1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Thork's Jack Russell challenge

« on: October 31, 2020, 12:16:22 AM »

I've tried to find a decent video of a Jack Russell running at full speed, with little success... there's a few videos of Jack Russells running with Whippets, but nothing remotely conclusive. I even found one video that claimed that Jack Russels can run at 45mph!

edit: well maybe a bit boring, but this is the earliest article I could find (2009) that makes the claim: https://www.thedailytail.com/fastest-dog-breeds/
No source, so maybe the trail runs cold here...

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.

« on: October 30, 2020, 11:23:42 PM »

Yet another post that shows why low-quality pictures are not a good source of evidence, oh joy!

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses

« on: May 29, 2020, 03:46:24 PM »

am I missing something?

You are. Namely: the source of these "approximate" equations.

The equations aren't approximations - just their solutions.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses

« on: May 26, 2020, 04:28:02 PM »

I think the actual interesting question in this discussion is are there any real, physical systems that are analytically solvable? I think the answer is no. Can we discount all of physics, now?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 25, 2020, 11:40:39 PM »

So I thought this question was answered by the Universal Acceleration page wiki page, but I don't see anything about it on there...

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses

« on: May 25, 2020, 11:35:02 PM »

That would be quite a trick if NASA and others weren't able to actually predict these things, but were just amazing guessers.

You've missed the point. The question isn't whether those predictions are accurate (even if imprecise), but what the source of them is. RE'ers like to claim that it's RET, but in this thread we have the smoking gun - it's an observation of patterns and computer modelling based on those patterns. Accuracy aside, as soon as you make this admission, it ceases to be evidence pointing towards RET.

But NASA models not using patterns but 'RET' models (Newtonian Gravity, Relativity etc.). They take the equations of motion from these theories and put them into some code - am I missing something?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Solution Simulations

« on: May 25, 2020, 11:27:12 PM »

The author does not call it a proof of the stability for the n-body problems and I see no reason to assume that it is. There is a body of science for the n-body problems and this isn't it. I would suggest citing that science in the future.

I still haven't seen any quotes of published papers that state that we can't use n-body calculations to predict comets and land spacecraft on other worlds

There are dozens of physcists who say that the three body problems are insoluable. They cite Poincare's paper as proving that it is insoluble and inherently chaotic. We post those quotes all the time.

This is the response to that, to post random found simulations which do not state that they are solving the stability issues of the n-body problems. We must "infer" that this is the purpose or feature of the simulation.

The OP even stated that this is a numerical solution, not 'solving the stability issues of the n-body problems'. Why you feel the need to infer that the simulation is inferring anything other than its actual stated purpose is confusing to me.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Asteroid and planetoid collisions and ther orbit?

« on: April 13, 2020, 10:01:27 PM »

[...]It's a limited simulation.[...]

I've realised that this discussion is actually a non-discussion. So reality isn't analytically solvable: so what? This doesn't provide an argument for or against either the globe or the flat earth as both are equally not analytically solvable.

It's a chance for all of us (myself included) to show how much we know about numeric solvers but that's about it in terms of actual content.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 07, 2020, 03:20:34 AM »

But both compasses will point correctly to the North. Because there is nothing south it could point.

What about the south pole? Last I checked, magnets attract to both north and south poles.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 03, 2020, 10:55:48 PM »

I’m saying as much as I watched the moon move across the night sky. I haven’t once seen a star disappear behind the moon. And if you answer honestly, I’m pretty sure you haven’t either.

Well I suppose I haven't seen a star disappear behind the moon... but neither have I seen a star move in front of the moon.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.

« on: February 03, 2020, 10:45:42 PM »

You did end up amending your OP to add the word, "apparently endless," as descriptors to your plain and mountain scenario.

I think the meaning of 'empty plain' was quite clear from the OP - the addition of the word 'apparent' seems to be to appease pedants.

There are plenty of atmoplanar phenomena sufficient to render utter darkness upon the face of the flat earth plane.

Ooh, do tell.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity

« on: January 30, 2020, 07:40:40 PM »

I think you somewhat missed the point of my objection. Whether or not I'm right on this one is pretty much irrelevant - I was happy to accept BillO's definitions for the sake of the discussion, be he wouldn't provide them. He kept saying he's right by definition, but not by which definition. That's what killed the discussion.

Yeah okay, maybe I was missing the woods for the trees a bit.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity

« on: January 30, 2020, 06:58:35 PM »

Oh and sorry if I got a bit heated earlier... 
Anyway I think I've said everything I wanted to say for now, or else we might start going in circles a bit

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity

« on: January 30, 2020, 06:46:36 PM »

However, I find it extremely hypocritical for you to criticise my use of Wikipedia, while trying to exalt BillO's use of random, unverified sites that he clearly found through a quick Google search. Your claim that his citations are of a high standard while mine are not, in my view, once again illustrates that you're arguing in bad faith.

I'm not sure that I commented on the quality of BillO's sources, just yours.

So, your issue is that I cited Wikipedia, and yet[...]

1: I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that you said that BillO's sources disagreed with his viewpoint, despite the fact that they don't. Now you seem to have gone back on this and have conceded that they do agree with his viewpoint, but are not good sources. So which is it? Are they bad sources, or do they not support his viewpoint?

2: BillO's sources being bad is not a free pass to cite wikipedia.

Regarding your second post: Rama Set already did a good job responding to that point. BillO relies on discussing things "outside of the Universe", which are undefined. This does not help.

You're right that 'outside the universe' is a bit of an oxymoron. I'll point you back to my previous post - an 'isolated system' doesn't require other systems to exist, it simply cannot change the amount of matter or energy within it.
At the very least, I hope you could see how the universe could trivially be considered 'isolated' by some, even if you disagree.

200th post!

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity

« on: January 30, 2020, 06:23:25 PM »

But none of that matters, because I provided supplementary reasoning and explained my logic. It is impossible for the Universe to be an isolated system, because it has nothing to be isolated from.

An isolated system is a system that cannot exchange matter or energy with other systems - there is nothing in the definition of an isolated system that requires other systems to exist.

https://www.definitions.net/definition/isolated+system
A system that does not interact with its surroundings, that is, its total energy and mass stay constant.

In fact, this has already been discussed by BillO:

a) So, in thermodynamics terminology an isolated system is by definition a system that cannot receive energy or matter from outside it, and cannot send energy or matter outside it.

b) The universe, by definition is that which contains everything.  The universe cannot receive energy or matter from outside it, and cannot send energy or matter outside it.

From a) and b), for the purposes of thermodynamics, the universe meets the requirements of being an isolated physical system.

It seems to me that your logic is based on a simple misunderstanding of the term 'isolated system' in thermodynamics.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity

« on: January 30, 2020, 06:18:43 PM »

he threw in a few sources that don't support his viewpoint.

And yet if we look at the sources you're talking about:

The on-line text on thermodynamics here: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics/  States:

"More simply put: the entropy of the universe (the ultimate isolated system) only increases and never decreases."


The RationalWiki here :https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics  States:

"The Universe is an isolated system since it is a term to describe the entire spacetime continuum, including all of the energy stored in it. In reality, the Universe is regarded as the only true isolated system, as perfect isolation on a smaller scale is impossible."

The on-line text on thermodynamics here:https://www.learnthermo.com/T1-tutorial/ch07/lesson-C/pg06.php States:

"The universe is an isolated system."

They all seem to directly say that the universe is an isolated system. Could you elaborate?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity

« on: January 30, 2020, 06:06:37 PM »

Editing a Wikipedia article to "win" a debate on another site is not seen to kindly by Wikipedia. Indeed, it is subject of frequent mockery, of which you are well deserving.

To me, actually being able to cite a claim is incredibly meaningful - I thought TFES standards for this kind of thing were quite high.

Once again, my opponent presented a Quora thread that agreed with him, and after I displayed the Wikipedia page, he threw in a few sources that don't support his viewpoint. I sincerely cannot help you with this, and since you've shown yourself to be arguing in bad faith by vandalising that page, I have very little will to waste my time on you.

Yep, of course you're totally right. I vandalised a wikipedia page, please point and laugh all you want if it makes you feel better, and your 'opponent' only had a Quora page to cite, I'll give that all to you for free as this is completely superfluous to the actual issue here.

This doesn't change the fact that you are claiming that something is a scientific consensus based solely on an uncited line from a wikipedia article. That is my problem, sorry if I've not been clear about this in my previous posts.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.

« on: January 30, 2020, 05:44:52 PM »

It's a bit important to know so we can understand the times of sun rise and set at different places.

I'm sure that's important. When I say 'on-topic' I mean the question in the OP:

Why at sunset do I see the shadow line slowly crawl up a mountainside facing the sun?

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.

« on: January 30, 2020, 05:23:45 PM »

Thank you, but which one is correct with confirmed distances?

I don't see how that's relevant. If you want to discuss the inconsistencies in distance caused by trying to fit a globe onto a flat plane, I'm sure there are threads about that. Stay on-topic.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity

« on: January 30, 2020, 05:05:21 PM »

vandalised

I edited it. Please show me in the wikipedia guidelines where it says you can't update uncited lines with more accurate, cited ones. The update was not vandalism. If you disagree, show me why it was vandalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material

It's clear you're not interested in meaningful discussion

To me, actually being able to cite a claim is incredibly meaningful - I thought TFES standards for this kind of thing were quite high.