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 ... 14  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 25, 2020, 01:31:03 PM »
But he repeatedly refused to clarify his meaning, and instead insisted on using words that have no meaning.
Again, Pete's perspective in operation here.  The words I chose are those used in many thermodynamics texts, not my intuition.  I found links to 2 of them on-line and provided them for you.  I can also give you the ISBN of my ancient texts too, if that will help you, but there would be no point.  The question I asked, show that UA in the FE universe is thermodynamically sound, has yet o be answered.  As I said, you don't need to have an isolated system to do this.  Thermodynamics is equipped to deal with open systems, closed systems and isolated systems.  I've left the the choice to you, yet you constantly evade.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 25, 2020, 04:10:52 AM »
In a way, I think you are both right.  Acceleration is just motion and motion is a change in position relative to a fixed point.  That fixed point could be an object's previous position.

So yes, acceleration must be relative to "something", but it doesn't have to be another object.
No.  Acceleration is not just 'motion'.  Motion, or at least the common understanding of motion is change of position or velocity/movement.  Acceleration is change of velocity.  Acceleration is not relative to place or position.  If you are undergoing acceleration you are in what is called a non-inertial frame of reference.  Non-inertial frames of reference are not relative to any position or initial velocity.  You can undergo acceleration at any time, place or initial velocity and the magnitude of that acceleration is not dependent on or relative to the time, place or initial velocity.

Now, undiscussed so far is what is implied by acceleration.  Acceleration implies a transfer of energy.  Depending on the definition of the system under discussion this could mean a relative change in energy - but almost universally not so as in the (RE) universe as we know it, the sources and sinks of energy are usually readily identified.

This hearkens back to the failed discussion Pete and I had about the thermodynamic validity of UA. 

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 25, 2020, 12:03:24 AM »
Incorrect, given our current set of assumptions in this conversation. If you'd like to explain to pp why his assumptions are silly, by all means, feel free to, but in the future, try to direct your criticisms appropriately.
It does not depend on your assumptions or anyone else's.   It's simply wrong to refer to acceleration the way you did.  I'm sure the pp got the gist too.  If not, then perhaps there is little to be done about it.

Given your track record, if you thought something was the case, it can be safely assumed not to be the case.
You mean my 'track record' based on your incorrect interpretations and opinion?  When I'm wrong I admit it.  If I have not admitted to being wrong, it is because I was not.  Regardless of your opinion.

Indeed, if anything, your agreeing with me just now made me doubt my position.
I'm not the one that posted something dumb.  That was you, now it seems you are trying to back out of it.

If you find this post inappropriate, then you find yourself so too.  You have used exactly the same language and approach each time we converse.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 24, 2020, 07:32:45 PM »
Accelerating relative to what and for how long?
Acceleration does not have to be relative to anything.  I thought you knew better.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity
« on: January 10, 2020, 11:57:04 PM »
1. Less air pressure
Buoyancy due to air, considering sufficiently dense test objects, is no where near enough to account for the difference.

2. Maybe the force pushing up on the earth which is casing the acceleration is not evenly distributed.
Then it's not UA, is it?

Also please keep in mind that there are some FE models which don't adhere to UA.
UA is a concept or idea which only applies to a portion of all FE models.
There is no consistency at all in the FE 'space'.  Ask 10 different FE'ers and you'll get 10 different, and substantially contradictory, hypotheses for the FE. 

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 10, 2020, 11:48:50 PM »
Bit surprising that GPS works exactly as documented.
No, not really ... perhaps you missed my point.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 10, 2020, 01:48:48 AM »
Asking the people that build and operate GPS would be a good start.
What if the conspiracy that regards the entire space community being NASA shills is true, or that you truly believe it is true.  What then would be the point of asking the conspirators?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity
« on: January 10, 2020, 01:45:00 AM »
Even if we pretend that the earth is round, it is still curious why the experiments can't seem to find a violation of the Equivalence Principle.

Well, this is simply just not true.  The velocities of stable orbits at different altitudes are ample evidence (dare I say proof) of gravity falling off at 1/(r^2).

The equivalence principle only holds true for highly contained conditions.  The most important is that you do not displace yourself along the direction of the apparent acceleration.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.
« on: December 23, 2019, 09:06:31 PM »
In this instance though, would have made a big old difference :)
Very true.  But my point about how incorrect it is to say the atmosphere is not transparent to radio signals still stands.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: December 23, 2019, 09:01:54 PM »
Okay Pete, you're right on this one.  I got it wrong and I concede.

However, I'm standing by the universe being a isolated system.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.
« on: December 22, 2019, 10:01:36 PM »
A good internet search will show you that the atmosphere is not transparent to radio waves.
This is not true.  A better internet search will show you that the atmosphere is transparent to wavelengths from about 3cm to about 10m.  Which covers a lot of radio frequencies. The OP was talking about 7mHz - that is a wavelength of around 43cm.  The atmosphere is transparent to that wavelength.

Not quite.

7Mhz is approx 40meters.
What's a factor of 100 between friends?  That'll teach me to do arithmetic in my head ::)

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: December 22, 2019, 07:21:33 PM »
Well, it is certainly true for the round earth.
Really? Thousands of miles of atmosphere? Your alternative RE model must be funky.
How so?  If we assume a significant air mass extending vertically up to 60 miles then at sea level looking towards the horizon (~90 degrees from vertical) to see a sunset you are looking through roughly 38 times that, or about 2,280 miles of atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(astronomy)#Interpolative_formulas

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosphere.html
Quote
... the thickness of the atmosphere is about 60 miles.


Would you care to elucidate for us regarding the situation on the FE?
You are expected to have familiarised yourself with the basics before joining the discussion in the upper fora.
I'll go look in the wiki then, seeing as how you are not willing to be helpful.

Edit:  Despite Pete's suggestion to "familiarise" myself I could find no direct information about this in the wiki.  The best I can surmise from what is there is that in the FE view the sunlight would be coming through about 120 miles of significant atmosphere at sunset.  But this is not taking into account EA and other bendy light hypotheses.  The wiki gives no way to apply these to the situation.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.
« on: December 22, 2019, 05:09:55 PM »
A good internet search will show you that the atmosphere is not transparent to radio waves.
This is not true.  A better internet search will show you that the atmosphere is transparent to wavelengths from about 3cm to about 10m.  Which covers a lot of radio frequencies. The OP was talking about 7mHz - that is a wavelength of around 43cm.  The atmosphere is transparent to that wavelength.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: December 22, 2019, 04:58:42 PM »
When the sun/moon are setting on a flat earth or round, you are seeing them through thousands of miles of atmos(whatever)
This assumption continues to be incorrect, no matter how many times you lot restate it.
Well, it is certainly true for the round earth.  Would you care to elucidate for us regarding the situation on the FE?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: December 22, 2019, 02:37:45 PM »
I think the OP's question is valid and no on the FE side has said anything meaningful in response.  When the sun/moon are setting on a flat earth or round, you are seeing them through thousands of miles of atmos(whatever).  One of the issues with FET is we can never know just how many miles of atmos(whatever) we are viewing them through because the distance from the earth's surface to these objects has not been definitely determined.  Neither has the thickness of the atmos(whatever).

However, on the RE the sun's light travels through approximately 2000 miles of atmosphere at sunset.  Same can be said for the moon, Polaris or any other off-earth object viewed at the horizon.  So, 350 miles is not the limit to how far light can travel though air.  In fact, objects such as Polaris, despite the light reaching us being minuscule, can be seen very clearly to those that can see it on or close to the horizon suggesting light can probably travel much more than 2000 miles through air.

On a round earth there is an obvious reason why Everest cannot bee seen 3,000 miles away.  On the FE, it is not so obvious.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 15, 2019, 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?



17
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.

18
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)

19
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".

20
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >