*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #100 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #101 on: January 24, 2020, 10:16:16 PM »
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".
No, sorry. You're the one who proposed the concept, and you're the one who's going to have to justify it (again, for now we're not looking for you being correct, we're looking for you saying things that have a discernible meaning). Until then, you keep staying something that's undefined and demanding that we assign a truth value to it. Not gonna happen.
Coming in a bit late here, so sorry if I'm restating anything (I skimmed the thread). Surely one can define the universe as 'all the stuff', which by definition is isolated. Why are there 10+ back-and-forth comments getting more and more off-topic about this?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #102 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #103 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.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #104 on: January 25, 2020, 07:33:28 PM »
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.

It looks to me like BillO clarified his position quite well. How can you have any possible confusion about this statement:

You can approach the problem either way.  If the description of FE UA in the wiki does encompass an isolated system, then you just show how energy is conserved within that system.  If it does not encompass an isolated system, then just show where the energy is coming from so that an isolated system can be defined (the FE UA system + the Energy system) wherein the energy is conserved.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #105 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #106 on: January 26, 2020, 12:45:37 AM »
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.

An isolated system is not undefined.  It is a system that does not exchange mass or energy with any other system. The universe fits that definition.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #107 on: January 26, 2020, 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #108 on: January 26, 2020, 11:51:48 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.
Is your opinion somehow more valid that someone else's opinion? I just read through (again) your posts and the only link I could find was an uncited line on a wikipedia article - which I think we can all agree is not meaningful, so do you have some sources?

Sidenote: Can I just ignore the first few sources you link just like you did with BillO's sources?

I'm afraid that's not how citations work.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2020, 01:09:09 AM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #109 on: January 28, 2020, 10:22:44 PM »
Is your opinion somehow more valid that someone else's opinion?
My opinion is entirely irrelevant to the scientific consensus I've stated.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Groit

Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #110 on: January 28, 2020, 11:12:37 PM »
if you jumped of a high rise building, you will also accelerate at 9.81 ms^-2 but you wouldn't feel any force on your shoulders and if there were no air resistance then you wouldn't feel any forces until you reached the ground.
This is absolute nonsense. You feel your weight at all times. The reason you don't take much note of it is that it's all you've ever known. It's weightlessness that would be remarkable and thus notable, not weight.

Pete, if there were no air resistance then you wouldn't feel any forces at all, and your weight in free fall would be 0 N (Newtons).

Here's a clip showing weighing scales reading zero in free fall. from this height the air resistance is negligible.

   

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #111 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.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #112 on: January 29, 2020, 06:11:39 AM »
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.

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but you can't just state something without citation
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.

You did read the thread, right?

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.
Please stop shitposting in the upper fora. Take this sort of crap to AR.

Here's a clip showing weighing scales reading zero in free fall. from this height the air resistance is negligible. 
Of course a scale would read 0. Its reference point is falling just as fast as the top. How was that ever going to help? If anything, you should be looking at accelerometers if you really want to pursue this line of questioning.

Also, it saddens me that you fell for pp's troll of deliberately abusing phrasing to your advantage. It's in very poor form, and unlikely to advance this discussion.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 06:22:29 AM 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!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Groit

Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #113 on: January 29, 2020, 09:11:50 PM »

Here's a clip showing weighing scales reading zero in free fall. from this height the air resistance is negligible. 
Of course a scale would read 0. Its reference point is falling just as fast as the top. How was that ever going to help? If anything, you should be looking at accelerometers if you really want to pursue this line of questioning.

An accelerometer in free fall will also feel no forces acting on it, and it will read zero.
Jim Al Khalili explains here:


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #114 on: January 29, 2020, 09:57:15 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #115 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?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #116 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.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #117 on: January 30, 2020, 04:31:00 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #118 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.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Gravity
« Reply #119 on: January 30, 2020, 04:55:58 PM »
It was the only reference that stated what he wanted to state. Most other things he provided disagreed with him, as I've already explained. I do not see how repeating myself will help here, nor can I force you to read the literature.

It surprises me that you chose to vandalise Wikipedia over this, or that you thought it would be productive. I'll keep that in mind when considering your intentions in the future.

It's clear you're not interested in meaningful discussion, just scoring cheap points. Don't do that in the upper.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2020, 05:07:59 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!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice