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 - RealScientist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
Flat Earth General / Re: The Science Delusion
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:55:43 PM »
PS.

Watching the end of this video, just because I was bored, I found out that this fabulous PhD does not know the difference between "big G", a constant that we have measured to better than one part in 10,000 in every circumstance we have tried, and "standard small g", a constant by definition, which does not have to be measured because it is a definition, and "local g", a variable that changes all the time, from location to location, and depending on the altitude.

With his lack of understanding, which goes all the way to not understanding the difference between constants and variables, and different variables/constants that share similar symbols, he is not even a good candidate for entrance to an undergraduate program.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: The Science Delusion
« on: September 01, 2014, 03:33:43 PM »
So what?

Why have you copy pastared this?


I only thought I'd share something, sorry
You could at least bother to add your own commentary - just copy-pasting someone else's text without attribution isn't good practice.

Probably should be in the lounge as well.  Sheldrake may be a quack, but he does think the earth is round.
I completely agree with you. If you cannot even write a complete sentence about what you found interesting in a presentation, you should just avoid quoting it altogether.

Nevertheless, it is completely astounding that a scientist really does believe that the speed of light was measurably different in the 1930's or 1940's compared with the current value. There are hypothesis about different light speeds in the young universe (some billion years ago) and I would take them into close consideration if more evidence surfaced. But a difference of several meters per second in a few decades would be truly spectacular. Repercussions of this phenomenon would be visible in everyday life as the entire GPS system would stop working with the precision we all expect. Astronomical measurements we now make routinely would all appear to show that the whole universe changes speed in unison.

Rupert Sheldrake could, if he did believe his own dribble, make precise measurements of the speed of light (something we now can do with a precision of about one part in a billion) and get a Nobel Prize and every single prize for astronomers in this planet simply showing his results.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« on: May 31, 2014, 07:43:53 PM »
Quote
Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.
That is just not something any experimental scientist would ever say.

A complete vacuum? - What pressure?
Equal amount of force? - No description of this device? Was it equal speed, equal momentum, or equal force? They've all been claimed here in various re-tellings as though they are interchangeable (which they aren't) and then the same conclusion drawn each time, that rotation grants mystical free energy that only one discredited crank has ever measured.

If it was equal speed, the two balls would behave identically in a vacuum.
If it was equal momentum, the two balls would behave identically in a vacuum.
If it was equal force, then the "catapult" itself would have needed to be designed extremely carefully with good foreknowledge of the balls' mass, yet no mention of the design or weighing of rotating balls has come up.

Quote
In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity.
For some reason they only made a tiny number of measurements here, and for an absolutely unguessable reason, they stopped the crucial, rotating, experiment after a couple of slightly anomalously low results.

So, 15,000 rpm in a vacuum gives results with a statistical significance of nothing. The implication -of course- is that if one were to run the experiment more thoroughly then of course you'd see the gyros imbued with Ætheriç spirit. Sadly, he didn't and for some reason nobody else has either.
You are just scratching the surface of this de Palma pseudoscience. Yes, the most important conclusion from the results they show is that the statistical significance of everything they did is zero. But additionally the quality of the statistical analysis of the insignificant results is bad enough to flunk a first year pre-graduate student. Even if something worth investigating had showed in the experiment, the peer review of this report would have been devastating. Even Andrew Wakefield's statistical analysis (the one that showed a link between vaccination and autism) is dramatically better than this blabber.

And you can see how nobody is discussing Neptune because there is nothing to discuss. The FE people cannot even give a reason for the Ecliptic (the place on the sky where planets move) is where we know it is.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: May 31, 2014, 02:33:40 PM »
Quote
What about the south magnetic  pole?. Oh that's right you haven't found that pole yet using a compass. Because a compass only points North.

You mean the one where a free-floating compass will point straight up? Where magnetic field lines meet the earth's surface vertically? It was at 64.497°S 137.684°E as of 2007. Not sure where it is now, it tends to move a little bit. Maybe you could go find it for us? Shouldn't be too hard, just find the spot where the earth's magnetic field meets the surface exactly vertically.

You are giving this genius way too much credit. Anywhere not too close to the the poles the typical compass needle points to the North pole with the red side, the South Pole with the other side. Want to find the South pole? Look at the white side of the needle and start walking.

It is just a word game. The compass needle is not aligning with a magnetic field, it is pointing North, as if it knew what a pole is.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: May 29, 2014, 10:49:11 AM »
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.

Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.

This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.

While the first steps towards the invention of the electric motors we now have were given in the 1820's, it is totally ridiculous to say we had the kind of motors required in this thread anytime before the 1950's, and that is being very generous.

You cannot imagine the frustration that comes with robotics due to the lack of really good, controllable motors. Either the motors are too big, or too heavy, or not powerful enough to do what you want to do. Until recently we had to use hydraulic actuators instead of electric motors for many so called "robots" because of the power to weight ratio of electric motors, and that meant that by your neat little robotic arm you would have a fridge-sized, ugly, noisy, stinking hydraulic liquid compressor.

There is a reason why Vauxhall's diagram has a motor that is totally disconnected from the pendulum it is supposed to manipulate. Vauxhall would not know where to start designing it. I have experience in Robotics and I would not know where to start.
http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html

There you can see that the pendulum moves for hours after the power goes out, and nobody is worried about it. The pendulum works whether with or without the added impulse, and the mechanism to give some impulse is there, in plain view. If you want you can see and hear how the impulse is restored.

You can make your own pendulum, and make it work without any mechanisms.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: May 29, 2014, 05:18:45 AM »
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.

Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.

This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.

While the first steps towards the invention of the electric motors we now have were given in the 1820's, it is totally ridiculous to say we had the kind of motors required in this thread anytime before the 1950's, and that is being very generous.

You cannot imagine the frustration that comes with robotics due to the lack of really good, controllable motors. Either the motors are too big, or too heavy, or not powerful enough to do what you want to do. Until recently we had to use hydraulic actuators instead of electric motors for many so called "robots" because of the power to weight ratio of electric motors, and that meant that by your neat little robotic arm you would have a fridge-sized, ugly, noisy, stinking hydraulic liquid compressor.

There is a reason why Vauxhall's diagram has a motor that is totally disconnected from the pendulum it is supposed to manipulate. Vauxhall would not know where to start designing it. I have experience in Robotics and I would not know where to start.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: May 28, 2014, 06:16:13 PM »
Sure, I enjoyed it, but it turns out that there is literally no evidence Vauxhall will accept. Any pendulum could have hidden magnets or wires or a tiny propeller on the far side or whatever, so I doubt your video will be received any differently.

I was waiting to see how long it takes for a group of non-engineers to figure out the downfall of Vauxhall's claim. The magnets that Vauxhall believes the base has hidden are electromagnets the same size of those in an MRI machine. Guests would have to be searched with metal detectors and even the shoes with metal nails or metallic ornaments would have to be removed.

And not only that: a hugely powerful computer would be needed to calculate the strength of every magnet every second, the switching devices would make noise, the sensors needed to feed the location of the pendulum back to the computed would be in plain sight.

And just in case you have money for all of this, a small error would make the magnets rip the pendulum from the ceiling. Even a small error would be quite noticeable because every time the pendulum gets too close to a magnet it will jump. And the magnets would also create rotating torques in the pendulum.

In conclusion, nothing works in Vauxhall's supposed trick pendulum.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« on: May 28, 2014, 10:19:27 AM »
One of the first experiments that DePalma did in this area was to test to see if there is a difference in the gravitational behavior of a spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing. After an extensive literature search prompted by a question from one of his students at MIT, they could not find any evidence that this experiment had ever been done and so it became an educational exercise to see if in fact this variation on Galileo's "big rock vs. small rock" experiment would show any variation in the rate of fall.

That experiment was totally demolished by both mainstream scientists and posters of this forum. His experimental results (or one of his minions') were shown to be just cherry picking of favorable results in a mind-blowingly imprecise experiment. You have wasted the time of the readers of this thread trying to show that you, indeed, know what a scientific theory is, and failed.

But back to topic, Newtonian Physics and careful measurement of the planets' orbits did, in effect, show a perturbation in Uranus' orbit that could be explained by a then-unknown planet number eight. Whether the astronomers who searched for this planet were lucky and found it in a day, or less lucky and found it in a year, is totally irrelevant.

We have the measurements that give an approximate place in the Ecliptic where this new planet should be. More important, we have a model that explains the reason to only search on the Ecliptic. With these predictions, given by a clear theory, the search for a planet is viable.


9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: May 28, 2014, 09:39:15 AM »
The earth's axis of rotation has to pass through its centre of mass. There's nowhere else that it could pass through.

No matter where I attach the thread, exactly half the mug will be on one side and half on the other. The centre of gravity is directly below the string in each case. If I could be bothered to set up a more orthographic view and take a load more photos from a fixed position, it would become pretty clear where exactly the centre of mass is. But that isn't especially interesting.

The fact that my mug isn't a perfect sphere doesn't stop it having a centre of mass, nor does it stop it rotating quite happily about any axis which passes through that centre of mass. Now, if you tried to rotate it about an axis which didn't pass through the centre, you'd get a wobble. Like a misaligned wheel. But the earth isn't skewered on a cosmic axle, it's freely rotating in space. So it can only rotate about its centre of mass.

Your explanation is almost correct in every sense, but there are a few details that have to be discussed now, before an FE'er with no understanding of Physics starts to make a fuss.

First, your plomb does not exactly point to the center of gravity of Earth. The difference is minuscule, but measurable with the best equipment available. For example, if you measure the angle between the line of the plumb and a true vertical (using stars as your point of reference) while you are on the side of a heavy, rocky mountain, you will find an angle different from zero. Your plumb will show the approximate location of the CoG but not the exact place. In fact, for some time we had more than one estimate of the height of Mount Everest because the triangulation from different places gave different results.

Also, when you spin a non-homogeneous object from its center of gravity there may be a wobble. Take, for example, a car wheel with a dented rim. You measure the center of gravity and it is pretty much in the center of the rim. But you spin the wheel at some 100 km/h and the whole car shakes. By putting weights on the rim the dynamic balance is restored even though the static balance is slightly affected.

All of the above has affected Earth's spinning and makes it a very complex movement if we look at tens of thousands of years at a time. But because most of our planet is liquid magma, these effects are small. On the other hand, the slight imbalance of the Moon, and its lack of liquid magma, have contributed to its synchronization with Earth, making one side of the Moon face Earth all the time.

Now, back to the thread, nothing of the above affects the simple, straightforward experiment of the Foucault's Pendulum. The effect of these minuscule differences is orders of magnitude less than the typical one degree or so that Foucault's Pendulum moves.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« on: May 28, 2014, 06:22:54 AM »
Maxwell's original set of equations explains immediately the experiments performed by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, Dr. Bruce DePalma, Dr. Thomas Henry Moray, Dr. Nikola Tesla, and Dr. T. Towsend Brown.


Maxwell did understand the very concept of scientific theory.

However, O. Heaviside and H. Lorentz did not.


We are not putting into question the credentials of Maxwell, Tesla, Lorentz or any other scientist who did actual scientific work. We are, however, questioning your credentials and intellectual capacity to even talk about scientists.

Having somebody like you comparing, for example, Lorentz with de Palma, is like entering Alice's Looking Glass. Lorentz earned a Nobel Prize, and he earned it by being an actual scientist and mathematician of astounding insight. De Palma is just some nobody who cannot do an actual scientific experiment.

The only person in the world who agrees with you and would classify the scientists you mention in the way you have is you. And you expect others to accept your opinion even though you are not enough of a scientist to even understand what a scientific model is.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« on: May 27, 2014, 09:20:48 AM »
T. Roberts' work has been debunked completely: I included the entire pertinent material - his "analysis" is grossly in error, to say least.

Please read the first two messages posted by me today.


Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability...

No, it is not.

I don't even care whether Roberts exists or existed or not. What I am saying is that you do not understand the concept of scientific theory.

There is no point in discussing a single thing with somebody like you, who claims to know more than our best scientists but does not even know what science is. In fact, I take great pride in not having done any of the same bibliographic study you have. Giving your wall of text more than 30 seconds of my attention is just a sign of my desperate lack of better things to do.

For those who might want to know what I am trying to explain, here it goes:

A scientific theory is a model that we can use to make predictions on results of experiments and observations we have not yet done. You, as a scientist, apply the model (the theory) to your specific intended experiment or observation and make a prediction, hopefully before doing the experiment. Then, if the experimental result was predicted by the theory, the theory applies to your particular setting. If results are unacceptably different from your prediction, maybe your experiment is outside the domain of applicability of the theory.

In general, a theory is never "wrong". It is just not applicable to many, or any, experiments and observations. "FET", for example, is not, strictly speaking, wrong. It is just applicable to a non-existent set of experiments and observations.

One example (a totally oversimplified one): My theory is that all swans are white. As I make more and more observations, my theory stands. The domain of applicability of my theory now extends through every place in America that I have found. Then, acting on information from a friend, I go to Thailand and find a few black swans. My theory still stands for all of America, but I have to change it if I want to change its domain of applicability to include Thailand. But even when considering the possibility that other planets might have swans my theory that non-Thai swans are white still stands.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« on: May 27, 2014, 06:34:29 AM »
T. Roberts is a relativity theory fundamentalist, he says for instance: Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability...

This is a real gem. Somebody is a fundamentalist because he says a theory is well established in its domain of applicability.

Do you know what is well established in its domain of applicability? Everything! The very definition of domain of applicability is where the theory works!

I am pretty sure Roberts said something a lot more interesting to say than that, but you quoted him so much out of context that you left no content at all.

Voodoo, 2+2=4, cheating, the evolutionary theory of death ... have one thing in common. They are all well established in its domain of applicability. Am I a fundamentalist believer in 2+2=4?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« on: May 26, 2014, 08:38:31 PM »

No, what was stated by the OP (and you, several times) was that we know it is the correct model of gravitation because Le Verriere did some maths and pointed his telescope and found Neptune. This is decidedly not the case. It is fiction. A fairy tale of the Orthodoxy.

Leaving the nice story behind, which could be totally true, embellished or totally false (I don't care) what we can do is predict the exact location of Uranus with hair splitting accuracy, use our model of gravitation to predict this location including the gravitational effect of Neptune, and predict the exact location of Neptune also.

All of this might have been done with or without errors a century ago, and this is only interesting to historians. We can do it right here, right now, with a precision of just a few arc seconds. On the other hand, with the FE 'models', we cannot predict the location of the ecliptic on the sky, we cannot predict the position of any planets on the ecliptic, we cannot predict a single thing regarding planets. For all we know, based on FE 'models' we could find planets right by Polaris or inside the Southern Cross. We have no reason at all for Mercury to be so close to the Sun all the time, or for Jupiter to sometimes be opposite the Sun. We do not have a reason for Venus to have phases like the Moon, while Mars does not. We do not have a reason for any planet to be about as bright when close to the horizon compared with its brightness when close to the zenith.

And I could keep telling you things that FE does not predict, even though they were predicted by Babylonians and Mayas, for hours on end.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: some questions on phlogiston
« on: May 18, 2014, 07:59:25 PM »
The damn shame of all this phlogiston hypothesis is that jroa shuts his eyes and ears and shouts "lalalalalala I can't hear you" instead of doing the experiments that practically started modern chemistry.

One of the decisive pieces of evidence that atoms exist came precisely from this kind of experiment. You weigh things, burn them, weigh them again. You try to burn more combustible with the same oxygen. You try to burn less combustible with the same combustible. All of a sudden, you have evidence that matter is made of atoms! All of a sudden, you can start making a periodic table of elements! You can even start to understand thermodynamics!

But what does jroa take home? The knowledge that things burn. The knowledge that things don't burn without oxygen. In other words, nothing that Babylonians did not know, but with a word for the mixture of methane and ethane that evaporates from burning wood. Phlogiston is really just methane gas and ethane gas, but don't tell jroa.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Parallax's experiments.
« on: May 13, 2014, 07:14:07 AM »
Nobody is correct 100% of the time.  Yet, you people seem to love to find one little mistake that someone made and use it as a weapon to ruin the person's credibility.  I am starting to think that RE'ers take lessons from the Democrats.
It is more like 100 little mistakes. Each of the 100 reasons Earth is not a Globe is one of them.

We are more than willing to accept many errors so long as there are also some successes. But he has absolutely nothing to show on the positive side of his works' balance.

At best, he was unaware that the 6 mile distance he used in most of his experiments is not far enough to get conclusive results. At worst, he knew exactly how to get inconsistent results that he could manipulate.

16

I can connect a serial cable from a computer to another device or computer.  Guess what, the communications works on timing.  It is nothing new and has been around for a long, long time.  You are making the timing out to be something incredible, when it is just the way communications works.

I now know one thing beyond any reasonable doubt: jroa is not, in any sense of the word, an expert in electronics.

Someone who throws around serial communications (on a short wire) and AM and FM and PCM with just a Wikipedia fast search should dedicate his life to anything but communications.

jroa is about a four year undergraduate career from understanding what he is talking about. There is a reason for using a Gigahertz frequency range for GPS: its signals will be absorbed by most surfaces, so the only path from the satellite (or stratellite, if you want) to your receiver is a straight line. Also, the exact time when you receive the transmission is a function of, among others, the frequency of the signal. It is very difficult to determine the exact time when a signal starts, within, lets say, 10% of one cycle. In a 1 GHz signal, this a tenth of a nanosecond which adds 3 cm of error. On a 10 KHz signal, this is 10 milliseconds. That is, even in this hugely simplified example, a 3 kilometer error.

And if you want to calculate altitude with a signal that gives you kilometers of error, you will not distinguish between sea level and the Alps. If I did a better analysis of error, I could show you that you cannot even distinguish between the top of the Himalayas and sea level with a set of 10 KHz signals.

Just to talk about a single real life situation, amateur radio enthusiasts frequently used the 11 meter band to communicate worldwide. They had no idea whatsoever about the source of the transmissions they got until they interchanged information. Signals could bounce tens of times between, say, Europe and the US, and the number of bounces changed frequently during a single transmission.

Our use of frequencies, modulations, coding techniques, antennas, electronics and all other aspects of communications has improved dramatically every decade since before the second World War. These are not subjects where an "expert" like jroa can have a five minute Wikipedia research and give authoritative conclusions.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: some questions on phlogiston
« on: May 11, 2014, 08:21:50 AM »

I bet we could come up with a rebuttal to RealScientists seemingly accurate argument.  If you want to try to collaborate on this, I would be happy to help.  You can poke holes in any science.  I think you were onto something with your incandescent theory.

This statement can only come from the Archetypical Unscientific Mind of a flat-earther. Scientific knowledge is not there for the disgruntled to poke holes in. It is there as a tool for all of us to understand nature. Holes are not poked with sophistry, they are poked by experiments and observations that produce results that do not fit the current theories.

This whole idea of calling the same things we already know with a different name and calling that a hole is ... just plain useless.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: some questions on phlogiston
« on: May 11, 2014, 05:38:39 AM »
Please explain 'incandescent air'.

 ??? Do i have to bring the dictionary as jroa does? Incandescent, i.e. very hot air, so that its EM emission in the visible spectrum is clearly visible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence

EDIT: With air i actually mean also the gaseous product of the reaction.

Here comes a nit pick, just because I do not want jroa to capitalize on a simple misconception to give credence to his useless idea.

The flame is not, in general, incandescent air. It is a mixture of air and a gas which is burning. You can heat enough the nitrogen and oxygen in the air so that they will become plasma and emit heat, but this does not happen in everyday household situations.

This is the reason why some very hot objects do not produce a flame but other, less hot objects do. Some components of wood vaporize and ignite while on top of the wood, producing the yellow flame. On the other hand, some metals burn producing characteristic colored flames which do not correspond to the color of the black body radiation corresponding to its temperature.

Lots and lots of questions are answered by our current knowledge of Physics and Chemistry, including the presence or absence of flame, the change in mass of a burnt object, the color of the flame, the amount of heat a chemical reaction produces, and so much more. On the other hand, phlogiston only explains the two or three things that medieval scientists already knew.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational conundrums
« on: May 10, 2014, 03:08:20 PM »
Are you asking for proof that Einstein believed in the Aether, or that he believed in the Aether after he published his theories about Special Relativity?

You are consciously equivocating two different things. Luminiferous Aether, which was totally contradicted by Relativity, and some work in progress that Einstein attempted some 10 or 20 years later, and which did not produce any actual theories.

We do not know why Einstein gave the name "aether" to the properties of vacuum (space devoid of all matter) but the name is irrelevant because that work in progress never produced any scientific theories or areas of study that other scientists could develop.

These "discoveries" of scientific breakthroughs that every scientist in the world missed, but that an anonymous non-scientist couch potato found hidden in plain sight, have a simple reason: Scientists work on actual Science, while the couch potatoes are "quote mining".

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: some questions on phlogiston
« on: May 10, 2014, 10:11:30 AM »
Could you somehow be unwittingly measuring dephlogisticated material and you are assuming that oxygen has been added?

Yes, and I could be using un-fairied material, or sacramented material, or there could be a witch affecting my experiment from Salem.

Fact is, each and every claim I can make is meaningless if I cannot use it to make predictions. And our current knowledge of Chemistry predicts in detail the events that happen during a fire, while phlogiston only gives you predictions after the fact. In other words, nothing.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: some questions on phlogiston
« on: May 10, 2014, 07:27:56 AM »
Your instrument is calibrated for what you expect it to read.

And all the world's scales which have showed for over a century that burnt things have gained mass and the air they were burnt in has lost it?

And most important, if you are a honest scientist you calibrate your equipment to international standards before you do the experiment and report your results even if they contradict your previous belief.

What you jroa is saying is that the instruments are magical and decide for themselves what calibration will give the expected results. This process ( a scale divining that you want the burnt sample to weigh more than the original and showing the expected result rather than the real one) would only be possible in Oz.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: some questions on phlogiston
« on: May 10, 2014, 07:18:56 AM »
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?

I can't remember if I did this one in high school or not; maybe you'd like to try it yourself since you're in doubt?

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/change-mass-when-magnesium-burns

Since these types of experiments invariably yield the result that the mass increases, then the phlogiston explanation has to include negative mass, a very strange concept indeed! That's the main objection.

However, since the discovery of oxygen and oxidation, we already have a complete explanation without the need for phlogiston, so I don't see why I'd need to prove that phlogiston is impossible. Rather, the burden appears to be on you to explain why it is necessary. :)

I do not own, nor do I have access to, a precision scale.  If I can get a hold of one, I will give this a try.  Magnesium is easy enough to get and shave.

I got a scale that measures to a precision of 0.01 grams for less than 30 dollars. This is not a problem of not having the equipment, it is a problem of knowing that you will only spend your dollars (however few) in an experiment that will pop your bubble.


23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: some questions on phlogiston
« on: May 09, 2014, 08:56:46 AM »

That is unfounded based on observable conditions. It doesn't matter if i have a 10 kg block of wood, or a 1 kb block of the same type of wood, it's going to ignite at the same temperature, where as if i have a 10 kg of a different type of wood, it may ignite at a different temperature.

According to you, everything should ignite at the same point.

You are not quite getting the real problem with phlogiston: you cannot prove the non-existence of phlogiston just as you cannot prove the non-existence of invisible dragon fairies that make all combustion happen. But you can make innumerable predictions about combustion using simple chemistry knowledge.

You can do some cheap philosophical arguments about phlogiston, and in a sense they are arguably true. But you cannot make a single prediction starting from your phlogiston idea. On the other hand, the total amount of heat you can get from a piece of wood (given enough availability of oxygen) can be predicted very well by finding out the amount of carbon in that piece of wood.

This is the eternal "Science versus Truth" cheap philosophy that is used everywhere in this forum.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational conundrums
« on: May 08, 2014, 08:48:01 PM »
I was referring to Einstien's view on aether.
Here we can all see the difference between a true scientist like Einstein and a dumb quote miner like Vauxhall. There is a difference between the hard science done by Einstein and which is as strong now as ever, and his tentative work and speculations, which ended in no great scientific breakthroughs from his last decades' work.

As with any other scientist, most of his work ended in unsubstantiated speculation and was forgotten, while his great achievements will be celebrated now and forever. Einstein had, as so many other scientists, a vague idea that empty space is not quite empty if it has properties, and gave the name "aether" to this vague idea, which never even got a clear definition. He just as well could have named it "queasiness" or "jaundice". The fact that he gave a name to this work in progress (which never stopped being a work in progress) means nothing.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: 90% of RE beliefs
« on: May 05, 2014, 09:07:28 AM »
The speed of light remains constant in the presence of ether, but without ether the speed of light is not.
Therefore, when using an ether-less point as a frame of reference, special relativity does not apply.
Think of our ether-bubble as a single object accelerating through the ether-less environment.

This is a claim as outrageous as some of the old ones (some 2 or 3 years ago), where intelligent ink was proposed to avoid accepting that human perception is easy to fool.

You are rewriting the whole theories of Relativity just because you do not like them. The starting point of Special Relativity is the demonstration that the ether you are mentioning does not exist. You could just as disingenuously have declared that microscopic pixies push and pull the light waves to make them go at the speed your whim wants.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's razor and the flat earth "theory"
« on: May 04, 2014, 06:21:51 PM »
Occam's razor is often misinterpreted to mean that the simplest hypothesis is correct.

In truth, it's far from an ironclad law and in any case its purpose is only to help choose one of several otherwise equally strong hypotheses. For example, you hypothesise that the circles in your crops were caused by aliens, you test this hypothesis by watching your fields and seeing who draws the next circle. You see nobody and conclude that it was aliens, invisible aliens!

Occam's razor simply warns against inventing aliens and inventing invisibility just to explain something that was probably just a couple of bored students with string and sticks that you didn't notice. Yes, they both equally explain the crop circles, but one of them requires a whole load of new and otherwise unfounded assumptions. Plus it makes you look like an idiot.
To quote Sceptimatic, I don't profess to be correct. I said "almost always correct", and "usually correct", but not "always correct."
I am very confused by this answer. Occam's Razor is never about being correct or always correct.

This whole FES is the best example ever of when not to use Occam's Razor. If you do not have two hypothesis of equal predictive strength, you cannot use Occam's Razor at all. When one hypothesis explains just about everything (except some observations at the galactic level or near black holes) and another does not even correctly predict the movements of the Sun, Moon and planets, (something that even the Babylonians and Mayas could do very well), there is no need for Occam's Razor. In fact, in this case there is no use or applicability for Occam's Razor.

When you have two hypothesis of equal predicting power, Occam's Razor is the only guide you can use to choose one. When one hypothesis is absolutely superior to another, Occam's Razor is just the wrong tool for a problem that is already solved.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 03, 2014, 04:11:45 PM »
I saw his interview with my own two eyes.  I have no idea why it is no longer available on youtube.  I am simply repeating what I remember him saying in the interview.  You can either believe me or not. 

We had a discussion back in March about this, and I was able to easily find his videos and post them here.  Now, it seems like somebody (maybe Math himself) is trying to remove that evidence.  Maybe he was threatened, or maybe it was removed forcibly.  I don't know. 

So, if you want to call me a liar, then fine, do so.  But, at least have some reason to do so.
So, in fact, you have nothing. No interview. No lecture. No first hand claims. You do not even have a first hand claim that any secrets were divulged, whatsoever. You do not even have the name of the interviewer or the alias of the uploader. We cannot even check whether he made a serious interview or made an interview skit.

The Lizard Men ate your homework and the proof is that you can't find it.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 03, 2014, 02:06:29 PM »
You set the goalpost yourself, claiming that there are plenty of whistle blowers inside NASA and you, yourself found exactly zero whistle blowers. In fact, you are the one who wants to move the goalposts to the point where an outsider who has done some graphics is considered by you as an insider.



He is not an outsider.  He worked as a contractor for years, then was actively recruited to become a full time employee, but never accepted.  He was friends with many people in NASA.  While he did not have a security clearance, he was, on several occasions, made privy to information about NASA secrets.  He knows the artwork that he has done for them.  He never made claims like, "I know the space ship is fake."  He simply shares what he knows, and yes, he does sometimes make assumptions and speculations.  However, he knows what he knows, and you are trying to discredit him simply by implying that we can not believe comedians.  His comedy shows are obviously, and starkly, different from his serious speeches. 

So, if you claim "he was, on several occasions, made privy to information about NASA secrets", then you have some kind of evidence of this. At the very least, you have the information of someone who talked with Math Boyler and knew which secrets he was made privy of.

Or, more probably, you just made this whole post up out of thin air. You do not know Math Boyler personally, you have not talked to him, you have no reason whatsoever to believe he knows more than what any graphic artist knows. If you did have any information on Math Boyler beyond what a Google search shows, you would at the very least know where to find the missing interviews.

And even if Math Boyler did believe anything you believe in, you have not given evidence of a single reason why Math Boyler would know more than anyone on the street about NASA.

A claim that somebody knows something that we do not know what it is? Is that all you have about the only whistle blower you supposedly know in the whole of NASA?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plan to unravel Nasa's evil plot
« on: May 03, 2014, 11:33:50 AM »
This is the original goalpost:
There are already plenty of NASA whistle blowers out there.  Do a search on youtube. 

I am probably already on NASAs watch list.  Why would they hire me, other than to execute a trap?
Please give me a single name. A whistle blower is not a conspiracy theorist, he is someone who is inside the organization, telling us the outsiders about it.

There are some whistle blowers who talk about inefficient or dangerous practices in NASA, but not even one saying that the shuttles do not orbit the Earth.

All in all, your claim is pure bull excrement. The only lists you probably are in are not hit lists of any kind. They are more like spam lists.
... and this is the final goalpost ...
We are all still waiting for you to show Math Boyler doing anything other than comedy or graphical art. You have not even shown us why you chose him as an example of a whistle blower inside NASA.

You set the goalpost yourself, claiming that there are plenty of whistle blowers inside NASA and you, yourself found exactly zero whistle blowers. In fact, you are the one who wants to move the goalposts to the point where an outsider who has done some graphics is considered by you as an insider.


30
You can't hold the flat Earthers to any less standards than you do for your scientists.

We do because different theories in our scientific community come with at least some peer reviewed evidence or statistics. Your theories come with out of date text and things people on here have made up....

Please show us some evidence of string theory.  Oh, what is that?  There is no evidence?  It is just a theory?
What do know about string theory?
You have to be careful when talking about String Theory. People like the FE'ers in this forum know a couple of facts that are enough to make some reasonable people look silly:
- String "Theory" is not a theory in the same sense as, for example, Newton's Laws of Motion. It is, in the scientific lingo, a hypothesis. And until new fields of Physics are developed, (or maybe forever) it will continue to be an unobservable hypothesis.
- String Theory is a mathematical model, and as such it can only be tested for internal consistency. It currently does not predict observable phenomena of any kind.
- As such, String Theory is most probably useful as a seed for new hypothesis that will become observable in the future. It will not become as Relativity, a frequently verified, observable theory that gives us verifiable predictions.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14