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 >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: Today at 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.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: Today at 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.

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.

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:

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):

I'll just highlight these bits:

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

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:

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:
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 08:51:43 PM »
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.

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

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


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?

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?

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.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 08, 2021, 05:44:09 PM »
I directly cited the astophysicist who likened the situation to trying to measure the weight of a feather on a crude pair of scale outdoors in a slight breeze. That wasn't my analogy. Your response was to provide a "better" analogy and argue that the astophyscist was wrong.
Incorrect, as you are wont to say.
The astrophysicist was explaining why it’s difficult to measure G - basically, gravity is very weak compared to other forces.

SteelyBob is comparing the discrepancies in the value of G being measured compared with the value. It is neither a better or worse analogy, it’s making a completely different point. The first point is explaining how hard it is to measure, the second is how despite that the experiments are measuring it with impressive accuracy. The fact you don’t understand that these are different points speaks volumes.

If you are doing that you are pretty much citing yourself as a better source than the astrophysicist

Well, he isn’t doing that. And the astrophysicist is not casting any doubt on the existence of gravity or the shape of the earth. You are doing those things, so are you citing yourself as a better source than the astrophysicist? On what basis?

My position is that anonymous people on an internet message forum are not better sources  on these subjects than astrophysicists.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 08, 2021, 03:35:38 PM »
Does that chart and explanation come from a physicist?
It’s based on data from the article you posted.

And why do you think that you, an unqualified individual on the internet, should be taken seriously when all the physicists you are quoting agree that gravity is a thing and that the earth is a globe?

If you can't prove to us that you are equally qualified then your statements on the shape of the earth are pretty much garbage.

Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« on: May 06, 2021, 05:56:07 PM »
The gyroscope was invented to do precisely that, convince people the world was rotating - and it worked to convince a great many.
Wow. Are you going to back that up with any credible source to substantiate that completely made up claim?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: May 06, 2021, 10:21:54 AM »
And so if you join Grinder ... an app designed to help you get bummed ... should you have an HIV passport? Its not a false equivalence at all.
I still think that's a false equivalence. No-one is suggesting Covid passports for Tinder, or meeting up with friends. What individuals do is up to them.
If you were booking a place at a gay orgy then I'd think a clean bill of health would be a reasonable requirement.

I'm generally against Covid Passports by the way. I had my jab because I can see this sort of thing happening, overall don't think the vaccine is going to harm me and having it will probably make it easier for me to travel. I succumbed to peer pressure somewhat because it seemed like the pragmatic thing to do.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: May 06, 2021, 06:58:02 AM »
Holy shit! How hard is this to understand?
You catch HIV from bumming, not from being coughed on by someone near you.
Stop with the false equivalence nonsense.

Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.
Can you give an example?

There's no dispute that refraction is a thing. So sure, sometimes results don't match what you'd expect on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere - because that's not what we live on.
I've yet to see a long distance photo which would, say, show from a viewing height of 20 inches above the sea level that it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away.
Yeah, you are claiming these mountain ranges have changed apparent position on the earth.

Seems like an example to me.
Are you talking about the photo posted in this thread? I had a look on the website and can't find any information about exactly where the photo was taken from, what the viewer height was. Exactly which direction they were looking at. I don't even know how to start investigating this without any of that information.

Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.
Can you give an example?

There's no dispute that refraction is a thing. So sure, sometimes results don't match what you'd expect on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere - because that's not what we live on.
I've yet to see a long distance photo which would, say, show from a viewing height of 20 inches above the sea level that it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away.

It is because of ocean waves that the distant views get block. On lakes you should be able to see far distances.
No it isn't. Unless you're on the water's edge and lying down. Or there are really big waves. A wave can only occlude as much of a distant object as its own height if the viewer height is the same height as the waves, which it will be if you're standing up unless there's a particularly choppy sea.

And distant buildings are occluded when looking over large inland lakes too.

Wait a minute.

I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?

Not the first time you've been mistaken, won't be the last.
Oh, you are claiming I am mistaken?

According to this debunking site, you are wrong and I am right.
It says "practically" constant. I don't know if refraction is a factor which would change the apparent size. It certainly changes the apparent position.
What we don't see is the sun being 3 or 4 times larger in the sky at noon as it is at sunset, which is what would happen if the sun was 3 or 4 times further away as in the FE model.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 05, 2021, 12:31:53 PM »
Do let us know when you can quote something from an appropriate source which directly contradicts the quotes we have seen here.
Do any of the authorities you are appealing to question the existence of gravity or the shape of the earth?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 153  Next >