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 - MotherNature

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 12, 2009, 04:43:52 PM »
"Energy" and "mass" are also names.

I have tried to show you in three different ways that they are equivalent,

Relativisiticaly

Thermodynamicaly

and

Quantum Mechanically

I have also given you three references and quoted the relavent parts of each one.

One of the fascinating conclusions of the E=mc^2 derivation is the fact that we can now prove energy and mass are one and the same.

Just because you want to give them different names does not mean they are different by definition because it has been shown in three explanations that they arn't.

No one has yet answered my question

What do you think the difference between mass and energy is?





Only for that matter, all material is based on energy, without it we shouldn't have atoms nor molecular structures. I let MotherNature take my place and explain it, im just a newbie at my University.

It's ok mate carry on :P

What are you studying by the way?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 12, 2009, 04:41:06 PM »
Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Those papers give you the extent of the coriolis force. One even gives you the possible extent of the force which is alot more than that quoted in the FAQ.

Anyway

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

Bump te Bump Bump



bump

A mind troubled by doubt cannot focus on the course to victory.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 12, 2009, 04:31:56 PM »
"Energy" and "mass" are also names.

I have tried to show you in three different ways that they are equivalent,

Relativisiticaly

Thermodynamicaly

and

Quantum Mechanically

I have also given you three references and quoted the relavent parts of each one.

One of the fascinating conclusions of the E=mc^2 derivation is the fact that we can now prove energy and mass are one and the same.

Just because you want to give them different names does not mean they are different by definition because it has been shown in three explanations that they arn't.

No one has yet answered my question

What do you think the difference between mass and energy is?




4
I don't think you realise.

I'm trying to establish why you think this particle exists. What is the reasoning based on your deduction?

I've explained this already.

Quote
I'm trying to ascertain whether you've just made up 'your' version of the graviton.

Of course I did, to explain the apparent attraction of the heavenly bodies.

Quote
In simpler terms, I want to know where it comes from and why you think it comes from there. I also want to know what you think it does.

Well, I would imagine it's a direct result of the origin of the universe, but I can't say for sure.  I think it causes objects to warp spacetime around them to a degree relative to the object's mass.

I want to know what past observations/theories you have used to come to the conclusions of a 'graviton' that disintegrates in the atmosphere.

The current scientific understanding of the graviton is extremly theoretical because of the infinities involved within the quantum mechanics. It becomes nonrenormalisable.

If your 'graviton' is produced and you say it bends space time then to all intents and purposes it is a form of a tensor field (vector/scaler field) which is why I'm confused as to your reasoning that it is able to interact with the atoms in the atmosphere and disapear.


5
When i were at teneriffe i saw the island gomera and it was a few miles away.
Then i were at the other side of teneriffe and i was trying to see the other island called gran canaria.
It's about double as far as it is from teneriffe to gomera and the thing is i didn't see it ? So that must mean the earth is really round so the horison is over the island.
It can't be a little bit round cause if it were then i would see the top of it ? So that must mean the earth is round ? Or do you have any other explanation ?

Air density and visibility. 

Here is a decoded METAR for GCTS(teneriffe)  Notice the bolded part down at the bottom. 

ID: GCTS   Tenerife Sur/Re, CR
REPORT TIME: 11 23: 0
VALID TIME: 12 March AT 00:00Z to 12 March AT 24:00Z.
INITIAL WX
   WIND: VARIABLE AT 6
   WEATHER: CAVOK
   COMMENTS: TX26/1214Z TN20/1205Z
TEMPORARY WX FROM 00Z TO 24Z
   WINDS: 70 AT 20
   WEATHER: PROB
   COMMENTS: 40
TEMPORARY WX FROM 06Z TO 24Z
  VISIBILITY: 2.8 MILES
   COMMENTS: HZ=



erm I thought CAVOK meant the visibility had to be over 10Km

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/CAVOK

What visibility is that quoting?

6
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   :(

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?

The orbits of the heavenly bodies.

Ok I can see this is going to take a long time.

So how did you come to the conclusion of a graviton from the orbits of the heavenly bodies?

It's the name I gave to the substance causing the heavenly bodies to orbit like they do.  I feel like we're going around in circles.

Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.

I know which is why I don't think he knows what a graviton in the theoretical sense means :P

I know exactly what I mean when I talk about gravitons, and as pointed out, it's not the same as what you're talking about.

I don't think you realise.

I'm trying to establish why you think this particle exists. What is the reasoning based on your deduction?

I'm trying to ascertain whether you've just made up 'your' version of the graviton.

In simpler terms, I want to know where it comes from and why you think it comes from there. I also want to know what you think it does.


7
Be funny if we get hustled. Because I have to say not sure I can't go far past the basics on this one.

I like a challenge ;)

8
Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.

I know which is why I don't think he knows what a graviton in the theoretical sense means :P


9
Finally the graviton is meaningless for this debate. The graviton is a hypothetical spin 2 boson that carries the gravitational force. Its range would be infinite and it couples to the gravitational mass of a body. However while it may ultimately be responsible for gravitation it is not also important to note that for this discussion it is not important as we are working in the very low energy/mass regime. That was an addendum as there have been 9 new posts while I was ranting.


You're right which is why I'm trying to establish what truth roundysomething means by a graviton. He say's it can interact with the atmosphere and disintegrate :P

10
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   :(

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?

The orbits of the heavenly bodies.

Ok I can see this is going to take a long time.

So how did you come to the conclusion of a graviton from the orbits of the heavenly bodies?

11
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   :(

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?

12
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   :(

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 11, 2009, 03:45:11 PM »
No, we think you're either one 12 year old, or possibly two 12 years old, who need to learn to spell better.

Let me ask you, where are you from?

And please no crap about that "Lovely" country. Just a serious answer (I know it's hard).

If you look at her post history I think that will tell you alot about the type of poster she is :P

I just take her with a pinch of salt tbh. Nothing she's written is worth that much time.


14
There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote
Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote
Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 11, 2009, 03:31:38 PM »
No, we think you're either one 12 year old, or possibly two 12 years old, who need to learn to spell better.

So you wanted to marry a twelve year old ?

ok

16
There's making a theory up and guessing what causes an effect. Then there's making a theory that encompasses past experimental results and proven theories. When a theory is put forward it stands on the shoulder of others.

Guessing about a theory is not the same as making an informed choice about one.

It's like computer modelling. We are guessing the answer to real life from equations of state and solver techniques.

There is a difference.

Well, scientifically all theories start with a guess.  That's what a hypothesis is.  But as a zetetic I tend to reject what I can't see for my own eyes without further evidence.  Thus, I only accept the existence of the Shadow Object because it's the best explanation I've seen produced thus far; that doesn't mean I give any real weight to it.  If it's ever disproven, or a better, more accurate theory takes its place, I will accept that without reservation.  But that doesn't mean I can't speculate freely about its existence and properties.  That's what this forum is all about.

Fair enough, but typically theories have a reason for existing, some observation that casts doubt on a current theory, but also directly supports the theory you form to replace it. Otherwise you're pretty much grasping at straws, only this form results in one inevitably clinging jealously to a single straw and announcing that it is the finest of all the other straws, because it's their straw. While the article certainly would act to disprove the current theory as to the cause of gravity, (as you said, theories are meant to eventually be tossed aside; the reactions of the future head of Cavendish Laboratory do sound childish, as they're depicted, at least,) I can't find anything that states that any other celestial body would be the exception and possess a gravitational pull, for whatever reason. His argument seems to be that the current theory as to why an object draws in other objects is fundamentally flawed, not that the pull itself doesn't exist.

I say 'I can't find' because I fully admit that I needed to read through it at about a quarter of my usual speed to absorb it properly, and there's always the possibility I missed the appropriate passage anyway. Unfortunately, science isn't my background of choice, so I'm admittedly a layman trying to wrap my head around the theories provided. It's mostly the fact that I'm a Psych major and Political Sciences minor that makes the idea of a massive conspiracy more than a little hard to believe, and studies in Philosophy and Rationality minor help me at least hold my own in the terms of analyzing and breaking down a provided argument.

My primary trip-up with the FE theory is that they use the concept of a gravitational pull at all, and an even more vague version at that. This isn't helped by the fact that the way they explain why one can have gravity and the other cannot is that, again, 'Earth is Special,' (still quoted from the FAQ,) which almost looks like free license to insist that, any time one of the 'rules' look to be in danger of contradicting the Flat Earth theory, Earth is just the exception, and so the argument is completely invalid.

For example, to my 'wouldn't gravitons have to be matter of sufficient size to generate friction if they were to burn up in the atmosphere,' the answer could be 'Gravitons Are Special.' Since it's a theoretical discussion, the other side couldn't say, 'No They're Not,' because then the first side would just say 'Prove It,' and then sit back happily, even if they themselves couldn't prove that the Earth/Gravitons were special.

Still, I have to admit I'm slightly relieved that you don't believe in the 'cold light' theory. Some of the ideas seem so far beyond the bounds of any conventional science, it would be virtually impossible to debate them because there's little frame of reference to rely upon. Out of curiosity, specifically which person, or which group of people, do the answers in the FAQ reflect? I notice that a few times I've made points, based on stuff in the FAQ everyone wants newcomers to read, the answer is, 'well, I don't really believe that stuff.'

The thing is that if you can accept that it might be flawed in any way, you can argue that it may be flawed in every way.  Obviously something is causing the apparent attraction between the masses.  But there's no concrete evidence that that something is the same force that causes the sun to form in the shape of a ball, or Mercury to orbit the sun.  That's where the leap of faith comes in; over the past several centuries scientists have leaned toward the theory that everything in the universe exhibits the same basic properties, so Cavendish and heavenly bodies must be connected.  I feel this is short-sighted.  Why completely discount the possibility that the Earth is just different?  It's inherently every bit as irrational to assume it's not different from the other bodies in the observable universe as it is to assume it is.

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

17
I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".

No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did.  It's a popular misconception.

Quote
His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses.  I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.

Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.

I don't deny that all of these things are theoretical, and in fact I don't claim to know one way or another, for example, if the Shadow Object exists.  I also don't think the sun and moon are literally spotlights (I think they only act as spotlights due to the limits imposed by the atmosphere) or that the moon radiates "cold light" (I feel it just reflects the light of the sun, as you do).  These types of things are merely the best way we have of explaining the phenomena we observe (eclipses, day and night, gravitation, etc).  They may well be replaced by better theories later on, as has happened repeatedly in the past.

The Cavendish Experiment on the other hand purports to prove the existence of gravity; this result is accepted by modern scientists without reservation.  I just think the notion that something else might be influencing those weights has been completely overlooked by the general scientific community in favor of the bigger picture from their point of view, which is that their theories need all the support they can get if they are to be accepted by the general public.  The scientific community is not immune to the workings of politics.

And it's not only FE theorists who have reservations about the Cavendish Experiment.  Here's an example.

There's making a theory up and guessing what causes an effect. Then there's making a theory that encompasses past experimental results and proven theories. When a theory is put forward it stands on the shoulder of others.

Guessing about a theory is not the same as making an informed choice about one.

It's like computer modelling. We are guessing the answer to real life from equations of state and solver techniques.

There is a difference.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 11, 2009, 11:13:04 AM »
Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Those papers give you the extent of the coriolis force. One even gives you the possible extent of the force which is alot more than that quoted in the FAQ.

Anyway

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

Bump te Bump Bump



Things that go 'bump' in the night
Should not really give one a fright.
It's the hole in each ear
That lets in the fear,
That, and the absence of light!

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 11, 2009, 10:29:55 AM »
Thank you for that last comment. Only thing i wanted to was to do rally behind MotherNature, but it has become painfully clear that this indeed is nothing more then a big troll forum.

For what it's worth, I really do think this is one of the best trolling actions i have ever seen. If you would just get some new material and stop bashing faulty spelling like every comma gives you an heart attack.

Again MotherNature it was not my intention of rob you of any credibility and i wish you good luck with these "people".

PS: To accomadate your Ortographobia I checked this post using Microsoft Word. So any errors you may find
      you can redirect to Microsoft.

It's no problem m8.

To be honest I don't care if they think I'm you.

It's quite interesting though. They instantly thought of a conspiracy ;)

Perhaps they think we work for NASA or something :P

So lets get back to the question.

So what makes chemical energy, chemical energy?

and what makes electrical energy, electrical energy?

Also why does the mass of a system increase when you add either chemical, electrical, potential energy etc...?

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 11, 2009, 01:22:11 AM »
The fact that you can differentiate the two of them is my point, no matter how slight the change may seem to an observer.

You can't differentiate between the two of them. They are equivalent.

In what way are you differentiating between them?

Seriously?
The difference in their forms...

It's the same way that chemical energy and electrical energy are equivalent, yet they can be distinguished from each other. They are simply forms of the same stuff.

Quote from: Your Wikipedia Link
In relativity, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and neither one appears without the other.

Quote from: Your Wikipedia Link
[...]allowing rest mass to be converted to forms of active energy[...]

Quote from: Your Wikipedia Link
[...]active energy in the form of kinetic energy or radiation can be converted to particles which have rest mass.



I'm not a forum alt of his. I'm pretty sure you have someway to track ip's on this forum i suggest you do it.
And the fact that 'he' writes in the same tone, has the same bad spelling and grammar mistakes, takes the same position as you, takes interest only in this thread, mentions the notion (that a request for correct spelling) is not topic related, and dedicates his name to you is all a coincidence? If you know what an IP is, then you should know enough about it to know that it doesn't prove anything.

Well believe what you want. I know 'Thankyou MotherNature' is not me.

Getting back to the different energy form thing.

Why does a system have 'chemical energy', why does it have 'electrical energy' ? Think in terms of what happens at the atomic level.

edit: Also why do you think the systems mass increases when energy is added to it?

21

What I'd like to know is the reason why they think it's dark energy. How do they know?

They say you can't get to the other side so what observations/measurements have they made to put together this theory?

22
The lack of replies is amusing.

What will be even funnier is the reply you will eventually get from someone who will either meekly attempt to pull apart your post and not the point the post is making, or they will stroll along with no actual experience or knowledge and say they are God and your stick in the ground experiment is wrong because they simply say it is wrong.

Have fun!


It is the way of this forum I'm afraid. Although saying that there are some people on here who actually want a bit of a rumble and like to debate :)

You just have to navigate round the trolls ;)


23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 10, 2009, 11:18:16 AM »
It's like a roller coaster you get on the ride. It goes up to a point then it pelts to the ground and does the loop the loop.

One thing that annoys you enough to keep trying to bate and flame me is because in some way you know I'm right.

I am right about matter and energy being equivalent.

I am also right about an experiment you can do at home to demonstrate the coriolis effect.

It's that or you fancy me. Or perhaps I get under your skin. In which case you shouldn't let someone who you don't know posting on a forum annoy you so much.

If you do fancy me then I'm sorry but I'm already taken ;)

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 10, 2009, 10:47:40 AM »
Well, I don't think someone made a fresh account named after you specifically to fawn over your debating abilities, post once doing so, then disappeared lol.

Well perhaps it was someone on here who knows the people who were wrong in this thread and didn't want to reveal themselves.

Or perhaps it was someone who agreed with what I was saying and just wanted to say I was right.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 10, 2009, 10:43:45 AM »
PS: bashing someones spelling is a sign of weakness and failure to provide valid arguments (general forum rule 1)

Claiming to have a PhD and not being able to spell and not at least trying to claim that you have dyslexia is a sign of a troll or a very stupid liar.

Why should I admit the fact that I do have dyslexia. I'm not here to win a spelling contest or try and get marks for my grammer.

When someone pulls the spelling and grammer card, I know that I'm doing well in a debate.

If you want to base my qualifications on my spelling and grammer then go ahead. I know what qualifications I've got. To be honest I've not seen any posts made by yourself that shows me that you are in any position to judge.

Also I like the fact that I have a fan :D

Thank you Mothernature. MotherMature says thank you ;)

Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.

Spelling and grammar police.

I've always wondered why they get so annoyed with it.

I could install an addon to my browser that corrects my spelling, but to be honest I cba.

Also I think the type of poster who always picks up spelling and grammar mistakes takes the attitude of one of these.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grammarian.htm

I have yet to be mistaken.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 10, 2009, 10:32:48 AM »

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 10, 2009, 06:51:29 AM »
PS: bashing someones spelling is a sign of weakness and failure to provide valid arguments (general forum rule 1)

Claiming to have a PhD and not being able to spell and not at least trying to claim that you have dyslexia is a sign of a troll or a very stupid liar.

Why should I admit the fact that I do have dyslexia. I'm not here to win a spelling contest or try and get marks for my grammer.

When someone pulls the spelling and grammer card, I know that I'm doing well in a debate.

If you want to base my qualifications on my spelling and grammer then go ahead. I know what qualifications I've got. To be honest I've not seen any posts made by yourself that shows me that you are in any position to judge.

Also I like the fact that I have a fan :D

Thank you Mothernature. MotherMature says thank you ;)

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 09, 2009, 10:46:11 AM »

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« on: March 09, 2009, 10:44:28 AM »

It's because you have a very valid point which they can't answer :)

I would also like to see how the FE theory links into this.

Although I think one of the arguments you'll get is the fact that they don't think the experiment exists.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 09, 2009, 02:14:48 AM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7