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 - BillO

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: Today at 06:19:31 PM »
I provided 5 citations during this thread, BTW.
None to this specific effect. Lying makes you look less credible, not more.

I said the universe was an isolated system, you asked me for a citation.  Remember this?
Pete, by definition a universe is an isolated system.   Yeah, I'm in agreement with the definition.
I cannot find a source that agrees with you. Perhaps you'd like to provide one instead of just saying you're right repeatedly?

I provided links to several sources that stated the universe is an isolated system.  Two were thermodynamics text books.  How am I lying and how more specific can they get?

Your citation from Wikipedia could have been written by anyone, including myself, and merely claims the meaning of the universe as an isolated system is doubtful.  It did not say the concept was completely wrong, nor did it provide any justification.  Just a single statement making a claim.  That is your definition of mainstream consensus?



2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 14, 2019, 02:02:34 AM »
The problem, as always, is that you assert yourself to be correct, and when asked to provide citations, you just assert yourself to be correct some more.
I provided 5 citations during this thread, BTW.

3
I made no assertions about any of that history of the GRS , those are the facts stated in its history as taken from historical records and published in a mainstream science magazine .
Really?  Well, my guess is the author was a dolt and the magazine editors didn't bother with the whole fact checking thing.  The sole fact is that Hooke observed something on Jupiter.  That's it.  Whether it was the GRS we have come to know today, or not, can only be speculation.  The consensus of real astronomers is that it was not the GRS.  Just out of interest, who was the author and what was the magazine?

Edit:  I found the link to your GRS article.  To quote the author:

The first person to mention a spot on Jupiter was Robert Hooke, who described it in 1664, but he placed it in the northern hemisphere.

So, no.  Not even in that article is Hooke's discovery called the GRS.  Neither does the author call Cassini's spot the GRS.  Now whenever you call something a fact, I'll know to take it with a grain (or 10) of salt.  So the author was not necessarily a dolt and our credibility wains.


Yeah, telescopes have gotten better, but not the ones you are likely to have.  A $500 cheapie is not a great scope.  Quoting the diffraction limited resolving power of the aperture of your scope is a far cry from what you will actually see.  I'm just a once in a while thoroughly amateur astronomer but I own eyepieces that cost more than $500.  BTW, when I read that article about Campani it states that the 11.1cm scope had a resolving power of 1.2arcsec (expected) and a magnification of up to 223. 

When a planet is only atmosphere, then yeah, the rotation of the planet is the rotation of the atmosphere. ::)

At the risk of repeating myself, if you don't like the idea of gas planets, then go look at Mars.

And yes, the rotation of the earth has been both observed and measured from space.  In addition there is ample evidence from ground based observation which can only be explained by a rotating planet (and certainly cannot be explained by anything in FE).

Edit: Oh, this:
Hooke placed the GRS in Jupiter's Northern hemisphere whereas Cassini views it in the Southern .
Is wrong too.  Read that article again.   It clearly states Cassini's observation was in the northern hemisphere as well, and it's worth repeating, neither are called the GRS.

(space comma)

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 13, 2019, 04:34:29 PM »
It’s not even clear that “outside the universe” is a meaningful statement. How anyone could try and surmise what that is without assumptions is beyond me.
Who is talking about outside the universe?  It seems to me  many of the people on this site can't assimilate simple discourse and how they can stick their noses into a conversation they demonstrate blatantly they don't understand is beyond me.  If you have an issue with the I way express something, discuss it with me in a civilized manner rather than making uninformed assumptions.  If you can't be civil, we can take this to AR.

Same goes for Pete on this one.  You both know exactly what I mean and my use of "outside the universe" is perfectly correct.  The assumption you both seem to have missed (well Pete quoted it FFS) is: The universe contains everything.  This implies there is nothing "outside the universe" and is the only reason the expression was used.  The pertinence to all this to answer the question "Is the universe an isolated system WRT to thermodynamics."  And it is generally accepted that it is.  In fact it is generally accepted that it is the only true isolated system.  Barring, of course, Pete's wonderful citation (not mainstream BTW), which wafflingly stated it might not be an isolated system.  I think the term used was doubtful.  However,  reading the context of that statement they need to change the definition of the universe from the one in play in this discussion.

Let's make no mistake.  If youwant to say the universe is not an isolated system, and stand by that rather than just cast doubt, you better be prepared to start actually talking about what is "outside the universe".

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 12, 2019, 12:47:44 AM »
I had to make dinner and learn how to use LaTex here, so sorry for the delay.

The proper form for the equation given as the approximate formula would be

y%3DKx%5E%7B4%2F3%7D

Where: K%3D%5Cfrac%7B3%7D%7B4%7D%5Csqrt%5B3%5D%7B%5Cfrac%7B%5Cbeta%20%7D%7BC%5E%7B2%7D%7D%7D

K would then be the Bishop Constant.  Much simpler and easier to read.  Still not a field equation though, so just as useless for the intended purposes.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 11, 2019, 11:56:01 PM »
However, the math they give as a approximation is a function of a single variable, not a field equation.  So, my questions would be - how is EA Zetetic at all?
"I don't like the approximate formula, therefore this phenomenon couldn't have been observed" is a very poor argument. It is precisely this sort of obsession with formalisms that we try to avoid. I believe Parsifal had this exact conversation with yob already.
I love the "approximate formula".  In fact I investigated it, analyzed it, took it's derivative and plotted both it and it's derivative.  I also discovered the form it's in now can be much simplified seeing as both the speed of light and the "Bishop Constant" are both constants and could be combined into a new single constant outside the root symbol.  However, it cannot possibly be applied to a 3-dimensional field - so whatever is approximates, it is not the bending of the light field being cast by the sun.  Be it near or far.

If you don't eventually formalize things, put things into a universally expressable form (like mathematics), how do you make predictions or take your research to the next step?  For instance, how would FE Zeteticism have developed the cellphone?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 11, 2019, 10:20:19 PM »
Also light-bending, which is a great example of a Popper unfalsifiable thesis. We can design a light-bending model that is perfectly consistent with standard astronomical models, but where the earth is flat (one astronomer has designed such a computer model*). Impossible to strictly prove it is false, any more than we can prove that the earth is not controlled by a giant blue unicorn. And every piece of evidence whatsoever could be cited in support of such a model.
I believe this is called EA (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration).  I'd love to see the supporting experimental data and write-up to draw the conclusions given there.  That wiki page shows a 2-D field of light.  Presumably a representation of the real world 3-D field.  However, the math they give as a approximation is a function of a single variable, not a field equation.  So, my questions would be - how is EA Zetetic at all?

8
The "rudimentary equipment" used by top-tier scientists in the 1660's was probably better than an inexpensive 6" amateur scope today.  Considerably better.  Good optics are not too hard to make, just expensive.

As for Jupiter and Saturn (and the other gas giants) they are essentially just atmosphere.  There are some that hypothesize a solid core, but there is no hard evidence of that except for the interpretation of some gravitational measurements of Jupiter winch could indicate a solid core of about 5% of it's mass.  However, it does seem that even these estimates are in flux, changing over time.  More likely is a progressive increase in the density of these planets from 0 through to very highly compressed and condensed gases and liquids similar to a malleable plastic, and everything in between.  So even if there was a solid core, where it began would also be in dispute.  The net net is that Jupiter does not have a solid surface.

So, when we talk about planets that are alt least 95% atmosphere and do not posses a solid surface, then the rotation of the atmosphere IS the rotation of the planet.  That is just the way it is, like it or not.

If you want to see a solid surface rotate, you'll have to get time on a better scope and observe Mars.

BTW, Hooke may not have observed the GRS at all, so don't be too adamant about your assertion.   It's is not always very visible and goes through phases where it might not be visible at all, but it has never been visible in the North.  The general consensus among far more qualified people than you or I is that his observation was of a different object.

In any case, the GRS, despite my original post, is probably not the best choice to see the rotation of Jupiter as it goes against the grain (rotates in the opposite direction), but it will show rotation nonetheless.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 09, 2019, 05:15:06 PM »
As an example consider Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation which mankind accepted as true for upwards of 2000 years.
I don't think this is a great example, Tom.  Aristotle formed his "theory" strictly from observation and experimentation.  He would observe life emerging from environments where they did not exist before, either existing environments, like pools of water that later produced fish, or created environments, like leaving raw meat out to later observe flies and maggots emerge.  Then formulated spontaneous generation as an explanation.  He strictly followed the Zetetic method, not the scientific method.

10
This is a question asked by somerled in a topic that got locked in the Flat Earth Theory forum.

I thought it was a good question and should be addressed and this appears to be the right place to address it.

The easiest planet to see rotating is Jupiter.  Jupiter has a day of less than 10 hours, so on a long winter's night you can easily witness it do a full rotation.  You will need a decent telescope.  Let's make no mistake, your not going to be able to detect it rotating with binoculars or even a modestly priced 4".  However, with a well collimated and quality 6" scope or bigger it should be no issue at all to easily see enough detail (like the GRS) to see it rotate.

Mars is probably the next easiest to see rotating.  It's day is just a tad longer than earth, so you won't see it do a full rotation in one evening of viewing, but you could certainly see it rotate through 180 degrees or more.  And if you observe it every night over about 3 weeks, you can get to see the entire surface.  Again, a decent scope will be needed for this and if you're a skilled observer you could do it with an 8".

The next (and probably last) would be Saturn.  For this one you'll need at least 10" scope to see enough detail to detect rotation.  It's day is just under 11 hours, so it should be easy enough to see the entire surface in one (winter) night.

Although Venus can be fairly close to earth from time to time and easy to see, it appears featureless and detecting it's rotation is beyond what most amateurs can muster.  If you have a big scope (10"+) and a good set of filters, you might be able to see the notion of a bright spot, but that would be seeing the motion of the atmosphere, not the planet.  A day on Venus is about 5,800 hours.  So, even if we could see the surface features, it might be tough for the casual viewer to detect rotation.  The atmosphere, however, circles the planet in under 100 hours.

Mercury is tiny and far away.  It's day is also very long - nearly 1,408 hours.  I have access to an 18" scope and have never been able to even see details on Mercury, so I'm going to say it's not in the realm of reasonably easy to record rotation on Mercury for an amateur.

Uranus and Neptune are quite far off and even quite large high quality scopes have difficulty detecting any features, so again not in the realm of the casual viewer.

That being said, there are earth based instruments that can detect the rotation of all the planets.  It's just that you or me are likely never going to get to play with them.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 05, 2019, 06:11:46 PM »

As to whether or not the universe most RE folk adhere to is and isolated system,  in thermodynamics and isolated system is a system which does not or can not exchange either energy or matter with its surroundings.   By definition, the universe is self contained and therefore cannot exchange energy or matter.
I'm afraid you restating your position doesn't make it any more mainstream or correct. This is why I asked you for a source.

My source is thermodynamics.  It's not my position, other than I am in agreement with thermodynamics.  It is not something I made up.

Thermodynamics deals with the transfer of energy and matter between systems.  It deals with and recognizes 3 different types of systems.  Open systems, closed systems and isolated systems.  As with many branches of science thermodynamics has specific definitions for the therms used which may or may not align the the common usage for those terms.  In thermodynamics the terms Open system, closed system and isolated system have the following definitions:

Open system - A physical system which can exchange both energy and matter with it's surroundings or other systems.
Closed system - A physical system which can exchange energy but not matter with it's surroundings or other systems.
Isolated system - A physical system which cannot exchange either energy or matter with it's surroundings or other systems.

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.

And, yeas, in science definitions are critically important.


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."

But, like I said, it does not matter whether or not the universe is an isolated system.  To show if FE UA is in agreement with conservation of energy, all you need to do is define an isolated system as defined in thermodynamics within the FE universe and show how energy is conserved, or failing to find an such a system, show the source and or sink for the energy transfer required.  So, I'm at a loss as to why we are stuck at whether or not the universe is an isolated system or not as it is not a requirement to tackle the question at hand.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned we are done here.  My challenge was for someone to demonstrate that FE UA was consistent with conservation of energy and this has not been done despite pages of conversation.  I really don't care if anyone believes the universe is an isolated system or not.  By the pertinent definitions it is, but that is not and never was a requirement to meet the challenge.

Score: FE - fail.

The last word to you Pete.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 04, 2019, 07:20:38 PM »
One of the "flaws" you're claiming relies on assumptions that you're refusing to justify. Naturally, one has to assume that you have a reason to refuse that.
Pete, let me apologize.   The reason I'm not declaring whether or not the FE universe is isolated is because it is not fully pertinent top the question.  However, I did not invent the FE UA system.  I assume you guy's did, so the definitions are up to you.  You can approach the problem either way.  If the description of FE UA in the wiki does encompass an isolated system, then you just show how energy is conserved within that system.  If it does not encompass an isolated system, then just show where the energy is coming from so that an isolated system can be defined (the FE UA system + the Energy system) wherein the energy is conserved.

As to whether or not the universe most RE folk adhere to is and isolated system,  in thermodynamics and isolated system is a system which does not or can not exchange either energy or matter with its surroundings.   By definition, the universe is self contained and therefore cannot exchange energy or matter.

Or you can read this excerpt from Quora:
Quote
The (entire) universe is an isolated system. The observable universe is an open system.

There are 3 main types of thermodynamic systems, defined by what the system can exchange with its surroundings:

    An open system can exchange both energy and matter.
    A closed system can exchange only energy.
    An isolated system cannot exchange anything.


The entire universe, meaning everything there is, including things we cannot see, is an isolated system because it has no "surroundings"; it's literally everything there is. Obviously, a system cannot exchange energy or matter with "surroundings" that do not exist.

The observable universe, meaning only the part of the universe that we can see, is an open system, because the "boundary" of our observable universe is not actually a physical "boundary" in any possible meaning of the word, and both matter and energy can freely pass through it.

What I mean is that our observable universe has a "boundary" because if something is beyond this "boundary", the light from it has not had time to reach us yet (and may never will). Aliens living on the "boundary" of our observable universe will have their own definition of "observable universe" and it will not be the same as our definition, because there are things in the universe they can see that we can't, and vice versa.


what I want
Yeah, I asked this question: "What I want to know is if you can give me a  reasonable and self-complete hypotheses as to how energy is conserved in the FE UA concept with which I cannot find a demonstrable physical flaw in." That's what I want answered, and I asked it before you got involved.  If you have specific things for me to outline for you before taking a stab at it please ask.

One of the "flaws" you're claiming relies on assumptions that you're refusing to justify. Naturally, one has to assume that you have a reason to refuse that.
Justify that the universe is an isolated system?  See above.  Pete, if you don't understand thermodynamics, then why did you involve yourself in this?

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 04, 2019, 06:27:48 PM »
Another paper on the same topic: https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards.pdf
Yeah, he is just saying the same thing will a little more rigor.  And I have no argument in his math, just in the nomenclature used in describing his findings.  This paperer has an advantage in that it's intended for folks that have some GR under their belt, so they will take his meaning.  However, if I were to tell my wife the earth is accelerating her upward and is accelerating outward in all directions she would think I'm bonkers.  The earth is clearly not increasing in size at an ever increasing rate.  AS he takes you through the math Berry provides the results then states "This form eerily mirrors the form of Newton’s gravity." And it does, in fact it looks just the the acceleration due to gravity, but you have to realize that he began his calculations with the stipulation " ... our  fixed  point  on  the  surface  of  the Earth doesn’t move along any of the last 3 coordinates,r,θ, orφ.  So, its spacetime path and 4-velocity must be directed along the t direction."  That fact does not change through the calculation the acceleration (actualy, 4-acceleration).  So unlike implication of normal acceleration (3-acceleration), nothing is actually moving or increasing in 3-velocity WRT the center of the earth.

BTW, observe the 4-vextor that is the result 〈0,GM/(R^2),0,0〉.  This can only occur on a globe since the t,θ and φ dimensions are invariant so there is no preferred direction.

I have another question:  Does the flat earth even have a Schwarzchild radius?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 04, 2019, 05:59:14 PM »
Pete, by definition a universe is an isolated system.   Yeah, I'm in agreement with the definition.
I cannot find a source that agrees with you. Perhaps you'd like to provide one instead of just saying you're right repeatedly?

The consensus appears to be that it would be entirely meaningless to call the Universe an isolated system (since anything external to the Universe is undefined), but I'm happy for you to defend your case. Just, you know, actually say something more useful than "I am correct.       Yeah, I am very right, yes."

Now, the only thing we need to decide on it whether or not all the stuff subject to FE UA constitutes an isolated system, or are there things in the FE universe WRT which the earth and all celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8 m/(s^2).
Right, you're going to have to make up your mind on this one. First you said that you don't know what the system is. When I asked you to clarify, you accused me of strawmanning you and declared that you obviously do know what it is. Now you're back to saying you don't know.

Please pick a line of argumentation and stick with it. It's extremely difficult to have a meaningful conversation when you keep arguing with yourself.
Okay.

So, to bring this back on topic, what I want to know is if you can give me a  reasonable and self-complete hypotheses as to how energy is conserved in the FE UA concept with which I cannot find a demonstrable physical flaw in.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 04, 2019, 12:07:31 AM »
I don't see where it's stated that the statements he gives do not represent what is occurring in General Relativity.
Many of them do, but he's trying to dumb this down too much.

The author clearly states, several times, that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time
And that's where his analogy falls apart.  He is either using the same equivalency as Einstein, or he is trying to liken the acceleration caused by curved spacetime to that of centripetal acceleration.  I think the 2nd is more likely as it conserves energy.  However, even though centripetal acceleration accelerates the subject body toward a central point, the body does not move in that direction.  Neither is the rope/rod/string/whatever that is holding the subject and exerting the force that causes the acceleration shortening in that direction.  However, that is a two dimensional problem viewed from a three dimensional perspective. If we extend this to sapcetime then we are in a situation where the velocity is no longer spacial, but temporal and any 'acceleration' would also have to be unobservable to us.   So I think 'acceleration' is a real bad way to describe this for anyone who has little understanding GR.  Yes, the planet exerts a force on your feet, but it's not moving you anywhere due to that force.  In my opinion acceleration is a very poor choice of words to explain this in layman's terms.  It will conjure up images that are just not their.

In GR gravity is not a force, it is a curvature of space, but when two bodies try to get into the same piece of space, they hold each other out, and that is a force.  The same force we feel on our feet as the earth block us from following our free-fall path in spacetime..  I think this is a better way to put it.  Acceleration to most people implies movement, force does not.

and this is the cause for why bodies of different masses fall at the same rate in the Galileo experiment.
You don't need any more than newton's 2nd law of motion to explain this.


Another paper on the same topic: https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards.pdf
Thanks.  I've got dinner reservations for 7:30 -  I'll look into that tomorrow.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 05:30:20 PM »
A "straw man"? Asking you to clarify your position while expressly avoiding assumptions is the very opposite of straw manning someone. It's a shame that you'd respond to basic scrutiny with immediate accusations, but let's try to carry on.

So, you wanted to talk about planets, but also made "an allusion" to a different discussion that could be had about the Universe. Excellent, we can work with that. While the former is pretty clear, I'm very interested as to whether you think the Universe is an isolated system. Your claims about UAT seem to rely on that assumption (feel free to elaborate if this is not the case), but it's a rather novel assumption without much mainstream support.
Pete, by definition a universe is an isolated system.   Yeah, I'm in agreement with the definition.

Now, the only thing we need to decide on it whether or not all the stuff subject to FE UA constitutes an isolated system, or are there things in the FE universe WRT which the earth and all celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8 m/(s^2).

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 04:38:12 PM »
Where did I state that I didn't know what system I'm making claims about?
I already provided you with the relevant quote: A planet (whole universe?)

If you do know which one it is, simply state it. The way you left it suggests you can't quite narrow it down. This is why I'm asking you to make yourself clear.
See my edited response above.  I was talking about the planet system as described by Clifton and alluded to FE UA in parenthesis.  The suffer the same problem WRT energy conservation.  Nice straw man though Pete.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 04:29:28 PM »
while simultaneously stating that you don't know what system you're making claims about (A planet (whole universe?)).
Where did I state that I didn't know what system I'm making claims about?  I was clearly talking about a planet.  The parenthesis contained an allusion to FE AU.  Which also suffers the same problem.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 04:27:04 PM »
Where does he state that it's a thought experiment?
"For others it is the fact that it is possible to probe Einstein's theory experimentally that is most compelling"

Oh, and let me add to this the fact that he begins the whole discussion of the experiment with the words: "Think now about what all of this means in a practical situation.  Consider ..."

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 03:24:24 PM »
How have you determined that the system you're considering is isolated if you don't even know what the system is?
Are you talking about the situation Clifton presents, or are you talking about FE UA?  In Clifton's case he describes the system.  He's a physicist, so I assume he's not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes and is following protocol.  If there was more to the system than what he mentions, he would have stated that.  Otherwise he would not be very credible, would he?  Then we can just dismiss his little treatise with nary a wave of the hand.

If you are talking about FE UA, then that is what I am asking Tom for.  Or you can pony up the hypothesis if you want to step up.

Or are you saying the FE community cannot provide a self-complete hypothesis for conservation of energy WRT UA?  Then UA it fails immediately, doesn't  it?

Wasn't it your chief editor of the wiki (AKA Tom) that said "If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence."  Can we have some evidence that energy is conserved in the concept of UA?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13  Next >