The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ClockTower on March 18, 2012, 11:29:49 AM
-
Tausami continues to thrash about with wild claims about some great new FET model and the ole song-and-dance about not having enough time to write down his model. Let's help him.
He claims that he does believe that gravity does exist and does cause attraction of objects near the Earth, including the dropping ball of Tom Bishop's recent claim, but it's weaker than Einstein predicts.
Of course, we're always happy to see FEers claim to have bettered Newton, Cavendish, Boys, and Einstein. We do so look forward to their acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize.
Notwithstanding their arrogance, let's examine the claim against reality.
There was a reason that FES here chose to claim that the sense of Gravity that you feel comes from the UA, not Einstein's concept of gravity. Quite simply GR would predict on a finite FE that objects would be pulled toward the NP. Simply experiments with just high school lab equipment quickly disprove this FET model.
(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south. The net force would pull you towards the NP.)
BTW, John Davis's infinite plane model with normal gravity fails quickly too. If you work the formulas, you find that you would experience the same force on the surface of the FE and a thousand miles above it. Since reality disagrees, his model fails.
-
(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south.
This is not obvious to me. Could you expand on it?
-
I have to admit even I am a bit confused by that one, but its been a long week and I'm admittedly not firing on all cylinders. Do you mean the FET or RET model clocktower?
-
No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.
As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.
-
No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.
As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.
No offense, but this very much sounds like at attempt to further the argument by illegitimate means.
-
No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.
As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.
No offense, but this very much sounds like at attempt to further the argument by illegitimate means.
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society!
En serio, I'm just pointing out that I could easily explain away this phenomenon even if it were correct, so there's no point in him pursuing it.
-
No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.
As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.
No offense, but this very much sounds like at attempt to further the argument by illegitimate means.
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society!
En serio, I'm just pointing out that I could easily explain away this phenomenon even if it were correct, so there's no point in him pursuing it.
Lol...well theres no point in pursuing any topic on this site with that approach. When you can 'explain away' something regardless if the explanation is legitimate or not, it makes you question why there are any debates at all... Maybe people just like endlessly debating.
-
No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.
As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.
No offense, but this very much sounds like at attempt to further the argument by illegitimate means.
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society!
En serio, I'm just pointing out that I could easily explain away this phenomenon even if it were correct, so there's no point in him pursuing it.
Lol...well theres no point in pursuing any topic on this site with that approach. When you can 'explain away' something regardless if the explanation is legitimate or not, it makes you question why there are any debates at all... Maybe people just like endlessly debating.
Well, generally the argument can actually prove a point. For instance, in a thread about neutrinos coming from a fusionless sun, any phenomenon I came up with to explain it would get ground up against the sandpaper of science until what remained could actually work. That's Clocksy's job. Here, though, my explaining phenomenon doesn't produce any contradicting effects, so there really isn't much to discuss.
-
No. This would not be the case. Sorry. And even if it was, I could just say that the plane is thicker towards the rim than towards the hub.
As for me not writing down my model, there'd be no point. We change it once a week.
Let's see:
Yes, it is the case. It's really straight forward. lrn2Integrate
No, thicker rim doesn't help much. You'd still have distances from the NP where the thicker rim across the NP pulls you even more towards the north. And of course, there you go with the special pleading fallacy. You are looking really silly.
And a good indicator of the worth of a theory is how much effort its proponents put into documenting it.
Lol...well theres no point in pursuing any topic on this site with that approach. When you can 'explain away' something regardless if the explanation is legitimate or not, it makes you question why there are any debates at all... Maybe people just like endlessly debating.
Great summary. FEers fail often and regularly by using special pleadings, moving the goal posts every time REers demonstrate their errors.
-
(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south.
This is not obvious to me. Could you expand on this?
Please ask meaningful questions that demonstrate your understanding so far of the thread. I can't read your mind.
-
I still don't think this effect would be noticeable. Can you provide any math to substantiate your claims?
-
I have to admit even I am a bit confused by that one, but its been a long week and I'm admittedly not firing on all cylinders. Do you mean the FET or RET model clocktower?
I mean the FET finite models can't have normal earth-to-earth gravity. (I also explained the folly of the Davis infinite model.)
I still don't think this effect would be noticeable. Can you provide any math to substantiate your claims?
It's your model, so I leave you to the math to support it. Since you won't document that minimum depth and density of the FE, there's not much I can do to qualify the effect. When you have the shape, density, and dimensions of the FE, please stop back.
-
Well, assuming a cross-section of the disk could effectively be considered a rectangle... I see how I can do this. I might not have the math up until after class tomorrow, though.
-
I assume you are taking basic calculus, then?
-
I assume you are taking basic calculus, then?
Not necessary. This is simple algebra with some geometry mixed in. It's just a lot of it.
-
I assume you are taking basic calculus, then?
Not necessary. This is simple algebra with some geometry mixed in. It's just a lot of it.
Ts, you're wrong, indeed very wrong. You can't use the simple gravity formula. Your theory does not have a sphere of symmetric density for the FE, as the simple formula requires. You'll have to do integral calculus, not just algebra. You'll learn about this in College-Sophomore-Level physics, probably the first semester. For now, you can read about your error here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Bodies_with_spatial_extent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Bodies_with_spatial_extent). I would need a solid week with Mathematica to accomplish what you claim you'll provide after class Monday.
Oh, and I getting tired of your failed bravado. Please check your outlandish claims and maybe vet them with a decent physics professor. You're wasting everyone's time with these fail-on-arrival ideas.
-
Come on now, he could have some fun for a few hours with Riemann Sums...
-
Tausami, this is the point where you need to listen to that little voice in your head that's saying "maybe I'm wrong."
FEers may be nicer to you (except Thork, lol), but they're not the ones you should be listening to if you want useful criticism of your work.
-
(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south.
This is not obvious to me. Could you expand on this?
Please ask meaningful questions that demonstrate your understanding so far of the thread. I can't read your mind.
This reply makes me feel like you think this is some sort of game to you and you're either unable or, more likey, unwilling to expand on the quoted part.
-
(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south.
This is not obvious to me. Could you expand on this?
Please ask meaningful questions that demonstrate your understanding so far of the thread. I can't read your mind.
This reply makes me feel like you think this is some sort of game to you and you're either unable or, more likey, unwilling to expand on the quoted part.
If you'll invest the time in asking good questions, I'll respond with meaningful answers. Indeed, I've already expanded on the quoted part in responding to Ts's posts.
-
I assume you are taking basic calculus, then?
Not necessary. This is simple algebra with some geometry mixed in. It's just a lot of it.
Ts, you're wrong, indeed very wrong. You can't use the simple gravity formula. Your theory does not have a sphere of symmetric density for the FE, as the simple formula requires. You'll have to do integral calculus, not just algebra. You'll learn about this in College-Sophomore-Level physics, probably the first semester. For now, you can read about your error here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Bodies_with_spatial_extent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Bodies_with_spatial_extent). I would need a solid week with Mathematica to accomplish what you claim you'll provide after class Monday.
Oh, and I getting tired of your failed bravado. Please check your outlandish claims and maybe vet them with a decent physics professor. You're wasting everyone's time with these fail-on-arrival ideas.
It's actually much simpler than that. There's more than one way to boil an egg.
-
There's more than one way to boil an egg.
1. Placing it in hot water.
I would be very interested to hear the alternatives.
-
I like how you think posting wild conclusions about JD's model without any math or experimental evidence amounts to failing.
-
I like how you think posting wild conclusions about JD's model without any math or experimental evidence amounts to failing.
He posted the math himself. I've already posted several times this conclusion. So to complete your fail: lurk moar
-
I like how you think posting wild conclusions about JD's model without any math or experimental evidence amounts to failing.
Thank you for another high-quality post.
What part of the conclusions do you think are wrong and why? How would you get experimental evidence for gravity on an infinite plane?
-
You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.
Yes, but genuine creativity is something you should save for art. You can't make shit up and call it science. That would be creative if you had a paint brush in your hand, but not a theory such as that of a flat earth...
-
You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.
Using cavitation would prove unsuccessful. The differing densities between shell, albumen and yolk would compromise its structural integrity leaving you with egg on your face.
Not if you drop in an over-saturated solution of calcium carbonate first.
-
You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.
Yes, but genuine creativity is something you should save for art. You can't make shit up and call it science. That would be creative if you had a paint brush in your hand, but not a theory such as that of a flat earth...
Creativity is highly important in both science and mathematics. In science it can be used to design experiments, and in mathematics it can allow you to find alternative paths to the same outcome, which is what I'm doing.
-
You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.
Yes, but genuine creativity is something you should save for art. You can't make shit up and call it science. That would be creative if you had a paint brush in your hand, but not a theory such as that of a flat earth...
Creativity is highly important in both science and mathematics. In science it can be used to design experiments, and in mathematics it can allow you to find alternative paths to the same outcome, which is what I'm doing.
Prove it. All I hear is bravado. Can't you do anything substantial on your "lesser" gravity FE model yet? Staying on topic would be nice--not that I'm a mod.
-
You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.
Using cavitation would prove unsuccessful. The differing densities between shell, albumen and yolk would compromise its structural integrity leaving you with egg on your face.
Not if you drop in an over-saturated solution of calcium carbonate first.
Then how would you reduce the pressure of the albumen and yolk? ???
This is a half boiled idea if ever I heard one. A simple retraction about the variety of ways in which one can boil an egg would suffice.
-
You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.
Yes, but genuine creativity is something you should save for art. You can't make shit up and call it science. That would be creative if you had a paint brush in your hand, but not a theory such as that of a flat earth...
Creativity is highly important in both science and mathematics. In science it can be used to design experiments, and in mathematics it can allow you to find alternative paths to the same outcome, which is what I'm doing.
Prove it. All I hear is bravado. Can't you do anything substantial on your "lesser" gravity FE model yet? Staying on topic would be nice--not that I'm a mod.
Still in school, sorry. I'll document my progress for you once I start (might not get home until late, though).
-
You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.
Using cavitation would prove unsuccessful. The differing densities between shell, albumen and yolk would compromise its structural integrity leaving you with egg on your face.
Not if you drop in an over-saturated solution of calcium carbonate first.
Then how would you reduce the pressure of the albumen and yolk? ???
This is a half boiled idea if ever I heard one. A simple retraction about the variety of ways in which one can boil an egg would suffice.
Please stay somewhere in the general neighborhood of on topic, will you?
-
You can depressurize it until the yolk itself starts to boil, for one. The point is that there's always a way to do something differently, you just need to get creative.
Using cavitation would prove unsuccessful. The differing densities between shell, albumen and yolk would compromise its structural integrity leaving you with egg on your face.
Not if you drop in an over-saturated solution of calcium carbonate first.
Then how would you reduce the pressure of the albumen and yolk? ???
This is a half boiled idea if ever I heard one. A simple retraction about the variety of ways in which one can boil an egg would suffice.
Please stay somewhere in the general neighborhood of on topic, will you?
I am merely replying to the moderator. It was he that brought up the entire egg discussion. In fact he is still at it.
That would come afterwards. The point of the solution is that adding more solute for an already over-saturated solution results in rapid precipitation of the solute, and the precipitation would mainly be on the egg. It would create a marble coating around the of calcium carbonate around the calcium carbonate of the egg, making it harder to break. You may have to do it several times, though. And yes, back on topic please.
You can't have the last word and forbid everyone else from discussing it.
As you know I subscribe to UA, so this is all a bit of a yawn for me. I'm with the RErs on this one. Its preposterous to have gravity on a finite flat earth. Tausmai should provide real life eggsamples to back his claim.
-
You can't have the last word and forbid everyone else from discussing it.
I agree with Thork. Poor form ole chap. Open a thread in the Lounge to deal with the egg on your face.
Let's get back to normal, but lesser, gravity on a finite FE, or even the constant g of the Davis (infinite plane) model.
-
You can't have the last word and forbid everyone else from discussing it.
I agree with Thork. Poor form ole chap. Open a thread in the Lounge to deal with the egg on your face.
Let's get back to normal, but lesser, gravity on a finite FE, or even the constant g of the Davis (infinite plane) model.
We already did. It's in CN. Pongo did it for me (thanks, Pongo).
Yes, let's. Do you have any more issues with this phenomenon for me to keep in mind as I perform my calculations?
-
You can't have the last word and forbid everyone else from discussing it.
I agree with Thork. Poor form ole chap. Open a thread in the Lounge to deal with the egg on your face.
Let's get back to normal, but lesser, gravity on a finite FE, or even the constant g of the Davis (infinite plane) model.
We already did. It's in CN. Pongo did it for me (thanks, Pongo).
Yes, let's. Do you have any more issues with this phenomenon for me to keep in mind as I perform my calculations?
Oh, there are a dozen more. But the next problem you face is insurmountable--calculating the direction of the force vector from normal gravity, without integral calculus.
If you want to see your error quickly and avoid having to learn integral calculus today, try this logic.
1) Using the laws of symmetry, reduce the problem to just two dimensions (south-north-south coincident with the Prime Meridian and up-down (as in up to the sky and down through the Earth)
(http://i.imgur.com/338qS.jpg)
2) Note that the north-south forces of the yellow boxes cancel each other. They are symmetric and equal. The up-down forces do not cancel, but do add.
3) Note that blue box has no cancelling box, so it's pull on the gravimeter will be to the North.
4) Note that the effect increases as the gravimeter is farther south.
5) Note that we can measure 'g' to great precision with just table-top pendulums.
-
Yes, let's. Do you have any more issues with this phenomenon for me to keep in mind as I perform my calculations?
One thing that I've been dying to know. What are your qualifications?
-
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
-
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.
-
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.
Which makes me wonder why some of us even respond in the first place... Absurd claims from people with references to websites that explain it, but have no understanding of the topic itself. ::)
-
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.
Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.
-
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.
Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.
No, we're saying that you fail to self-censor adequately. You've proposed several theories that we had to explain the math and physics that you should have done before going public.
Even recently you failed to understand that there is no "overcoming inertia" (You probably meant "Overcoming static friction".) You even linked us to a huge reference (Newton's Principia) without even a page number. (and, of course, nothing in Principia supported your claim.
To continue with the analogy, we're saying 'no' to any more salads from you since your entire history of salad production was nothing but failures.
-
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.
Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.
The problem here is quite simple though. You don't have the knowledge. It's that simple really. Gravity is the entire reason planets are round.Yes you act as though it's not.
-
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.
Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.
The problem here is quite simple though. You don't have the knowledge. It's that simple really. Gravity is the entire reason planets are round.Yes you act as though it's not.
So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?
-
One need not have official qualifications to be able to perform this level of math (though many here make it seem like it should be lol), but I find it handy to know what an appeal to authority is.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's elitism. We leave dentistry to the dentists, law to the lawyers, and physics to physicists. Laypeople have no place in making such ridiculous claims and acting as though they're capable of doing even rudimentary physics calculations. If this guy were really at all capable of grasping how physics works and wants to make some kind of breakthrough, I suggest he fix that theory in crisis we call gravity.
Anyone can do mathematics, so long as you have the knowledge and a touch of creativity. What you're saying is tantamount to insisting that I shouldn't try to make a salad because I'm not a chef.
No, we're saying that you fail to self-censor adequately. You've proposed several theories that we had to explain the math and physics that you should have done before going public.
Even recently you failed to understand that there is no "overcoming inertia" (You probably meant "Overcoming static friction".) You even linked us to a huge reference (Newton's Principia) without even a page number. (and, of course, nothing in Principia supported your claim. You're really bad at determining what's serious and what isn't, aren't you?
To continue with the analogy, we're saying 'no' to any more salads from you since your entire history of salad production was nothing but failures.
That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only be done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.
As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.
-
That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.
As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.
Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.
On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.
My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.
So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?
Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.
-
That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.
As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.
Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.
On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.
My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.
So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?
Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.
You understand that my 'insane troll math' disproved me, right?
-
That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.
As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.
Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.
On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.
My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.
So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?
Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.
You understand that my 'insane troll math' disproved me, right?
You understand that I'm referring to any insane troll math of yours, right? I don't really consider you a very intelligent person so I doubt any attempts of yours to construct coherent, accurate mathematical models will prove (Get it?) successful.
EDIT: Yes I saw the error. I meant to say I think any attempts of yours will fail miserably. I fixed the slip-up.
-
That's not at all what our obviously proud atheist friend was saying. He was suggesting that physics can only do done by physicists and mathematics can only be done by mathematicians. This is patently incorrect.
As for your own allegations, I'm simply posting possible explanations. If I refused to explain my ideas until I was certain they were plausible, I'd be in the same position as John with his book. I have no issue with being wrong, and your obsession with disproving FET really does help me improve my theories. It's not going public so much as asking for review.
Eh not really a proud atheist here. That's just the first generic name I could come up with, which just so happened to involve my atheism.
On to the topic. It seems you misunderstood me. What I meant was that only physicists can do good physics, and only mathematicians can do [/b]good[/b] math. Right now you're doing bad physics and using inappropriate math. We use calculus to describe gravity (Which doesn't work all the time but that's another story). Algebra is barely enough to perform a Chi square analysis, much less describe gravitational attraction.
My suggestion is simple. Go to college, get a degree, then post your insane troll math on a journal for it to be critiqued. Though I doubt you'll make it past the first semester.
So as long as I have gravity I can make round planets?
Yes. The stronger the gravity, the rounder the planet will be.
You understand that my 'insane troll math' disproved me, right?
You understand that I'm referring to any insane troll math of yours, right? I don't really consider you a very intelligent person so I doubt any attempts of yours to construct coherent, accurate mathematical models will prove (Get it?) successful.
EDIT: Yes I saw the error. I meant to say I think any attempts of yours will fail miserably. I fixed the slip-up.
And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?
-
And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?
Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.
-
And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?
Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.
And why is the Earth round?
-
And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?
Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.
And why is the Earth round?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.
*gasps*
Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.
-
And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?
Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.
And why is the Earth round?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.
*gasps*
Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.
Not what I meant. I was talking about proof. We all know what process created the Earth in RET.
-
And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?
Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.
And why is the Earth round?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.
*gasps*
Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.
Not what I meant. I was talking about proof. We all know what process created the Earth in RET.
As I said before, I'm not a scientist in the relevant fields. So I'm not really qualified to write down , much less explain, the mathematics involved in this. Take my suggestion please.
-
And what, exactly, led you to that conclusion?
Your apparent inability to grasp the concept of a round earth. That is, unless I got mixed up somewhere and I'm bashing a round earth-type person.
And why is the Earth round?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist, an astrophysicist or an astronomer so the following explanation is based only on my limited understanding of the subject. If one wants a more detailed/correct explanation I suggest you go to your nearest university and ask professors in the relevant fields.
*gasps*
Ok. Gravity pulls dust from the accretion disk in an early solar system into clumps composed chiefly of heavier elements.These clumps are then attracted to each other and collide creating intense heat turning them into molten rocks which behave similarly to a liquid. These seek out the formation that exerts an even amount of surface tension throughout the entire structure, this formation we called a "Sphere" and it can be observed in NASA's videos in the International space station. You know , the ones where they squeeze pouches of water and it gushed out in little balls.
Not what I meant. I was talking about proof. We all know what process created the Earth in RET.
As I said before, I'm not a scientist in the relevant fields. So I'm not really qualified to write down , much less explain, the mathematics involved in this. Take my suggestion please.
So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.
-
Tausami, if you really do want to improve your theories, it might help to actually listen to the criticism given. You have a tendency to assume you're correct despite your hazy understanding of physics and mathematics.
I'm no wizard of science, either, so, for once, don't take this as a put-down. I could see myself making the same mistakes if I had more unwarranted confidence in my abilities, too.
-
Tausami, if you really do want to improve your theories, it might help to actually listen to the criticism given. You have a tendency to assume you're correct despite your hazy understanding of physics and mathematics.
I'm no wizard of science, either, so, for once, don't take this as a put-down. I could see myself making the same mistakes if I had more unwarranted confidence in my abilities, too.
What am I ignoring? I regularly change my theories based on feedback.
-
Tausami, if you really do want to improve your theories, it might help to actually listen to the criticism given. You have a tendency to assume you're correct despite your hazy understanding of physics and mathematics.
I'm no wizard of science, either, so, for once, don't take this as a put-down. I could see myself making the same mistakes if I had more unwarranted confidence in my abilities, too.
What am I ignoring? I regularly change my theories based on feedback.
You ignore our criticisms that you are repeatedly failing to do your homework before posting your theory. Do the math. Do the physics. If your theory still makes some sense, then post. Every theory that you've provided so far has contained sophomoric mistakes.
I'm reminded of bendy light 'theory' violating the Laws of Optics which were codified over a 1000 years ago.
-
What am I ignoring? I regularly change my theories based on feedback.
Not until there's been a big, long battle that ends in your defeat. I, and many other people I'm sure, don't have the energy to point out every little thing wrong with what you make. And if we point it out, you don't believe it and need sources and diagrams and loads of explanations There's a point where you need to accept that you're probably wrong and research it yourself.
-
So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.
No. I'm telling you that I'm not qualified to explain the mathematical proofs you asked for. I'm telling you to go talk to someone who is.
-
So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.
No. I'm telling you that I'm not qualified to explain the mathematical proofs you asked for. I'm telling you to go talk to someone who is.
You said that I'm an idiot for believing the Earth isn't round. I'm asking you to prove that it is, for example by providing me with an experiment that proves it. You are unable to do so.
-
So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.
No. I'm telling you that I'm not qualified to explain the mathematical proofs you asked for. I'm telling you to go talk to someone who is.
You said that I'm an idiot for believing the Earth isn't round. I'm asking you to prove that it is, for example by providing me with an experiment that proves it. You are unable to do so.
Oh you mean, say it with me now .... "E-vi-dence" We find planetary formation to be a relatively common and linked directly with star formation. We see stages of this occurring in nebulae. The clouds clear up slightly, they take up a rotating motion, and I think we've seen a few protoplanets (I'll get back to you on that one).
EDIT: Protoplanetary disks and hints of protoplanets inside is what we've found.
-
So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that the Earth is round but feel comfortable in insulting those who disagree. SOunds almost... religious of you.
No. I'm telling you that I'm not qualified to explain the mathematical proofs you asked for. I'm telling you to go talk to someone who is.
You said that I'm an idiot for believing the Earth isn't round. I'm asking you to prove that it is, for example by providing me with an experiment that proves it. You are unable to do so.
Oh you mean, say it with me now .... "E-vi-dence" We find planetary formation to be a relatively common and linked directly with star formation. We see stages of this occurring in nebulae. The clouds clear up slightly, they take up a rotating motion, and I think we've seen a few proto-planets (I'll get back to you on that one).
I'm sorry, but the Earth isn't a planet. Proving how planets form doesn't prove the Earth is round. Now, do you have proof that you're sitting on a giant sphere?
-
What's acceptable as proof? And it's not a sphere.
-
I'm sorry, but the Earth isn't a planet. Proving how planets form doesn't prove the Earth is round. Now, do you have proof that you're sitting on a giant sphere?
I'm sorry but Earth is quite clearly a planet. Here's a simple Wikipedia definition to define terms here:
A planet (from Greek πλανήτης αστήρ planētēs astēr "wandering star") is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.
And also this video:
Now before you freak out, let me do it for you. OMGWTFBBQ Y IZ TEH URF LUK RAUND FRUM HEREZ?!
-
I'm sorry, but the Earth isn't a planet. Proving how planets form doesn't prove the Earth is round. Now, do you have proof that you're sitting on a giant sphere?
I'm sorry but Earth is quite clearly a planet. Here's a simple Wikipedia definition to define terms here:
A planet (from Greek πλανήτης αστήρ planētēs astēr "wandering star") is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.
And also this video:
Now before you freak out, let me do it for you. OMGWTFBBQ Y IZ TEH URF LUK RAUND FRUM HEREZ?!
Correction: The Earth is a planet in RET. Not so in FET. Anyway, you've yet to provide any evidence.
What's acceptable as proof? And it's not a sphere.
I'm just proving a point. You already know how this is going to go.
-
Correction: The Earth is a planet in RET. Not so in FET. Anyway, you've yet to provide any evidence.
No no no. The earth is a planet in reality. If you didn't watch the video confirming the Earth's curvature then I can't be held responsible.
-
Correction: The Earth is a planet in RET. Not so in FET. Anyway, you've yet to provide any evidence.
No no no. The earth is a planet in reality. If you didn't watch the video confirming the Earth's curvature then I can't be held responsible.
I didn't see any curvature in that video. Now please provide evidence that the Earth is round. Surely your side has some experiment which proved it beyond reasonable doubt, right?
-
Correction: The Earth is a planet in RET. Not so in FET. Anyway, you've yet to provide any evidence.
No no no. The earth is a planet in reality. If you didn't watch the video confirming the Earth's curvature then I can't be held responsible.
I didn't see any curvature in that video. Now please provide evidence that the Earth is round. Surely your side has some experiment which proved it beyond reasonable doubt, right?
Really? You didn't notice the increasingly apparent curve in the video? We must check your hearing. You know what/ I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're just not good with curves in general. Here's a look from the moon.
(http://www.cosmos4kids.com/extras/dtop_earth/moonearth_580.jpg)
Do you see it now? I hope you do. or we'll need to fix those eyes of yours.
EDIT: BAH. I just saw that I wrote "Hearing" instead of "Sight"!
-
I'm just proving a point. You already know how this is going to go.
Is your point that you'll deny any evidence like a child with his hands over his ears screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over?
-
Posting obviously faked images does not constitute evidence. I'm asking for you to link to me an experiment which proves the Earth is round. Surely you have one, right? After all, the stupid people at the Flat Earth Society do, so surely the smart people who aren't members of that silly group of people also have a good experiment I'm having way too much fun with this
-
Before we continue, what's this experiment that proves the earth is flat that the FES has?
-
Posting obviously faked images does not constitute evidence. I'm asking for you to link to me an experiment which proves the Earth is round. Surely you have one, right? After all, the stupid people at the Flat Earth Society do, so surely the smart people who aren't members of that silly group of people also have a good experiment I'm having way too much fun with this
You're right. This image was obviously faked, since we have nothing better to do than make our home world look like an oblate spheroid.
I'm just proving a point. You already know how this is going to go.
Is your point that you'll deny any evidence like a child with his hands over his ears screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over?
Yup. He went that route.
-
Posting obviously faked images does not constitute evidence. I'm asking for you to link to me an experiment which proves the Earth is round. Surely you have one, right? After all, the stupid people at the Flat Earth Society do, so surely the smart people who aren't members of that silly group of people also have a good experiment. I'm having way too much fun with this.
Are you claiming that someone posted an obviously faked image?
Here's one of my favorite RET-proving link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums).
Beyond those, please lurk moar.
Oh, and please stop with the troll jokes in transparent font. Thanks.
-
How is a list of Foucault Pendulums conclusive proof of the shape of the earth?
-
How is a list of Foucault Pendulums conclusive proof of the shape of the earth?
lurk moar. Seriously, the predicted and observed behavior of FPs throughout the various latitudes is great evidence that the Earth is a spinning globe. Please study the mathematics of the science involved. (Please don't move the goal posts. No one said "conclusive proof" before you.)
-
Before we continue, what's this experiment that proves the earth is flat that the FES has?
If i see, that ur gf's tits r flat, do i have to do some scientific experiment to prove it?
-
Before we continue, what's this experiment that proves the earth is flat that the FES has?
If i see, that ur gf's tits r flat, do i have to do some scientific experiment to prove it?
Irrelevant.
-
Before we continue, what's this experiment that proves the earth is flat that the FES has?
If i see, that ur gf's tits r flat, do i have to do some scientific experiment to prove it?
Please refrain from low content posting.