On earth as it is in heaven:

[UVsaturated]

Wake up people!!!!!!!!!! Can't you see the signs?

CHeck this out and explain how this is true:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/21/2196406.htm

[olddragon]

G R A V I T Y maybe, threw it out away from orbit and it was pulled back,
lack of speed would have it degrade ?

[Fut004]

Can you do us all a Favour and give us a hint and what your Post is about next time?
Thanks.



Astronaut Takao Doi "threw a boomerang and saw it come back" during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station (ISS), a spokeswoman at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said.

"I was very surprised and moved to see that it flew the same way it does on Earth," the Mainichi Shimbun daily quoted the 53-year-old astronaut as telling his wife in a chat from space.


That is really interesting actually.
I'll have to go with Old Dragon with this one though. Probably something to do with the Angle he threw it at and the Gravity of Earth.

I don't know about other people here, But I've never had Luck throwing a Boomerang. They never come back to me. This Mr Doi must be an accomplished Boomerang thrower.

If this whole "On earth as it is in heaven" stuffs is true, why is it that shit all can survive in Space?

[lycanox]

How is this exactly proof.
Astronauts have already eaten, golfed, threw paper planes, and even took a shit in space.

Whats so special about boomerangs?


Can you do us all a Favour and give us a hint and what your Post is about next time?
Thanks.

Perhaps he should make a movie like Al gore.

"And as you can see, there is a clear relation between this thing that nobody noticed during midnight, and the boomerang a silly astronaut threw out.
And as a result. This is how high the seas of blood is gonna come.

Truly shocking, isn't it?"

[Nu Kua]

UV, you now have to prove how God is like a boomerang.

[Crimepunisher]

UV, you now have to prove how God is like a boomerang.

"Because if you don't reach out and catch it they come back and hit you in the face" - Probably a Jerry Falwell quote.

But yes, UV, explain how a boomerang in space is a sign.

[Fut004]

I understood that part of UV's post.

As I get it, a Boomerang is like a Wing, as it spins the air passes faster over one half than the other. Blah Blah Blah, it returns to sender.

So in Space, there's no Air flowing, what's making the Boomerang return?

I don't know what's doing it. But I can sure as hell tell you that it's not a Giant Invisible Man in the Sky... (I think UV calls him Dad, or God or something.)

[UVsaturated]

UV, you now have to prove how God is like a boomerang.


Well the point of this message is what makes a boomerang fly and come back to you.

It is for anyone to just ponder.

Modern boomerangs have a cross section of a lifting body, like a wing, yet it is also a chevron forming a V so that when you spin it, it has a baricenter.

So within a space station, the orbital velocity cancels out gravity, so all we are left with is air pressure, and in the space station the air pressure is very low.

Science has proved that we do not need 14.7 pounds of air pressure of oxygen to live in space.

It's probably pretty easy breathing in space, because the outside pressure is so low that the inside pressure of the body cavity seems effortless to move the lungs.

That's besides the point. If there is very little air pressure, then the boomerang is doing very little flying like a wing. Gravity has been reduced to practically zero, so why can you spin a boomerang and it comes right back to you?

[Nu Kua]

I haven't a clue, to be honest.
I admit to being a horrid boomerang thrower, having been whacked in the head more than a few times...
(explains a lot, no?)

[UVsaturated]

I haven't a clue, to be honest.
I admit to being a horrid boomerang thrower, having been whacked in the head more than a few times...
(explains a lot, no?)

Cute............never tried throwing one..........too scared that it will do what you just said, and besides I am not Australian and do not need to hunt for my food. Wal-marts just sells me all the noodles I want.

[DontBeAfraid]

It's probably pretty easy breathing in space, because the outside pressure is so low that the inside pressure of the body cavity seems effortless to move the lungs.What? Effortless to breath OUT maybe. Futile to try and breath back in. Humans need an O2(gas) mix to live. This is not found in outer space.

As for the boomerang: Was it thrown INSIDE the spacestation or was it thrown during a space walk? If it was inside the space station then its return was probably a lot of little things. If it was thrown outside then it was gravity.


Gravity has been reduced to practically zeroGravity is constant. It is not reduced by the velocity of the space station, only its distance from the center of the earth.


so why can you spin a boomerang and it comes right back to you?Ill chalk this up to piss poor reporting.

[UVsaturated]

Gravity is constant. It is not reduced by the velocity of the space station, only its distance from the center of the earth.


You do know that it makes no difference what altitude you are at, that everything has an escape velocity which cancels out gravity don't you?

In effect gravity is balanced by moving sideways, really, really fast. Therefore, gravity has no effect on the boomerang inside a spacecraft moving like a well tuned fast food restaurant.

[DontBeAfraid]

You do know that it makes no difference what altitude you are at, that everything has an escape velocity which cancels out gravity don't you?The reason a object stays in orbit is because gravity is constant. The spacestation is constantly falling.... due to gravity. It is nowhere near its escape velocity.


In effect gravity is balanced by moving sideways, really, really fast. Therefore, gravity has no effect on the boomerang inside a spacecraft moving like a well tuned fast food restaurant.Incorrect. Gravity has a constant effect on it and its simply impossible for a human astronaut to provide force to any object for it to escape the earths gravity, even starting from the space station.

Again we need to consider whether the boomerang was thrown in the space station or outside of it to determine the causes of its flight pattern.

Edit: I am curious though, was the point you were trying to make here is that there is air in space? Or are you looking for some kind of magic bullet?

[UVsaturated]

DBA its just a simple spiritual message to consider. It does not need to be evaluated to death but to consider its spiritual meaning.

Does a boomerang fly through the air like a wing, and if so, you need a considerable amount of space to throw one so that it can be launched and become like a helicopter blade. So I will leave it at that, and let those who like to digg up articles find out if the guy threw it inside the space station or outside the space station.

[JenaS62]

Wake up people!!!!!!!!!! Can't you see the signs?

CHeck this out and explain how this is true:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/21/2196406.htm



I have no idea how it's true but I really don't think it's any kind of sign. Why don't you enlighten us?

[UVsaturated]

I have no idea how it's true but I really don't think it's any kind of sign. Why don't you enlighten us?

That's the point. I can't enlighten you anymore than I already have. I have presented a story as posted online of something that happened, and it's for you to judge whether it is possible or not.

What else would you like me to say about it?

Tell me if it's possible for the boomerang to fly and return to its sender in space?

Is it creating it's own gravity at its center, and if so, how does it know from whence it came?

Mysterious and benign, yet you don't see it.

PS-I am not mocking anyone here at all, just presenting a very clear and simple case of where science meets God.

[DontBeAfraid]

Tell me if it's possible for the boomerang to fly and return to its sender in space?You mean in orbit. In outer or deep space, no, its not possible for it to come back.


Is it creating it's own gravity at its center, and if so, how does it know from whence it came?All matter has a center of gravity and all matter has some gravitation force. Neither of these are relevant to the story. If it was thrown inside the pressurized station, which is fairly big, and it was given enough spin then there is no reason to be surprised that the difference in pressure above and below the wing wouldnt be enough to cause it to loop back. If it was thrown outside and away from the earth then it is of no surprise that it eventually came back....


Mysterious and benign, yet you don't see it. This is explainable once we have all the info.


just presenting a very clear and simple case of where science meets God.You are now suggesting that a god caused the boomerang to come back?

[UVsaturated]

DBA. You obviously are a vulture who picks scraps of meat off the bones of dead animals.

[DontBeAfraid]

DBA. You obviously are a vulture who picks scraps of meat off the bones of dead animals.You mean I prefer actual explanations to natural events over gibberish feel-goods? If dont want me to explain something to you then post something that unexplainable.

[UVsaturated]

You mean I prefer actual explanations to natural events over gibberish feel-goods? If dont want me to explain something to you then post something that unexplainable.


So tell me then wise one; do you get out a manual before you have sex so you make sure you follow the procedures or do you go with the flow?

[DontBeAfraid]

So tell me then wise one; do you get out a manual before you have sex so you make sure you follow the procedures or do you go with the flow?I get out a picture of your grandma you fucking twat. Dont get stupid with me.

[UVsaturated]

I get out a picture of your grandma you fucking twat. Dont get stupid with me.

Well, just answer the question directly without resorting to insults, please.

I only presented pictures because someone said that an elderly lady should be scrutinized of her records to determine if she was safe to fly. Pretty simple really.

I call you on your beliefs, and you resort to becoming confused - highly.

Well, tell me more.

[DontBeAfraid]

do you get out a manual before you have sex so you make sure you follow the procedures or do you go with the flow?I throw your grandma like a boomerang then I fuck whatever hole is closest to me depending on how she lands.


I call you on your beliefs, and you resort to becoming confused - highly.Actually you asked me how I fuck. Your intention was to insult me and I am going to make you regret it.


Well, tell me more.Ill tell you right here and now that no god threw that boomerang back.

[UVsaturated]

I throw your grandma like a boomerang then I fuck whatever hole is closest to me depending on how she lands.

Ok. Did you ask her to oblige or should I ask her on your behalf?



Actually you asked me how I fuck. Your intention was to insult me and I am going to make you regret it.

My intention was to show everyone and hopefully you that you decided long ago to judge things by what they seem to be instead of what is plain to any idiot. I did not mean to insult you, but you just can't help it, because your words speak louder than a busted chainsaw. I did nothing but reflect your words upon you and you cannot tolerate it for even a moment.

I mastered a lot of things and one of them is to make people judge things according to their own rules. You're not making things easier upon yourself.



Ill tell you right here and now that no god threw that boomerang back.

Then tell me what caused the boomerang to know it's owner.

Please, I am patiently waiting for science, God, and you (especially) to define this event or bite your tongue.

[Crimepunisher]

I throw your grandma like a boomerang then I fuck whatever hole is closest to me depending on how she lands.

HAHA, signature-worthy.

These little arguments are the best.

[DontBeAfraid]

Then tell me what caused the boomerang to know it's owner.Its carved wood, it knows NOBODY.


Please, I am patiently waiting for science, God, and you (especially) to define this event or bite your tongue.The possibilities have been explained three times in this thread already. Until we know more of the circumstances involved we cant really tell you exactly which scenario is most correct. However, based on reality and all it entails, we can tell you which scenarios are not possible.


My intention was to show everyone and hopefully you that you decided long ago to judge things by what they seem to be instead of what is plain to any idiot.You asked me if I have a manual that I get out when I want to fuck. I have no manual, when I want to fuck I get out a little replica of your head.

[UVsaturated]

HAHA, signature-worthy.

These little arguments are the best.

And they are the true signatures of what we believe. If a person cannot answer the questions they present, then they are failing in their manhood. Period. End of story.

Don't waffle, but stand for the truth.

[UVsaturated]

Its carved wood, it knows NOBODY.
The possibilities have been explained three times in this thread already. Until we know more of the circumstances involved we cant really tell you exactly which scenario is most correct. However, based on reality and all it entails, we can tell you which scenarios are not possible.
You asked me if I have a manual that I get out when I want to fuck. I have no manual, when I want to fuck I get out a little replica of your head.

DBA, I've contemplated everything you have said and it stands clearly as complete bullshit, and nonsense for the meek. No person has explained how it was done. The only thing that has been presented is the circumstances. You have clearly crossed the line to make the 'possibilities' assume that it explained something.

You never defined how the boomerang flew, nor did anyone else, yet you claim it is evidence of nothing at all.

Now about the sex manual, I don't even believe you have been with a woman. You cannot prove anything at all.

[DontBeAfraid]

If a person cannot answer the questions they present, then they are failing in their manhood. Period. End of story.lol... you are an idiot. You prefer a fast answer to a correct answer.


Don't waffle, but stand for the truth.lol.

DBA, I've contemplated everything you have said and it stands clearly as complete bullshit, and nonsense for the meek.Aerodynamics, thermodynamics, gravity and relativity are nonsense?


No person has explained how it was done.No person has yet to tell us exactly what happened, and if we dont know WHAT happened its not always possible to explain HOW it happened. Although Im pretty sure any explanation would be wasted on you. You have no knowledge of how wings work and you have no knowledge of how gravity works.


The only thing that has been presented is the circumstances.Incorrect, we have been presented ONE sentence with NONE of the circumstances involved.


You never defined how the boomerang flew, nor did anyone else, yet you claim it is evidence of nothing at all. I told you how it could happen depending on what actually happened.


Now about the sex manual, I don't even believe you have been with a woman. You cannot prove anything at all.Are you asking me for nude pics?

[UVsaturated]

lol... you are an idiot. You prefer a fast answer to a correct answer.

lol.
Aerodynamics, thermodynamics, gravity and relativity are nonsense?

No person has yet to tell us exactly what happened, and if we dont know WHAT happened its not always possible to explain HOW it happened. Although Im pretty sure any explanation would be wasted on you. You have no knowledge of how wings work and you have no knowledge of how gravity works.

Incorrect, we have been presented ONE sentence with NONE of the circumstances involved.
I told you how it could happen depending on what actually happened.

Are you asking me for nude pics?

Since I am a simple man DBA, I will be very lenient on you.

Here is my evidence of you and what I presented, since you won't shut your teeth.

You mention aerodynamics, thermodynamics, gravity, and relativity - yet you have not told a soul how any one of these is connected and how the boomerang flies.

You have given me titles of 4 scientific disciplines yet have not told anyone here how the boomerang flies. You remind me of a friend who mentioned capacitors, resistors, inductors, and could not recite the Ohm's law with any certainty.

Now, science explains the natural world, yet you say now that it cannot explain everything. Here is your evidence of all 4 disciplines of science combined into one event for you to explain as a scientist, or a spiritual person (whichever side you choose), and you cannot do it because you have based all your assumptions on relying on both scientists and the spiritual seers to define what it is you think you might understand. Now you stand to complain about every bit of it.

Now hear the message of a wing, for it is simple. Bernoulli defined in fluid dynamics that any airfoil is a distribution of airflow between the top and bottom of a wing.

Simply, if the velocity of air increases, its internal pressure decreases. So when a wing splits the air, the difference between the airflow between the top and bottom of a wing causes a pressure differential witch causes lift.

Very simple really and DBA doesn't think a simple guy like myself doesn't know how a wing flies through the air.

Now to conclude your nonsense, gravity is simply the mass of matter rotating around a common point that is connected to the consciousness of man by binding us to the earth.

It does not exist in space, because very few men go there.

[Traveler]

V=IxR


xxxxx25xxxxx

[UVsaturated]

V=IxR


xxxxx25xxxxx


Wow! one man out of millions knows the Ohms law. Where did you learn that one?

[DontBeAfraid]

Very simple really and DBA doesn't think a simple guy like myself doesn't know how a wing flies through the air.It is rather simple, which is why I didnt think I needed to bother explaining it to you. However, as it seems you are still having difficulty understanding why this would cause the boomerang to come back I will explain that part to you,


and you cannot do it because you have based all your assumptions on relying on both scientists and the spiritual seers to define what it is you think you might understand. Now you stand to complain about every bit of it.I cant fully explain this ONE example simply because I dont have enough information to do so. This is why I present to you the different possibilities.

The spinning boomerang cuts through the air. As it spins It creates a pocket of low pressure above and slightly behind(with regard to direction) the curved side. As things tend to move from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure so does the boomerang. It constantly creates and then moves into the area of low pressure above the curved surface. The result is a movement which causes it to eventually loop back on itself.


gravity is simply the mass of matter rotating around a common pointNo, gravity is a force which describes a very specific behavior of matter; that behavior being its tendency to converge with other matter.


that is connected to the consciousness of man by binding us to the earth.lol.


It does not exist in space, because very few men go there.lol. It exists everywhere that there is matter.


You remind me of a friend who mentioned capacitors, resistors, inductors, and could not recite the Ohm's law with any certainty.lol.

[UVsaturated]

It is rather simple, which is why I didnt think I needed to bother explaining it to you. However, as it seems you are still having difficulty understanding why this would cause the boomerang to come back I will explain that part to you,
I cant fully explain this ONE example simply because I dont have enough information to do so. This is why I present to you the different possibilities.

.........and you never ever will. I saw it for its worth, and its an enigma. You can't explain it, neither I, nor any scientist. We have been humbled by God in a moment in time, in the time it took for a boomerang to fly in space, and all the science and religion in the world cannot define it.

That is your judge and jury my friend. Measure that and you will find your fault.



The spinning boomerang cuts through the air. As it spins It creates a pocket of low pressure above and slightly behind(with regard to direction) the curved side. As things tend to move from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure so does the boomerang. It constantly creates and then moves into the area of low pressure above the curved surface. The result is a movement which causes it to eventually loop back on itself.

So since you initially described the boomerang as an airfoil - a flying wing - doesn't it also produce thrust as a propeller and like a helicopter also must over come gravity? Yet all the known laws of physical science have been defied here.

It defies your logic of any physical law, and I would humbly extend that it defies the laws of Newtonian physics. The proofs in the pudding right in front of your nose by some Japanese guy throwing a primitive tool.



No, gravity is a force which describes a very specific behavior of matter; that behavior being its tendency to converge with other matter.

lol.

lol. It exists everywhere that there is matter.

lol.

No one has actually defined what gravity is, just its qualities on mass.

[DontBeAfraid]

.........and you never ever will. I saw it for its worth, and its an enigma.Actually with a little bit more info it is entirely quantifiable.


You can't explain it, neither I, nor any scientist.YOU cant explain it because you are ignorant. I would wager that you had no idea about how a wing works before googling it to post in this thread.


We have been humbled by God in a moment in time, in the time it took for a boomerang to fly in space, and all the science and religion in the world cannot define it.Actually we have very accurately modeled both gravity AND aerodynamics. This is why we can make planes that fly AND accurately predict movements within the universe.


So since you initially described the boomerang as an airfoil - a flying wing - doesn't it also produce thrust as a propeller and like a helicopter also must over come gravity? Yet all the known laws of physical science have been defied here.Its "thrust" is simply that of creating areas of high and low pressure. On the earth this difference in pressure must be enough to overcome the accelleration of gravity. In relative weightlessness its movement is modeled much more simply. No laws of nature have been defied.


It defies your logic of any physical law, and I would humbly extend that it defies the laws of Newtonian physics.Your lack of knowledge and understanding of newtonian physics prevents you from making such a judgment.


The proofs in the pudding right in front of your nose by some Japanese guy throwing a primitive tool.lol.


No one has actually defined what gravity is, just its qualities on mass.Indeed, we have not yet determined why matter converges but we very accurately defined HOW it does so or in what way it does so.

[UVsaturated]

I pray to myself that I debunk you one last time so we avoid all this nonsense that you believe in. DBA cannot see any single thing in time or space and is not connecting anything at all but just all the garbage he has been taught without actually considering any of it.



Actually with a little bit more info it is entirely quantifiable.

YOU cant explain it because you are ignorant. I would wager that you had no idea about how a wing works before googling it to post in this thread.

Let me tell you the truth of the matter so you aren't deluded of where exactly I gained understanding of how a lifting body or wing resists gravity. I took ROTC in high school, specifically Air Force ROTC. We had a lot of instruction on flying airplanes and instruction on airfoils, so I know all about how a wing flies through the air. It aint no mystery to me especially since I live in the birthplace of aviation where the Wright Brothers built their little seed and shack to create a controllable dual wing and took flight in Kitty Hawk, then about a walking distance from my house to the original Wright Field, which is now a dead plain on WPAFB. I know all about airplane wings flying. Don't even consider for a moment I don't - I did not google it for an instant. Besides, the evidence stands on it's own whether I googled it or not - wings fly by pressure differential. No great mystery there.



Actually we have very accurately modeled both gravity AND aerodynamics. This is why we can make planes that fly AND accurately predict movements within the universe.

Okay then. You have measured both of those acting on matter close to earth, but you still still have not shown me how they both concede to each other in zero gravity. You defined that both gravity and pressure acts upon air molecules, yet I present a situation where gravity is essentially removed and the wing can no longer fly at all but still resembles what we see on earth. The laws of physics have been defied at one point in time, and you didn't even notice it.



Its "thrust" is simply that of creating areas of high and low pressure.[/quote

So a wing can fly by defying pressure, but if gravity is cancelled, what keeps it from shooting straight through the roof?

[quote]
On the earth this difference in pressure must be enough to overcome the accelleration of gravity. In relative weightlessness its movement is modeled much more simply. No laws of nature have been defied.

So there is a point where space meets the earth and the laws of Newtonian physics no longer apply?



Your lack of knowledge and understanding of newtonian physics prevents you from making such a judgment.
lol.

I made no such judgment on this event other than it denied every law of physics and confirmed God at the same time.



Indeed, we have not yet determined why matter converges but we very accurately defined HOW it does so or in what way it does so.

And you never will. The scientist will never prove God. The religious will never prove God. The spiritual will combine the two and find the medium.

[DontBeAfraid]

I pray to myself that I debunk you one last time so we avoid all this nonsense that you believe in. DBA cannot see any single thing in time or space and is not connecting anything at all but just all the garbage he has been taught without actually considering any of it.I can tell you how a computer works. Can you tell me?


I present a situation where gravity is essentially removed and the wing can no longer fly at all but still resembles what we see on earth.Gravity is not needed for there to be a difference in air pressure above and below a moving wing. Close to earth the wing must create enough of a difference to overcome gravity and create "flight". In relative weightlessness the difference can be much much smaller while still creating enough force to cause "flight".


The laws of physics have been defied at one point in time, and you didn't even notice it.No they havent. The difference in pressure is what creates the boomerangs unique movement pattern, not gravity. Gravity just makes it harder for the boomerang to travel in its signature circle.


So a wing can fly by defying pressure, but if gravity is cancelled, what keeps it from shooting straight through the roof?Air pressure.


So there is a point where space meets the earth and the laws of Newtonian physics no longer apply?Is that what you read? Because thats NOT what I wrote. Tis true though governed by the laws of general relativity that newtonian physics do not apply to everything from every perspective. And I truly dont have the time or energy to teach the ins and outs of that to you.


I made no such judgment on this event other than it denied every law of physics and confirmed God at the same time.Yes, and your ignorance of physics prevents you from making that judgment. Or at least prevents you from making it accurately.


And you never will. So many things we have done that we were never to do.


The scientist will never prove God.That depends on which god and the attributes ascribed to it.

[UVsaturated]

DBA, you just have been owned by yourself. You haven't proved a single thing by science or whatever else you have believed.
Dedando should come in here and explain math levers to you and show you that orbits cancels gravity and without pressure a flying wing would shoot straight up to the ceiling.

Furthermore, an boomerang should not in any way know its source of flight in space because it has no universal center other than the Japanese guy who threw it.

You have completely presented nothing scientific but labels of science, not any hard math or any proofs whatsoever.

No single person on this website or anywhere can prove this, because it defies everything you know, and NASA knew it and we didn't. This is why they even test shit in space, because it is the holy grail of defying Newtonian physics, but the boomerang also defied quantum physics in a moment that you did not notice because you're so brilliant.

Let those here conjure up more bullshit to defy any of this.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

[DontBeAfraid]

DBA, you just have been owned by yourselfNo, I have owned you.


Dedando should come in here and explain math levers to you and show you that orbits cancels gravityOrbits are CAUSED BY GRAVITY! If not for gravity an objects inertia would cause it to move in a straight line.


nd without pressure a flying wing would shoot straight up to the ceiling.Im sure you meant without gravity. And you are still wrong. wihtout gravity the air pressure would cause a wing to loop back on itself.


Furthermore, an boomerang should not in any way know its source of flight in space because it has no universal center other than the Japanese guy who threw it.A boomerang knows nothing, it loops back due to the laws of physics. It seems to me that you believe the earth is the center of the universe.


You have completely presented nothing scientific but labels of science, not any hard math or any proofs whatsoever.Im certain that you could not possibly understand any hard math.


No single person on this website or anywhere can prove this, because it defies everything you know, and NASA knew it and we didn't.It defies NOTHING.


This is why they even test shit in space, because it is the holy grail of defying Newtonian physics, Newtonian physics are a little behind the times but they work well enough as long as nothing approaches the speed of light. Objects in orbit do not defy newtonian physics.


but the boomerang also defied quantum physics in a moment that you did not notice because you're so brilliant. At which point?


Let those here conjure up more bullshit to defy any of this.LOL.... you think the earth is the center of hte universe.

[UVsaturated]

Goddamned it DBA, just show me the math that says all this is possible. I don't want your beliefs nor your labels nor your contrived circumstantial evidence that somehow you can prove a boomerang can fly and return to its owner in space.

Just give me the facts, and present me the evidence if you will. Quit toying with me by making believe you know something that you don't. Science proves you wrong in your lack of knowing it, and spirituality denies you that you understand nothing of it either.

Just admit that you are a lost one who are inbetween two belief systems that control you.

Jesus at least died like a man on a cross bound to walk in faith or work by the hands, yet you wish to die by taxes.

Benjamin Franklin even judges you and he was brilliant without even attending a public school.

[DontBeAfraid]

I don't want your beliefs nor your labels nor your contrived circumstantial evidence that somehow you can prove a boomerang can fly and return to its owner in space.This is why we need to determine whether or not the boomerang was thrown in a pressurized space station or in true outer space. The math for each is very different.


Quit toying with me by making believe you know something that you don't.Well, which would you like? Space or space station?


Just admit that you are a lost one who are inbetween two belief systems that control you.As soon as you admit that your grandmother is a terrorist hooker.


yet you wish to die by taxes.You are drunk arent you.


Benjamin Franklin even judges you and he was brilliant without even attending a public school.He has never known me.

[DontBeAfraid]

Ill start with the spacestation mathematics. Ill try to have the equations done for you by monday.

[DontBeAfraid]

Do boomerangs return when thrown in zero-gravity? Japanese astronaut Takao Doi will soon find out by throwing some around inside the International Space Station.Yes, then it will be a space station equation.

[UVsaturated]

OK DBA. CAn you at least give us a preliminary timeline to what you need to discover and what you need to know?

I am more than positive that there are members here, and on other forums I know of that have complete understandings of mathematics and even orbital mechanics that dictate every single thing you want to know.

I just have a glimpse and snapshot of between those two worlds. I know just enough to call your bluff and know that you are sitting on the porch between two decisions.

That's the only thing I really want to say.

Anyways, good luck. Most of the time, your humility comes from the thing you fight and hate.

[DontBeAfraid]

OK DBA. CAn you at least give us a preliminary timeline to what you need to discover and what you need to know?Well, Im going to start with finding out how much centripetal force is required to hold a very small object in a circular orbit about some center at some tangential accelleration. Then Im going to determine how fast a boomerang would have to be spinning in order that its lead wing create that much force. As I dont have the boomerangs actual properties I will fill in a couple of the unknown variables such as how much "lift" the boomeranges wings can create at any given velocity.


I am more than positive that there are members here, and on other forums I know of that have complete understandings of mathematics and even orbital mechanics that dictate every single thing you want to know.Indeed, Im quite certain that CT is more qualified than I to do this work. Ill probably run it by him.


I know just enough to call your bluff and know that you are sitting on the porch between two decisions.
This is no bluff.


That's the only thing I really want to say.prepare to eat shit.


Anyways, good luck. Most of the time, your humility comes from the thing you fight and hate.Science hs done nothing to humble you.

[UVsaturated]

Science hs done nothing to humble you.

Are you referring to when I showed Newton the apple or my most recent car crash where I split my lip?

[DontBeAfraid]

Are you referring to when I showed Newton the apple or my most recent car crash where I split my lip?Wow.... You really are certifiable.

Anyways, due to non AO related obligations I wont have this simple math model to post tonight. Im sorry but real life calls upon me occasionally. Although, As you are a person who seriously thinks that the earth is the center of the universe and that man is the cause of gravity I am certain that you wont understand or appreciate the model anyways. Just so you know though, when designing the type of boomerang he used in the space station; gravity was never a real factor. Only air pressure.

[Cartesiantheater]

Wow! one man out of millions knows the Ohms law. Where did you learn that one?

Ohm's law only works accurately for ohmic devices. It only holds for linear circuits where voltage and current are steady.
Ohm's law is not a law of nature, like say, gravity. It is an approximation that is useful for ohmic devices- it's a short cut. In fact, most nonmetals, for instance, are NOT ohmic.

Translation: Props to Traveler, but Ohm's law isn't such a big deal.

Kirchhoff's circuit laws are more versitile, IMHO, for finding resistance, current, etc when dealing with complex circuitry. :0.02:


Also, when you said


So since you initially described the boomerang as an airfoil - a flying wing - doesn't it also produce thrust as a propeller and like a helicopter also must over come gravity? Yet all the known laws of physical science have been defied here.


I'll have to call bs. Have you ever felt a force standing in front of a fan? Have you heard of Newton's third law of motion? Granted, it is simple, and a helicopter must account for angular momentum, etc, but when it is all ballanced properly, a net downward force will lift the helicopter up as per Newton's 3rd law.

Now, according to the site below, without the fuselage spinning the opposite direction the flight would be unstable, but taking off does not violate our known laws of nature.

sources:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Helicopter.html
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/HE-OV.htm
http://www.phy.cuhk.edu.hk/phyworld/iq/helicopter/helicopter_e.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter

I spent a lot of time searching for this nonsense. I mean, seriously...


Also, ftr, "gravity" is NOT "removed" in "space" outside our atmosphere. IF you were in between Earth and the Moon you would still feel a gravitational attraction to Earth, as defined here:

F = [6.67 x 10 ^-11 m^3/(kg * s^2) ] m1m2/r^2

where r is the distance between the centers of mass between you and Earth, and the two m's coorespond to the two masses in question. Of course, you'd have to account for the attraction between you and the moon as well, and the vector sum would be the gravitationaly force you feel. But you would feel it - unless you are in free fall.


Orbits



As to how we define orbits: We use Newton's universal law of gravitation, and we can look at Kepler's laws as well.

1.) Planets move in eliptical paths with the sun as one foci defined by:

r = p/ (1 + ε * cos θ )

where p is half of a chord passing through a foci, ε is eccentricity (always between 0 and 1), r and θ are polar coordinates for rotation of the planet defining its location.

2.) The radius vector from the Sun to any planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. This one is easier to visualize than to express mathematically: Planets move faster when closer to the sun, slower when further away, but the same area is always covered by the radius given the same amount of time, and the velocity in which they move is directly related to their distance from the Sun such that the area covered by the radius is always constant.

Or, if you prefer, your requested math:

dA/dt = L/2Mp = constant

where dA/dt is the time derivative of the area swept out by the radius vector from the Sun to a planet, L is the angular momentum, Mp is the mass of the planet.

3.) (Kepler did not know the equation I am going to put down. He knew only of a proportional relationship: T^2 ∝ a^3, where T is orbital period of the planet and a is the semi-major axis of orbit)

T^2 = [(4π^2)/(GMs)] a^3

T is the period, G is the gravitational constant, Ms] is the mass of the sun, a is the length of the semi-major axis.


You can see how with this information we can pretty much find out anything about our planets various orbits (except of course, for Mercury. You have relativistic effects there that require General Relativity to explain)






Dedando should come in here and explain math levers

Dedando's lever theories are pure mathematical constructs. His levers do not coorespond to reality, or if they do, he has failed to show experimentally where.


to you and show you that orbits cancels gravity

I believe it was pointed out already. Orbits are caused in part by gravitation.


and without pressure a flying wing would shoot straight up to the ceiling.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that space near the Earth is NOT a vacuum. In fact, one of the biggest challenges to theoretical space travel at speeds approaching the speed of light is all the microscopic space debris.


Furthermore, an boomerang should not in any way know its source of flight in space because it has no universal center other than the Japanese guy who threw it.

What is this? Does an iron filling "know" that it must orient itself with a magnetic field?



You have completely presented nothing scientific but labels of science, not any hard math or any proofs whatsoever.

The motion of a boomerang? I looked it up. The math is nothing but a vector cross product, some vector addition of forces, and some integration. The hard part is deriving everything.

-Most of the force of the boomerang as it flies is directed toward the center of its nearly circular orbit (like any centripetal motion).

-The boomerang spins as it flies, and the top moves a bit faster than the bottom generating lift (shown in crappy picture).

- This difference produces an angular force: C = x X F

-As well as spinning around its own axis, the boomerang slowly changes the direction in which it is pointing (this is obvious since it follows a generally circular path when thrown).



The velocity of various parts of the boomerang vary with location (like a spinning disc). You're gonna have to think in total velocity.


A crappy picture:

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7396/crappyboomerangbz7.png

Because of this simple fact, the boomerang will generate more lift on top then on bottom. The top has a bigger lift force than the bottom. Because the boomerang is spinning, this net lift force will cause the boomerang to follow an eliptical path.



That should pretty much explain it. Because of the discrepancy in force produced between the top and bottom, you must have a centripetal acceleration. Not really too magical.

source:

http://plus.maths.org/issue7/features/boomerangs/index.html






No single person on this website or anywhere can prove this, because it defies everything you know, and NASA knew it and we didn't.

See above and source.


This is why they even test shit in space, because it is the holy grail of defying Newtonian physics,

News flash: Newtonian physics are a limiting situation in Relativity. That is, modern physics encorporates Newtonian physics. Newton wasn't "defied," he was modified.


but the boomerang also defied quantum physics in a moment that you did not notice because you're so brilliant.

What the hell are you talking about here? What does a macroscopic object like a boomerang have to do with quantum physics?


Let those here conjure up more bullshit to defy any of this.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

If you want the actual maths:

F = mV^2/R is the force pushing the boomerang forward

C = (moment of inertia)(angular frequency)(precession rate)

When V exactly cooresponds to the precession rate, the boomerang always rotates tangential to the circular path.

Lift is given by:

L = (1/2)pv^2CLA

where p is air density, CL is the lift coefficient, and A is the area of the wing. According to my source, integrating this over the area of the boomerang yeilds a function that relates Force, air density, Velocity, angular velocity, lift coeficient, area, and the radius of the boomerang.

The math has been worked out ages ago, and it is very easy to understand (nothing but algebra, vector algebra, and one integration). The physics isn't easy, but it is completely logical.

Indeed the proof is in the pudding.

[serge_regulator]

I have thrown a boomerang and had it return. Its not hard once you know how but it doesnt take much interference to knock it off course. You hold it at 30-45 degrees from parallel to the horizon and aim 10 degrees above the horizon. If there is any wind you should have the wind at your left side (if you are right-handed) so the boomerang turns into the wind first. For a right-handed thrower the boomerang will spin counter-clockwise. The right side wing will generate more lift than the left side wing because the right side wing's leading edge is moving in the same direction the boomerang is flying which increases the air speed over the right side wing. The left side wing is moving in the opposite direction the boomerang is flying which decreases the air flow over the left wing reducing the lift it generates. The boomerang, if thrown correctly and not interfered with, will fly an eliptical path dipping slightly at approximately the mid-point of travel (when turning into the wind will help most), then rise sharply as it approaches the thrower. If everything works perfectly the boomerang will hover momentarily very near the thrower (this is when you should try to catch it) and then accelerate away again at a steep angle probably impacting the ground within seconds of resuming forward flight. If it misses the ground at this point there is no telling where it will land.

With regards to throwing a boomerang in space and having it return: I dont believe there is enough room inside the space station for a boomerang flight path. Even a small boomerang with 7" wings required a flight radius of approximately 20 feet. Outside the space station there is no atmosphere. No atmosphere = no lift = no return. I question the validity of the original article. It would be pretty cool if it worked though...

[UVsaturated]

I have no manual, when I want to fuck I get out a little replica of your head.

So you have crafted an idol of my head then?

[UVsaturated]

CT, I understand how it can fly and even make a circular path. This whole thing has two problems. Zero G means that if you spin it like a propeller, it should immediately want to fly towards the ceiling. You would not be able to throw it as you would on earth. It would be completely uncontrollable.

The second is that in zero-g it shouldn't even want to turn the corner at all, but if it did it would do so very lazily and take quite a bit more distance than it would on earth.

[Cartesiantheater]

CT, I understand how it can fly and even make a circular path. This whole thing has two problems. Zero G means that if you spin it like a propeller, it should immediately want to fly towards the ceiling. You would not be able to throw it as you would on earth. It would be completely uncontrollable.

Where is gravity mentioned in the equations that define the movement of a boomerang?

Further, where did it say he spun it like a propeller? I thought it said he threw it like you normally throw a boomerang?

Gravity might make it return to the earth faster than if no gravitation, but for the most part the path of the boomerang is determined by the movement of the boomerang with respect to the air.


The second is that in zero-g it shouldn't even want to turn the corner at all, but if it did it would do so very lazily and take quite a bit more distance than it would on earth.


Why? Gravity is NOT what causes it to turn the corner. Did you not read and/or understand what I posted? What causes it to turn the corner are the centripetal forces brought about by the motion of the boomerang through the air. Remember? The discrepency in the lift of the top vs. the bottom keeps the boomerang in a circular path?

You've got to think of the motion of an object in a gravitational field in terms of vectors. Gravity affects NOTHING but acceleration in the y direction. This will NOT affect the motion of the boomerang significantly, I wouldn't suspect.

If it flies in a zero atmosphere, then I'd have reason to question our understanding of the physics of boomerangs.

[UVsaturated]

CT? You say gravity exists in the space station, which it does, but its net effects are zero since everything is in virtual free fall.

On earth the only reason the boomerang does not drop straight to the ground when you throw it is because it is spinning like a propeller and its net lift cancels the weight of the boomerang.

In space, the boomerang effectively weighs zero, which is why if you let go of it it will remain stationary unless some outside force affects it.

So when you throw it and it spins, it should produce downward thrust that is not challenged any more by gravity than an astronaut who leaps up will hit his head on the ceiling unless something else stops him.

I don't know why you can't see this simple observation.

Same as the boomerang turning. Without zero g's the circular path would not have any downward component to overcome and the radius would be quite large.

[DontBeAfraid]

Google CENTRIPETAL UV. This is the part you dont seem to be getting. The force created by a spinning boomerang is not perpendicular to its center of mass. Its at an angle such that it lifts one area more than the rest which is what causes the rolling action.

And guys, this was not a 2 winged boomerang like the one in your picture. It was a small 3 winged foam boomerang. The type you can throw in your room.
http://www.boomerangs.com/erdaairdafob.html
The mass is so small that the thing experiences visible drag when dropped from a short height, meaning that removing gravity altogether does very little in the way of affecting this things flight pattern.


Without zero g's the circular path would not have any downward component to overcome and the radius would be quite large.Its radius depends much more on the force the wing creates than the force of gravity.


So when you throw it and it spins, it should produce downward thrust that is not challenged any more by gravity than an astronaut who leaps up will hit his head on the ceiling unless something else stops him.The Force vector created by the boomerang is off center, this and this alone is what causes it to turn in a predictable manner. On earth AND in spacestation.

edit: You guys deserve the truth so I must confess something: The reason I came here completely unprepared is because I Finally got a Nintendo Wii and I have been playing Metroid Prime and Super Smash Bros..... So while that truthfully is not AO related, its hard to justify it as a real life obligation.

[UVsaturated]

Everyone is right then, it's settled. Gravity has no effect on lifting bodies, whether moving in a straight line, spinning, or in an arc.

I will ask a pilot that question and he will probably just shake his head at me, but that's ok because CT says 90% of the smart people agree with him.

The boomerang was not even thrown in the same fashion as it was on earth, by a long shot. I guarantee the astronaut made quite a few practice runs beforehand to modify his technique so it would do just what he wanted. His throw counteracted everything I was saying so that you all conveniently excuse that lift and gravity are still doing the same thing as an earthbound boomerang throw.

It's no wonder he chose the tiny boomerang because he knew if it went more than a few feet he would not be able to control its ascent.

[DontBeAfraid]

Everyone is right then, it's settled. Gravity has no effect on lifting bodies, whether moving in a straight line, spinning, or in an arc.Look here funkhead, if you cant properly understand our side of it then you have no place trying to represent it.


I will ask a pilot that question and he will probably just shake his head at me, but that's ok because CT says 90% of the smart people agree with him.Ask a physicist, not a pilot. I mean, you are using your computer yet you have no idea how it works. The same can be said for when you use your sink or your car. I pilot might know why the plane flies but that knowledge is not required to fly the plane.


The boomerang was not even thrown in the same fashion as it was on earth, by a long shot.Actually the article stated that it was thrown using a common technique.


I guarantee the astronaut made quite a few practice runs beforehand to modify his technique so it would do just what he wanted.It would have taken the same amount of practice throws here on earth to get it right.... whats your point?


His throw counteracted everything I was saying so that you all conveniently excuse that lift and gravity are still doing the same thing as an earthbound boomerang throw.No, we have stated several times that the flight model of the tiny foam boomerang depends almost entirely on the lift its wings create and not at all on the gravity of the earth.... Just like when it is thrown down here on earth.


It's no wonder he chose the tiny boomerangThat.... and the space station isnt all that big.


because he knew if it went more than a few feet he would not be able to control its ascent.What does centripetal mean?

[Cartesiantheater]

CT? You say gravity exists in the space station, which it does, but its net effects are zero since everything is in virtual free fall.

On earth the only reason the boomerang does not drop straight to the ground when you throw it is because it is spinning like a propeller and its net lift cancels the weight of the boomerang.

Go back and read my long post that includes most of the physics that describes boomerang circular motion.





In space, the boomerang effectively weighs zero, which is why if you let go of it it will remain stationary unless some outside force affects it.

The outside force was him throwing it. By throwing the boomerang in a way that it rotates, it WILL make a curve motion. This has NOTHING to do with gravity at all. Gravity is involved in how long it is in the air, not its circular motion.

You still don't get it. Here is another link, which ignores all the math and simply states why the boomerang has an eliptical path.

http://www.boomerangs.org/physics.html

http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Sports/instructor/boomerang-01.html


The turning force imposed on the boomerang comes from the unequal air speed of the spinning wings. If we start with a stationary, spinning boomerang, both wings would produce the same amount of lift. Now give that same spinning boomerang a forward velocity and the speed of the air traveling over the wings differs. Thus, the forward moving wing experiences more lift than the retreating wing. The net result is a force which turns the boomerang. Due to a phenomenon known as gyroscopic precession, this force is felt 90 degrees from where it was applied.

Notice how gravity has no part in that path? Gravity is NOT why it turns back. It. simply. is. not. why.


When the boomerang is thrown, it moves horizontally and spins. The spinning creates a difference in lift between the two ends, which causes the boomerang to eventually have an arching motion.

What part of that do you not understand?

If you can't understand the words, look at the equations that describe the arching motion of a boomerang (I posted some. There is more on the link I provided about boomerang physics in my first post in this thread [the one that included orbital motion, etc]). Guess what you won't see mentioned in those equations? Acceleration due to gravity. The reason is because gravity does not significantly affect the curving motion.


So when you throw it and it spins, it should produce downward thrust that is not challenged any more by gravity than an astronaut who leaps up will hit his head on the ceiling unless something else stops him.

You need to think three dimensionally and in more than one unit of time. As the boomerang moves, the direction the lift discrepency points changes. This causes it to round the curve.




I don't know why you can't see this simple observation.

I think you are missing that the total force of the lift and the "gyroscope" is angular and follows an eliptical path.


Same as the boomerang turning. Without zero g's the circular path would not have any downward component to overcome and the radius would be quite large.

If gravity was the dominant force in what brought boomerangs down, then they would only fall if they stopped spinning or slowed their spinning dramatically (because according to you, the spinning creates a downward thrust and nothing else).

However, looking at the flights of boomerangs, you can see that they do not significantly slow their spinning down as they turn around (they slow more as they return- and speed up as they reach the top of the procession. This is NOT what you should expect if gravity is what causes them to come back).

Thus, not only do the equations themselves depict that the eliptical motion is largly independant of gravity, so does watching one.

Watch these videos. You will see that the spinning motion itself hardly slows at the midpoint of the boomerang's flight. (the flight slows, but the spinning itself does not slow significantly) The circular distance covered by the boomerang decreases at the turn, but the rotation does not.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4ihRxoeaPk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffygkjhjlt0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdNuQRutMF4&NR=1

And one for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kdv8-ESIos&feature=related




Another thing to consider. Many of these boomerangs return to the thrower at a SLOWER speed than when they leave the thrower's hands. If gravity was the significant factor (the way you seem to be visualizing it), the return speed would be the SAME- just like when you throw a ball vertically. But they return slower. (so you know, it is common knowledge in elementary physics that the magnitude of the velocity of an object on its way up at distance x from the throwing point is equivelant to the magnitude of the velocity on the way down at a distance x from the throwing point- but not with boomerangs. At least the ones I'm seeing anyway). This supports the theory that gravity is not a significant factor in the elliptical motion of the boomerang.



Everyone is right then, it's settled. Gravity has no effect on lifting bodies, whether moving in a straight line, spinning, or in an arc.

Wrong. If this is what you get out of the boomerang discussion than you need to go back and very very carefully read the link I provided.


I will ask a pilot that question and he will probably just shake his head at me, but that's ok because CT says 90% of the smart people agree with him.

Ad homenem doesn't help your case. You asked for "math numbers" and I provided them for orbital motion, gravitational attraction, AND boomerangs. Now that your challenge is met you resort to ad homenem. Predictable.

As for the specific quote in question, did you not understand the circumstances of that quote? It was in regards to a specific issue. Of course, the fallacy is that mainstream scientists are not necessarily the smartest people. :0.02:


The boomerang was not even thrown in the same fashion as it was on earth, by a long shot.

Where in the article did you find evidence to support this claim?



I guarantee the astronaut made quite a few practice runs beforehand to modify his technique so it would do just what he wanted.

How in god's name do you know this?



His throw counteracted everything I was saying so that you all conveniently excuse that lift and gravity are still doing the same thing as an earthbound boomerang throw.
It's no wonder he chose the tiny boomerang because he knew if it went more than a few feet he would not be able to control its ascent.

Are you rejecting the claim of your article? I am confused here.

Also, the "lift" produced by a boomerang is NOT identical to that of an airplane- because one end's lift is partially COUNTERED by the lift of the other end of the boomerang- which is a big reason it has an eliptical path in the first place! (you need to review gyroscopic motion, and phenomena associated with it)


Lesson: Get your facts straight before you demand that people provide evidence for what they're saying. They might just do it.




And to bring up a point that I think is being over looked- so WHAT if modern scientists are not entirely accurate with their models? That is what science does! It makes a model, and then modifies it to make it more accurate! If there is some aspect of boomerang motion modern physics has not modeled with the normally accepted precission, how does that imply that God made the boomerang come back? What it implies is that the model needs work!