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.


Topics - The Philosopher

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Samuel Birley Rowbotham
« on: March 21, 2007, 10:02:32 AM »
Apparently his "scientific" experiments were disproved numerous times... and most of his other "proof" consists of long sequences of non sequitur speculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Before you tell me it's wikipedia, the information about the experiment being disproven came from these sources:

Nature 7 April 1870.
Hampden, John (1870): The Bedford Canal swindle detected & exposed. A. Bull, London.
Oldham, H Youle (1901): Annual Report. British Association for the Advancement of Science,
   London.

You can't really claim it's the conspiracy without involving the entire scientific community... I also don't see the motive for the conspiracy before space travel....

2
Flat Earth Debate / Relativity
« on: March 16, 2007, 08:37:08 PM »
This is something that really needs to be sorted out.  FE'ers seem to have many preconceived notions about the implications of general relativity and the equivalence principle that are just untrue.

Einstein didn't deny the existence of gravity, he just said that an acceleration due to gravity feels the same as (thus, is equivalent to) any other form of acceleration in the opposite direction.  This is what the equivalence principle means.  It does NOT by ANY MEANS imply that gravity does not exist.  Thus, gravity creates a field in which objects are accelerated in the same way that anything else accelerates. 

Quote
The key idea of general relativity, called the equivalence principle, is that gravity pulling in one direction is completely equivalent to an acceleration in the opposite direction. A car accelerating forwards feels just like sideways gravity pushing you back against your seat. An elevator accelerating upwards feels just like gravity pushing you into the floor.

He also, however, had an explanation for gravity itself.
Quote
If gravity is equivalent to acceleration, and if motion affects measurements of time and space (as shown in special relativity), then it follows that gravity does so as well. In particular, the gravity of any mass, such as our sun, has the effect of warping the space and time around it. For example, the angles of a triangle no longer add up to 180 degrees, and clocks tick more slowly the closer they are to a gravitational mass like the sun.
Quote
Many of the predictions of general relativity, such as the bending of starlight by gravity and a tiny shift in the orbit of the planet Mercury, have been quantitatively confirmed by experiment. Two of the strangest predictions, impossible ever to completely confirm, are the existence of black holes and the effect of gravity on the universe as a whole (cosmology).
Quote
No one except Einstein was thinking of gravity as equivalent to acceleration, as a geometrical phenomenon, as a bending of time and space.
Full article:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/

So why do you pick and choose what to believe Einstein about?  Have you confirmed all his experiments (and the experiments done based on his theories)?  If you have, you will also have proven to yourself that gravity exists.

Please respond respectfully, with a well thought out, logical argument.  Engineer, please refrain from posting your condescending one-sentence bullshit.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THIS IS WRONG, SUPPORT YOUR CONJECTURE WITH A COHERENT RATIONALE BEHIND WHY YOU THINK SO.  DON'T ANSWER THIS POST BY ASKING ME A QUESTION INSTEAD OF ANWERING MINE.

After all, the name of this forum is Flat Earth Questions and Clarification, is it not?

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Freefall
« on: March 09, 2007, 10:50:20 PM »
What is the explanation of your stomach rising within your chest (an easily experienced feeling) when you are in freefall?  This wouldn't happen if the earth were accelerating up to meet you.  Rather, it would only occur if you yourself were accelerating down towards the earth.

The equivalence principle works for when you're on the surface, but when you leave that surface and are still feeling the acceleration, you can conclude that it's not due to that surface literally accelerating "up" toward you.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Free Will
« on: March 09, 2007, 09:05:13 PM »
What are your opinions on whether or not humans have free will?

In a sense, I think it's an illusion.  I think about it this way: at any time that we are making a decision, our brains have an exact chemical makeup.  Based on the stimuli received by our five senses as well as our other cognitive processes operating based on prior experience, memory, etc., I think we are bound to decide whatever we end up deciding in that situation.  Even if we think over the decision for a long time, whatever causes us to finalize our decision was taken in by our senses or suddenly realized, which I believe was bound to happen when it did, due to chemical interactions in your brain.

Simply put, given the same exact situation twice (hypothetically sent back in time to the exact situation with no memory and the same exact brain chemistry at the time), I believe you would respond identically both times.

In that sense, everything can only happen a single way.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Pascal's Wager
« on: March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM »
Quote
  •     * You believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
        * You do not believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?



6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 03:11:35 PM »

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Sun as a Spotlight
« on: March 05, 2007, 07:27:03 PM »
If the sun act as a spotlight, then how does the FE model explain the sun's lighting the edges of clouds towards sunset?  The light seems to be coming from where the sun appears to be, which is beyond the horizon, though this is supposedly just an optical illusion?
If the sun were where you claim it is, it couldn't light the clouds the way it does.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« on: March 04, 2007, 12:22:14 PM »
According to one of the major FE models, the sun sets due to some optical illusion having to do with more atmosphere between yourself and the sun.  If this is true, then wouldn't you be able to wait until the exact second the sun disappears from vision, drive down your street toward the sun, and see it rise again before your eyes?  I'm fairly sure we'll all agree that's impossible.

Pages: [1]