Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tim Alphabeaver

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 10  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 30, 2020, 04:35:28 PM »
Given that my opponent's reference was a Quora thread, I have no issue with countering it with Wikipedia. You're welcome to consult your physics textbook if you prefer.
Your opponent's reference(s) were not a Quora thread - perhaps it's you who should read the thread.
Funnily enough, it looks like your wikipedia article has since been edited, and now doesn't agree with you, and is now backed up with citations (which it wasn't previously). Oops.

22
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 04:19:30 PM »
To help understand the diagram better please provide the map of the earth to go with it.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps

23
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 30, 2020, 02:47:47 PM »
The whole bumph depends on the assumption that earth is a sphere where R = 6370km
 so use of an imaginary equation K=R/r to quantify any observation falls into the category of pseudoscience .
The introduction of 'K' is clearly just to compare the actual meaningful value 'r' to the globe model's 'R' in order to make the results more human-readable.
You could say instead that when the light isn't refracted, r=infinity, and when it's refracted the same amount as the RE globe curves, it's r=6,371km.
No information is gained or lost here - it's just easier for a person to parse a value of K that's usually -10<K<10 rather than using r, which is [infinity]>r>~0

24
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 01:13:44 PM »
As the sun sets, the shadows goes up the mountain face. Simple geometry says that the shadow can't go up the mountain face unless the sun is sinking behind something. The "cloud lit from underside" theory doesn't accomplish anything here. We aren't talking about light sneaking in somewhere unexpected; we are talking about a shadow, the absence of light.

What's creating the shadow? What is blocking the sun's light that so regularly crawls up the mountainside, finally leaving it in shadow? If it is already dusk, why can I fly up in a plane and see the sun again? I haven't found an explanation in Flat Earth theory that explains this. Not saying there isn't one: if there is, I'd like to hear it.
I think that all of your questions would be adequately answered if you just read the wiki page on EA: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration.

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 29, 2020, 11:49:29 PM »
Ahh ok, and it's a consensus because... you've stated it?
If you don't want to discuss this seriously, don't discuss it at all.
Pete, I'm really sorry if I'm missing anything here - but please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.
I'm trying to discuss this seriously.

You stated that calling the universe an isolated system is 'meaningless', and then when challenged, you responded that it's just 'scientific consensus', citing wikipedia.
I must be missing something here because wikipedia is not a useful source.

26
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 29, 2020, 11:36:29 PM »
I provided a citation of much higher standard than my opponent, and provided my own wording to help make the point clear. If you disagree with it, you'll have to at least provide some reasoning, not just pretend my reference doesn't exist.
Wikipedia?

27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 28, 2020, 11:37:10 PM »
Is your opinion somehow more valid that someone else's opinion?
My opinion is entirely irrelevant to the scientific consensus I've stated.
Ahh ok, and it's a consensus because... you've stated it? Forgive me if I'm missing something, but you can't just state something without citation and then ignore when other people post statements that disagree and are backed up with citations.

As a wise man once said:
I'm afraid that's not how citations work.

Or to put it more simply:
I state that the universe is an isolated system, and that this is a meaningful definition. This is scientific consensus, and you are in fact incorrect.

28
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 27, 2020, 09:19:14 PM »
As for pricelesspearl, I think it's safe to assume that his posts should fall under the "blatant troll" category by now - we shouldn't waste our time with them.
A 'blatant troll' is what you call a valid direct response to your post, with citations?

29
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 27, 2020, 09:13:13 PM »
Helpful or not helpful isn't really a valid scientific or logical standard.
Well I think I can't argue with that.

30
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 27, 2020, 01:04:33 AM »
As an example: an inertial body moving along a geodesic through space can be trapped into an orbit around a large gravitational mass without ever experiencing acceleration. This is possible because spacetime is radically curved in close vicinity to a large gravitational mass
[/quote]
Then equally if I jump off a building and we ignore air resistance, I'm not being accelerated towards the ground, I'm just following a geodesic. These are both technically true, but I think not very helpful.

31
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 26, 2020, 11:51:48 PM »
It looks to me like BillO clarified his position quite well.
In thermodynamics, calling the Universe an isolated system is meaningless. It cannot be true nor false, because it does not have an assigned meaning within physics. The danger of accepting undefined terms in a discussion like this is that it will bring unknown consequences later on. BillO was offered plenty of opportunities to replace that term with a meaningful one, but chose not to. Thus, the conversation can't proceed.
Is your opinion somehow more valid that someone else's opinion? I just read through (again) your posts and the only link I could find was an uncited line on a wikipedia article - which I think we can all agree is not meaningful, so do you have some sources?

Sidenote: Can I just ignore the first few sources you link just like you did with BillO's sources?

I'm afraid that's not how citations work.

32
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 26, 2020, 11:35:39 PM »
Circular orbits maintain a constant velocity.
Circular motion requires velocity to be always changing. The thing that's constant in a circular orbit is speed, not velocity. (and yes, I'm aware I made this mistake myself only 1 post ago)  ::)

33
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 25, 2020, 07:49:55 PM »
Quote
Erm... that's not true? If a satellite sped up it would just go into a higher orbit, and if it slowed down if would go into a lower orbit.Erm... that's not true? If a satellite sped up it would just go into a higher orbit, and if it slowed down if would go into a lower orbit.

No, actually the lower the orbit the faster it needs to go.

Quote
When a satellite is in orbit, it has a perfect balance between its momentum and Earth’s gravity. But finding this balance is sort of tricky.

Gravity is stronger the closer you are to Earth. And satellites that orbit close to Earth must travel at very high speeds to stay in orbit.
For example, the satellite NOAA-20 orbits just a few hundred miles above Earth. It has to travel at 17,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit.
On the other hand, NOAA’s GOES-East satellite orbits 22,000 miles above Earth. It only has to travel about 6,700 miles per hour to overcome gravity and stay in orbit.

https://scijinks.gov/satellites-orbit/
Yes and no. If I accelerate in the direction of my velocity vector, (i.e. 'fowards'), then I will both speed up and be in a higher orbit.
This isn't at odds with a higher circular orbit being at a lower velocity.
Maintaining a constant velocity is only a requirement of a perfectly circular orbit, many satellites have stable elliptical orbits and don't have a constant velocity.

34
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 25, 2020, 07:33:28 PM »
Coming in a bit late here, so sorry if I'm restating anything (I skimmed the thread).
Yeah, sorry, you'll have to read the thread. In short, the concept of the Universe being an isolated system is undefined - it does not have an assigned, coherent meaning. As such, it is not false to claim it, it's just gobbledygook.

BillO relies on his intuition, and he clearly knows what he means by the words he chose. But he repeatedly refused to clarify his meaning, and instead insisted on using words that have no meaning.

It looks to me like BillO clarified his position quite well. How can you have any possible confusion about this statement:

You can approach the problem either way.  If the description of FE UA in the wiki does encompass an isolated system, then you just show how energy is conserved within that system.  If it does not encompass an isolated system, then just show where the energy is coming from so that an isolated system can be defined (the FE UA system + the Energy system) wherein the energy is conserved.

35
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 24, 2020, 11:53:59 PM »
GPS satellites maintain a constant velocity.  They have to sustain a constant velocity to maintain balance with gravity.  Any faster and the satellite flies off into space and any slower, it crashes to earth.
Erm... that's not true? If a satellite sped up it would just go into a higher orbit, and if it slowed down if would go into a lower orbit.

36
Flat Earth Community / Re: A New Explanation for the Lunar Eclipse
« on: January 24, 2020, 10:52:36 PM »
Read the wiki page but I don't think I understand the mechanism. I look forward to this idea being fleshed out a bit.

37
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
« on: January 24, 2020, 10:19:31 PM »
I'd say no FEr has ever said Brahe's data is faked because all his astronomical data was studiously observed . His model based on his own observations was geocentric - earth at the centre of the universe. Like FE models . He had already accounted for all planetary motions . Nor  did the model require the stars to be at stupid distances .
 After Brahe's death Kepler ,his unwanted assistant , stole his records and plucked his planetary laws out of his backside - the globe model being in danger with no new data ever introduced to back it's acceptance .

Tycho Brahe - great observational geocentric scientist - probably why we don't hear a lot about him .
And now Kepler's laws have been experimentally verified and Brahe's system has been experimentally disproven, which is why Kepler's laws are taught in school and the Tychonic system is not.

38
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 24, 2020, 10:16:16 PM »
Let's make no mistake.  If youwant to say the universe is not an isolated system, and stand by that rather than just cast doubt, you better be prepared to start actually talking about what is "outside the universe".
No, sorry. You're the one who proposed the concept, and you're the one who's going to have to justify it (again, for now we're not looking for you being correct, we're looking for you saying things that have a discernible meaning). Until then, you keep staying something that's undefined and demanding that we assign a truth value to it. Not gonna happen.
Coming in a bit late here, so sorry if I'm restating anything (I skimmed the thread). Surely one can define the universe as 'all the stuff', which by definition is isolated. Why are there 10+ back-and-forth comments getting more and more off-topic about this?

39
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: December 02, 2019, 08:16:16 PM »
Just a side note: why do flat earthers always dump on gravity based solely on the fact that it's not analytically solvable, and yet ignore all the other physics that's not analytically solvable? You'd think if this was really a problem, that flat earthers would be taking an equal-sized dump on, say, electromagnetism, but I don't think that's ever happened. Just seems like cherry-picking to me.

40
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the earth the only flat planet?
« on: December 02, 2019, 08:02:34 PM »
How do you know the other planets are not flat?

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 10  Next >