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 - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 260  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: Today at 09:55:09 AM »
Well, it makes it meaningful, but it also makes it immediately false (and I had warned you this would be the case, so I guess you just wanted to be wrong).

You already know that the satellites are not geostationary, and that therefore this velocity cannot be constant - the figure you provided is likely an average or estimate. You should have been able to put 2 and 2 together there, really.

Funnily enough, the document you quoted (but forgot to read) confirms this. The first FAQ in supplementary information reads as follows (emphasis mine):

Q - At different positions in its orbit, a GPS satellite will have differing speeds relative to different GPS receivers. Given this, do we need to adjust the speed used in the equation for time dilation to account for this variation?

A - In principle, we do need to use a different value for v in Equation 1 depending on the precise speed of a given satellite relative to a particular receiver. However, the speed of the satellites (3874 m/s) is much larger than the speed of a GPS receiver as it moves with Earth’s rotation (465 m/s at the equator). Differences in the values of the relative speed between a satellite and a receiver result in variations in the amount of time dilation of just 1% at most and so are insignificant for the current accuracy of the GPS.

You also know that, in RET, they orbit the Earth, and are thus subject to acceleration. You'll really struggle to find one without the other...

Your claim that they do not accelerate is amazingly nonsensical, and you'd do well to fix it. The answer above might provide you with a less terrible claim to make. I would strongly suggest reading it before citing it again - it actually has some good ammunition for your position once you've understood it. Plus, it's generally good practice not to quote-mine papers for something you think agrees with you without reading them and checking that it actually does.

Finally, I missed this gem earlier:

It does not depend on your assumptions or anyone else's.
Of course. After all, it's not like these would look differently in different inertial and non-inertial FoR. We can just ignore that. Oh, wait...

BillO, remember my usual advice: if you didn't understand what someone has said, simply ask them to clarify. No need to go on a tirade about how right you think you are.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: Today at 09:52:04 AM »
An isolated system is not undefined.
If you're not going to bother reading what I said, please don't waste our time with copy-pasted definitions.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!
« on: January 25, 2020, 11:19:13 PM »
therefore, we can just continue to claim it exists without providing any evidence.
"Without any evidence"? My friend, lying is such a bad look for you.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 25, 2020, 11:18:29 PM »
It looks to me like BillO clarified his position quite well.
In thermodynamics, calling the Universe an isolated system is meaningless. It cannot be true nor false, because it does not have an assigned meaning within physics. The danger of accepting undefined terms in a discussion like this is that it will bring unknown consequences later on. BillO was offered plenty of opportunities to replace that term with a meaningful one, but chose not to. Thus, the conversation can't proceed.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 25, 2020, 11:13:18 PM »
GPS satellites maintain a constant velocity.
Constant velocity relative to what? We already know they're not geostationary, so clearly not the Earth. Please render your thought complete and meaningful so we can assess whether it is correct.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 25, 2020, 09:53:03 AM »
Coming in a bit late here, so sorry if I'm restating anything (I skimmed the thread).
Yeah, sorry, you'll have to read the thread. In short, the concept of the Universe being an isolated system is undefined - it does not have an assigned, coherent meaning. As such, it is not false to claim it, it's just gobbledygook.

BillO relies on his intuition, and he clearly knows what he means by the words he chose. But he repeatedly refused to clarify his meaning, and instead insisted on using words that have no meaning.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 24, 2020, 10:16:49 PM »
Acceleration does not have to be relative to anything.
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.

I thought you knew better.
Given your track record, if you thought something was the case, it can be safely assumed not to be the case. Indeed, if anything, your agreeing with me just now made me doubt my position.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 24, 2020, 05:59:38 PM »
I said time dilation wouldn't be an issue if the earth were accelerating.
Accelerating relative to what and for how long? You can't make this claim without clarifying. It is meaningless.

I already provided you with the FET frame. Your scenario does not apply to it in any meaningful way. Therefore, you clearly must have a different FoR in mind, or you simply presented an argument so incomplete that it does not have a defined meaning (let alone a truth value).

Special relativity only applies to inertial frames of reference…at rest or moving at constant velocity.  If the satellites are accelerating or changing velocity, SR doesn’t even apply, and time dilation wouldn’t be an issue.
In RET, GPS satellites are accelerating or changing velocity (why did you feel the need to say the same thing twice?) relative to the Earth. And yet, according to RE'ers, the effects of time dilation are clearly observable. I dare suggest that your statement is therefore nonsense.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Kyle Jurek
« on: January 24, 2020, 08:41:18 AM »
Does being a Bernie Bro mean you support socialism?
Different people mean very different things by "socialism". I would like to establish a common definition before answering this. To some it just means an expanded welfare state, to others it's an authoritarian regime, and then there's plenty of in-betweens.

Also, you took my CN post far too seriously. It was in CN for a reason.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 24, 2020, 08:32:41 AM »
That's a really good question. And I really can't answer it because since I don't believe the earth is accelerating at close to light speed.
You're the one who made the assertion. It certainly should be your job to make it complete, or to rescind it.

I would suggest that the frame of reference you've implied (yet can't identify) does not exist outside of a hypothetical thought experiment. I'd be curious to see if you, the claimant, actually put any thought into your claim, or if you just rapid-fired it with its glaring holes.

Perhaps you or someone else who does believe that can answer the question...relative to what is the earth accelerating?
An observer immediately above the Earth, at rest relative to the Earth.

My point is that if the earth is accelerating at c (or really at any rate at all), any satellites would have to be accelerating at the same rate to keep pace.  Any faster or slower, eventually it would be out of functional range.
This, too, is incomplete. In order to fulfil your requirement of the satellite not escaping or crashing into the Earth, it has to be accelerating upward together with UA. However, this does not mean that it can't be moving (or accelerating) perpendicular to UA for periods of time, or even oscillating up and down irrespective of UA. As long as this motion remains cyclical, your conditions can easily be met.

If the earth and GPS satellites are accelerating at the same rate, there wouldn't be any time dilation.
And this, too, is incomplete. The multiple relativistic effects experienced by GPS are (primarily) due to relative velocity and a difference in gravitational potential. Your argument might hold some water if the satellites were geostationary, but they're not.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 23, 2020, 03:37:00 PM »
No, people do still vote in presidential elections;
To determine how their state will vote, in accordance with that state's particular rules. This is distinct from the people directly voting, as evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton is not currently POTUS.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!
« on: January 23, 2020, 03:01:16 PM »
Picking a reference frame isn’t just picking a certain area in space
Indeed. But I didn't ask you to define what a frame of reference is. I asked you to identify the frame of reference under which your argument holds. For the avoidance of any doubt, I am specifically referring your argument that the Earth would exceed the speed of light.

when you select a frame that includes the earth, assuming initial velocity could possibly be 0, is limited by c
We need a frame of reference that we can actually verify, not a hypothetical one. The only Earthly frame of reference we can meaningfully investigate is a non-inertial one.

But even if we accept your philosophy for a moment, this is still fine within special relativity. In the inertial frame of reference you've identified (or, well, strongly hinted at), the Earth's acceleration would be not be constant and would quickly approach 0 - but that's a meaningless hypothetical we'll never get to observe. It does not hold much value to Zetetic inquiry.

Perhaps more research could be done by flat earthers to find out what positions people hold that must must be corrupted, and how are these positions corrupted. Either they are in on it or they are fooled somehow by the governments to think their job is X when really its Y. Like my buddy who traveled a far distance in the southern hemisphere, where did he really travel to? How did they fool him and his ship? etc. i think that info is lacking and if it were there, there would be a more full and convincing explanation of how FET works.
Perhaps, but how exactly would you investigate a hypothetical conspiracy so secretive that it hasn't been blown wide open? Especially when investigating it seems to strangely correlate with people having very unfortunate accidents or suddenly going insane. It's very easy to say "more research would be good", but it's not exactly easy to put into action.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 23, 2020, 02:59:42 PM »
Which is not something that would be an issue if we were already traveling at close to the speed of light.
Relative to what?

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Kyle Jurek
« on: January 23, 2020, 07:59:29 AM »
Tell me this, IF you thought this guy was especially important or influential would you be bothered by it or just shrug and say, "Well at least we'll all be equal and that's more important than anything"?
I mean, probably, but it doesn't sound like he's particularly important. Every movement has its nutjobs, and when they come to light, opponents of the movement prefer it's a big deal. There's a sensible middle ground here between not caring at all and panicking over it.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?
« on: January 22, 2020, 03:52:43 PM »
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, I genuinely don't know what claim you think I'm making.
I'm discussing your claim that these specific rich people went to space as tourists

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!
« on: January 22, 2020, 03:50:20 PM »
Implicitly insulting each other aside, it would almost be less effort to just link something useful at this point than it would to come up with something clever to say back to me that would make me look silly.
I understand why it might seem that way, but you have to consider the economy of scale. Between social media and this forum, I deal with hundreds of entry-level questions a day. Answering one of those individually isn't much effort. Handling the odd follow-up question or two would probably not be a big deal. But as the problem scales, you have to toughen up. We can't be expected to re-type the same answer over and over, and if you have a look at our Twitter, you'll see that most newcomers don't like the idea of reading a webpage - they want their answer straight from "the pro". Well, "the pros" have already written up the basic answers, and would rather discuss more nuanced things.

This is why we do things differently on this forum. We want you to know the basics before you engage. It helps whittle out people who wouldn't be interested in a real discussion anyway, and who are just trying to quickly earn some Internet points. Similarly, with a good few years of threads backed up, we prefer if people read discussions that already took place - chances are their ideas have been considered before.

Some of your conspiracy questions fall into that category (as in, they're addressed in our Wiki as part of the The Conspiracy page - there is no Round Earth conspiracy), and others are effectively statements of incredulity ("How is it possible that all these people got fooled?") - those I can't really help.

As far as the physics go, there's not much to argue about if we can't agree on some facts and principles. Do you want math? What do you want in that regard?
I don't think maths would help here. Your original argument (the one I was particularly aggressive about, rather than the argument on energy) can be summarised as "9.81%20%5Cfrac%7Bm%7D%7Bs%5E2%7D times a large number of seconds is more than c" - the maths behind it is not difficult. But this assumes that you can identify a frame of reference in which you could observe the Earth accelerating at 9.81%20%5Cfrac%7Bm%7D%7Bs%5E2%7D constantly for an extended length of time, and I'm not convinced you'll be able to. Your attempt at doing that was "the frame of reference is that of the Universe", but that's not a concept that can be defined - the lack of a universal frame of reference is pretty essential to special relativity.

[EDIT: I butchered that latex something fierce]

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 22, 2020, 03:32:44 PM »
If you understand that our perception of weight is the result of the normal force
Once again, that is not exclusively the case. I'm really tired of repeating myself. Please stop trying to pick at parts of my claim out of context.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 22, 2020, 02:35:39 PM »
What we perceive as weight is not gravity, it is the normal force.
You are correct. I should have said "weight". It changes nothing about your failure here, and your obvious attempt at distracting from the subject does not make you look better - it makes you look worse.

This is also why Groit's comment on not feeling anything pushing your shoulders was particularly silly - our perception of this would be relative to the rest of our body. But the difference here is purely perceptual, and largely based on what you intuitively consider "feeling" a force.
Of course, you can perceive weight at all times. However, it will not be the same sensation as feeling something pushing you. The reasons for this are also explained in my post. Try reading it.

Einstein thought so.
You are abusing ambiguous wording moments after I explained the ambiguity. If you want to waste my time clumsy wordplay, you'll have to find someone else to bother.

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?
« on: January 22, 2020, 10:31:22 AM »
what kind of evidence are you looking for that you’d be claiming there is none?
If I had the evidence to support your claims, I wouldn't be asking for it. It's your job to find it, or to rescind unsubstantiated (and likely unfalsifiable) claims.

There’s video footage, live streams, radio transmissions, eye witness accounts, interviews and even phone calls with people on the iss, and you can notably see that the iss exists.
There's video footage of the 10 individuals AATW named taking private trips to space? That would be ineresting to see. Other than that, "the nice billionaire told me he totally did this thing" is not very good evidence.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: January 22, 2020, 09:41:04 AM »
I don't know how to make this any clearer. You do not feel anything pushing you when you're in freefall, because nothing is pushing you. Our sense of acceleration relies on the acceleration being uneven. A RE gravity would apply the force evenly to all of your body, including all of your inner ear, at the same time. An accelerating car would not.

This is also why Groit's comment on not feeling anything pushing your shoulders was particularly silly - our perception of this would be relative to the rest of our body. But the difference here is purely perceptual, and largely based on what you intuitively consider "feeling" a force.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the EP is nonsense.
Luckily, EP doesn't state what you think it states, Mr Spirit Level.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 260  Next >