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 - JackBlack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 435
Also, sandokhan has few other papers on his dispoisal.
And how many actually support his claims?

He is good at finding papers to pretend that his claims are justified, but he has much more difficulty with finding those that actually support his claim.

Didn’t I mention, stick to the ““Force ON the particle and Force BETWEEN particles” in the following. There is a difference between "ON" and "BETWEEN"".
That in no way addresses what I have said and just appears to be playing semantics.

Here is detail of analysis of mass m inside hollow sphere that I did in this forum.
And it is still just as wrong.
The miscalculation in shell theorem is that HS attracts M but M doesn’t attract HS.
Where have you pulled this from?

According to the shell theorem, and just the proof of it, there is no net force on a point mass M inside a hollow, spherically symetric shell, due to that shell; and there is no net force on the shell from the point mass.

The same math is involved for both.
It is literally identical, because for any 2 masses, the gravitational force of mass m acting on mass M is the same as the gravitational force of mass M acting on mass m.
So if either are 0, both must be 0.

For the gravitational force on the point mass:
Yes, the nearer section of the shell exerts a greater force than the more distant part, but there is more of the more distant part to cancel it out, resulting in a net force of 0.
For the gravitational force on the shell:
Yes, the nearer section of the shell experiences a greater force than the more distant part, but there is more of the more distant part to cancel it out, resulting in a net force of 0.

Forces do cancel out becuase both earths turned into new single mass with different gravitational acceleration of "g".
Do you mean when the apple and Earth combine and have no net force acting on them?
That doesn't mean Earth doesn't experience a force and the apple doesn't experience a force. All it means is that the combined object has no net force from the parts inside it.
If you are considering them as separate objects then the forces don't cancel as the forces are acting on separate objects.

If the theory is not true even for small objects
That is a very big IF as you are yet to show any problem.

Galileo is wrong because “Two objects don’t fall at the same rate”
Let drop object A (steel sphere of diameter of 1000 m) from a height of h =100 meter
Let drop object B (feather) from a height of h =100 meter as well
Both objects are dropped in the absence of air but not simultaneously.
And then both objects take basically the same time to fall to Earth.
Once more, the acceleration of Earth is insignificant.
Even with a weight of 1 000 000 kg, falling from 1 km; Earth moves less than the radius of a proton.

Thus any difference is insignificant.

Newton is also wrong because he failed to state what he supposed to state in his law of gravitation. He thought both point masses fall towards each other with just simple accelerations
Because they do.
Having both objects accelerate towards each other doesn't magically change the acceleration of each object.
This is why Earth and the moon orbit their common barycenter rather than just having the moon orbit the centre of Earth.

Two forces cancel each other if they are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. Same thing here in the universal law of gravitation why would two point masses move towards each other at first place when they pull each other equally but opposite in direction?
Why do you repeat the same refuted BS again and again as if it hasn't been refuted countless times already?
This is no longer you simply making a mistake. It is you intentionally ignoring facts that get in the way of your argument.

As these forces are acting on DIFFERENT OBJECTS they do not cancel.
It is only if the 2 forces are acting on the same object that they cancel.

Your insanity would indicate all motion is impossible. Go try and push a box, well, when you apply a force to the box, the box applies a reactionary force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This means that you have 2 equal and opposite forces which by your insanity cancel out meaning there is no motion.

This means all the nonsense you spout following this completley false statement is likewise unjustified nonsense.
Scientists do not accept that the forces cancel.
Scientists accept that there is a net force, or an unbalanced force, acting on the object which moves it.

Now are you actually going to acknowledge that this entire line of "reasoning" of yours is based upon a false premise and thus amounts to nothing more than nonsense?
Or will you continue to ignore it and continue to pretend that forces acting on different objects magically cancel?

If the universal law of gravitation is wrong
And you are yet to establish it is. So any further speculation based upon that is useless, unless you want to use that further speculation to show that it can't possibly be wrong.

The following diagram shows a glitch
No it doesn't.
It shows your dishonesty yet again.
We have already been over this. You are wrong. There are not magically more midnights.

For any angle you pick there is exact 1 midday and 1 midnight.
If you use a period of time, then the "midday" section of Earth will have travelled a shorter distance than the "midnight" portion of Earth.

So what is clear is that you are spouting whatever nonsense you can come up with to pretend there is problem while completely ignoring the refutation of it.

Until you start addressing these refutations of your arguments I see no reason to look for an alternative model as the one we have now works quite well.

jackblack, you must be very confused
No, that is still you.
You seem very confused and think that it is impossible to pull a rope because if you try, the rope will magically create an extra force on the other end and hold it there.

There is no need for you continually repeat the analyses as it gives no additional information.
We all know that my analysis like the analysis of many others leads to the correct conclusion that the net force on the rope is A+B, and thus if there is no net force on the rope A=-B, and thus the premise you build your entire faulty argument on is false.
If A!=-B, then there is a net force on the rope.

Again, that is not a problem for us. That is a problem for you.

In order to save your complete failure of an argument is answer the simple question I provided, without all the spam.
Once more, you claim that at boat X, the man is pulling on the rope with a force of A. This is the only force being applied to the rope at this end.
Yet magically, the rope at this end experiences a force of A-B.
Just what is providing the force of -B to this end of the rope?
We know it can't be anything, as the person at this end is only providing a force of A, and there is nothing else at this end pulling on the rope.
It can't be the other person as they are pulling on the other end, not this end.
So again:
Just what is providing the force of -B to this end of the rope?

Until you answer that, all you have is pathetic spam, insults and denial.

The pretentious prick from Australia
You mean the scared little Sandy needs to insult people to pretend they are brave and correct.

We have been over you complete lack of understanding of how a rope works countless times.

If you wish to assert such nonsense yet again, tell us what is providing the force on the end of the rope.
You have an end, where person 1 pulls with a force if A, and then by pure magic a force of B just magically appears for no reason at all.

Once more, the only thing that can be applying that force is the person pulling on the rope.
That means they are pulling on the rope with a force of A+B, and your premise is false as both people pull on the rope with an equal force, exactly as required to have a net force of 0 on the rope.

Your very hypothesis describes an impossibility, where there are unbalanced forces acting on a rope, yet the net force on the rope is 0. Your hypothesis is nonsense which demands that A+B=0, while |A|!=|B|, which is literally impossible. The only way to have no net force on the rope is if A+B=0, which demands that A=-B.
If A!=-B, then there will be a net force on the rope and thus the rope will accelerate. That is what actually happens in reality, with the rope moving as the people pull on it. Likewise in reality the rope isn't massless.
This is not a disaster for reality (including the RE). It is just a disaster for you as it destroys your argument and leaves you looking like a fool.

There is no magical doubling of forces, just your complete lack of understanding of basic mechanics.
Rather than being an attack on Newtonian gravity, it is an attack on your credibility.

Again, if you wish to assert such garbage yet again, answer the very simple question:
You have the person on one side of the rope pulling with a force of A. Where does the force of B magically get applied to the rope at this end, if not by that person?

Remember, by your insane, physically impossible scenario, it cannot be the person, nor can it be anything else. You must have this force arise out of pure magic, with absolutely nothing pulling the rope, in complete defiance of the known laws of the universe.

Then, if you can do the impossible and do that, you can tell us why the same thing doesn't happen with that end of the rope free.
If the garbage you present was correct it would be impossible to move a rope, because any time you tried, the rope would just magically produce a force countering that on the other end and just pull the rope tight, and then you pulling would just pull you and the non-existent object closer together.

All is well justified clearly.
No, it isn't.
So far the only "justification" you have provided is by taking statements out of context, pretending a statement that applies for small objects on Earth should also apply when you drop a body the size of Earth onto Earth; completely misrepresenting how forces cancel where you pretend a force on one object can magically cancel with a force on another object to produce no net force; and a bunch of useless links which show nothing to support your case.
One of your most recent ones, in an attempt to prove Newton wrong, outright ignored a key part of the shell theorem, that if you are inside a spherically symmetric shell, then the force due to the shell is 0. Instead it pretended that the shell still magically contributes as if it was all located at the centre.

It all about mutual understanding however wording like “spouting nonsense” is not tolerable.
No, what is not tolerable is asserting something is wrong with no justification at all, and continually refusing to actually address the refutations of your claims.

Now, will you start actually justifying your claims and addressing the refutations of them?

We have learned two forces cancel each other if they are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction.
Only if they are acting on the same body. That is because they add to 0 and thus they collectively produce no net force.
When they are acting on different bodies that is not the case at all. Instead each body has a force on it.

For example, if instead of 2 Earths, you had 3 in a line, then the one in the middle would have a net force of 0, because the force on it from the left Earth would be cancelled out by the force on it from the right Earth.
Note that this middle Earth, with no net force, would not move.

Both weight forces are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. They cancel each other therefore they do not feel weight of each other
Again, completely wrong as already explained.
The forces are acting on different objects and thus do not magically cancel.

This is the acceleration of earth at which it falls towards an apple, which is so so small to be noticed however it (earth motion) can be detected when we increase the mass of an apple to a level when it becomes comparable with the mass of earth.
Yes, like if you increase it to the mass of the moon and they then orbit around their common barycentre.

This is not the only problem
It isn't a problem AT ALL!
You have failed to show any problem at all.
Instead you just repeat the same mistakes and act like an APPROXIMATION not applying well outside the range it was made for is a problem.

Newton also derived it for hollow spherical masses wrong.
Stop just making baseless assertions with links which in no way justify your claims.

Provide the justification for why you think it is wrong here.

If one thinks both A and B fall towards each other with just an acceleration of GM/d2=Gm/d2 then s/he is wrong. It is very clear that higher types of motion are involved in their falling just because on-center decreases on either (both) sides not just on one side. (Am I wrong to say that?). Isn’t it justified?
Yes, you are wrong. No, it is not justified.
No, they aren't.
They each accelerate towards each other.
That doesn't mean the distance between them will shrink at that rate.

The acceleration of each object is not necessarily the same as the time rate of change of the time rate of change of the distance between the centres.

Instead, that time rate of change is the sum of the 2 individual rates.

i.e. if you have 2 objects of equal mass M, that are separated by a distance d, then the acceleration of each mass will be equal to GM/d^2, and thus the time rate of change of the time rate of change of the distance between the centres will be 2*GM/d^2.

That means at some time t, the distance between them will be 0.
If you assume they are spherical masses of radius r, you have 0 at the centre, object 1 starting at d/2 and object 2 starting at -d/2, such that the initial separation is d.
Then at some time t, the 2 objects collide such that object 1 is now at r and has travelled a distance of d/2-r, object 2 is at -r and has travelled a distance of d/2-r, and the separation between them has shrunk to 2r, or by d-2*r.
It is a simple scaling factor.

There is no problem here, just annoying math.
If you want to do the math to show there is a problem, go ahead.
I might later, but as you need to solve d2x/dt2 = -k/x^2, which is not trivial to solve, I can't be bothered at the moment, especially when you show absolutely no willingness to deal with the refutation/rebuttal of your claims and instead you just move on to something else.

Now like I said, if you have a point, make it. Don't expect others to do your work for you.

So if we don’t know the “g” of the moon then why astronauts pretended their moonwalks similar to the celestial body which has 1/6th gravity of earth.
But we do know. And there you go again, just assuming it is all faked with no justification at all.

Both axial rotation and orbital rotation of earth are independent of each other. We know that both noon and anti-noon are happening together at once instantly. Neither one can be delayed. At any instance, multiple midnights are not possible for single noon.
And there isn't multiple midnights for any noon.
An "instant" represents a single point in time, which corresponds to a single angle, not an arc or any length. At any angle in your image there is a single noon and a single midnight. Thus there is no issue.
If you want to focus on a length, then you still need to consider the rotational motion of Earth and consider just how far it moves in a given time.
In the sun centred inertial frame, the point on the surface of Earth at midnight is travelling faster than the point on the surface at noon. Thus it will sweep out a longer path.

The nonsense you are spouting now is like claiming that rotational motion is impossible because the outside needs to travel further than the inside.

Is Galileo's statement correct, theoretically?
Three masses are involved in the Galileo statement. Mass of earth, mass object A and B. it's not necessary A and B have to be small masses like feather and hammer. You will notice what I said earlier once you play with masses of A and B including earth.
Deal with what has been said rather than just ignoring it.

Play with the masses all you like, it won't magically make Earth accelerate differently at the same time.
You cannot physically have Earth accelerate more towards the heavier object while at the same time have it accelerate less towards the lighter object when both objects are in the same direction.

Like I said, and clearly demonstrated, on Earth, the acceleration of Earth is insignificant.
And again, Earth accelerating towards the object doesn't magically mean the objects accelerate more.

As both ge and gie are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction therefore both will cancel each other. This means both earths are weightless
The 2 forces are acting on different objects.
That means each object has a weight.
What it means is that if you were to place an object in the middle of them, there would be no net force. Or alternatively if you consider the system of both "Earths" there would be no net force and thus the centre of mass of the system would not move.

Flat Earth General / Re: Laussedat Moon observation
« on: August 10, 2020, 02:23:23 PM »
From the Earth to the Moon is fiction.

Fiction containing real things doesn't make it true, nor does it make the things connected to those real things real.
That would be like saying because Harry Potter contains London it must be true.
Or because it mentions the prime minister of England that it must be real and everything he says in the novel must be true.

There is no evidence of atmosphere on the moon.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cypriot hacker extradited to the US
« on: August 10, 2020, 04:15:11 AM »
The problem is with the US, it wants to extradite from all other countries but the moment a US citizen is implicated, it says nope, even if the person admits to the police in the country involved it was them, is released on bail, suddenly they are whisked out of the country on diplomatic immunity.
You mean someone who already had diplomatic immunity was whisked out of the country.
That is because they had diplomatic immunity which I think is a slap in the face to the justice system.

So it seems the US does allow extradition of their citizens to foreign countries.

Gravity model presented by Newton and Einstein is just simply wrong and so does the Copernicus’s model of solar system. Its a fact and I provided it with justifications.
No, you didn't.
You baselessly asserted it was wrong with no justification at all in this thread.

If you think there is a problem with it clearly explain just what you think is wrong with it.
Make sure you can distinguish between it being an approximation and it being wrong entirely, and between what the model indicates vs what people use the model to do with potentially more approximations.

here is another glitch in the solar system and hence in the solar calendar as well. The occurrence of midnights are more than the noons.
No, it isn't another glitch. It is just another baseless claim from you, with a picture that makes no sense at all.
Just what are you trying to say?
The path of all the points at midnight is longer than all the points at midday so that magically means there are more midnights? If so, it simply doesn't work like that.
Any point on Earth is not simply following along the line at midnight or the line at mid day. Instead, Earth rotates and a point cycles between them.

I asked it for reasons so that I can take you to the subtle nuance of the theory missed by the illuminati.
Alternatively, you could just provide just what argument you want to make, instead of appealing to a vague question with no apparent justificaiton.

Is Galileo's statement correct, theoretically?
If you took 2 objects, in a vacuum, side by side, and dropped them simultaneously, while in the gravitational field of a much larger object, they would hit the ground at the same time.
That is because the larger object (e.g. Earth) would be accelerating upwards at a negligible rate towards both objects the same amount.
Earth can't magically accelerate towards the heavier object faster than it accelerates towards the lighter object. It needs to accelerate the same as it is the same Earth at the same time.

It is not dropping it from 2 antipodal locations. The objects are dropped side by side.

The only iffy part would be if the objects were not dropped together, where you then have the minuscule acceleration of Earth.
For example, if you dropped a 1 kg object from roughly the surface of Earth, it would accelerate towards Earth at a rate of roughly 9.8 m/s^2.
Meanwhile, Earth would accelerate towards it at a rate of 1.6e-24 m/s^2.

If you ignore the acceleration due to Earth, and for simplicity approximate the acceleration as constant, and the object was dropped from 1 km, the time required for the object to fall to Earth would be 14.3 seconds.
In this time, Earth would have moved upwards a staggering 1.7e-22 m. That is less than the size of a proton.
Even if you increase the mass of the dropped object to 1000 tonnes (or 1e6 kg) Earth still only moves 1.7e-16 m. Still less than the size of a proton.

The difference due to not considering Earth is insignificant.

But none of that is an attack of Newton's law of gravity, nor Einsteins. It is merely attacking a further approximation.

And when you consider antipodal locations you also need to consider the non-symmetrical distribution of matter in the primary object, and the contribution of the other objects.

It's not my fault all English dictionaries the world over, prove you wrong.
No they don't.
It isn't my fault you are clinging to a fantasy and running around in circles.
You are pretty much asserting it is knowledge and thus you know in order to claim it is knowledge and thus you know.

Do you have a dictionary entry which states knowledge is subjective?
Do you have one that states knowledge can be factually incorrect?

If not, they aren't proving me wrong.
The closest you have come to that is providing a definition for an adjective, where you can suggest you can have knowledge rather than actually having it.

the belief is still there. It is not 'false'. It's real enough in my mind. That belief is not 'false'.
Fake and false are different things.
A statement can be real, while still being false.

While you are correct that a belief doesn't need to be true in order to believe it, it does need to be true in order to be true, and thus not be false.

The only way to have something not be false without being true is if it makes no sense/has no truth value.

Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 09, 2020, 03:42:11 PM »
As an added bonus, here is a diagram for your 2 object case:

Again, on the left is is the case with physical height and position.
You can see the region which is hidden by A will only ever cover half of object B, and will do so as soon as object B is further away than object A. That means you will see half of object B.

On the right we have the angular case. Notice importantly, that both the top and bottom of object B follow the curve, not just the top.
But again, 50% is hidden when object B is behind object A, no matter how far.

Once again, you are wrong. Deal with it.

Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 09, 2020, 03:14:29 PM »
<not close enough to be a reply>
Just want to bury your head in the sand and pretend all the refutation of your nonsense isn't a reply?

Deal with what has been said.

In this example;

You clearly demonstrate that an observer at point a will be able to see an object at point c. That the obstruction at point b will not obstruct any of the object at point c. (At least assuming Earth is flat).

the angular size
Your diagram is dealing with physical locations and sizes, and direct lines of sight.
There is no need to invoke angular size for such a diagram.
If you wish to invoke it you need to use angular position and have a diagram of what is seen.
You will then no longer have lines radiating from a point at a. Instead a will be the entire left axis, with all the angles available.

You will produce an image like the ones I already provided. For this specific case (including the false assumption that Earth is flat) you would have something like this:

On the left, you have the diagram using the physical sizes and physical position.
On it lines of sight radiate from the observer at (0,0).
This line of sight will touch the top of the wave at point b and the bottom of the object at point c.
This means the wave at b will not block the view of the object at point c.

On the right, you have the diagram using angular sizes and angular position.
On it lights of sight are horizontal, as the entire left side represents the observer at point a.
Again, the line of sight will touch the top of the wave at point b and the bottom of the object at point c.
This means the wave at b will not block the view of the object at point c.

It doesn't matter if you use angular sizes and positions or if you use physical sizes and positions, the result is the same.
The wave at point b does not block the object at point c.

You are wrong. Deal with it.

I have showed both cases over limit states with integral formulas.
You mean you have needlessly tried to over-complicate it to pretend the wave will magically block the view.
There is no need for any integration. You can use arctan directly, like I did and see that the top of the wave will align with the bottom of the object.

The first of these, that is, the angular height value depending on the distance is -in general- smaller than the angular height value depending on the height.
And amazingly, 1 km is much larger than 1 m.
So that is entirely consistent.
In order to prevent the wave blocking the view, you need to go up 1 m (so you are above the wave) or away an additional 1000 m.
That 1 m of height and 1000 m of distance produce the same angular distance.
So no problem there.

The short of the explanations above denied by these two angry globalists but proved to be entirely scientifically based are the following:
No, they have not merely been denied.
They have been conclusively refuted, with you just ignoring the refutation so you can pretend your flat fantasy Earth is real.
Your claims have been shown to have no scientific merit at all.
Science does not work by simply ignoring that which refutes it. That would be religion.

Here we see a shape. The middle object is half the size of the object in the background. Here, regardless of the distance of the objects, mathematically and geometrically, you always see half of the object behind; -theorically-.
Not just theoretically, also in reality.

We can see from the example that these two objects have the same angular size. In other words, these two objects are the same size according to the observer at point O. It is therefore impossible to see half the object behind the obstruction of the front object.
No, it is still entirely possible to see half the object. It will just appear smaller. That doesn't magically mean it will be hidden by the other object.
You keep appealing to angular size, but ignore the angular position.

Your claims are just as stupid as saying because your big toe (or hand or foot or thumb, or loads of other things that are right in front of you) can completely cover your eye, you cannot see anything at all because your toe would block the view.

However, since you are looking "over" object A, you can still see object B at this stage. And we can calculate this value as follows:
How about we do it properly, shall we?

Apparent bottom position of object A:
atan(-h/h)=-45 degrees.
Apparent top position of object A:
atan(0/h) = 0 degrees.
Angular size of object A:
0 - (-45) = 45 degrees.

Apparent bottom position of object B:
atan(-h/2h)=-26.57 degrees.
Apparent top position of object B:
atan(h/2h)=26.57 degrees.
Angular size of object B:
26.57 - (-26.57) = 53.14 degres.

But object A covers from -45 degrees to 0 degrees.
That means we will only see object B from 0 degrees to the top of object B.
So angular size of visible portion of B:
26.57 - 0 = 26.57 degrees.

So amount visible:
26.57/53.14 = 0.5 = 50%.

Just like reality and math indicates, and nothing like your nonsense.

Apparent height of B: h
Angular size of apparent B = arctan (h/2h) = 26.
With your nonsense you are trying to get an angular size from an angular size. That makes no sense at all.
If you want to determine the angular size of an object, you use its physical size, i.e. it should be:
Actual size of B: 2h.
Angular size of B = arctan(2h/2h).
But even that is incorrect as you aren't finding a tangent, you are finding a chord.
Instead it should actually be:
Angular size of B = 2*arctan(h/2h), where you actually use 2 tangents.

You can also see this if you actually bother with units.
Instead of just using h, lets use h m.
So the ACTUAL size of A is h m and the ACTUAL size of B is 2 h m.
The apparent size is then measured in angles.
The apparent/angular size of A is 45 degrees, and the apparent/angular size of B is 53.14 degrees.

You make a mistake in saying that B has the same angular size as A, which you falsely declare as h, but taking the initial assumption, that would not give you h m. It would give 45 degrees.

So now you are left with the following nonsene:
nonsense regarding B = arctan(45 degrees / (2 h m)). This makes no sense at all.
You cannot take the arctan of units.

Your entirely flawed argument relies upon first finding the angular size of B, and then pretending that the angular size of B is its physical size.
That is pure nonsense.

So you are wrong, yet again.

I have touched on this issue before.
Yes, you have touched on it before, in the thread I linked, where you had your arguments entirely refuted and you then fled as you cannot face reality.

Now deal with the refutations or stop claiming you are correct.

I thought you are smarter than me and most members, after all, we are human. They strike each other @ d/2.
I want to know what your point is. So far you just keep going on more and more tangents, making wild claims and refusing to back them up.

Now you just ask a question with no justification for why this question matters.
Just what point are you trying to make with the question or are you just trying to waste people's time?

Consequently, the presence of ifs ands buts in the universal Newton’s law gravitation and the statement of Galileo’s falling bodies (wrong as well) means Copernicus’s model of solar system, which overthrew geocentric planetary models is in question.
You sure do love asserting things are wrong with no justification at all.
Science uses models which approximate reality and refines those approximations.

I don’t know if the geocentric model is true but that why we all are here to rethink and look for something which is truly acceptable and free of doubts.
Well that rules out the geocentric model and FE models then, because they have loads of doubts.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cypriot hacker extradited to the US
« on: August 09, 2020, 02:18:19 PM »
extradition should be saved for the more serious offenses e.g. terrorism, murder, rape, trafficking. It's a waste of time and money to pursue extradition for non-violent offenses.
If there is no need for extradition in the "lesser" offences, then there is no need for them in any case.
If you are happy for this hacker to be prosecuted in their own country, then you should also be fine with terrorists and the like being prosecuted in their own country.

As soon as you accept that extradition is acceptable for some crimes, then it raises the question of where do you draw the line. And like in lots of situations, violence is not the answer.

As has been pointed out plenty of times, violence is not required to make a crime serious.
Given what the hacker threatened, it was a serious crime.

Non-violent activity should not be a crime in the first place.
So you are fine with people hacking you, releasing all your private details and taking all your money, possibly burning down your house (after making sure you aren't in it) and so on?
Completely destroying your life, but without any violence at all.
You don't think that should be a crime?

What about sexual harassment which doesn't involve physical contact?

You then have the more grey areas. What if someone holds you at gunpoint and makes demands.
Is that counted as violence even though they don't shoot? Or does it only become actual violence rather than the mere threat of it when they shoot?

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.
Except in quite specific cases it seems to work quite well.
Can you please calculate the striking time of two identical point masses separated by on-center distance “d” with the help of Newton’s law of gravitation (F=GMm/d^2)? - For convenience, you can choose your own numerical values of mass and distance.
Not until you make a point.

Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 09, 2020, 03:55:05 AM »
You both are supposedly claiming to represent science and true math. On the other hand, you are denying a clear math without doing any math disproves it, because both you know they are true calculations. Hence, you are simply denying their existance.
Like I said, we have been over all this before.
You are the one in denial.
You are the one rejecting science and reality.

Remember this thread
where we went over it all, and how you refuted completely and could not defend your claims at all?

Remember this post of mine:
Where I provided graphs showing how waves which peak at -2 m do not obscure any more than -2 m, and the most of the distant object is obscured by a wave right at the object?

But if you would like some more numbers/diagrams, how about this one, provided by you:

We have our observer at a height of 2 m. We have a wave at 1 km, and we have that wave blocking no more than 2 km away.

But we don't need any of that.
We can just use the angle to the object directly.
Your wave, at 1 km distance is 1 m below the eye.
Thus the angle to it is given by arctan(1/1000) =~ 0.06 degrees BELOW eye level.

Now lets consider a 1 m tall wave at 2 km distance.
Well now the top is at an angle of arctan(1/2000) =~0.03 degrees BELOW eye level.
Importantly this is above the previous angle. This means the top of the object is visible.
In addition, the bottom of the wave is at an angle of arctan(2/2000)=~0.06 degrees below eye level.
That means the bottom of the distant wave appears to be in line with the top of the closer wave, and thus the closer wave does not obstruct the more distant wave.
That means if Earth was flat that 1 m high wave at 1 km cannot block any more than 2 km.

As for your other nonsense, there is no magical limit of vision.

What you have is a limit of resolution. This is roughly 0.5 arcminutes for a human eye.
But things smaller than that don't magically become invisible. You just cannot resolve detail finer than that.
At 114 km, that would mean the naked eye can resolve 2 objects roughly 17 m apart.
But that is just the naked eye. If you use a decent camera or telescope you can have much better resolution and see finer detail.

so you agreed the earth is flat mathematically
And there you go with more dishonest BS.
I have never agreed Earth is flat mathematically.
I have some times presented math based upon a FE to show that Earth isn't flat, but that is quite different.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cypriot hacker extradited to the US
« on: August 09, 2020, 02:39:50 AM »
Extradition is not necessary if Cyprus can prosecute effectively, serving time elsewhere doesn't make the victims any less victims.
And that would be an argument against extradition in general, not this specific case.
So why bother with extradition at all?

I would guess that it is because even if the foreign countries system was fair and prosecuted them fairly, the victims and potentially others would complain if the sentence wasn't as harsh as they think it should be; or in the cases where compensation can be awarded, if they weren't awarded the compensation they wanted.

Yes but Jackblack seems to think that sending him into prison for as long as possible will pay the victims back most efficiently.
Where have I indicated anything of the like?
All I have indicated was that as this crime involved servers in the US, it was a crime committed in the US, even if the hacker was located outside the US; and thus it is within the jurisdiction of the US, and thus there is nothing wrong with the US extraditing them to face trial in the US.
And that his crimes, with his use of blackmail to illegally obtain money is quite severe, especially with what he was blackmailing with.

That's your interpretation of knowledge, jack black. I have knowledge on a range of certain subjects with no objective proofs whatsoever.
You mean you have beliefs which you wish to pretend are knowledge.
Knowledge requires it to be true.
The only "subjective" knowledge is that a person subjectively likes something.

The wiki on this website has knowledge and information concerning the idea the Earth is flat....
I am yet to see any knowledge. Instead I see lots of false beliefs.

In the English language, these two words are interchangeable....
No, they are not, as they have different meanings.
What you are saying now is liking saying north and south mean the same thing because they can be used "interchangeably" in a sentence.

While they are similar, and either word can be used in that location to make a sentence which makes sense, the meaning of the sentence changes depending on what word is used.
As the meaning changes they are not interchangeable.

Here is the Schroeter effect:
No, there is your ramblings.
Do you have a link to a credible source?
If not, I think I will stick with reality.

It requires moon landing, which is still in question.
So what you are saying is that any evidence which shows the Moon landings to have occurred can be dismissed because it shows the Moon landings occurred?
That isn't rational at all.

Did we know the distance between the moon and earth before moon landing.
As already pointed out by both JJA and myself. The parallax of the moon can be measured by 2 observers on Earth.
Then by knowing the distance between those 2 points the distance to the moon can be determined.
It is not as accurate as later methods, but works reasonably well.

Doesn’t leaning away means the difference in heights
While something leaning away would make it lower, so would it simply being lower, which would be a separate argument to seeing it leaning away.
And the drop due to the curvature of Earth would be more significant than the lean.

For a simple first approximation of the lean, a 500 m tall building (still at 100 km) leaning away 0.9 degrees would have the top of the building lower to 499.94 m, i.e. it would lower by 0.06 m.
That is a change of 1 part in 8000.

Meanwhile, the drop due to the curvature of Earth would be 982 m.

In order for the change in height due to the lean to be more significant you need the building to have a height greater than the radius of Earth.

Actually, Newton's law of gravity should be outlawed as it is untenable both fundamentally and naturally.
Except in quite specific cases it seems to work quite well.

If the moon landings were real, then so was Leonov's spacewalk.
Conversely, if the Leonov spacewalk was faked, then so were the moon landings.
No, completely wrong.
They are 2 independent events.
That would be like saying if person X faked his own death then all murders are fake.
Or that if any scene in a movie where someone is killed is faked, than all murders are fake.
(and the converse, that if any murder is real, all must be real).

It makes no sense at all and there is no logical connection at all.

Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 08, 2020, 04:30:49 PM »
Your theory does not work on lakes. It has been already experienced and proved that the earth is flat, and water has not curve at all.
It sure seems to work on Lakes, like the plentiful pictures of Lake Ontario showing the bottom of buildings in Toronto being hidden by the curve.
That sure seems to prove that Earth is curved.

Or did you just mean for tiny lakes, where the curvature is too small to hide anything?

it hides objects that shrink behind the wave magnitude due to the nonlinear sight lenght function.
We have been over this before.
A wave below you cannot hide an object above you.
If a wave is 1 m tall, and you are above it, the most it can hide of any object is 1 m.

then dont provide the verb meaning.
Here you go:
have knowledge or information concerning.

Solarwind is chasing an easy answer. He just needs to decide for himself what the difference between knowing and believing is. (If there is a difference)
To say you know the earth is round because of NASA photos, geography, and the scientific explanation, simply means you accept those to be true.
Let's say I was religious or spiritual, and decided to conduct a few experiments with God. Let's say I decide to pray to be the owner of a specific object which may be very rare and my physical efforts to obtain said item are exhausted. I give a time limit to receive the item. I pray in a way I have already received the item at the time I have set. Let's say, the event unfolds exactly as I visualize, and I receive the item at my predetermined time.
Let's say I repeat the experiment a number of times, and am successful each time.
That's an experiment. For me, that might be enough proof God answered my prayer, and therefore God is real. You could say you know god is real, and it not be a fictitious statement at all.
But it's not objective proof. Its subjective proof. Also, an outsider could easily argue the results to be pure coincidences.
You example with God is subjective and has a wide variety of unconstrained variables.
But that is not the case with Earth.
There are objective measurements of Earth, made with many different instruments.
That is knowledge.

What you have with God is belief, and nothing more than circumstantial.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: August 08, 2020, 04:21:44 PM »
Since you are unable to answer so simple question, then i will do it for you
No, we can quite easily answer it, we just realise that it is yet another pathetic deflection from your complete inability to admit your argument was pure nonsense.

Once more, what is 20 - (-20)?
Is it 40?

So, +20 or -20 arc seconds is totally meaningless because it is always very close to 20 arc seconds (at any time)!!!
Once more, directionality is important.
You can't just ignore it to pretend there is a problem when there is none.
Unless you want to claim that left and right are the same.
If not, 20 arcseconds to the right and 20 arc seconds to the left are very different. In fact, it differs by 40 arcseconds.

Now stop spamming the same refuted garabge and instead answer the very simple question:
What is the difference between +20 arcseconds (or 20 arcseconds to the right) and -20 arcseconds (or 20 arcseconds to the left).

If you truly think there is no difference then explicitly that you think there is no difference at all between turning to the right and turning to the left.

The point is the answer to 1+1 is not always 2. 'always' clearly the qualifying word here
The point is that it always is.

The point is you are far too fixed on a literal focus on the symbols rather than the meaning behind.
Your objection with base 2 is no more valid than saying that in [insert language here], none of these posts make any sense because there are no words, just a random jumble of letters/symbols.

To convert this to base 2, you don't just pretend everything remains the same.
Instead you note that "2", in common language, is represented by "10" in base 2, and "1" is represented by "1".

Thus to translate it you end up with 1+1=10.
The statement is still true.

Likewise, it requires understanding what "+" represents.
As already pointed out, combing 2 objects into 1 object is not what "+" is for.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: August 07, 2020, 03:32:03 PM »
1+1 does not always = 2.

How do you arrive at a 2 if your base math is only a binary numeral system? ???

If you add 1 ocean and 1 ocean you just get 1 bigger ocean.

If 1 black hole slams into another black hole, how many black holes will there be?

To answer 1+1 correctly you need to know the conditions and context otherwise you are making assumptions
The bigger issue there is "+".
When you combine 2 oceans into 1, you are not simply adding 1 and 1, you are combining them.
The same happens with a black hole. You don't simply add 1 block hole and 1 black hole, you combine them.
Just like if you take 2 apples and smash them together you don't have 2 apples, you have a mess.

As for different bases, the only one where that doesn't hold (which actually works as a decent number system) would be base 2, which doesn't have 2 so the statement makes no sense.
However you can happily convert it to the equivalent of 2 in base 2 which is 10.
The meaning remains the same.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: August 07, 2020, 03:06:33 PM »
Look at this picture once again
We were discussing aberration and your inability to admit that 20 - (-20) = 40, and thus both an ~inertial reference frame with the sun stationary, and one with the sun moving at 220 km/s produce the same detectable aberration which is a difference of 40 arc seconds.

Deal with this before asking us any more pathetic questions to try to deflect from your inability to admit your argument is complete nonsense.

It might be authentic but how do they choose the ideal target on the irregular surface of the moon without inspecting it for reflection of light and the adjustment of moon earth speed in their respective orbits for the reflected signal towards the source.
Due to signal divergence due to the limits of resolution and how retro-reflectors work.
None of that is needed.

The moon landing was actually never happened.
All the available evidence indicates it did happen.
For Example
For example, the video footage of it happening. Footage which went out live.
The numerous photos from the moon during the landing.
The retroreflectors placed on the moon which allow you to bounce a signal off it.

There is literally nothing credible which indicates it did not happen.
Would you belive if satisfy with argument.
Go ahead and try.

how about by calculating the height of stick with the help measuring base of triangle and the angle of elevation of stick.
The base is obscured by the curvature of Earth.
All you would be able to do with an idea like that is to measure the angle to the top.
And that doesn't tell you that it is leaning away, just that it is lower.

Quran also describes Earth as an Ostrich Egg.
That is an outright lie promoted by dishonest Islamic apologist to try to con people into Islam by pretending it has divine knowledge.
It is based upon an intentional mistranslation.
The Quran, when read in context, clearly indicates that Earth is flat, not a sphere.

And it also is typically backed up by quite dishonest imagery.
An egg is an asymmetric prolate spheroid.
Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Saying Earth is egg-shaped is less correct than saying it is a perfect sphere.

No, jack black. Those definitions are copy and paste from the dictionary.
And the definition you copied and pasted was for knowing as an adjective, not a verb.
Hence it has nothing to do with if someone knows something.

No, jack black. That is not what I'm saying. Subjective is not the same as fictitious. Subjective is based on personal feelings, while fictitious is made up.
You appealed to religion, saying it is like that, like how people to know their god exists that is saying it is fictitious, as it is based upon fictional stories rather than reality.
That is not knowledge.

If it is subjective it is belief, not knowledge.

The moon landing was actually never happened.
All the available evidence indicates it did happen.
There is literally nothing credible which indicates it did not happen.

How do you know the moon is 384,400 km away from the earth?
You can either measure the parallax of the moon from distant regions on Earth, or use direct laser ranging experiments.

We still don’t know if the earth is round or flat due to the lack of solid evidence.
No, there is plentiful solid evidence which clearly shows Earth is round.
FEers just choose to deny this evidence, with no rational justification at all.

If a shadow of small length can be measured then can’t a PTZ camera (precise and quite clear) detect that small inclination? just wondering.
Again, the big issue is the directionality of it.
The only way to measure such an inclination is by looking at miniscule difference in the width of the object as you go from the bottom to the top, or the distance. The change due to the tilt is minuscule for both.

You cannot directly see it.

For example, for an object 500 m high, 100 km away, the base is 100 km away.
The top, assuming it is parallel to an object which is vertical for you is an additional 1.25 m away from you. That is roughly 1 part in 80 000.
That difference in distance is negligible.
If instead of being parallel to it, it was tilted away due to the curvature of Earth then it would be pointing at an angle of roughly 0.9 degrees, it would be roughly an extra 9 m away.
That is still roughly 1 part in 10 000.
Again, you are not going to see that.

If you think it should be possible clearly explain what you think would work to measure such an inclination, noting that it is pointing away from you.

"Knowing" doesn't require objective proof. Under the definition, it only requires one having knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people.
Flat earthers can therefore correctly say they know the earth to be flat.
"Knowing" or "know"?
You are using 2 different words and appear to be using a fringe definition of knowing.
And the definition of knowing you are using is an adjective, not a verb.
That means you cannot convert it from the "verb-ing" to "verb".

It's the same thing.
So you are saying it is ficticious and not based upon objective reality and thus isn't actually knowledge?

Flat Earth General / Re: Plans on doing flat earth science?
« on: August 07, 2020, 02:42:24 AM »
Interesting stuff. I guess if you could figure out how the density of air affects the speed of light, you could then figure out how much light bends due to refraction.
The issue is getting all the information required over the distance.
You need to know things like the humidity and temperature of the air, at each point along the way.
The problem is it is over water some of the water can evaporate, changing both the temperature and humidity.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 435