The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: truther8657 on December 30, 2017, 06:54:59 PM
-
According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat. I was confronted this by my Chemistry teacher and I need a way to explain why this is false!!! Help!!! :'( :-X ???
-
According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat.
Incorrect. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor)
-
According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat.
Incorrect. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor)
Well I'm glad we sorted that out.
Care to elaborate?
-
According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat.
Incorrect. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor)
Well I'm glad we sorted that out.
Care to elaborate?
I'd suggest clicking the link, as this topic has been covered ad nauseam.
-
I'd suggest clicking the link, as this topic has been covered ad nauseam.
Ok. Fair enough, I hadn't noticed that's a link.
I have read it now, it's a very silly page.
I'd suggest that the idea of a global conspiracy to pretend the earth is a globe and orbiting the sun which would have to include all the space agencies around the world, the airline industry and many branches of science is far more complicated than the idea than it is in fact a globe.
-
I'd suggest clicking the link, as this topic has been covered ad nauseam.
Ok. Fair enough, I hadn't noticed that's a link.
I have read it now, it's a very silly page.
I'd suggest that the idea of a global conspiracy to pretend the earth is a globe and orbiting the sun which would have to include all the space agencies around the world, the airline industry and many branches of science is far more complicated than the idea than it is in fact a globe.
Correct. More so that this global conspiracy would have to cover every employee ever of NASA, US airlines, private space sector, and all other organizations around the world.
A simple example:
What is most likely true: that NASA is not partaking in a massive cover-up about the earth being flat? Or they were able to stop every NASA employee ever from revealing the truth? Occam's razor would side on the former.
-
More so that this global conspiracy would have to cover every employee ever of NASA, US airlines, private space sector, and all other organizations around the world.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
-
More so that this global conspiracy would have to cover every employee ever of NASA, US airlines, private space sector, and all other organizations around the world.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
First, just saying something is outlandish does not make it so. The definition of outlandish is
looking or sounding bizarre or unfamiliar.
"outlandish brightly colored clothes"
What I am saying is far from outlandish. Now, in the literal sense, would they have to cover EVERY employee? Clearly not. In the case of NASA I am sure there are plenty of lower level employees who have no interaction with the higher functions of NASA. Perhaps a janitor or the like.
For the sake of this argument, I am speaking about every employee who would have access to satellite images, astronauts who have been to space, etc.
To that end, the proof is self-evident. There are no NASA employees who have come out in support of the flat earth movement or commercial pilots.
-
To that end, the proof is self-evident. There are no NASA employees who have come out in support of the flat earth movement or commercial pilots.
Let's throw in the cruise line industry while we are here. I guess they must be "in on it" too.
Was talking to a friend yesterday. I was saying how I've recently become fascinated with the Flat Earth Society, I'm somewhat bemused that it still exists in this day and age.
He is a keen sailor and was telling he how you can often see the reflection of light house light reflect off clouds before you can see the light itself before it emerges from the horizon.
I guess flat earthers will shout "perspective" but that really isn't how perspective works.
-
To that end, the proof is self-evident. There are no NASA employees who have come out in support of the flat earth movement or commercial pilots.
Let's throw in the cruise line industry while we are here. I guess they must be "in on it" too.
Also, throw in military snipers in the mix. Professionally trained snipers need to calculate the Coriolis effect which happens due to the curvature and rotation of the earth.
To that end all Meteorologist would also have to be in on it. As the Coriolis effect also takes a huge part in weather and storms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mec3vgeaI
-
There are no NASA employees who have come out in support of the flat earth movement or commercial pilots.
I guess they don't fancy mysteriously dying in extremely unlikely accidents (https://wiki.tfes.org/Thomas_Baron). Imagine that.
-
Pretty sure Math Powerland was a NASA employee. In fact his whole schtick is that he used to be an artist for them mocking up moon photos and galaxy images. And he has come out saying the earth is most definitely flat ...
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNASAchannel
*Disclaimer - I think NASA did something to his mind during the exit interview and it likely involved lots of electricity and large magnets. Possibly a small whisk that fits into the ear. He's now sadly deranged, disabled if you will, having had his brain minced by NASA when he left. He just holds on to the one thing he knows for sure ... earth's shape. Everything else is him being a total arse due to NASA's partial lobotomy. They are ruthless.
-
I guess they don't fancy mysteriously dying in extremely unlikely accidents (https://wiki.tfes.org/Thomas_Baron). Imagine that.
lol thomas baron. basically no one has ever even heard of thomas baron except for the relative handful of people who believe he was murdered. deterrence doesn't really work is no one has ever heard of the deterrent.
don't get me wrong, this "every scientist in the whole world would have to be 'in' on it" stuff is nonsense; but, the "thomas baron deters whistleblowers" argument is equally silly.
-
I guess they don't fancy mysteriously dying in extremely unlikely accidents (https://wiki.tfes.org/Thomas_Baron). Imagine that.
lol thomas baron. basically no one has ever even heard of thomas baron except for the relative handful of people who believe he was murdered. deterrence doesn't really work is no one has ever heard of the deterrent.
don't get me wrong, this "every scientist in the whole world would have to be 'in' on it" stuff is nonsense; but, the "thomas baron deters whistleblowers" argument is equally silly.
Not to mention (as noted the last time Baron was brought up) the record appears to show that his primary report was already delivered! What reason would there possibly be to kill him in the most unlikely series of events an assassin could dream up?
"Mr. BARON: I have sent to the chairman of this committee a more through report which includes all the names."
"Mr. TEAGUE: Your report went to the chairman of the full committee [i.e., Rep. George P. Miller, Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. --Clavius], not to me. He told me he received it."
http://www.clavius.org/baron-test.html
-
don't get me wrong, this "every scientist in the whole world would have to be 'in' on it" stuff is nonsense;.
Then , in your opinion, who would have to be the bare minimum amount of people to keep such a conspiracy under wraps.
-
don't get me wrong, this "every scientist in the whole world would have to be 'in' on it" stuff is nonsense;.
Then , in your opinion, who would have to be the bare minimum amount of people to keep such a conspiracy under wraps.
I'm with gary in that I feel most people overstate the number of minimum people involved in these things. Hard to put a number on it, but I would suspect each space agency could have somewhere around 1000 or less. The only mandatory people to know would be those who are making the digital images for all the different agencies, the people raking in the dough, the astronauts, some handful of scientists who have come across the truth (these I think are the hardest to keep 'in' on it personally, as how do you know who's figured it out?), and one would likely want some margin of support personnel for the artists and such. The detail and quality of the 'fake' images says to me there needs to be a LOT of artists though.
-
Then , in your opinion, who would have to be the bare minimum amount of people to keep such a conspiracy under wraps.
69? 420? i dunno, haven't given it a ton of thought. i'm not especially perturbed by anyone believing in the conspiracy, i just think the thomas baron argument is weird.
-
Then , in your opinion, who would have to be the bare minimum amount of people to keep such a conspiracy under wraps.
69? 420? i dunno, haven't given it a ton of thought. i'm not especially perturbed by anyone believing in the conspiracy, i just think the thomas baron argument is weird.
Agreed with Thomas Baron is weird. I don't believe in the conspiracy. My point is that Occam's Razor would tend to side with the conspiracy not being true. The bare minimum people it would take to cover up something this massive is too extreme. More so to keep it going for this long.
-
lol thomas baron. basically no one has ever even heard of thomas baron except for the relative handful of people who believe he was murdered.
And, potentially, every person who needs to be deterred. Essentially, your counter-argument is that you and your friends haven't heard of him... until you have (which by itself is not a strong argument but hey-ho). I strongly doubt you're one of the people who need to know, or who would have been following this particular whistleblower's actions.
the record appears to show that his primary report was already delivered!
So, a report has been delivered to a single person, then Baron mysteriously dies, and then oh no, the report can no longer be found!!!!
Yeah, that certainly does not help your case.
-
There are no NASA employees who have come out in support of the flat earth movement or commercial pilots.
I guess they don't fancy mysteriously dying in extremely unlikely accidents (https://wiki.tfes.org/Thomas_Baron). Imagine that.
So, your theory is that, like Thomas Baron, every person who attempts to come out in support of the Flat Earth is murdered by NASA?
-
Back on the topic of Occam's razor, the wiki article is misleading at best.
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.
Occam's Razor has more than one edge. One of the edges is that the explanation should be as simple as possible.
The other edge is that THE EXPLANATION HAS TO BE SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE OBSERVATIONS.
Because flat earth theory cannot explain sufficiently a very large number of observed phenomena, it is not sufficient.
Once flat earth theory attempts to explain planetary motion, eclipses, etc, then it starts making MORE assumptions than round earth theory.
Here are some assumptions of flat earth theory that not necessary in round earth theory:
- Nonstop flights between Sydney and Johannesburg don't exist. Or, jet airplanes can fly at any arbitrary speed and pilots choose speeds to make round earth routes appear true, despite the huge variance in fuel costs this would provide.
- NASA is all a consipiracy. Oh, I guess ESA and the Russians also must be part of it. Oh, whoops, private businesses are also launching rockets? Let's assume they are making it up as well.
- Perspective does magic things, geometry is wrong, etc.
Here are some things that I've not seen ANY FLAT EARTH EXPLANATION for:
- Two high tides per day, timed to match the moon
- Gravity not being uniform throughout the earth, but depending on latitude
- The sun not setting in the right place in the southern hemisphere
- 24 hour sunlight on both poles
- The night sky (south celestial pole(s) and intersections of their systems)
- The sun moving at a constant 15 degrees per hour
Occam's razor would admit the simplest explanation for all these phenomena, but no such explanation from the flat earth side is available, so Occam's razor indicates it is a failed theory.
-
And, potentially, every person who needs to be deterred.
this is the part of your argument i find silly/magical. you're just sort of asserting that anyone who is in a position to blow the whistle must know of thomas baron and be deterred by his death.
i doubt that thomas baron is mentioned anywhere in the nasa employee training manual.
-
lol thomas baron. basically no one has ever even heard of thomas baron except for the relative handful of people who believe he was murdered.
And, potentially, every person who needs to be deterred. Essentially, your counter-argument is that you and your friends haven't heard of him... until you have (which by itself is not a strong argument but hey-ho). I strongly doubt you're one of the people who need to know, or who would have been following this particular whistleblower's actions.
the record appears to show that his primary report was already delivered!
So, a report has been delivered to a single person, then Baron mysteriously dies, and then oh no, the report can no longer be found!!!!
Yeah, that certainly does not help your case.
Hey Pete, how did they manage to get him to drive his car into the path of a train? Seems there are MUCH easier ways to kill someone. You make yourself look foolish hanging onto a supposed "murder" that took place 50 years ago. The people in power who could have orchestrated this are likely dead. You guys need a new fake murder to keep people in line.
-
you're just sort of asserting that anyone who is in a position to blow the whistle must know of thomas baron and be deterred by his death.
That's not what I'm saying. It is possible that your own perception of "nobody I know has ever heard of Baron" is not representative of how widespread the knowledge of his predicament is among potential whistle-blowers.
I'm sure you're sincere in your conviction that no one has heard of Baron, but I'm not convinced that your perception is relevant here. And neither is mine, hence my careful choice of words and merely positing a possibility.
So, your theory is that, like Thomas Baron, every person who attempts to come out in support of the Flat Earth is murdered by NASA?
As Thork already pointed out, Powerland's predicament seems to suggest you don't need to kill someone to silence them.
Hey Pete, how did they manage to get him to drive his car into the path of a train? Seems there are MUCH easier ways to kill someone.
Sorry, I'd make an absolutely rubbish assassin - I'm skin and bones and have the mentality of a sedated lamb. Because of my lack of expertise, I can't really comment on what means of staging an "accident" are easy, and which are not.
I will bear in mind that you do claim to have this expertise, however.
-
you're just sort of asserting that anyone who is in a position to blow the whistle must know of thomas baron and be deterred by his death.
That's not what I'm saying. It is possible that your own perception of "nobody I know has ever heard of Baron" is not representative of how widespread the knowledge of his predicament is among potential whistle-blowers.
I'm sure you're sincere in your conviction that no one has heard of Baron, but I'm not convinced that your perception is relevant here. And neither is mine, hence my careful choice of words and merely positing a possibility.
So, your theory is that, like Thomas Baron, every person who attempts to come out in support of the Flat Earth is murdered by NASA?
As Thork already pointed out, Powerland's predicament seems to suggest you don't need to kill someone to silence them.
Hey Pete, how did they manage to get him to drive his car into the path of a train? Seems there are MUCH easier ways to kill someone.
Sorry, I'd make an absolutely rubbish assassin - I'm skin and bones and have the mentality of a sedated lamb. Because of my lack of expertise, I can't really comment on what means of staging an "accident" are easy, and which are not.
I will bear in mind that you do claim to have this expertise, however.
Since our overarching topic here is 'Occam's Razor' how about we take a look at things from that perspective? I see two sides here, which appears to require less assumptions?
1) Baron's car broke down on the tracks without enough time for him to get out from the way of the oncoming train. Assumptions I see being made: A) Baron's car was not in perfect working order. B) Something happened in the course of driving over the tracks to stop his car. C) This car stopping issue was normal enough he didn't think to escape the car to get away from the train, rather than trying to restart it. Alt C) The train was too close to get out of the car in time. D) The lengthy earlier report is deemed not important enough (and/or too long) to attach to the Congressional committees report.
2) Baron's car was sabotaged to break down on the train tracks for him to be hit and killed. Assumptions I see being made: A) Baron had important information not contained in, or to help clarify, his lengthy earlier report that would severely damage NASA's reputation. B) His car is tampered with in just the right way to make it stop on the train tracks. C) He leaves at just the right time to make a forced stop on the train tracks lethal. D) The train was too close for him and his family to get out in time. Alt D) The doors were sabotaged to not open again after the car was stopped. E) The lengthy earlier report is disposed of to ensure full secrecy.
Even disregarding the assumption that the report was damaging enough on it's own that it had to be disposed of, 2 seems a much harder case to make when there's no evidence for foul play other than the investigation stating there was no evidence of foul play. Unless I'm missing something here? It sure appears a far simpler answer that the car simply wasn't in perfect working order, than to suspect there was another hand at play in making it not work at the correct time. But maybe that's just me, as Occam's DOES have some degree of bias associated with it.
-
Sorry, I'd make an absolutely rubbish assassin - I'm skin and bones and have the mentality of a sedated lamb. Because of my lack of expertise, I can't really comment on what means of staging an "accident" are easy, and which are not.
I will bear in mind that you do claim to have this expertise, however.
I'll add this to my list of things you're rubbish at. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that timing a train and a car to be at the same location at the same time is probably not the easiest way of killing someone. Faked suicide, house fire, poisoning. All of those are relatively easier from a logistics point of view. And, again, all the perpetrators are likely dead or at least in their mid-70s by now.
-
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that timing a train and a car to be at the same location at the same time is probably not the easiest way of killing someone.
You seem to be under the impression that that's what actually happened. Why are you so confident about this?
-
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that timing a train and a car to be at the same location at the same time is probably not the easiest way of killing someone.
You seem to be under the impression that that's what actually happened. Why are you so confident about this?
Because that's the implication when you/the wiki says he was assassinated?
-
Because that's the implication when you/the wiki says he was assassinated?
Of course not, what a ridiculous suggestion. The man died, and the totally legitimate official story is that it was a traffic accident. As you correctly observed, I don't buy into the totally legitimate official story, and thus I'm unwilling to take its assumptions for granted.
-
Because that's the implication when you/the wiki says he was assassinated?
Of course not, what a ridiculous suggestion. The man died, and the totally legitimate official story is that it was a traffic accident. As you correctly observed, I don't buy into the totally legitimate official story, and thus I'm unwilling to take its assumptions for granted.
That's what I suspected. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claim though? Or is it, as I suggested above, you simply 'smell a red herring' as it were? This seems like one more of those things that need to be bought into to keep NASA as the boogeymen FE needs them to be.
-
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claim though?
Do I have any evidence to back up the question of "Why is StinkyOne so confident that the official explanation of events is accurate?"
No. No, I do not. I'm not entirely sure how that would even work.
-
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claim though?
Do I have any evidence to back up the question of "Why is StinkyOne so confident that the official explanation of events is accurate?"
No. No, I do not. I'm not entirely sure how that would even work.
You've implied that this person was murdered to keep other whistle blowers in line. Leaving aside any questions about his testimony, which focused on safety issues, do you have ANY evidence that he was murdered? If you're going to claim his "murder" was to keep others quiet about <insert theory here>, you should try to have some evidence. You have to show something that indicates the facts on the scene were wrong. He was hit by a train and there was a witness. (sure she could have been a plant, but again, pure speculation) On top of all that, you seem to think a "murder" that occurred 50 years would keep people in line today. That is a huge stretch give how easy it is to leak information in the modern world.
-
You've implied that this person was murdered to keep other whistle blowers in line.
Not directly, no, but I won't try to undermine your personal interpretation. You do you.
do you have ANY evidence that he was murdered?
The extremely unlikely circumstances of his death (by your own assessment!), together with the mysterious disappearance of all copies of his report. How strange these events would take place over the course of only a few days. Then again, perhaps it's just all an extreme coincidence, and the silence of potential whistleblowers is just part of the coincidence. As is your apparent expertise on assassinations.
On top of all that, you seem to think a "murder" that occurred 50 years would keep people in line today.
Well, I guess I'll point out for the second time in this thread that Baron is not the only known case of whistleblowers being silenced. Thork brought up Powerland, remember? I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by having us state this over and over, but here you go.
-
Not directly, no, but I won't try to undermine your personal interpretation. You do you.
I will revise that statement to say the wiki pushes the whistle blower murder thing. You didn't take a firm stance in this thread and I'm not bothering to go quote mining.
The extremely unlikely circumstances of his death (by your own assessment!), together with the mysterious disappearance of all copies of his report. How strange these events would take place over the course of only a few days. Then again, perhaps it's just all an extreme coincidence, and the silence of potential whistleblowers is just part of the coincidence.
Baron had already testified to congress. He could have stood up and said NASA is faking space flight, but instead all he did was point out safety problems. Why is that? His 500 page report was delivered to congress and said to have contained more details on safety issues, which I think we can all agree that back in the heyday of the cold war, safety was secondary. Where does any of this point to helping your position that the Earth is flat? Heck, let's say he was killed for his knowledge. (which I don't think happened, but...) He had already delivered his report and testimony. He didn't go public with any flat Earth nonsense. It is just a suspicious case that FEers run with because they have no real facts.
Well, I guess I'll point out for the second time in this thread that Baron is not the only known case of whistleblowers being silenced. Thork brought up Powerland, remember?
First, I believe almost nothing BT says. I don't know enough about Boylan to comment much. From what I can gather, he is a comic/artist that said images from NASA are fake. He was a freelance artist for NASA, right? That sure makes him an expert...lmao.
-
I will revise that statement to say the wiki pushes the whistle blower murder thing.
Where does the Wiki say that Thomas Baron has been murdered to detract future whistleblowers?
Heck, let's say he was killed for his knowledge. (which I don't think happened, but...) He had already delivered his report and testimony. He didn't go public with any flat Earth nonsense.
Dead people rarely go public with anything, I'm told, and since the report has mysteriously gone missing, you're in no position to tell me what was or wasn't contained within.
First, I believe almost nothing BT says.
A wise choice.
I don't know enough about Boylan to comment much.
It's mostly how rapidly his mental condition has deteriorated after he came out as a whistleblower. Scary stuff. And all completely coincidental, of course!
-
It's mostly how rapidly his mental condition has deteriorated after he came out as a whistleblower. Scary stuff. And all completely coincidental, of course!
But does he qualify as a whistle blower? He was a freelance artist. If the powers that be can keep "the secret" from the engineers, how in the hell was this guy supposed to know anything?? He could go to the doctor and have his blood tested for things like lead and other neurotoxins if he was worried he had been poisoned. I personally find the Baron case to be more suspicious. (though I still think it falls under the category of coincidence given the manner of death and the fact that he already had his chance to speak)
The other thing that is semi-interesting is that neither of these people were true NASA employees. They only had the knowledge that NASA allowed them to have. Just saying...
-
If the powers that be can keep "the secret" from the engineers, how in the hell was this guy supposed to know anything??
Well, if, as he claims, he literally painted NASA's "photos", he probably knew that he was painting them. People tend to have knowledge of the things they personally did.
-
If the powers that be can keep "the secret" from the engineers, how in the hell was this guy supposed to know anything??
Well, if, as he claims, he literally painted NASA's "photos", he probably knew that he was painting them. People tend to have knowledge of the things they personally did.
You're not a dumb person. You know if NASA was covering this shit up, they wouldn't be handing out their secrets to freelance artists. He probably did generate images of celestial objects - NASA uses artist interpretation all the time. (i.e. for exoplanets) The generated images are labeled as such.
-
According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat.
Incorrect. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor)
Well I'm glad we sorted that out.
Care to elaborate?
I'd suggest clicking the link, as this topic has been covered ad nauseam.
Considering the often pointed out errors in the Wiki I would hardly call that proof.
-
The appropriate wiki article is located at: https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor
Regardless of the arguments discussed in this thread, I'd like to propose that the article be edited to correct obvious factual inaccuracies that leave the argument stuck on those inaccuracies. It is clear that whoever wrote the wiki article has a flawed understanding of basic physics and should take and truly understand a course in it.
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
The simplest explanation is that your local coordinate system is a plane because the Earth is so large that it seems mostly flat at any one point (its curvature is small on the human scale; a basketball is far more curved). Anyone who understands math could tell you this.
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
Whoever wrote this paragraph clearly has not done any sort of engineering. Technology today is truly marvelous. It's hard to imagine how all of this stuff was developed. Even basic metalworking is an art itself and yet we use this in the quantities of millions of metric tons! Are you seriously going to say that because a hard drive stores billions of times more numbers than you can hold in your brain that they don't exist? Or that a microprocessor that can do computations millions of times faster than your brain costs only $2? Or that explosives exist? This is fallacious reasoning at its best, and obscene ignorance at its worst. The chemistry and the physics are all there. Small-scale experiments have been done. Rockets do work in space and they have been launched. Speeds of ballistic missiles have been measured. Ballistic missiles have been tested. They work. Also, the writer assumes that we send rockets straight up. This is not true, and anyone with such a poor understanding of space exploration should at least do some research before asserting that all of it is fake.
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious and highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
First, while we cannot unify GR and the Standard Model, that says nothing about our observed gravity. Second, the writer should read the other pages on the wiki and note that EVEN FE THEORY ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF GRAVITY. Such ignorance is unforgivable. This is not to mention that UA posits that space is not isotropic, that there is a preferred coordinate system, and that literally everything else we observe in terms of orbits is due to gravity, while the Earth is a special case. Do you expect me to believe this? The simplest explanation is that there is some force in nature that pulls me toward the Earth.
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
This is wrong on so many levels. First, when we speak of speeds, we need to speak of REFERENCES. 1000 mph with reference to WHAT? It is true that points on the equator move at speeds over a thousand miles per hour WITH REFERENCE TO THE EARTH'S AXIS. Points on the equator move at NEGLIGIBLE SPEED with respect to the AIR at the equator (which also moves with the ground). The writer clearly suffers from Dunning-Kruger, misjudging his knowledge in physics by including terms such as "centripetal acceleration" without even understanding on a basic level (uniform circular motion) what it means. Of course you feel the centripetal force. THAT IS GRAVITY. Clearly the author has never drawn a basic force diagram in his life. The magnitude of gravity minus the magnitude of the normal force of the ground on you (what you actually feel) gives you the magnitude of the centripetal acceleration you experience. You do feel like you weigh less at the equator because of the spinning Earth. This has been measured and agrees with even the uniform circular motion calculation.
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?
This is even more wrong than the last point. What's the simplest explanation, that lab-scale experiments are vastly different from the stars and that they get the energy from "magic"? Or that they are balls of gas with nuclear fusion? You can't have both. What's the simplest explanation? Basic optics makes stars look small or you can't do math?
Even if we can't agree that the Earth is round, we can surely agree that the writer of this article lacks a basic understanding of physics and yet believes that he is well-equipped to ridicule accepted science. So I propose that this article be rewritten to reflect at least the current understanding of the debate.
-
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
The simplest explanation is that your local coordinate system is a plane because the Earth is so large that it seems mostly flat at any one point (its curvature is small on the human scale; a basketball is far more curved). Anyone who understands math could tell you this.
The simplest explanation is that the earth is flat because it appears flat.
Your "giant basketball" theory is a rationalization against empirical reality.
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
Whoever wrote this paragraph clearly has not done any sort of engineering. Technology today is truly marvelous. It's hard to imagine how all of this stuff was developed. Even basic metalworking is an art itself and yet we use this in the quantities of millions of metric tons! Are you seriously going to say that because a hard drive stores billions of times more numbers than you can hold in your brain that they don't exist? Or that a microprocessor that can do computations millions of times faster than your brain costs only $2? Or that explosives exist? This is fallacious reasoning at its best, and obscene ignorance at its worst. The chemistry and the physics are all there. Small-scale experiments have been done. Rockets do work in space and they have been launched. Speeds of ballistic missiles have been measured. Ballistic missiles have been tested. They work. Also, the writer assumes that we send rockets straight up. This is not true, and anyone with such a poor understanding of space exploration should at least do some research before asserting that all of it is fake.
Pointing at the existence of other technologies does not make the creation of working space technologies the simplest explanation.
Statements such as "Technology today is truly marvelous" is really just appealing the magic of magicians without really providing substance.
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious and highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
First, while we cannot unify GR and the Standard Model, that says nothing about our observed gravity. Second, the writer should read the other pages on the wiki and note that EVEN FE THEORY ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF GRAVITY. Such ignorance is unforgivable. This is not to mention that UA posits that space is not isotropic, that there is a preferred coordinate system, and that literally everything else we observe in terms of orbits is due to gravity, while the Earth is a special case. Do you expect me to believe this? The simplest explanation is that there is some force in nature that pulls me toward the Earth.
FE does not assume the existence of gravity. We know exactly what we are talking about. We invoke gravitation, not "gravity". Gravity is a theory of universal attraction of all mass by the mechanism of either bending space or puller particles (which no one has ever seen). Gravitation is a description of the apparent attraction of bodies.
"Every Saturday the neighborhood mailman gravitates towards the Asian buffet"
That is the meaning of 'gravitaiton', and the meaning behind celestial 'gravitation'; our description of the apparent attraction that happens in the heavens. We do not invoke Gravity. We have not seen any graviton particles.
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
This is wrong on so many levels. First, when we speak of speeds, we need to speak of REFERENCES. 1000 mph with reference to WHAT? It is true that points on the equator move at speeds over a thousand miles per hour WITH REFERENCE TO THE EARTH'S AXIS. Points on the equator move at NEGLIGIBLE SPEED with respect to the AIR at the equator (which also moves with the ground). The writer clearly suffers from Dunning-Kruger, misjudging his knowledge in physics by including terms such as "centripetal acceleration" without even understanding on a basic level (uniform circular motion) what it means. Of course you feel the centripetal force. THAT IS GRAVITY. Clearly the author has never drawn a basic force diagram in his life. The magnitude of gravity minus the magnitude of the normal force of the ground on you (what you actually feel) gives you the magnitude of the centripetal acceleration you experience. You do feel like you weigh less at the equator because of the spinning Earth. This has been measured and agrees with even the uniform circular motion calculation.
You are wrong. Centripetal acceleration is an ACCELERATION, not uniform motion. Centripetal acceleration should manifest on any rotating body, yet on the equator it is possible for a single strand of hair to fall to the floor of a calm room undisturbed.
Look at the experiments of Tycho Bache and other famous astronomers.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf
VIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.
The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.
If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7
The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.
Riccioli concludes in the pdf with:
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in
accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less
annual, motion.
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?
This is even more wrong than the last point. What's the simplest explanation, that lab-scale experiments are vastly different from the stars and that they get the energy from "magic"? Or that they are balls of gas with nuclear fusion? You can't have both. What's the simplest explanation? Basic optics makes stars look small or you can't do math?
What lab-scale experiments? Stellar Fusion has never been demonstrated in a lab. Stellar Fusion is a hypothesis. You are ignorant of the progress of science.
Even if we can't agree that the Earth is round, we can surely agree that the writer of this article lacks a basic understanding of physics and yet believes that he is well-equipped to ridicule accepted science. So I propose that this article be rewritten to reflect at least the current understanding of the debate.
Actually, we tend to know far more about science and physics than most Round Earthers here.
-
The simplest explanation is that the earth is flat because it appears flat.
Your "giant basketball" theory is a rationalization against empirical reality.
The most natural assumption, if you knew nothing about science at all, is that the world is flat. Because from our tiny perspective relative to the size of earth you can't observe a curve.
But:
(https://i.redd.it/jg8trsfe0m101.png)
See how silly this "proof" is?
And why do you keep ignoring videos like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RATP53l9MA
3DGeek did some excellent analysis of it showing clearly that the lens showed straight lines as straight so you can't attribute any curvature, which can clearly be seen in the video, to lens distortion. He also posted a companion video showing the balloon being launched. This isn't NASA, it's just some amateur. It was completely ignored by all the Flat Earthers.
You also ignored my post when I showed photographic proof that your ideas on perspective are nonsense in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160
You'd be taken more seriously if you actually engaged with this sort of stuff.
That is the meaning of 'gravitaiton', and the meaning behind celestial 'gravitation'; our description of the apparent attraction that happens in the heavens. We do not invoke Gravity. We have not seen any graviton particles.
And have you any experimental about the "dark energy" which drives universal acceleration?
Have you observed the dark object which apparently causes moon phases and eclipses?
What keeps the sun up in the sky if it's circling above us? Why doesn't it fall? Why doesn't it change size as it moves away from us?
How does GPS work?
How does the airline industry get places when there is no agreed flat earth map?
How does the Coriolis effect make weather patterns move in different directions in different parts of the world?
Why can we see different constellations in Europe and Australia which move in different directions?
Is there any flat earth theory which is coherent and can answer any of this?
You demand an absurdly high level of proof for anything which shows you to be wrong about a flat earth, a lot of the above you just say "unknown" and seem satisfied by that.
-
The simplest explanation is that the earth is flat because it appears flat.
Your "giant basketball" theory is a rationalization against empirical reality.
The most natural assumption, if you knew nothing about science at all, is that the world is flat. Because from our tiny perspective relative to the size of earth you can't observe a curve.
But:
https://i.redd.it/jg8trsfe0m101.png
See how silly this "proof" is?
Hmm. I don't recall saying the word "proof," or seeing that word in our Occam's Razor article. Recall that we are talking about the "simplest explanation". The simplest explanation when looking at a plane is that it is a plane.
And why do you keep ignoring videos like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RATP53l9MA
Because we don't?
https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs
3DGeek did some excellent analysis of it showing clearly that the lens showed straight lines as straight so you can't attribute any curvature, which can clearly be seen in the video, to lens distortion. He also posted a companion video showing the balloon being launched. This isn't NASA, it's just some amateur. It was completely ignored by all the Flat Earthers.
How are amateur ballon videos ignored when we have had the above page on Amateur High Altitude Photographs (https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs) in our Wiki for years?
You also ignored my post when I showed photographic proof that your ideas on perspective are nonsense in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread. The number of RE'ers to FE'ers here is about 100 to 1. I can't get back to everyone.
You'd be taken more seriously if you actually engaged with this sort of stuff.
You would be taken more seriously if you did some searching. We have talked about the high altitude balloonist argument on this site and the other one many, many times.
And have you any experimental about the "dark energy" which drives universal acceleration?
Have you observed the dark object which apparently causes moon phases and eclipses?
What keeps the sun up in the sky if it's circling above us? Why doesn't it fall? Why doesn't it change size as it moves away from us?
How does GPS work?
How does the airline industry get places when there is no agreed flat earth map?
How does the Coriolis effect make weather patterns move in different directions in different parts of the world?
Why can we see different constellations in Europe and Australia which move in different directions?
Is there any flat earth theory which is coherent and can answer any of this?
You demand an absurdly high level of proof for anything which shows you to be wrong about a flat earth, a lot of the above you just say "unknown" and seem satisfied by that.
Unknown is a satisfactory answer. Just making something up and making that the main theory until proven wrong like astronomers do is not a satisfactory method.
-
Still you do not understand measured distances and the angle of the sun, despite accepting timeanddate.com to be correct.
-
Let me clarify the acceleration aspect because it is actually a non-obvious thing, and FE theorists have noted something that is worth understanding. Let's use a circle to represent the equator (we're taking a 2d slice of the Earth). Draw a person standing normal to the circle (as the RE model supposes). Because of the Earth's rotation, this person travels in a circle about the center of the circle (which is on Earth's axis). Let's also consider the forces on the person. There is a downward (toward the center) gravitational force. There is an upward normal force that the ground exerts on the person (electromagnetic in nature -- this is the same force you get by pushing a door). Now you'll notice that the gravitational force is slightly bigger than the normal force. The forces are unbalanced, but the person doesn't appear to be accelerating, right? Wrong. The person is accelerating toward the center as the force diagram would suggest; the magnitude of the acceleration is given by a = v2/r. Plugging in 1000 mph for v and 6400 km for r, we derive an acceleration value of 0.0312201563 m / s^2 (0.3% of the acceleration of gravity). This means that the normal force (which is what you read when you step on a scale and what your body feels as apparent weight, is your mass times 9.76877984 m / s^2. This difference is so miniscule that nobody will notice. So, yes, you are correct that there is centripetal acceleration. You don't "feel" the centripetal acceleration because it gets mixed in with the gravitational acceleration which is much bigger.
I'd recommend reviewing a physics textbook for the derivation, but it becomes obvious when you draw a force diagram. If you don't understand, feel free to ask any questions and please do try drawing a force diagram (draw a diagram of the situation and draw force vectors on the object you're interested in).
When I get Inkscape working, I'll draw mine and you can compare it with yours. Perhaps this will resolve the physics question. Just because physics is hard to understand does not mean that it is not the most simple solution. All of this physics is just an application of Newton's 3 laws and Newton's law of gravitation (with g already found for us).
-
I'd like to also include a bit of mathematical intuition for the seeming flatness of the Earth. Imagine you are standing on a large perfect sphere which is the Earth. It looks like the Earth's surface is flat because you can draw very straight lines on the surface. The Christoffel symbols of the second kind for spherical coordinates (note: this is the same coordinate system we use with latitude and longitude; the radius is fixed) are given at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCoordinates.html. As we all know, the Christoffel symbols vanish (become 0) in Euclidean space (that is, a coordinate system in which we can draw straight lines). Now consider movement on a very large circle (r=6400 km). Even if you move a seemingly long distance on your scale (say 10 km), you will move a very small angle. Extrapolating that to spherical coordinates, we can conclude that both theta and phi are very small in the local (that is, near you) coordinate system. So in the local slice of the spherical coordinates, you can see that all of the Christoffel symbols are incredibly small because the radius is large and the angular displacements small. This means that your local coordinate system is very similar to a Euclidean space and therefore the Earth seems flat.
TLDR: If you take a small section of a very large sphere, it looks flat. I wish I had a nice GIF for this, but I can't find one.
I'd also like to refute the idea that saying that "technology is marvelous" is fallacious. Take a look around you. Now pick even the simple things like plastic water bottles and try to understand how the plastic is produced by browsing Wikipedia. You can't. Specialization is truly immense, and I'm definitely not specialized enough to tell you even the basics of rocket science. You and I are not scientifically qualified to disparage the amazing work of places like NASA's JPL or even the amateurs who make it tens of km into the air. I study computer science, not chemical engineering or rocket science. But the fact remains that verifiable small-scale experiments have been conducted that prove that rocket technology works and that the science is sound. Specific impulses of various compositions of rocket fuel have been verified. Plugging that stuff into the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (first you find the exhaust velocity), you see that it takes a stupidly large, but doable, amount of rocket fuel to get you into space. The math is all there. Unless you find a practical reason (such as there isn't that much rocket fuel in the world) that rockets can't work, the burden of proof is on you to show that rockets are bunk because they do work on paper.
Also you seem to have a misconception about gravity. You differentiate between gravity and gravitation, but you'll note that it's called Newton's law of gravitation and not of gravity. They're one and the same. While General Relativity may not be the same, Newton's law of gravitation describes exactly what you call "gravitation", an observed attractive force between masses. Newton offers no explanation for the natural origins of such a force in terms of other forces or phenomena. It just exists. A problem in modern physics is describing the physical origins of gravity within the framework of the Standard Model, as we have done with the EM force. Unifying GR and Standard Model is where the graviton comes in, and the truth is the theory is incomplete and hard to understand there. Nobody knows.
Saying that stellar fusion has never been demonstrated in a lab implies an ignorance of nuclear physics. Applying well-known laws such as Newton's gravitation to stars and their observed masses allows us to calculate the temperatures and pressures in the cores of the stars. We can replicate and even contain such temperatures and pressures to demonstrate the fusion reactions. What we cannot do is extract enough useful energy from the processes to keep confinement (extremely energy-intensive). An example is the fusor. You can literally build a machine in your home that performs nuclear fusion, but consumes far more energy than you put in (due to conduction of the inner wire cage).
Lawson estimated the D-D thermonuclear reaction to require 13 keV of energy per reaction to initiate. This corresponds to a temperature of approximately 150 million K. You may think such temperatures are impossible to contain, but remember that all temperature is just average kinetic energy, and you can accelerate particles with an electric field. So it turns out that shooting the deuterium ions through a potential of 13kV (13000 V), we can achieve fusion temperature. You can take any TV flyback transformer to achieve a voltage of about 60-100 kV (although I only got about 30 kV for my musical plasma speaker). If you build the fusor correctly, you can demonstrate fusion in your own home.
Of course, if you don't understand/believe any of the garbage I just spouted, you could always observe a thermonuclear test. How do you think those people understood how to do nuclear fusion? Probably by modeling the stars first.
Now here's an interesting fact for you Round Earthers: you can make an ion beam with a temperature of 200+ million K in your home! That's over ten times hotter than the core of the Sun! How cool is that?
-
You are wrong. Centripetal acceleration is an ACCELERATION, not uniform motion. Centripetal acceleration should manifest on any rotating body, yet on the equator it is possible for a single strand of hair to fall to the floor of a calm room undisturbed.
If you are on a playground merry-go-round that is spinning one revolution PER DAY, you can drop a strand of hair and it will fall to the floor without any noticeable centripetal acceleration.
But, that's just the same rotational velocity. Round earth theory would say that the centripetal acceleration at the equator is approximate (1000 mph)^2 / 3959 miles, or about 0.03 m/s^2. To get the same centripetal acceleration on the merry-go-round, you'd have to be traveling at approximately about half a mile per hour. With a radius of about 6 feet, that means you'd be going at a whopping 3/4 RPM. Do you think you would notice if you dropped a hair on such a merry-go-round and it drifted a few millimeters in the fraction of a second it takes to fall the floor?
This is a tiny effect. It's measurable, and that's why you have to correct weight for latitude, but it's impossible to detect without sensitive measurement equipment.
Look at the experiments of Tycho Bache and other famous astronomers.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf
VIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.
The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.
If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7
The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.
Riccioli concludes in the pdf with:
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in
accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less
annual, motion.
When Riccioli wrote this in the 17th century, cannons were much less capable than they are now. It is now demonstrable that such effects DO occur:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics#Coriolis_drift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect
-
You are wrong. Centripetal acceleration is an ACCELERATION, not uniform motion. Centripetal acceleration should manifest on any rotating body, yet on the equator it is possible for a single strand of hair to fall to the floor of a calm room undisturbed.
Wait wait wait. I'm mistaken in my explanation. I assumed that Tom Bishop was quibbling over my terminology and that he and I were in agreement that there is centripetal acceleration at the equator. Now that douglips has explained a bit more (and quoted the relevant portion, which I've reproduced above) I realize that Tom, you're even more wrong than I thought! First of all, let me define acceleration for you, since you clearly confused that with my invocation of "uniform circular motion"; I meant that a naive calculation assuming uniform circular motion (which isn't exactly true) would give you a rather accurate figure for the weight difference you feel at the equator, but you didn't get any of that I suppose. Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity. Remember that. Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity. They cannot be compared and cannot be equated. When I referred to uniform circular motion, that did not exclude the possibility of acceleration; in fact, uniform circular motion requires acceleration.
Now that I've noticed the last part of your sentence "yet on the equator it is possible for a single strand of hair to fall to the floor of a calm room undisturbed" I realize that you need to take a course on physics. Like right now. You should do an AP Physics 1 (introductory algebra-based mechanics) practice test (informally, it'll take 5 minutes of your time) https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/sample-questions-ap-physics-1-and-ap-physics-2-exams.pdf (https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/sample-questions-ap-physics-1-and-ap-physics-2-exams.pdf).
Here's some questions on circular motion:
https://d3jc3ahdjad7x7.cloudfront.net/osIWIcvHhkuYq77iu3le1m5XduN1nEn2WnUGW3B9HG1Js4CW.pdf (https://d3jc3ahdjad7x7.cloudfront.net/osIWIcvHhkuYq77iu3le1m5XduN1nEn2WnUGW3B9HG1Js4CW.pdf)
I strongly encourage you to roughly sketch out some and completely do at least 5-10 of them and compute your score.
Now that you've completed those tests (and assessed your knowledge of at least Newton's laws and their application), I'll explain. I meant in all of my posts that you might be able to measure the centripetal acceleration using a sensitive scale and the known masses of the Earth and the object. Never would your experimental setup measure ANYTHING because the centripetal acceleration is NORMAL to the surface (what the layperson calls "vertical"). The spinning of the Earth only serves to make us feel a VERY SLIGHT BIT LIGHTER. In the case of circular motion, the centripetal acceleration is toward the center, not toward the side. You are confusing velocity with acceleration.
Now if you're wondering what the REAL centripetal acceleration is, refer to my post quoted below. douglips, you're wrong in the sense that your merry-go-round analogy doesn't work in this case. It's not that the hair dropped on the equator would imperceptibly shift a "few millimeters"; it wouldn't shift at all. The acceleration is in the wrong direction. A more appropriate analogy is hanging on horizontally to the edge of the slow merry-go-round (supported of course) and seeing if you stretch any bit (hint: it won't be a lot).
Let me clarify the acceleration aspect because it is actually a non-obvious thing, and FE theorists have noted something that is worth understanding. Let's use a circle to represent the equator (we're taking a 2d slice of the Earth). Draw a person standing normal to the circle (as the RE model supposes). Because of the Earth's rotation, this person travels in a circle about the center of the circle (which is on Earth's axis). Let's also consider the forces on the person. There is a downward (toward the center) gravitational force. There is an upward normal force that the ground exerts on the person (electromagnetic in nature -- this is the same force you get by pushing a door). Now you'll notice that the gravitational force is slightly bigger than the normal force. The forces are unbalanced, but the person doesn't appear to be accelerating, right? Wrong. The person is accelerating toward the center as the force diagram would suggest; the magnitude of the acceleration is given by a = v2/r. Plugging in 1000 mph for v and 6400 km for r, we derive an acceleration value of 0.0312201563 m / s^2 (0.3% of the acceleration of gravity). This means that the normal force (which is what you read when you step on a scale and what your body feels as apparent weight, is your mass times 9.76877984 m / s^2. This difference is so miniscule that nobody will notice. So, yes, you are correct that there is centripetal acceleration. You don't "feel" the centripetal acceleration because it gets mixed in with the gravitational acceleration which is much bigger.
I'd recommend reviewing a physics textbook for the derivation, but it becomes obvious when you draw a force diagram. If you don't understand, feel free to ask any questions and please do try drawing a force diagram (draw a diagram of the situation and draw force vectors on the object you're interested in).
When I get Inkscape working, I'll draw mine and you can compare it with yours. Perhaps this will resolve the physics question. Just because physics is hard to understand does not mean that it is not the most simple solution. All of this physics is just an application of Newton's 3 laws and Newton's law of gravitation (with g already found for us).
-
Hmm. I don't recall saying the word "proof," or seeing that word in our Occam's Razor article. Recall that we are talking about the "simplest explanation". The simplest explanation when looking at a plane is that it is a plane.
There are two explanations for seeing a flat horizon. One is that the earth is indeed flat. The other is it isn't but any a curve cannot be perceived at ground level because of the scale.
Either is equally possible. The fact you can't see a curve from an airplane which greatly extends the distance you can see and your field of view illustrates that we could be on a much smaller globe and still not be able to perceive a curve. To work out which of the two possibilities is correct one must look at other evidence.
The think about Occam's razor is that it is just a guiding principle, it's not a hard fact which should be blindly adhered to.
And there is no objective measure of how "simple" an idea is anyway.
Because we don't?
https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs
Actually, that isn't a bad answer. Although it's strange, then, that I have seen a load of YouTube videos and posts on here claiming their is no curve. I've never seen a Flat Earther jump in and correct them to say "actually, there is a curve and this is why".
I'm interested about your model of the sun but maybe I'll start another thread about that.
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread. The number of RE'ers to FE'ers here is about 100 to 1. I can't get back to everyone.
This board is not that busy though. Your answer to sunset and clouds lit from underneath is "perspective". You go on about empirical evidence, I provided some showing that you cannot explain clouds lit from below that way, that is not how perspective or shadows work. If you are serious about developing a coherent flat earth theory then you should be engaging with this sort of stuff. The perception is that you and other flat earthers just run away from the debate when are unable to answer the questions or are shown to be wrong. The fact you've ignored all my other questions rather reinforces that although I accept those questions are not related to this thread.
To respond more directly to the Occam's Razor Wiki entry:
Your eyes aren't "playing tricks on you", they are simply limited in resolution.
The NASA one is just silly. I could equally say is it simpler to think that the airline industry can build a machine made of metal weighing 1,265,000 pounds (A380) and then get it to fly thousands of miles carrying people in comfort and with machines in each seat where people can access thousands of hours of entertainment or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff? I honestly don't know how the A380 gets off the ground. I understand about lift but those things are MASSIVE and it always amazes me they fly. But they do. I've been on one. Just because you don't understand rocket science, doesn't make it impossible.
The frame of reference one is silly. If you step off a building from your point of view it looks like the ground accelerates towards you. To literally everyone else watching they see you accelerating towards the ground. And it's a bit rich sneering at gravitons when you look at all the things Flat Earth can't explain - what powers UA, 'Dark Energy'. That has been observed, has it?
The sun one is silly too. Again, frames of reference. And 1,000 seems like a lot but...oh, other people have done the maths around that, the force of centripedal acceleration is there but not enough so's you'd notice.
And the universe one...I'd say the simplest explanation is that all the astronomers in the world over the last few hundred years since telescopes got good are probably right. The scale of the universe may blow your mind, it blows mine too. But that is what our observations tell us.
-
Now if you're wondering what the REAL centripetal acceleration is, refer to my post quoted below. douglips, you're wrong in the sense that your merry-go-round analogy doesn't work in this case. It's not that the hair dropped on the equator would imperceptibly shift a "few millimeters"; it wouldn't shift at all. The acceleration is in the wrong direction. A more appropriate analogy is hanging on horizontally to the edge of the slow merry-go-round (supported of course) and seeing if you stretch any bit (hint: it won't be a lot).
Yes, the exact force involved is different, but I was trying to point out that the magnitude of the forces involved is crazy small. Anywhere on earth but the equator you'll have a centrifugal component that will change where an object lands if you drop it, and the amount it changes is very very tiny, and the total gravity + centrifugal vector will be felt as vertical anyway.
Anywhere on earth but the poles you'll have a coriolis effect from dropping the object, and the amount it changes the trajectory is very very tiny.
This appeal to tiny forces that they imagine must be very huge and obvious and therefore disprove round earth is a common hallmark of flat earth discussions. I have recently seen it in Rowbotham's work where he claims that if the moon were able to influence the water on earth at all (i.e. tides) that therefore all the water should be sucked up to the moon.
The false dichotomy of "if a force exists it must be terribly strong and do something we don't observe, therefore the force doesn't exist" is all over this forum.
-
TLDR: If you take a small section of a very large sphere, it looks flat. I wish I had a nice GIF for this, but I can't find one.
Sure. But the simplest explanation when looking at a plane is that you are looking at a plane.
I'd also like to refute the idea that saying that "technology is marvelous" is fallacious. Take a look around you. Now pick even the simple things like plastic water bottles and try to understand how the plastic is produced by browsing Wikipedia. You can't. Specialization is truly immense, and I'm definitely not specialized enough to tell you even the basics of rocket science. You and I are not scientifically qualified to disparage the amazing work of places like NASA's JPL or even the amateurs who make it tens of km into the air. I study computer science, not chemical engineering or rocket science. But the fact remains that verifiable small-scale experiments have been conducted that prove that rocket technology works and that the science is sound. Specific impulses of various compositions of rocket fuel have been verified. Plugging that stuff into the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (first you find the exhaust velocity), you see that it takes a stupidly large, but doable, amount of rocket fuel to get you into space. The math is all there. Unless you find a practical reason (such as there isn't that much rocket fuel in the world) that rockets can't work, the burden of proof is on you to show that rockets are bunk because they do work on paper.
"Technology is Marvelous" therefore all of Moller International's (http://moller.com/) claims about its flying car are true.
"Technology is Marvelous" therefore long range bomb detectors are possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651).
"Technology is Marvelous" therefore it is possible to find underground oil deposits with gravimeters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax)
"Technology is Marvelous" therefore EMF detectors detect the presence of ghosts.
Also you seem to have a misconception about gravity. You differentiate between gravity and gravitation, but you'll note that it's called Newton's law of gravitation and not of gravity. They're one and the same. While General Relativity may not be the same, Newton's law of gravitation describes exactly what you call "gravitation", an observed attractive force between masses. Newton offers no explanation for the natural origins of such a force in terms of other forces or phenomena. It just exists. A problem in modern physics is describing the physical origins of gravity within the framework of the Standard Model, as we have done with the EM force. Unifying GR and Standard Model is where the graviton comes in, and the truth is the theory is incomplete and hard to understand there. Nobody knows.
Incorrect. Gravitation just means a general apparent attraction. Gravity is a mechanism involving the universal attraction by mass.
No one says "On Saturday nights the the local postman is attracted to the gravity of the Asian buffet". The correct term is that "On Saturday nights the local postman gravitates towards the Asian buffet".
It's called "Newton's law of Universal Gravitation" because all Gravity is Gravitation, but not all Gravitation is Gravity (see the postman example above). "Gravitation" is perfectly acceptable to use when referencing Gravity. Gravitate is an action word.
Saying that stellar fusion has never been demonstrated in a lab implies an ignorance of nuclear physics. Applying well-known laws such as Newton's gravitation to stars and their observed masses allows us to calculate the temperatures and pressures in the cores of the stars. We can replicate and even contain such temperatures and pressures to demonstrate the fusion reactions. What we cannot do is extract enough useful energy from the processes to keep confinement (extremely energy-intensive). An example is the fusor. You can literally build a machine in your home that performs nuclear fusion, but consumes far more energy than you put in (due to conduction of the inner wire cage).
Lawson estimated the D-D thermonuclear reaction to require 13 keV of energy per reaction to initiate. This corresponds to a temperature of approximately 150 million K. You may think such temperatures are impossible to contain, but remember that all temperature is just average kinetic energy, and you can accelerate particles with an electric field. So it turns out that shooting the deuterium ions through a potential of 13kV (13000 V), we can achieve fusion temperature. You can take any TV flyback transformer to achieve a voltage of about 60-100 kV (although I only got about 30 kV for my musical plasma speaker). If you build the fusor correctly, you can demonstrate fusion in your own home.
The Stellar Fusion reaction has never been replicated. "Achieving fusion temperature" is not the same as a Stellar Fusion reaction.
Of course, if you don't understand/believe any of the garbage I just spouted, you could always observe a thermonuclear test. How do you think those people understood how to do nuclear fusion? Probably by modeling the stars first.
Nuclear Fusion is not the same physical process as Stellar Fusion.
-
TLDR: If you take a small section of a very large sphere, it looks flat. I wish I had a nice GIF for this, but I can't find one.
Sure. But the simplest explanation when looking at a plane is that you are looking at a plane.
Think more about what you are looking at. Are you looking at an airplane fly to the horizon? Looking at the curvature in power lines on Lake Pontchartrain? Looking at clouds with the shadows of mountains cast on them? The simplest explanation for these includes reference to the shape of the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth), and it is not flat.
-
TLDR: If you take a small section of a very large sphere, it looks flat. I wish I had a nice GIF for this, but I can't find one.
Sure. But the simplest explanation when looking at a plane is that you are looking at a plane.
I'd also like to refute the idea that saying that "technology is marvelous" is fallacious. Take a look around you. Now pick even the simple things like plastic water bottles and try to understand how the plastic is produced by browsing Wikipedia. You can't. Specialization is truly immense, and I'm definitely not specialized enough to tell you even the basics of rocket science. You and I are not scientifically qualified to disparage the amazing work of places like NASA's JPL or even the amateurs who make it tens of km into the air. I study computer science, not chemical engineering or rocket science. But the fact remains that verifiable small-scale experiments have been conducted that prove that rocket technology works and that the science is sound. Specific impulses of various compositions of rocket fuel have been verified. Plugging that stuff into the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (first you find the exhaust velocity), you see that it takes a stupidly large, but doable, amount of rocket fuel to get you into space. The math is all there. Unless you find a practical reason (such as there isn't that much rocket fuel in the world) that rockets can't work, the burden of proof is on you to show that rockets are bunk because they do work on paper.
"Technology is Marvelous" therefore all of Moller International's (http://moller.com/) claims about its flying car are true.
"Technology is Marvelous" therefore long range bomb detectors are possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651).
"Technology is Marvelous" therefore it is possible to find underground oil deposits with gravimeters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax)
"Technology is Marvelous" therefore EMF detectors detect the presence of ghosts.
Also you seem to have a misconception about gravity. You differentiate between gravity and gravitation, but you'll note that it's called Newton's law of gravitation and not of gravity. They're one and the same. While General Relativity may not be the same, Newton's law of gravitation describes exactly what you call "gravitation", an observed attractive force between masses. Newton offers no explanation for the natural origins of such a force in terms of other forces or phenomena. It just exists. A problem in modern physics is describing the physical origins of gravity within the framework of the Standard Model, as we have done with the EM force. Unifying GR and Standard Model is where the graviton comes in, and the truth is the theory is incomplete and hard to understand there. Nobody knows.
Incorrect. Gravitation just means a general apparent attraction. Gravity is a mechanism involving the universal attraction by mass.
No one says "On Saturday nights the the local postman is attracted to the gravity of the Asian buffet". The correct term is that "On Saturday nights the local postman gravitates towards the Asian buffet".
It's called "Newton's law of Universal Gravitation" because all Gravity is Gravitation, but not all Gravitation is Gravity (see the postman example above). "Gravitation" is perfectly acceptable to use when referencing Gravity. Gravitate is an action word.
Saying that stellar fusion has never been demonstrated in a lab implies an ignorance of nuclear physics. Applying well-known laws such as Newton's gravitation to stars and their observed masses allows us to calculate the temperatures and pressures in the cores of the stars. We can replicate and even contain such temperatures and pressures to demonstrate the fusion reactions. What we cannot do is extract enough useful energy from the processes to keep confinement (extremely energy-intensive). An example is the fusor. You can literally build a machine in your home that performs nuclear fusion, but consumes far more energy than you put in (due to conduction of the inner wire cage).
Lawson estimated the D-D thermonuclear reaction to require 13 keV of energy per reaction to initiate. This corresponds to a temperature of approximately 150 million K. You may think such temperatures are impossible to contain, but remember that all temperature is just average kinetic energy, and you can accelerate particles with an electric field. So it turns out that shooting the deuterium ions through a potential of 13kV (13000 V), we can achieve fusion temperature. You can take any TV flyback transformer to achieve a voltage of about 60-100 kV (although I only got about 30 kV for my musical plasma speaker). If you build the fusor correctly, you can demonstrate fusion in your own home.
The Stellar Fusion reaction has never been replicated. "Achieving fusion temperature" is not the same as a Stellar Fusion reaction.
Of course, if you don't understand/believe any of the garbage I just spouted, you could always observe a thermonuclear test. How do you think those people understood how to do nuclear fusion? Probably by modeling the stars first.
Nuclear Fusion is not the same physical process as Stellar Fusion.
Tom, you're wrong about gravity and gravitation in the view of accepted science, not the science you preach. That was what I was getting to. In normal physics, gravity = gravitation. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that's the state of the science. Of course, there's the "gravitation" that's been adapted to non-scientific meaning (that is, literary, meaning), but if you refer to gravitation in a physics context, you are referring to gravity. See the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity which clearly states in the first sentence that they are synonyms. You are making a false distinction that does not exist in science, and I'd advise you learn what you're talking about. Yes, words can have other meanings, but that does not mean that the scientific meaning of gravitation is any different than that of gravity. I certainly don't appreciate your intellectual dishonesty in this matter by citing the non-scientific meaning of "gravitate" as a verb to try to confuse people.
It's a fallacy to say that "I don't understand how a rocket goes at 7 mi/s" and so therefore it doesn't work. We could say the same thing about airplanes or gunpowder or a laptop. I never said that technology being marvelous was enough to justify any claim, but I do mean to say that your argument that just because something can do rather incredible things that it must be fake is a load of garbage. Clearly, you need to take a logic course to understand the difference between a statement and its converse. You can't just dismiss a technology because it appears to do things that are incredible. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT JUST BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY IS COMPLICATED THAT ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, LIKE FLYING CARS. THAT IS THE CONVERSE. I would assume you knew this already, but either you are trying to muddy the waters or you just don't understand how logic works. I will include a quote that explains better.
The NASA one is just silly. I could equally say is it simpler to think that the airline industry can build a machine made of metal weighing 1,265,000 pounds (A380) and then get it to fly thousands of miles carrying people in comfort and with machines in each seat where people can access thousands of hours of entertainment or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff? I honestly don't know how the A380 gets off the ground. I understand about lift but those things are MASSIVE and it always amazes me they fly. But they do. I've been on one. Just because you don't understand rocket science, doesn't make it impossible
Nuclear Fusion is not the same physical process as Stellar Fusion.
You're so utterly wrong. You can't just make up distinctions as you please. You really need to justify these with evidence (other than your FE theory, this means EXPERIMENTS and OBSERVATIONS -- sound familiar?). It is literally the same process. Unless you would like to DESCRIBE (not just name as stellar fusion, whatever that means) a different process by which stars get their energy, I'd suggest you not enter this realm. Because I'd rather take a small leap of faith to say that I'm looking at a small section of a sphere so it looks flat than to take the incredible leap of faith that the flatness really is flat but that stars get their energy from a magical source. Do you see the problem here? Of course, if something looks flat, the simplest explanation is that it is flat; but this explanation contradicts so many other things that it is no longer the simplest. Why do I have to explain this basic logic to you?
"Achieving fusion temperature" is not the same as a Stellar Fusion reaction.
Clearly you know little about nuclear physics, so I'd advise you stay out of it. Nuclear fusion has happened on Earth. It's not just achieving fusion temperature. We have observed the products of such reactions. Particle accelerators can possibly fuse together the hydrogen-1 atoms in a similar fashion to how it's done in stars, and even notwithstanding that, we can measure the neutrino radiation coming out to check that it is the proper fusion reaction. This is how such reactions are verified. We also know that the Sun contains helium and hydrogen through its spectrum and also that stellar nucleosynthesis is the primary means for getting heavier elements. Stop trying to pretend to know about this.
EDIT: Besides, if you assert that humans cannot produce fusion no matter how hard we try, then how in the world could a 32 mile wide Sun do it? We achieve temperatures and pressures far higher than a 32 mile wide Sun could (especially with weak gravitation)
-
Of course, if you don't understand/believe any of the garbage I just spouted, you could always observe a thermonuclear test. How do you think those people understood how to do nuclear fusion? Probably by modeling the stars first.
This is a crock of crap.
People do not understand how to do fusion as fusion is unproved.
There is no conclusive evidence for fusion taking place anywhere, certainly not in a controlled, natural process, and certainly not in a controlled, man-made process.
Any claim of a "fusion," bomb is just laughable.
-
Yo
Fusion is totally a thing. Stars do it, hydrogen bombs do it. What are you on about?
In nuclear physics, nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei come close enough to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons or protons). The difference in mass between the reactants and products is manifested as the release of large amounts of energy. This difference in mass arises due to the difference in atomic "binding energy" between the atomic nuclei before and after the reaction. Fusion is the process that powers active or "main sequence" stars, or other high magnitude stars.
A fusion process that produces a nucleus lighter than iron-56 or nickel-62 will generally yield a net energy release. These elements have the smallest mass per nucleon and the largest binding energy per nucleon, respectively. Fusion of light elements toward these releases energy (an exothermic process), while a fusion producing nuclei heavier than these elements will result in energy retained by the resulting nucleons, and the resulting reaction is endothermic. The opposite is true for the reverse process, nuclear fission. This means that the lighter elements, such as hydrogen and helium, are in general more fusible; while the heavier elements, such as uranium and plutonium, are more fissionable. The extreme astrophysical event of a supernova can produce enough energy to fuse nuclei into elements heavier than iron.
In 1920, Arthur Eddington suggested hydrogen-helium fusion could be the primary source of stellar energy. Quantum tunneling was discovered by Friedrich Hund in 1929, and shortly afterwards Robert Atkinson and Fritz Houtermans used the measured masses of light elements to show that large amounts of energy could be released by fusing small nuclei. Building on the early experiments in nuclear transmutation by Ernest Rutherford, laboratory fusion of hydrogen isotopes was accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. In the remainder of that decade, the theory of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe. Research into fusion for military purposes began in the early 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project. Fusion was accomplished in 1951 with the Greenhouse Item nuclear test. Nuclear fusion on a large scale in an explosion was first carried out on November 1, 1952, in the Ivy Mike hydrogen bomb test.
Research into developing controlled thermonuclear fusion for civil purposes began in earnest in the 1950s, and it continues to this day.
-
Of course, if you don't understand/believe any of the garbage I just spouted, you could always observe a thermonuclear test. How do you think those people understood how to do nuclear fusion? Probably by modeling the stars first.
This is a crock of crap.
People do not understand how to do fusion as fusion is unproved.
There is no conclusive evidence for fusion taking place anywhere, certainly not in a controlled, natural process, and certainly not in a controlled, man-made process.
Any claim of a "fusion," bomb is just laughable.
You're so wrong that it stretches credulity. Maybe you've never done something like this in your life, but a 15-year-old has built a homemade inertial electrostatic confinement fusor that produces a measurable neutron flux by performing the D-D reaction. People have literally built these things in their houses and tested them. So blindly asserting "there is no conclusive evidence" just displays a ton of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty -- you clearly know nothing about the developments in the field and are just asserting this because you think you can get away with it. Again, your argument comes down to you don't understand the concept and it seems hard to do, and therefore it is impossible.
But if you assert that nuclear fusion is impossible in all cases, you are supporting the RE argument. Why? Well look at Occam's Razor. If fusion doesn't power the Sun, then you have to conjure up some magic that does. Now which is more plausible, the Earth is round and only looks flat because it is large, or the Earth is flat, but the Sun has a magical source of energy that no FE modeler has ever described and that thermonuclear weapons are fake, amateur fusors are fake, etc?
-
tl:dr additional "NO U!"
Additional tl:dr malarkey falling short of conclusive evidence.
Thanks for admitting fusion has not been achieved by man, let alone a completely natural process!
On the other hand, an easily verifiable, totally replicated process has been witnessed in nature and the lab!
Electromagnetism.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQRLJDXw2jc
-
totallackey, thank you very much for fabricating a quote in my post. Never did I say anything about how the evidence wasn't conclusive. You clearly don't even understand what electromagnetism is, and think that it can explain the Sun's energy. I have said many times over that nuclear fusion has been achieved by man. What hasn't been achieved is enough efficiency for the generated energy to be fed back into the reactor to sustain confinement and heating.
Clearly, you know close to nothing about basic physics if you think electromagnetism can explain the amount of energy in the Sun. What's the mechanism for the slow release of the energy? The mechanism for storage? Surely, you won't make yourself look like a fool by saying it is the Coulomb forces that do that.
It is people like you who smugly and sardonically debate (thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect) physics like you know it all when you clearly know close to nothing that make RE people question the intelligence of the FE community. If you want to have a scientific debate, please put a bit more content with physical reasoning than some junk YouTube video full of misconceptions. I'd also suggest you present some proof that you passed and understood a basic course in physics.
I'll demonstrate that you know close to nothing about the state of modern nuclear fusion and science in general:
1. Fusion has been achieved in particle accelerators, in a variety of reactors (NIF for example), and in thermonuclear bombs. This is not up for debate, unless you want to demonstrate even more ignorance of physics. The products have all been measured and line up with expectations for a fusion reaction.
2. Fusion has been achieved by amateurs at home, including a 14-year-old kid. That should tell you how little you know about science. Please, just once, acknowledge that you don't know that much and ditch the Dunning-Kruger (you don't have to do it publicly), and just READ instead of posting junk science that displays a clear lack of understanding of physics and even what electromagnetism is.
3. You clearly don't understand how many orders of magnitude more energy fusion puts out than any sort of chemical/electric interaction can provide. This goes to show your ignorance and stubbornness.
4. You probably can't even explain to me how to convert between eV and joules.
I did the energy calculation. You need to figure out how to turn 31 years into 4 billion, and electric fields are not going to cut it, considering you'd need approximately a 25 kV potential difference to even get the same amount of electric energy as there is thermal energy in the model I presented. Even if you double the amount of energy, that Sun is still only going to last 62 years maximum. We've detected absolutely no measurable charge imbalance in the Sun (and it's fairly easy to detect because of the strength of the electric force), which would be implied by any sort of potential difference existing within the Sun. But of course, with your lack of understanding of even basic electricity, I'm not surprised you believe this garbage.
Yes, I've made posts before that encourage explanation for misinformed people and that have said that we shouldn't demonize people for a lack of understanding. But the snarky quotes, and the complete misinterpretation of my post, leads me to believe that totallackey has not put the slightest effort into responding to the valid arguments made by the RE side and just wants to casually dismiss them by throwing out a few misinformed buzzwords a lot of junk science. And for that, I'll be equally mean.
-
Nuclear Fusion is a different physical process than Stellar Fusion. Look it up. Even if true Nuclear Fusion has been achieved by humans (I also have some doubts myself), it is still an entirely different reaction than Stellar Fusion. It does nothing to prove the mechanism that powers the stars.
-
Nuclear Fusion is a different physical process than Stellar Fusion. Look it up. Even if true Nuclear Fusion has been achieved by humans (I also have some doubts myself), it is still an entirely different reaction than Stellar Fusion. It does nothing to prove the mechanism that powers the stars.
Tom is talking about proton-proton fusion, which is a type of nuclear fusion. It makes up a large part of the Sun's power. It can't be achieved in the lab due to the pressures required. Tom would like to claim this means it doesn't exist, I guess. Like usual, he is wrong. We know the expected outcome of this reaction because, you know, chemistry. We have detected the neutrinos created by this process.
Tom saying he isn't sure if nuclear fusion has been achieved by humans is right up there with thinking moonlight cools things off.
This is what fusion did to Bikini Atoll:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KMa6rVyMfdc/UdNCTqHhECI/AAAAAAAADIY/D3EkCjpfEwE/s1002/Bravo+crater.JPG)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KMa6rVyMfdc/UdNCTqHhECI/AAAAAAAADIY/D3EkCjpfEwE/s1002/Bravo+crater.JPG (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KMa6rVyMfdc/UdNCTqHhECI/AAAAAAAADIY/D3EkCjpfEwE/s1002/Bravo+crater.JPG)
-
It's easy to see that any sort of electromagnetic currents or whatever junk science they propose other than nuclear fusion in the Sun cannot produce the neutrinos observed.
Also, if stars didn't use nuclear fusion for energy, we wouldn't have the elements on Earth today. These were all produced from stellar nucleosynthesis.
If Tom were referring to proton-proton fusion as "stellar fusion", then it clearly demonstrates his lack of knowledge in this area. Proton-proton fusion is but one of the pathways that the Sun uses to produce energy (for example, the CNO cycles exist). I'm obviously no expert on nuclear physics, but even a cursory knowledge is enough to not make such a mistake.
-
Saying that stellar fusion has never been demonstrated in a lab implies an ignorance of nuclear physics.
No it does not.
Applying well-known laws such as Newton's gravitation to stars and their observed masses allows us to calculate the temperatures and pressures in the cores of the stars.
No, it does not.
First, why don't you create a CGI representation to the supposed movement of the Solar System through the galaxy.
When you can plug in those numbers into a computer (remember, all the numbers are REAL according to you, all the equations are REAL according to you) and produce that model, then maybe you can claim the rest of this claptrap as possible.
We can replicate and even contain such temperatures and pressures to demonstrate the fusion reactions.
No, we cannot.
Sustained fusion is not possible.
What we cannot do is extract enough useful energy from the processes to keep confinement (extremely energy-intensive). An example is the fusor. You can literally build a machine in your home that performs nuclear fusion, but consumes far more energy than you put in (due to conduction of the inner wire cage).
No, you cannot.
Lawson estimated the D-D thermonuclear reaction to require 13 keV of energy per reaction to initiate. This corresponds to a temperature of approximately 150 million K. You may think such temperatures are impossible to contain, but remember that all temperature is just average kinetic energy, and you can accelerate particles with an electric field. So it turns out that shooting the deuterium ions through a potential of 13kV (13000 V), we can achieve fusion temperature. You can take any TV flyback transformer to achieve a voltage of about 60-100 kV (although I only got about 30 kV for my musical plasma speaker). If you build the fusor correctly, you can demonstrate fusion in your own home.
No, you cannot.
Of course, if you don't understand/believe any of the garbage I just spouted, I will keep posting more in order to try to convince you I know what I am writing about.,..
FTFY...
No need to thank me.
-
totallackey, shouting "CAN'T, CAN'T, CANT!" really isn't a counter-argument.
-
totallackey, shouting "CAN'T, CAN'T, CANT!" really isn't a counter-argument.
Not only am I not simply shouting "CAN'T," I am presenting alternative views and a solid, mathematical argument as to why the mysticism and claims relative to "fusion," are just that.
There is no real "math," applied to stars, nor are there real "formulas," relative to orbital mechanics or "gravity," in a supposed, "SOLAR SYSTEM."
1) Because there is no "SOLAR SYSTEM."
2) If there was, a CGI rendering of its movement would be possible.
-
1) Because there is no "SOLAR SYSTEM."
2) If there was, a CGI rendering of its movement would be possible.
You mean like this?
https://youtu.be/evWeRHMwSu0
Or like this?
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
There's a lot of them about. This is why it's difficult to take your claims at face value. You claim something that's very easy to find examples of is impossible. You can even make your own with a few different information dumps around. Try stellarium.
-
Here is how to build your own fusion reactor:
https://makezine.com/projects/make-36-boards/nuclear-fusor/
-
According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat. I was confronted this by my Chemistry teacher and I need a way to explain why this is false!!! Help!!! :'( :-X ???
The reason Occams Razor discounts the flat earth model is due to the multitudes of complications and contradictions that arise when you attempt to reconcile the model with reality.
For example:
For a flat earth to be true, we have to throw out the mathematics involved with calculating the earth's curvature, rotation, revolution, tilt, mass, gravity, etc.. This means that we have to account for things like: navigation accuracy, projectile accuracy (whether firing artillery, an ICBM, or a rifle at long range), "drop height" beyond the horizon, the movement of celestial bodies, and that's just to name a few. ALL of these disparate disciplines factor in the mathematics that reflect the size and shape of the earth, among other things, consistent with the globe model.
If you understand this and you're then going to say that the earth is flat, you then have to explain how any of the applied science makes any sense. If your answer isn't very good, or if you have no answer at all, or if you can't demonstrate the predictive prowess of the model itself, it's only fair to say you don't have a particularly robust or reliable model.
To be perfectly fair, SOME of the explanations flat earthers provide make sense - to a point - if they make it past a scrutinizing first glance. However, any one observation that concludes a flat earth is rendered suspect if it can be shown that another observation is not consistent with the model. The same goes for globe earth, or any concept in general; it's simply a matter of being logically consistent.
It is not very different from a scenario where, because you believe NASA is a lying sack of shit, when they tell you 2+2 is 4, you throw out mathematics on principle. It simply introduces too many complications for it to be consistent with reality.
And that is why Occam's Razor discounts the flat earth model. It SEEMS like flat earth would be simpler, but that's only because the people who argue for it most fiercely are approaching the subject from TOO simplistic a point of view.
Therefore, I submit to you that even the most ardent flat earth proponent is simply mistaken. It doesn't mean they're wrong about EVERYTHING they think, just this particular issue.
-
1) Because there is no "SOLAR SYSTEM."
2) If there was, a CGI rendering of its movement would be possible.
You mean like this?
https://youtu.be/evWeRHMwSu0
No.
Or like this?
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
And no.
There's a lot of them about. This is why it's difficult to take your claims at face value. You claim something that's very easy to find examples of is impossible. You can even make your own with a few different information dumps around. Try stellarium.
No there is not "a lot of them."
As a matter of fact, there is not ONE OF THEM!
There is no CGI model depicting the movement of the Sun, with all of the planets in tow, traversing along the galaxy.
And do you want to know why?
Because man cannot make a computer model of such movement because the math and the formulas just do not compute.
So go back to your corner with the pork chop tied around your neck so your dog pays attention to you.
You all really have nothing upon which to hang your hats except your empty heads.
-
No there is not "a lot of them."
As a matter of fact, there is not ONE OF THEM!
There is no CGI model depicting the movement of the Sun, with all of the planets in tow, traversing along the galaxy.
And do you want to know why?
Because man cannot make a computer model of such movement because the math and the formulas just do not compute.
So go back to your corner with the pork chop tied around your neck so your dog pays attention to you.
You all really have nothing upon which to hang your hats except your empty heads.
Surely you should be able to demonstrate for us how and why the maths "does not compute."
I can show you why the typical "8 inches per mile squared" maths are wrong, quite plainly. That little diddy quite literally "does not compute" to a globe, but rather a parabola. This doesn't mean that the maths are a hoax, rather in this case it simply means that you're using the wrong maths.
If I had to pick one, this is probably Rowbotham's single greatest contribution to the state of confusion that plagues flat earthers to this day.
Example:
If you're curious - and you ought to be, at least if you're consistent - the maths involved with calculating "drop height" beyond the horizon looks something like this:
VARIABLES:
d0 = distance from POV to target
d1 = distance from POV to horizon
d2 = distance from horizon to target
h0 = height of POV
h1 = height obscured by horizon
CONSTANTS:
R = radius of the earth
... R = 3958.75
ASSUMPTIONS:
- The earth is 7917.5 miles in diameter.
- Light travels in straight lines.
FORMULAE...
(R + h0)^2 = d1^2 + R^2.........d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
(R + h1)^2 = d2^2 + R^2.........h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
d2 = d0 - d1.............................h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
Mind you, that method doesn't factor in the way light refracts through the atmosphere. Even when an object should be totally obscured by the horizon, the light reflecting off of it in the distance will bend "upwards" through the atmosphere, creating a superior mirrage. How far away you can perceive this mirrage depends on each of the variables outlined above - eye level of the observer, distance to target, height of target, and other factors that affect refraction like the composition and temperature of the air in the direction you're facing.
It's not as simple as you might like it to be, or imagine it to be.
If you understand the maths half as well as I understand the maths I showed here, you should have no problem explaining why we can't map out the motions of the celestial bodies, in simple step by step equations.
Spoiler Alert: I'm an English Lit major and I process requests for parts and services for an informatics hardware company. I suck at maths, but I understand THIS tripe. Any one of you, barring some developmental disorder, should be able to grasp this stuff.
-
No there is not "a lot of them."
As a matter of fact, there is not ONE OF THEM!
There is no CGI model depicting the movement of the Sun, with all of the planets in tow, traversing along the galaxy.
And do you want to know why?
Because man cannot make a computer model of such movement because the math and the formulas just do not compute.
So go back to your corner with the pork chop tied around your neck so your dog pays attention to you.
You all really have nothing upon which to hang your hats except your empty heads.
Surely you should be able to demonstrate for us how and why the maths "does not compute."
Yes I can demonstrate why the math, "the math does not compute."
Science claims to have all the math relative to gravity, the total mass of the solar system, the time of orbits, etc...etc..., yet cannot correctly plot the movement of the supposed Solar System throughout the galaxy.
You want to know why it cannot? Because as soon as they try and are asked to release the inputs used for the CGI rendering, they will be busted for the FRAUDS they are.
That is why.
I can show you why the typical "8 inches per mile squared" maths are wrong, quite plainly. That little diddy quite literally "does not compute" to a globe, but rather a parabola. This doesn't mean that the maths are a hoax, rather in this case it simply means that you're using the wrong maths.
If I had to pick one, this is probably Rowbotham's single greatest contribution to the state of confusion that plagues flat earthers to this day.
If you're curious, the maths involved with calculating "drop height" beyond the horizon looks something like this:
VARIABLES:
d0 = distance from POV to target
d1 = distance from POV to horizon
d2 = distance from horizon to target
h0 = height of POV
h1 = height obscured by horizon
CONSTANTS:
R = radius of the earth
... R = 3958.75
ASSUMPTIONS:
- The earth is 7917.5 miles in diameter.
- Light travels in straight lines.
FORMULAE...
(R + h0)^2 = d1^2 + R^2.........d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
(R + h1)^2 = d2^2 + R^2.........h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
d2 = d0 - d1.............................h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
Mind you, that method doesn't factor in the way light refracts through the atmosphere. Even when an object should be totally obscured by the horizon, the light reflecting off of it in the distance will bend "upwards" through the atmosphere, creating a superior mirrage. How far away you can perceive this mirrage depends on each of the variables outlined above - eye level of the observer, distance to target, height of target, and other factors that affect refraction like the composition and temperature of the air in the direction you're looking.
It's not as simple as you might like it to be, or imagine it to be.
If you understand the maths half as well as I understand the maths I showed here, you should have no problem explaining why we can't map out the motions of the celestial bodies, in simple step by step equations.
Spoiler Alert: I'm an English Lit major and I process orders for an infomatics hardware company. I suck at maths, but I understand THIS tripe. Any one of you, barring some developmental disorder, should be able to grasp this stuff.
So, go ahead and graph your treatise out there for all to see, sparky...
Translate that math to a sphere.
Let's see it.
By the way, light is quite easily diverted from traveling in a straight line.
-
It's easy to see that any sort of electromagnetic currents or whatever junk science they propose other than nuclear fusion in the Sun cannot produce the neutrinos observed.
Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science.
Also, if stars didn't use nuclear fusion for energy, we wouldn't have the elements on Earth today. These were all produced from stellar nucleosynthesis.
Again, current popularly accepted theory and not a fact.
If Tom were referring to proton-proton fusion as "stellar fusion", then it clearly demonstrates his lack of knowledge in this area. Proton-proton fusion is but one of the pathways that the Sun uses to produce energy (for example, the CNO cycles exist). I'm obviously no expert on nuclear physics, but even a cursory knowledge is enough to not make such a mistake.
Again, being the most popular does not make one the absolute gospel.
-
So, go ahead and graph your treatise out there for all to see, sparky...
Hi, I'm supe. Who the Hell is Sparky?
Before we get to the math, I just want to point something out:
Yes I can demonstrate why the math, "the math (sic) does not compute."
Science claims to have all the math relative to gravity, the total mass of the solar system, the time of orbits, etc...etc...
First problem. Science rarely, if ever, claims to have "all" of anything, let alone "all the math."
You can only be accurate to a point. The level of accuracy we get from a given measurement is dependent upon how accurate our tools are. Becuase we can't create a tool yet with with an infinite level of accuracy, there's ALWAYS going to be some uncertainty. For this reason, science is constantly pushing the envelope in terms of how accurate and certain we can be. This is why, for instance, you'll see FE memes floating around comparing the distance of the sun as measured by different people over time. The assertion is that simply because there is ANY uncertainty, it means we're not even close to certain.
This is a bit like saying that both the pilot and the passengers of a plane are "flying." Really it's the pilot and co-pilot "flying" the plane, the rest of the passengers and crew are TRUSTING the pilots to KNOW how to fly - to be CERTAIN within a reasonable margin of error.
Anyway, just wanted to get that out of the way. It's a common misconception that science claims to have all the answers, and it seems like that's what you were driving at. It's a fallacy. Let's move on.
... yet cannot correctly plot the movement of the supposed Solar System throughout the galaxy.
Citation please. Where did you hear this, and just how uncertain are we really?
You want to know why it cannot?
Well, you're convinced that it can't, and if I'm mistaken, I want to be SHOWN that I'm mistaken, so I can stop being mistaken.
So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I want to know why.
... Because as soon as they try and are asked to release the inputs used for the CGI rendering, they will be busted for the FRAUDS they are.
That is why.
What I asked you to do is to show me the maths, seeing as you objected to that specifically. What you just did is to begin talking about maths and then said "they won't release the formulas."
How do you know it's faulty if you yourself haven't even run the numbers? We can explore this further if you want, but for you to say it "does not compute" implies that you've taken the time to actually work out the formulae yourself and SEE that they don't compute.
What you said in the end wasn't an answer to "why does the maths not compute," it was an answer to "why totallackey thinks we can't even access the maths to begin with."
One last thing:
Translate that math to a sphere.
It's not a calculation for a sphere, it's a calculation for "drop height" along a single axis - the one you're STANDING ON when you face the horizon - perpendicular to the horizon. You need to understand what it is before you can ask me to do anything with it at all.
And yes, friend, I know that light bends when it passes through a medium. That’s why the foreword to the examples clearly states the assumption - because this equation doesn’t factor in the refraction of light.
Here are a few examples I worked out the other day.
EXAMPLES...
Example 1
Given values...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 10 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
Objectives for Example 1...
- solve for d1
- solve for d2
- solve for h1
(d1)
d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
... d1 = sqrt.(.001136^2 + (2(3958.75)).001136)
....... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + (7917.5).001136)
........... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + 8.99428)
............... d1 = sqrt.(8.994293)
................... d1 = 2.999049 miles
(d2)
d2 = d0 - d1
... d2 = 10 - 2.999049
....... d2 = 7.000951 miles
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75
............... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75
................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.((10 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
............... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75
................... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75
....................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)
Conclusions for Example 1...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 10 miles
d1 = 2.999049 miles
d2 = 7.000951 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)
................................
................................
Example 2
Given values...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 25 miles
d1 = 2.999049 miles (correlates with h0, remains the same)
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
Objectives for Example 2...
- solve for d2
- solve for h1
(d2)
d2 = d0 - d1
... d2 = 25 - 2.999049
....... d2 = 22.000951 miles
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75
............... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75
................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
............... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75
................... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75
....................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)
Conclusions for Example 2...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 25 miles
d1 = 2.999049 miles
d2 = 22.000951 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)
................................
................................
Example 3
Given values...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 25 miles
h0 = 0.009469 mile (50 feet)
Objectives for Example 3...
- solve for d1
- solve for d2
- solve for h1
(d1)
d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
... d1 = sqrt.(.009469^2 + (2(3958.75)).009469)
....... d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + (7917.5).009469)
.......... d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + 74.970808)
............... d1 = sqrt.(74.970898)
................... d1 = 8.658574 miles
(d2)
d2 = d0 - d1
... d2 = 25 - 8.658574
....... d2 = 16.341426 miles
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75
............... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75
................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 8.658574)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
............... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75
................... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75
....................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)
Conclusions for Example 3...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 25 miles
d1 = 2.999049 miles
d2 = 16.341426 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)
................................
................................
Example 4
Given values...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 100 miles
h0 = 0.018939 mile (100 feet)
Objectives for Example 4...
- solve for d1
- solve for d2
- solve for h1
(d1)
d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
... d1 = sqrt.(0.018939^2 + (2(3958.75))0.018939)
....... d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + (7917.5)0.018939)
.......... d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + 149.949533)
............... d1 = sqrt.(149.949892)
................... d1 = 12.245403 miles
(d2)
d2 = d0 - d1
... d2 = 100 - 12.245403
....... d2 = 87.754597 miles
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75
............... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75
................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.((100 - 12.245403)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
............... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75
................... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75
....................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)
Conclusions for Example 4...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 100 miles
d1 = 12.245403 miles
d2 = 87.754597 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)
Have at it.
-
For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com (http://www.solarsystemscope.com).
And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey
-
For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com (http://www.solarsystemscope.com).
And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey
Can't tell if he's trolling or just thick. One is forgivable, within reason.
-
It's easy to see that any sort of electromagnetic currents or whatever junk science they propose other than nuclear fusion in the Sun cannot produce the neutrinos observed.
Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science.
Where the heck did you get that idea?
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino):
Solar neutrinos constitute by far the largest flux of neutrinos from natural sources observed on Earth, as compared with e.g. atmospheric neutrinos or the diffuse supernova neutrino background.
Also, if stars didn't use nuclear fusion for energy, we wouldn't have the elements on Earth today. These were all produced from stellar nucleosynthesis.
Again, current popularly accepted theory and not a fact.
If Tom were referring to proton-proton fusion as "stellar fusion", then it clearly demonstrates his lack of knowledge in this area. Proton-proton fusion is but one of the pathways that the Sun uses to produce energy (for example, the CNO cycles exist). I'm obviously no expert on nuclear physics, but even a cursory knowledge is enough to not make such a mistake.
Again, being the most popular does not make one the absolute gospel.
Just because I like awesome sciency graphs, this image from the same wikipedia article shows the relative popularity of various fusion/decay reactions in the sun:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Solar_neutrino_flux_spectrum.png)
The story of neutrino observations is fascinating to me, as is the story of Kamiokande (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamioka_Observatory#Kamiokande-II).
On November 12, 2001, several thousand photomultiplier tubes in the Super-Kamiokande detector imploded, apparently in a chain reaction as the shock wave from the concussion of each imploding tube cracked its neighbours.
-
For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com (http://www.solarsystemscope.com).
And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey
you post an example.
Okay, kindly demonstrate how the formulas from Newton and Keplar were used in rendering this CGI.
And if they even were...
Otherwise, it is bupkus, as in the yiddish word for NOTHING as are most RE-tard claims.
I bet you the person(s) responsible for this CGI did not even consider Keplar or Newton when rendering this crap.
Does not even demonstrate revolutions of the Sun.
-
First problem. Science rarely, if ever, claims to have "all" of anything, let alone "all the math."
They do when it comes to measuring the LAW of gravity.
That means science is not going to investigate further, they are done with it.
They do when it comes to the speed of light.
They do when it comes to 2 body/3 body orbital mechanics.
They do when it comes to Kepler Laws (notice again LAWS, not theory).
So, every CGI rendering will have to account for these LAWS and it will be readily apparent if these laws were utilized in the CGI creation.
You can only be accurate to a point. The level of accuracy we get from a given measurement is dependent upon how accurate our tools are. Becuase we can't create a tool yet with with an infinite level of accuracy, there's ALWAYS going to be some uncertainty. For this reason, science is constantly pushing the envelope in terms of how accurate and certain we can be. This is why, for instance, you'll see FE memes floating around comparing the distance of the sun as measured by different people over time. The assertion is that simply because there is ANY uncertainty, it means we're not even close to certain.
This is a bit like saying that both the pilot and the passengers of a plane are "flying." Really it's the pilot and co-pilot "flying" the plane, the rest of the passengers and crew are TRUSTING the pilots to KNOW how to fly - to be CERTAIN within a reasonable margin of error.
Anyway, just wanted to get that out of the way. It's a common misconception that science claims to have all the answers, and it seems like that's what you were driving at. It's a fallacy. Let's move on.
See above rebuttal regarding LAWS.
Citation please. Where did you hear this, and just how uncertain are we really?
Would have been done already.
Well, you're convinced that it can't, and if I'm mistaken, I want to be SHOWN that I'm mistaken, so I can stop being mistaken.
So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I want to know why.
Would have been done already.
... Because as soon as they try and are asked to release the inputs used for the CGI rendering, they will be busted for the FRAUDS they are.
That is why.
What I asked you to do is to show me the maths, seeing as you objected to that specifically. What you just did is to begin talking about maths and then said "they won't release the formulas."
How do you know it's faulty if you yourself haven't even run the numbers? We can explore this further if you want, but for you to say it "does not compute" implies that you've taken the time to actually work out the formulae yourself and SEE that they don't compute.
What you said in the end wasn't an answer to "why does the maths not compute," it was an answer to "why totallackey thinks we can't even access the maths to begin with."
One last thing:[/quote]
Give me the model and give me the inputs used.
I will investigate further.
It's not a calculation for a sphere, it's a calculation for "drop height" along a single axis - the one you're STANDING ON when you face the horizon - perpendicular to the horizon. You need to understand what it is before you can ask me to do anything with it at all.
And yes, friend, I know that light bends when it passes through a medium. That’s why the foreword to the examples clearly states the assumption - because this equation doesn’t factor in the refraction of light.
Here are a few examples I worked out the other day.
EXAMPLES...
Example 1
Given values...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 10 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
Objectives for Example 1...
- solve for d1
- solve for d2
- solve for h1
(d1)
d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
... d1 = sqrt.(.001136^2 + (2(3958.75)).001136)
....... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + (7917.5).001136)
........... d1 = sqrt.(.000013 + 8.99428)
............... d1 = sqrt.(8.994293)
................... d1 = 2.999049 miles
(d2)
d2 = d0 - d1
... d2 = 10 - 2.999049
....... d2 = 7.000951 miles
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75
............... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75
................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.((10 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(7.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(49.013315 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
............... h1 = sqrt.(15671750.575815) - 3958.75
................... h1 = 3958.756190 - 3958.75
....................... h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)
Conclusions for Example 1...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 10 miles
d1 = 2.999049 miles
d2 = 7.000951 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
h1 = 0.00619 mile (32.6832 feet)
................................
................................
Example 2
Given values...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 25 miles
d1 = 2.999049 miles (correlates with h0, remains the same)
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
Objectives for Example 2...
- solve for d2
- solve for h1
(d2)
d2 = d0 - d1
... d2 = 25 - 2.999049
....... d2 = 22.000951 miles
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75
............... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75
................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 2.999049)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(22.000951^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(484.041845 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
............... h1 = sqrt.(15672185.604345) - 3958.75
................... h1 = 3958.811135 - 3958.75
....................... h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)
Conclusions for Example 2...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 25 miles
d1 = 2.999049 miles
d2 = 22.000951 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
h1 = 0.061135 mile (322.7928 feet)
................................
................................
Example 3
Given values...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 25 miles
h0 = 0.009469 mile (50 feet)
Objectives for Example 3...
- solve for d1
- solve for d2
- solve for h1
(d1)
d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
... d1 = sqrt.(.009469^2 + (2(3958.75)).009469)
....... d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + (7917.5).009469)
.......... d1 = sqrt.(0.00009 + 74.970808)
............... d1 = sqrt.(74.970898)
................... d1 = 8.658574 miles
(d2)
d2 = d0 - d1
... d2 = 25 - 8.658574
....... d2 = 16.341426 miles
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75
............... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75
................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.((25 - 8.658574)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(16.341426^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(267.042204 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
............... h1 = sqrt.(15671968.604704) - 3958.75
................... h1 = 3958.783728 - 3958.75
....................... h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)
Conclusions for Example 3...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 25 miles
d1 = 2.999049 miles
d2 = 16.341426 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
h1 = 0.033728 mile (178.08384 feet)
................................
................................
Example 4
Given values...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 100 miles
h0 = 0.018939 mile (100 feet)
Objectives for Example 4...
- solve for d1
- solve for d2
- solve for h1
(d1)
d1 = sqrt.(h0^2 + 2Rh0)
... d1 = sqrt.(0.018939^2 + (2(3958.75))0.018939)
....... d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + (7917.5)0.018939)
.......... d1 = sqrt.(0.000359 + 149.949533)
............... d1 = sqrt.(149.949892)
................... d1 = 12.245403 miles
(d2)
d2 = d0 - d1
... d2 = 100 - 12.245403
....... d2 = 87.754597 miles
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.(d2^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75
............... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75
................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)
(h1)
h1 = sqrt.((d0 - d1)^2 + R^2) - R
... h1 = sqrt.((100 - 12.245403)^2 + 3958.75^2) - 3958.75
....... h1 = sqrt.(87.754597^2 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
........... h1 = sqrt.(7700.869295 + 15671701.5625) - 3958.75
............... h1 = sqrt.(15679402.431795) - 3958.75
................... h1 = 3959.722519 - 3958.75
....................... h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)
Conclusions for Example 4...
R = 3958.75 miles
d0 = 100 miles
d1 = 12.245403 miles
d2 = 87.754597 miles
h0 = 0.001136 mile (6 feet)
h1 = 0.972519 mile (5134.90032 feet)
Have at it.
Graph it out and let me look at it.
How would your math translate to this picture?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ckvlt2gUkAAIgjE.jpg)
-
For a computer model of the solar system, see www.solarsystemscope.com (http://www.solarsystemscope.com).
And, I recommend everyone stop feeding this particular troll. We're way off topic thanks to the lackey
Can't tell if he's trolling or just thick. One is forgivable, within reason.
Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
It's easy to see that any sort of electromagnetic currents or whatever junk science they propose other than nuclear fusion in the Sun cannot produce the neutrinos observed.
Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science.
Where the heck did you get that idea?
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino):
Solar neutrinos constitute by far the largest flux of neutrinos from natural sources observed on Earth, as compared with e.g. atmospheric neutrinos or the diffuse supernova neutrino background.
Natural sources...did you skip that part?
Being the largest subset does not make you the largest set.
I have no reasonable reply...
FTFY...
No need to thank me!
-
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/boyd/stuff/px435/lec_neutrinosources_2016.pdf
This slide deck, on slide 5, has a graph of neutrino flux showing that solar neutrinos are 100 times more prevalent than the next highest source. Remember, that's a log scale graph.
The big chunk of cosmological neutrinos is theoretical, they cannot be detected because of their low energy.
Please provide any evidence you have for your statement "Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science." This statement appears to be false, and I have provided a link to indicate why. Please do me the courtesy of providing evidence instead of baseless assertions.
Or is this some sort of semantic disagreement?
Are you saying that solar neutrinos are not the majority of the measurable flux of neutrinos, or are you saying solar neutrinos are not the majority of actual observed neutrino detector events?
I've been unable to find evidence to support either assertion. Please help.
-
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/boyd/stuff/px435/lec_neutrinosources_2016.pdf
This slide deck, on slide 5, has a graph of neutrino flux showing that solar neutrinos are 100 times more prevalent than the next highest source. Remember, that's a log scale graph.
The big chunk of cosmological neutrinos is theoretical, they cannot be detected because of their low energy.
Please provide any evidence you have for your statement "Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science." This statement appears to be false, and I have provided a link to indicate why. Please do me the courtesy of providing evidence instead of baseless assertions.
Or is this some sort of semantic disagreement?
Are you saying that solar neutrinos are not the majority of the measurable flux of neutrinos, or are you saying solar neutrinos are not the majority of actual observed neutrino detector events?
I've been unable to find evidence to support either assertion. Please help.
The term, "solar," in the case of a neutrino would not necessarily be restricted to the SUN in this case, which would leave it as a purely semantic argument (if one were to accept that indeed naturally occurring nuclear fusion is possible).
https://lappweb.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/ansources.html
This next page explains further that the source accounting still for the most "measured," neutrinos would be the Bing Bang...sorry...Big Bag...sorry...Big Bang...if you really need to accept the sciency speculation...
www.astro.wisc.edu/~larson/Webpage/neutrinos.html
-
It may be worth pointing out that solarsystemscope.com does in fact model rotation of the sun. The lackey was mistaken, or lying.
Their about page (https://www.solarsystemscope.com/about) says simply that they used "orbital parameters published by NASA." I think it's fair to assume these parameters reference Newton and Kepler.
In keeping with the topic, the simplest explanation for totallackey's obnoxious behaviour is they are playing as a denialist troll.
We're done here.
-
It may be worth pointing out that solarsystemscope.com does in fact model rotation of the sun. The lackey was mistaken, or lying.
I wrote "revolutions," hayseed...
I did not see any "revolutions," made by the Sun.
You do know the difference between a rotation and a revolution, right?
If not, then GTFO the board.
With all the planets in tow?
Where?
Their about page (https://www.solarsystemscope.com/about) says simply that they used "orbital parameters published by NASA." I think it's fair to assume these parameters reference Newton and Kepler.
Ante up.
Show the math and the application.
I think it more likely they just plugged in some numbers without applying any of the formulas from Newton or Kepler.
In keeping with the topic, the simplest explanation for totallackey's obnoxious behaviour is they are playing as a denialist troll.
We're done here.
Who is we?
Are you a moderator?
Do you claim some sort of "line of precedence," as if you were royalty?
You got a mouse in your pocket?
-
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/boyd/stuff/px435/lec_neutrinosources_2016.pdf
This slide deck, on slide 5, has a graph of neutrino flux showing that solar neutrinos are 100 times more prevalent than the next highest source. Remember, that's a log scale graph.
The big chunk of cosmological neutrinos is theoretical, they cannot be detected because of their low energy.
Please provide any evidence you have for your statement "Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science." This statement appears to be false, and I have provided a link to indicate why. Please do me the courtesy of providing evidence instead of baseless assertions.
Or is this some sort of semantic disagreement?
Are you saying that solar neutrinos are not the majority of the measurable flux of neutrinos, or are you saying solar neutrinos are not the majority of actual observed neutrino detector events?
I've been unable to find evidence to support either assertion. Please help.
The term, "solar," in the case of a neutrino would not necessarily be restricted to the SUN in this case, which would leave it as a purely semantic argument (if one were to accept that indeed naturally occurring nuclear fusion is possible).
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that I'm suggesting solar doesn't mean related to the sun, or are you saying you're suggesting that? Or are you suggesting that what we think of as solar neutrinos are not from the sun and therefore not truly solar neutrinos? Or something else?
Your original statement on the topic was:
"Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science."
Since you said "According to popular science" I can't believe you are suggesting that solar neutrinos don't come from the sun, because popular science clearly says that solar neutrinos come from the sun.
https://lappweb.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/ansources.html
This next page explains further that the source accounting still for the most "measured," neutrinos would be the Bing Bang...sorry...Big Bag...sorry...Big Bang...if you really need to accept the sciency speculation...
www.astro.wisc.edu/~larson/Webpage/neutrinos.html
Your first link says (emphasis added):
The "standard" model of the Big-Bang predicts, like for the photons, a cosmic background of neutrinos. Those neutrinos, nobody has never seen them.
We have been clearly talking about observed or measured neutrinos, right?
The latest information I have is that as of 2016 a detector was being built that MAY be able to detect such neutrinos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background#Prospects_for_the_direct_detection_of_the_C%CE%BDB
To attempt to remove all ambiguity, here is what I'm saying:
- The highest measured flux of neutrinos on Earth consists of neutrinos from the sun which I and "popular science" call solar neutrinos. Other higher flux sources of neutrinos have not been measured.
-
First problem. Science rarely, if ever, claims to have "all" of anything, let alone "all the
math."
They do when it comes to measuring the LAW of gravity.
That means science is not going to investigate further, they are done with it.
They do when it comes to the speed of light.
They do when it comes to 2 body/3 body orbital mechanics.
They do when it comes to Kepler Laws (notice again LAWS, not theory).
So, every CGI rendering will have to account for these LAWS and it will be readily apparent if these laws were utilized in the CGI creation.
Your argument is hinging on the fact that we call something a "law" versus a "theory" and vice versa.
You're making a similar mistake to what Tom Bishop did in another thread, flailing around terms like "empiricism" and "rationalization" irresponsibly. In the same post, I pointed out pretty cogently that he either doesn't know what those words mean or doesn't care to know, so long as it sounds good to his ears. You're doing something similar here with "law" and "theory."
You have at least a cursory grasp of what the terms mean in everyday speech, but your mistake is that you aren't using them in their scientific context. If you're going to criticize how scientists do science, you should at least try to represent them accurately.
Anything less demonstrates either confusion or a willingness to straw-man your opponent, leading to further confusion. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're only incompetent and not malicious.
Gonna go off topic here for a few paragraphs, so you're welcome to skip past this part and get to the rebuttal on science, I just wanna say a couple things.
...
I'm sincerely reluctant to characterize it in those terms - as in, you're either incompetent or malicious - but there's only so many ways to sugarcoat it. I generally prefer the term "mistaken" over "incompetent." Everybody makes mistakes. I can forgive mistakes. I can only hope you would be willing to do the same for me.
Either way, the point is, it’s difficult enough to tell positively when someone is incompetent or just playing the fool to be malicious (see: trolling, the classic definition). It's precisely BECAUSE of that difficulty that being incompetent is ALMOST as bad as being malicious. It is a COMPLETE waste of time and a DISSERVICE to BOTH parties and SOCIETY AT LARGE to have a conversation like this unless BOTH parties are being intellectually honest, and that means admitting fault, openly and without shame, from time to time.
Like I said, I can forgive someone for being incompetent, but someone owes me a FUCKING apology for wasting my time, and playing dumb in a vain denial of their own confusion and incompetence, if that is indeed the case. Yes, you can take this tone as accusatory. Like I'll say a little later in this reply, "I'm willing to see my suspicion proven wrong, but that depends on" your ability to be logically consistent and intellectually honest.
Whether I'm right or wrong about you, the take-away should be that NOTHING I've just said, other than accusing you personally of course, should be difficult for you to agree with. These should be the terms REGARDLESS of which side of the aisle you're on.
NOBODY should have to waste their FUCKING time on anyone who's just going to dig in their heels and fling shit and ignorance around like a God damn incontinent space monkey until something sticks... or abandon the thread when all else fails.
All I can do is try to practice what I preach for the sake of the discussion, because I can't control whether or not you and others adhere to the same principle. I'm asking you, if I'm wrong about you, to please show me I'm wrong. Please, lackey.
I want to believe that I'm wrong about you. I want to at least believe that you're only incompetent, like I said from the start. I just can't reconcile that desire with the way you conduct yourself in an open forum.
And that's not meant to brow-beat necessarily, or condescend to you from my ivory tower. I been there, dude. I been an ass-hat, refusing to budge. I still do it from time to time. I wager everyone does it, for one reason or another, at some point.
In my case, it's usually when a loved one tells me I need to stop being a fucking fatass, eat right, exercise, get a girlfriend, etc. Even if I deny their cogent criticisms - which at this point, other than lying about what I've eaten that day, I don't deny fault - I still admit to myself, in private, that they're right.
But you gotta at least try, dude. That shit ain't automatic.
If anything, the human brain instinctively refuses to admit when it is mistaken. Did you know that the brain exhibits the "fight or flight" response when presented with new information contradictory to the person's belief? It's a survival mechanism.
My point, in bringing up that little factoid, is that we're better than our instincts, and we gotta fight em' to even come close to something resembling "truth."
That's all I'm saying, dude.
...
I digress...
A scientific "law," for all intents and purposes, is supported by mathematics. It describes something that can be both measured and applied, successfully and repeatedly, to predictive calculations.
The "law" of gravity refers specifically to Newton's law of universal gravitation, which doesn't explain the HOW or the WHY, merely the WHAT, with respect to the force we call "gravity." All Newton did is to measure and comprehend the force itself with enough accuracy that it could be expressed mathematically and applied to predictive calculations. That's why we're able to accurately predict things like where artillery will land, or how fast objects accelerate in a vacuum. All of that is based on the mathematics. I don't know if you think the applied science is just guesswork or what, but it isn't; pretty much every practical model of applied science is first worked out mathematically before being tested in reality.
A scientific "theory," by contrast, is an attempt to compile a large body of observations - usually gathered by applying scientific LAW to specific sets of experiments - into a cohesive, logically consistent, scientifically accurate explanation of the HOW and WHY behind that body of observations.
Einstein's "theory" of general relativity brings "spacetime" into the picture. He THEORIZES that the REASON things fall the way they do has to do with the way gravity bends "spacetime" around massive objects, pulling nearby less massive objects inward. He's not trying to describe or measure WHAT gravity is but rather hypothesizing as to HOW and WHY the force we call "gravity" - the measurable, predictable force described in Newton's "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" - can even be there for us to measure in the first place.
That's a REALLY important distinction to grasp.
With only your surface understanding of the terms "law" and "theory," NONE of what you said about science contradicts anything I said. Laws can always be ameliorated and changed and reconciled with new information, or else they only exist within the boundaries of a given framework. Straight from Wikipedia, you can see a few examples for yourself:
Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.
"Scientific Law," Overview, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law)
So I say again, science DOES NOT claim to have "all the math," just enough for us to form a comprehensive model of reality that we can rely on well enough to make predictions. But that's too wordy for the public at large, so it's much easier to say that we "know" a scientific law "works," and this is partly where the confusion comes from.
With respect to how the stars would be plotted and predicted if indeed it works the way NASA claims, I agree with your final statement; we SHOULD be able to tell, by looking at the math, whether or not NASA's CGI calculations comport with scientific law in reality - whether it "does compute" or "does not compute."
My only objection is that I wasn't contesting that fact. I was responding to your positive claim that the maths "does not compute," which, as I said, IMPLIES that you have done the maths yourself or at least had someone explain it to you.
But you haven't done either of those things, have you?
2 + 2 = 5 "does not compute" unless we're talking about measurements on a non-linear scale, and you and I can see WHY 2 + 2 = 5 "does not compute" at a glance. Something more complex like a parabolic or sinusoidal function or a quadratic equation might take longer to comprehend, but we can still check the maths and see WHY a given function "does not compute." All I was asking you to do is walk us through, step by step, and show us how you came to that does not compute" conclusion. At the very least, you could have shown us your maths so that we could check it ourselves, like I had done with the "drop height" calculation. It's not complicated, just a simple good faith gesture.
I suspect that the reason you didn't simply copy-paste your calculations is because you haven't done anything of the sort, and you're just hand-waving about conspiracy. If you have, show us. If you haven't, then you're just hand-waving about conspiracy. That's all I was objecting to. I'm willing to see my suspicion proven wrong, but that depends on your willingness to open Notepad, load your saved calculations, and paste them here.
And I'm more than happy to show you any of the maths I have at my disposal, but it's generally considered good etiquette to wait until the first claim has been ferreted out before moving on to the next.
I never made a positive claim. What I did is ask you to substantiate your claim that the maths "does not compute." I didn't positively say that the maths proves one thing or another, or at least nothing to do with your claim. I only announced my skepticism that you had actually done the maths.
I then showed you an example of how that process works in an attempt at a good faith gesture. I thought if I showed you how one makes a mathematical statement of fact, demonstrates that statement mathematically, and then shows the maths to allow others to test it for themselves, you would pick up on that right away and respond in kind.
Instead of doing that, you made an irrelevant and totally inaccurate observation about why you think science is wrong because you don't ACTUALLY understand the difference between "law" and "theory." More importantly, as I already said before, you didn't even answer the question; how can you know that the maths "does not compute" unless you've run the numbers yourself or had someone explain it to you?
As soon as I said to you
Surely you should be able to demonstrate for us how and why the maths "does not compute."
that should have set off alarm bells in your mathematical mind that all blared "SHOW HIM THE MATHS" at a fever pitch.
As soon as your eyeballs scrolled across those words on your screen, proving me wrong - walking us through the maths, or at least showing your maths and your terms, as I did - really shouldn't be that difficult for someone who speaks as stridently as you do. In other words, you talk like you really know what you're talking about. One would think you could demonstrate the maths and why it's wrong as easily as you dismissed it.
I won't repeat myself again; you didn't even answer the question. Thinking, somehow, that you had done so, you then moved quickly along to quote my maths and foist upon me the burden of proof, eager to off load it from your own shoulders.
I feel compelled to remind you once more that I never made a positive claim. I asked you to show me the maths, then I demonstrated how someone does that by showing you ( A ) the "8 inches per mile squared" measurement is not correct, ( B ) what the correct calculation for curvature and specifically "drop height" looks like, and ( C ) how one demonstrates a mathematical statement by SHOWING THE MATHS.
You even had the gall to ask me to find and provide the NASA calculations for you when I asked you to demonstrate your affirmative statement about them. Surely you have to realize how transparent that makes your claim of "does not compute."
You could always simply concede that you HAVEN'T done the maths and you're ONLY hand-waving about conspiracy. That would be FAR more honest and worthy of respect and honor than the song and dance you've put on display here. Though, to be fair, the latter is a pretty low bar to clear.
This next section here is a bit confusing. I'd like you to expand on your responses, if you would, please:
Citation please. Where did you hear this, and just how uncertain are we really?
Would have been done already.
What would have been done already?
Well, you're convinced that it can't, and if I'm mistaken, I want to be SHOWN that I'm mistaken, so I can stop being mistaken.
So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I want to know why.
Would have been done already.
What would have been done already? I'm not trying to fuck with you or anything; your answers here are really terse and vague and not helpful at all.
What I asked you to do is to show me the maths, seeing as you objected to that specifically. What you just did is to begin talking about maths and then said "they won't release the formulas."
How do you know it's faulty if you yourself haven't even run the numbers? We can explore this further if you want, but for you to say it "does not compute" implies that you've taken the time to actually work out the formulae yourself and SEE that they don't compute.
What you said in the end wasn't an answer to "why does the maths not compute," it was an answer to "why totallackey thinks we can't even access the maths to begin with."
Give me the model and give me the inputs used.
I will investigate further.
I feel like this is proof positive that you haven't actually run the numbers, ever.
This is just me talking, but don't say things like "the math does not compute" unless you know for a fact that it doesn't. Maths aren't guesswork you can just fling shit at until it sticks, rather they are built on solid, logical principles and mechanics. If your arguments are any indication, you could stand to benefit from studying mathematics a bit more closely.
As far as your request that I go and fetch the formulae that you claimed "does not compute," we can spend a little time investigating together and do just that, but let's just be clear; you've never run the numbers and therefore you don't know whether or not they "does not compute.” What you’ve done is merely assert that they MUST not compute, because conspiracy. Again, if you had only come out and SAID THAT, rather than say something you KNOW isn’t true, that would be way more honest and respectable than saying something like "it does not compute" when in fact you have no idea one way or the other.
For someone who likes to lay into people who don't provide direct proof for their assertions, you seem to follow a "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy when it comes to having your own assertions challenged.
It's not a calculation for a sphere, it's a calculation for "drop height" along a single axis - the one you're STANDING ON when you face the horizon - perpendicular to the horizon. You need to understand what it is before you can ask me to do anything with it at all.
And yes, friend, I know that light bends when it passes through a medium. That’s why the foreword to the examples clearly states the assumption - because this equation doesn’t factor in the refraction of light.
Here are a few examples I worked out the other day:
...
Have at it.
Graph it out and let me look at it.
I don't really have access to a graphing simulator at the moment, though I'd be willing to do the legwork if that's what you insist on. Instead, I can show you an example image, straight from the source of the method in question.
(https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dizzib/earthcalc/master/calc-method.png)
You can also play with the virtual calculator on GitHub, here:
Earth Curve Calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial)
How would your math translate to this picture?
I promise to address that question in my next post. That image looks like it deserves some time and attention before I can reconcile it in a way that makes any sense to you, and I've already spent a lot of time on this response so far. Be patient with me, and I promise I'll address this question.
-
Realistically, we would probably not call Newton's Laws "laws" if they were discovered today. We'd call them Theories, because we know that we might discover further edge cases down the road.
Einstein's theory of relativity, if it were treated the way Newton's laws are, should be called a law. Quantum theory should be called a law. But we have learned as a species that calling anything a scientific law is hubris.
-
Realistically, we would probably not call Newton's Laws "laws" if they were discovered today. We'd call them Theories, because we know that we might discover further edge cases down the road.
Einstein's theory of relativity, if it were treated the way Newton's laws are, should be called a law. Quantum theory should be called a law. But we have learned as a species that calling anything a scientific law is hubris.
Having trouble wrapping my head around what you're attempting to convey. Can you expand on your point?
-
The point is that (in my opinion) Newton's Laws were called laws not because they were better theories than relativity or quantum theory, but that at the time they were named humans had the hubris to think we could determine once and for all Scientific Truth rather than what we understand now as an ongoing quest for ever improving models that can never truly be proved correct - they can only fail to be proven incorrect.
Now we know that we could discover edge cases that make a theory not perfect, so we shouldn't call things a law.
EDIT to add: I realize this puts me at odds with the "laws are just rules, theories include a 'why'" distinction - I mean this more in a practical sense. I think using the word "law" is misleading and always has been, because often laws are incorrect or incomplete (as Newton's laws are) and the word theory encapsulates this better.
-
The point is that (in my opinion) Newton's Laws were called laws not because they were better theories than relativity or quantum theory, but that at the time they were named humans had the hubris to think we could determine once and for all Scientific Truth rather than what we understand now as an ongoing quest for ever improving models that can never truly be proved correct - they can only fail to be proven incorrect.
Now we know that we could discover edge cases that make a theory not perfect, so we shouldn't call things a law.
EDIT to add: I realize this puts me at odds with the "laws are just rules, theories include a 'why'" distinction - I mean this more in a practical sense. I think using the word "law" is misleading and always has been, because often laws are incorrect or incomplete (as Newton's laws are) and the word theory encapsulates this better.
To me, this sounds a lot like lackey's confusion over the common parlance use of the terms vs. the scientific context.
I appreciate the point you're making, but you're reading a lot of that hubris and other stuff into the situation. The scientists and men who you seem to be accusing of hubris had a totally different understanding of the way the words "law" and "theory" are used, and that is where the disconnect exists between what you're observing and why they chose to use the words they use.
I agree that it's confusing. That doesn't make it inconsistent or whatever you're saying. I defer to something I said to lackey:
So I say again, science DOES NOT claim to have "all the math," just enough for us to form a comprehensive model of reality that we can rely on well enough to make predictions. But that's too wordy for the public at large, so it's much easier to say that we "know" a scientific law "works," and this is partly where the confusion comes from.
If you get hubris from that description, I don't know what to tell you. It's just mathematical principles vs. hypothesizing about the way the world works to the best approximation we can manage with the limited tools at our disposal. Nothing hubristic about it, in my personal opinion.
-
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that I'm suggesting solar doesn't mean related to the sun, or are you saying you're suggesting that? Or are you suggesting that what we think of as solar neutrinos are not from the sun and therefore not truly solar neutrinos? Or something else?
Your original statement on the topic was:
"Most of the neutrinos observed do not even come from the Sun, according to popular science."
Since you said "According to popular science" I can't believe you are suggesting that solar neutrinos don't come from the sun, because popular science clearly says that solar neutrinos come from the sun.
Not according to this source:
'Solar neutrinos = They come along with the process of thermonuclear fusion inside the stars (our sun or any other star in the universe)." - https://lappweb.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/ansources.html
https://lappweb.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/ansources.html
This next page explains further that the source accounting still for the most "measured," neutrinos would be the Bing Bang...sorry...Big Bag...sorry...Big Bang...if you really need to accept the sciency speculation...
www.astro.wisc.edu/~larson/Webpage/neutrinos.html
Your first link says (emphasis added):
The "standard" model of the Big-Bang predicts, like for the photons, a cosmic background of neutrinos. Those neutrinos, nobody has never seen them.
We have been clearly talking about observed or measured neutrinos, right?
The latest information I have is that as of 2016 a detector was being built that MAY be able to detect such neutrinos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background#Prospects_for_the_direct_detection_of_the_C%CE%BDB
To attempt to remove all ambiguity, here is what I'm saying:
- The highest measured flux of neutrinos on Earth consists of neutrinos from the sun which I and "popular science" call solar neutrinos. Other higher flux sources of neutrinos have not been measured.
The second source I provided states very clearly:
"The Big Bang
The greatest source of neutrinos happened some 15 billion years ago. The neutrino was first created 10-4 seconds after the big bang. Then at only 1 second after the big bang the universe became transparent to the neutrino allowing them to travel freely through space. At this time the universe had a temperature of about 3*1010. Since the time of the big bang the universe expanded and cooled and continues to expand to this day. There are about 330 million of these neutrinos per m3; however, these neutrinos have very low energy. They form a cosmic background radiation that is only 2.73 degrees Kelvin today. By studying these neutrinos scientists are able to learn about the universe when it was forming." - http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~larson/Webpage/neutrinos.html
Now, you can understand why I take all of these sciency sites as a bunch of cow dung, because in order to study something (as the last sentence in the quoted paragraph reads), I would think one would need to actually be able to see some evidence of its existence.
So, I stand by my claim.
That claim and one dollar will ultimately buy me one cup of coffee at McDonald's. Lucky for me, I like McDonald's coffee.
As far as I can tell, you find yourself in the same position.
Do you like McDonald's coffee?
Do you need a dollar?
-
Edited for brevity...
I feel like this is proof positive that you haven't actually run the numbers, ever.
This is just me talking, but don't say things like "the math does not compute" unless you know for a fact that it doesn't. Maths aren't guesswork you can just fling shit at until it sticks, rather they are built on solid, logical principles and mechanics. If your arguments are any indication, you could stand to benefit from studying mathematics a bit more closely.
As far as your request that I go and fetch the formulae that you claimed "does not compute," we can spend a little time investigating together and do just that, but let's just be clear; you've never run the numbers and therefore you don't know whether or not they "does not compute.” What you’ve done is merely assert that they MUST not compute, because conspiracy.
You are correct.
I have not run the numbers.
The numbers provided for ANY CGI representation of the COMPLETE movement of the Solar System obviously compute out to that particular rendering; however, there is no rendering demonstrating the "textbook model."
Further, there is no release of the data inputs used for the rendering.
Further, I will not go so far as to label it a conspiracy, but the fact they do not freely supply those inputs and the fact they are not openly labeled as "soundly based on all applicable theories and LAWS from Newton, Kepler, etc." tends to bring to one's mind the behavior of the NIST and and its modeling of WTC7. The NIST will not release its data inputs either.
Again, if you had only come out and SAID THAT, rather than say something you KNOW isn’t true, that would be way more honest and respectable than saying something like "it does not compute" when in fact you have no idea one way or the other.
First, I know what a LAW is.
I know what a THEORY is.
And I know you are not going to sit here and challenge Kepler or Newton when it comes to orbital mechanics, gravity, or thermodynamics (I will on the first two, but that is because I do not accept RE or the heliocentric model).
That does not change my stance I believe I made an honest statement, whether or not I have run the numbers.
I do not believe a CGI representation of the Solar System (utilizing the LAWS of Kepler or Newton) exists or can exist because:
1) The outcome (if truly utilizing Newton and Kepler formulas and correctly applying the Laws), will clearly demonstrate the heliocentric model as false;
2) The outcome, if clearly supporting heliocentricity, will have some inputs made up by some Joe Schmo from Toledo, OH, and will be completely devoid of any inputs reflecting the works of Newton or Kepler.
For someone who likes to lay into people who don't provide direct proof for their assertions, you seem to follow a "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy when it comes to having your own assertions challenged.
Not at all.
Once the CGI is rendered and released, I can look and see the inputs are legitimate, I will pretty much shut up.
It's not a calculation for a sphere, it's a calculation for "drop height" along a single axis - the one you're STANDING ON when you face the horizon - perpendicular to the horizon. You need to understand what it is before you can ask me to do anything with it at all.
And yes, friend, I know that light bends when it passes through a medium. That’s why the foreword to the examples clearly states the assumption - because this equation doesn’t factor in the refraction of light.
Here are a few examples I worked out the other day:
...
Have at it.
Graph it out and let me look at it.
I don't really have access to a graphing simulator at the moment, though I'd be willing to do the legwork if that's what you insist on. Instead, I can show you an example image, straight from the source of the method in question.
(https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dizzib/earthcalc/master/calc-method.png)
You can also play with the virtual calculator on GitHub, here:
Earth Curve Calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial)
How would your math translate to this picture?
I promise to address that question in my next post. That image looks like it deserves some time and attention before I can reconcile it in a way that makes any sense to you, and I've already spent a lot of time on this response so far. Be patient with me, and I promise I'll address this question.
Hey, I appreciate it.
Thanks for writing back.
-
You are correct.
I have not run the numbers.
Thank you. Honesty after the fact is better than none at all.
Please continue.
The numbers provided for ANY CGI representation of the COMPLETE movement of the Solar System obviously compute out to that particular rendering; however, there is no rendering demonstrating the "textbook model."
Further, there is no release of the data inputs used for the rendering.
Further, I will not go so far as to label it a conspiracy, but the fact they do not freely supply those inputs and the fact they are not openly labeled as "soundly based on all applicable theories and LAWS from Newton, Kepler, etc." tends to bring to one's mind the behavior of the NIST and and its modeling of WTC7. The NIST will not release its data inputs either.
Okay, but is that really the case?
I'm agnostic on this, so I'm more than willing to accept your claim if we could conclude, after a rigorous search, that no such "textbook model" exists. To reiterate; my only objection to begin with had to do with your claim that the math "does not compute," which wouldn't be accurate even if we DID agree that no such model exists. If you had simply said from the start that you DOUBT it computes, BECAUSE you've found no textbook model, we might be having a totally different conversation right now.
In any case, I'll accept your claim about the lack of information on face value for the sake of the discussion until we can investigate further. Let's move on.
First, I know what a LAW is.
I know what a THEORY is.
I'm sorry, but your argument demonstrated the opposite.
I don't think you know what either of those words mean, scientifically speaking. At best, you have a surface understanding of the meaning of those terms, but as I said, your argument demonstrates your misunderstanding clearly.
In your attempt to demonstrate how terms like "law" and "theory" support your claim that science claims to have "all the math" - or "all the answers," if I may lift the veil of subtext so we can be a bit more direct - you show that you either don't understand or don't care to understand the flexibility of scientific theory and the limited application of scientific law.
Both of these facts - the flexibility of theory and the limited application of law - show that any scientist worth his salt WILL acknowledge that he DOESN'T have all the answers and he CAN'T explain all of the contradictions and finite application of those facts. This is why scientists have been seeking a "unified theory" since time immemorial, because there's ALWAYS something we don't know.
I can understand where you're coming from if what you're responding to is the charicature or archetype we know as the strident, high-brow, condescending scientist looking down his nose from atop his intellectual ivory tower at anyone who disagrees with him. Mistaking that attitude as a representation of what science is and how it works is a bit like having a chip on your shoulder with respect to Christianity and religion because the only sects you pay any mind to are Westboro Baptist Church and the Taliban.
I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point, unless you want to take another whack at trying to convince me otherwise.
That does not change my stance I believe I made an honest statement, whether or not I have run the numbers.
Oh for fuck's sake, man.
If you were being honest, what you would have said is, "Because I'm convinced that we can't find the numbers anywhere, and I believe this is intentional due to the conspiracy, I can say confidently that the numbers either do not comport with scientific and mathematical law, or else have been tampered with. For these reasons, I don't have to run them myself."
But that's not what you said. Not even close.
I'll agree to let this go if you want to call it a semantic disagreement, but try to be more careful about making affirmative statements about maths you have neither seen for yourself nor had anyone explain to you.
Let's move on...
I do not believe a CGI representation of the Solar System (utilizing the LAWS of Kepler or Newton) exists or can exist because:
1) The outcome (if truly utilizing Newton and Kepler formulas and correctly applying the Laws), will clearly demonstrate the heliocentric model as false;
2) The outcome, if clearly supporting heliocentricity, will have some inputs made up by some Joe Schmo from Toledo, OH, and will be completely devoid of any inputs reflecting the works of Newton or Kepler.
You are basing this on two unstable foundations:
1 ) The fact that YOU PERSONALLY have never found the formulae, and
2 ) The fact that you already believe a conspiracy exists.
You are just hand-waving about conspiracy when it comes to these numbers. Stop trying to characterize it as something else and just be honest and straightforward. Either learn to distinguish one argument from another or stop playacting at being able to form a coherent argument in the first place.
Not at all.
Once the CGI is rendered and released, I can look and see the inputs are legitimate, I will pretty much shut up.
Let's try to go through this step by step... like an equation...
You made a claim that the maths "does not compute."
I asked you to demonstrate this by showing us the maths. The only way you could POSSIBLY demonstrate this claim affirmatively is by either showing us the maths or explaining it to us exactly as someone else explained it to you.
I gave you an example of how the former is done by referring to the "8 inches per mile squared" fallacy and showing you what the ACTUAL maths behind curvature and drop height looks like.
Not only did you NOT show the maths, you didn't even answer the question. Instead you told us why you THINK you can't find the formulae anywhere. You didn't provide any evidence supporting your first claim about how the maths "does not compute." Instead you made an empty claim about conspiracy to try and justify the first claim.
Not only that, when you finally looked at my math, you completely misunderstood what it was even showing - telling me to translate a two-dimensional drop height calculation to a three-dimensional sphere, hurr durr - and then had the gall to tell me to go and find the NASA formulae FOR you rather than simply owning up to the fact, right then and there, that you never did any maths in the first place.
You are not practicing what you preach with respect to providing empty claims, sir. I am not saying this to simply admonish you. If I were in your position, I would want someone to set me straight, and I would take a serious attempt to do so at face value.
I promise to address that question in my next post. That image looks like it deserves some time and attention before I can reconcile it in a way that makes any sense to you, and I've already spent a lot of time on this response so far. Be patient with me, and I promise I'll address this question.
Hey, I appreciate it.
Thanks for writing back.
Likewise.
-
Long drawn out treatise essentially telling me to eat shit and die.
Especially given the fact there is no CGI model presented of the Solar System based on the Laws of Kepler and the Laws of Newton.
Especially given the fact (even though you stated you would) the reply contained no work relative to the graph I presented.
No, instead you want to keep yammering on by my statement on my lack of formulas/computations or my lack of doing them etc, etc...you knew the fucking point i was making to begin with and wanted to desperately try and hang your hat on something as to avoid the real subject.
Look, the bottom fucking line is this...
Do you all got the CGI model or not?
If so, is it based on the fucking LAWS of Kepler, Newton?
If it is, let's see it and the fucking math behind it.
If not, then that is some damning evidence against the fucking heliocentric model.
The reason that is damning evidence = BECAUSE SCIENCE CURRENTLY CLAIMS IT KNOWS BEYOND DOUBT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, ACTS LIKE, ETC...
And, since it all relies on MATH to provide the picture, and because we have computers that can provide the picture as long as the math is available, then easy peasy, japanesy...
And yeah, they are fucking LAWS, as in INVIOLATE.
So, chop...chop...ante up!
Oh, and by the way...
You got any argument against the graph I presented as far as not adequately representing the curvature of the Earth?
-
Long drawn out treatise essentially telling me to eat shit and die.
Especially given the fact there is no CGI model presented of the Solar System based on the Laws of Kepler and the Laws of Newton.
How do you know this?
Especially given the fact (even though you stated you would) contained no work relative to the graph I presented.
I'mma get around to it, settle down.
No, instead you want to keep yammering on by my statement on computations or my lack of doing them etc, etc...you knew the fucking point i was making to begin with and wanted to try and hang your hat on something as to avoid the real subject.
I did know the point you were trying to make, I just objected to the way you went about doing it; i.e., dishonestly.
I didn't do this to try and avoid anything. We would be talking about your graphic right now if you hadn't decided to start dancing in circles around the inherently problematic reasoning behind your claim.
I could linger on it further, but I told you that I'm willing to agree to disagree and say that this was merely a semantic disagreement on the way you used the expression "it does not compute."
I just wanted at least one chance to object to your first claim, then an opportunity to respond to your rebuttal. After that, I generally don't press the issue any further unless I think I haven't been communicating clearly.
Look, the bottom fucking line is this...
Do you all got the CGI model or not?
If so, is it based on the fucking LAWS of Kepler, Newton?
If it is, let's see it and the fucking math behind it.
If not, then that is some damning evidence against the fucking heliocentric model.
And yeah, they are fucking LAWS, as in INVIOLATE.
So, chop...chop...ante up!
Like I said, we can hash that out, I just wanted to fully ferret out your first claim about the maths.
Oh, and by the way...
You got any argument against the graph I presented as far as not adequately representing the curvature of the Earth?
Yeah, this makes the second time in one post you've mentioned that. Settle down, Kathy. I'm getting to it.
-
Long drawn out treatise essentially telling me to eat shit and die.
Especially given the fact there is no CGI model presented of the Solar System based on the Laws of Kepler and the Laws of Newton.
How do you know this?
Got one or not...
Once you do have it, come back, present it, and the formulas behind it for an open, independent inspection, and if proven to be legitimate, I will STFU.
I did know the point you were trying to make, I just objected to the way you went about doing it; i.e., dishonestly.
Cheese is available for this whine in AR...
I didn't do this to try and avoid anything. We would be talking about your graphic right now if you hadn't decided to start dancing in circles around the inherently problematic reasoning behind your claim.
I could linger on it further, but I told you that I'm willing to agree to disagree and say that this was merely a semantic disagreement on the way you used the expression "it does not compute."
I just wanted at least one chance to object to your first claim, then an opportunity to respond to your rebuttal. After that, I generally don't press the issue any further unless I think I haven't been communicating clearly.
Like I said, if you knew the point, then it was not me wasting any time trying to bury the essential point behind a wall of text.
That was you focusing on the haystack, rather than the needle.
Like I said, we can hash that out, I just wanted to fully ferret out your first claim about the maths.
No, that was trying to figuratively bury a live grenade.
Yeah, this makes the second time in one post you've mentioned that. Settle down, Kathy. I'm getting to it.
Thanks, sparky!
-
Long drawn out treatise essentially telling me to eat shit and die.
Especially given the fact there is no CGI model presented of the Solar System based on the Laws of Kepler and the Laws of Newton.
How do you know this?
Got one or not...
Once you do have it, come back, present it, and the formulas behind it for an open, independent inspection, and if proven to be legitimate, I will STFU.
So I've got this one: http://project-metis.com/SolarSystem/ It has sources for it's equations. Being unfamiliar with the two laws you are speaking of I'll leave it for you and Supaluminus to dissect.
This one: https://www.solarsystemscope.com/ Says it's information is based on that given by NASA. I'm unfortunately having some difficulty finding any equations on the NASA sites referencing orbital parameters that this site mentions. Will keep looking, although they DO have an email that might prove fruitful in asking them for/about said equations.
Last one: https://sketchfab.com/models/528fe35f29944549b4d61d00e22c9b33 Is a very basic seeming model, and unfortunately doesn't provide much information on how it was constructed. Just wanted to include it as something created by what appears to be an individual rather than a team.
-
Got one or not...
Once you do have it, come back, present it, and the formulas behind it for an open, independent inspection, and if proven to be legitimate, I will STFU.
... Honestly, at this point, I'm not liking my odds of you shutting the fuck up or doing anything even vaguely resembling concession, regardless of what I accomplish, true or untrue.
I'm going to humor you with the calculations n'shit, I just want to remind you that it was you who made the claim, in so many words, that the maths basically aren't there or have been tampered with. You made a claim without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence, but I'm going to humor you.
The least you could do in exchange is try to observe a few basic principles of logical consistency and honesty.
Cheese is available for this whine in AR...
I don't know why you're making light of my objection to you being dishonest about what you know and don't know regarding mathematics in a discussion about mathematics, but that's none of my business.
Like I said, if you knew the point, then it was not me wasting any time trying to bury the essential point behind a wall of text.
That was you focusing on the haystack, rather than the needle.
I will grant you that I talk a lot, but every word of that "long and drawn out treatise" and every other ounce of effort I've put into attempting to reach you has been substantive, my combative compadre.
... You really should read that spoiler text, if you haven't. I don't know what more I can do than that to try and convey my intentions to you earnestly.
I'll try and keep it to just the Cliff's Notes, if you're having such a hard time digesting everything at once.
No, that was trying to figuratively bury a live grenade.
We'll see if it's a grenade or a pop rock, just chill out.
-
How would your math translate to this picture?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_2Tr2duLDCw/WGrsgRPuZMI/AAAAAAADHHo/ckiJAQ8WMJMDe9NH7Ms06Kxap9uF2E1HgCJoC/w871-h673/wrong%2Bcalcuation%2Bby%2BMichael%2BJ%2BKahnke%2Bet%2Bal.jpg)
Hope you don't mind, I replaced your original link with a higher resolution version of the same image.
So... I have the answer to this question, but before I invest another second into attempting to educate you, lackey, I want to know that you're actually listening. Are you ready for this, or do you want to keep flinging shit around, hoping it sticks?
I'll get to your other question regarding the motions of the stars soon enough, but this question came first. It was an interesting trek through the internet for me to find the answer, but I'm back and ready to share with you what I've learned.
-
Long drawn out treatise essentially telling me to eat shit and die.
Especially given the fact there is no CGI model presented of the Solar System based on the Laws of Kepler and the Laws of Newton.
How do you know this?
Got one or not...
Once you do have it, come back, present it, and the formulas behind it for an open, independent inspection, and if proven to be legitimate, I will STFU.
So I've got this one: http://project-metis.com/SolarSystem/ It has sources for it's equations. Being unfamiliar with the two laws you are speaking of I'll leave it for you and Supaluminus to dissect.
My immediate objection to this model would be this statement found in the tab, "Calculations":
"The following formulas are used to calculate the position of each planet. Certain assumptions are made and therefore the positions are only approximations."
Why is there a need to make assumptions? Textbooks state, yea SCIENCE states, "WE KNOW!"
Further reading from the "Calculations," tab:
"However, by assuming that eccentricity is 0 (the orbit of the planet is a perfect circle), the true anomoly becomes the mean anomoly (M)."
No orbit of any planet, as far as I am aware, is described as a perfect circle.
Plus, no depiction of the Sun making any revolutions around the Milky Way (that I could find anyway)...
So, I reject this CGI representation as bogus.
This one: https://www.solarsystemscope.com/ Says it's information is based on that given by NASA. I'm unfortunately having some difficulty finding any equations on the NASA sites referencing orbital parameters that this site mentions. Will keep looking, although they DO have an email that might prove fruitful in asking them for/about said equations.
Yeah, no equations and no depiction of the Sun making any revolutions around the Milky Way.
Last one: https://sketchfab.com/models/528fe35f29944549b4d61d00e22c9b33 Is a very basic seeming model, and unfortunately doesn't provide much information on how it was constructed. Just wanted to include it as something created by what appears to be an individual rather than a team.
It is very basic. Claims to be to scale, but I doubt that claim, given the textbook size of the Sun and then the perceived distance to orbits of the planets. Does not appear to depict the orbits as anything but perfect circles in most instances.
-
Got one or not...
Once you do have it, come back, present it, and the formulas behind it for an open, independent inspection, and if proven to be legitimate, I will STFU.
... Honestly, at this point, I'm not liking my odds of you shutting the fuck up or doing anything even vaguely resembling concession, regardless of what I accomplish, true or untrue.
Rest assured, I will.
I am very convinced that computers could render a CGI representation of the entire Solar System moving around the galaxy.
People do it right now!
Unfortunately, when pressed for the numbers, they include no reference to the very persons responsible for our current understanding of the heliocentric model, Newton and Kepler.
I'm going to humor you with the calculations n'shit, I just want to remind you that it was you who made the claim, in so many words, that the maths basically aren't there or have been tampered with. You made a claim without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence, but I'm going to humor you.
Oh goody!
The least you could do in exchange is try to observe a few basic principles of logical consistency and honesty.
I have.
You hanging your hat on my supposed inability to communicate (yet at the same time acknowledging you clearly understood and grasped my ultimate point) simply indicates the intent on your part of erecting a massive wall of text to bury my point.
I don't know why you're making light of my objection to you being dishonest about what you know and don't know regarding mathematics in a discussion about mathematics, but that's none of my business.
I know enough about the subject of math to ascertain whether or not the required math is being utilized. And if I do not, I have a friend that works at Fermi that can set me straight. My brother-in-law also has a degree in mechanical engineering and would set me straight. I have no real reason to believe you would not set me or the members straight. So, let us get on with it shall we...
I will grant you that I talk a lot, but every word of that "long and drawn out treatise" and every other ounce of effort I've put into attempting to reach you has been substantive, my combative compadre.
... You really should read that spoiler text, if you haven't.
Okay, read the spoiler text...like I wrote earlier, quit pretending you did not comprehend my ultimate point of contention (an offense more egregious, IMHO, than that of which you accused me) and get on with it...
I don't know what more I can do than that to try and convey my intentions to you earnestly.
Quit pretending you do not realize my real point of contention.
I'll try and keep it to just the Cliff's Notes, if you're having such a hard time digesting everything at once.
Fine and dandy.
We'll see if it's a grenade or a pop rock, just chill out.
Okey doke.
-
How would your math translate to this picture?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_2Tr2duLDCw/WGrsgRPuZMI/AAAAAAADHHo/ckiJAQ8WMJMDe9NH7Ms06Kxap9uF2E1HgCJoC/w871-h673/wrong%2Bcalcuation%2Bby%2BMichael%2BJ%2BKahnke%2Bet%2Bal.jpg)
Hope you don't mind, I replaced your original link with a higher resolution version of the same image.
Not at all.
I very much appreciate it!
So... I have the answer to this question, but before I invest another second into attempting to educate you, lackey, I want to know that you're actually listening. Are you ready for this, or do you want to keep flinging shit around, hoping it sticks?
I do not think our little tet' a' tet' would or could be characterized as "me,""... not listening."
I'll get to your other question regarding the motions of the stars soon enough, but this question came first. It was an interesting trek through the internet for me to find the answer, but I'm back and ready to share with you what I've learned.
Thanks!
-
Whoever made that picture lacks some pretty basic mathematics...
That's a rather complicated formula for measuring a rather irrelevant "drop"; we usually define drop by the "down" direction, which points toward the center of the circle, not some arbitrary one that's been picked.
There's no trigonometry required, and the fact that whoever made that picture doesn't understand that makes me question his/her/their credentials. The equation in Quadrant I of a circular curve is y=sqrt(r^2-x^2). So I don't see why it takes all that complicated numerical computation to figure this out. The equation for the "drop" (not really a drop, and I don't see how this figure would be relevant to occluded buildings) is simply 3959 - sqrt(3959^2 - d^2). The fact that the creator(s) of the image uses complicated trigonometry to find out exactly the same thing I've found should say something about his/her/their experience with mathematics.
As for the straight lines thing: yes this is true, you cannot draw straight lines on the surface of a sphere (pretty obvious, eh?); but if the sphere gets large enough, you can get something rather close.
-
Whoever made that picture lacks some pretty basic mathematics...
So, please detail what is wrong with the accompanying chart...
That's a rather complicated formula for measuring a rather irrelevant "drop"; we usually define drop by the "down" direction, which points toward the center of the circle, not some arbitrary one that's been picked.
State your problem with the chart, please.
There's no trigonometry required, and the fact that whoever made that picture doesn't understand that makes me question his/her/their credentials. The equation in Quadrant I of a circular curve is y=sqrt(r^2-x^2). So I don't see why it takes all that complicated numerical computation to figure this out. The equation for the "drop" (not really a drop, and I don't see how this figure would be relevant to occluded buildings) is simply 3959 - sqrt(3959^2 - d^2). The fact that the creator(s) of the image uses complicated trigonometry to find out exactly the same thing I've found should say something about his/her/their experience with mathematics.
So, there is no problem with the chart or the graphical representation of the fictitious ball earth...
As for the straight lines thing: yes this is true, you cannot draw straight lines on the surface of a sphere (pretty obvious, eh?); but if the sphere gets large enough, you can get something rather close.
Okay, all of this writing to essentially agree with whole graphic I presented...
So, tell us Mr. "I bandy Dunning Kruger because I find it a fashionable meme," what exactly is the name of the effect for making long drawn out contributions such as the one you did here?
-
charts n’graphics n’trig n’shit
Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you yet.
The short answer is, they didn’t convert to radians.
The long answer involves a swan dive down the rabbit-hole and tells us some history about how the degree came to exist as a unit of measurement for angles, and why it isn’t an accurate unit of measurement for scales of this size. We goin' on a field trip to Babylon, dawg.
What I wanted to do is to provide some visual aids and a recording to walk you through them, because this shit is really obscure, easy to miss, and a little confusing at first. I didn’t know anything about what I found in the process of investigating this chart, so please don’t take this as condescension - it was hard for me to wrap my own head around at first.
Anyway, I’m at work right now, but I can get this done tonight when I get home. Then we can discard this chart for being... completely irrelevant, and finally move on to our conversation about the movements of the stars n’galaxies n’shit.
-
charts n’graphics n’trig n’shit
Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you yet.
The short answer is, they didn’t convert to radians.
The long answer involves a swan dive down the rabbit-hole and tells us some history about how the degree came to exist as a unit of measurement for angles, and why it isn’t an accurate unit of measurement for scales of this size. We goin' on a field trip to Babylon, dawg.
What I wanted to do is to provide some visual aids and a recording to walk you through them, because this shit is really obscure, easy to miss, and a little confusing at first. I didn’t know anything about what I found in the process of investigating this chart, so please don’t take this as condescension - it was hard for me to wrap my own head around at first.
Anyway, I’m at work right now, but I can get this done tonight when I get home. Then we can discard this chart for being... completely irrelevant, and finally move on to our conversation about the movements of the stars n’galaxies n’shit.
Thank you.
-
charts n’graphics n’trig n’shit
Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you yet.
The short answer is, they didn’t convert to radians.
The long answer involves a swan dive down the rabbit-hole and tells us some history about how the degree came to exist as a unit of measurement for angles, and why it isn’t an accurate unit of measurement for scales of this size. We goin' on a field trip to Babylon, dawg.
What I wanted to do is to provide some visual aids and a recording to walk you through them, because this shit is really obscure, easy to miss, and a little confusing at first. I didn’t know anything about what I found in the process of investigating this chart, so please don’t take this as condescension - it was hard for me to wrap my own head around at first.
Anyway, I’m at work right now, but I can get this done tonight when I get home. Then we can discard this chart for being... completely irrelevant, and finally move on to our conversation about the movements of the stars n’galaxies n’shit.
Thank you.
So, while I was going through some of the terms we're gonna need to go over, I realized we're gonna need to go over "cosine," "arcsin," and a few other things that are gonna take me some time. I'm gonna try to get it done tonight but I'm heading out to hang with friends, so it might not be until late. Bear with me, tiger.
-
What's supposed to be the problem with that picture? It's got two ways to calculate the same number - why is that a problem?
-
What's supposed to be the problem with that picture? It's got two ways to calculate the same number - why is that a problem?
It grows exponentially inaccurate with distance due to the way it measures the angle (θ) between a given two radii. They forgot to convert degrees to radians.
Understanding what that means took me like 30-45 minutes of research, so if you don't understand it, just gimme time to put everything together.
-
The biggest problem with that picture is it measures a useless quantity. Towers and tall buildings stand normal to the surface, but clearly Flat Earth people cannot understand this. I don't understand what you hope to prove with that picture; the numbers are actually fairly accurate if you use the formula I gave (3959 - sqrt(3959^2 - distance^2)) as a comparison.
What I'm saying is that whoever made the chart is not wrong mathematically; however, this person is clearly a dilettante in mathematics if he has to use two different methods to take care of the various numerical issues calculating trig functions if there's such an easy derivation of the formula (that's mathematically the same).
I seriously don't know what you're trying to prove with the picture; the measurements are mostly correct, but largely irrelevant to proving FE. They do not represent a "drop" in the scientific sense because a "drop" is defined to be downward, and there's no concept of a drop over a distance on a sphere. Any novice in geometry can tell you that. The fact that you don't know that tells you something about how well you've researched Round Earth before deciding to trash it.
-
What's supposed to be the problem with that picture? It's got two ways to calculate the same number - why is that a problem?
It grows exponentially inaccurate with distance due to the way it measures the angle (θ) between a given two radii. They forgot to convert degrees to radians.
Understanding what that means took me like 30-45 minutes of research, so if you don't understand it, just gimme time to put everything together.
Hi.
I was wondering if you had a chance to put everything together and give us the scoop as to why the measurements are incorrect in the chart I have presented.
Thanks.
-
What's supposed to be the problem with that picture? It's got two ways to calculate the same number - why is that a problem?
It grows exponentially inaccurate with distance due to the way it measures the angle (θ) between a given two radii. They forgot to convert degrees to radians.
Understanding what that means took me like 30-45 minutes of research, so if you don't understand it, just gimme time to put everything together.
Hi.
I was wondering if you had a chance to put everything together and give us the scoop as to why the measurements are incorrect in the chart I have presented.
Thanks.
lol no
It has kind of evolved into a project now. I already gave you the short version in an above post, and that's enough to get you started if you want to figure it out for yourself. Rest assured, OP will deliver, I just need time.
Sorry lol
-
The result from the razor depends on what the person shaving already assumes to be true.
For example I have a beard, because I'm trying to keep an open mind. Still I trim occasionally when I can clearly see a hair is out of place.
In other words, I believe the simplest answer is that the earth is flat, because that's the way emperical evidence suggests.
-
The result from the razor depends on what the person shaving already assumes to be true.
For example I have a beard, because I'm trying to keep an open mind. Still I trim occasionally when I can clearly see a hair is out of place.
In other words, I believe the simplest answer is that the earth is flat, because that's the way emperical evidence suggests.
Proof by assertion only works for undergraduate problem sets that you don't know how to do. It doesn't work in the real world. You probably believe this because you haven't seen the sheer number of problems with FE.
Have you read:
1. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8717.0 (International Space Station isn't just flying debris... you can see the solar panels)
2. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8781.0 (The Sinking Ship Effect, which FE people dismiss as "waves" instead of noting that the occluded part of buildings is almost the same regardless of conditions; also those waves must be absolutely huge)
3. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8380.0 (The clouds are lit from below at sunset, which would imply the sun is below the clouds in the FE model)
4. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8628.0 (The Sun drops below the horizon, implying it must go below the Flat Earth)
5. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.0 (More clouds lit below at the sunset)
6. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8013.0 (A Sun as small as the FE people would have you believe couldn't burn for more than 40 years; FE simply says "they don't know" how the Sun is powered or introduces some pseudoscientific garbage chock full of logical problems)
7. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7853.0 (GPS works; ignore the garbage Tom spouted about eLORAN working with a GPS receiver; that is patently false. Interoperable in his quote means that there are receivers that can process both GPS/eLORAN signals and that they don't use the same frequency bands. http://www.ursanav.com/wp-content/uploads/Using-eLoran-to-Mitigate-GNSS-and-GPS-Vulnerabilities-2009.pdf)
8. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8595.0 (Doppler effect shows that the stars are moving very fast, and are therefore in all likelihood very far away; again ignore Tom, since he doesn't understand how spectra work)
9. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633 (Airline flight data suggests distances that are incompatible with any flat map)
Seems like you think that FE seems simpler because you don't actually understand the scientific method and why people left it in droves thousands of years ago.
-
Seems like you think that FE seems simpler because you don't actually understand the scientific method and why people left it in droves thousands of years ago.
Thanks for the links. Agree to disagree.
-
Occam's razor is pretty useless. I read the wiki and I can think of a few more examples:
Which contains less number of assumptions? That a sick person is sick because a microscopic pathogen entered our body and attacked our immune system or that it's just the nocebo effect.
Which has less number of assumptions? That a baby is created because the fusion of two gametes to create a diploid zygote which undergoes the various stages of embryonic development or that the stork plants it in a lady's womb.
Occam's razor is not a good argument at all. There are many things that are more complex than they look, and anybody who doesn't understand the reasons calling it off as an "assumption" really doesn't have any credibility.
-
You (or the Flat Earth Society if you are just representing their wiki article) have misrepresented Occam's razor. It doesn't prefer the simplest explanation, it prefers the explanation that is no more complicated than necessary.
Or, in other words, it prefers the simplest explanation that explains all the observations.
In the case of germ theory, we can observe that exposing people to a pathogen makes them sick, regardless of whether they know they were exposed and thus eliminate the nocebo effect.
In the case of womb storks, we observe that sex or in-vitro fertilization lead to pregnancy, even if a woman is locked in a building with no stork access.
All of the strawmen in the wiki article are equally pathetic, without regard to contrary obvious observations.
-
You (or the Flat Earth Society if you are just representing their wiki article) have misrepresented Occam's razor. It doesn't prefer the simplest explanation, it prefers the explanation that is no more complicated than necessary.
Indeed, much of what I have seen consists of not even the simplest explanation, but the easiest. Simple does not mean that it requires no thought.
-
You (or the Flat Earth Society if you are just representing their wiki article) have misrepresented Occam's razor. It doesn't prefer the simplest explanation, it prefers the explanation that is no more complicated than necessary.
Or, in other words, it prefers the simplest explanation that explains all the observations.
In the case of germ theory, we can observe that exposing people to a pathogen makes them sick, regardless of whether they know they were exposed and thus eliminate the nocebo effect.
In the case of womb storks, we observe that sex or in-vitro fertilization lead to pregnancy, even if a woman is locked in a building with no stork access.
All of the strawmen in the wiki article are equally pathetic, without regard to contrary obvious observations.
I brought it up because their wiki says it like that.
Now, don't kill me. But what's a strawman?
-
A straw man is when you misrepresent the other sides argument in order to make it look bad.
-
There are no NASA employees who have come out in support of the flat earth movement or commercial pilots.
I guess they don't fancy mysteriously dying in extremely unlikely accidents (https://wiki.tfes.org/Thomas_Baron). Imagine that.
This was a guy who was in the investigation of the Apollo one fire, not how NASA launched its rockets.