ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Allais Effect , Dark Flow , relativity , Theory of Relativity

Closed Thread
Old 13th June 2018, 07:40 AM   #2961
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The resulting force (due to attraction of the Moon + the Sun) , is always pointing towards the Sun and actually always "hitting" the Sun .
However due to the influence of the Moon, - never hitting the center of the Sun.
If you could see where this united (resulting) force was pointing you will see a circle drawn around the center of the Sun, completed every 28 days.
And you will see that the northern and southern parts of the circle completed much faster as the eastern and western part of the circle.
Well, this at least explains the strange angles you have been listing. But what makes you think it's a circle? The orbit of the moon has an inclination of 5.4 degrees to the ecliptic plane (and hence, per definition to the orbit of Earth). So a projection of the combined forces of the sun and the moon will form an ellipse, a very elongated ellipse.

Quote:
The only time the force points more or less upwards is right before and after (half of the) solar and lunar eclipse + new and full moon.
The Earth is all the time pulled towards the direction the resulting force is pointing, and this mean sometimes, more or less upwards.
No, this is wrong. There is a precession, but but the lunar orbit keeps roughly the same angle against the celestial background as it follows Earth's orbit around the sun, so the high points will change their angle to the sun with each orbit. This is the reason eclipses occur in different places on Earth.

Quote:
Only when the resulting force is pointing more or less upwards, - EDFA is exposed.
All eclipse on the northern hemisphere are special occasions for measurements .
Well, here is the next crunch: It makes no sense to project the force vector on the sun (although it does indeed pass through the sun), you must project it on the celestial background, in order to know when it has the right orientation relative to your proposed Dark Flow Acceleration.

Quote:
According to the theory you must also be able to measure Allais Effect by some new and full moon, but the pattern will be completely different, - due to "overexposed EDFA"
If also a test body is accelerated (too much) upwards, - EDFA is "overexposed" (by new and full moons) and you will not measure the Allais Effect the way as predicted.
Systematical repeated measurement and analyzing also by new and full moon (on the norther hemisphere) will make it possible to figure out who strong EDFA really is.
If you can find a method of measuring it.

Quote:
However based on experience impossible to explain you or many others in a way you all will understand it.
Well, the basic requirement if people should understand your explanation is that it makes sense. As long as you fill it with faulty premises and apparently random numbers, nobody will understand it.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:48 AM   #2962
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Are you going to explain how you said the earth traveling at 1000 m/s and that it also traveled 4km in 4 hours.

1000 m/s = 3600 kph.
I think it must be just random numbers. The orbital speed of the moon is just over 1,000 km/s, so since the moon orbit is in prograde direction, it means that Earth seems to overtake it at that speed during a solar eclipse (or indeed any sun-side passage). During the opposite passage, of course, it is the moon that seems to overtake Earth.

This number is easy to find, so I have no idea why Bjarne prefers imaginary values.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:14 AM   #2963
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well, this at least explains the strange angles you have been listing. But what makes you think it's a circle? The orbit of the moon has an inclination of 5.4 degrees to the ecliptic plane (and hence, per definition to the orbit of Earth). So a projection of the combined forces of the sun and the moon will form an ellipse, a very elongated ellipse.
So fare so good, - right is not a circle, and even not a ecliptic , - its rather a almost horizontal line, that have 2 "peak" on it, - one pointing up (^) and another opposite pointing down down. The "peak" represent Sun Moon Earth alignment. (eclipse / full / and new moon)

Quote:
Bjarne Wrote
The only time the force points more or less upwards is right before and after (half of the) solar and lunar eclipse + new and full moon.
The Earth is all the time pulled towards the direction the resulting force is pointing, and this mean sometimes, more or less upwards.
Hans wrote
No, this is wrong. There is a precession, but but the lunar orbit keeps roughly the same angle against the celestial background as it follows Earth's orbit around the sun, so the high points will change their angle to the sun with each orbit. This is the reason eclipses occur in different places on Earth.
Now the chain went off for you again
The image below illustrate what you just wrote...




And this image based on a moon 15000 km above the Earth, beforem during and and after new moon.
If the moon would only be 7500 km above the Earth, the angle would change double so fast.
The point is to show you have fast the resultant force is changing.
The red arrow is NOT representing the resultant force, but just a 2D showing how fast the resulting force "triangle" - "rotate"
You still haven't understood that, and I doubt you ever will.

Still you do not understand that all New Moon, Full Moon, and lunar + solar eclipse on the northern hemisphere, will accelerate the Earth upwards.
You still don't understand that the Earth is already (almost) all the time accelerating downwards.
What the moon sometimes and for very short period of time does, is to cancel out that downwards acceleration, so that the Earth seen from a overall perspective not is accelerating (at the dark flow axis) at all.
However the Moon must NOT pull the test body upwards, whereby the test body is still free to Follow Dark Flow.

Quote:
Well, here is the next crunch: It makes no sense to project the force vector on the sun (although it does indeed pass through the sun), you must project it on the celestial background, in order to know when it has the right orientation relative to your proposed Dark Flow Acceleration.
No there are no crunch. You still do not understand what I again explained above.

Quote:
Well, the basic requirement if people should understand your explanation is that it makes sense. As long as you fill it with faulty premises and apparently random numbers, nobody will understand it.
The ball is still on your track half and has been so all the time

Last edited by Bjarne; 13th June 2018 at 08:46 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:31 AM   #2964
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,186
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
So your math/explanation I'm questioning is a fairy tale?
Or a construction of an artificial environment for entertainment.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 09:18 AM   #2965
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
So fare so good, - right is not a circle, and even not a ecliptic , - its rather a almost horizontal line, that have 2 "peak" on it, - one pointing up (^) and another opposite pointing down down. The "peak" represent Sun Moon Earth alignment. (eclipse / full / and new moon)
So why do your write it is a circle? Anyway, it is an ellipse. There will be certain times when it is so flat it is a line, but basically it's an ellipse.

Quote:
The image below illustrate what you just wrote...

http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~srs/...s/image006.jpg
Yes, so I was correct. And as you should be able to see, The highs and lows are not restricted to eclipses.

Quote:
http://science27.com/al/1017.jpg
And this image based on a moon 15000 km above the Earth, beforem during and and after new moon.
If the moon would only be 7500 km above the Earth, the angle would change double so fast.
The point is to show you have fast the resultant force is changing.
The red arrow is NOT representing the resultant force, but just a 2D showing how fast the resulting force "triangle" - "rotate"
Again your numbers are imaginary. The moon moves 0.5 degree per hour against the background. But sure, if you view a circular movement almost from the side, then you can construct a perspective where the angle seems change very fast, but this has nothing to do with the actual angle of the force vector in 3D. In 3D, the force vector from the moon changes at a constant rate of about 0.5 degree per hour. All the time.

Quote:
The ball is still on your track half and has been so all the time
Bjarne, for .... oh, it must be the hundredth time: This is all YOUR claim, so this is all YOUR burden of proof. Nobody owes you to disprove your claims. You have to prove them. With valid math and valid measurements. So far you have supplied none.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 10:27 AM   #2966
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,139
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
OK, here is the preparation to the next kindergarten lesson.

Cut a squared piece of carton, exactly 4 * 4 cm
Draw a vertical line at the left edge, call this line X
The lower left corner is the center of the Earth, the upper left the center of the Moon.
Now let the Earth move 4 cm right (on the Y axis)
1 cm of motion represent 1 km.
After 4 hours the Earth is therefore in the lower right corner, and the moon still in the upper left corner.

How was the angle of the moon when you started ?
Was it
0,00007°
917°
777°
463°
90°

How is the angle of the moon after 4 hours ?
717°
377°
663°
45°
So the example above can be matched to image below.
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Between the solar eclipse and the 4 hours after, are you saying the moon never moves?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 11:07 AM   #2967
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,282
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Between the solar eclipse and the 4 hours after, are you saying the moon never moves?

Not relative to its own reference frame.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 11:33 AM   #2968
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
So why do your write it is a circle?
For making it so simple as possible for you.

Quote:
Anyway, it is an ellipse. There will be certain times when it is so flat it is a line, but basically it's an ellipse.
Its in this case a very very flat ellipse, and still having 2 peaks.

Quote:
Yes, so I was correct. And as you should be able to see, The highs and lows are not restricted to eclipses.
Off course not, nobody say so
However by ellipse the test body is not pulled upwards, this is VERY important, and this make the difference why (most) new and full full not is suitable for measure Allais Effect, especially not by using pendulums. If you had read the whole theory you would know that too.

Quote:
Again your numbers are imaginary. The moon moves 0.5 degree per hour against the background. But sure, if you view a circular movement almost from the side, then you can construct a perspective where the angle seems change very fast, but this has nothing to do with the actual angle of the force vector in 3D. In 3D, the force vector from the moon changes at a constant rate of about 0.5 degree per hour. All the time.
NO NO NO hans
You still do NOT understand the resulting force.



The triangle connecting the Moon, Earth and Sun will "rotate" - 1 revolution, - within 1 moon orbit (28 days) - Because of that, - the RESULTING FORCE (RF) will also "rotate"
ONLY by full/new moon or eclipse, - the resulting force is pointing 100% upward, and ONLY a relative short period.
Few hours before and after (full / new moon and eclipse) the resulting force is ONLY pointing 50% upwards, and so on. - And further few hours before and after that ONLY 25%
The resulting force is "rotating" FAST right before and after full / new moon and eclipse
This FAST "rotation" of the RF is what suddenly pulls the earth upwards

Red line = RF (0,0034°) based on 0,6° angle to the Moon

Last edited by Bjarne; 13th June 2018 at 12:00 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 11:36 AM   #2969
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Between the solar eclipse and the 4 hours after, are you saying the moon never moves?
4 hours is based on a oon 15000 km higher as the earth
2 hours before is valid if the moon is only 7500 higher as the Earth.,
Yes the moon is always moving the same way as the Earth, - however sometimes the moon or the earth is faster (1000 m/s).
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 12:22 PM   #2970
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
For making it so simple as possible for you.


Its in this case a very very flat ellipse, and still having 2 peaks.


Off course not, nobody say so
However by ellipse the test body is not pulled upwards, this is VERY important, and this make the difference why (most) new and full full not is suitable for measure Allais Effect, especially not by using pendulums. If you had read the whole theory you would know that too.


NO NO NO hans
You still do NOT understand the resulting force.
http://science27.com/al/10ab.jpg


The triangle connecting the Moon, Earth and Sun will "rotate" - 1 revolution, - within 1 moon orbit (28 days) - Because of that, - the RESULTING FORCE (RF) will also "rotate"
ONLY by full/new moon or eclipse, - the resulting force is pointing 100% upward, and ONLY a relative short period.
Few hours before and after (full / new moon and eclipse) the resulting force is ONLY pointing 50% upwards, and so on. - And further few hours before and after that ONLY 25%
The resulting force is "rotating" FAST right before and after full / new moon and eclipse
This FAST "rotation" of the RF is what suddenly pulls the earth upwards

Red line = RF (0,0034°) based on 0,6° angle to the Moon
No. There is no sudden force. The force vectors rotate with more or less constant speed.

<hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 12:34 PM   #2971
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
4 hours is based on a oon 15000 km higher as the earth
2 hours before is valid if the moon is only 7500 higher as the Earth.,
Yes the moon is always moving the same way as the Earth, - however sometimes the moon or the earth is faster (1000 m/s).
No, 1000 km/s.

You keep changing your numbers. However, it does not matter what your 2D projection shows. In 3D, the moon's force rotates 0.5 degree per hour.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 09:52 PM   #2972
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No. There is no sudden force. The force vectors rotate with more or less constant speed.
<hans
Completely rubbish,
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 10:14 PM   #2973
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No, 1000 km/s.

You keep changing your numbers. However, it does not matter what your 2D projection shows. In 3D, the moon's force rotates 0.5 degree per hour.

Hans

Here is where the chain forever went of: You are IGNORING one factor, and blinded by another.

1.
The inclining and declining Moon is off course responsible for a 28 days based 360° "rotation" of the position of the Moon - relative to Earth, - and therefore also whether the Moon is low or high on the sky.
However this factor is a basic factor and NOT responsible for the sudden Allais Effect.
The inclination of the Moon is not responsible for where the resulting force is pointing, - it is ONLY a precondition for where the Resulting Force can point to, - and cannot can point to, - a certain day.

2.
The sudden Allais Effect is caused by different motion speed of the Earth and Moon ,- the day of full moon, - ( and maybe) the day of new moon, - and the day of eclipse.
The faster motion of the the Moon or the Earth, the above mentioned days is the cause of rapid change of angle where the resulting force is pointing.
This 150° - 160° phenomena is completely independent of the 0,5° inclination change per day, of the orbit of the Moon.

These mentioned days- different orbit speed of the Moon and the Earth is responsible for between 150° - 160° sudden change of where the the resulting force is pointing, - and the sudden rapid daily changing of where the resulting force is pointing is responsible for exposing EDFA, - and hence for the Allais Effect

It is certainly like you say, that it is only the inclination of the moon that is responsible for where the resulting force is pointing, and different motion speed of the Earth and Moon, / horizontal position, - by new moon, full moon and eclipse , means nothing.
This is either a lie, or just a completely silly ignorant statement.
Hans it really tells a lot of the way you discuss.
Like many times, - you can cheat idiots, and fools, and even your self, - not intelligent people.

Last edited by Bjarne; 13th June 2018 at 11:05 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 10:41 PM   #2974
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,340
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
http://science27.com/al/1017.jpg
And this image based on a moon 15000 km above the Earth, beforem during and and after new moon.
If the moon would only be 7500 km above the Earth, the angle would change double so fast.
I do not understand this picture and the talk about angles that change dramatically in the space of a few hours. Surely, these angles are changing because of the rotation of the Earth, and the position of the Earth relative to the Moon is largely unchanged, right? The Sun-Moon-Earth angles also change only slightly in the space of a few hours, as does the angle of the non-existent DFA.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 11:09 PM   #2975
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I do not understand this picture and the talk about angles that change dramatically in the space of a few hours. Surely, these angles are changing because of the rotation of the Earth, and the position of the Earth relative to the Moon is largely unchanged, right? The Sun-Moon-Earth angles also change only slightly in the space of a few hours, as does the angle of the non-existent DFA.
No the horizontal change of Earth-Moon position is the most important factor impacting the angle of the RESULTANT FORCE
For example by New moon and solar eclipse the Earth is 3600 km/h faster as the moon and even overtakes the Moon.

Last edited by Bjarne; 13th June 2018 at 11:12 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 12:15 AM   #2976
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,598
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
No the horizontal change of Earth-Moon position is the most important factor impacting the angle of the RESULTANT FORCE
For example by New moon and solar eclipse the Earth is 3600 km/h faster as the moon and even overtakes the Moon.
Complete rubbish
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:22 AM   #2977
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
[quote=Bjarne;12326829]
Quote:
1.
The inclining and declining Moon is off course responsible for a 28 days based 360° "rotation" of the position of the Moon - relative to Earth,
Inclining, declining? Are you talking about the phases of the moon? Yes, they are the result of the moon orbiting Earth. Relative to Earth, the moon moves roughly in a circle (actually an ellipse).

Quote:
- and therefore also whether the Moon is low or high on the sky.
The visual position in the sky depends on Earth's rotation and the inclination of Earth's axis, but if you mean the elevation of the moon respective to the ecliptic, then yes, the 5.14 degree inclination of the moon's orbit is responsible for that.

Quote:
However this factor is a basic factor and NOT responsible for the sudden Allais Effect.
Oh, I quite agree. If it were, someone would have noted it in the 70 years since the Allais effect was first reported. Also, the Allais effect would be predictable and systematic.


Quote:
The inclination of the Moon is not responsible for where the resulting force is pointing, - it is ONLY a precondition for where the Resulting Force can point to, - and cannot can point to, - a certain day.
Wrong. The combined positions of the sun and the moon are responsible for exactly where the resultant force vector points.

Quote:
2.
The sudden Allais Effect is caused by different motion speed of the Earth and Moon ,- the day of full moon, - ( and maybe) the day of new moon, - and the day of eclipse.
Wrong. We have two constant forces that change direction. It can never be stronger than the sum of those forces, and it can never change faster than the fastest changing direction.

Quote:
The faster motion of the the Moon or the Earth, the above mentioned days is the cause of rapid change of angle where the resulting force is pointing.
This 150° - 160° phenomena is completely independent of the 0,5° inclination change per day, of the orbit of the Moon.
The fast change only exists on your paper because you make a 2D projection and flatten the image. In the real 3D world, it does not exist.

Quote:
These mentioned days- different orbit speed of the Moon and the Earth is responsible for between 150° - 160° sudden change of where the the resulting force is pointing, - and the sudden rapid daily changing of where the resulting force is pointing is responsible for exposing EDFA, - and hence for the Allais Effect
There is never any change in the orbit speed, except the slight changes due to the elliptic shape of the orbit.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:31 AM   #2978
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
No the horizontal change of Earth-Moon position is the most important factor impacting the angle of the RESULTANT FORCE
For example by New moon and solar eclipse the Earth is 3600 km/h faster as the moon and even overtakes the Moon.
No, this is a nonsensical way to express it. The mean orbital speed of the moon is 1.022 km/s, or app. 3600 km/h. Relative to Earth it orbits with that speed. Of course, on the sunside half of the orbit, it could be said that Earht "overtakes" the moon, but that is like saying that your car "overtakes" your tire where it touches the ground. It makes no sense.

And any way, this 3600 km/h speed equals 0.5 degree per hour, which is the fastest the vector can change. *)

Hans

*) Actually, you might add the degree that the angle to the sun changes if you are projecting it on the celestial background, but that is much smaller, around 1 degree per day.
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:37 AM   #2979
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No, this is a nonsensical way to express it. The mean orbital speed of the moon is 1.022 km/s, or app. 3600 km/h. Relative to Earth it orbits with that speed. Of course, on the sunside half of the orbit, it could be said that Earht "overtakes" the moon, but that is like saying that your car "overtakes" your tire where it touches the ground. It makes no sense.
See highlight:

This is actually a good illustration of the optical deception that Bjarne falls for:

Imagine you paint a white dot on your tire right by the edge. If you plot the motion of the dot as the car drives by, it will be moving in a row of adjacent arches as if it suddenly changes direction, bounces, every time it touches the ground. But in reality it moves in a smooth rotation like the whole wheel.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:03 AM   #2980
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,169
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Imagine you paint a white dot on your tire right by the edge. If you plot the motion of the dot as the car drives by, it will be moving in a row of adjacent arches as if it suddenly changes direction, bounces, every time it touches the ground. But in reality it moves in a smooth rotation like the whole wheel.
I must admit, Bjarne's whole line of argument is so poorly expressed that I'm having serious difficulty even understanding what he's trying to say. Normally it's possible to fathom the basic misunderstanding behind arguments that lead to obviously stupid conclusions, but with Bjarne's I'm seriously struggling to extract any meaning at all. But is he trying to read something into the fact that a certain projection of the Moon's apparent motion relative to the Earth has the form of a cycloid, that a cycloid has a cusp, and that therefore if an object traversed a cycloid at a constant speed along the arc (i.e. at constant dS/dt) then its acceleration would diverge at that point? Because, if so, I can sort of see where his misunderstanding originates.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:19 AM   #2981
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
See highlight:

This is actually a good illustration of the optical deception that Bjarne falls for:

Imagine you paint a white dot on your tire right by the edge. If you plot the motion of the dot as the car drives by, it will be moving in a row of adjacent arches as if it suddenly changes direction, bounces, every time it touches the ground. But in reality it moves in a smooth rotation like the whole wheel.

Hans
Your ignorance goes on and on
Fools and idiots will surly believe in all your lies.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:20 AM   #2982
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No, this is a nonsensical way to express it. The mean orbital speed of the moon is 1.022 km/s, or app. 3600 km/h. Relative to Earth it orbits with that speed. Of course, on the sunside half of the orbit, it could be said that Earht "overtakes" the moon, but that is like saying that your car "overtakes" your tire where it touches the ground. It makes no sense.

And any way, this 3600 km/h speed equals 0.5 degree per hour, which is the fastest the vector can change. *)

Hans

*) Actually, you might add the degree that the angle to the sun changes if you are projecting it on the celestial background, but that is much smaller, around 1 degree per day.
Your ignorance goes on and on
Fools and idiots will surly believe in all your lies.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:23 AM   #2983
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Your ignorance goes on and on
Fools and idiots will surly believe in all your lies.
http://www.fysikhistorie.dk/merer2/maanebane.gif
Thank you for confirming my notion that you misunderstand the motion. So, do you also think that the wheels of your car are not really turning round?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:25 AM   #2984
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
[quote=MRC_Hans;12326933]
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Inclining, declining? Are you talking about the phases of the moon? Yes, they are the result of the moon orbiting Earth. Relative to Earth, the moon moves roughly in a circle (actually an ellipse).

The visual position in the sky depends on Earth's rotation and the inclination of Earth's axis, but if you mean the elevation of the moon respective to the ecliptic, then yes, the 5.14 degree inclination of the moon's orbit is responsible for that.

Oh, I quite agree. If it were, someone would have noted it in the 70 years since the Allais effect was first reported. Also, the Allais effect would be predictable and systematic.

Wrong. The combined positions of the sun and the moon are responsible for exactly where the resultant force vector points.

Wrong. We have two constant forces that change direction. It can never be stronger than the sum of those forces, and it can never change faster than the fastest changing direction.

The fast change only exists on your paper because you make a 2D projection and flatten the image. In the real 3D world, it does not exist.

There is never any change in the orbit speed, except the slight changes due to the elliptic shape of the orbit.

Hans
Your ignorance goes on and on
Fools and idiots will surly believe in all your lies and ignorance.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:28 AM   #2985
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Thank you for confirming my notion that you misunderstand the motion. So, do you also think that the wheels of your car are not really turning round?

Hans

Even such kindergarten animation, clearly demonstrating the Moon being overtaken by the Earth, you cannot understand.
I AM WASTING MY TIME
GOODBYE HANS
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:28 AM   #2986
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I must admit, Bjarne's whole line of argument is so poorly expressed that I'm having serious difficulty even understanding what he's trying to say. Normally it's possible to fathom the basic misunderstanding behind arguments that lead to obviously stupid conclusions, but with Bjarne's I'm seriously struggling to extract any meaning at all. But is he trying to read something into the fact that a certain projection of the Moon's apparent motion relative to the Earth has the form of a cycloid, that a cycloid has a cusp, and that therefore if an object traversed a cycloid at a constant speed along the arc (i.e. at constant dS/dt) then its acceleration would diverge at that point? Because, if so, I can sort of see where his misunderstanding originates.

Dave
Well, the basic misunderstanding is the Bjarne thinks he has invented an alternative cosmology. At the same time, his understanding of real cosmology appears to be sketchy at best. So he is seeking for explanations that might support his claims.

Typical fringe science action really: If a real scientist discovers that for their theory to work, the sun must set in the east, they says "curses", and go back to the drawing board. ... But the fringe scientist starts do device some elaborate explanation of how the sun really does set in the east.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:32 AM   #2987
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
http://www.fysikhistorie.dk/merer2/maanebane.gif
Even such kindergarten animation, clearly demonstrating the Moon being overtaken by the Earth, you cannot understand.
I AM WASTING MY TIME
GOODBYE HANS
Yes, you are wasting your time. I told you that a long time ago. But as I said, you might express it as "the Earth overtakes the moon". That is what it looks like if you view it from very far away. But it makes no difference. The moon is still orbiting Earth, and it is still changing its angle by 0.5 degree per hour.

So any attempt to twist that into something else IS indeed a waste of time.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:40 AM   #2988
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Yes, you are wasting your time. I told you that a long time ago. But as I said, you might express it as "the Earth overtakes the moon". That is what it looks like if you view it from very far away. But it makes no difference. The moon is still orbiting Earth, and it is still changing its angle by 0.5 degree per hour.

So any attempt to twist that into something else IS indeed a waste of time.

Hans
I am 35237985239867523876589235623896583256 % sure that you also will tell fools and idiot that the Sun is orbiting the Earth. - You might see it as the earth is rotating , but it make no difference, the Sun is still orbiting the Earth BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE SEE, and THEREFORE - THIS - is the truth.

GOODBYE. I am sure many fools will continue to believe in you.

Last edited by Bjarne; 14th June 2018 at 02:42 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:08 AM   #2989
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,796
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Your ignorance goes on and on

Fools and idiots will surly believe in all your lies.

http://www.fysikhistorie.dk/merer2/maanebane.gif


You’re just jealous because NOBODY ON THE ENTIRE PLANET BELIEVES YOU.

It must be a lonely existence, spiting crap nobody believes while convinced your ignorant delusions are inexplicably true.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:01 PM   #2990
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,282
Nothing but "kindergarten" level cartoons, math and insults lately.

23 October 2009: Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)

7 March 2012: Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!

137 items of ignorance and delusions and some lies in this thread up to 27 February 2018

16 February 2018 Bjarne: The idiocy of a calculation debunking RR - 10.88 is not within 8.74 ±1.33

20 March 2018: After 2 months we now have 12 lies of his theory predicating observations and experimental results since he cannot give the calculations.

68 items of ignorance, fantasy and lies from 26 April 2018 to 31 May 2018.
  1. 5 June 2018 Bjarne: An explicit lie by having a 1/2 orbit calculation (constant external accelerations cancel out over a whole orbit ).
  2. 6 June 2018 Bjarne: A "DFA is soon a indisputable fact" lie by linking to one of his PDFs on the internet.
  3. 6 June 2018 Bjarne: A lie that GR states gravity can accelerate a massive object past c.
  4. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: Idiocy of confirming that he has no independent verification that the experiment happened or what their results were (e.g. where the data was published)
  5. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A stupid "You have understood NOTHING" delusion.
  6. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: Repeat of a argument from ignorance or incredibility (change in temperature cannot cause change in the gravimeter measurements).
  7. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A fantasy that using unfiltered data has no effect when comparing absolute and relative gravimeter measurements.
  8. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A "Only gravimeter failure can be an alternative explanation" lie.
  9. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A "35 μGal (±10 μGal) significant anomaly at the time measurement was done" double lie.
  10. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: Makes the "about 50 µGal" lie explicit by citing his 35 μGal (±10 μGal) "prediction".
  11. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A lie of a "50 to 55 μGal" prediction.
  12. 8 June 2018 Bjarne: A lie of an anomaly in measurements becomes deluded because there is no anomaly and the measurements start hours after the eclipse where he wants an "anomaly".
  13. 8 June 2018 Bjarne: Actual insanity of showing that he cannot predict anything about the gravimeter readings (adds another imaginary effect that he cannot calculate)!
  14. 8 June 2018 Bjarne: "kindergarten teacher" gibberish that ignores his lies
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 11:20 AM   #2991
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I am 35237985239867523876589235623896583256 % sure that you also will tell fools and idiot that the Sun is orbiting the Earth. - You might see it as the earth is rotating , but it make no difference, the Sun is still orbiting the Earth BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE SEE, and THEREFORE - THIS - is the truth.

GOODBYE. I am sure many fools will continue to believe in you.
Surprising how angry some people can get when confronted with simple facts.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 11:49 AM   #2992
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,796
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I am 35237985239867523876589235623896583256 % sure
Damn, you're bad at math. What are you trying to do, sum all the confidence of your iterations across the multiverse or something?

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
GOODBYE. I am sure many fools will continue to believe in you.
Someday you may write something that others believe. I hope one day you do, so you too can experience sharing an opinion with another human being. It's something you have yet to accomplish with relation to your physics claims.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 10:44 PM   #2993
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Surprising how angry some people can get when confronted with simple facts.

Hans
Not angry but disappointed, intelligent people will easy be able to read that you don't know how the moon is orbiting, you believe the moon literally spoken orbiting the Earth, - how silly, - same stupid as claiming that also the sun is orbiting the earth (because this is both what we see).

And you don't know how the resulting force of the Moon and Sun is affecting Earth or how the angle is pointing / changing to the sun.,
Everyone can read above, - about your total ignorance, - and decide from them self whether your are or simply just lying, or simply don't know what you are talking about.

I hope you are happy in your own world, - Idiots and fools will believe you, intelligent and educated people will understand you lost the discussion, and even had to deny common kindergarten knowledge, to be able to save face, in the eyes of the stupid.

This is just a simple truth, everyone can read for them self, , so left for you is now only to complain to the moderator that someone have tell the truth about you. I am sure you will do exactly that, this is all what is left for you.

I call such coward science.

What a shame.

GOODBY HANS, - I am sure there is a lot people here (at your own level) will continue to appreciate your, so don't worry too much..
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th June 2018, 10:57 PM   #2994
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Nothing but "kindergarten" level cartoons, math and insults lately.

23 October 2009: Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)

7 March 2012: Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!

137 items of ignorance and delusions and some lies in this thread up to 27 February 2018

16 February 2018 Bjarne: The idiocy of a calculation debunking RR - 10.88 is not within 8.74 ±1.33

20 March 2018: After 2 months we now have 12 lies of his theory predicating observations and experimental results since he cannot give the calculations.

68 items of ignorance, fantasy and lies from 26 April 2018 to 31 May 2018.
  1. 5 June 2018 Bjarne: An explicit lie by having a 1/2 orbit calculation (constant external accelerations cancel out over a whole orbit ).
  2. 6 June 2018 Bjarne: A "DFA is soon a indisputable fact" lie by linking to one of his PDFs on the internet.
  3. 6 June 2018 Bjarne: A lie that GR states gravity can accelerate a massive object past c.
  4. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: Idiocy of confirming that he has no independent verification that the experiment happened or what their results were (e.g. where the data was published)
  5. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A stupid "You have understood NOTHING" delusion.
  6. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: Repeat of a argument from ignorance or incredibility (change in temperature cannot cause change in the gravimeter measurements).
  7. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A fantasy that using unfiltered data has no effect when comparing absolute and relative gravimeter measurements.
  8. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A "Only gravimeter failure can be an alternative explanation" lie.
  9. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A "35 μGal (±10 μGal) significant anomaly at the time measurement was done" double lie.
  10. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: Makes the "about 50 µGal" lie explicit by citing his 35 μGal (±10 μGal) "prediction".
  11. 7 June 2018 Bjarne: A lie of a "50 to 55 μGal" prediction.
  12. 8 June 2018 Bjarne: A lie of an anomaly in measurements becomes deluded because there is no anomaly and the measurements start hours after the eclipse where he wants an "anomaly".
  13. 8 June 2018 Bjarne: Actual insanity of showing that he cannot predict anything about the gravimeter readings (adds another imaginary effect that he cannot calculate)!
  14. 8 June 2018 Bjarne: "kindergarten teacher" gibberish that ignores his lies
All the hundred of hours you have used, with only one purpose, - to humiliating me, - is all lose of time, and nothing but personal attack.

Still an anisotropic acceleration is still true and even proven- the comming few years will still reveal that relativity only can be correct understood in a absolutte reference frame and therefore useless.

So all what you really is showing, is that people, decade ahead of there time, are still threaten in the same humiliating way, as they were hundred of years ago.

It tells more about intolerance and brainwash in the twentieth century, - as it tell a bout me.

Last edited by Bjarne; 15th June 2018 at 10:59 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 05:43 AM   #2995
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,402
Bjarne, I'm going to restate your most recent post in correct English.

As I do so, I will have to make some assumptions concerning what you were trying to say. It is extremely likely that some of my assumptions will be wrong, because I have deliberately assumed you were trying to say something that has at least some remote chance of being true.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
All the hundred of hours you have used, with only one purpose, - to humiliating humiliate me, - is all lose loss of time, and nothing but personal attack.
The only purpose of these corrections is to show how I am marking my edits: I have struck through a misspelled word and added, in red, the word I believe you were trying to write.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Still an anisotropic acceleration is might still be true and might even be proven at some future time-
Your original wording said your idea of anisotropic acceleration had already been proven, which was a false statement.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
the comming coming few years will still reveal that relativity only can be correct correctly understood in a absolutte an absolute reference frame and so the mainstream understanding of relativity is therefore useless.
Here you got the tense right ("will still reveal"), but your "therefore useless" appeared to refer to relativity in general, including your own understanding/revision of it as well as the mainstream understanding. I believe you meant to say only the mainstream understanding is useless.

To be clear: I and most other participants in this thread disagree with the last sequence of red words I added. As has been noted many times in this thread and its predecessors, the mainstream understanding of relativity is far from useless, and is indeed used every day by billions of consumer devices.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
So all what you really is are showing, is that people, decade decades ahead of there their time, are still threaten threatened in the same humiliating way, as they were hundred hundreds of years ago.
Those corrections are unimportant, as I believe your meaning was clear. You would do well to remember, however, that trivial mistakes in your writing will do nothing to reassure readers who might already be inclined to suspect there are non-trivial mistakes in your reasoning.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
It tells more about intolerance and brainwash in the twentieth century, - as it tell a bout tells about me.
You're welcome.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 07:01 AM   #2996
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
, you believe the moon literally spoken orbiting the Earth,
The moon is moving around Earth in an ellipse, bound by Earth's gravity. The term for that is 'orbit', whether you like it or not. Earth and the moon, as a system are orbiting the sun, and since the orbit velocity of Earth/moon around the sun is much higher than the moon's orbit velocity relative to Earth, then the moon's course around is not a series of loops but a wavering line. That makes not difference to the fact that the moon's primary orbit is around Earth, and I have really no idea why you keep obsessing about this. It certainly makes no difference for your theories.

Quote:
And you don't know how the resulting force of the Moon and Sun is affecting Earth or how the angle is pointing / changing to the sun.
Do YOU know how it affects Earth or where it is pointing? Have YOU calculated the vectors? How do you know it always points to the sun?

Quote:
GOODBY HANS, - I am sure there is a lot people here (at your own level) will continue to appreciate your, so don't worry too much..
This is the third time you say goodbye to me, but you keep replying to my posts.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 07:07 AM   #2997
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Bjarne, I'm going to restate your most recent post in correct English.

As I do so, I will have to make some assumptions concerning what you were trying to say. It is extremely likely that some of my assumptions will be wrong, because I have deliberately assumed you were trying to say something that has at least some remote chance of being true.


The only purpose of these corrections is to show how I am marking my edits: I have struck through a misspelled word and added, in red, the word I believe you were trying to write.


Your original wording said your idea of anisotropic acceleration had already been proven, which was a false statement.


Here you got the tense right ("will still reveal"), but your "therefore useless" appeared to refer to relativity in general, including your own understanding/revision of it as well as the mainstream understanding. I believe you meant to say only the mainstream understanding is useless.

To be clear: I and most other participants in this thread disagree with the last sequence of red words I added. As has been noted many times in this thread and its predecessors, the mainstream understanding of relativity is far from useless, and is indeed used every day by billions of consumer devices.

Those corrections are unimportant, as I believe your meaning was clear. You would do well to remember, however, that trivial mistakes in your writing will do nothing to reassure readers who might already be inclined to suspect there are non-trivial mistakes in your reasoning.

You're welcome.
First time that happen, it was intentionally just to test whether everybody is total idiots. - Notice I wrote is instead of are, this was also intentionally, and there is other errors too can you find them all ?

Last edited by Bjarne; 16th June 2018 at 07:08 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 09:20 AM   #2998
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,340
The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017 - Part II

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
First time that happen, it was intentionally just to test whether everybody is total idiots. - Notice I wrote is instead of are, this was also intentionally, and there is other errors too can you find them all ?
Are you claiming that all the numerous errors your posts are full of, are really put there to make us think you are an imbecile?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 09:22 AM   #2999
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,796
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
First time that happen, it was intentionally just to test whether everybody is total idiots. - Notice I wrote is instead of are, this was also intentionally, and there is other errors too can you find them all ?
Ah, then you admit, even brag, that you're here to troll and have no real interest in convincing anyone of anything.

Thank you for your candor.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th June 2018, 09:59 AM   #3000
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
First time that happened, it was intentionally just to test whether everybody isare total idiots. - Notice I wrote is instead of are, this was also intentionally, and there isare other errors too, can you find them all ?
Yes, I think these are all your intentional errors.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.