Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #80 on: January 11, 2018, 04:43:26 PM »
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
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 08:26:17 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • masterful style of sarcasm, D.D.S.
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #81 on: January 11, 2018, 05:48:48 PM »
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 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.

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #82 on: January 11, 2018, 07:58:04 PM »
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 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?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 08:31:50 PM by totallackey »

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #83 on: January 11, 2018, 10:20:41 PM »
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.

Quote
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):
Quote
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.



*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #84 on: January 12, 2018, 12:38:42 AM »
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:

Quote
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

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:

Quote
...

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.



You can also play with the virtual calculator on GitHub, here:

Earth Curve Calculator

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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 07:10:30 AM by supaluminus »
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #85 on: January 12, 2018, 08:50:34 AM »
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.

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #86 on: January 12, 2018, 08:54:53 AM »
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?
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #87 on: January 12, 2018, 09:13:24 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 09:23:32 AM by douglips »

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #88 on: January 12, 2018, 09:37:23 AM »
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:

Quote
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.
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #89 on: January 12, 2018, 10:49:10 AM »
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
Quote
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):
Quote
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?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 11:31:52 AM by totallackey »

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #90 on: January 12, 2018, 11:18:33 AM »
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:

Quote
...

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.



You can also play with the virtual calculator on GitHub, here:

Earth Curve Calculator

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.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 04:57:43 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #91 on: January 12, 2018, 11:45:51 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 06:05:15 AM by supaluminus »
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #92 on: January 13, 2018, 12:14:56 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 12:31:03 AM by totallackey »

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #93 on: January 13, 2018, 12:24:53 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 12:28:20 AM by supaluminus »
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #94 on: January 13, 2018, 12:42:54 AM »
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!
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 12:46:21 AM by totallackey »

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #95 on: January 13, 2018, 01:12:01 AM »
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.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #96 on: January 13, 2018, 02:01:30 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 07:41:26 AM by supaluminus »
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #97 on: January 13, 2018, 07:33:04 AM »
How would your math translate to this picture?


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.
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #98 on: January 13, 2018, 12:27:34 PM »
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.

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #99 on: January 13, 2018, 12:53:55 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 07:22:33 PM by totallackey »