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 - Tim Alphabeaver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
1
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.

2
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.

3
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.

4
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.

5
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

6
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.

Quote
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!

7
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.

8
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?

9
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.

10
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:

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

11
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.

12
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

Quote from: Pete Svarrior
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.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 30, 2020, 04:35:28 PM »
Given that my opponent's reference was a Quora thread, I have no issue with countering it with Wikipedia. You're welcome to consult your physics textbook if you prefer.
Your opponent's reference(s) were not a Quora thread - perhaps it's you who should read the thread.
Funnily enough, it looks like your wikipedia article has since been edited, and now doesn't agree with you, and is now backed up with citations (which it wasn't previously). Oops.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 04:19:30 PM »
To help understand the diagram better please provide the map of the earth to go with it.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 30, 2020, 02:47:47 PM »
The whole bumph depends on the assumption that earth is a sphere where R = 6370km
 so use of an imaginary equation K=R/r to quantify any observation falls into the category of pseudoscience .
The introduction of 'K' is clearly just to compare the actual meaningful value 'r' to the globe model's 'R' in order to make the results more human-readable.
You could say instead that when the light isn't refracted, r=infinity, and when it's refracted the same amount as the RE globe curves, it's r=6,371km.
No information is gained or lost here - it's just easier for a person to parse a value of K that's usually -10<K<10 rather than using r, which is [infinity]>r>~0

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 01:13:44 PM »
As the sun sets, the shadows goes up the mountain face. Simple geometry says that the shadow can't go up the mountain face unless the sun is sinking behind something. The "cloud lit from underside" theory doesn't accomplish anything here. We aren't talking about light sneaking in somewhere unexpected; we are talking about a shadow, the absence of light.

What's creating the shadow? What is blocking the sun's light that so regularly crawls up the mountainside, finally leaving it in shadow? If it is already dusk, why can I fly up in a plane and see the sun again? I haven't found an explanation in Flat Earth theory that explains this. Not saying there isn't one: if there is, I'd like to hear it.
I think that all of your questions would be adequately answered if you just read the wiki page on EA: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 29, 2020, 11:49:29 PM »
Ahh ok, and it's a consensus because... you've stated it?
If you don't want to discuss this seriously, don't discuss it at all.
Pete, I'm really sorry if I'm missing anything here - but please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.
I'm trying to discuss this seriously.

You stated that calling the universe an isolated system is 'meaningless', and then when challenged, you responded that it's just 'scientific consensus', citing wikipedia.
I must be missing something here because wikipedia is not a useful source.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 29, 2020, 11:36:29 PM »
I provided a citation of much higher standard than my opponent, and provided my own wording to help make the point clear. If you disagree with it, you'll have to at least provide some reasoning, not just pretend my reference doesn't exist.
Wikipedia?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 28, 2020, 11:37:10 PM »
Is your opinion somehow more valid that someone else's opinion?
My opinion is entirely irrelevant to the scientific consensus I've stated.
Ahh ok, and it's a consensus because... you've stated it? Forgive me if I'm missing something, but you can't just state something without citation and then ignore when other people post statements that disagree and are backed up with citations.

As a wise man once said:
I'm afraid that's not how citations work.

Or to put it more simply:
I state that the universe is an isolated system, and that this is a meaningful definition. This is scientific consensus, and you are in fact incorrect.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 27, 2020, 09:19:14 PM »
As for pricelesspearl, I think it's safe to assume that his posts should fall under the "blatant troll" category by now - we shouldn't waste our time with them.
A 'blatant troll' is what you call a valid direct response to your post, with citations?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >