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.

Messages - cbreiling

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 27, 2008, 08:30:51 PM »
It's already proven. You made it up, but that doesn't mean it's true.

I remain skeptical of your "proof." I want to see data.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 27, 2008, 12:59:33 PM »
Please show your work.   ;D

I did it in my head. I also count spilled toothpicks.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 27, 2008, 12:50:15 PM »
Sorry Marshal, I meant to write 99.89372. That's much more sophisticated.  :P
Right, so how did you get this number?

I made it up. See, first I took the orbital data of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Luna, Mars, Deimos Phobos, Ceres, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, and Pluto for the period of one year. Then I selected 53 of the most well-known artificial satellites in Earth Orbit, including the Hubble and the ISS. I then compared each set of orbital observational data with what would be predicted by Newton's equations.

The result was so far over 99.99% that I figured you wouldn't believe me, so I picked a number that was really large, but realistically off, using a bit of psychology. All very scientific.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 26, 2008, 05:29:58 PM »
...angular velocity of 7.3 * 10-5 s-1.

Watch those units, Steve. You used "hertz" above.  :) (Lame attempt at busting chops.)

That is the correct unit for angular velocity.

Dude, you're supposed to be the physics student! The units of angular velocity are "degrees per second" not "per second" (hertz) as you wrote.  :)

It works 99.9% of the time
Keep posting this number; it just shows how unsophisticated you are.

Sorry Marshal, I meant to write 99.89372. That's much more sophisticated.  :P

As for gravity / gravitation / motion along geodesics... What's the mass of the Earth in FET? (I'm honestly curious, and it's not meant as a rhetorical question.)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 26, 2008, 05:19:18 PM »

In reference to this photo of the Southern Cross with the misplaced 5th star (Epsilon Cru), Tom didn't like my explanation.
I don't see any "hidden stars" or any increased brightness to the star trail its hiding behind.

Well try this graphic on for size. It shows the Southern Cross (Crux) being "run over" by Alpha and Beta Centauri. To suggest the star trail from Beta Centauri would be "brighter" due to the light coming from Epsilon Cru is folly. Beta Centauri is magnitude 0.6 and Epsilon Cru is only 6, which is over one hundred times as faint (each smaller magnitude is twice as bright as the one before).

This is why we can't see Epsilon Cru when looking at the start of the star trails (the left-hand end, or the ends pointing counter-clockwise, which is East, the direction from which all stars rise).

But if we look at the end of the star trails, we see something different, since there's no interferance with Beta Centauri.

Can you spot the Southern Cross in the below photo? (Taken from this QuickTime VR "movie")

Here it is. The left ends are marked, and Epsilon Cru is hidden. But look carefully at the right-hand ends of the star trails and you'll see all five stars of Crux.

Now the stars of Crux are running over other star trails, thankfully much dimmer stars than the five stars of Crux.

Tom raised an interesting point that we can arbitrarily plot stars in a cross-shape anywhere we want. Well that's true enough, but faking the southern cross won't pass muster when other nearby stars are plotted, and the entire picture compared to well-established star charts.

I've actually done such an exercise in star-trail analysis, and plan to post the results soon.

The results point to the Southern Cross not being on the edge of a disc, sweeping over all southern lands in the flat earth model. Rather, the Southern Cross is close to the southern celestial pole (SCP), which appears to rotate above the Earth's South Pole.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 25, 2008, 11:12:52 PM »
...angular velocity of 7.3 * 10-5 s-1.

Watch those units, Steve. You used "hertz" above.  :) (Lame attempt at busting chops.)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What this site is REALLY about
« on: August 25, 2008, 09:44:29 PM »
Im here to argue for FE and occasionally against it. Its funny when noobs think Im an FEr.

Being a noob myself, I'm still at the state that I take everyone completely seriously. I'm hoping that will wear off soon, because it might be fun to argue for FE.

But I will say, than in constructing my arguments for RET (silly me, I know), I've done a lot of reading and research that I wouldn't have otherwise done. Now I'm picking back up A Brief History of Time, which I've never gotten through, and I even learned Right Ascension and Declination even though I'd heard those terms since 1984, yet never bothered to learn what they were. This site has been very good to me, even if I don't "get it" yet. Give me time.  :)

BTW, I just looked up the definition of Troll, and it would seem that anyone arguing for FE other than true Flat Earthers, are, by definition, trolls! Hmmm.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice Guards
« on: August 25, 2008, 09:17:32 PM »
Can someone post a picture of said ice guards or the ice wall itself?

(From Bumstain McCain)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 25, 2008, 09:15:16 PM »
You're just wrong about this, and I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying.  Newton was wrong about gravity, however useful his equations might be.  Sorry you can't grasp that concept.

You could claim "humans are wrong about breathing" (you know that universal law where it says you breathe in, breathe out, and you stay alive).

It works 99.9% of the time, but it doesn't work underwater or in a smoke-filled room (unless it's ganja), so I propose that everyone here who thinKs "breathing is fundamentally wrong" should stop immediately.

Do I have to tell you esteemed dudes fifty freaking times that I know that there is no force of gravity, it's all just space-time bendy geodesics? I get it already! I'm still sticking with Newton, and I still believe the Earth has mass.  :P

Having said all that, sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 25, 2008, 08:57:00 PM »
Okay, nobody here disputes the usefulness of Newton's laws of gravity.
Excuuuuuze me?  :) Newton's law of gravity is the most heavily-slandered piece of science here on the Flat Earth Forums. Mostly it takes the form of "gravity doesn't exist." Frequently anyone who dares suggest that behaviors of objects in Earth's gravitation can be perfectly described by F=Gm1m2/r2 is promptly pilloried because "Gravity isn't a force," and because objects fall towards Earth with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s because the Earth and Universe are doing the UA zoom "to infinity... and beyond!"

I'd say this counts as "disputing the usefulness of Newton's laws."

I know perfectly well that Einstein's equations are necessary for calculating high-energy stuff like black holes and gravitational lensing, yadda yadda, but you can't beat an algebra equation for describing routine real-world phenomena like trajectories and bouncing balls, versus the tensor calculus needed for Einstein's stuff.

From the University of New South Wales in Sydney, comes this discussion of the limitations of Newton:
Although [Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation] is an excellent theory, it does not agree with experiment if one investigates extremely large fields, or moderately large fields with very high precision. In other words, it is wrong. However, it is such an excellent approximation that Newtonian gravity is what we use to calculate in almost all circumstances, while recognising that it is just a very convenient approximation to more exact theories.

There's a good reason why every gravity problem in an engineering textbook can be correctly solved using algebra (plus trig and calculus), even if using by Einstein's formulas and tensors you'll get the same answers, to a very high degree of precision. That reason is that Newton's equations are useful, even if they've been eclipsed by more-accurate ones from Einstein.

We are only disputing his correctness.

You conveniently forget that several planets were discovered mathematically using Newton's equations. When you write of "disputing correctness" exactly how many digits of precision do you want when calculating things here on earth, like the apparent force of gravity exerted by a Zetetic Armchair? Why don't Flat Earthers propose dropping the "Universal" from the name Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? The formula still works for 99% of real-world applications outside high-energy physics.

But nobody disputes that his equations can be useful. Please quit with the straw men.  ::)

 ??? Name the author of the quote: "He was wrong about there being a force. He was wrong about gravity, whether the equations work in most cases or not; it only takes one example where they don't work out to prove that they are fundamentally wrong." That was none other than Roundy the Truthinessist!  :P "Nobody disputes" indeed!

Dude, you need some glasses.  :) Almost every Flat Earther on these boards disputes the usefulness of Newton's equations, simply because then they'd have to admit that the entire Flat Earth must have no mass.


Flat Earth Debate / Re: A proposed experiment for testing bending light.
« on: August 24, 2008, 02:11:26 PM »
If the FE is an infinite plane, the UA may not be needed at all... An infinite plane would not have a centre of mass..

An infinite plane that is accelerating upwards for at 9.8 m/s/s for an infinitely long time. Versus a pedestrian sphere with Newton's dumb equations.

I like the former. But I can't figure out why there'd be an Ice Wall? There should be no boundary at all if we're on an infinite plane. Come to think of it, we've spent a lot of effort figuring out if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, when they could be living on the other side of the Ice Wall! They can even have landing strips and maintenance shops, so mutilating cows and performing anal probes would then just be a short flight away.

This explains why in all UFO sightings, when, at the end the craft "zips off at an incredible speed" and disappears, it's always headed south. I guess I just answered my own question on why there's a government-guarded Ice Wall.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Business idea
« on: August 24, 2008, 12:21:03 PM »
I'm not very apt in mathematics any more so correct me if I am wrong.
 Equations were taken from
theta - central angle
theta = arc/latitude radius (radians)
chord = 2*latitude radius * sin(theta/2)

Your math is wrong. Trigonometry was invented by mathemeticians who were notorious round-earthers, so you can't use it to prove anything.  ;)

To wit: Hipparchus, credited with inventing Trignometry, was born just 4 years after the death of Eratosthenes, the man who first calculated the circumference of the round earth. In fact, "[Hipparchus'] image, usually depicted sitting and looking at a globe, has been found on many coins minted between 138AD and 253AD." (from article on Hipparchus)

Second your idea is pointless. Airline pilots, especially in Southern latitudes, use Jet Streams to get to their destinations far faster than it should take on the Flat Earth as discussed here in the forums.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 24, 2008, 11:35:26 AM »
This is a great example of the obfuscation by introducing the red herring:

First Clydeaferret gives the law of universal gravitation:
According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between them:

    F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}.

Then Robbyj whips out the red herring:
Ok, now use your equation to calculate the force between the sun and a photon.

Yeah, talking about photons is a great way of ignoring the usefulness of the law of universal gravitation.  ::)

A few posts later:
No, he is proving that the Newtonian equation becomes invalid in explaining the world events, due to its inconsistency with some phenomenons. For example, gravitational lensing.

This is great. Gravitational Lensing is now a "world event" making Newtonian equations invalid. Did anyone pick up on the fact that the title of this thread is "the gravitational field of Earth"? Some posters here are carrying the FET torch that Newtonian equations are invalid because they break down under extreme circumstances which don't routinely occur on Earth or in our solar system.

If the debaters stuck to purely solar system mechanics (or as the OP intended, gravitational field of Earth), then there really isn't a whole lot to talk about with regards to whether gravity affects photons, as happens in gravitational lensing.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A proposed experiment for testing bending light.
« on: August 24, 2008, 11:04:17 AM »
If you're still going to resort to mockery, I suggest you consult the sources in the stickied thread. I'm sure reading the physicist quote just doesn't work for you, but you can ask the guy yourself. You can further your education by opening more books and finding more online sources.

Being that I'm scientifically minded (interested in the truth as proven by evidence and experimentation), I actually have done a lot of reading on "Gravity versus Gravitation," and I respect what learned physicists have to say about it. But here's what I've discovered: the only people making the distinction are scientists working in high-energy physics. I'm talking guys who can sit around and debate with Stephen Hawking.

What about everyone else, including extremely well-educated and experienced scientists, engineers, and astronomers? What do they say about Gravity and Gravitation? They don't make the distinction. Sometimes they will call Gravity "the force" (given by F=Gm1m2/r2), and call gravitation "the effect on bodies by that force" (for example, we're standing here on Earth experiencing Earth's gravitation).

Why would a scientist who should know better turn his back on Einstein? Well, get this, he's not. Everyone (with exception of FES posters) seems to understand that Newton's laws of motion and gravitation work just fine for almost everybody. If you're dealing with black holes, or are building  a particle accelerator so you can have your very own black hole, or you want to build that spaceship that can go through the Delta Quadrant... well then you need to use the tensor calculus of Einstein's relativity equations (math which is so difficult that Einstein himself needed help with it).

Everything from hitting a baseball out of Shea Stadium to launching a Space Shuttle most emphatically does not require relativity, and thus people working on those problems don't use it! Newton's equations (plus a bunch of others for air resistance, turbulence, thrust and rocket impulse, etc.) work just fine, and no one gets their panties in a bunch when someone mentions (gasp) Gravity.

And you said it yourself:
...not everyone needs to know that gravity and gravitation are different. Or that Newton's version isn't sufficient in many aspects. Not everyone needs to know a lot of the vast complexities that the sciences offer at higher levels.

You hit the nail on the head. Newton's version isn't sufficient for discussing black holes and string theory. But it works just fine here in our solar system (with Mercury being 0.0033179% off per century).

Debating whether the Earth is flat or round does not require an argument about relativity, is all I'm saying. To do so is argument by way of a red herring.

A challenge to anyone here: I'd be very interested in someone explaining to me why relativity is required to describe the shape of the earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A proposed experiment for testing bending light.
« on: August 24, 2008, 09:41:12 AM »
because gravity doesn't exist. In this magic elevator model, everyone will experience gravitation, which people like you and me call just plain gravity. But the result is the same.
Ok, you must be a troll. No one can be this dense, because we've already explained it to you many times.

Ok, I am a troll, but it's not my fault. I was educated by many, many, deeply ignorant people, who passed their ignorance on to me. In all the earth science, physics, and engineering mechanics courses I've taken, as well as all the textbooks I've seen on those subjects, all of my misguided professors (and hapless textbook authors) thought there was gravity. Thus their students suffered from it.

I'm getting quite an education here at the FES, learning about all sorts of wondrous laws of nature, like the entire planet earth not having a center of mass, stars and planets being part of a swirling cornucopia with meshed gears, and the 12,000 mph jetstream that goes both ways, aiding airline pilots serving South America, Africa, and Australia.

So, yes, I'm a little dense, and I hope you'll be patient with me as you have to explain things multiple times.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth
« on: August 23, 2008, 09:27:32 PM »
Cavendish is not an expirement showcasing gravity, only torsion of a rod or wire.

It is not true that the experiment showcases torsion, although minimizing torsion is a very important part of the apparatus. Building a device that has near-zero torsion is critical because the force of gravity movement along geodesics due to small masses is incredibly small. You can do the experiment yourself.

When you compare multi-mass systems you are literally bending spacetime, as defined by Einstein. (In the Cavendish experiment, you are moving the position of masses, thus manually bending spacetime.) Einstein also said that for non-extreme cases this is proportional to the masses involved.

Sure, gravity doesn't exist. But large masses such as the Earth (flat or round) bend spacetime significantly, causing a lot of motion along geodesics.

For some reason, many FE folks who hold Einstein up as the messiah of spacetime, in their zeal to deny gravity, insist that the Earth's mass have no effect on spacetime whatsoever.  ???

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Newton's Laws and FET
« on: August 23, 2008, 11:24:34 AM »
I already covered that. If it generated it's own light, you'd see moonlight during a solar eclipse. You don't therefore it doesn't.
Just because moonlight has never been seen during a solar eclipse does not mean that it is impossible to see moonlight during a solar eclipse.

I hate to say it, but this issue of debate won't earn points for either side. Oldsoldier correctly points out that the Moon sees a "Full Earth" during a solar eclipse (with a tiny shadow crossing its face, reducing the albedo), but when you think about it, this happens not just during an eclipse but every month during a New Moon.

We don't see the New Moon (or the solar-eclipse Moon) for two reasons: iris aperture and atmospheric brightness. By iris aperture I mean that during daytime it is extremely difficult to see dim objects, especially the dark side of the moon. (Think of walking towards a cave entrance on a sunny day: the entrance appears black. As you enter the cave all of a sudden it isn't black anymore, as your eyes (or camcorder) adjust. But turn around and you'll be "blinded" by a wall of light, until your eyes adjust again.)

By atmospheric brightness I simply mean our blue sky is reflecting a lot of light, which is a big reason we can't see stars during the day, even if the sun goes behind a cloud.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A proposed experiment for testing bending light.
« on: August 23, 2008, 11:05:44 AM »
Dear Astronomer, I'm very sorry you misunderstood what I was trying to say, but it really is my fault, because I misunderstood what you proposed. Let me try to make amends.  :)

Any horizontally-stretched wire, no matter how tight the tension, will always have a deflection due to the force of gravity movement across geodesics.

First of all, FE folks say that the earth is accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s/s, because gravity doesn't exist. In this magic elevator model, everyone will experience gravitation, which people like you and me call just plain gravity. But the result is the same.

Draw a free-body diagram for a 1-foot section of the wire, in the middle, and you'll see there must be deflection.

You seem to be one of the more educated people here, so I assumed you knew what a free-body diagram was. What I meant is that a 1-foot section of wire will have tension pulling left and right (represented by force arrows pointing 180o and 0o), but will also be subject to gravitation, even in the FE model, represented by a force arrow pointing down (270o).

In a free-body diagram the lengths of all arrows represent the magnitude of the forces involved. And in a static (not dynamic) system, these forces must all sum to a zero vector.

If your wire were extremely lightweight, the down arrow will be extremely small. But it will be there. This means, since there are only three forces acting on that small length of wire (two tensions plus one gravitation), that the tensions must have a vertical component as well, even if it is very tiny, meaning they can't be at 180o and 0o. In plain English? The wire cannot be perfectly horizontal.

Why not suspend the wire along side a skyscraper? That will give you plenty of distance.

Ok, here's where I did the "epic fail" thing. Halfway through your problem I completely forgot why you were tensioning the wire, so I simply proposed an easy method for tensioning a wire with no deflection, vertically along side a skyscraper. No wonder you didn't know what I was talking about!  :)

I had just been reading about some Harvard professors who conducted an experiment with redshifting electromagnetic waves using the Earth's gravitation, and they did it in an elevator shaft, with success. So in my mind I was sort of thinking about that.

Please keep up the good work carrying the RET torch. (Love the 3D Studio Max!)  :-*

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A proposed experiment for testing bending light.
« on: August 23, 2008, 05:36:32 AM »
Any horizontally-stretched wire, no matter how tight the tension, will always have a deflection due to the force of gravity movement across geodesics.

Draw a free-body diagram for a 1-foot section of the wire, in the middle, and you'll see there must be deflection.

Why not suspend the wire along side a skyscraper? That will give you plenty of distance.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Newton's Laws and FET
« on: August 23, 2008, 02:42:56 AM »
Maybe you're just as dumb as he is. For starters, do a research on inertia.

Dont call me dum. I happen to be very smart, my teachers keep telling me so. They encourage me to study hard so I can do well in my placement exams, becuse I want to get into a competetive high school.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Newton's Laws and FET
« on: August 23, 2008, 01:52:55 AM »
We only feel the effects of gravitation, not gravity.

That's because gravity doesn't exist. Why won't you get the message?  ;)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 23, 2008, 01:51:30 AM »

That's not the Southern Cross. I don't know what that is. One of Cross stars don't even match where the star trail ends. Whoever made that picture was obviously just guessing and trying to fit a cross somewhere for some school astronomy project.

Sorry I'm late to this party. Tom, it is the Southern Cross, aka Crux. You are absolutely correct in pointing out the one of the hand-drawn stars does not correspond to the visible end of a star trail, and you deserve an explanation.

I suspect that the stars were drawn by an Aussie rather than a Kiwi, just look at their flags:
Australia:  New Zealand:

The "fifth star" of Crux is Epsilon Cru. National pride or no, Epsilon Cru is there, even though it's hidden in the photo. The hand-drawn star is slightly off, it should actually be a few pixels to the right, inside the right-hand bright star trail. The two bright star trails that intersect Crux are Alpha and Beta Centauri, some of the brightest stars in the sky.

Here's me playing detective: It looked to me like Beta Centauri's star trail obscured where I knew Epsilon Cru should be, so I looked up their "addresses" in a Bushnell telescope manual. Epsilon Cru has a declination of about -60o24', while Beta Centauri's declination is -60o22'. (Declination is akin to latitude on a globe.)

The smoking gun! Poor Epsilon Cru didn't have a chance against blazing Beta Centauri in a time-lapse photo. Thanks for pointing this out.  :)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Newton's Laws and FET
« on: August 23, 2008, 01:22:49 AM »
Do you get my point about fictitious forces? I'm trying really hard.
Then try harder, you're still far away from understanding why they are called "fictitious forces".

I guess my dry sense of humor is hard to read. My point is that, of course the coffee cup will go flying, we both know it will go flying. But if you were to have a videocamera bolted to the interior of the car, it would record the coffee cup "moving all by itself" as if moved by an invisible force. We both know that force doesn't exist, but my point is that the cup will move as if there were a force.

Jack, I don't think you get the point that I know all about fictitious forces, and I know the argument for calling gravity a fictitious force. I was trying to be funny. People who say that "inertial force" (the fictitious force which flung the coffee cup off the dashboard) is fictitious are not saying the cup won't move, because obviously it will. The coffee cup feels a force and you can record the action of this force, and you can even write equations mathematically predicting actions based upon this force, but technically, there is no force.

Same thing with "centrifugal force," which is another one you can feel, you can measure, and you can have it affect real objects in the real world. But technically, it doesn't exist.

Now let's talk about gravity. People love to argue that it's a fictitious force. Fine! Let's call it a fictitious force! But that doesn't mean we can't feel it, we can't record its effects, or that we can't quantify it!

To recap, FE folks are confusing the issue when they say either gravity doesn't exist, or that gravity is a fictitious force. It doesn't matter what you call it, since the effects of gravity are very, very real, even if gravity doesn't exist. Flat Earthers seem to think that if they call gravity a fictitious force, that means that there are no measurable effects of this "force."

Let's put it another way: Gravity does not exist. There I said it. But objects are affected by a phenomenon by the formula: F=Gm1m2/r2. Yes, this is a force equation, and we know the force of gravity doesn't exist. But the formula merely describes the effect upon objects of this fictitious force.

The standard disclaimer applies: The accuracy of Newton's equation depends on weak-gravity, low-velocity systems, such as our solar system. Don't drink and drive.

Whatever the case, please explain your point.

I was inspired to write this after hearing the "gravity doesn't exist" argument for the hundredth time. There is very good reason to call gravity a "fictitious force" and there is a lot to be said for the warping of spacetime, causing objects of mass to come together along geodesics, as per Einstein. But none of that changes the fact that gravity is a measurable, quantifiable phenomenon here on Earth and observable in the Solar System.

So the narrator of the "Orange" article is like the folks who can't stop talking about how gravity doesn't exist. Even though everything the narrator says is true,  (reflective/absorbtion wavelengths, to RGB components, to gravity redshift, to moving-observer blueshift) none of that changes the fact that you see an orange and you can name the color.

Proponents of FET like to deny the laws of gravitation by confusing the issue with a bunch of relativity and geodesics, but it doesn't change the fact that it is measurable, observable, quantifiable, and has been documented for 300 years. The heliocentric model of the solar system, as quantified by Isaac Newton, is well over 99% accurate.

But people still want to debate the existence of gravity, just like the narrator is debating the existence of the color orange.

You clearly wanted us to comment on it...expecting a pat on the back or an actual discussion?

Discussion would be nice.

Quite proud of this little article, aren't you?
Just realized I posted it in the wrong folder.

I was shopping with a web-designer friend of mine, and we were in the fruit aisle.

He said, "Isn't it interesting that an 'orange' is colored orange?"

"But it's not," I replied, "It doesn't have any color at all. The chemical structure of the rind is such that it absorbs all wavelengths of incident light except those around 650 nanometers in wavelength. Color is just a figment of your imagination."

"That's ridiculous," he said, and he pulled out his digital camera and took a picture of it. "See?" he said, pointing to the image on the display. "It's orange."

"Oh, now you're just embarrasing yourself. It's not orange, the pixels of the display are producing the illusion of this so-called color orange. The red pixels are at full brightness, the greens are at around 65%, and the blue pixels aren't even on."

We went back to his lab, where he wanted to "prove" something to me. He fired up his web editor, and typed some CSS: "body {background-color: orange}" then refreshed the page in a browser, proudly pointing to the "orange" page.

I told him, "Dude, seriously you should know better. There is no orange. It doesn't exist. The CSS uses a standard web specification lookup table to save you from typing the hexidecimal #FFA500, since only geeks could remember them all. So when you type the word 'orange' it's really #FFA500. Orange doesn't exist."

He then asked me, "So when I point to this orange, and I ask you what color it is, what would you say?"

"Well, according to General Relativity," I replied, "the wavelength of light passing through a gravitational field will be shifted towards redder regions of the spectrum. So if we were near a black hole your fruit might appear red. But it also depends on your frame of reference. If I were on a space ship going fast enough towards the fruit, I'd have to say it looks yellow because of blueshift."

I also found out my friend believes that Gravity exists and that the Earth is round, like this fruit. Figures.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Treaty of Tordesillas
« on: August 22, 2008, 03:58:07 PM »

Your post is very interesting, but circumnavigating the Flat Earth does nothing to prove the earth is round. You see, if you keep traveling West (the direction 90 degrees counter-clockwise from North) you'll go in a complete circle, as Magellan's crew did (with deviations North and anti-North to navigate around the continents).

So that proves that the earth is round right? Magellan could not have had sailed through enemy territory without creating a stir with the Portugese.

Actually both Spain and Portugal were part of the conspiracy, because both countries were home to far-reaching explorers, and as such they knew the earth was flat. If they had their political disagreements, well at least they knew enough to keep a secret, which was very honorable of them.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Newton's Laws and FET
« on: August 22, 2008, 12:53:02 PM »
Then I'm sorry if basic physics really confuses or "obfuscates" you.

Ok, try these two examples:

I'm giving you a ride to work, and you place a hot cup of coffee on the dashboard in front of you (silly Jack, you should know better). I then hit the gas. The coffee should not scald you because there's no force to throw it off the dashboard, as we all know "inertial force" doesn't exist.

I take you along with me when I go off-roading with a stripped down jeep (no doors and no top, just seatbelts and a rollbar). You're not wearing a seatbelt and you're again riding shotgun. We're cruising along and without warning I make a sharp left turn. You won't go flying through the doorway ass-over-teakettle because centrigugal force doesn't exist.

If you argue that the coffee will scald you and that you will go flying, then I'll simply make fun of your ignorance of basic physics, since you obviously believe in fictitious forces.  ;)

Do you get my point about fictitious forces? I'm trying really hard.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4