The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Gulliver on September 30, 2014, 05:18:48 PM
-
Well, I guess we have about all the evidence (none) and description (very limited and even somewhat contradictory) we're going to get--in spite of FE promises, so let's start to list how AWT fails.
The first is in thermodynamics. To constantly accelerate the FE at g for billions of years, AWT would need to provide orders of magnitude more than 10303 joules. See: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844). Assuming a 50% efficiency, so much of the energy would go into heating of the FE as to vaporize us.
Let me put a second in this first post. (I have about a dozen more.) Mathematical models of whirlpools require at least two energy states. For a bathtub drain whirlpool, the difference in the potential energy at the surface and at the "floor" of the tub creates the two states. Without gravity, AWT models have nothing to base their motion, and fail for yet another reason.
More to come in the coming days...
-
Well, I guess we have about all the evidence (none) and description (very limited and even somewhat contradictory) we're going to get--in spite of FE promises, so let's start to list how AWT fails.
The first is in thermodynamics. To constantly accelerate the FE at g for billions of years, AWT would need to provide orders of magnitude more than 10303 joules. See: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844). Assuming a 50% efficiency, so much of the energy would go into heating of the FE as to vaporize us.
Let me put a second in this first post. (I have about a dozen more.) Mathematical models of whirlpools require at least two energy states. For a bathtub drain whirlpool, the difference in the potential energy at the surface and at the "floor" of the tub creates the two states. Without gravity, AWT models have nothing to base their motion, and fail for yet another reason.
More to come in the coming days...
I have been talking with Tausami and we had a miscommunication, so I would like to give him a chance to respond to my queries before you lynch them.
Thanks.
-
Well, I guess we have about all the evidence (none) and description (very limited and even somewhat contradictory) we're going to get--in spite of FE promises, so let's start to list how AWT fails.
The first is in thermodynamics. To constantly accelerate the FE at g for billions of years, AWT would need to provide orders of magnitude more than 10303 joules. See: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844). Assuming a 50% efficiency, so much of the energy would go into heating of the FE as to vaporize us.
Let me put a second in this first post. (I have about a dozen more.) Mathematical models of whirlpools require at least two energy states. For a bathtub drain whirlpool, the difference in the potential energy at the surface and at the "floor" of the tub creates the two states. Without gravity, AWT models have nothing to base their motion, and fail for yet another reason.
More to come in the coming days...
I have been talking with Tausami and we had a miscommunication, so I would like to give him a chance to respond to my queries before you lynch them.
Thanks.
I'll continue with my analysis based on what Ts and Vx posted. If they need to retract their posts, I'll update (add to) this thread accordingly. I suspect that if we waited on Ts like the ZC does, we'd be waiting 10 months.
-
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.
FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.) Now consider the AWT claims that stellar objects float on the aether and that the aether is superfluid over them. No disc floats on a superfluid. A superfluid will even spill out of its container without any outside assistance. See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-can-climb-walls/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-can-climb-walls/)
Another AWT failure.
-
Aether is kinda like dark matter, huh?
Where's the evidence for that?
-
Aether is kinda like dark matter, huh?
Where's the evidence for that?
I don't see any similarities between AWT's aether and the real-world dark matter. If you need evidence for the existence of dark matter, here's a few citations:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/ (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/)
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter (http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-we-find-dark-matter/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-we-find-dark-matter/)
I see markjo already provided evidence of dark matter to you in another thread. Now about that evidence FEers promised for AWT?
-
Aether is kinda like dark matter, huh?
Where's the evidence for that?
Just like dark matter, aether is imbued with mystical properties which makes it impossible to observe directly.
-
Aether is kinda like dark matter, huh?
Where's the evidence for that?
I don't see any similarities between AWT's aether and the real-world dark matter. If you need evidence for the existence of dark matter, here's a few citations:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/ (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/)
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter (http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-we-find-dark-matter/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-we-find-dark-matter/)
I see markjo already provided evidence of dark matter to you in another thread. Now about that evidence FEers promised for AWT?
Wow, thanks for the links full of speculative science about dark matter. As if I didn't already know what dark matter was according to your silly science. None of those links provided concrete evidence for dark matter's existence. Can you?
-
Wow, thanks for the links full of speculative science about dark matter. As if I didn't already know what dark matter was according to your silly science. None of those links provided concrete evidence for dark matter's existence. Can you?
The links provide evidence. Moving the goalposts and committing a "no true Scotsman" fallacy do not help your case. It's your turn. Provide "concrete" evidence of AWT as FEers have repeatedly promised.
-
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter (http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter)
I could go on about how each link you posted offers no concrete evidence for dark matter, but that would be a waste of my time. So I'll just summarize by quoting one paragraph from one of the links.
"One idea is that it could contain "supersymmetric particles" – hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in the Standard Model. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct information about dark matter."
And each link goes on like this. There is no evidence for dark matter here. You might as well have just linked me to the wikipedia article on dark matter. Please try again.
-
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter (http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter)
I could go on about how each link you posted offers no concrete evidence for dark matter, but that would be a waste of my time. So I'll just summarize by quoting one paragraph from one of the links.
"One idea is that it could contain "supersymmetric particles" – hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in the Standard Model. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct about dark matter."
And each link goes on like this. There is no evidence for dark matter here. You might as well have just linked me to the wikipedia article on dark matter. Please try again.
Lets be clear: Anyone who says that Dark Matter is science fact is lying or ignorant, it is a hypothesis. What can be said is follows: If gravity is true, there must be something that is conventionally undetectable and exerts a gravitational force. This unseen thing is likely matter, since it exhibits the required density to reasonably account for the amount of gravity missing, whereas energy tends to exhibit a very small gravitational attraction.
Now, seeing as gravity is almost certainly true, there is almost certainly dark matter, whatever it ends up constituting. I say almost certainly true, because the other possibility is that we are facing a paradigm shifting discovery, where whatever gravitational inducing material is missing turns out to be a massive and hitherto unforseen failure of gravitational theory. This would be extremely surprising since gravitational theory has not been remotely close to this level of variance before and it seems reasonable, according to Occam's Razor, to conclude that we are just not seeing everything we can.
If you wish to deny gravity's existence that is fine, but, as I am sure you are aware, it requires a lot of conspiracy finger pointing and hand waving.
-
"... Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct about dark matter."
First, you left out part of the above sentence.
Second, the article is quite clear in presenting evidence and the plans to obtain more. To wit:
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Indirect evidence is still evidence. Deal with it.
Now I will no longer respond to your comments about the pending search for further evidence of dark matter or dark energy. Every science has a boundary where the search continues. As long as the scientists are honest about the speculative nature of their effort, there's nothing wrong.
FEers, OTH, regularly fail to disclose when they speculate and to produce promised evidence, even indirect.
-
"... Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct about dark matter."
First, you left out part of the above sentence.
Second, the article is quite clear in presenting evidence and the plans to obtain more. To wit:
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Indirect evidence is still evidence. Deal with it.
Now I will no longer respond to your comments about the pending search for further evidence of dark matter or dark energy. Every science has a boundary where the search continues. As long as the scientists are honest about the speculative nature of their effort, there's nothing wrong.
FEers, OTH, regularly fail to disclose when they speculate and to produce promised evidence, even indirect.
Rama-Set has provided an honest answer, you have not. Refusing to address it doesn't make your position any less shaky.
Assumptions are not evidence, Gully.
-
Now I will no longer respond to your comments about the pending search for further evidence of dark matter or dark energy.
-
Now I will no longer respond to your comments about the pending search for further evidence of dark matter or dark energy.
(http://i.imgur.com/HnN99pv.jpg)
-
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.
FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.)
I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. We don't know what aether is made from. It could be similar to neutrinos for all we know. So no, we don't know whether or not it has mass. I suspect that it does not have atoms, and it clearly has properties similar to that of a superfluid. This does not mean that it is a superfluid, nor does it mean that aether must have mass, and it certainly doesn't mean you can make random comparisons between it and superfluid helium.
Also, gulliver, you're kind of a jerk. I hope you're nicer in person than you are here.
-
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.
FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.)
I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. We don't know what aether is made from. It could be similar to neutrinos for all we know. So no, we don't know whether or not it has mass. I suspect that it does not have atoms, and it clearly has properties similar to that of a superfluid. This does not mean that it is a superfluid, nor does it mean that aether must have mass, and it certainly doesn't mean you can make random comparisons between it and superfluid helium.
Also, gulliver, you're kind of a jerk. I hope you're nicer in person than you are here.
I would appreciate that you read what FEers have said. Also you are aware that neutrinos are matter, right?
Here's how I would define "fluid" in a physics context:
Fluids are a subset of the phase of matter and include liquids, gases, plasmas and, to some extent, plastic solids.
I think I've already documented that a superfluid is a fluid, by definition.
Can you even state in 100-200 words what AWT even is?
AWT is a theory that a superfluid substance known as Aether accelerates delicately through space. Furthermore, this substance's interaction with the plane of the earth causes several phenomena including gravitation and the Aetheric whirlpool. The whirlpool in turn causes several phenomena including night/day cycles, seasons, Auroras, eclipses, etc.
-
www.rif.org
This site might help you understand AWT, Gulliver.
-
www.rif.org
This site might help you understand AWT, Gulliver.
So personal attacks are the best you can do. I'lll just go on then to the next failure of AWT.
AWT's eyewall appears to be the terminator (the boundary between the lit and dark side of the FE). The terminator must change size, shape and position without any reason. Somehow this is supposed to be better than FET's typical gears. Really it's just changing the point of "fiat".
AWT claims that the eyewall explains the shape (and maybe the size) of the rising or setting sun. If an eyewall were blocking part of the sun then the observer would seek its "outline". Since FEers can't provide any evidence of such, AWT fails here too.
AWT claims to explain the UA. Since the AWT does not explain the origin of the required energy, it is not much better than "turtle all the way down". Yet another fail.
-
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.
FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.)
I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. We don't know what aether is made from. It could be similar to neutrinos for all we know. So no, we don't know whether or not it has mass. I suspect that it does not have atoms, and it clearly has properties similar to that of a superfluid. This does not mean that it is a superfluid, nor does it mean that aether must have mass, and it certainly doesn't mean you can make random comparisons between it and superfluid helium.
I am not sure how it would be similar to neutrinos. Neutrinos have been detected with scanners, the Aether (any definition of it) has not. Neutrinos are weakly interacting and could not possibly confer the type of force required by a gravity analog.
-
I suspect that it does not have atoms, and it clearly has properties similar to that of a superfluid.
Which superfluid properties properties are those?
This does not mean that it is a superfluid, nor does it mean that aether must have mass, and it certainly doesn't mean you can make random comparisons between it and superfluid helium.
It also does not mean that you can just go ahead and assign arbitrary magical properties to aether without being able explain the nature of those properties.
If you want to insist that AWT is the aether that Einstein believed in, then you should probably look at Superfluid Vacuum Theory (SVT) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory), because he basically used the term aether to refer to the physical properties of empty space. Just don't be surprised if you get questions about how a wind made up of empty space can form stable eddies (among other things).
-
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.
FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.)
I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. We don't know what aether is made from. It could be similar to neutrinos for all we know. So no, we don't know whether or not it has mass. I suspect that it does not have atoms, and it clearly has properties similar to that of a superfluid. This does not mean that it is a superfluid, nor does it mean that aether must have mass, and it certainly doesn't mean you can make random comparisons between it and superfluid helium.
I am not sure how it would be similar to neutrinos. Neutrinos have been detected with scanners, the Aether (any definition of it) has not. Neutrinos are weakly interacting and could not possibly confer the type of force required by a gravity analog.
Don't worry, I'm not saying they are actually similar to neutrinos. I'm simply trying to give an understanding of our ignorance with regard to what, exactly, aether is. I don't think it's made of atoms because no known chemical behaves as it appears to, but aside from that I know nothing.
-
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Doesn't infer mean a guess?
-
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Doesn't infer mean a guess?
Guesses equate to undeniable facts for Gully.
-
There is no such thing as AWT (Aetheric Wind Theory) in the context of an UA accelerator.
The two theories are absolutely mutually exclusive.
AWT is valid ONLY in the context of a perfectly stationary flat earth.
Both FES must eliminate the UA accelerator hypothesis in order to have any kind of credibility in explaining terrestrial gravity.
Here is another misconception:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060908-dark-matter.html
You CANNOT have ether and a galactic orbit, the two are completely mutually exclusive.
-
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Doesn't infer mean a guess?
An inference is an educated guess based on available evidence. Upon what evidence is AWT inferred?
-
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Doesn't infer mean a guess?
An inference is an educated guess based on available evidence. Upon what evidence is AWT inferred?
It is based on observation.
-
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Doesn't infer mean a guess?
An inference is an educated guess based on available evidence. Upon what evidence is AWT inferred?
It is based on observation.
Incomplete. The observation of the many phenomena it endeavors to explain have many explanations. Tell us more. I believe in you.
-
All phenomena have many explainations.
-
Don't worry, I'm not saying they are actually similar to neutrinos. I'm simply trying to give an understanding of our ignorance with regard to what, exactly, aether is. I don't think it's made of atoms because no known chemical behaves as it appears to, but aside from that I know nothing.
So are you now trying to back away from your claim that the aether is a "substance"?
1 A particular kind of matter with uniform properties
2 The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence
-
Don't worry, I'm not saying they are actually similar to neutrinos. I'm simply trying to give an understanding of our ignorance with regard to what, exactly, aether is. I don't think it's made of atoms because no known chemical behaves as it appears to, but aside from that I know nothing.
So are you now trying to back away from your claim that the aether is a "substance"?
1 A particular kind of matter with uniform properties
2 The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence
Kinda like dark matter, huh?
Is that a substance? What's it made out of? How does it work?
-
Don't worry, I'm not saying they are actually similar to neutrinos. I'm simply trying to give an understanding of our ignorance with regard to what, exactly, aether is. I don't think it's made of atoms because no known chemical behaves as it appears to, but aside from that I know nothing.
So are you now trying to back away from your claim that the aether is a "substance"?
1 A particular kind of matter with uniform properties
2 The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence
Kinda like dark matter, huh?
Is that a substance? What's it made out of? How does it work?
Give it up. It's a bad analogy. Dark Matter is definitely thought of as matter, hence the name. The question is whether it is baryonic or not.
-
Don't worry, I'm not saying they are actually similar to neutrinos. I'm simply trying to give an understanding of our ignorance with regard to what, exactly, aether is. I don't think it's made of atoms because no known chemical behaves as it appears to, but aside from that I know nothing.
So are you now trying to back away from your claim that the aether is a "substance"?
1 A particular kind of matter with uniform properties
2 The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence
Kinda like dark matter, huh?
Is that a substance? What's it made out of? How does it work?
How does an incomplete understanding of dark matter make aether wind any more plausible?
-
Give it up. It's a bad analogy. Dark Matter is definitely thought of as matter, hence the name. The question is whether it is baryonic or not.
No one has given me a satisfying answer. How do you know dark matter is even matter? Wouldn't it make more sense if dark matter was just tiny black holes? That would explain most gravitational anomalies in your theories.
The reason it's important is because general relativity basically falls apart without dark matter. Yet no one knows what dark matter is. The analogy fits perfectly in regards to AWT. Stop acting like it doesn't.
-
Give it up. It's a bad analogy. Dark Matter is definitely thought of as matter, hence the name. The question is whether it is baryonic or not.
No one has given me a satisfying answer. How do you know dark matter is even matter? Wouldn't it make more sense if dark matter was just tiny black holes? That would explain most gravitational anomalies in your theories.
The reason it's important is because general relativity basically falls apart without dark matter. Yet no one knows what dark matter is. The analogy fits perfectly in regards to AWT. Stop acting like it doesn't.
Black Holes are made from matter.
-
Give it up. It's a bad analogy. Dark Matter is definitely thought of as matter, hence the name. The question is whether it is baryonic or not.
No one has given me a satisfying answer. How do you know dark matter is even matter? Wouldn't it make more sense if dark matter was just tiny black holes? That would explain most gravitational anomalies in your theories.
The reason it's important is because general relativity basically falls apart without dark matter. Yet no one knows what dark matter is. The analogy fits perfectly in regards to AWT. Stop acting like it doesn't.
Black Holes are made from matter.
There is very little baryonic matter making up a black hole.
-
What are you talking about? There is the entire mass of a very large star making up a black hole.
-
How do you know dark matter is even matter? Wouldn't it make more sense if dark matter was just tiny black holes? That would explain most gravitational anomalies in your theories.
Unsurprisingly, this possibility is already being considered.
Dark matter, the invisible and mysterious stuff that makes up most of the material universe, might be hiding itself in microscopic black holes, says a team of Russian astrophysicists.
Again, how does this make aether wind any more plausible?
-
Don't worry, I'm not saying they are actually similar to neutrinos. I'm simply trying to give an understanding of our ignorance with regard to what, exactly, aether is. I don't think it's made of atoms because no known chemical behaves as it appears to, but aside from that I know nothing.
So are you now trying to back away from your claim that the aether is a "substance"?
1 A particular kind of matter with uniform properties
2 The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence
Kinda like dark matter, huh?
Is that a substance? What's it made out of? How does it work?
Did someone say that dark matter was a substance and then, stupidly, said it might not be matter? If so, they screwed up. Now if FEers could think through their problem with their aether, I'm sure that they could realize that the aether must be matter.
-
What are you talking about? There is the entire mass of a very large star making up a black hole.
I was under the impression that black holes consumed matter and released it as energy. I'm not a physicist.
-
What are you talking about? There is the entire mass of a very large star making up a black hole.
I was under the impression that black holes consumed matter and released it as energy. I'm not a physicist.
A black hole is created when a star over a certain mass threshold collapses, due to its fusion reaction ceasing. The gravitational force compacts the matter in to a singularity, making the newly formed black hole's gravitational field extremely strong. Anything that crosses the event horizon, cannot escape, including energy. The energy consumed eventually is radiated back out via Hawking Radiation.
-
What are you talking about? There is the entire mass of a very large star making up a black hole.
I was under the impression that black holes consumed matter and released it as energy. I'm not a physicist.
A black hole is created when a star over a certain mass threshold collapses, due to its fusion reaction ceasing. The gravitational force compacts the matter in to a singularity, making the newly formed black hole's gravitational field extremely strong. Anything that crosses the event horizon, cannot escape, including energy. The energy consumed eventually is radiated back out via Hawking Radiation.
So a black hole basically retains the same amount of matter that the collapsed star had?
-
What are you talking about? There is the entire mass of a very large star making up a black hole.
This may not be strictly true. Some quantum physicists believe that black holes are possible at the quantum scale. In fact, I seem to recall a lot of people freaking out when they heard that the LHC could possibly create some of these sub-atomic black holes.
-
What are you talking about? There is the entire mass of a very large star making up a black hole.
This may not be strictly true. Some quantum physicists believe that black holes are possible at the quantum scale. In fact, I seem to recall a lot of people freaking out when they heard that the LHC could possibly create some of these sub-atomic black holes.
Yeah, but those are strictly hypothetical and not possible outside of extreme circumstances, like those in the LHC which have not occured in our universe for 13B years.
What are you talking about? There is the entire mass of a very large star making up a black hole.
I was under the impression that black holes consumed matter and released it as energy. I'm not a physicist.
A black hole is created when a star over a certain mass threshold collapses, due to its fusion reaction ceasing. The gravitational force compacts the matter in to a singularity, making the newly formed black hole's gravitational field extremely strong. Anything that crosses the event horizon, cannot escape, including energy. The energy consumed eventually is radiated back out via Hawking Radiation.
So a black hole basically retains the same amount of matter that the collapsed star had?
Yup.