Moses asks science

[jes-us]

Now you're admitting to ignorance of basic science....

No ignorance here , I think science has you all doing mind exercises that aren't needed .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

+ve = d/t

Looks like science has made up a load of maths to fit something that isn't required .


In rocket science

A)d/t

B)fuel volume


I have no idea why science would make up such a meaningless equation for escape velocity which will no doubt be a constant at about 9.81m/s ^2?

You didn't read it, did you?

 

[jes-us]

You didn't read it, did you?

I read enough to query

 

[ratiocinator]

I have no idea why science would make up such a meaningless equation for escape velocity which will no doubt be a constant at about 9.81m/s ^2?

9.81m/s ^2 isn't even a velocity! It's an acceleration. Specifically the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of Earth.

The escape velocity from Earth is 11.186 km/s.

ETA: incidentally, you need the universal gravitation equation, along with F = ma to calculate the acceleration due to gravity and any particular distance from the centre of the Earth (above the surface). This is why it's important for satellites. The fact that it correctly gives 9.8 m/s² at the surface and explains why it's independent of the mass of the falling object is one test of its accuracy.

 

[exchemist]

Have you ever heard of something called 'google'?


I already pointed out a link that shows it's used in orbital mechanics (#41) and one that shows it explains Kepler's laws (#91). It also explains the constancy of the acceleration due to gravity at earth's surface. It also governs the orbits of satellites, and the trajectory of unpowered projectiles, and, of course apples falling from trees.

It's been in use for hundreds of yours. You just keep on demonstrating total ignorance of science.


It doesn't even mean anything. It's total nonsense. By all means switch to the Higgs, I could do with a laugh!


I've actually done the basic maths for GR and space-time 'curvature', so I know that your claim is purest male bovine excreta.


The moment you post something that makes the slightest bit of actual scientific sense, I'm happy to discuss it. There is nothing to be defensive about. You are clearly totally ignorant of science.

@exchemist seems to be right, I recognise the signs now. We've spoken before when you had another identity and you were just as clueless and arrogant.


More ignorance. To place a satellite in a particular orbit you need to know the gravitational force it will experience, and that is given by the equation.

The reason I mention "neurological reference frame" that this was something he referred to in his previous incarnation as Zerogain: Is religion inferior to logic ?

And now, as @jes-us , we get this, on another recent thread: Humans are not alive and don't feel anything .

So it's clear this is a sock of zero gain, who was himself a sock of numerous other tiresome entities.

That concludes the case for the prosecution, m'lud. (though I have other data confirming his identity that I don't propose to share on open forum.)

 

[jes-us]

It doesn't even mean anything. It's total nonsense. By all means switch to the Higgs, I could do with a laugh!

Huh ? of course it means something which I have explained .

I am sorry but you all seem to have closed boxes , more robotic than human .

But ok lets do Higgs .

Higgs thought that every part of space had field energy , he expressed this has a Higgs field .

So if we look at what possible types of energy a Higgs field could be formed from , the only possible answer is light because space does not conserve charge .

If we then consider point energy of the field , we can express the conserved point energy has a ratio of 1:1 and the maximum amount of conserved photons per point is γmax=1:1

This energy constructing a space-time fabric , a cosmic background radiation that allows free photons and atomic matter to travel through , acting like a medium .

 

[jes-us]

9.81m/s ^2 isn't even a velocity! It's an acceleration. Specifically the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of Earth.

The escape velocity from Earth is 11.186 km/s

Newtons 3rd law , every action has an opposite and equal reaction , want to try again?

If an object falls at 9.81m/s2 then that is what it would take to make orbit , especially when the rocket momentum has to take it over the line into orbit because the rocket loses thrust at altitude .

An acceleration is required for escape velocity , I don't know why you find it so funny .

 

[jes-us]

The reason I mention "neurological reference frame" that this was something he referred to in his previous incarnation as Zerogain: Is religion inferior to logic ?

And now, as @jes-us , we get this, on another recent thread: Humans are not alive and don't feel anything .

So it's clear this is a sock of zero gain, who was himself a sock of numerous other tiresome entities.

That concludes the case for the prosecution, m'lud. (though I have other data confirming his identity that I don't propose to share on open forum.)

I think you are this person you say I am and you are playing some sort of games with this forum because it is a religious forum and you lack respect for religion .

 

[exchemist]

I think you are this person you say I am and you are playing some sort of games with this forum because it is a religious forum and you lack respect for religion .

.....[click].....

 

[jes-us]

.....[click].....

Quite clearly you work for the government and try to get people banned who pose a threat to gov lies .

 

[ratiocinator]

Higgs thought that every part of space had field energy , he expressed this has a Higgs field .

So if we look at what possible types of energy a Higgs field could be formed from , the only possible answer is light because space does not conserve charge .

More utter nonsense. The Higgs field has its own particle, you may even of heard of it, it's the "Higgs boson". It can't be light because photons have spin 1 (because electromagnetism is a vector field), the Higgs needs a boson with spin 0, because it's a scalar field.

If we then consider point energy of the field , we can express the conserved point energy has a ratio of 1:1 and the maximum amount of conserved photons per point is γmax=1:1

This energy constructing a space-time fabric , a cosmic background radiation that allows free photons and atomic matter to travel through , acting like a medium .

Word salad, yum.

 

[ratiocinator]

Quite clearly you work for the government and try to get people banned who pose a threat to gov lies .

Hilarious!

I don't think that talking utter nonsense about science is against any rules (look at all the YECs). Not sure about the multiple identities...

 

[ChristineM]

But ok lets do Higgs .

Higgs thought that every part of space had field energy , he expressed this has a Higgs field .

So if we look at what possible types of energy a Higgs field could be formed from , the only possible answer is light because space does not conserve charge .

Except for one small problem, light did not exist when the higgs field was doing its thing.

Light in the universe did not exist until sometime between 250,000 and 380,000 years after the big bang

 

[jes-us]

More utter nonsense. The Higgs field has its own particle, you may even of heard of it, it's the "Higgs boson". It can't be light because photons have spin 1 (because electromagnetism is a vector field), the Higgs needs a boson with spin 0, because it's a scalar field.


Word salad, yum.

There is no point talking to you anymore , you are parroting more than most . The boson is a computer printout from CERN get a grip on reality .

You are pulling all the memories from your box and won't allow your box to accept or contemplate new information .

Any given portion of space has a conserved amount of light , this has to be or planets couldn't move and light couldn't travel . The satellites wouldn't work , wave-function collapse would occur .


I give up talking to people with closed boxes from science , at least people in religion actually think about things .

 

[jes-us]

Except for one small problem, light did not exist when the higgs field was doing its thing.

Light in the universe did not exist until sometime between 250,000 and 380,000 years after the big bang

The big bang isn't correct , again this is just information in your boxes that you have been programmed with and believe it is true .

Light was around before matter and it took trillions and trillions of years before space produced its first light and point of energy .

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Im not taking you through college, i i have a family to look after so i dont have time to teach you the basics of science

And yet, as I read the thread, you're doing it!

What makes threads of this kind so very, very sad is that the people you are trying to teach a little science to are far more determined not to learn it than you are to teach it. Just look at every response from @jes-us -- like a three-year-old trying to argue for the toy he really wants.

 

[jes-us]

And yet, as I read the thread, you're doing it!

What makes threads of this kind so very, very sad is that the people you are trying to teach a little science to are far more determined not to learn it than you are to teach it. Just look at every response from @jes-us -- like a three-year-old trying to argue for the toy he really wants.

Likewise could be said in return for all these know it all boxes who have closed lids , who believe all science is Gods truth !

 

[exchemist]

And yet, as I read the thread, you're doing it!

What makes threads of this kind so very, very sad is that the people you are trying to teach a little science to are far more determined not to learn it than you are to teach it. Just look at every response from @jes-us -- like a three-year-old trying to argue for the toy he really wants.

This is a well known troll who pesters science forums from time to time under different sockpuppet identities. The game is to see how long he can keep a dialogue going, exploiting the willingness of others to teach science but with no objective other than to annoy. Hence this facetious ballocks about rubber ducks, for example.

 

[ChristineM]

And yet, as I read the thread, you're doing it!

What makes threads of this kind so very, very sad is that the people you are trying to teach a little science to are far more determined not to learn it than you are to teach it. Just look at every response from @jes-us -- like a three-year-old trying to argue for the toy he really wants.

The difference is between teaching to those who don't want to learn and having fun. I am on RF to have a little fun, if thats at the expense of the deliberately ignorant then I'm ok with that

 

[jes-us]

This is a well known troll who pesters science forums from time to time under different sockpuppet identities. The game is to see how long he can keep a dialogue going, exploiting the willingness of others to teach science but with no objective other than to annoy. Hence this facetious ballocks about rubber ducks, for example.

This is a well known anti religion spook who doesn't want people telling the truth about science lies to religion . He also accuses people of being other people when he is actually this person .