41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?

« on: May 01, 2019, 10:45:39 AM »

Also, and interesting aside: modern neuroscience research has found that the parts of our brain associated with making decisions activate prior to the parts of our brain responsible for contemplating what decision to make. So it may be true that we actually decide what to do before we are aware of it - and our rational process simply operates to justify it. In doing so, we believe that the order is the other way and our decision comes as a result of the cognition.

But if this research is true, then free will is destroyed by a purely physical argument. We don’t intentionally choose anything, our choice is already made before we think about it.

Not necessarily.  We have instinct and a first reaction.  If we prick our finger, we jerk back in pain without thinking.  If we suddenly see something scary, instinct will tell us to be afraid until our brains can process what it is and if we should fear it.  Its all to keep us alive.  To make our decision process in survival situations faster, if incomplete.  Free will can still change what we do and you can relearn instinct.

Now those reactions are governed by our “reptilian” brain, and so do not involve rational thought at all. Hence, I would not consider them useful in a discussion about free-will.

42

Flat Earth Community / Re: Losing Respectibility

« on: May 01, 2019, 10:41:23 AM »

I saw viva Frei interview mark sergeant  on YouTube recently. I watched mark tell us how he earns a living of off this . I heard mark tell us how hes very popular since he has a wiki page. Then I watched mark get cocky and arrogant. After letting mark talk almost without interruption for the first half hour the interviewer called mark out on an inaccurate statement and didnt let up until it was over. I.just think  a leader should be someone who can face pressure , or an advisory while being cool under pressure. Mark reacts by rambling for what seems like hours, quickly giving responses that are a result of him talking about 5 different topics throughout his answer

That’s interesting! He earns a living by being a FE member? Would you be willing to summarise how Mark makes this profit?

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 01, 2019, 04:09:51 AM »

Whoa, just hold on a second. You need to parse these ideas in smaller, more manageable discussable chunks. We can’t have a good online discussion otherwise - it becomes impractical to address everything as it tangents off from a wall of text.

Let me reorganise a bit, and please reply with your thoughts again.

1. Gravity as a force vs gravity as a deformation of space time.

Okay. The two don’t work in the same discussion together. We can talk about Newtonian gravity, which works well in the regime of the weak field limit. That is, GR reduces to Newton very well on the surface of the earth.

The normal force is the Newton’s 3rd law pair. When I stand on the ground, the gravitational force acts down. So why don’t I move down? Cause the ground is there. Obviously. But since f=ma and my a is zero when standing, there must be a force which counteracts gravity. That is the normal force. It is the force of the ground on me that stops me sinking through it.

What I feel is THAT force. Same thing when you take a turn too quickly. You feel pushed up against the side of the car. You are feeling the normal force from the side of the car.

Okay. That is what you feel. You don’t really feel your weight much. But this is more psychological in nature - what you feel vs what is actually happening.

2. GR. So it’s hard to parse your GR discussion. Understand the geometry of spacetime is very very difficult, and solving the equations for how this geometry warps in the vicinity of mass is even harder. I have never heard these terms of packed energy and kinetic vectors in my study of GR. The objects we really to discuss are metrics, Riemann curvature tensors, stress-energy tensors, and cristoffel symbols. But I don’t know if a forum will suffice for delving deeply into these concepts - the math really is prohibitively difficult.

44

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?

« on: May 01, 2019, 03:55:34 AM »

I think you're over-thinking it a bit.
I maintain that someone knowing you well enough to know what choices you will make does not restrict your freedom to make them.
And all you have done to the ant is limit their environment, they are still free to behave and move within that environment as they see fit.
I cannot teleport or fly but that is not a restriction on my free will, merely a limitation of the physical universe I live in.

If you read a book then you have no control over what happens next, if you write a book then you do.

PS: Nice to be taking to a grown-up!

Sure I agree with that. We may just have different definitions of what free will is. I do not define it to be freedom of some choices, but freedom of all possible choices. I cannot teleport but that is not possible - so it does not restrict my free will.

And it’s not just that god knows what I will do - its really that he decided what I will do. Since he knows everything, it is not possible for him to create a universe with ignorance of outcome. Hence in creating it, he fixed our choices. So I never had free will - I just play out the choices that were decided by him.

As for overthinking, you got me there. This is what physicists do

Also, and interesting aside: modern neuroscience research has found that the parts of our brain associated with making decisions activate prior to the parts of our brain responsible for contemplating what decision to make. So it may be true that we actually decide what to do before we are aware of it - and our rational process simply operates to justify it. In doing so, we believe that the order is the other way and our decision comes as a result of the cognition.

But if this research is true, then free will is destroyed by a purely physical argument. We don’t intentionally choose anything, our choice is already made before we think about it.

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?

« on: April 30, 2019, 03:22:48 PM »

Sorry, dude. I misread your message. I thought you said
"I believe positive evidence exists which proves gods don’t exist" and missed out the "it isn't that"!

I disagree with your analysis. I can believe in an all powerful God who still allows me to rebel against him. Could he stop me? Sure. But then I'd be a robot with no choice other than to obey him. A relationship where one party has no choice in the matter is meaningless. That's why I believe God gave us free will. And we do have free will.

People who know me know that I'm a Beatles nut.
So if I had a choice to go and see, say, The Spice Girls or Paul McCartney then for me it's McCartney all the way. Now, whatever people think about my musical taste, people who know me would know what decision I would make. Their knowledge of me doesn't remove my free choice in the matter. Now, they might be wrong in their prediction but if God knows us perfectly then he will never be wrong. But that doesn't mean that we didn't have a free choice.

There's a difference between a magician who uses a "force" so they know the card you're going to pick - you never really had a free choice in the first place, they made you chose that card - and someone who has memorised the order of the cards so you have a genuinely free choice, they just happen to know that the 23rd card is the three of clubs. It is their knowledge which allowed them to discern your choice, not because they made you.

No problem.

This is good - we have an actual debate here over free will. My rebuttal for you:

Ignorance of what choice we can/will make is not free will.

I place an ant in a big box - so big that it never happens to find the boundary before it dies. It lives it’s whole life believing it has free will, but it does not. I cannot leave the box. Hence, ignorance of lack of choice is not free will.

God could have created a universe where I was Jewish, or a woman, or a psycho. All possibilities exist. He intentionally created the world where the next “random” word I write is: bumblefuck, instead of topaz. And he knew this. And he made it so.

Whether I know it or not is irrelevant. Where is free will here? Every single decision I will ever make was known and chosen to be beforehand. If I have free will, then logically gos cannot be all 3 properties I mentioned earlier.

46

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?

« on: April 30, 2019, 12:06:16 PM »

It isn’t that I believe positive evidence exists which proves gods don’t exist

Out of interest, what is that evidence?

I just have no found compelling evidence which proves they do.

I don't know what evidence you'd expect to find, apart from personal experience which is highly subjective.

I am not convinced that evidence is even possible. How would I distinguish between evidence for a highly advanced being and a god?

I do not know how supernatural evidence can even be examined.

I believe arguments exist which demonstrate particular gods likely don’t exist. For example, I can take the Christian god, who is:

1. All knowing
2. All powerful
3. All loving

(a) the fact that evil exists means only 2 of the above 3 can be operative.

(b) it is not possible for there to be free will if all 3 are correct - and free will is a tenet of Christianity. Proof:

God can create any universe he wants, and every universe is possible for him to make. He also knows everything that will happen beforehand in any universe he may create.

He created this universe - where you are reading this right now. Plus, he KNEW this would happen before he made it. He knew every action you would ever take, and specifically chose to make the particular universe where you would make them - rather than another where you would choose differently.

There is no free will there. Everything was pre-ordained and chosen.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: April 30, 2019, 12:35:13 AM »

When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.

Wowa, wait a minute.  When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor.  I feel it very much.  Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it.   Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.

Yeah, I know that... But I'm trying to simplify my explanation as much as possible... maybe it was a bit too much. But it is really hard to make FErs understand anything, so I let go of some other effects and details.

This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.

When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.

We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.

I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.

But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.

FEers take loose definitions and create chaos.

48

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?

« on: April 29, 2019, 02:32:11 PM »

We certainly feel more connected to our world when we diminish our egos and pay attention to our surroundings. To me, whether or not that is an inherent property of consciousness is irrelevant. The experience and the wisdom it teaches is what matters.

Few questions.

1. The question of ego. I’ve heard it said that atheists are rather egotistical to not believe in a god. But I have a hard time with this. It isn’t that I believe positive evidence exists which proves gods don’t exist, I just have no found compelling evidence which proves they do.

What is more egotistical?

A) claiming knowledge of an infinite being, infinitely beyond our capabilities in every manner, and who is responsible for everything — this claiming knowledge of the most powerful being possible

B) Being uncertain that mere humans are able to understand or evaluate an infinite being, and thus recognizing that evidence for one would be beyond our ability to understand.

It seems that atheists are more humble.

2. The question of wisdom.

It strikes me as wise to proportion beliefs with evidence. If I believe something which has no evidence, then I am more likely to draw incorrect conclusions, and more likely to believe other claims on poor evidence. This seem unwise, no?

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: April 29, 2019, 11:24:13 AM »

The sea is not squashed because it is an in-compressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.

The important part is that they are both fluids. IE, you can have things float or sink in them. Compressibility is just a red herring that you have decided to introduce.

Ah-ha! There's a significant difference in there! The Earth's rotation has a constant speed, it does not change every second. Therefore, no crosswinds would be expected, and indeed, we don't have them.

We don't have them because the air is moving at the same rate as the earth. Exactly as the air accelerates at the same rate as the earth. No delta. No rate of change. No perceived movement. I believe a young Jewish lad once called this 'relativity'.

Umm, red herring? I was directly answering your question. I am happy to discuss densities with you and how that accounts for things floating or sinking in fluids - also there is a third option: neutrally buoyant.

Also, your description above has nothing to do with relativity. Literally at all.

If the surrounding environment is experiencing UA, then if I jump into the air, and become part of the surrounding environment, why do I fall down?

This is a contradiction in the proposal of UA that has not been satisfactory addressed, and until it is, UA actually violates the equivalence principle.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity

« on: April 29, 2019, 11:18:51 AM »

A UA flat Earth is never ever going to reach c. That's what spherical seems to be implying.

And yes, things can accelerate indefinitely without requiring infinite energy, if that acceleration is due to an inherent property of nature. See the current accelerating expansion of the universe for an example.

Also, we ARE moving at a huge percentage of c from literally an infinite number of reference frames. And since there is no preferred frame, you can't pretend the one we currently are sitting on the surface of is something all that special.

As for this "stream of particles," I think the "U" in "UA" might account for that.

There are myriad issues with UA. But relativistic effects, exceeding c, and getting bombarded with particles from above are not really among them.

No, we are not moving at a huge percentage of c except in the rest frame of objects that ARE.

There is no preferred frame, but frames have consequences - especially when they are non-inertial frames.

Relativistic effects is the salient problem with UA. If you accelerate for thousands of years, then you main problem is relativity. In order to change to a reference frame that would not be relativistic, you would need to perform what we call a boost, and so saying that “all things are relative” (which essentially is your argument) is wrong. These things have consequences.

Exceeding c is not a problem. I agree. That was SR says.

Bombarded by particles from above? You mean the atmosphere? Two options:

1. Surrounding environment does not experience UA

2. Surrounding environment does.

If 1 is true, then you bet your ass you’d feel one hell of a wind from above.

If 2 is true, then if you jump into the air and become part of the surrounding environment - how come you fall back down?

These items are the current discussion.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: April 28, 2019, 05:24:02 PM »

So why is the sea, not all squashed on the sea bed?

Oh, because a partial of sea water sits on another and on another and on another all the way from the sea floor to the surface. This means high pressure on the sea floor and lower pressure as you go up. The atmosphere is the same. Air is a fluid (hence why aerodynamics study fluid dynamics). Air sits on air sits on air with the air at the surface being at the highest pressure ... 1 atmosphere.

But you weigh more than air. You sink. You weigh less than sea water ... you float. If I put you on the sea bed, your rancid corpse would travel upwards. If I filled you full of helium and blew you up to about 20 meters across, you'd float upwards in the air.

Hot air balloons float. Lead weights do not. Aircraft have wings. They push air downwards and because of Newton's theory, therefore they go up.

The sea is not squashed because it is an incompressible fluid. The air has a density profile because it is a compressible fluid.

We are not applying a double standard here - truly we are not. Fluid dynamics has two branches: liquids and gases. What’s good for the liquid goose is NOT what’s good for the gas gander. Different rules apply that are consistent within each branch.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 28, 2019, 05:20:50 PM »

You have yet to show that the moon can make even a single orbit around the earth without crashing into the sun, being pulled to orbit around the Sun, or being thrown out into space, per what often happens with the three body interactions from the sources we have read. Please provide reference to a source which suggests or shows that the heliocentric Sun-Earth-Moon system works at all.

That is another lie. I have provided the equations which show the moon makes tons of orbits. You just flatly (see what I did there - that was for you Tom) deny that the equations exist. But everyone can see them there.

Further comments denying what is clearly written ABOVE them seems to be low content posting to me. If you are not willing to discuss the equations like a gentleman, and just continue repeating this blanket denial, then I’m going to have to report you. Others may want to engage in a fruitful conversation about it, and you are derailing this thread now. Please don’t do that.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: April 28, 2019, 03:01:07 PM »

Yes, and now we are back to the point in the conversation where Tom and I left off.

An accelerating plane does not recreate the conditions we observe every day on a rotating globe.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 28, 2019, 12:19:25 PM »

QED, your words are not evidence. You have made reference to literally nothing which says or suggests that the three body sun-earth-moon problem can exist as a stable system.

Whether he says it here or not, we know it is a stable system from observation, and from travels between Earth, Moon and Sun.

If they were not stable, the lunar craft sent to the Moon by USA, Russia, India, Japan, China and Saudi Arabia would have missed their marks.

No?


We also know the stability of the other planets from travels to and between them.

The orbits are stable on human time scales. Since the multi-body interaction is chaotic, predictions of trajectories may not be reliable beyond a few 100 million years. Of course, that is a running number. With reasonable assumptions, the predictions can be extended further.

What Tom doesn’t understand is that although the solar system is technically a chaotic system, the gravitational force is very weak, and so this permits us to compute predictions with relative ease.

How else could we launch a probe that would meet Pluto exactly in its orbit 9 years later?

Tom strikes me as someone who is very eager to find anything to justify his position. So when he discovers that the solar system is chaotic, he probably goes:

Aha! It’s chaotic! I knew Newton was bullshit! I knew it was a conspiracy!

Then he probably tracks down some technical details of this chaos description to use as debate fodder, and subsequently feels remarkably safe with his position on the issue.

But it doesn’t seem like he ever bothered to ask the question most people would in that situation:

What does the solar system being chaotic MEAN?

And that’s his problem! He just assumes what it means. And he’s wrong.

But if you try to reason with him, I think he interprets it as a trick. Or perhaps he thinks that because he found technical details (which he cannot assess) the matter is proven.

Im not entirely sure, but for whatever reason, he has placed himself into an entrenched position where he is not able to adjust his view even if it is based on a basic mistake that is shown to him.

It’s like you thinking there are 5 apples on the table, and then I go: “no there’s 6, look.” And instead of just looking and realising you miscounted, you weave a network of half-relevant and misinterpreted information, including the history of apples and cultivation methods in various cultures, and different products made from apples — all to hold on to the position that there just absolutely NEEDS to be 5 apples on that table.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 28, 2019, 09:33:57 AM »

The source you gave says neither that the system will be a "stable system," a "chaotic system," or that it will be a "system that falls apart". There is zero information on that subject and therefore you have provided zero evidence.

I do believe that claim is a non-sequitur. An absence of evidence is not evidence for the opposite. Given the faux pas this far, it is a reasonable conclusion that you are not able to diagnose the operative conditions in the references I have provided.

It will assist our progress if you offer those definitions so that I can help you. Our efforts are only frustrated by ignoring my request, since it is quite unclear what knowledge (and/or mis-knowledge) you are bringing to the table.

To wit: there IS information on those subjects contained in the references I provided.

56

Flat Earth Community / Re: Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment

« on: April 28, 2019, 09:23:29 AM »

Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.

The posted video does this. By changing perspectives, sight lines, and frames of reference — and collecting video inside the bridge cavity, and observing the SAME RESULT,  we can safely conclude that refraction plays an insignificant role. Precisely because any refractive effect would adjust in a predicable fashion as the angle of perspective is modified. None of this happens.

The bending of light to cause sinking is pretty common. This road effect also gives the same result when you look at it from different positions and angles near the surface.

The road in the videos is nevertheless viewed from more than one angle...

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 28, 2019, 05:56:29 AM »

QED, your words are not evidence. You have made reference to literally nothing which says or suggests that the three body sun-earth-moon problem can exist as a stable system.

Your reply strikes me as a low content post, and is a direct lie. I began this thread with reference to the exact equations. It appears as though your last ditch effort, once finally faced with the direct evidence you adamantly demanded on the previous thread, is to simply deny the existence of the link at the top of this thread. And you are doing this in front of everyone who’s since followed the link and knows the equations are true.

The section you linked to doesn't say that those equations result in a stable system. There are plenty of examples in that book of three body equations that result in chaotic systems that fall apart. Provide something that supports your positon.

Let me ask you a question, Tom.

What is your operative definition for:

- stable system
- chaotic system
- a system that falls apart.

This is important. Because it occurs to me from your reply that you think unless the solar system is stable, non-chaotic, or eternal, that somehow this means we cannot have equations for it.

This is simply a bizarre discussion, I must say. Respectfully, I must express that I am afraid you may be using terms which you do not understand - at least not according to their physical import.

The reason why is because I have never ever ever heard a physicist say that equations cannot exist unless those three conditions are met.

I know this is not true, but your rebuttals read like someone who is just making everything up and throwing it all at the wall hoping something will stick.

I really wish you’d take me up on my offer to help you. I offer it again respectfully, professionally, and in friendship.

If you can provide your operative definitions for those terms, I can probably help you understand what is going on here. Until then, I am left guessing what on Earth you are talking about - because it really doesn’t make any sense to me. And it really SHOULD, because I’ve been doing this stuff professionally for several years and I have a terminal degree in it.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: April 28, 2019, 05:45:12 AM »

QED, your words are not evidence. You have made reference to literally nothing which says or suggests that the three body sun-earth-moon problem can exist as a stable system.

Your reply strikes me as a low content post, and is a direct lie. I began this thread with reference to the exact equations. It appears as though your last ditch effort, once finally faced with the direct evidence you adamantly demanded in the previous thread, is to simply deny the existence of the link at the top of this one. And you are doing this in front of everyone who’s since followed the link and knows the equations are right there.

I am embarrassed for you right now.

If you have somehow become capable of denying the existence of something directly in front of you which everyone else can see, then how can we trust you to accurately and honestly evaluate information for the FES?

That raises a great deal of red flags. In fact, I haven’t seen so many red flags since the Beijing Olympics.

59

Flat Earth Community / Re: Henry Yule Oldham - Bedford Level Experiment

« on: April 28, 2019, 03:18:52 AM »

Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.

The posted video does this. By changing perspectives, sight lines, and frames of reference — and collecting video inside the bridge cavity, and observing the SAME RESULT,  we can safely conclude that refraction plays an insignificant role. Precisely because any refractive effect would adjust in a predicable fashion as the angle of perspective is modified. None of this happens.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity

« on: April 28, 2019, 03:11:12 AM »

Yes, that is crazy, doesn't work, it will reach a critical impossible speed.

Well I, for one, am excited to hear what "critical impossible speed" you think would be reached. It can't be c, because you know, relativity, and how any massive object in its own reference frame is always precisely 0% of the way to c, so I'm really interested to see what this impossible speed is.

It is c, and relativity doesn’t work that way.

“any massive object in its own reference frame is always precisely 0% of the way to c”

Reference frames don’t work that way either. The speed of light is alway c in any reference frame.

You cannot accelerate an object indefinitely without infinite energy. If a flat earth had been accelerating at g for this entire time, then we’d be so goddamn relativistic that we’d be pair-producing like crazy.

So you see, the fact that we don’t observe a near continuous stream of particles generated from our enormous kinetic energy is direct observational evidence that the Earth is not accelerating to simulate a gravitational field.

This is why FET has to attempt to disprove the the vast majority of physics - because the vast majority of it would yield direct observations that we don’t see, thus contradicting FET’s basic premise.