Clearly familiar with buoyancy and archimedes, been mentioning all that in the thread already.

Can you show me where they show the arc angel of a neutrino test? Can you concede that these tests could be done on a FE given that all you're doing is firing a direct line between two points?

Im still waiting for the explanation of how Kansas can be .99997% flat over hundreds of miles on a RE, where's the curvature?

The Earth and Sun is like a Waltzer fair ride. How come we never feel the acceleration change? How can gravity perfectly account for the change?

Just a great interview about all the FE stuff. Why not spend an hour listening?

Not feeling like reading 20 pages, has it been explained why there would be a conspiracy to say the earth is round and the solar system solarcentric? What did Galileo have to gain by saying the earth goes around the sun? Or the ancient Egyptians by saying earth is round?

Stop the BS immediately or i will ignore you and treat all your posts as unethical, malicious, trolling activities and not something done by someone genuinely interested in how the world works or understanding how one can get there without relying on established quick facts, that people take for granted, but by using their minds in a healthy secure way and relying only on very easily testable facts and equally verifiable scientific principles/laws and math.

In a flat surface to connect 2 points with something that is not curved because it doesnt interact a lot with matter as neutrinos do, you draw a straight line that never leaves the plane of that flat surface. You do not send a bean down to the ground at 3 degrees. If you did that it would never come out in that flat surface ever again. And yet here it does. This means the surface is not flat and the neutrinos go through the earth's crust not outside in the air as they would have to be doing in a flat surface.

Here is the description of the setup;
http://press.web.cern.ch/press-relea...5-milliseconds

"CERN is sending the neutrinos to Gran Sasso in pulses. There is one pulse every few seconds, each pulse lasts 13 microseconds and contains in the order of 10^12 neutrinos. From Geneva, the neutrinos will travel in a straight line through the earth, below Mont Blanc, Aosta, Alessandria (where they cross the river Po), the Appenine Chain (where they reach their maximum depth of about 8km), Florence (at a depth of about 4 km) and Assisi, before finally emerging at Gran Sasso. This is truly the quickest method of international travel, at the speed of light it takes the neutrinos only 2.5 milliseconds to get from CERN to Gran Sasso!"

Here , read the paper that describes the beam itself and has diagrams
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0703247v1.pdf

All the people in the world and their labs are lying right? What will you argue then, that you want to be taken to the particular beam to check its angle? If you pay the cost of the trip plus $10K for my time i will gladly join you or find one i trust that will take you there to see it yourself.

As for buoyancy if you understood the effect you wouldnt be having problems with understanding how balloons work and how it all involves; gravity, weather, earth's rotation, Archimedes' principle, air friction, you name it that combine to describe the flight but the most dominant fixed in description effects are due to buoyancy (variable as the balloon expands while in flight gradually), gravity and the earth's rotation and air resistance.

When the balloon leaves the ground it has the rotational linear velocity that this part of earth had at that moment. It doesnt instantly experience a massive speed change vs the stones in the ground.

The Coriolis effect is another evidence of the curvature and rotation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect



or




Also i am interested in what was it that suddenly made you proponent of such bs as flat earth in 2015 not 500BC (and willing to propagate pure garbage malicious pseudo science crap videos, that even free speech arguments need to step aside and force youtube to eliminate or at the very least put disclaimers in all of them to stop the propagation of lies and the corruption of people of weak education that are easy targets for varieties of reasons that relate to their character or personal life).

If this is an exercise (or experiment) in getting people to convince you as if you were a child learning or something, that would be one thing i can respect. If a kid asked me to prove him/her the earth is oblate spheroid and rotates around an axis and around the sun, i would be obligated as a free thinker, as a scientist, as an educator of that kid at that moment and as a possible source of inspiration for them to start respecting the potential of scientific thinking and the advantage of honestly questioning freely everything (instead of dogmatically accepting positions) to help him/her understand why this is the case, how people arrived there and how to test it. You are not interested in testing anything. You are like a religious maniac that will keep a position no matter what and will try to explain away any arguments with convoluted, fictitious, false, unintelligible sometimes arguments (your videos have tons of holes and convenient lies and unsupported claims). Or you are a troll at worse, happy to waste people's time. Although i will make it my goal against any troll to never waste my time or the time of those reading me, by always aiming to find something new to learn and share in any thread however simple it is.


PS: The neutrino time of flight is also another way to test the facts of the experiment. We can calculate what is a straight line trip from one site to another across the surface of the earth and compare it with the time they actually take. You will see that if they were going alone that external path (if it were flat) they would be taking more time than they actually do.

masque please stop promoting pseudo science as fact when it clearly is no more than theory. The Coriolis effect is just like your bogus Foucault pendulum. If the Coriolis effect supposedly causes most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere then how come not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the same consistent behavior. Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all? If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force? And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently? What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect? Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes.

You still haven't shown why things with different densities fall at the same speed.

Also, what causes weight?

Kerowo, you have to be stricter with your words. Instead of speed, it should be acceleration.

masque de Z, don't get discouraged over people like RF, there will always be people who will never get it. I have really enjoyed reading your posts.

As a very wealthy friend in LA told me years ago, don't get mad at their inability to understand, get rich off of them, lol.

Yea, I'm just waiting for him to show a youtube video of two objects with different densities falling at different rates...

--edit--

Screw it, I'll just post this now because it's pretty cool:

RiverFenix propose a test that will convince you earth is an oblate spheroid (or round, near spherical whatever lets not get stuck there just not a plane disk).

Time to stop behaving like a troll and answer questions;

1) What is the depth of the disk (if you go down to dig/drill how far does it extend?)

2) What happens on the other side of the disk (back side)

3) Why do airplanes from Europe to California go over Canada and near Greenland first etc (have you tried one such flight before, i have many times)? eg http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...200Z/KSFO/EDDF (instead of say keeping same latitude)


4) How much money are you willing to put down in a bet that nobody here will be able to prove to you earth is round within 12 months time?

5) What would prove to you earth is round? What would you consider satisfactory evidence?

6) What is the gravitational acceleration in a disk world as function of altitude say if you started the experiment near the center of the disk and went up say no more than 10km.

I would probably go about it this way

1. Ask is the flat earth stationary?
2. Does the flat earth have a density?
3. If the flat earth has a density, then something less dense than the earth should float if placed in a vacuum.

Considering how obvious the dimensions of the earth are, and how difficult neutrinos are, isn't this more like how you find the speed of neutrinos?

Also, do all neutrinos go the same speed? and if so, why?

tia and don't let RF get to you.

Its a disgrace to the generation of the Apollo missions that young people exist today that question the earth being round, the landing on the moon and a ton of other standard things. We, the generations after these people, deserve better from each other.

To all the people out there that believe in stupid conspiracies and are unwilling to test what they see with their own eyes, know this;
Simulating the real world ultra faithfully is harder than some idiots think. The real world is the conspiracy that will top all conspiracies!!! It requires all of nature to participate in the conspiracy, a conspiracy known as the ultimate inescapable "truth", the physical law.

The gravity in the moon is 1.6 m/sec^2. Which means a feather left to fall from say 1.6m height ( a bit below his head say) will take about 1.4 sec. Take a chronometer out and measure if its close to that in the video. It sure seems like it. On earth it would be 0.57s. You can test the rover dust etc for accuracy too. You cannot slow motion play the video to fake the moon driving and at the same time manage to have the other no gravity related motions appear very fast! And that is early 70s now by the way.



PS: RE; microbet, the neutrinos have mass that is likley less than 2-3 eV and may be actually determined this year or next for the first time. As a reuslt they have speeds very close tot he speed of light because all the typical reactions that create them give them enough energy (order a few KeV at least and often near MeV level)) to unavoidably be very high speed to match the total energy available to them given how small their rest mass is. They are almost always across all sources in the universe (of astrophysical origin) energetic enough to always be ultra relativistic since E^2=(pc)^2+m^2*c^4 forcing pc>>mc^2 always (since E>>mc^2 in all these cases typically) which then forces p = mv/(1-v/c^2)^(1/2) in order to be much larger than mc to have the the gamma factor (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) to be very large (much larger than one) hence v~c for all of them.

Masque, RF is an educated troll who is only able to sustain this false debate because he has a background in physics. I thought this was obvious from page 1.

Doesn't mean it's not fun to hear his bull**** though...

Masque,

Could there possibly be a slow neutrino or maybe impossible, even in theory, because energy is discreet?

I guess that would be in a given gravitational field. They must be able to slow down in a black hole?

It does affect all of them. Cyclones or low-pressure areas turn anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, clockwise in the southern. For anticyclones or high-pressure areas, it's reversed because the pressure gradient is reversed, outward from the centre rather than inward to the centre.

Because they're opposite sides of the equator, so the rotational speed gradient is reversed, the speed increasing towards the equator.

You skipped over this question last page. Was wondering if you could clarify the sun's distance from earth and show how and when it completely changes it's orbit in your model.

You're just now reaching this conclusion?

Maybe these from the time the universe was only 380k years old? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background

The reason most nuclear (and accelerator collisions) reaction neutrinos and antineutrinos are relativistic is because their mass (eg for the electron neutrinos) appears to be indeed smaller than 2-3 eV although there was recent evidence they cannot be 0 anymore (from neutrino oscillation experiments) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation.

Such small rest mass particles are hundreds of thousands of times smaller in rest mass than electron (0.5Mev) that is already 1800 times smaller than proton/neutron. Even u/d quarks are at least 2-5 MeV each. So all the other small elementary particles are already thousands to millions of times more massive.

So basically here is what happens. If there is a decay that gives neutrinos the products of the decay have sum of rest masses that is smaller than the net available initial particle mass (the mass of the starting particle minus the rest masses of the products is the net energy of the reaction that must be positive in order to be possibly happening if not forbidden by other laws). There is a net energy released in the form of kinetic energy unavoidably then. The particles must have kinetic energy as a result to distribute that net excess energy among them. That means they must have momentum that adds up to 0 in the rest frame of the starting particle. The way this happens is if they share different momentum each adding up to 0 in a vector sense. Eg look here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#Free_neutron_decay

So in general the neutrino will have some even small momentum. Even if it has only 1/1000 of the total reaction kinetic energy released (that is here about 0.78MeV) by some miracle combination (of the other products in vectorial cancellations sense) its kinetic energy would still be many eV, forcing it to be still relativistic near c. In principle it could be ultra rarely down there in near thermal velocities eg less than 50% C but it would be very rare to happen. Additionally the reaction cross section of such low energy neutrinos is a declining function of energy. So they are hard to react to anyway and this low energy makes it even harder.

There is an experiment this year and next that may reveal the mass of neutrinos by studying the distribution of the energy of the resulting electrons in beta decay eg see here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KATRIN



Didace, i have a 5sd tolerance for troll status confirmation lol. I always imagine for example that there is small chance this is a social experiment to see how people will argue rationally to demolish pseudo science positions. The problem here is that he doesnt appear ingeniously trolling 100% of the time (it feels real ignorance often not orchestrated one). It has a small chance to be a kind of lunatic conspiracy maniac situation like those with all the youtube videos and the flat earth society people, the 9/11 controlled demolition people for the towers , global warming deniers etc. If all those youtube video people are all trolls that on purpose want to create a crisis in society (and not genuine victims of poor education and manipulation by charlatans) then i suppose i am starting to be happy with a war against them that can target their computers and prove a highly ethical counter terrorism initiative worth pursuing. Yeah they have earned it then!

Kansas isn't ".99997% [sic] flat". Kansas scored .9997 on an arbitrarily-defined scale that was created for the purpose of measuring flatness.

As it turns out, pouring a viscous material into a pan creates a mound rather than a perfectly flat surface with hard edges. Thus, at least the one pancake studied by the researchers was rounder than an amount of land that covers a negligible percentage of the Earth's total surface area.

Thanks masque.

I like how masque takes his time to reply to posts and how he explains things properly.