Re: Jarrah White and his astounding maths skills

[JonnyDeath]

You're absolutely wrong about slow motion, this technique has been used for almost a century, once being known as over cranking telling you just how long it's been done. I've had this debate before as well and the frame rates I gave were simply for explaining how it's done, not give the exact rate used at the time. The reality is they would film at 20fps then playback at 10fps. It was originally known as over cranking because back in those days, the camera speed was literally controlled by how fast the user cranked the handle. If they wanted a manipulated playing back rate, they would crank faster or slower than normal.
Please tell me again how it wasn't an option on the cameras just a few decades ago but was an option on cameras nearly a century old.

So fails how, you provided no science and contested the basic laws of physics.

Now the billowing argument again. I've encountered this before but you're literally trying to claim an infinite variable as your evidence, it has no scientific merit. Billowing is the assumption that there will be an air disturbance other than the air turbulence caused from the friction between the particle and gas. This argument tries to say that billowing is the same as turbulence or simply, friction when it's not. The friction between the particle and the air is going to effect it's trajectory, peak and hang time. It's not simply going to get swept away in a magical wave of energy that has no source of production. So what is the source of energy for your claimed billowing? If you use the term billowing properly in the way that it can be interchanged with turbulence or friction, now we're still talking about trajectory and friction with the gas atmosphere.
This is to make the point that the billowing argument is a complete shill. You're literally saying there is energy being added to the particles travel because it's in a gas that is causing friction and pressure on it, even when the particle is static! So in an environment with greater resistance and variables to this resistance such as humidity, pressure etc the particle is somehow going to travel more. It's the most ridiculous perspective you can take and would only convince someone who is less educated than yourself. I'm not that person. You are stating that there will be atmosphere disturbance to cause billowing but from what? A particle 1/10 the size of a grain of rice? A phantom gust of wind? The moth man?!?
If all the energy moving that particle is in the particle, that means the gas it's traveling through it static. So where is this mystery energy coming from?
Billowing is a variable, not a constant. It's not a valid point of reference let alone piece of evidence. It can occur but isn't an absolute so you're literally trying to play the wild card.
Do you have even a basic 8th grade understanding of Newtonian physics and these terms?

Whenever I encounter the billowing claim, the term is simply used because it's one many will be unfamiliar with and it is in truth a layman's label for some fundamentals of physics that can be explored under more specific and accurate terms. The particle is going to have a wave pattern, fair enough. A billow. Well is it going to be a static wave pattern? Or will it clip mid flight due to a variable. This is due to the gas atmosphere and what the term billowing is actually referring to. But the way you use it...well it's phantom energy, woooooooo