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 - spaceman spiff

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Equitable Math
« on: March 05, 2021, 12:26:17 PM »
Not to derail even more the conversation, but you can look the wikipedia articles for some of the subjects Pezevenk mentioned and realise that they are not about numbers at all. One in particulars is Category theory .
If you are feeling even more curious, you can go to arxiv and search the math section for papers about different subjects, and you will find out that a lot of it does not involve numbers at all. A quick look and I found this https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.03105.pdf which unless I missed some does not even have written numbers

2
Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?
« on: January 12, 2021, 12:13:48 PM »
If your tube was level you would not be seeing down that slope.
Sort yourself out for crying out loud.
I have not read all 100 pages, but the discussion about the tube is fascinating. How can someone be so much in denial? Then comes the bolded part, and it kind of makes sense now. Sceptimatic is either defining "level" as "not being able to see down a slope through a toilet tube" or has his beliefs so deeply ingrained that he cannot accept the results of this experiment. Or, in other words, he has indoctrinated himself and no amount of evidence will sway him.

On the chance that we are talking about the first case, could you please define "level", Sceptimatic?

3
I don't quite understand this. Bounds for Pi can be found mathematically, and as such, if the math is sound, they must be true. Since the proof of the bounds of Pi by successive polygons has been revised and it's sound, Pi has a maximum value of 3.146 (achieved with 48 sides, I think). Unless you can show errors in the derivation of the bounds, it's impossible for the value to be wrong, in the same way that's impossible for sqrt(2) to be rational.
The fact that your measurements are different from the standard value is irrelevant; Pi is a mathematical constant, not a physical one.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stretching Space
« on: February 24, 2018, 06:18:32 PM »
Before I attempt an explanation, I'd like to say that the evidence for the shape of the earth isn't at all affected by this. We are talking cosmological scales here, way beyond the earth.
So, onto the op. "Stretching space" is just shorthand for "the scale factor is increasing with time". As someone mentioned above, the geometry that describes the universe has a multiplicative factor on the spatial part (the scale factor). No matter the 3D geometry (flat, spherical or hyperbolic), distances between objects are always affected by the scale factor. If the main component of the universe now is vacuum energy,  it means that the scale factor grows with time (as opposed to radiation or non relativistic matter). It's not that hard, but it's easier to say "space expanding" than say "scale factor growing with time"

5
Flat Earth General / Re: A Question For Those Good At Math
« on: January 17, 2016, 04:05:42 PM »
Quick calculation gives me the horizontal distance travelled as
sqrt(2*r*D - D^2), with D the depth and r the radius of the earth. Plugging in the actual values, the submarine would travel around 80000 feet in 24.67 minutes

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Discovery of Neptune
« on: July 07, 2015, 02:26:47 AM »
Interesting. 2 posts from "flat earthers", none of which address the topic

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of gravity
« on: June 24, 2015, 10:46:06 AM »
Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor
Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.


This is easy. You can actually calculate the buoyant force from scratch, but I'll skip that and say that Fb=d*V*g, where d is the density of the fluid the object is immersed in, V is the volume displaced by said object and g is the gravitational constant. In this case, the only forces at work are gravity and buoyancy, so for an object to remain stationary (neither sink nor rise), the two must be equal
mg=d*V*g -> m=V*d. Any object with a mass greater than the mass of air for a same volume will sink, otherwise it will float. Let's take the example of the balloon (I will work in the metric system now, without changing the numbers; the results won't change). He has a density of 0.164 Kg/m3, and let's consider the balloon a sphere of radius 10cm.
Volume of the sphere=4/3 Pi*r3=4188 cm3. To get the mass of the He, just multiply it by the density (carefulwith the units) and you will get 0.686g. Add that to the mass of the balloon itself (let's say 2g), and the total mass is 2.686g
Now for the mass of air: at sea level and normal temperature, air has a density of 1.2 kg/m3. Multiply that by the volume and you get 5.02g
Since 5.02>2.686, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force, and the balloon will rise. The density of air is not constant with altitude, however, so at some point the two will equalize (if the rubber resists) and the balloon will be stationary.

spaceman spiff,

The author is talking about the mass of the Earth and the balloon filled with Helium.

His quote,"With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density."
Yendor
You're confusing which force acts on which body.  Since we are interested only in the motion of the balloon, the fact that it exerts a force on earth is irrelevant. There are only 2 forces acting on the balloon: gravity and buoyancy, and that's all you need to calculate its motion.
And yes, the force on the balloon due to the earth has the same magnitude as the force on earth due to the balloon; Newton's 3rd law. The author is saying that the balloon would not rise if the force on earth due to the balloon is the same as the force on the balloon due to earth. These two forces are acting on two different bodies; the author apparently forgot that, or I didn't understand the quote

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of gravity
« on: June 24, 2015, 07:08:36 AM »
Thanks.
There's even more you can do: given the difference in densities of He and air, you can calculate the volume you need to lift a specific mass.
1 m3 of He has 0.164 kg of mass, and the same amount of air has 1.2 kg; therefore, each cubic meter of He in a balloon can lift 1.2-0.164=1.036kg

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of gravity
« on: June 24, 2015, 06:55:20 AM »
Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor
Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.


This is easy. You can actually calculate the buoyant force from scratch, but I'll skip that and say that Fb=d*V*g, where d is the density of the fluid the object is immersed in, V is the volume displaced by said object and g is the gravitational constant. In this case, the only forces at work are gravity and buoyancy, so for an object to remain stationary (neither sink nor rise), the two must be equal
mg=d*V*g -> m=V*d. Any object with a mass greater than the mass of air for a same volume will sink, otherwise it will float. Let's take the example of the balloon (I will work in the metric system now, without changing the numbers; the results won't change). He has a density of 0.164 Kg/m3, and let's consider the balloon a sphere of radius 10cm.
Volume of the sphere=4/3 Pi*r3=4188 cm3. To get the mass of the He, just multiply it by the density (carefulwith the units) and you will get 0.686g. Add that to the mass of the balloon itself (let's say 2g), and the total mass is 2.686g
Now for the mass of air: at sea level and normal temperature, air has a density of 1.2 kg/m3. Multiply that by the volume and you get 5.02g
Since 5.02>2.686, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force, and the balloon will rise. The density of air is not constant with altitude, however, so at some point the two will equalize (if the rubber resists) and the balloon will be stationary.

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Dinosaur Boat Theory
« on: May 30, 2015, 09:27:35 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic
yeah, let me know when a liquid being denser than a solid makes any sense
Really. There is one very obvious example: water.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: dual earth prediction verified
« on: May 28, 2015, 06:52:50 AM »
according to the round earth model, gravity is caused by the mass of the earth: and so as you increase in altitude, you would expect a linear reduction.
dual earth theory explains the variation of gravity with altitude by passing aetheric whirlpools, each one being a cause of a downwards force. in this case, we would not expect linear behavior: technically we would expect discontinuous behavior, but this can be hard to detect without measuring at every inch. what it predicts, however, is a non-linear decrease.

guess which is right?
Linear reduction of what? I imagine of the force. So, if gravity were dependent ONLY on the mass of the earth, it should be a constant. This is not the case, however, as it's also inversely proportional to the distance squared. Go to wolfram alpha, type in 1/x^2 and see if it's linear

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: March 29, 2015, 05:52:55 PM »
Quote
distance is space between points. clearly, that depends on space.
Now I'm beginning to understand, and by "space" I think you mean different topologies with different metrics. This is fine, the distance between two points can change.
Quote
like the analogy of a spring. you can get a pulled-out spring, and the length of the spring, along the material making it up, is set. compress the spring, it can fit in a smaller space that the stretched-out spring, but the length of it remains the same.
in that way, space can be thinner or thick. the density of the spring is constant each time, in the same way the time it takes to cross a certain amount of space remains the same. however, you can stretch out that space (like you stretch out the spring) so you can cover what seems to be, from an outside perspective, more distance, in the same time as it would take you to cross the compressed spring.
But then it fails. You can call it thick or thinner as you want, but that only leads to confusion; also, that analogy only works if moving along the spring is the only option. Again, if space streches or compresses, the distances between points should follow. I'm still not sure why you're claiming otherwise.
Quote
i am not thinking of space as a material, it's just very hard to explain it without relying on analogy.
space does have to be composed of some substance however, if it exists. scientific theory states space is expanding: what does that mean? if space is nothing, how could it expand? there is clearly a difference between space and non-space. non-space is what space expands into: non-space, essentially, doesn't exist (by any definition we could use).
This is a common misconception; when scientists say space is expanding, what they mean is that the distance between any two points is increasing with time. And space is not expanding into anything, it's simply expanding: things that are a given distance at this moment will be further apart later on.
Quote
space does exist: space is not nothing. if you disagree with either of those statements, please tell me why. if you do agree, as you should, then all i've said follows. if space is not nothing, then it is something.
that something is not matter, is higher-dimensional, but it clearly exists.
Space is not nothing, but it is abstract, at least in the normal sense of the word (as in spacetime, Euclidian space, etc.). Therefore it's not nothing, but it also doesn't have substance

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: March 29, 2015, 02:38:42 PM »
I asked you to define space because your terminology is incredibly confusing.
Quote
distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter.
I don't get the analogy; you can tell how much matter there is in a given volume if you know the density (or calculate the density given the mass and volume). The common (somewhat informal) definition of distance is "space between points".
Quote
and given that there is a difference between space and non-space
What is non-space, and how does it differ from space?
Quote
space is technically made of spacetime
This is either VERY wrong or you are redefining terms. Spacetime is an abstract concept; mathematically, it's a manifold with some metric. You are thinking of space as something material, which is not, and therefore it does not need to be composed of anything

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ask me about dual earth theory
« on: March 29, 2015, 07:15:35 AM »
Could you please define what you mean by "space"?

15

As most people here know, it states that we can't experimentally decide, if a force acting on us is caused by acceleration or gravity.

Uh... yes we can.  Ask any F1 driver sitting in his McLaren or Mercedes on the grid at Monaco LOL.

He is actually correct. Acceleration and Gravity are described as the same force in general relativity.

A black hole that spins actually has a higher gravitational field than one that is not. Weird hey.

Unfortunately mr Prophet this also makes it impossible to prove that we are accelerating vs just being pulled in by gravity from mass. The forces are presented as exactly the same.

Until we actually get to know something about the friggen stuff!

I never wanted to prove that we are accelerating, I wanted to prove, that the EP is not valid except if earth is flat. To say the truth, I couldn't bother less what shape the earth is, but I wanted Neil's money.

Nevertheless, I'm still waiting in vain to get disproved. But the smartypants play it safe and feel easier arguing that mountains exist or debunking  JRowes aether stuff, you know. So maybe, who knows, earth is really flat, guess I'm on to something.
The EP only applies locally (and locally, the earth is approximately flat). Once you give up locality, changes in the gravitational field and/or tidal forces will show you if you are accelerating or under the influence of gravity. In the case of the earth, there are measured differences for g in different places; however, in a lab, these variations would be so small as to be negligible and the EP would apply.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« on: February 24, 2015, 08:48:44 AM »
Quote
Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
Assuming the rubber balls are all the same (same mass, made of the same material, same size), that the pressure would be solely due to the rubber balls and taking out every outside force, the pressure would be equal all around.

edit: BJ1234 beat me to it
All balls aren't the same. They are all under different pressures depending on where they are under the dome.
If you squash ball into balls then the balls at the bottom are going to be under more compression than those at the top. If you don't accept this, leave it at that because there's no way I'm explaining any further. It would be pointless.
Please reread what I posted. I assumed that the pressure is only due to the balls. There's nothing else there. If you are saying that there's also air in this scenario, then your analogy fails because you still need to explain why there's more air pressure in the bottom. In the case of a dome filled only with rubber balls, the pressure due to these balls is the same everywhere (assuming also no gravity).

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« on: February 24, 2015, 07:45:41 AM »
Quote
Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?
Assuming the rubber balls are all the same (same mass, made of the same material, same size), that the pressure would be solely due to the rubber balls and taking out every outside force, the pressure would be equal all around.

edit: BJ1234 beat me to it

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« on: February 24, 2015, 07:31:14 AM »
Sceptic, I think you are missing the point. According to yourself, everything is touching everything. So when I move something to the left, it compresses the air creating a region of lower pressure to the right; this should result in the object being pushed back to the right (and vice versa). Clearly this doesn't happen. There's something special about one specific direction (down) that your model doesn't explain.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Philosophical meanderings.
« on: February 18, 2015, 08:34:39 AM »
Yaakov, the argument goes more or less like this (I'm very bad at phrasing arguments in writing)
- God is omniscient and omnipotent;
Quote
Its not at all G-d's fault that we live in the craphole that we do. That is entirely our fault, and the decisions that we choose to make. We could do better.
- But god is omniscient and he knew before creation what decision we'd make and the path it would take us
- He is also omnipotent, so he could either prevent these things from happening himself or imbue us with the knowledge necessary to do it.
- He did neither; either he doesn't care about us/is evil/immoral, is not omniscient or not omnipotent.

Incidentally, I'd like to ask a question: by some strange power, I know with 100% certainty how somebody's life will be, every single moment of it. Does this specific individual has free will?   

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Southern (so called) hemisphere.
« on: February 17, 2015, 05:16:36 AM »
Quote
If you turn the map back the way I mentioned but stweaked the countires around it, putting the hotter climate countries around that circle and the colder cliate ones further out, then it makes more sense for the sun's heat/light to hit those parts closest on either side of the inner part whilst not managing to reach the outer by at the very least the heat of it.

That's why part of countries are so cold whilst others are not, maybe. I say maybe because it's simply a theory of mine.
Bearing in mine we are talking sun reflection as I mentioned many times.

It's makes more sense to me.
You don't "tweak" the countries around in a map (assuming you want a useful map); it's completely irrelevant if it makes sense to your or not. To draw a map you need data gathered from the real world, and not your head.
Quote
Why only Australia and New zealand, plus a small part of south America and Africa be on that part?
Only if by "a small part of south america" you mean most of. And I don't get why the fact that the earth is spinning around the sun implies that there should be an equal distribution of landmass between north and south.

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: A fourth dimension...?
« on: February 02, 2015, 10:01:46 AM »
It depends on what type of string theory. I'm no expert, but if I remember correctly there were, at some point, 5 or 6 formulations of string theory. They required 10, 11, even 26 dimensions. It was proved that some formulations were equivalent (you could treat one with perturbation theory and you would end up with another), and the number decreased. Right now I think 10 or 11 is the preferred number of dimensions. Mathematicians and physicists deal with abstract spaces of any number of dimensions, such as the phase space (the plot of every possible degree of freedom of a system).

22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Confirming the existence of God
« on: September 16, 2014, 05:03:49 AM »
In order for us to confirm the existence of a supernatural being (whatever it may be) scientifically, there must a measurable (more than once) effect of this being in our world that can only be a result of supernatural action.  The method you proposed (someone being in different places at the same time) is very unreliable. And this is the problem: it's not so clear what would be a purely supernatural phenomenon that could be measured in practice (a true miracle*)
That being said, it's true that there are things we currently don't know, but ascribing them to a conscious supernatural being is falling into the god of the gaps fallacy.

*True as opposed to what some people call a miracle, which is just a very improbable event

23
Quote
God IS after all a loving God. Upon one's death, Jews generally (not universally) believe that the soul suffers for a year and a day in a Hell-like state from demons of its own creation, after which it goes to Sheol, that resting place wherein there is neither happiness nor sadness until the coming of the Messiah and Judgement Day, at which time all the Righteous will be resurrected to Paradise on Earth, the Garden of Eden. The Unrighteous simply won't resurrect. Their souls will be snuffed out as if they had never been.
So this loving god sends the dead to a hell-like state, then to a place of complete dullness until such time as he decides to come back. Maybe I got something wrong, but it doesn't look like this god loves us that much.

24
This 9.8m/s/s makes no sense.

What sense is there to make about it? Objects literally fall 9.8 meters every second for every second. It's like saying that I have 5 fingers on my right hand. I say that cause my right hand quite literally has 5 fingers on it. I was able to measure exactly 5 fingers units. Similarly, one can quite literally measure that during, say a minute, an object will increase it speed by 9.8 meters during each second of that minute.
So what you mean is, an object falling will fall 588 metres in one minute or am I getting this wrong?

If it is free to continue accelerating then yes. It isn't once it reaches terminal velocity though
You're losing me. Explain this simply so I don't get confused.

The way I'm reading it is, 9.8m/s/s means that an object falling will fall at 9.8 metres every second it's falling. So if it's free to continue falling I could say, whoops there's 1 second gone and that's 9.8 metres covered...then I could say, there's 5 seconds gone and it's covered 5 x 9.8 metres which it's now covered 49 metres. Would this be right?
No, and this is basic high school physics. 9.8 m/s/s means that for every second the speed of an object falling will increase by 9.8 m/s. If it starts at zero, then it covers 4.9 m in the first second, 19.6 m in 2 seconds, 44.1 m in 3 seconds and so on. It will have a speed of 9.8 m/s after 1 second, 19.6 m/s after 2 seconds and so on (disregarding air friction). You're confusing speed and acceleration which are incredibly simple concepts and shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: July 22, 2014, 07:31:03 AM »
The problem of these analogies is that the force in a rubber band increases with distance, while with gravity is exactly the opposite; if you could imagine a rubber band like that it's easier, since you don't have to tear it, but just to stretch it enough so that the pull back force is negligible.
Then it's easier: tie a remote controlled plane to a pole with this special rubber band, so that the plane points at a 90 degree angle from the rubber band; you can't steer the plane, just accelerate or brake. You take off with it and it swings around a bit until you got it on a stable rotation (let's say the altitude is fixed for simplicity). Now if you give it a little boost, it will stretch the rubber band more and it goes to a farther "orbit". If you give it enough boost it will overcome the force of the rubber band and go straight (remember that it's a special rubber band, the force decreases with distance).

26
Arts & Entertainment / Re: FIFA World Cup 2014
« on: June 27, 2014, 06:37:59 AM »
Aren't Brazil and Argentina in the same grouping, preventing this as a final?  I thought I heard all four south American teams were in the same grouping.
They would only be in the same grouping if one of them placed second in the group phase. And there are 5 south american teams in the round of sixteen, Brasil, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay and Argentina, and Argentina can meet another SA team only in the finals.

27
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Infinity
« on: June 25, 2014, 10:05:39 AM »
Is it something to do with the fact that the set of Real Numbers is uncountable?
Yes, I believe so. I don't know if this proves it, but I think it's interesting: you can always get a real number from an infinite sequence of real numbers, by taking the succesive digits in the decimal cases and adding 1 to each, and this number will not be in the sequence, like this:
0.4501...
0.6783...
0.9233...
0.1935...
------------------------
0.5846...
So, even if you try to get every real number between 0 and 1, there will always be a way to get a real number (between 0 and 1) that will not be in the original sequence; so, there's no one-to-one correspondence between naturals and reals. This also implies that there's infinite real numbers between any two natural numbers, so that the infinity of the real numbers is greater than the infinity of the natural numbers (I think he called it cardinalities, not infinities).

28
Well as interesting this was to read, a few comments. Ones that seem to be made over and over again. Theory has a specific meaning in science. Skepti as a scientist you should know this. But as a refresher here is hypothesis and theory.

hypothesis: a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research.

theory: a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.
  Kendra Cherry, aboutpsychology.com

In general parlance most people use theory to mean guess or in rare instances hypothesis. Since we are discussing evidence and ideas that hopefully represent the real word, model it and make predictions we should be using these terms correctly. If you are discussing an idea that has a ponderousness of evidence and makes predictions then please refer to it as a theory, eg. Quantum Theory. If you have an idea which you cannot present much evidence for and is limited in predictive power please use hypothesis. And please none of this, well we are not scientists etc. you are putting forth what you claim to be scientific ideas. Use the correct nomenclature.

Thank you!
Gravity theory, quantum theory, black hole theory, Higgs boson theory, warped space time theory, special relativity theory.
...
I get told time and time again that I don't present evidence. I present enough material to give food for thought. What I don't do, is copy and paste answers. I use my own mind and my own words.
...
I don't get impressed by people telling me about this and that which they copied from web pages/wiki or whatever, because that's the whole thing I'm actually dismissing. So if I dismiss mainstream web pages, I'm not exactly going to accept someone regurgitating it, am I?
There's no "black hole theory", nor "Higgs boson theory", they are a part of a bigger theory. Warped spacetime theory is the currently accepted theory of gravity. As for quantum theory...the device you are using right now to type and read messages is a product of quantum mechanics. As are a bunch of others we use regularly.
The problem is that you dismiss "mainstream" science based on nothing, or a lack of understanding which leads to an argument of personal incredulity from you
" Hahahaha, warped spacetime hahaha, how can you people believe that?
gravity hahaha, this is just magic so that the equations work and everyone stays duped by the scientists

These are not actual arguments, they are baseless opinions and hold no ground. Same goes for your hypotheses, they are not backed up by anything except by your own mind and logic, and are often self-contradictory.

29
Very imaginative! But this model obviously has more than two problems.

First, anyone facing the inside of the strip should be able to see the opposite side, or at least a dark band of no stars at night. Second, there would still be the same problem the round flat earth has (the usual one with the North pole at the center and the South pole stretched out around the rim), times two: no possibility of crossing over either the South or the North pole without hitting an edge. Third, the only feasible way I can think of making the Earth a mobius strip is to take something like the Mercator projection map and twist it round. Try this with a paper map and see what happens. Actually it's worse, because you'd need a map where you had something like the Western Hemisphere on one side and the Eastern on the other. Then give a half twist and join the ends... you see what I mean?

Maybe I've got this all wrong. Think you could show us a diagram?


I'm afraid I can't organise diagrams of my own to post (yeah... I know that sounds like a cop out LOL) but I originally posted an image of a moebius band like this one:



The sun would be located over the orangeŚ"inside" part, which would be midday at that location, and of course midnight would be on the "outside" at that location; the dark blue part.  Or the opposite side of the world effectively.  The scale of this diagram is way off;  the diameter of the moebius band relative to its width would be in the order of 1,000s to 1 rather than the 3 to 1 shown.  Which would possibly explain why people on the "inside" of the band wouldn't be able to see the opposite "inside" of the band.

Bear in mind that the moebius band is fully contained in a torus-shaped atmosphere.  Possibly, particulate matter in the outer "layer" of this atmosphere would contain sufficiently major surface tension in order to hold it together to effectively form a "skin". 

If you consider this as a doughnut, then the hole in the doughnut could potentially consist of an as yet undiscovered fluid so denseŚlike mercuryŚthat photons couldn't penetrate it.  In fact the whole atmospheric torus and its inner moebius band-shaped planet earth could be floating in the fluid, maybe as billions of other planets could be.
I may have missed something here, but a Moebius band is a 2D object. There's no inside/outside, there's only one side. You'd have to add thickness to it to make it a possible model for the earth, but then inhabitants of this would be in principle able to "flip over" to the other side.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Can't FE theory even agree on a map?
« on: June 06, 2014, 07:32:17 PM »
Quote
Also, can you substantiate the claim that the Milky Way is apparently in the center of the universe? There is likely no center to the universe. Your map is inherently flawed and amateur. I could make a better map of the universe with my hands tied up using my mouth to hold the writing utensil.
The milky way is in the center because we can't travel to distant galaxies to map the universe from there. We know distances and positions of celestial objects relative to us, and to nothing else. Therefore a system of coordinates useful to map the sky will have its origin on the solar system. Building another system of coordinates with origin in the andromeda galaxy for example would just introduce unecessary and difficult transformations.
Quote
Do you type up your own posts? Because you clearly state that it's a map of the observable universe, which is not the entire universe. The universe is supposedly expanding and is thought to be infinite. Where is the infinite map of the entire universe?
This is not a map of the entire observable universe though, as the redshifts are too small. That aside, we have no way of ever observing nor being affected by something outside of our observable universe, so it cannot be mapped. Complaining we don't have a map of the entire universe (if it is larger than what we see) is complaining we cannot travel faster than light

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6