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 - jack44556677

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 12  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets
« on: August 28, 2021, 04:05:58 PM »
What I meant was that Einstein didn’t set out to explain Newton’s theory or come up with some new theory.

One of the primary motives for creating relativity was to FINALLY explain/describe gravitation (for the first time in history).  Of course, due to the ongoing scourge of aether-mcarthyism the effort was a failure - but it was a major driving factor in the creation of relativity.  Newton defined the mechanism of gravitation as (the judeo-christian) god's will - this unscientific blunder (regretted by most all competent physicists for centuries by the time of einstein) had left physics in a sorry broken state ever since and was one of the things that relativity was created to fix!

How you see it is irrelevant.

Perhaps.  And perhaps how you learned it was!  History is an extremely subjective field, and requires reading multiple sources and between the lines to understand.

The historical record says otherwise.

Which one?

You might try reading some of it.

Good advice!

The problem, as I mentioned before, was that instantaneous action at a distance of Newton gravity conflicted with relativity.

Almost.  The problem, known for centuries by competent physicists since newton, is that instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" conflicted with REALITY and was anathema to physics writ-large.  It was (and still is) a MAJOR problem in physics that relativity aimed (and failed) to address.

You can’t separate the two.

On the one hand, that is exactly my point - relativity attempts to make gravitation a real/describable mechanism in physics (not chocked up to god's divine intervention, as newton concluded) for the first time in history.

On the other hand, gravitation was invoked by newton in the 1700's.  Gravitation is separate and distinct from relativity - it is generally attributed to newton.  Our discussion is about gravitation, an unscientific/religious concept that einstein attempted to fix with relativity.

There is a rigorous definition of what gravitation is.

Nope!  Never has been, and most likely never will be. There is a MAJOR difference between describing what something does/causes and describing what it is (and how it does/causes it)!

It is the movement of bodies consistent with spacetime curvature.

This is both meaningless goblety-gook and a mere description of gravity (the real phenomena we observe, and natural law millennia old).  Gravity is what gravitation DOES.  What gravitation is, and how it functions is undefined now as it was when newton first invoked it.

Spacetime curvature has been measured

Don't be silly! Space time can't even be defined, let alone measured.  Spacetime is a concept, not an actual thing in material reality that has any demonstrability/tangibility whatsoever.

predicted and observed to be consistent with the field equations dozens of times.

Again, you are conflating.  Relativity isn't at the heart of this discussion, gravitation is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets
« on: August 27, 2021, 04:44:34 PM »
You have the sequence of events backwards.  Einstein didn’t start with a theory of gravitation and work backwards.

You seem to be a little confused.  Newton came long before einstein, and is the one generally credited for inventing gravitation.

Special relativity contradicted Newton’s “instant action at a distance”. He developed GR as a way of reconciling that problem.  It was exactly the study of the natural world that led to GR.

I don't see it this way.  Einstein came up with relativity, in part, specifically to try and make gravitation an actual part of physics (for the first time)

And since then, all kinds of experimental evidence supports it.

You are conflating things. We are talking about gravitation, not relativity.

There is no experimental evidence to support gravitation, nor is an experiment possible to contrive should we want to (due to the lack of rigorous definition of what, if anything, gravitation is in physical reality).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets
« on: August 26, 2021, 08:05:05 PM »
Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity.

Sort of.  The foundation, arguably, of the modern flat earth movement was introduced along with a general approach for studying the world - dubbed zeteticism.

Zeteticism is very similar to the traditional scientific approach but highlights a fundamental difference. In zeteticism, you strictly study what is, and endeavor to let that organically lead you to an understanding of how/why.  You try and let nature suggest the hypotheses by carefully watching/studying it.

Gravitation is perhaps the quintessential example of something that was theorized to exist without evidence for it.  Rather than allow the study of the natural world to lead US to answers, an answer was mathematically contrived and then forced upon reality.

Newton understood what he was doing at the time (invoking unscientific, philosophically unsound "magic" to solve a math problem), but subsequent students weren't taught well about it.  This is one of the reasons that he didn't even bother to feign a hypothesis for what gravitation is or how it works.  No gravitation has ever been discovered/measured - it is not known to exist except in a theoretical/mathematical context.

Many things are real AND invisible to us.  It is not the invisibility that is the issue, it is the lack of reality!

The most common alternate explanation involves a universal accelerator.

That may be the most common here, but not outside of tfes.

We’re all taught how magnets supposedly work, of course

I would argue that none of us are.  We learn some of the things they do, and some ideas for how they may possibly work.

What we don’t really know is how.

That's why they don't (and can't) teach us that! It is a similar situation with gravitation - we can spend a long time learning about the effects, but none on the cause.

I’m sure there are explanations, but I challenge you to find one that doesn’t in some way involve invisible forces. So anyway. I await your answers.

Most speculative/theoretical explanations for magnetism and gravitation involve theoretical particles/waves/entities.  Xasop mentioned one with "virtual photons".  Personally, I am a monopolist.  In any case, though magnetism is clearly not understood - it is orders of magnitude more understood (and most importantly, USEFUL!) and demonstrably real than gravitation.  Gravitation has no demonstrable reality beyond equation whatsoever, magnetism and static have boatloads of it!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity experiment
« on: August 22, 2021, 05:20:00 PM »
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.

This is incorrect, but commonly taught.  Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old. Often when speaking of gravity colloquially, we are actually talking about gravitation.  Gravity is purely the observation of the phenomenon.  Gravitation is a theoretical cause of the completely real phenomenon.  Handwaving "mass does it" is not a rigorous definition - obviously.

Gravitation is neither rigorously defined nor understood.  It is important to recognize this fact.

Work continues to detect gravity waves (first accomplished in 2015).

If they exist, yes - that's true.  We are still looking for gravitation almost 3 centuries after it was invoked by newton. No luck yet :(

Also you should be aware that gravity waves are NOT gravitational waves.  There are semantical tricks being played with the vernacular.

As for local variances in weight on earth, yes - those exist.  Beyond that in "outer space"... let's try to keep the conversation a little more "down to earth" for the time being.  As much as I would like to dive head first into your examples - it'll mostly distract for now.

Science is a methodology

Correct, it is known as the scientific method.

> and then using Bayesian reasoning to estimate how likely

Incorrect.  Neither bayesian reasoning nor estimation of likelihood are a part of the scientific method.  I recognize that many scientists employ them, but they are deviations from the scientific method (ie science).

There are of course lots of rules and procedures to get good observations including how to do so if what you are observing is a constructed experiment, but clear results do not require such construction.

Experiment is a required step in the scientific method, without exception.
Light being bent by passing by a large mass was observed in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. 

That was popularly advertised at the time, and still believed by many today - yes.  This was a marketing stunt for relativity, but really understanding that will take a lot of historical study on your part should you be interested.

Its quite well established.

It's quite widely taught, and so therefore believed, but has no experimental support of any kind and is unscientific (by definition) as a result.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity experiment
« on: August 21, 2021, 03:38:04 AM »
Hypothesis: gravity exists, and we can show it interacting on objects by dropping an apple
experiment: we have 3 tests.

Mostly so far so good. What gravity is (that is hypothesized to exist) needs to be both rigorously defined and real to be part of a valid hypothesis (currently it is neither).

our first one is the control. we are simply dropping an apple and a magnet from a foot off the ground and observing what happens.

That is a simple observation, not in any way an experiment.

our second one, we will drop an apple and magnet in a vaccum chamber. we will observe what happens and hopefully we see they A: both fall
and B: fall at the same speed

Another simple observation.

you could argue that rather than gravity existing we are just moving upwards, but i dont think this would explain other observations we make, such as gravitational lensing, (something you could observe on your own with a telescope)

There is good reason to doubt the existence of gravitational lensing.  Perhaps the most obvious is its absolute lack of any experimental support of any kind.

So, we were off to an ok start - the hypothesis needed some work but otherwise looking pretty good.

Unfortunately the vast majority of us never learn the correct definitions of scientific vernacular, and to make matters worse - the colloquial definitions that we learn and use are incorrect.

An experiment MUST test the hypothesis by establishing a causal link (ideally) between an IV(hypothesized cause) and a DV(hypothesized effect of that cause).  None of your mere observations are experiments, nor do they test the hypothesis (which itself needs work to be valid).

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« on: August 08, 2021, 06:10:10 PM »
-The question (can anyone help?)

It seems you have rediscovered something very well known in the astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology circles (for decades, if not centuries).

Every person who has tried to do as you have has found the same thing.  No model we have, mathematical or otherwise, works to describe what we observe without "cheating". Many of us conclude, as you have, that this is strong evidence that the underlying "laws" we suspect govern the heavens are incorrect.

- The hypothesis

For now, it appears to me, that is not realistic to think,
that our solar system formed as a result of a random macroscopic series of events.

Correct.  As einstein said - God does not play dice with the universe.

Even with the "perfect" initial positions/velocities/masses all artificially contrived, the system doesn't remain stable.  It does not matter wether you try to swap out newtonian math for relativistic or not.

Most of what we were taught about the universe is merely mythology misrepresented as science.  None of the cosmological mythology can be modeled successfully (seemingly regardless of processing power) which includes the creation of all matter/energy, spherical planets/suns, and any orbits thereof. 

That's not what I sustain though, my hypothesis instead is that we got the math wrong,
or our solar system is somehow artificial?

Both appear likely to me.

I'm here to find someone interested to research into this,
therefore avoid any comment with the purpose of debating in general,
if you want more details or have some technical question, anyway,
you are more than welcome.

I've already done sufficient research on this topic, and there are many accessible documentaries/lectures from astrophysicists that can explain the issues encountered.  Inflation theory, for one of scores of examples, was contrived [made up] to provide a potential solution to the problem you have discovered.  My understanding is that currently it is an unanswered question, and because of the obscurity of the topic - no one really cares.

So, for the past 3 months, I've been studying the philosophy of science and how theories can be scientific and pseudoscientific.

Great! It is an important and neglected area of study :(

I have reason to believe that the flat earth theory is pseudoscientific because of a multitude of reasons, which I'm happy to explain if asked.

I'm happy for you to explain.  You may have overlooked that "flat earth theory" is not a scientific theory though?

But this question goes out to the FE theorists who are going out and experimenting. Are your experiments trying to prove or disprove FE?

Due to rampant miseducation (and colloquial abuse) almost no one knows what an experiment is.  For example, an experiment is NEVER be used to determine the shape of a physical object.  Experiments have a very different purpose.

I've read a lot of articles now saying that believed sciences like psychology and even chiropractics are pseudoscientific because they are not sound/reliable in their evidence and conclusions.

As tom already clarified, things are not pseudoscientific because their evidence and/or conclusions are unreliable. That would render literally all science as pseudoscience.  Things are pseudoscience because they are presented as science when they aren't.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method, save for natural law, and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces.

Thanks and I look forward to reading all, if any, responses


Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 04, 2021, 03:13:30 PM »
Wait, the claim is that the past 60 years or so of space exploration/industry is all fake.

That is a claim made and defended by many.  However it is not required for the world to be a different shape than we are taught.  What makes the faq perspective on "the conspiracy" novel, is that it is suggested the faking/hiding the shape of the earth is not the reason for any of that.  The cold war is chock full of propaganda, of which "the space age" is only a part.

Yet the services offered actually work (the 4 different GPS system, broadcast TV, telecommunications (some still remains), landsat, weather sats, all the imagery (of the earth as well as the other planets and their moons) and so on).  So for the real thing to be fake and for some other method to be provided for providing all that CORRECT (i.e. consistent with everything we know) data, it would take 10s, if not 100s of thousands of folks across many countries.  How is that not a conspiracy?

However, the services are not related to space travel (they are intentionally conflated with it).  They are demonstrably real.  How they actually work/function may be misunderstood or otherwise wrong.  It is extremely unlikely, but even something that appears to us as "orbit" may work in an entirely different manner than is currently thought.  We have no trouble being wrong without help from "conspiracy"; we've been doing it since the dawn of time.

The presumed curvature of the world seen in photos is a good example.  We expected to see a curve, so when we saw one from high altitude photography we all concluded "that's it, just what we expected!".  Even today there are many who still erroneously believe the horizon curves at some altitude, because of this simple misunderstanding (of lenses/optics/photography) and misinterpretation of data - taught to generations of students.  Many things we see and take photos of are not truly as they appear, and our interpretations of them are even more consistently incorrect.

An impossible one I'd say (both due to fact that so many folks would not have any hope of keeping any secret so well and due to the need for some alternative to providing all the data).

Keeping secrets is all too easy, especially if you include death in your recipe/procedure.  In any case, most of the employees in the space industry have no secret to share - they are simply employees who do a job.  If there were any sort of conspiracy it would be well beyond their pay grade.  Very few people would need to keep any secret, and this is one of the major purposes of compartmentalization.  Another, is to prevent any one employee/asset/soldier from seeing and understanding the larger strategy/motive/purpose employed.

The data you mention, by and large, is not fabricated - it is collected by some real means and then composites are created from it. Few, if anyone, suggests that the data is being made up wholesale.

The disk earth simply can not explain the universe we observe.

This is wrong, but I understand why you feel that way.  The shape of the earth doesn't play a significant role in science or our understanding of the universe. Also, we by and large don't observe the universe - we observe the earth and only experience life thereon.  The shape of the world is flat either because the world is flat or because it is effectively flat on the scale we live and practice science.  A disc earth is not an insurmountable impediment to explaining anything.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 04, 2021, 01:35:35 AM »

do any of you flat earthers want to go into space and see the earth for yourself?

Many were (and remain) scifi fanboys, so - yes.  Personally, I continue to see the allure of visiting a fictional place.

Please don't direct me to the FAQs because you can't seriously think space travel is a conspiracy- how would they be able to fake it??

Have you read the faq on this question? You really should! It may give you some other possibilities to noodle than the acute lack thereof you are currently suffering with.  No conspiracy is required for humanity to be wrong.  One possibility, outlined in the faq, is that any "conspiracy" that NASA et al represent is for military/nationalistic reason and not to do with the shape of the world.

If you're sure earth isn't a globe and that the pictures are faked and photoshopped, don't you want to check for yourself?

Of course! You really hit the nail on the head and highlighted a fundamental reason why independent researchers should not rely on NASA (et al) claims - they cannot EVER do precisely that; "check for yourself".  To add insult to injury; the ability to check is itself so worshipped/idolized that only those select few with the "right stuff" could ever dare to hope to obtain it.  Going to space becomes the "mecca" of the secular worldview - a pilgrimage for the (financially) righteous only.

why do you think the other planets are round and not earth?

Why do you think there are other planets and they would have any commonality with the world you know?  This is a rhetorical question for you to consider; I know the answer already.

The short answer is there isn't much evidence to support the claim that there are other planets, or that they are like earth.

Do you think it would form in a completely different way? Please don't say God made it because I thought you used science not religion, and if you do think that how did God make it flat?

There is no reason that you can't bring your biased atheist/anti-creationist worldviews with you onto the flat world! You can still fervently believe that nothing randomly created everything over unfathomable amounts of time - it just did so in a flatter manner.  No prob.

Lastly, do you not believe in Antartica being a continent?

Personally, I have little doubt as to the existence of the landmass of antarctica.  Could it REALLY be a part of a ring that circles the known world - I suppose (and I think it would still be considered a continent in that case).  Could it be just a normal hoth-like continent, also sure.

Sorry I had so many questions! I really wasn't trying to be rude and you all can say whatever you like back, I just genuinely want to know. Thanks!

This is a place for people who want to know! I'd be happy to answer most any questions you have if I can.

Unless it was text/im only, I also wouldn't feel comfortable - though I hope there are some here that would!

In any case, what is "alternative science" (with some examples)? There are ways other than scientific to make discoveries and advance human knowledge and ability - but "alternative science" seems to imply there is some sort of "other" science one might choose if one were so inclined.

In my view, science does have alternatives - however those alternatives are not science.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Translations of the Bible
« on: July 01, 2021, 09:18:28 PM »
My limited research on the subject shows that the kjv is by far the most accurate, but decidedly not the most accessible to a modern audience. The nrsv (newly reviled substandard version, as it is known) is changed arbitrarily to sell new copies of it for profit :(

I highly recommend the pocket e-sword, and it is a shame it did not make the jump to modern mobile os's (it SORT of did, but in a vastly inferior form and for-profit, itself a violation of the scriptures and the ethos of the creator).  No one translation can do the job, and it is often necessary to go to the "original" language/source as best you can (along with commentaries / translation / strongs concordance etc.). is the next best thing, but it is utter shit by comparison to the ease of use and interface of the pocket e-sword.

In any case, thanks for sharing! I haven't been involved in theosophy for quite some time, but this brings back some memories.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research flat earth community
« on: June 17, 2021, 06:22:05 PM »
Hey izy et al,

As i responded in my pm, I think it is the best approach to simply share your questions here and let all who wish to answer them do so at their own leisure! 

You should realize that many participants in this “community” have varying views on the shape of the world (many believe it is spherical, for instance. I personally do not believe it is spherical and have no certain knowledge as to the shape of the entire thing), so you may want to add that to the list of questions.

I highly recommend perusing the wiki here!  Just keep in mind it is a wiki, and not a bible.

In my view the distance the light from the sun can travel (all light in general) is finite.  The two main reasons for this are light’s natural attenuation (because it is a pressure wave) and the typical density gradient in our air which causes light to curve convexly towards the ground.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research flat earth community
« on: June 04, 2021, 11:57:30 PM »
I'm happy, typically, to answer any questions you might have.

Just post your questions here, and others will likely answer them as well.

How about yourself? How did you come across this research topic?

Personally, I discovered this website (and society) in an ancient age before the scourge of social media.

if the sun is much smaller than believed by modern science, then how can it produce enough energy for the earth, and is there another energy source that I’ve missed?

The simplest answer is that it is unknown.  Once the fusion mythology, which is no more sound (indeed, profoundly stupid) than the "theory" of the giant ignited street lamp in the sky that preceded it, is done away with - there is no obvious potential explanation for the source of the power.  In any case, the output of the sun doesn't vary just because our mythology does. 

The very concept that the sun is the source of all power is most likely flawed, and a manifestation of basic primative sun/helios worship.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Research for school
« on: May 27, 2021, 09:32:38 PM »
The wiki here is a great place to start!  Here is a page on “the conspiracy”, however chances are it isn’t anything like you’d expect.  Humanity requires no conspiracy to be consistently stupid and wrong as it historically always is; we require no help!

Don’t just read that one page though, the entire wiki is well worth going through! Just keep in mind that it is a compilation of many different perspectives and ideas, not a bible or textbook.

This applies to fish as well.

We do know that we can make birds act wacky under magnetic and electric fields - which leads some to speculate that one or more of those factors are involved in their “internal gps”.  Like most everything else in science, this has no relevance to the shape of the entire world.

Thanks Jack for your thoughts.  The experiments that I saw did not incorporate anything like in styrofoam box however it was done under the shade of a tree where the branches appeared to be quite high off the ground (approx. 20 feet above the object) so it wasn't likely that the tree influenced the experiment.  I’m a flat earther so I’m inclined to believe that we don’t understand exactly what the moon is (i.e. does it somehow emit its own light vs. just act as reflecting other light from the sun). Thanks again for your thoughts.

I tend to agree that a distant tree is not going to have much impact on the rate of cooling of an object, and the largest factor is air interaction.  I’ve seen other examples involving barns and other large structures and it has been argued that, rather than an “insulation at a distance” effect, it was really the blocking/impeding of wind that accounted for the observation.

My general point is that we can speculate (jibber jabber) til we are blue in the face and learn nothing.  We have to do the measurements and try to isolate the causes/factors involved.  When newton did his work on sunlight, he did so inside a darkened room with a small aperture that would let the light in through.  I imagine a similar setup involving moonlight (ideally while keeping the cold air outside) would be a good way to proceed.

I have similar doubts as to the true nature of the moon, including its eerie glow.  It does not reflect light the way a spherical reflector does/should, and may well be an ionization effect or some sort of reflection.

Cooling by light or sound is not as unusual as it intuitively seems.

It is unclear, in the measurements I’ve seen - mostly taken outside, whether moonlight has the effect that is claimed / ostensibly observed.

The “insulation effect” iceman described is certainly possible, and to get to the bottom of it would require controlling for that.

If you could conduct the observations all inside / in a styrofoam cooler and selectively let moonlight in and block it (of course doing proper “controls” of opening and closing said aperture and monitoring the effect on the temperature with and without moonlight when the outside temperature was the same) then you could start to figure it out.

Did any of the procedures you saw do that, to certainly demonstrate that the moonlight was the cause of the cooling (and not just the effect of the lack of thermal “blanket” of the shade)?  The ones I have seen do not control for what iceman is saying, and they really should!

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 12  Next >