Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't think you understand what JohnD was trying to explain to you.As for your other concerns, like I said, I'm done wasting time on you.
No problem.
We'll notch this one up to "good maths, bad comprehension, bad application".
Hey John, make sure you don't drink and derive.Its not in the plane. Will someone else deal with his drivel while I get a beer?OK I'll just wait for that explanation you promised Squat...Please, don't bother unless you have something useful to input.
*sigh*
OK Here we go kids...
Lets start for 10.
The Gaussian surface S is a closed surface.
Please describe where this closed surface is in your plane.
If you are willing to pay for our travel expenses, we will gladly measure.so please tell me what the shining radius of your sun is.
Approximately 1.0 ⨯ 107 m.
ok, what is the radius of the earth itself?
or what is the distance between the north pole, and chile's tip.
Any proof?
In the book earth is not a globe, you can see repeatable experiments that prove the earth is flat, which when repeated by others, showed the earth was round.
Fixed.
The upper forums are for serious discussions only.Air is not transparent...Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.
Unfortunately for you, there's another explanation of why ships sink over the horizon, but there is NO other explanation of why the Sun does not appear superimposed over the ground when viewed from altitude during sunrise/sunset. If bendy light explains one, it has to explain the other. But it can't. Now run along and study your chemistry. You are going to have to put in a hell of a lot of effort if you want to pass.
This is like watching a feebly struggling insect being web wrapped by a spider.
Air is not transparent...Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.
Unfortunately for you, there's another explanation of why ships sink over the horizon, but there is NO other explanation of why the Sun does not appear superimposed over the ground when viewed from altitude during sunrise/sunset. If bendy light explains one, it has to explain the other. But it can't. Now run along and study your chemistry. You are going to have to put in a hell of a lot of effort if you want to pass.
In the age of sail ships frequently went off course due to wind storms. No one ships anything south of australia.Shipping in the south isn't as important, so they could get away with being lazy.It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.
No, it's the same level of difficulty either way. You just end up with fewer countries having their shapes mangled, but those countries still have their shapes mangled unfeasibly much. Australia and New Zealand for example. This smacks of appeal to majority... having North in the centre only upsets the Kiwis and Aussies whereas having South in the centre would upset the Europeans and Americans - can't have that!
Either all countries fit properly on the map, or none do. You can't make the problem go away just by moving it somewhere else.
Except that the southern part of the world is far more dominated by ocean. The continents as they have been charted will still fit on the map, all you need to realise is that the oceans are wider in the south than RET would suggest.
Hmmm, funny that, why would the world's map makers have mapped the oceans in the southern hemisphere at half their real size, yet everything in the rest of the world accurately? Perhaps they sent Rowbottom to accomplish the task?
Good grief, Wilcox knows nothing about history as well as science. I suggest you read up on the history of Captain James Cook, the founding of colonies in New Zealand and Australia (by both ancient and more modern people), Thor Heyerdahl's travels aboard the Kon Tiki and anything else you fancy about shipping in the 1800s. Then you will realise just how important knowing the size of the southern oceans was, because back then, unlike in the northern hemisphere, you had to go a hell of a long way between reference points on land.
Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.Math is the language of science. The burden of proof is on you.Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour.
There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin correcting it.Bending of light has been disproved by myself and Senoctar in another thread.
Could you please link me to this thread? I'm very interested to know how you disproved such complicated mathematics as those involved in general relativity.
I didn't need to disprove it using mathematics.
Utter nonsense. To use your example: one could easily write a mathematical formula describing how if one dropped an apple, it would fly upwards into the air. One could write equations describing this, how the mass, shape, air resistance, density of the apple could affect the force and speed at which it flew upwards. Or, if one preferred, sideways. Using these equations one could describe the motion of a feather, an armoured car or a horse as they were dropped, without needing to do the experiment.
Yet these equations would conflict completely with observed data, so no matter how carefully they were created, they'd be wrong. So, Wilcox, if one can demonstrate an observable difference, then the maths can be scrapped right there. Because it's describing something that doesn't happen. Nobody ever sees the Sun superimposed over the ground from an aircraft: therefore the stupid FE bendy light idea bites the dust. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Shipping in the south isn't as important, so they could get away with being lazy.It is a lot more difficult to fit the world's continents onto a map with north around the outside than it is with south around the outside.
No, it's the same level of difficulty either way. You just end up with fewer countries having their shapes mangled, but those countries still have their shapes mangled unfeasibly much. Australia and New Zealand for example. This smacks of appeal to majority... having North in the centre only upsets the Kiwis and Aussies whereas having South in the centre would upset the Europeans and Americans - can't have that!
Either all countries fit properly on the map, or none do. You can't make the problem go away just by moving it somewhere else.
Except that the southern part of the world is far more dominated by ocean. The continents as they have been charted will still fit on the map, all you need to realise is that the oceans are wider in the south than RET would suggest.
Hmmm, funny that, why would the world's map makers have mapped the oceans in the southern hemisphere at half their real size, yet everything in the rest of the world accurately? Perhaps they sent Rowbottom to accomplish the task?
Math is the language of science. The burden of proof is on you.Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour.
There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin correcting it.Bending of light has been disproved by myself and Senoctar in another thread.
Could you please link me to this thread? I'm very interested to know how you disproved such complicated mathematics as those involved in general relativity.
I didn't need to disprove it using mathematics.
You haven't disproven anything. The only thing you have done is discredit yourself by needlessly swearing at me.The sun's rays bend upwards in a parabolic arc. When the sun moves farther away the arc will cause the sun to appear lower in the sky. I found these answers by using the forum's search function. Next time use it yourself please.Where does the sun come into play? Why doesn't the outer ice melt?
The lack of sunlight that reaches those areas.
Explain a sunset on a flat earth.
If you bothered to use the search function more thoroughly, Wilcox, you would have noticed that I have provided a disproof of this idea in another recent thread and someone else kindly supplied a diagram to illustrate the disproof in the same thread. So no, your answer has been shown to be bullshit.
You are the one making the claim that Newtons law for universal gravitation can accurately predict where a 10,000 foot high bomb will drop.I never realized that one can calculate the effects of drag over a 10,000 feet in variable gases so easily. But then again I am a chemistry major.What does atmospheric drag have to do with Newtonian gravity?
Approximations are wrong, but they are often close enough to be useful in calculations.So what does Newton being wrong about gravity have to do with the accuracy of his predictions where they are applicable? Or are you guys saying that Newton's gravity is never applicable to any situation?
No one said that. The discussion was on whether it was correct, not a useful tool.
How can it be useful if it's wrong?
Do you have any proof a specific element originated on earth or not?Prove to me all these unstable nuclei originate from earth.
Where do igneous rocks come from?
No, but there is no scientific basis for RET's claim, so in the tie, I will trust my philosophical beliefs.
Sorry Mark, but I am not interested in radiometric dating. We do not know the initial abundance amounts of the elements found on earth. There is no scientific basis for this massive guess of the earth's age.
Is there any scientific basis for your 'guess at the earth's age?
I never realized that one can calculate the effects of drag over a 10,000 feet in variable gases so easily. But then again I am a chemistry major.Wow, I never realized that you could use relativity to compensate for wind resistance.No one has dropped a bomb at 10,000 feet in a vacuum. The fact is, Newton is always wrong, because relativity always applies.So Newton's gravity can't predict the trajectory of a bomb dropped from 10,000 feet at 600 mph?
I can't imagine it could do so exactly.
How exact would it need to be? Feet, inches, microns?
Prove to me all these unstable nuclei originate from earth.Sorry Mark, but I am not interested in radiometric dating. We do not know the initial abundance amounts of the elements found on earth. There is no scientific basis for this massive guess of the earth's age.The earth and moon are both approximately 6,000 years old. What was there before, we do not know, as RET does not know.
Kathleen is right.
Of course she is. Obviously the conspiracy is faking all of the geological evidence too.Quote from: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.htmlRadiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
Mark, don't you think this is an unreasonable request considering no one here has a first hand calculation for the surface area of the earth?Hmm... U-2's are perhaps not the best candidate, although who knows what the trusty skunkworks have chucked out over the past few years
Apparently not. However you never answered my question. How many planes/pseudolites/towers/whatever would it take to provide a single GPS signal to approximately 1/2 of the surface area of the earth?
Why not increase the diameter of the power lines and make them out of gold instead of copper?From what I've heard solar should be fine within 5-10 years. And my idea for using it to generate fossil fuels would make moving it easy, and would eliminate the loss of electricity caused by powerlines.
A professor of mine mentioned that about 50% of power is lost in the lines, you can hold florescent light up under large power lines and it will glow. If we cooled the lines down to near absolute zero we would eliminate this loss.
What about the energy required to keep the power lines cool?
I'm fairly sure the lights in your house were unaffected.Yes, but the changes in the amount of light entering my house were real. If you want a more accurate simulation, make the timer dim your lights.
The sun's rays bend upwards in a parabolic arc. When the sun moves farther away the arc will cause the sun to appear lower in the sky. I found these answers by using the forum's search function. Next time use it yourself please.Where does the sun come into play? Why doesn't the outer ice melt?
The lack of sunlight that reaches those areas.
Explain a sunset on a flat earth.
Sorry Mark, but I am not interested in radiometric dating. We do not know the initial abundance amounts of the elements found on earth. There is no scientific basis for this massive guess of the earth's age.The earth and moon are both approximately 6,000 years old. What was there before, we do not know, as RET does not know.
Kathleen is right.
Of course she is. Obviously the conspiracy is faking all of the geological evidence too.
It's not just purely due to our own greed or self-interest. According to Hobbes, we uphold moral standards due to fear. For example, people don't kill each other not because they feel greedy, but because they fear of getting caught and prosecuted by authorities.I think John Locke is a much better philosopher to follow... Hobbes is pretty insane. People don't murder because it is in their best interest to have a stable society.
Also, morality is not completely subjective and relative, as most philosophers would agree. There are flaws to moral relativism and subjectivism.