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 ... 7  Next >
2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: Today at 11:27:54 PM »
How do you know refraction even exists?
Because I paid attention in physics class in high school. I think pretty much every school is going to do an experimental demonstration of snell's law, I guess you missed out.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
« on: Today at 11:24:48 PM »
So... the Moon. No gravity to speak of...
Hehehe  ;)

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!
« on: August 13, 2019, 07:13:25 PM »
You are referring to this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Astronomy is literally a pseudoscience, as it relies on observation and interpretation.

[...]
those theories don't work out in the universe as they do on Earth. The theories need to be modified.
[...]
Does believing in a theory "on grounds of modesty" sound scientific to you?

You say that you think it's a pseudoscience, but then your argument evolves into "I don't agree with modern theories because of xyz reasons".

Science doesn't just become pseudoscience because you personally disagree with the theories put forward: it's science if it follows the scientific method. You seem to think that astronomy does follow the scientific method, as you even say yourself:
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...based on the experimental science of the redshift and blueshift of light
So what exactly is your point? Some theories in astronomy include as-yet unproven assumptions? That doesn't mean the whole field isn't science, it just means that the experiment hasn't been done yet!

Let me ask you: did you also think that particle physics was a pseudoscience until the Higgs Boson was observed? That was an unproven assumption, which if I'm following your logic, renders the whole field of particle physics a "pseudoscience".

Of course you don't actually think that, because that would be moronic, so could you please enlighten me as to what exactly the point you're trying to make is?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 13, 2019, 07:01:07 PM »
God I'm so glad this is absolutely not true, otherwise every time I wake up to sleep paralysis and see some crazy shit it would turn out to be real.
I think totallackey said that your senses are the only thing that is real, not everything you sense is real.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 13, 2019, 06:59:25 PM »
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our senses are not proof of anything.
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

After that, it then becomes one of subjective interpretation of what exactly was sensed.

How can you prove your senses are real if you can only subjectively interpret them?
You can't. This is just an something that every one of us must take for granted in order to have any meaningful discussion about any other topic.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 11, 2019, 11:30:56 AM »
Another thing to think about: I grabbed this from stack exchange:

In mathematics, an expression is said to be a closed-form expression if it can be expressed analytically in terms of a finite number of certain "well-known" functions.

From what I've read analytic solutions and closed-form solutions are the same thing.
I could imagine a case like y=x^2, which is definitely closed-form, to not be closed-form to someone like Ptolemy. How do you calculate a square (or sqrt(x), or sin(x)) in 100AD? The answer seems to be that you get a table that someone else wrote and look it up.

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 11, 2019, 11:18:07 AM »
It says here that he was using numerical computations:

https://books.google.com/books?id=JVhTtVA2zr8C&pg=PA29&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Then maybe they did use numerical solutions. Like I said - not an expert. I'd need a look at the equations to provide any useful input.

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 10, 2019, 09:42:36 PM »
Sort of like of Ptolmy used numerical computations and epicycles to predict the location of the planets?
I'm not well-versed on Ptolemy's model, but it seems to me that it's simple enough model where each body moves around a fixed circle. In this case, each body's motion could be solved analytically, so no need for a numerical solution.

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 10, 2019, 04:03:51 PM »
Please explain the difference between an analytic solution and a numerical solution and how they are differentiated when it comes to a problem involving math?
This post sums it up nicely:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-numerical-and-an-analytical-solution

An analytical solution is exact.
A numerical solution is an approximation that's used when an analytical solution is unavailable or unusable.
Maybe you remember using the trapesium rule to estimate the area under a curve in maths class - that's using a numerical method instead of an analytic one. If the curve was simple enough you could have just used calculus to integrate it get an exact solution and you wouldn't need to bother with the trapesium rule.

If you're doing this for a living you'd use more complicated algorithms than the trapesium rule, and you'd generally know how accurate your numerical solution is.

This is why we can say that not having an analytical solution to the three-body problem is okay. You compute a numerical solution and know how good your solution is. This means that if I want to know the position of Jupiter in X years with an accuracy of Y meters, I can do that.


11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 09, 2019, 10:35:01 PM »
If so, why no solution announced from on high?

Why no smoke from the chimney?
Numerical solutions and analytical solutions are not the same thing.
Either you already knew this and you're just trolling around, or you didn't know this and you should really go back to basics on this.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 02, 2019, 02:38:16 PM »
What makes you think that is based on the laws of Newton, rather than a pattern-based model?
I asked you in a different thread about astronomical observations that cannot be pattern-based, such as calculating the trajectory of an asteroid that's coming close to Earth. How could you calculate a close-approach of an asteroid if it's the first time this object has encountered Earth?

What kind of pattern are you talking about here, exactly? The Newtonian approach would of course be simple if you have enough data about the asteroid's velocity and position - you can just whack it into your favourite equation solver and calculate its position at future times to arbitrarily high accuracy with a large enough computer.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 30, 2019, 08:35:22 PM »
Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?
I didn't. The objection I addressed was that it would be impossible for the velocity of the Earth to continuously increase at a constant rate for an extended period of time, and thus UA is impossible.

Pointing out that this is not required or even implied under UA is absolutely essential. There exists no actual location in which the requirements of this argument would be met.
It seems to me like this whole discussion started from Zonk's comment, If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?. It sounds to me like this whole discussion is about a thought experiment.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 29, 2019, 10:39:30 PM »
I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments.
Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: July 29, 2019, 02:37:12 PM »
The peer review system is used to promote science within the accepted model and discourages critical thinking and can thus ignore experimental proof that the mainstream model is wrong .
I strongly disagree with this. If you were right, then places like CERN wouldn't exist. They are explicitly searching for physics that is beyond the Standard Model.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: July 28, 2019, 09:39:03 PM »
If it is game over, then why are all maps flat?

It is the undulations and rises of terrain causing distortion.
Maps are flat because carrying a globe around in your pocket isn't comfortable, and because paper and screens are flat. What matters when drawing a map is that it's usable to navigate, not that it's an undistorted representation of the earth.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: July 25, 2019, 10:39:45 PM »
Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.

Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my option that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted.
My points are:
- You cannot draw a single flat map that is correct AND covers the entire earth
- As soon as you have some kind of 'interactive scale', you're not drawing a single map anymore. When you zoom in on Bing maps, it draws a different map. If a country is the wrong size when you're zoomed out but becomes the correct size when you zoom in, the zoomed in and zoomed out maps are not the same map.

So I think we agree basically. You can't draw a flat map of the whole world, but you can draw a flat map of e.x. a single state. Where we differ is on my first point. As soon as you can't draw a flat map that covers the entire earth, that's game over.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 25, 2019, 10:24:23 PM »
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.  If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.  The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
Oh dear god. Were you asleep? Did you accidentally attend biology lectures for the whole semester?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 25, 2019, 10:20:41 PM »
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?
This is like undergrad relativity, lecture 0. Maybe picking up a textbook is a good idea, rather than telling other people that they don't have a clue, hmm?

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: July 01, 2019, 09:51:18 PM »
An interactive map has an interactive scale. I've demonstrated many times where, based on the interactive scale, there is no distortion.
When you zoom all the way out, it's distorted. That's all that matters. I don't think anybody is arguing about being able to zoom in and have things appear locally flat except you.

Of course if you look at a map of any single country it will get sizes and distances etc. almost exactly right, because across small distances the Earth's curvature is small. According to your logic, this means the Earth is flat, and lets you ignore that it's impossible to produce a flat map of the entire world.

Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >