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 - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 153  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat
« on: May 16, 2021, 09:24:22 AM »
I took up to mean...well, upwards with respect to the horizon. The footage posted in this thread shows them going in all directions. I don’t think there’s any which show them going upwards perpendicular to the horizon. Pretty sure that would be possible to observe on a globe, but you’d have to be perfectly aligned with the direction of the object which makes it unlikely.

I’m not clear why the video in the OP claims this is an issue.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat
« on: May 16, 2021, 07:57:19 AM »
Literally the first video I found has some footage which shows them going in all directions, some upwards.



???

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 05:05:13 PM »
Now someone else's turn!
Go on then. I don't think this has any quotes from him, but it's an interesting article about the multiple ways they have of measuring gravity:

https://www.nature.com/articles/35050187?foxtrotcallback=true

For such a weak force it's impressive how accurate they can get the value of G and multiple methods of measuring it show that it can't be coincidence. It will be interesting to see if some of the newer experiments which claim a smaller error margin can do better still.

5
I have similar doubts as to the true nature of the moon, including its eerie glow.  It does not reflect light the way a spherical reflector does/should, and may well be an ionization effect or some sort of reflection.

How should it reflect light, and how do you assert that would differ from what we all see at present?
I wonder if he's going to go down the "hot spot" route, but that of course is a feature of a smooth spherical object which the moon isn't.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:32:12 AM »
Look, we're well past trying to persuade you of anything. Most of us here don't even think you actually believe the stuff you're writing. We're just calling you out in the hope that other people reading this don't get sucked into the con.
Correct. I think we should all stop feeding the troll.
It's clear what the article is about if you look at the context, no matter how many times certain people try to quote small parts selectively or twist things to try and make them mean something they clearly don't mean.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:18:50 AM »
If you want to look at context and believe in keeping the story straight then you can start by accepting that Quinn believes in gravity, and that gravity exists

If you want context, Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Cool. So you accept his authority that gravity exists then? Good, we're making progress.

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 09:32:56 AM »
“It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved, we should be able to measure gravity.”

"We should be able to measure gravity." and "We can measure gravity." are not contradictory statements. Have you tried to read the rest of the article to understand the context here?
Tom isn't interested in context. He routinely does this. Picks out a snippet of a quote from someone and deliberately leaves out the context or quotes elsewhere in the same article which make the views of the person he is quoting clear.
Another good example of this is on the Equivalence Principle Wiki page where he quotes part of "Gravity: A Very Short Introduction" which he thinks backs up his point but ignores quotes elsewhere in the book which clearly talks about the earth as a globe and a planet orbiting the sun. He not only cherry picks quotes, he extends that to cherry picking what he will accept people as "experts" on. You see him in this thread citing experts, but those experts clearly believe that gravity exists and that the earth is a globe. Strangely, he doesn't accept their views about that.

The only question is whether this is delusion, dishonestly or downright trolling. But the article is clear that gravity is a thing and can be measured to a level of precision plenty good enough for all practical purposes.

9
Cooling by light or sound is not as unusual as it intuitively seems.
Can you expand on this?
I did find this which suggested that they have found a way to cool objects with laser light:

https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-reveal-new-way-of-cooling-large-objects-with-light/

But it's highly technical, I don't see how that would work in natural circumstances.
In general light has energy which can only heat things.

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 04:01:32 PM »
I merely pointed out that Quinn states they cannot measure gravity.
But you are cherry picking that statement and not looking at it in the context of the article which basically says "measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better". Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity, it explicitly says that this doesn't change any scientific theories.

Nope. Saying that they need do do better isn't a statement that they are measuring gravity.

When he says "measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better" what do you think that he is saying that they are measuring?
In what way is it not a statement that they are measuring gravity?
Tom plays these semantic games endlessly to pretend people are saying things which they clearly aren't saying.
As we've seen in this thread, it can go on for pages.
And he's extremely selective about what he will accept from people who are "authorities".
The people he's quoting here clearly think that gravity is a thing and that the earth is a sphere.
Why he doesn't accept their authority on those points remains a mystery.

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 01:47:50 PM »
I merely pointed out that Quinn states they cannot measure gravity.
But you are cherry picking that statement and not looking at it in the context of the article which basically says "measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better". Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity, it explicitly says that this doesn't change any scientific theories.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 01:14:13 PM »
If you have a tool marked in micrometers, then yes, I could do so.

Let me know when you get one.
Right. But this is the exact point. Micrometres are small and therefore hard to measure.
With a regular tape measure you can't measure them.

That doesn't mean that tape measures don't work or you can't measure distances or that distances don't exist.
It just means with the tools at hand you can only measure things to a certain precision - which is always the case, actually.

And sure, they would like to be able to measure G more accurately, but the values they measure at the moment have a discrepancy of less than 1 part in 2000. Plenty good enough for all practical purposes.

Nothing in these quotes casts any doubt on the existence of gravity. The model we have of gravity is good enough to land rovers on Mars and send probes to Pluto. I reckon that's a pretty successful model.

13
I can remember two.
I can't help you with that.
Well, you could. You could post the other data you're basing your opinions on. As I said, I remember two surveys, one from Brazil, one from the US. As part of this conversation I tried to look at the issue of flat earth growth and I found the same two, I didn't find much else. If there are others then I'll have a look if you post them.
Memory lapses aren't inexplicable or mysterious when you start hurtling towards 50 - I doubt you'll be able to remember all the posts you've read on here either when you get there.
But as I said I had a look around the internet and didn't find a lot of data on this other than those two surveys.

Quote
The one about Americans has a somewhat of a click-baity headline but basically it puts FE belief about 2%.
This is desperately incorrect, and you know it!!!1!

Direct quote from this article about it:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/?sh=91ba2ec7ec66

Quote
The survey found that 2% of Americans firmly believe the Earth is flat

4% among millennials if you want to be super-generous. And sure, other people are questioning things, but it's a bit disingenuous to count those.
And "the other one" says 7% (it also repeats the 2% from the US survey):
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/scienceandhealth/2019/07/7-of-brazilians-believe-that-earth-is-flat.shtml

I'll just highlight these bits:

Quote
The survey had 2,086 respondents over 16 years of age in 103 cities across the country

Quote
Ninety percent of those interviewed claimed to believe that the Earth was round and the rest said they did not know their form. The belief that the Earth is flat was inversely proportional to schooling. While 10% of those who left school after elementary school defend that Earth is flat, this percentage decreases among those who studied until they finished high school (6%) or higher (3%).

On sample size. You said:

Quote
And what would you base this suggestion, which completely defies how statistical research is done, on? Once again - it is convenience. You don't like the results, so you're ready to throw out all research methods out the window in favour of... YouTube videos.

I didn't even mention YouTube videos. I've happily accepted at the start of this thread that SciManDan's video is not scientific.
If you want to know what I'm actually basing my assertion on that a survey of 2000 people is not statistically significant of a population of over 200 million, rather than you telling me what I'm basing it on. I'm basing it on something we did at work - we have a system which has about 1-2 million people going through it a year and as part of that system we collect some profiling data which is used for reasons I won't go in to. I own this system and ideally I would like us not to have to ask people these questions because it's a potential roadblock for customers. But we do need the data. So one idea we came up with was to only ask a sample of people. Someone looked in to this and found that to get statistically significant results with a high confidence we'd only need to ask just over 1% of people. So I figured that if you need 1% of 1-2m people you'd probably need about the same with 200 million people. It turns out, looking at this:
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/
That it doesn't scale as I thought it would. So actually to achieve a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of 2% you only need 2401 people. I'll admit that is a lot lower than I expected although it's still a higher than the number of people who did respond to the survey and I don't know how they chose who to ask.

So OK, let's agree that the number in Brazil is worryingly high (well, you probably disagree about the "worryingly"). That still doesn't tell me data over time. That's what would tell us if there is the continued growth you claim. That's what I haven't seen. And it's only data in 2 countries. Famously, FE believe has spread all round the globe (lolz - sorry), but I don't have good data over time in multiple countries which would make me think that there has been a sustained growth.

Quote
When SciManDan approached me for an interview on his podcast, I spoke to other FE content creators and activists about their experiences with him, and the many attempted "interviews", the troll mobs he sends after people, the hilarious failures at doxxing by said mobs, and his tendency to outright ban people when an argument isn't going his way (or when any of the above is highlighted) - you know, the kind of nasty stuff that put him on everyone's naughty list. I was warned by people I trust to disengage, and I have done so.

Fair enough. Obviously I can't comment on the way he acts as all I really know about him is his videos. Although I would note that FE content creators are probably a bit butt hurt about his success as he has gained a lot of followers pulling their nonsense to pieces.
In general his motive seems to be to stand up for truth - and sure, he wants to make money but "YouTuber" is a valid career choice these days. If he can make a full time living from it then what's wrong with that?
He started out by debunking FE stuff but has done more general science stuff and debunking of other nonsense conspiracy theories. Just today he released a video debunking some anti-vaxxer stuff which I think is a noble thing to do. Certain conspiracy theories are harmless enough but anti-vaxxer stuff can be genuinely dangerous and should be challenged.
No argument that the Omegle video was not his finest work.

Quote
And yet it continues to happen, no matter how long you cry about it.

You have yet to demonstrate that. I've yet to see data over time. You have claimed exponential growth. Where's the data which shows that on a continued basis?

Quote
Again, take a step back and observe your desperation: you keep proposing that we should abandon statistics and data science
No, I'm proposing you should present the statistics. The two polls I've discussed aside, I've not seen the data you're basing your opinions on.

Quote
You don't get to call us bad people who deserve to be harassed

I didn't call you that. I mean, there are some people who pose as FE but don't actually believe it and are deliberately spreading misinformation. Those people should be...I wouldn't say harassed but their nonsense should not go unchallenged. So yes, I'm very much on the side of people like scimandan who do challenge it. I wouldn't advocate harassment but has he done that to you? You say he reached out to you, you declined his invitation and then what? Has he harassed you since? If so then I'd agree he shouldn't do that but you guys barely get a mention on his channel, he mostly responds to YouTube FE channels.

Quote
Keep thinking that if you'd like. Just don't come crying to me when you realise your side had lost, purely due to ignoring the early warnings.
Well, I won't, because "my side" isn't going to lose. Actually, you have previously said that you're interested in the truth. In that sense we are on the same side. We may disagree about what the truth is, but I care deeply about what is true. This is why I cheer on people like scimandan who, from my perspective, are standing up for that truth and debunking sometimes dangerous misinformation. But I wouldn't approve of his methods if he's actually harassing people.

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 10, 2021, 05:03:00 PM »
No one needs an accurate measurement of gravity, because it has no bearing on anything at all. It is mythical to begin with.
And here you are twisting the words.
Quinn says we don't need a more accurate measure. He is not saying the measure we have isn't accurate. Obviously science always seeks to do better but the value we have is plenty good enough for all practical purposes. Even if we take 450ppm - the very biggest discrepancy mentioned - that's still less than 1 in 2000.
As I said, this is like us both measuring a table, me coming up with a value of 1m 99.9cm and you coming up with a value of 2m dead and you concluding that because we are a millimetre out over a 2m span that it means that tables can't be measured, or don't exist, or that tape measures don't work.

15
To save you time, these mountain ranges should not be visible.
Can you show your working? I couldn't find anything about the viewer height, it said it was taken from the "Corsica area".
I have no idea how to verify whether the mountains shown in the photograph have been identified correctly.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 10, 2021, 06:07:08 AM »
Why is it that you personally believe, against the opinion of all these people that you are quoting that the minuscule uncertainty in the value of the gravity constant means that gravity doesn't exist.
I mean, you know why.
Were Tom to accept gravity then the whole of FET (such as it is) falls apart. So Tom does here what he does a lot. He quotes selectively from “authorities” and then dishonestly misinterprets what they say. He ignores the parts where they say things he doesn’t want to believe - he doesn’t accept them as an authority on those parts, strangely.
It’s possibly a combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, but I think it’s more likely trolling.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 08:51:43 PM »
Quote
They can't measure gravity. They say this themselves. There goes your Cavendish proof.
No they don't.
They say that measuring gravity is hard because it is such a weak force.
They also say that despite this they can measure it with a discrepancy of 450ppm - as I said this is less that 1 in 2000.
They also say that they would like to do better, but that even if G does turn out to be different from what they think it is, it wouldn't change any laws of physics - it is clear they are not saying that they don't think gravity is a thing.

Your argument is basically that because the variations are 450ppm that means they aren't measuring gravity, which is absolutely not what is being said. It's like saying that I'm measuring a table which is about 2 meters long and some people are claiming that it's only 1.999m long and you are concluding that tables don't exist, or tape measures don't work.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 05:31:28 PM »
You “accidentally” left out these quotes:

Quote
Most scientists think all these discrepancies reflect human sources of error, rather than a true inconstancy of big G.

And

Quote
If the true value of big G turns out to be closer to the Quinn team’s measurement than the CODATA value, then calculations that depend on G will have to be revised. For example, the estimated masses of the solar system’s planets, including Earth, would change slightly. Such a revision, however, wouldn’t alter any fundamental laws of physics, and would have very little practical effect on anyone’s life

Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity. At most there’s some discussion about whether there’s some subtlety of gravity which hasn’t been understood. But even if we take that discrepancy of of 450ppm, that’s still under 1 in 2000. It’s like people measuring something 2 meters wide, getting differences of a millimetre. Yes, they’d like to do better but no one is casting any doubt on gravity existing or the shape of the earth. So what is your actual point here in citing these authorities?

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 05:01:32 PM »
In this situation we have physicists making direct statements

We do. And they all agree that gravity exists and therefore the earth is a globe.

You seem to accept them as authorities so do you accept their expertise on this? If not then why are you being so dishonestly selective about what you will and will not accept from authorities?

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 08, 2021, 09:29:29 PM »
I don't want SteelyBob's points or analogies. I want the points and analogies of qualified individuals.
You don’t though, do you?
Because all those qualified individuals are saying that gravity is a thing which means that the earth is a globe. You are dishonestly selective about the points you will accept from qualified individuals. I have made this point several times and you have ignored it which is telling.

Yes, you have some quote from people who say measuring gravity is hard. And they explain why it’s hard. But they also say that despite that they can measure it with impressive accuracy. That is not SteelyBob's point, it’s the point made by the “qualified individuals”. SteelyBob simply put it in graphical form to make it easier to visualise and understand.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 153  Next >