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 - fisherman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 05, 2021, 05:10:33 PM »
I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”
Conveniently, I already provided you with the source of the ambiguity. I can't force you to see it, let alone to read it, but it's easily available to you should you choose to address it.

it is misleading to say they are incompatible.
That continues to be something you misread/misunderstood because you didn't bother to read on. I already asked you to move on, so now I'm warning you instead. If you can't stay focused enough to finish reading the article, or if you lack the common sense to simply ask questions about things you don't understand, then you're gonna have to take your posting to AR.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible. 
This statement is false, and after the amount of wilfully obtuse behaviour from you above, I am convinced that this is completely deliberate. One way or another, this ends now.

I’m not being deliberately obtuse.  I’m trying to figure out where in FET there is room for traditional theories of gravitation.

The wiki says they are incompatible because they require a spherical earth.  That doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 04, 2021, 08:50:37 PM »
Quote
this is a savagely misguided and antiquated understanding of psychological disorders — especially schizophrenia — but let's set that aside for a moment. suppose that it were the case that one could treat schizophrenics by indulging their beliefs. suppose you could just be like "yeah man, the cia and aliens, cool beans" and doing so made them happy, productive members of their communities instead of suicidal social pariahs. would you have a problem with that treatment option?

As the sibling of a schizophrenic and parent of a severely bipolar daughter, I can tell you that I would have a problem with it.  My brother has passed, but believe me when I say that I would cut out my own heart if I thought it would bring my daughter some relief, but expecting the rest of my family, her friends, employers and society in general to feign acceptance of her delusions when she is in a psychotic episode is too much of a physical, emotional and financial burden to place on anyone.  Not to mention that doing that could put her and others in physical danger.

I understand that the transgender issue isn't the same as accepting someone's "identified" gender doesn't really require any great sacrifice and I admit to some mixed feelings about it.  There was one episode she had that I think is somewhat analogous, though.

 At one point, she wanted to poke her eyes out because she thought it would stop the hallucinations.  Naturally, that is something that couldn't be indulged...not just because of the obvious physical implications, but because she didn't understand that her eyes weren't the problem.  Poking her eyes out wouldn't stop the hallucinations because the problem was in her mind, not with her vision.

In that way, I'm not sure that reassignment surgery and mutilating one's genitalia is appropriate.  The problem isn't with the presence or absence of sex organs.  The problem is in the mind.  I knew that poking her eyes out would not give my daughter relief and I wonder just how much relief reassignment surgery gives transgender people.  I can't help but suspect that feelings of inadequacy,  loneliness, etc. continue to some extent.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 04, 2021, 02:09:10 PM »
Quote
But sure. There exists such a definition of "harmony" under which the two exist in harmony, and since you chose to replace one ambiguous definition with another, you should be pretty content with that answer.

I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”. If there is a sense in which the two theories can coexist, then it is misleading to say they are incompatible.

Quote
Yes, this problem will persist until you've actually read beyond the lede and understood the piece of writing you're impotently trying to "gotcha". Nobody can help you there but yourself.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible.  Instead, it goes on to offer an entirely different and entirely incompatible theory. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to state that in some ways traditional theories of gravity are consistent with FE and then to on to explain how?

Quote
I repeat (only for the second time, so I appreciate this might not have sunk in just yet): you will not be allowed to derail this thread any further. If you want to carry on shitposting, do so in the right place.

When it was suggested earlier in the thread that FE and gravity weren’t not compatible, you were the one who said that was not true.  I don’t see how pointing out that your wiki says otherwise is derailing the thread or shitposting.  It was a direct response to a comment you made.


If there is some sense in which traditional theories of gravity are compatible, in what way are they?  And directly to the point of the OP, is that limited compatibility responsible for maintaining the shape of the earth (whether RE or FE)?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 04, 2021, 12:43:41 PM »
Quote
This strictly depends on what you mean by "compatible" - you have been using the term in two distinct meanings, seemingly interchangeably, but presumably with some awareness. Standardising this would be a good first step.

The standard dictionary definition will do.

1: capable of existing together in harmony
compatible theories
compatible people

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compatible


5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 04, 2021, 11:59:47 AM »
Quote
Why would I do that? I already told you (this marks the fourth time) that this is not what's being claimed. If you're going to waste our time with low-effort strawmen, do so in the appropriate section of the forum.

Then what is being claimed?  Are traditional theories of gravitation compatible with FE or not?  The wiki says that they are not, clearly and explicitly.  You seem to be suggesting that they are.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 02:04:48 PM »
That's direct from the wiki page.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Yes, this has been stated three times now, and I successfully read it the first time around. Once again, this has already been addressed. I don't know how to best help you beyond that.

You can explain how traditional theories of gravitation can be both compatible and incompatible with FE at the same time.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 01:58:15 PM »
Its a direct quote from the wiki that traditional theories of gravitation are incompatible with FE.
I only just finished explaining this, together with a speculation for how you could have ended up with this misunderstanding. Perhaps reading my post will help?

Quote
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

That's direct from the wiki page.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Traditional theories of gravitation can't be both compatible and incompatible with FE at the same time.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 01:40:59 PM »
At least this is what is written in the wiki on Universal Acceleration.
Not true. It sounds like you only read the lede of the article, and thus ended up with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject.

Its a direct quote from the wiki that traditional theories of gravitation are incompatible with FE.  Are you suggesting that those theories are compatible with FE?  That's a pretty blatant contradiction.



9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« on: June 03, 2021, 01:50:58 AM »

Quote
Gravity causes all bodies beyond a certain mass to be spherical. Without the effect of gravity a planet would not necessarily break apart, but it would not have formed at all.
Note that I refer to gravity as it is described by "mainstream" science and not as described in the FE

Looks like according to “mainstream” science, the earth would break apart without gravity

www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160212-what-would-happen-to-you-if-gravity-stopped-working

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 07:45:19 PM »
Quote
I don't want SteelyBob's points or analogies. I want the points and analogies of qualified individuals. If you can't provide that then you guys have lost the argument.

What exactly do you need these qualified individuals to say?

11
Things cool down because they radiate heat.  An object that is "shaded" from moonlight is prevented from radiating as much heat because whatever is shading it will block it.

Same reason a cloudy night will be warmer than a clear night.  The clouds insulate the heat.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 04, 2021, 07:07:26 PM »
Quote
Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.

Matter and weight are inseparable and elemental facts.

But yet, on the Vomit Comet, material things have mass, but they don't have weight.  Do you even know the definition of weight?

When you are on a elevator or a roller coaster, your weight will change, but your mass doesn't.  It's almost as if there is something else that determines your weight, besides mass.


13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 04, 2021, 03:55:20 AM »
Quote
Well, yes.  But until TV is established, acceleration up is less than UA acceleration so velocity becomes less,  etc. etc.  Would have to look at it again to see exactly where it ended up.

As far as I am concerned, it is established.  The language in the wiki is clear and if I am misunderstanding, not FEer has seen fit to correct me. 

Consider the apple and tree in a vacuum if it makes you feel better.  The principle is still the same.

The bottom line is that the EP only applies when an object is "at rest"...in an unaccelerated state. If an object is being accelerated upwards, whether it is being slowed down by drag or not, it is still being accelerated.  They can't have it both ways and apply the EP, but also claim an object is being accelerated.

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 08:07:44 PM »
Quote
Newton's 1st says that the apple will continue at the same velocity it had when the stem breaks.  It doesn't say that it will continue accelerating because there is no longer a force being applied to cause the acceleration.

There is still a force being applied to it.  The same force that was being applied to it while it was on the tree. Or have you forgotten our discussion on how FE defines terminal velocity?  "Falling objects" are accelerated up.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« on: May 03, 2021, 08:03:02 PM »
Quote
The scientific method is carefully crafted to avoid the natural and default self-delusion that belief constitutes.
Yet you reject any conclusion that has been reached by application of the scientific method.

Quote
The chances of our vain self-serving belief being correct are consistently infentessimal, and we know this from validating/verifying/testing them over millenia. 

You judging anybody for being "vain", is just too rich.  ::)

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 07:35:54 PM »
What do you think makes things fall?
And what is the mechanism behind it?
In your own time. :)

Since Action80 won’t take you up on your challenge, I’ll take a shot and see if he has a response.

Let’s consider an apple on the branch of a tree.  What causes it to fall?  While the apple is still on the tree, we could consider the tree/apple being accelerated up by UA or at rest in a gravitational field.  Either works right up until the apple falls. After it separates from the tree, UA can again explain its motion, but it doesn’t explain why it separated from the tree in the first place. 

GR does explain it.  In GR, the tree and apple, while at rest in a gravitational field, are traveling along a geodesic.  The stem is holding the apple to the tree, so it is following the geodesic of the tree, not its own geodesic.  As the apple ripens the stem weakens and eventually breaks.  When the stem breaks, the apples is no longer prevented from traveling along its own geodesic and beings to travel independently along its own geodesic.

One could argue that when the stem breaks, the apple just stops accelerating up with the tree and waits patiently while the earth rises up.  This is not a valid argument because according to Newton’s first law, if the apple was traveling in uniform motion while it was attached to the tree, it would continue with that uniform motion whether it was attached to the tree or not.  IOW, the apple would continue its acceleration upwards at 9.81 m/s2. “Stopping” is a change in velocity and a change in velocity is acceleration.  UA offers no explanation for that acceleration. This is the fatal flaw of UA.  It rises and falls (pun intended) on the EP, but the EP doesn’t apply to accelerated motion.

Even if, by some miracle FE could come up with some explanation for how the UA force works, or even what it is, they still could not be able to account for why things fall.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and the atmosplane
« on: May 03, 2021, 06:08:16 PM »
Unless the thing was accelerated at the same time, so it would create a relative vacuum and 'pull up' the atmosphere at the same rate as the bottom part 'pushes' it up. Though, of course, that would force the atmosphere to be the same pressure throughout the volume.

Agreed.  Every solution causes another problem and every answer raises another question with FE.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 06:05:47 PM »
Quote
Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists.

Newton wasn't a half-wit, that's why he didn't reject it.  Instead he spent his life describing and studying it.  Perhaps you've heard of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?  It states that  every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force [emphasis mine] that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

You are conflating the Newton perception of gravity and GR.  In GR, gravity is not a force.  This is why GR "solved" how gravity reaches out and causes an effect from a distance.

Newton was puzzled how a force could do that.  Einstein realized it was because gravity wasn't a force, as Newton thought.  GR solves the problem that Newton struggled with.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 04:54:38 PM »
Quote
Again, stating another possibility is not stating a mechanism
.

I don't think you understand the word "mechanism".  It means the means by which an effect is produced.  The inertio-gravitational field is the means by which inertial and gravitational effects are produced.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and the atmosplane
« on: May 03, 2021, 04:44:58 PM »
Quote
Agreed on the pressure gradient thing but by the same token, if the Earth  is constantly accelerating, it wouldn't need to be all enveloping; just (!!) a wall roughly as high as the Karman Line, like a big baking tray.

If there were something containing the atmosphere above us, we'd see a pressure gradient in reverse of what we see.  Air pressure would increase with altitude as the atmosphere becomes compressed against whatever is containing it.

In real life, air pressure is highr at lower altitudes because as gravity works on the atmosphere, the weight of all the air above compresses the air below against the surface of the earth.  UA would have to work in reverse and compress the air against whatever is containing it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >