage .
I think this is what you can call the holy grail , somebody did mention that before . It does look nuts I agree , but the physics works . This is a massive thing , it has to be because of the center of balance . It might end up more frizby shaped yet , undecided . The idea is the center mass, cockpit etc, the weight is spread out by the area of the bowl, sort of creating a critical balanced c.o.m

 

[Prestor John]

That is clearly not true. I have admitted to being wrong countless times. You have not been able to show that I am wrong. I challenge you to find one "obvious loss".

By the way, let's avoid the personal attacks. I have merely shown that your ideas are wrong when it comes to the sciences. And quite often sexuality. Though that is not my main battle here. You almost certainly understand some aspects of life better than I do. I tend to avoid debating in areas where I clearly lack knowledge. I will not debate on what is the best way to tune a V-8 engine. How to plumb a house properly, I am sure the list is endless. I will debate in areas where I do have knowledge.

You ask me to present evidence of your losses while you simultaneously claim you have bested me about science and sexuality with no evidence?

That is your "bread and butter" move.

You demand that I support all my claims, but then you make claims about me which you never support.

That is why I have no interest in talking to you.

No one should.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You ask me to present evidence of your losses while you simultaneously claim you have bested me about science and sexuality with no evidence?

That is your "bread and butter" move.

You demand that I support all my claims, but then you make claims about me which you never support.

That is why I have no interest in talking to you.

No one should.

I will gladly do so again. Which myths of the Bible do you wish to defend?

 

[Prestor John]

I will gladly do so again. Which myths of the Bible do you wish to defend?

I was more interested in your claims about besting me in science and sexuality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you would. That is why I offered a rematch.

 

[Prestor John]

Of course you would. That is why I offered a rematch.

There is no need for any rematch.

You claimed to have bested me in the past, so you should be able to present evidence that happening.

Simply show me where you bested me. Ever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no need for any rematch.

You claimed to have bested me in the past, so you should be able to present evidence that happening.

Simply show me where you bested me. Ever.

This site really does not lend itself to searches very well. My solution is a rematch. How about the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[ratiocinator]

I have Wiki and google , I use to be able convert Newtons into Joules but I forgot how to do it .

You should look into this further (if you want to learn) because units are very important in physics. For one thing, they allow you to check that any formula makes physical sense. You can't equate things that have different units.

You can't directly convert newtons to joules because one measures force and the other energy. Energy is (in simple cases) force acting over a distance (say pushing something a distance using a constant force), so you need to multiply the force by the distance.

This page is useful: International System of Units

We actually only need seven basic units to measure any physical quantity (metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, mole, and candela).

Here's the relationship between newtons, joules and the basic units:

Can you see from the second line why

makes sense? How about the first line and

?

 

[james blunt]

Can you see from the second line why

makes sense? How about the first line and

?

I can do both of those equations but no, they do not make sense or are reality to the physics .

E = A +B / t * q³

c is a speed and doesn't work for energy , no speed required .

There is different force so F=ma only covers one force.

That is why I make my own maths , it works better for me although it won't make sense to you because you don;t know it .

Example : F = ms mass * speed

F= (ms)^2 , collision , mass * speed to the power of the 2

 

[james blunt]

How about the Noah's Ark myth?

It's not a myth ....I can build Noah's Arc but I have been warned not to mess with No ah Arc...

 

[ratiocinator]

I can do both of those equations but no, they do not make sense or are reality to the physics

So, you're not interested in learning...

E = A +B / t * q³

This is totally meaningless until you define all the terms and their units.

Example : F = ms mass * speed

This is obvious nonsense because the units don't match. Mass times speed has units of

, whereas force has units of

.

If you don't learn the basics you make silly, obvious mistakes.

 

[james blunt]

So, you're not interested in learning...



This is totally meaningless until you define all the terms and their units.



This is obvious nonsense because the units don't match. Mass times speed has units of

, whereas force has units of

.

If you don't learn the basics you make silly, obvious mistakes.

I can do F=ma I can do E=mc2

So, you're not interested in learning...

Am I suppose to trust anything science has when most of their semantics and theories are not correct ?

Aren't you interested in learning ?

Would you like to start with this fake garbage E=mc2 ?

 

[james blunt]

What is energy

E = ?

What is mass

m=?

What is c

c=speed

?=?*speed


Yeah ok ....That doesn't work .

 

[ratiocinator]

Am I suppose to trust anything science has when most of their semantics and theories are not correct ?

Current science works. It makes predictions that match experiments and observations. That is really the only test of a scientific theory that has any value at all.

Unless it can make a prediction about an observation or experiment, so that it can be tested and potentially falsified, it isn't a scientific hypothesis or theory.

That is how science works. That is why you can't do physics without mathematics.

Aren't you interested in learning ?

If you don't understand current science (and you don't, because you can't do the mathematics or even get your units right), your chance of spotting an error or making a contribution are as close to zero as makes no difference. That's why nobody in science will ever take you seriously until you learn modern physics and mathematics.

I'll try to help you to learn if you want (I'm sure others will as well) but until you learn you will have nothing to teach.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a myth ....I can build Noah's Arc but I have been warned not to mess with No ah Arc...

That means nothung, even though we know that you can't. The story is still a myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can do F=ma I can do E=mc2




Am I suppose to trust anything science has when most of their semantics and theories are not correct ?

Aren't you interested in learning ?

Would you like to start with this fake garbage E=mc2 ?

Mimicking is not doing.

 

[james blunt]

I'll try to help you to learn if you want (I'm sure others will as well) but until you learn you will have nothing to teach.

Ok, teach me, what does E=mc2 even suppose to do or mean ? It certainly does not describe energy .

 

[james blunt]

That means nothung, even though we know that you can't. The story is still a myth.

Nada , I can walk on water and part the sea , I can even make fish cakes out of loaves and fishes . Who built the arc , I did ...

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, teach me, what does E=mc2 even suppose to do or mean ? It certainly does not describe energy .

You're absolutely right, it doesn't describe energy. It says that mass and energy are equivalent. There is actually quite a lot of complication lurking behind this simple looking equation, not least because the m is ambiguous.

If we take the m to be rest mass, then it tells us that, even when an object is stationary, if it has mass, it has inherent energy. The large value of c (the speed of light in a vacuum) means that there is a lot of energy in relatively small masses. This energy can be converted into other forms of energy in nuclear reactions. That's how nuclear power and nuclear bombs work. Those reactions only release a small amount of the energy in the total mass of the particles involved. In matter-antimatter annihilation all the mass is converted into very energetic photons (with zero rest mass).

When the mass is moving relative to the observer, things get more complicated, the equation still applies so long as we take m to be the relativistic mass and E to be the relativistic energy.

Before you get to relativity, however, it is really best to start with Newtonian mechanics. You need to walk before you can run.