Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam

  • 40 Replies
  • 8493 Views
Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« on: June 01, 2010, 10:07:21 AM »
Here's my debate: the burden of proof lies on the FES/FE'ers to prove the Earth is flat (and isn't round).

Right now, the opposite is the case, which is a logical fallacy.  Reference:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Also see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ for other fallacies, many of which I've seen Flat Earthers use quite frequently.

Trolling makes me angry.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2010, 10:14:53 AM »
Even mentioniong Burden Of Proof is an instant fail as both sides debate it ad nauseam and it does not have a definition exact enough to pin to one side.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2010, 10:31:08 AM »
Another problem is that nobody can agree as to what standard for burden of proof is appropriate.  In scientific debate, generally the standard is "preponderance of evidence".  FE'ers seem to want "beyond all doubt" as the standard for RE'ers.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2010, 11:29:35 AM »
Another problem is that nobody can agree as to what standard for burden of proof is appropriate.  In scientific debate, generally the standard is "preponderance of evidence".  FE'ers seem to want "beyond all doubt" as the standard for RE'ers.

Yet they seem to find it okay to expect "beyond all doubt" from us, and we're only allowed to expect "Zetetic observations"?

Trolling makes me angry.

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2010, 03:05:25 AM »
I'd say the satellites thread, the constellations thread, the magnetic field thread, and probably others, all prove that the earth can not be flat.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2010, 05:04:16 AM »
I'd say that the threads you mentioned, as discussed by me in the alternative flat earth theory links, do indeed prove that all of you have no idea what round earth theory actually is.

I offerred for the first time the correct explanation for satellites, and also for the appearance of the constellations.

As for magnetism, please do your homework.

There is no explanation whatsoever for the existence of a magnetic field in the round earth theory; those liquid layers of iron and nickel could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place at all, and even in that case, they could not produce the magnetic field of a round earth.

What is more, the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have been followed immediately by cooling.

If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reasons this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained.

An that iron core is just a myth, please read:

For some inexplicable reason, many cosmologists believe that a solid Iron core is necessary to explain stellar and planetary magnetism.

What is so special about a solid Iron core? Iron only forms a magnet at low temperatures. Steel is more resilient holding residual magnetism at moderately high temperatures, but looses all directed magnetic qualities with heating, impact and chemical activity. Once steel is magnetised, it normally takes a great deal of energy from an external source to reverse the magnetic direction, yet the Earth's magnetic field flips automatically without energy being applied from any external object. This flip occurs within a short geological time frame. The magnetic field generator of the Earth, the Sun, and the Galaxy must work at temperatures exceeding 10,000?C, perhaps in excess of 1,000,000?C in the Sun. Steel is magnetic only to temperatures of about 500?C. Geologist contradict the solid Iron core belief claiming that the Earth has a "liquid Iron core" citing unscientific beliefs about the properties of S-waves because these waves do not travel through the core. Oddly, geological evidence proves the core's density is far too low and the speed of sound far too slow for Iron , Iron minerals and liquid Iron, but then in total contradiction, the geologists claim the core as being the magnetic field generator, when they have not determined a suitable mechanism to power the magnetic field or to explain magnetic reversals. As the speed of sound and the density of the core are lower than the crust and half that of Iron compounds, one must be very dubious of both composition claims for the core. This belief in "Iron" is a scientific artifact that should have been dropped many years ago.

http://www.geocities.com/longhairedbastard/chv7_11.htm

To fully understand the nature of magnetism, we must go back about 150 years to the year 1861:

Most amazingly, J.C. Maxwell described the aether in his 1861 paper, On Physical Lines of Force:

# Each hexagon is a portion of ether.

1. Rotation of vortices = magnetic field
2. Idler Wheels prevent the ether vortices from cancelling each other out.
3. Translation of idler wheels = electric current
4. Vibration of ether = light

# So electric current (translation of idler wheels) produces a magnetic field and magnetic fields produce spinning of idler wheels (which can be seen as electric current if a wire is placed so that the wheels can translate).

To see the figure drawn by J. Maxwell himself:

http://www-teach.phy.cam.ac.uk/dms/dms_getFile.php?node=4085 (page 27)

Double Helix theory of the Magnetic Field:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe.pdf

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf

Secret World of Magnets:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintronics-The-Secret-World-of-Magnets-2006-by-Howard-Johnson

Here is the aclaimed On Physical Lines of Force by J. Maxwell, in which he presents the AETHER theory of magnetism:

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf


How J.P. Morgan hired H. Lorentz and O. Heaviside to eliminate and hide the terms of the original equations of Maxwell which were related to aether vortex theory:

http://www.svpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=696&sid=df49b40b0918509a3a67b10075bf83fc


H. Hertz was part of the conspiracy too; here is Nikola Tesla's account:

Maxwell?s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz?s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.

Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz?s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ?accepted? theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental ?laws? of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.

In the late 1880's, Dr. Nikola Tesla accidently discovered an electrostatic "super-charging" effect while trying to verify Hertz' discovery of electromagnetic waves. After hundreds of experiments, he learned how to control and maximize this phenomenon. This led him to the discovery that electricity is made up of different components that can be separated from each other, and that a pure, gaseous, etheric energy can be fractionated away from the flow of electrons in a circuit designed to produce short duration, unidirectional impulses. When all of the conditions were right, this Longitudinal Impulse energy would manifest itself as a spatially distributed voltage that would radiate away from the electrical circuit as a "light-like ray" that could charge other surfaces within the field. Tesla found that this effect was greatly magnified when these impulse currents were produced by the discharge of a capacitor. This huge explosion of electrostatic energy, that radiates away at right angles from the capacitor discharge pathway, is the primary operating principle of his Magnifying Transmitter. With amazing device, Tesla planned to broadcast energy to the whole world from his facility at Wardenclyffe, New York.


Hertz used the damped oscillating currents in a dipole antenna, triggered by a high-voltage electrical capacitive spark discharge, as his source of radio waves. His detector in some experiments was another dipole antenna connected to a narrow spark gap. A small spark in this gap signified detection of the radio wave. When he added cylindrical reflectors behind his dipole antennas, Hertz could detect radio waves about 20 metres from the transmitter in his laboratory. He did not try to transmit further because he wanted to prove electromagnetic theory, not to develop wireless communications.

Hertz was uninterested in the practical importance of his experiments. He stated that "It's of no use whatsoever ... this is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right - we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there."[3] Asked about the ramifications of his discoveries, Hertz replied, "Nothing, I guess." Hertz also stated, "I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application." The art of radio was left to other to implement into a practical useful form. His discoveries would later be taken up by entrepreneurs looking to make their fortunes. Marconi's 1895 experiments followed Hertz's work (among others) by using a spark source in what became known as a spark-gap transmitter.

Tom Bearden on radio waves:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.viewcustom&friendId=41104479&blogId=182419640&swapped=true

How H. Lorentz eliminated the terms of the Maxwell equations, which were not wanted by J.P. Morgan:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=205

Tom Bearden on the modified Maxwell equations:

" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html


The source of the Earth's magnetic field are the two heavenly bodies which cause the solar/lunar eclipses; the Black Sun and Tiamat, this is well described in ancient documents, which name Tiamat the cold division of the Central Magnet.

This magnetic field HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE MOST PUZZLING SCIENTIFIC FACT OF THE LAST 100 YEARS:

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature. For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids. Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms - bacteria, molds, even viruses - are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c03.htm


Tesla on radio waves:

What, then, about power transmission by radio? Mr. Tesla agreed to discuss the point at length. As a result, he made public for the first time one of the most extraordinary conclusions - that Hertz waves do not exist!

"I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled with a gaseous substance. On repeating the Hertz experiments with much improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and expansion. He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound waves in the air.

Some of Telsa's unusual conceptualization of the ether had been nonetheless expounded piecemeal, in his preceding 1890's lectures. He later railed against the limited and erroneous theories of Maxwell, Hertz, Lorentz, and Einstein.

Tesla's ether was neither the "solid" ether with the "tenuity of steel" of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla's ether consisted of "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid", which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment.

For the true model of the atom:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183#p34667

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2010, 06:36:19 AM »

What is so special about a solid Iron core? Iron only forms a magnet at low temperatures. Steel is more resilient holding residual magnetism at moderately high temperatures, but looses all directed magnetic qualities with heating, impact and chemical activity. Once steel is magnetised, it normally takes a great deal of energy from an external source to reverse the magnetic direction, yet the Earth's magnetic field flips automatically without energy being applied from any external object.
I can no longer know when you are trolling or if you are as bad in science as these comments suggest.

You might be the first adult since the middle ages who tries to explain the Earth's magnetic field saying that it is a very big iron magnet, like those you can buy in the hardware store, No wonder why even you can debunk such a poorly thought hypothesis.

Electromagnetic fields are generated mostly by moving objects, in this case moving molten iron and other molten metals. It is the movement, not the ferromagnetic properties of iron, what produces the magnetic field of Earth.

The rest of this response, only slightly more interesting reading than the phone book, is just the UUUGH!!! argument: There is something I do not like, therefore science is UUUGH!!! , therefore Earth is flat.

Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2010, 07:11:29 AM »
I'd say that the threads you mentioned, as discussed by me in the alternative flat earth theory links, do indeed prove that all of you have no idea what round earth theory actually is.

I offerred for the first time the correct explanation for satellites, and also for the appearance of the constellations.

As for magnetism, please do your homework.

There is no explanation whatsoever for the existence of a magnetic field in the round earth theory; those liquid layers of iron and nickel could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place at all, and even in that case, they could not produce the magnetic field of a round earth.


First of all, are you the only one to claim your findings are 'correct'?  'Correct' implies other people think so, too.

Secondly, can I have a link to your 'correct' explanation for constellations?  I'd love to hear what you say.

Thirdly, I do have an idea of what FET.  I do not, however, have a clue as to your wack-job FET.  The general opinion in the forums is that you really don't speak for the FET, but for your own 'FET'.

Fourthly, why do you say it couldn't of obtained a spherical shape?  The other planets are spheres, (I don't about your following opinions)the Earth is round, and the Sun is round.  Why is a spherical nickel-iron core so hard to believe?  Why couldn't it produce the magnetic field around the Earth?  My compass still seems to work pretty well.

Lastly, when you say "There is no explanation whatsoever for the existence of a magnetic field in the round earth theory"... you don't get out much, do you?  Or have an education?  Or have access to the internet?  RET has an explanation for everything, as opposed to FET... (map?).  You can find this explanation hundreds of sites, namely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_earth

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/magnetic.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/MagEarth.html

That wall of text, however, was impressive in that it probably wasted about an hour of your life.

Trolling makes me angry.

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2010, 02:54:49 PM »
^I see whut you did thar

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2010, 03:23:34 AM »
jack, I understand your feelings...you are very angry because I showed to you that your photographs (provided by OSU) are completely bogus...

Now, you are showing us your level of intelligence again, by resorting to wikipedia type of links...take a closer look at your bibliography and you will discover very fast that there IS NO explanation for the cause of earth's magnetism. But you have to also go beyond the wikipedia articles...I doubt that you can do that.

No my friend, the planets cannot possibly be round (nor the stars). Please do your homework before you make such outlandish claims...


tech, you are a monument of ignorance. There is no trolling whatsoever in my messages, your anger is directed at the fact that I am able to walk all over you, anytime and anyplace here, because I have at my disposal the best scientific database possible. And in case you did not notice it, you did not address anything from the arguments I presented here...

Here for both of you, the demonstration that the Sun could not possibly have a spherical shape to start with...

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).

tech and jack, please study the scientific facts, before offering unfounded opinions here...

Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2010, 03:27:40 AM »
jack, I understand your feelings...you are very angry because I showed to you that your photographs (provided by OSU) are completely bogus...

Now, you are showing us your level of intelligence again, by resorting to wikipedia type of links...take a closer look at your bibliography and you will discover very fast that there IS NO explanation for the cause of earth's magnetism. But you have to also go beyond the wikipedia articles...I doubt that you can do that.

No my friend, the planets cannot possibly be round (nor the stars). Please do your homework before you make such outlandish claims...

Quote
Origin of the Magnetic Field
Magnetic fields are produced by the motion of electrical charges. For example, the magnetic field of a bar magnet results from the motion of negatively charged electrons in the magnet. The origin of the Earth's magnetic field is not completely understood, but is thought to be associated with electrical currents produced by the coupling of convective effects and rotation in the spinning liquid metallic outer core of iron and nickel. This mechanism is termed the dynamo effect.
Rocks that are formed from the molten state contain indicators of the magnetic field at the time of their solidification. The study of such "magnetic fossils" indicates that the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself every million years or so (the north and south magnetic poles switch). This is but one detail of the magnetic field that is not well understood.

Try actually reading next time.

Trolling makes me angry.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2010, 06:55:59 AM »

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

This is the tired old argument: "Those numbers are very high, so something has to be fishy with them". What you conveniently forget to tell is that the Sun is almost a perfect sphere, by far more round than a Basketball. You are trying to make a case about deviations so small that, by your own account, are not even seen by everyone. And then, out of the blue, you say the Sun should be "quite flat" because of centrifugal force? Tell me how the centripetal force caused by one rotation every 27 days or so can change the shape of anything.

Edit: PS. Just so you see how science works, here are the numbers for the centripetal force on one kilogram of gas on the surface of the Sun:

Radius of the sun: 6.96 billion meters
Angular velocity of the sun at the equator: 3.48 millionths of a radian per second
Centripetal force (radius x angular velocity squared): 0.00845 newtons per kilogram

This centripetal force will do a totally insignificant change to the shape of the sun, where the gravitational pull is 27 times stronger than on Earth.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 08:06:42 AM by trig »

Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2010, 07:01:23 AM »

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

This is the tired old argument: "Those numbers are very high, so something has to be fishy with them". What you conveniently forget to tell is that the Sun is almost a perfect sphere, by far more round than a Basketball. You are trying to make a case about deviations so small that, by your own account, are not even seen by everyone. And then, out of the blue, you say the Sun should be "quite flat" because of centrifugal force? Tell me how the centripetal force caused by one rotation every 27 says or so can change the shape of anything.

My guess is he'll argue "The radius of the sun is blah blah, therefore circumference is blah, and because of the speed of rotation due to 27-day rotation is blah, the 'equator' of the Sun travels blah thousands of miles per hour.

That's why gravity holds it all together.  Because gravity works.

Trolling makes me angry.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2010, 09:00:10 AM »

My guess is he'll argue "The radius of the sun is blah blah, therefore circumference is blah, and because of the speed of rotation due to 27-day rotation is blah, the 'equator' of the Sun travels blah thousands of miles per hour.

That's why gravity holds it all together.  Because gravity works.
Yes, the speed of an object on the Equator is about 7000 kilometers per hour, which by itself sounds impressive, but it is just three times faster than on Earth, and we have a hard time measuring the centripetal force here. We also do not feel this speed at all except with specialized tools.

The only way to make a case around this 7000 km/h number is saying "7000!!! kilometers per hour!!! WOW!!! INCREDIBLE!!!" and leaving true science out of the picture.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2010, 01:57:37 AM »
jack, please try to understand. That is exactly what I was referring to: the dynamo theory currently accepted by the scientific community (I read, rest assured, your links...).

There are no spinning layers of iron/nickel in the core of the Earth.

Here a few things to remember about the dynamo theory:

http://www.arizonaenergy.org/EarthEnergy/earth_magnetic_field_reversal.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news164253692.html

In order to have spinning layers of iron/nickel (we ignore here the fact that those layers could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place, or could not have formed at all given the helium flash paradox), the earth itself should be rotating around its axis, which IT IS NOT.


Please read the following very carefully...

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth's surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach's principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes - that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth - it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air?s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.

Usually, heliocentrists come up with some arguments which involve either angular momentum, or pressure gradients...everything stops dead in front of the Restoring Forces Paradox, which further shows that the Earth is stationary.

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Much more information here (angular momentum, boundary layer, restoring forces paradox):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143

The following pattern of cloud trajectories is possible ONLY on a stationary earth:


(four different directions for the clouds, at the same time)

(New York, incompatible cloud trajectory with that of the axially rotating Earth)



(Hollywood Hills, opposite directions)

The famous Cloudscape sequence from Koyaanisqatsi - Cloudscape (cloud layers, different directions):

(0:33 - 0:50)


You wrote:

This is the tired old argument: "Those numbers are very high, so something has to be fishy with them". What you conveniently forget to tell is that the Sun is almost a perfect sphere, by far more round than a Basketball. You are trying to make a case about deviations so small that, by your own account, are not even seen by everyone. And then, out of the blue, you say the Sun should be "quite flat" because of centrifugal force? Tell me how the centripetal force caused by one rotation every 27 days or so can change the shape of anything.

Edit: PS. Just so you see how science works, here are the numbers for the centripetal force on one kilogram of gas on the surface of the Sun:

Radius of the sun: 6.96 billion meters
Angular velocity of the sun at the equator: 3.48 millionths of a radian per second
Centripetal force (radius x angular velocity squared): 0.00845 newtons per kilogram

This centripetal force will do a totally insignificant change to the shape of the sun, where the gravitational pull is 27 times stronger than on Earth.



jack, we are talking here about THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE, and not the centripetal force.

Read again, please:

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Do you understand these things? Since there is a very low atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Sun, the centrifugal force must have formed a flat Sun from the very beginning.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 02:00:26 AM by levee »

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2010, 07:05:41 AM »
Another wall of text, and still not even one number!

In your high school physics courses your teacher unsuccessfully tried to explain the relationship between centripetal and centrifugal forces. I will not paste the relevant pages of the textbook here, but please go back and read your textbook! I will just remind you that centrifugal force is the pseudo-force, centripetal force is the real force.

Now, you are talking about a force of a few thousandths of a Newton per kilo of matter, and you are pretending it is enough to change the shape of the sun! That is less than one thousandth of the gravitational pull on the surface of the Sun!

You can denounce science altogether, or you can accept the results of science. You cannot pick some phrases from science and play word games, pretending that your results are scientific.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2010, 07:48:46 AM »
Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
This is a perfect example of what I say. Your argument is: "WOW!!! One million times!!! WOW!!! Can you believe it??? 125 km per minute!!! No way!!!"

And yet, the real, scientific argument is:
  • centrifugal or centripetal force has nothing to do with the volume of the sun; the "one million times" number is totally pointless.
  • centripetal force is proportional to the radius of the circle and to the square of the angular velocity; it is no surprise that a larger but slower-rotating body has a similar centripetal force than Earth.
  • taking away the WOW arguments, when you put actual numbers in the calculation of the centripetal force on Earth's Equator and on the Sun's Equator, the centripetal force on Earth is actually about 7 times larger than on the Sun.
  • in conclusion, the force that does not deform the Earth in a significant way will not do it to the Sun

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2010, 07:52:58 AM »
tech, maybe you should go back to high school and study these forces some more...or even something like this: http://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath633/kmath633.htm

Yes, we all know here the difference between fictitious/reaction centrifugal forces...

You have chosen not to address the main points of the article...

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

You, tech, are assuming that the figures you used there are true, namely:

Radius of the sun: 6.96 billion meters

But, as we have seen here, the diameter of the Sun, based on real time videos/photography is quite different than the official data, therefore your numbers are quite wrong...

The main point of the article is that even a very low centrifugal force will eventually flatten out the shape of the Sun, given the very low atmospheric pressure found at the surface of the Sun.


What kind of a scientist are you, tech, since you have chosen to ignore the faint young sun paradox, the sun neutrino paradox and much more, which taken together with the impossibility of a spherical shape for the sun, should make you think twice about the official data you blindly believe in?


How can the earth be rotating around its own axis, given the pattern of the trajectories of the clouds? Why do you ignore these facts again and again? Do you want me to post them again?

Please address this matter.

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth's surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach's principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes - that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth - it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air?s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.

Usually, heliocentrists come up with some arguments which involve either angular momentum, or pressure gradients...everything stops dead in front of the Restoring Forces Paradox, which further shows that the Earth is stationary.

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Much more information here (angular momentum, boundary layer, restoring forces paradox):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143

The following pattern of cloud trajectories is possible ONLY on a stationary earth:


(four different directions for the clouds, at the same time)

(New York, incompatible cloud trajectory with that of the axially rotating Earth)



(Hollywood Hills, opposite directions)

The famous Cloudscape sequence from Koyaanisqatsi - Cloudscape (cloud layers, different directions):

(0:33 - 0:50)


What are going to do, tech, with the fact the explosion from river Tunguska was seen all the way from Lake Baikal (21.57 km visual obstacle) and from Antwerp/Stockholm and even London (4333 km visual obstacle)?

And the videos from Tarifa Spain, which DO SHOW no curvature at all all the way to Morocco.

No matter which theory you choose, big bang or string theory, both have been shown to be extremely wrong and false; how do you explain stellar formation without attractive gravity?

These are the questions, tech, which should arouse your neurons, so that you will think harder and more carefully about these matters...












*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2010, 07:55:29 AM »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2010, 08:10:49 AM »
trig, I have just proven to you that the Earth could not possibly rotate around its own axis, given the pattern of the trajectories of the clouds, and there not much you can do to prove otherwise, the facts are very clear.

I have just proven to you that there was no big bang to start with, and that string theory is nothing more than a mathematical pipe dream.

I have shown to you and everybody else, based on real time videos, and photographs, that the diameter of the Sun is much, much smaller than officially thought.

You have NOTHING on your side, other than faked Nasa missions; no scientific facts whatsoever, other than official data which you choose to accept blindly; I choose, trig, to think, to discover the discrepancies in the official cosmological stories.

And trig, what about this?

The movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler.  The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

The movement of the Sun (galactic orbit):

http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to O. Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg

WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE TRIG? THE FIRST LAW OF KEPLER (PLANAR ELLIPTICAL ORBIT) or THE FACT THAT A HELIOCENTRIC PLANETARY SYSTEM MUST BE MOVING TOWARD THE STAR VEGA ON CIRCULAR HELICES ON A CYLINDER, THUS CONTRADICTING IMMEDIATELY THE FIRST LAW OF KEPLER?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2010, 11:32:34 AM »
You have chosen not to address the main points of the article...

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
Who ever told you that atmospheric pressure and gravitational pull are related?

Just as an example, Mars has one third the gravitational pull on the surface, but less than one hundredth of the atmospheric pressure. The moon has one sixth of the gravitational pull on its surface, but 0 atmospheric pressure. Venus has 90% of the gravitational pull, but 90 times the atmospheric pressure.

A planet that captured a lot of gases during its creation has high atmospheric pressure. A planet that captured almost no gases, only solids, during its creation has little or no atmospheric pressure. It is that simple.

As you see, it is still the old "WOW, what a big number, that is unbelievable" or "WOW, what a small number, that is crazy" argument. The only thing you can argue is an appeal to the uneducated who get easily scared with numbers.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2010, 02:04:08 PM »
trig, I have just proven to you that the Earth could not possibly rotate around its own axis, given the pattern of the trajectories of the clouds, and there not much you can do to prove otherwise, the facts are very clear.

And trig, what about this?

The movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler.  The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

More of the same: "WOW did you see that cloud??? WOW, I do not believe it, WOW!!! Earth has to be flat!!! WOW!!!"

I have flown kites, I know air is turbulent, clouds moving in more than one direction are no proof of anything other than your limited understanding of meteorology.

You think you pass as intelligent with your argument that the atmosphere should not rotate with Earth, but you are only making yourself look idiotic. There is a thing called friction, and it affects solids, liquids and, guess what, gases also. The lower part of the atmosphere rubs against the surface of the Earth, the higher part does not rub against outer space because, (are you ready???) outer space is a vacuum. The atmosphere has had 4600 million years to stabilize its average speed, so it has reached the same speed as the rest of Earth since, maybe, 4599 million years ago.

The quote about Vega is not even worth a look. It has no source, it is out of context, so I have not even a reason to spend the 5 minutes it would take to find what the issue about Vega is.

And now that I was reminded of the quality of your quotes, have you made any inroads into the claims by one of your quoted sources about the evolution of rocks? Have you found yet something about the life and sexual behavior of your nice little rocks?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16560
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2010, 05:58:51 PM »
Even mentioniong Burden Of Proof is an instant fail as both sides debate it ad nauseam and it does not have a definition exact enough to pin to one side.
I have to agree, well stated.  Burden of proof arguments seldom if ever yield any fruit.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2010, 06:00:32 PM »
Even mentioniong Burden Of Proof is an instant fail as both sides debate it ad nauseam and it does not have a definition exact enough to pin to one side.
I have to agree, well stated.  Burden of proof arguments seldom if ever yield any fruit.

OMG Davis agrees with me. *drops dead from shock*
But it is true.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2010, 06:29:16 PM »
Even mentioniong Burden Of Proof is an instant fail as both sides debate it ad nauseam and it does not have a definition exact enough to pin to one side.
I have to agree, well stated.  Burden of proof arguments seldom if ever yield any fruit.

Actually, there are some fairly well defined standards regarding burden of proof.  There is beyond all doubt which is an almost impossible standard to meet and is therefore seldom used.  There is beyond reasonable doubt which is the standard for criminal trials.  And there is preponderance of evidence which is the standard for civil trials and most often used in scientific research.  The difficulty arises when trying to agree which side should bear which level responsibility as that burden may be asymmetrical (generally the more established theory has less burden).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2010, 06:29:43 AM »
Now, whoever wrote this forgot what centripetal force actually means:

Centripetal force (radius x angular velocity squared): 0.00845 newtons per kilogram

Fcp = -mw^2r

And let us derive the formula for the centrifugal force:

Fcf = mv^2/r = mwv = mw^2r

Now, that person forgot the mass (m), the factor which must be taken into consideration, and as we are told officially, the mass of the Sun = 1,98892 x 10^30 kg

When we bring this factor in, the centripetal/centrifugal force magnitude will be enormous.

Imagine what somebody else would do to you, for omitting this thing...but I believe none of you actually are here for serious discussions.

Someone who is really interested in science, will ask himself/herself immediately: HOW COULD 1000 BILLION TRILLION LITERS OF WATER JUST STICK TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE?

trig, you have no scientific understanding of atmospheric physics.

Friction cannot be the restoring force responsible for moving the atmosphere along at the same speed as that of the rotating earth; such a force must increase with altitude, but friction works the other way around.

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

So who is the idiot now, trig?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v|. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).

However, such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

So far, in conventional physics, there is no lateral "gravitation/gravity" which could possibly maintain the atmosphere at the same speed as that of the Earth; again, we would have the Restoring Forces Paradox, exemplified in the link above.


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143

Here are the videos which do show that your frictional force is just a worthless concept:


(four different directions for the clouds, at the same time)

(New York, incompatible cloud trajectory with that of the axially rotating Earth)



(Hollywood Hills, opposite directions)

The famous Cloudscape sequence from Koyaanisqatsi - Cloudscape (cloud layers, different directions):

(0:33 - 0:50)

Since friction is present especially in the first 1000 meters or so, the clouds could not move at all in the patterns we see in the above videos; at the latitude of London, say, the atmosphere must be rotating at the speed of about 650 miles/hr along with the earth; such a frictional force would make impossible the cloud trajectories we see in these videos.

You are presenting here the data from Nasa; which is worthless, as their missions have all been faked.

I have just shown to you that Mars could not possibly have attained a spherical shape, and that gravitons would make the orbits of the two satellites of Mars quite impossible, please read the scientific facts before you come here to embarrass yourself.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041212221544/http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

No gravitons possible: http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

trig, what kind of an astrophysicist are you? You think that I would come with things out of context re: the heliocentric planetary system? NO WAY.

It is the official view of Nasa/JPL that the entire heliocentric planetary system is moving toward the star Vega, on circular helices on a right cylinder. Here is the actual graphic they use:


http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

It is either this, or the first law of Kepler, which one do you choose?

« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 06:03:02 AM by levee »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16560
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2010, 01:12:12 PM »
Even mentioniong Burden Of Proof is an instant fail as both sides debate it ad nauseam and it does not have a definition exact enough to pin to one side.
I have to agree, well stated.  Burden of proof arguments seldom if ever yield any fruit.

Actually, there are some fairly well defined standards regarding burden of proof.  There is beyond all doubt which is an almost impossible standard to meet and is therefore seldom used.  There is beyond reasonable doubt which is the standard for criminal trials.  And there is preponderance of evidence which is the standard for civil trials and most often used in scientific research.  The difficulty arises when trying to agree which side should bear which level responsibility as that burden may be asymmetrical (generally the more established theory has less burden).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden
I had figured there were some useful fictions for use in law.  There always is.

However, what I was referring to was more that burden of proof arguments never based on displaying evidence, just trying to force the other party to.  Why would it not be more fruitful for both sides to present all the evidence when the burden is of question to both parties?  If the position truly is the common view and presumably correct this will only serve to educate both parties.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2010, 02:08:47 AM »
Now, whoever wrote this forgot what centripetal force actually means:

Centripetal force (radius x angular velocity squared): 0.00845 newtons per kilogram

Fcp = -mw^2r

And let us derive the formula for the centrifugal force:

Fcf = mv^2/r = mwv = mw^2r

Now, that person forgot the mass (m), the factor which must be taken into consideration, and as we are told officially, the mass of the Sun = 1,98892 x 10^30 kg

You did not really go to physics classes or mathematics classes in High School, did you?

It is totally useless to consider the whole Sun as one single mass upon which all the centripetal force is applied because the direction of the force is not the same and the amount of the force is not the same in every place of the Sun. With this faulty reasoning, I could say that a typical Merry-go-round, which weighs about 10000 kilograms and turns once every 15 seconds and has a radius of 4 meters will produce a devastating 7018 Newtons (equivalent to 716 kilograms of weight) of centripetal force, thereby killing any brave child who rides it.

The correct way to quantify the centripetal, or any other force is to take the matter on a place where all forces are approximately constant in both magnitude and direction and add all the forces applied to it. In this case, any piece of atmosphere of the Sun with a mass of 1 kilogram could be taken as more or less constant in properties and in forces applied, and on such piece of atmosphere the centripetal force would be about 0.00845 newtons, and the gravitational pull would be about 270 newtons. The centripetal force is quite insignificant.

Levee is giving a big step in his education by using formulas and numbers. He only has to give two more small steps: to use the right formula and to use it right.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2010, 02:52:20 AM »

Friction cannot be the restoring force responsible for moving the atmosphere along at the same speed as that of the rotating earth; such a force must increase with altitude, but friction works the other way around.

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

So who is the idiot now, trig?

Levee is showing, as always, how he will quote any crackpot source that speaks badly about accepted science, even if it goes totally against everything he claims in his other posts. In this case, geocentricuniverse.com tries to proclaim a round Earth which is at the center of the universe. By using this quote he is implying that gravity exists, (although a bit differently from Newton's), that satellites exist and really orbit Earth permanently, governed by the Laws of Newton, that Earth is round.

Now, why should we believe Levee when he tells us that the "restoring forces" part of the crackpot site is correct, but not believe the rest of the information posted there? Maybe Levee is giving us sound scientific analysis of his sources? OH, wait, he is not! He is just quoting whatever he finds on the Internet!

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Burden of Proof, Ad Ignorantiam
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2010, 03:18:43 AM »

It is the official view of Nasa/JPL that the entire heliocentric planetary system is moving toward the star Vega, on circular helices on a right cylinder. Here is the actual graphic they use:

If this is the official position of NASA, then it will not be a problem for you to give a straight answer to my question: from where did you quote that our movement towards Vega invalidates Kepler's law?

Not answering simple questions like the source of your information can only mean you do not want any scrutiny on your claims. Where you have given the sources your poor judgment is evident, so I am thinking you do not want to show your source so you do not get burned again.