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 - garygreen

Pages: < Back  1 ... 80 81 [82]
1621
Flat Earth Theory / Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 19, 2013, 03:51:00 AM »
tl;dr version: every truth claim has a burden of proof.  it doesn't matter whether or not the claim contains a negation.

I feel like I'm derailing the UA vs. gravity thread, so I'm starting a new one.  This isn't strictly about FET, but it comes up a lot.

It's often claimed in various threads by members of both sides that one cannot proves a negative claim like, "There is no x."  This is a popular belief, and it's completely false.  Deductive reasoning is valid if and only if it is impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false.  Deductive reasoning is sound if and only if it is valid and its premises are true.  That's all.  It makes no difference if the premises or conclusions contain negations.

First, all truth claims carry a burden of proof.  Consider the following statement: Barack Obama does not exist.  The statement is not relieved of a burden of proof simply because it contains a negation.  Anyone making this claim would be required to offer evidence supporting the truth of its claim.  This is because all truth claims, negative or positive, carry a burden of proof.

Negative claims can also be proven deductively.  Consider the following argument:

1.  If A, then B. (If A exists, then B exists)
2.  Not B. (B does not exist)
3.  Therefore: not A. (A does not exist)

This argument uses a basic rule of inference called modus tollens, and we just used it to prove a negative: not A.  It's logically valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false.  Whether or not it's sound depends on the truth of the premises.

Let's consider a less abstract example:

If Barack Obama exists, then a birth certificate for Barack Obama exists.
A birth certificate for Barack Obama does not exist.
Therefore, Barack Obama does not exist.

This is a good example because it illustrates a point that is often missed in these discussions.  Notice that we can still argue and debate the truth of premises.  A proof can be both valid and not sound.  Obviously the argument I just made is very unsound (the premises are untrue), but if the premises were true, then it would be a logically valid proof of the conclusion (if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true).

There are obviously a host of other issues that would have to be resolved with the premises (What do we mean by Barack Obama?  Anyone with that name?  The person who is the president?  Does the argument require that the person who is the president be named Barack Obama?).  And, in practice, some conclusions and their associated premises might be too complex in reality for us to resolve; but, the fact that our reasoning includes statements with negatives doesn't make them necessarily irresolvable.

And, we can't just assume that every negative claim is true until proven otherwise.  There's at least one good reason for this: every positive truth claim can be reformulated into a negative one.  It's called double negation.  'x exists' can be rewritten as 'x does not not exist,' or, 'it is not the case that x does not exist.'  If every negative claim is assumed true until proven false, then all claims must be assumed true until proven false.  That is the opposite of skepticism.

1622
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 19, 2013, 02:27:55 AM »
I know I'm a homer, but goddamn
Oh?  It is barely noticeable...

I'll take SF in the playoffs.

But I hide it so well.

I certainly wouldn't be shocked if Niners take us down.  I'm a homer, but I'm not stupid.  SF can beat anyone in the league.  I'd still give give the Niners 3 at home against my Hawks, though.  It's a pick'em at worst.

1623
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 19, 2013, 01:49:19 AM »
Seattle is clearly the best team in the league.  Their defense might be the best that's ever been on an NFL field.  Richard Sherman plays man coverage with his hands.  Literally, he turns right to the QB at the snap and feels the receiver's cuts with his hands behind him.  I've never seen anything like it.

I know I'm a homer, but goddamn, I don't see what this team is lacking.

1624
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 19, 2013, 12:16:06 AM »
For a riveting discussion on my important and groundbreaking opinions on proving negatives, see this thread: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=979.0

1625
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 15, 2013, 09:01:53 PM »
Tom, what evidence do you think would speak directly to SpaceX's status as a private firm?  What evidence do you think would be sufficient to confirm that SpaceX is private?

If the technology cannot be reproduced by others freely, and is controlled, then the claims that such things have been built, or can be built, are dubious.

Rocket engines can be reproduced by others.  You can go to engineering schools and learn how to build them.  You've only proven that the technology cannot be freely exported to other nations.

If, however, the claims are as dubious as you say, then what kind of evidence would be sufficient to settle one way or the other?  What kind of evidence do you think would be sufficient to confirm their claims?

SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other rocket designers are all government contractors, operating under government regulation, with facilities on government bases, under direct supervision of government managers. There is no implicit trust of transparency or independence.

In fact, the government uses most of these contracting companies as temp agencies. While you might work for Lockheed Martin by name, the actual work you do for, say the Department of Defense, is done on DOD facilities and under the direct supervision of the government manager. There may be a small Lockheed Martin structure, where you report to your Lockheed Martin supervisor, who then reports to the government manager, but the environment is the same. The government calls the shots, not your contracting company.

Can you provide evidence that any of these things are true of SpaceX?  What evidence do you think would be sufficient to confirm that SpaceX is a private firm?

None of this applies to anything that I talked about in the OP because SpaceX was hired by a private, foreign telecom firm.  That's the point of the OP.  A private company hired another private company to put a satellite into orbit.  It was a success.

That SpaceX was once hired by NASA is irrelevant.  There is a large body of evidence documenting their company's history as a private firm.

That SpaceX is regulated by the government is irrelevant.  So is GM.  So is every business in America.

All you've contributed to this thread so far is weak inductive reasoning.

e: my apologies for the double post.  i thought i was editing my previous post, but i guess i wasn't paying attention to what i was doing.  whoops.

1626
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:17:59 PM »
No hate at all, just reality.  They are -1 on the road, so they would be -4 at home.  Dolphins are -105 on the money line so the sharps have no confidence in the Pats in this game.

I bet the Pats this week at +120.  I was surprised it wasn't a pick'em.

1627
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 15, 2013, 04:49:33 PM »
This entire discussion is exactly why I started by asking you what kind of evidence would be sufficient to prove that this case is different so that we can cut to the chase and talk about that evidence.  You know, rather than making a bunch of inductive arguments, speculation, and argument by analogy.  But I forgot that those are your only modes of argument and logic.

Please, though, continue with analogies and inductive reasoning.  Those things suddenly become logically sound and strong arguments when you make them.

1628
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 15, 2013, 03:38:31 PM »
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

Markjo and I both provided you with schematics and technical documents for the F-1 engine used in the Saturn V launch vehicle.  Your analogy is less persuasive than direct evidence of the thing you say can't exist.  It exists.  I put it right in front of your face.

SpaceX is allowed to build space rockets because they are in league with NASA and the government they have complied with government regulation and oversight. They have facilities at government military and research bases and launch from government launch pads, for crying out loud.

A space program I start in my basement is not allowed to build space rockets because not only is FAA and military clearance required, space rockets are regulated as weapons I haven't done any of those things.

Fixed.

I notice that SpaceX is now simply in league with NASA and not just a front for them.  Again, you're just saying that SpaceX is heavily regulated.  Indeed.  So is Chrysler.

There's also nothing odd about launching your vehicle from a NASA launch pad, especially if NASA is one of your customers.  1) They're already set up to do that sort of thing.  2) It's cheaper than building your own launch pad.  3) What are they supposed to do, fire the thing off in the middle of LA?

You're not grasping my point: all of this 'evidence' is exactly what we would expect from a legitimate, private aerospace firm.

According to ITAR and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, both Launch Vehicles and Rockets are weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

ITAR regulates exports.  That's it.  Every regulation you listed pertains to the export of those technologies and materials from US citizens to non-US citizens.  It doesn't prohibit the development or creation of rocket engines in the US.

That document does not prohibit a US citizen from starting a private aerospace firm.

And again, no one is arguing that SpaceX exists in a legal vacuum, exempted from all US laws and regulations.  SpaceX is heavily regulated.  Just like everyone else.

1629
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data
« on: December 15, 2013, 05:48:49 AM »
The much simpler, more obvious, and fact-based explanation is that China's stat-run news agency prepared the article in advance of the event because they're just the mouthpiece for China's propaganda machine.  Xinhua is run by the Propaganda Department.  Literally.  That's what it's called.  Propaganda machines usually aren't super concerned with journalistic ethics.

1630
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 13, 2013, 04:21:38 PM »
Yeah, I'm also pretty confused on what any of this business about car engines has to do with SpaceX's status as a private enterprise.

1631
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Nominate 5 names for the council.
« on: December 13, 2013, 06:13:54 AM »
Tom Bishop
Squevil
Roundy
Pizaaplanet
Saddam

1632
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 13, 2013, 06:10:10 AM »
As I see it, Tom is making two arguments: 1) SpaceX can't be a genuine third-party because they are so heavily regulated by the government, and 2) SpaceX can't be a genuine third-party because no one but NASA can make rocket engines.

To the first point, the fact that SpaceX is heavily regulated is irrelevant.  The same can be said of every business in America.  I couldn't start a business designing and building my own airplanes without heavy government regulation from many different agencies over many different aspects of my business.  That wouldn't be evidence that my new airplane company is secretly being run by the FAA.

To the second point, you still haven't produced evidence that it's true, or that all orbital rocket technology is classified/illegal/whatever else.  You've only asserted it.  I can't find any example of such a law, and I can find lots of examples of rocket engine schematics and technical diagrams.  Here are a few of them that I found just for the F-1 engine:

Some of these pdfs are large-ish.
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/F-1_Engine.pdf
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/r-3896-1a/F-1%20Rocket%20Engine%20Technical%20Manual%20Supplement%20(R-3896-1A)%20(small).pdf
http://agentdc.uah.edu/homepages/dcfiles/USSRC/F1EngiFamiTraiManu%20Section%201_072308152849.pdf

There is no reason to believe that SpaceX would be unable to (or prohibited from) design and build their own rocket engines.

I'm still curious to know what kind of evidence you think would be acceptable to get to the truth of the matter.  You can begin to convince me that you're correct by showing me the relevant law that prohibits SpaceX from doing what it alleges it does.  What evidence or source would you be willing to consider as valid evidence that SpaceX is a private entity?

1633
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 07, 2013, 04:59:42 PM »
junker doesn't believe in variance.

1634
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 06, 2013, 05:03:46 PM »
Go Seahawks.  We better win it this season while all of our beasts are still on rookie contracts.
Hopefully they keep home field, otherwise, they'll choke on the road.

Eh, I don't really buy into the 'hawks can't win on the road' thing.  They're undeniably better at home (more like 13th man amirite?!?!?!), but I'm loving everything I see from this team.  They're just young.

1635
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 06, 2013, 04:40:52 PM »
To be clear at the top, I'm not challenging the notion that aerospace is a heavily regulated industry/enterprise/whatever.  I'm only challenging the idea that regulation is proof of de facto state control.  Every business is regulated.  I can't open a corner bakery without the government oversight and regulation, but that doesn't mean that my bakery is run by the government.

SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology. The government doesn't let that stuff into the public domain. They don't let private companies go willy nilly, building classified technology in unsecured and uncontrolled environments without direct civil servant oversight.

Do you have evidence that this is true?  I've found an abundance of technical specifications on both the design and construction of the F-1 rocket engine, for example.  I also cannot find any examples of a law or regulation that prohibits the design or construction of rocket engines (notwithstanding regulations on the components or materials used, like hazardous materials and such), but I'd happily consider any sources you provide.

What evidence would you consider valid proof to the contrary?  Technical specifications?  Personal testimony?  Something else?

SpaceX company was specifically created to cater to NASA. The impracticality of a truly private space program without governmental oversight is three fold. Not only is it impossible to build orbital rockets legally, it's also impossible to breach military airspace without prior clearance and scrutiny. It's also impractical to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into building a rocket when you don't even know if NASA is going to buy your services or not; whether they would continue using their own rockets, or outsource their space program to another country with launch capability, such as the ESA. Clearly, the deal was struck with NASA before the fact.

Lastly, SpaceX has its offices on government land and the launches are conducted from military bases, which is an overt indication of its status.

Elon Musk claims that he started the company of his own volition after selling PayPal for oodles of billions of dollars.  That you personally think investing <10% of that wealth in an unproven aerospace company is too risky is hardly evidence of anything.  You're not a self-made billionaire entrepreneur.

Beyond that, nothing you've said is evidence that SpaceX isn't a private firm or that engineers employed by SpaceX didn't design and create its own rocket engines and launch vehicles.  I will happily try and provide you with evidence that they did, but first I want to know what sort of evidence you think would be legitimate and sufficient to establish (or at least indicate) the truth of the matter.  Personal testimony?  Technical documents?  Demonstrations of novel technologies and vehicles?  Journalistic inquiry?  Something else?


1636
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 06, 2013, 12:56:39 AM »
Go Seahawks.  We better win it this season while all of our beasts are still on rookie contracts.

1637
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 05, 2013, 06:54:54 AM »
The above poster is correct. Just like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, the space projects are being built by NASA under a different name.

It's a congressional mandate that federal agencies use contractors for most roles and proejcts. Private contractors are seen as superior and more cost efficient than government sponsored engineering. The FBI, DOJ, FDA, CIA, NSA, and all other three and four letter agencies use contractors en mass. There are significantly more people who work for the government through contractors than there are government employees. At places like NASA and NOAA, the only people working directly for NASA are the managers and security.

But this is not to say that the government has no control over its contractors. Government contractors are basically temp agencies. The contracted employees work on site at the government base, under the direction of the government civil servant, answerable directly to the government. They have secret government clearances and take polygraph tests. The only interaction the typical engineer has with his parent company is receiving his paycheck.

Do you have evidence that this is true of SpaceX?

I think that there is an abundance of evidence to support that SpaceX is radically different than you describe; that it is a genuine, private aerospace company originating from a single wealthy businessman; and, that creates and builds rockets.  If I presented you with such evidence, that SpaceX is a private firm that employs actual engineers to design and build actual rockets, would you consider it and take it seriously?

If so, what kind of evidence would you consider legitimate?  What kind of evidence do you think would be suitable to support the position I described?

1638
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Forum structure
« on: December 04, 2013, 04:34:38 AM »
Can we consider my structure idea?

I think we only need two forums for FE.

A super serious one to discuss flat earth and bring credibility to the site, and a fun one where people can post dumb stuff and have fun about FET. Not CN. CN is for everything. FE Fun could be for zetetic maths and square earth theory and all the other stuff people love to post, without scolding them for posting here.

Additional.
Make the Flat Earth Debate forum a different text colour or something. Red font maybe. So its very obvious that is the main point of the site and has a marked step change in moderation and rules.

Condensing the 3 will stop moderators having to move everything which is confusing to someone who made their first post and it dissappeared, + it stops a discussion on gravity in Q&A and in FED and in General all happening at once.

It will also stop the main forums looking so empty until new users arrive. If the FE Debate forum gets so busy as to require splitting, do it due to demand. Not dogma.

I rather like this idea.

1639
Flat Earth Theory / SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 04, 2013, 04:28:29 AM »
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/12/03/live-spacexs-first-commercial-satellite-launch/

SpaceX has launched its first commercial satellite.  The argument I've commonly encountered in SpaceX threads is that their only client is NASA (or something to that effect).

SpaceX just put a rocket into orbit that they designed and built themselves, the Falcon 9.  The rocket housed a satellite designed and built by a publicly-traded, non-state enterprise (Orbital Sciences).  The satellite is being used by a private Dutch telecom firm.

http://www.orbital.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation

http://www.ses.com/4232583/en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SES_World_Skies

So a bunch of private entities got together and put a satellite into orbit.  I feel like that's pretty compelling evidence that the Earth is, in fact, round.  I guess I don't have a more specific topic to debate than: The Earth is round.  My bad.

I tried to find a good video, but I could only find old ones.  Oh well.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 80 81 [82]