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 - Amalgafiend

Pages: [1] 2
1
What was the original subject again...?

2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Free energy
« on: May 17, 2013, 09:24:36 PM »
There will never be free energy even if it was possible. As soon as anyone discovered how to do it, they'd patent it and license it out so that the end user still had to pay for it.
Thork, you are equivocating. 1) it would still be free energy, because the energy does not waste. 2) it would still be free energy, because it would be the service which would cost money, not the energy.
1) That kind of free energy does not exist because it busts the laws of thermodynamics.
2) As an end user it is not free and the people that control energy would never allow it to be.

I agree with 1 and 2.

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: May 17, 2013, 12:34:49 PM »
Uncertainty Principle, you can't see how fast something is and where it is at the same time with the same level of accuracy. What do you not understand about that?

I didn't ask what it was, I asked why physicists are so bad at explaining it to laymen. You're not even a physicist. I know perfectly well what it is. You think you're so smart, Rushy, let's see you explain it rather than just state it, shall we?
The reason you cannot measure both the position and speed is beacuse to measure something you have to interact with it. there are two ways to do this, to get the speed you use the wave function, and to get the position you use the partile function; when a particle hits another particle it interrupts its speed, and when you use a wave it is spread out so the position is only probable.

That's actually not true. It has nothing to do with the way we interact with particles, the Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental law of nature.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Explained

Veritasium explains it better than I ever could, and I recommend you watch the video linked at the end as well.
Maybe I misunderstood the question, but I was not explaining the uncertainty principle, just one manfiestation of it. and furthermore, because it is a fundemental law does not mean you cannot explain emergent phenomena in an emergent way (which is actually more understandable to the layman).

P.S next time you diagree with something I say, please make it explicit what you actually disagree with instead of going "meta", it makes discussion a lot less like quibbling.

4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is the Truth Knowable?
« on: May 17, 2013, 12:27:16 PM »
The issue at the centre of it all is that false things can be true;  Mutually exclusive things can both be true.  Once you see that, the rest falls in place.

Do you have an example?

Eating animals is good.  Eating animals is bad. 

I am a good person.  I am a bad person.

You are a good person.  You (the same you, btw) are a bad person.

Do I have an example? Yes.  Thank you for asking.
I am sorry, but you have not demonstrated anything other than the fact that language has the ability to blind you and to influence you into polarzied thought.
These statements are contextually ambiguous and therefore unfalsifaible.

5
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: May 17, 2013, 12:13:40 PM »
Uncertainty Principle, you can't see how fast something is and where it is at the same time with the same level of accuracy. What do you not understand about that?

I didn't ask what it was, I asked why physicists are so bad at explaining it to laymen. You're not even a physicist. I know perfectly well what it is. You think you're so smart, Rushy, let's see you explain it rather than just state it, shall we?
The reason you cannot measure both the position and speed is beacuse to measure something you have to interact with it. there are two ways to do this, to get the speed you use the wave function, and to get the position you use the partile function; when a particle hits another particle it interrupts its speed, and when you use a wave it is spread out so the position is only probable.

6
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Free energy
« on: May 17, 2013, 12:07:08 PM »
There will never be free energy even if it was possible. As soon as anyone discovered how to do it, they'd patent it and license it out so that the end user still had to pay for it.
Thork, you are equivocating. 1) it would still be free energy, because the energy does not waste. 2) it would still be free energy, because it would be the service which would cost money, not the energy.

7
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: An article I posted
« on: May 17, 2013, 11:28:26 AM »
Thanks.

8
Suggestions & Concerns / An article I posted
« on: May 17, 2013, 11:23:40 AM »
My article "if the earth is round..." is posted in the wrong forum, I was wondering if you could find a better home for it because it is only incidental to FET.

Maybe in "Science & Alternative Science"?

9
I didn't?  Oh weird, cause I did, and in fact the issues the first two points I made are not in your excerpt.  Do you not want to discuss this?

Ok, now you have the information why don't you go an research if he has the right defintion of time.

Saying "I don't know if this is the physics defintion of time" is not an argument.

Furthermore, the empirical evidence he brings up *in detail* is edison's experiment and how it could not have falsified einsteins theory.

Maybe a set of spatial coordinates can have one or more sets of time coordinates simultaneously. It may be counter intuitive but it is certainly no cause to defacto say a theory is wrong.

Does Einstein's theory claim this?

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunset related observations
« on: May 17, 2013, 11:11:49 AM »
1. Bendy light.

2. Bendy light.

i.e "Bendy Magic"

11
I have a couple of problems with this. First is that he deals only in abstract and not how the world works. It's all fine and good to make assertions, but they must be supported by empirical evidence. My second problem, is that he makes a definition of time and it is not clear if this definition is, in fact, the definition that applies to Physics. Maybe a set of spatial coordinates can have one or more sets of time coordinates simultaneously. It may be counter intuitive but it is certainly no cause to defacto say a theory is wrong.
Someone asked me to put in an excerpt, so that people could get a sample to see if they wanted to go through it. These "problems" you have are because you did not go and read the article before replying.
Quote
The more I think about it, the more I do not follow this argument. If the clocks arrive in the same time and the same place then they have the same space time coordinates. What I would infer as happening is the clocks took different paths through spacetime one clocks causing it to travel a shorter distance through the dimension of time. It's not like there is a time phase discrepancy being proposed, just that the clocks show different passage of time.
there aren't "two clocks" the argument is based around the assumption that the sun is at a certain position at a certain time and then trying to postulate that this time is different by a clock, so the assumption must be incorrect.

I do not agree with the argument, but if you go through it you will see how well it is argued.

12
If I really needed the job, I'd lie my way through the exams.

If you passed the exams by "lieing" "lying" , then you would have to "lie" all through the job to keep your job.

I'm not really sure if it would really sink in after a while in the case of Sceptimatic.

Sceptimatic is impressionable; the reason he hasn't changed his mind is beacuse he stays in his room and only comes and chats on the flat earth society forums.

13
If I really needed the job, I'd lie my way through the exams.

Don't you mean you would truth your way through them, hoping that the cognitive dissonance won't sink in?

14
You can babble on till the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that we are being "monumentally" lied to "time" and "time" again.

Babbling does not make something false, the fact that it cannot be scientifically tested means its false.

Quote
What you have been told, about the shape of the earth and space is mainly fabricated and yet you stamp and scream and use all kinds of F= blah blah blah to appear smart but the truth is, you are only memory smart, as in, you take in what your masters tell you and teach you, then relay that back to them on a test sheet, for the grand prize of a certificate and a pat on the head.
--->
Quote
What you have been told, about the shape of the earth and space is mainly conjectured and yet you stamp and scream and use all kinds of F= blah blah blah to appear smart but the truth is, you are only memory smart, as in, you take in what your masters tell you and teach you, then relay that back to them on a test sheet, for the grand prize of a certificate and a pat on the head.


Fixed and correct.
Quote
You will never, or shall I say, you will unlikely, ever change your stance, because you are in awe of those that have fed you a large helping of Pinocchio science.

pot meet kettle.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:39:57 AM »
I don't see any need for gravity at all.

That is because you don't unserstand what a theory is.

Quote

 It's just something that's made up to account for what we are told to perceive as to what we are in the universe and what is happening in the universe.

All knowledge takes this form. Name one theory that is not made up to explain what is happening in the universe?

Quote
I don't believe there is any such thing as gravity at all. Our own weight and the weight of everything else is sufficient to keep us on the ground on a flat infinite earth, which is the floor of the universe above us.

That is what gravity explains you eejit (apart from the flat earth bit, obviously)

Regards,

Amalgafiend.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:35:30 AM »
Welcome.  I would first suggest that you do a bit more searching and go over the FAQ and the wiki, as all of these questions have been addressed.  If you can't find an answer or are looking for more information, myself and others are happy to help.

Wants us too look at FAQ, but when we question it, says that the FAQ is not representative...  ??? :-\ :'(

17
I might as well post it up now, I have a little free time.
(29) But relativity will, even starting from this premise of time de ned by
the course of the sun, predict a time di erence for the plane surrounding
the equator13. It is, as I understand it, a necessary theoretical implication
of relativity that the clock starting and arriving exactly when the sun has
reached its zenith at Greenwich will not show 12.00 h sharp at its arrival,
but some fractions of a second less, and this although we have de ned 12.00
h as being the moment when the sun reaches its zenith at Greenwich. So, in
spite of our nominalistic de nition of time permitting no more than one time
function for one location, and assuming only that we can circumnavigate the
earth, we can infer from relativity that,
1. time will be 12.00 h when the sun reaches its zenith at Greenwich, and
2. time will not be 12.00 h when the sun reaches its zenith at Greenwich.
(30) Assuming that a circumnavigation of the earth is possible, the theory
is therefore contradictory.

[...]

(32) So we are faced with a truly enigmatic situation. And since the mathematical
formulae of special relativity are faultless this implies that one of its
empirical premises must be given up. But special relativity rests on only two
empirical premises. One of them is the assumption that the laws of nature
(physics) are universal; giving up this would be the end of all explanation.
And the other is the hypothesis of the constant spreading velocity of light.
Therefore it must be this second premise which has to be given up. In other
words: Special relativity does not explain, or establish, the relativity of space
and time; but it does refute the empirical hypothesis of the constant spreading
velocity of light 14. If we can travel around the world and come back to our
starting point, then the velocity of light, if it is nite, cannot be constant.
And since the constancy of the spreading velocity of light is the fundamental
premise both of special and of general relativity this all boils down to the
thesis: If the earth is round then the theory of relativity must be wrong.

18
Not many people will search through that to find out why. Could you provide a quote or something about how they disagree with each other?

Yes I will, I am currently at university at the moment. As soon as I get back i'll dig up the paragraph with the argument in it.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« on: May 16, 2013, 10:30:40 AM »


That's actually not true at all.  It's because of the rigid dogmatism of globularist orthodoxy that so few are able to see the light.  Not only have we not had the time,

Pure rhetoric.

Quote
we have not had the numbers either.

Yeah, but not because of the "globularists"; it is because there is no reasonable explanation of why should even consider the earth to be flat.


20
The Lounge / Re: Hello
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:59:40 PM »
I am new, you are new. Big deal.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ocean on Flat Earth
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:48:29 PM »
If anything, all the hostile posters coming here to defend round earth reinforce the fact that there really must be something to the flat earth.

People don't come here to joke around and have fun, they come here to condescend and argue adamantly that the world is a sphere, because science (which they didn't take any part in) says so.

This follows other patterns of hostile behavior towards anybody deviating from 'official' thought that has me pretty convinced there is something to flat earth theory. So if anything, I thank all the posters with hundreds or thousands of posts trying to steer people away from flat earth theory. There really must be something to it, and without you guys, I probably wouldn't have decided that.

Clearly, the dome of the sky holds in the air. Google even included it in their depiction of the flat earth.




reeks of wishful thinking.

This

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Spherical Excess"
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:32:51 PM »

My thoughts are that you don't understand what scientific method is: If you find inconsistencies in one theory it does not contribute to the proof of another.
In general what you are saying is right. Inconsistencies in one theory do not add credibility to another. However, this specific inconsistency, where the sum of the angles of a supposedly flat triangle add to more than 180 degrees, is evidence towards a non-flat Earth.

My point exactly.

23
Technology, Science & Alt Science / "If the earth is round then....
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:21:56 PM »
the theory of relativity must be wrong."

So says christoph von mettenheim.

http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-01/number-03/v01n03.pdf

I searched the website for this, but no mention, I wonder if you flat earthers have come across it.

There is also this:

http://www.amazon.com/Popper-versus-Einstein-philosophical-foundations/dp/3161469100/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368660050&sr=8-1&keywords=christoph+von+mettenheim




24
Yes, I got it, an illusion did it.

And what about the illusions required to explain sunsets, obscuration by the horizon, the south celestial pole, solar and lunar eclipses, the path of the sun, moon and stars, curvature, and countless other observable phenomena, in the context of a flat earth? At least the round earth explanation is simple: the earth is round. See? Covers all those observable phenomena in four words of one syllable each. Beautiful.

No illusions are needed for any of those things.

The sun disappears at the horizon because it is physically disappearing from view due to opacity of the atmosphere/perspective.

I thought you only went by observation, what is that line that seems to obscure it by degrees, that perfectly straight line?
Quote
Here is what Earth Not a Globe has to say on the subject:

    "The question, "how is it that the earth is not at all times illuminated all over its surface, seeing that the sun is always several hundred miles above it?" may be answered as follows:--

    First, if no atmosphere existed, no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the whole earth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could not exist.
Yet, I can see feint stars...

Quote
Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versā--the effect is a comparatively distinct disc of sun-light."
[/list]


see above

Quote

Indeed, if we watch the sunset on an unobstructed horizon, we see that the sun is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.





Pictures are verboten!

Quote
Solar eclipses are caused by the moon passing in front of the sun, as is physically observed.



Lunar eclipses are caused by a celestial body intersecting the path of light between the sun and moon, as is physically observed.



See above.

Quote

Retrograde motion occurs because the planets really are retrograding. The planets are revolving around the sun, which itself revolves around the hub of the earth. This causes a physical retrograde.



Yeah, okay...

25
When the sun sets we see the sun disappearing into the horizon. This is an observable fact. What we do not see is the sun going below the horizon. This is an assumption on RET's part. We are expected to believe that the observation of the sun disappearing into the horizon is an illusion, and that it is really going below it.

How would you see the sun going below the horizon? That would mean being able to see below the horizon, which would completely invalidate the meaning of the word 'horizon'.

When the sun "disappears into the horizon", it either ceases to exist, or has gone below the horizon. Which do you think is the case?

I can think of other scenarios, less plausible - but plausibility has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. for instance, quantum mechanics.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Spherical Excess"
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:13:52 AM »
On reading through Earth Not a Globe, I've spotted a few misunderstandings and faulty assumptions. I plan to start up individual threads on some of these, so that they can be discussed and, hopefully, clarified.

I've decided to start with the section on spherical excess, found here.

Spherical excess is the theory behind the 'triangle with three 90 degree angles' thought experiment, which has been proposed on this forum before. This experiment is a bit impractical, due to the distances involved, but "...the excess of three spherical angles above two right angles..." has been observed and recorded on smaller scales already.

Rowbotham contends that this excess is due to collimation, which he mistakenly compares to refraction: "...the influence of refraction or "collimation" in their instruments...". Apparently, he did not know that collimation is "the accurate adjustment of the line of sight of a telescope". Even then, if there were an error present in the measurements being made, it would be either left or right, but always the same way, and always the same amount, which would mean that the angles would still be accurately measured, and any excess found would be real.

So, given that spherical excess has been accurately measured as long as 150 years ago, despite Rowbotham's assertions to the contrary, I would consider it a reasonable contribution to the evidence supporting a round earth.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you don't understand what scientific method is: If you find inconsistencies in one theory it does not contribute to the proof of another.

27
So the sun setting on FE isn't an illusion?  Objects disappearing at the horizon isn't an illusion?  Get off your high horse because there are way more illusions with a FE than "illusions" with a RE.

When the sun sets we see the sun disappearing into the horizon. This is an observable fact. What we do not see is the sun going below the horizon. This is an assumption on RET's part. We are expected to believe that the observation of the sun disappearing into the horizon is an illusion, and that it is really going below it.

What you see is of no importance in this matter. In fact it can be drastically misleading.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:46:37 AM »
I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.

I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.

I don't think they want to be associated with the bible's viewpoint. From what I've seen, most of the FEers make it sound as though their initial assumption is because it looks flat on a local scale.

I do know of one person however that doesn't believe the Earth is rotating. However, how that leads to the conclusion that Earth must be flat and not simply a geocentric model, I'm not sure.

The problem here is that if you were to take perception as seriously as the flat earthers' do we would have to say that the earth seems to be amorphous, or confusing, to say it is flat requires some kind of conjectural process and not mere observation. The fact is this theory is biblical.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:36:15 AM »
Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?

Don't fall for his lies. They began with the assumption that the Earth was flat, and then worked from there. They also assume so much to get to where they are today with their multitude of theories.

Just ask them about their bendy light theory. They've never observed light to bend in the way they need it to, but rather they claim it to be the case because it needs to be so their theory can hold some water. Never mind that there are also many other holes in the theory that can't be explained even with unobserved scientific phenomena.

I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.

I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:00:29 AM »
Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?

Quote
Quote
I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.

Not with just one assumption but with many others aswell; The flat earth starts with the assumption that perception is accurate, which is demonstrated to be false by many things, not least Gestalt Psychology.

Quote
Quote
It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit.

There is a certain amount of truth to this claim. 

Quote
I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.

I call BS. FE has been falsified time and again; rowbotham was just one new resurgence of the theory, because he wanted to protect his precious religious feels.

Pages: [1] 2