2141

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 21, 2013, 04:40:24 PM »

Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.

I wasn't asking you to do them for my sake, I was suggesting you do them for your own. However, if you have no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps you should stop criticising those who are.

If Tom has no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps he should stop calling himself a zetetic.

2142

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Forum rules: Draft 1

« on: December 21, 2013, 04:34:46 PM »

I just don't think anyone here is that kind of dick.

You're new here, aren't you?

2143

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the earth's shape, and what we truly know

« on: December 21, 2013, 03:48:03 AM »

They believed that light traveled in straight lines.  It does not.

Then again, that begs the question; if light does not travel in a straight line, then what reference does one use to determine straightness over long distances?

2144

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 21, 2013, 01:22:46 AM »

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.  All you have proven is that you haven't looked in the right places.  Have you tried contacting the designers, manufacturers or operators of the gravity probe in question?

No, I have not contacted them. It is not my claim that this space craft and components within it was built to be impervious to magnetic fields. That's yours. You are making a claim and asking me to "prove me wrong". My argument is "prove yourself right".

Sorry Tom, but I made no such claim.  You are the one making claims about what NASA did and didn't say about their gravity probes.

Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

controlled experiment
n.
An experiment that isolates the effect of one variable on a system by holding constant all variables but the one under observation.

Exactly.  The mass (gnome) and the scale are constant while the environment (earth's gravitational field) is the variable that is being tested (measured).  Tell me again how this is not a controlled experiment.

2145

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the earth's shape, and what we truly know

« on: December 20, 2013, 06:43:54 PM »

As for the wandering celestial bodies in our sky, I believe the ancient greeks had many things right in their geocentric solar system model, including the nature of the motion of the heavens (at least in principle), but unfortunately many bought into the spherical earth idea put forth by some of their thinkers, and thus the charade was born.  The reason for this was that many ancient Greeks believed in perfect heavens - all perfect circles and spheres, and they simply assumed that the earth must be the same.

That is only part of the story.  There were a number of real world observations that the Ancient Greeks made that they realized just didn't make sense if the earth were flat.  I guess that they didn't have the savvy to come up with bendy light to explain the sinking ship effect or celestial gears to explain the different appearance of constellations at various latitudes.

2146

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 20, 2013, 06:30:51 PM »

Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.

How do you know this?  Did you examine all of NASA's claims?

I examined the claims I could find. If there are claims which I have not found, perhaps you should see to it that they find me.

I'm not asserting anything, you are.  I'm just asking if you have examined the schematics of the probe to determine how susceptible it may have been to magnetic fields.

I looked at the sources and could not find any such schematic. If such a schematic exists, which describes a craft as you describe it, with the things you claim of it, then post it here. Otherwise we must conclude that there is no schematic which describes a craft with the things you claim of it.

Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.

Oh, so you're just making all of this up?  Good to know.

If there is no evidence that something exist, that is evidence that it does not exist.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.  All you have proven is that you haven't looked in the right places.  Have you tried contacting the designers, manufacturers or operators of the gravity probe in question?

The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Actually Tom, it is a controlled experiment.  The gnome is the control.  It's a known mass that is being weighed with the same equipment under different conditions.  How does this not qualify as controlled experiment?

The environment was not controlled.

Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

2147

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 20, 2013, 02:19:53 AM »

The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Actually Tom, it is a controlled experiment.  The gnome is the control.  It's a known mass that is being weighed with the same equipment under different conditions.  How does this not qualify as controlled experiment?

2148

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Erich von Daniken

« on: December 19, 2013, 06:20:49 PM »

I've seen several theories successfully tested on small scale pyramids (3-4 layers), but that doesn't necessarily mean that they scale to several hundred layers.  That and the logistics of quarrying, shaping and moving a million or more blocks in a relatively short time span does seem rather daunting even by modern standards, let alone ancient.

2149

Flat Earth Community / Re: Zetetic Council Election Thread.

« on: December 19, 2013, 05:04:40 PM »

Does the forum have a "poll" function?  Would that, or something like it, add some transparency to the process?

It does indeed! Using it or something similar is what I'm suggesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the poll function doesn't allow for write-in candidates.

2150

Technology & Information / Is it time to tell your CPU to STFU?

« on: December 19, 2013, 02:52:43 PM »

It seems that it's possible to extract certain RSA keys by listening to the sounds that your CPU makes.
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tromer/acoustic/

2151

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:40:27 AM »

Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.

How do you know this?  Did you examine all of NASA's claims?

Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

If you assert that magnetic fields have been taken into consideration, then you should post your findings here for all to see.

I'm not asserting anything, you are.  I'm just asking if you have examined the schematics of the probe to determine how susceptible it may have been to magnetic fields.

Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.

Oh, so you're just making all of this up?  Good to know.

2152

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 09:09:32 PM »

Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Says who? People who believe in spirituality, ghosts, and ESP?

Says people who recognize an argument from ignorance fallacy when they see one.

2153

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 09:06:31 PM »

Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.

So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

It needs controls if you plan to pass it off as a valid scientific experiment.

Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.

What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?

Because no such claims have been made in the reading material.

Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Sure, here is the evidence that no such trials have been associated with the measurements:

Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

2154

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 04:34:50 AM »

Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.

So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.

What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?

2155

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 03:45:29 AM »

All measurements are experiments.

  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

When you step on a scale you are conducting an experiment to test your own weight.

Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?

I've read all about the gravity space experiments.

Why do I have a hard time believing that?

No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.

So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

2156

Technology & Information / Re: Top searches for 2013

« on: December 18, 2013, 02:13:30 AM »

Let me get this straight. People go to google, and search for google? 

From the article:

"Chrome makes no distinction between web addresses and words in its search box so people get lazy and just type in single words like Google rather than full web addresses," he said.

"But this registers as a search."

2157

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 17, 2013, 06:19:51 PM »

All measurements are experiments.

  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.

What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?

2158

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Should Mods Be Held to Higher Standard

« on: December 17, 2013, 02:20:22 PM »

Holding a mod to a higher standard is not oppressive.

It is too. See Roundy's testimony. His freedom of expression was restricted, and that's oppression.

No, not really.  Freedom of expression is restricted all the time.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater and freedom of expression doesn't mean that you can post porn in a public forum.  Being a mod shouldn't mean that you can be a dick whenever you want.

2159

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 17, 2013, 03:40:01 AM »

What is your proof of UA?

Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.

Its called gravitey

Are you sure?  Einstein said that for an experiment that limited, it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.

2160

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Should Mods Be Held to Higher Standard

« on: December 17, 2013, 03:31:58 AM »

The mods are generally the most respected members of the forum.

Why does it seem like that quote belongs in a Monster Fail thread?

The mods should be able to post however they want: I don't want them to stifle their posting because someone might get butthurt at a comment.

I agree.  The mods should be able to post however they want.  Just as long as it's within the established rules and guidelines of the forum.  As I recall, the one rule that everyone (including all of the mods) agreed to is to not be a dick.  Call me a prude, but I would contend that going out of one's way to butthurt someone could be considered being a dick.