*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9104
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Skeptic.org.uk article on the Universal Accelerator
« on: September 09, 2021, 05:54:01 PM »
Dave Hahn, PhD., recently wrote an article called The Bewilder Gambit: a conspiracy theorist tactic designed to distract

The Lorentz equations of Special Relativity are nonsense designed to distract, apparently.

"The formula is not just something that I do not know, but I also don’t know where I begin to look it up."

I didn't have that problem.

From the Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration



From the first result of the google search 'lorentz factor and the speed of light':

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/relativistic-quantities



Same equation. Embarrassing.

And if you are trying to educate people on the incorrectness of your opponents why even make the "you can't travel faster than the speed of light so UA can't work" claim without doing the bare amount of research into the possibility that you might be wrong?

Quora knows:


https://i.imgur.com/JX2En1Z.png

Stephen Hawking knows:


https://i.imgur.com/QrDDwhP.png

Even Reddit knows:


https://i.imgur.com/0g5AFBf.png
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 06:04:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13717
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Skeptic.org.uk article on the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2021, 06:12:36 PM »
Wow, that was an embarrassing show.

He seems to accuse us of trying to "bewilder" people. Is it just me, or is the exact opposite happening in actuality? Here we have a supposedly educated man who openly admits to having no working understanding of maths (to the point of marvelling at the fact that 0.2*50=0.5*20 - in other words, multiplication is remarkable) or high-school physics (to the point of seeing a delta and going "Egads! I am out of my depth!" rather than at least being able to say "ok, that probably means 'change'"). With a straight face, he tells us "No, no, ignore these equations, don't listen to the arguments! They're just here to confuse you, that's their gambit, you see!"

Isn't it pretty gosh-darn transparent? The real gambit here is that coming from Dr. Hahn. He encountered something he doesn't understand, but he knows he's supposed to disagree. Thus, the easiest way for him to drop his rhetoric is to accuse his opponent of "causing bewilderment".

What's next? Should I dismiss his article because my English is poor and because I don't know what it means to "bewilder" someone?

This is an excellent example of the RE mentality gone wrong. I wonder if it might be worth us writing an article in response and pushing it to our homepage (via Announcements).

As an aside, the final quote is particularly funny:
We know that Earth is round; we don’t need to know the intricacies of relativity to prove it.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 06:33:50 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: Skeptic.org.uk article on the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2021, 12:35:59 AM »
Sometimes my reaction to FE is bewilderment, although that is about what FEs belive aned how their minds work, not bewilderment at pages of math formulas, science jargon, and referemces to long ago scientic quotes, etc/ <y reaction to that is somewhat the same as the author you criticize, but I would characterize it differently. I took physics in college, double majored in math/computer science and at that time (1975) understood the prof explaining the calculus of relativity. Became a software architect and never did any math much beyond simple algebra.

So if I read something abut Lorentz equations, to actually understand it I would have to dredge up 50 year old knowledge and practice my math. I am, on the other hand, a generally well informed and knowledgeable person with analytic and critical thinking skills. This leaves me, like the author, with the prospect of a daunting project to understand what is being said, while at the same time we are aware of: north star/sextant/latitude, gyrocompass. ships appear to sink over the horizon, different stars in southern hemisphere, ring laser gyroscope 15 deg/hour, tide and moon phase, equatorial telescope mount, ham radio moonbounce, etc etc etc, and my personal favorite, southern cross is visible directly south of Capetown SA and Tierra Del Fuego at the same time. Plot that on the FAQ map, complete opposite direction. So the question is "Why try to inderstand the FE article and the math and the theory behind that particular math?" - when you know from the above mentioned reasons, and the impossibility of some small number of people hiding the truth from 8 billion (professors, scientists, engineers, navogators, etc etc, etc), when gps works, airliners get where they are going, etc.

So I will be happy to spend the time to study the details of posts like this one when you can explain how the southern cross can be seen all over the southern hemisphere, always directly south, and not in the northern hemisphere, the "unknown forces" and "unknown equations" from the wiki page on Electromagnetic Acceleration explaining why north star direction is consistent with RE geometry and latitude, for instance.

One catch, you have to explain what is happening without "unknown forces" and "the experts are lying" conspiracy theories. Otherwise I am not interested. Still don't understand how FEs often encourage FE proselyzation nd get excited over the prospect of spreading FET, yet also say they don't care what I think. Puzzling.