*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #120 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.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #121 on: January 30, 2020, 06:00:19 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.

I undid your edit (and I'm informing you of this, because to do otherwise would be in poor form). If you disagree, I propose that you follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I'm sure once you've explained that you edited the article because you thought the mean man on a Web forum was wrong, they'll be very pleased with you.

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 also explained the reasoning behind this in my own words, which were never addressed or disputed.

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. It'll take some time and effort before I consider taking you seriously again.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 06:05:24 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #122 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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 06:11:28 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #123 on: January 30, 2020, 06:15:34 PM »
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.
I would argue that some things are so obvious that you really don't need to find a citation for them, and that this isn't a problem. For example, I wouldn't look for a citation to prove that you'll find some H2O in a glassful of orange juice. It's a true statement, but honestly I doubt a citation for it exists because of how oddly specific and simultaneously trivial the issue is.

When presented with a Quora post (one person's opinion, any single person could have posted it), I provided something better - an article that stood unaltered (until your intervention) for quite some time, having been reviewed by a number of users. Is it the be-all-end-all of scientific citation? No. Is it a damn sight better than what my opponent had to offer? Firmly so.

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. The claim that the Universe is or isn't an isolated system is meaningless, because it does not have a meaningful definition. If one were to dispute this claim, they should simply provide that definition (which, you'll note, is all I initially asked for, and which I was refused).

In fact, this is the pertinent issue that killed this discussion. We cannot proceed without agreeing on a meaningful definition of what he meant. He's refusing to provide that definition, and I won't simply assume it, because then we'd risk discussing entirely different concepts while using the same words. Even if it did turn out that I'm mistaken about the consensus, we can't proceed until he fixes his argument.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #124 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?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #125 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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 06:31:29 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #126 on: January 30, 2020, 06:30:13 PM »
Regarding your first post: You're right, it looks like I might be mixing up a few discussions. Let me take a step back and address the quote you provided.

So, your issue is that I cited Wikipedia, and yet you're defending BillO's use of RationalWiki. Are you familiar with RationalWiki? If not, could I encourage you to skim a few of their articles to get an idea of just how rigorous they are?

Another of the three sources, lumenlearning.com, lists its sources. Guess what? Most of them are Wikipedia. So, you don't like me citing Wikipedia, but citing someone who transcribed Wikipedia onto a pretty page is A-OK?

The last source, learnthermo.com, is a personal blog of someone who goes by "Dr. B". He provides a link to a LinkedIn profile, but that appears to have since been deleted. Who is Dr. B? Does Dr. B even exist? We might never know. I fail to see how this is a citation of a higher standard than Quora or Wikipedia.

It really sounds to me like you're unfairly biased against Wikipedia, but completely OK with other random websites with no peer review process in place. We might have to put that one to a simple difference of opinion, but I sincerely do not see how you could hold this over my head.

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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 06:32:46 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #127 on: January 30, 2020, 06:38:46 PM »
I should add this to clarify: I think collaborative and independent educational resources are fantastic, and wish them the best of luck. 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #128 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!
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 07:10:03 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #129 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
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 07:00:07 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #130 on: January 30, 2020, 07:20:56 PM »
So which is it? Are they bad sources, or do they not support his viewpoint?
I already backed off on that one, didn't I?

2: BillO's sources being bad is not a free pass to cite wikipedia.
Again, I disagree that my position needed a citation at all. I said I needed a definition, and that I couldn't find a source that agreed with his idea that this is trivial. He provided me with what I view as non-sources. I said (something like) "if you're ok with citing Quora, I hope you don't mind me bringing up Wikipedia", which he didn't object to.

This is a discussion, not a scientific paper. Neither of us need a "free pass" to bring up opinions. It's just a shame that BillO was not interested in responding to my logic. It was all "by definition" (which he wouldn't provide), or "my source is thermodynamics", but no actual response to the argument presented.

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.
Frankly, that's all BillO should have said when I asked him to clarify himself on that matter. Though he never clarified whether the system he was alluding to was a planet or the Universe, so we would still have some issues.

At the very least, I hope you could see how the universe could trivially be considered 'isolated' by some, even if you disagree.
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #131 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.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Offline Groit

  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #132 on: February 04, 2020, 07:06:30 PM »
An accelerometer in free fall will also feel no forces acting on it, and it will read zero.
Yes, that's why I said you should be using that as your argument instead of a scale. Now that you've agreed with me, it might be time to start making your argument.

What exactly do we agree on?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #133 on: February 04, 2020, 10:05:25 PM »
What exactly do we agree on?
You literally quoted me quoting it. I don't see how I could be of more assistance.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*