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 - Unconvinced

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97
1

We are not talking about F=ma. We are talking about this equation:

http://cosmoschool2018.oa.uj.edu.pl/pdfs/day3/CosmoSchool_Cracow2018_PiorkowskaKurpas.pdf



Although "Equivalence Principle" is something that Albert Einstein coined and he referred to for his theories, Newton's equivalency of inertial and gravitational mass is sometimes called the Newtonian equivalence principle.

Bravo, Tom.  You got it eventually, and are now linking sources that directly refute your ridiculous earlier claims made here:




In the above the girl's hair become weightless. However, if there was something invisible pulling every atom of the hair "down," it should not become weightless.

For example, consider if we had a horizontal length of rope on one of the zero-g aircraft flights. While the cabin is falling there should still be "gavity" pulling every point of the rope "down" as in the left hand side of the below image. Parts of the rope should not be able to float and deform upwards weightlessly without resistance against gravity, as in the right hand side of the image.



Hence, we have a demonstration that reality acts as if freefalling bodies are inert and the earth is accelerating upwards.

So you now accept that the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass is a feature of classical (Newtonian) mechanics, as everyone was trying to tell you. That due to Galilean/Newtonian equivalence, objects fall at the same rate in classical mechanics and your earlier claims above were bollocks.

PS.  The above equation is derived from the law of universal gravitation and Newton’s second law, F=ma.

Quote
From University of Pittsburgh:

https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/

Quote
Einstein's reinterpretation eradicates an awkwardness of Newtonian theory. That theory had to posit that increases in gravitational mass in bodies are perfectly and exactly compensated by corresponding increases in inertial mass, so that the uniqueness of free fall can be preserved. Einstein's redescription does away with that coincidence and even the very idea of distinct inertial and gravitational masses. In his theory, bodies now just have mass, or, in the light of special relativity, mass-energy. For Einstein the primitive notion is the geometrical structure of spacetime with the curved trajectories traced out by all freely falling bodies, independently of their mass.

So, you're wrong. Newtonian theory proposed an absurd coincidence.

The “absurd coincidence” was what gave Einstein the idea that maybe the equivalence principle would apply to all laws of physics, not just the laws of motion.  It was the beginning of his work on general relativity, not the end of it.

I will overlook your desperate attempt to save face.

Therefore, on behalf of real (round earth) science, I hereby accept your unconditional surrender, subject to the following terms;
- Immediate cessation of all hostilities against science.
- Withdrawal of all illegitimate claims on the field of Newtonian mechanics and gravity.
- Reparations to be paid by means of monetary donation to your local school physics department.

This matter is now closed.  Good day to you sir!

2

A plain understanding of how Newtonian Gravity pulls on objects shows that a body with twice the mass of another should fall faster. Newtonian Gravity requires an add-on modification of physics in the form of a separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence for bodies to fall equally.

An add on modification of physics!

F=ma is not an “add on”

It takes more force to move a heavy object than a light one.  Surely even flat earthers understand that?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: discussion about flat earth with AI chatbot
« on: June 15, 2024, 05:16:23 AM »
Iím with Timeisup on this.

Asking AI about something thatís supported by all the evidence is easy.  What is say about the case for flat earth could be interesting.

4

If the gravity theory that bodies fall and accelerate down to the earth worked, they would have kept it. Instead, we have this metaphysical theory of the surface of the earth accelerating upwards through curved space.

You really think that classical mechanics canít account for dropping things? Galileo worked this part out.

Stop confusing yourself with relativity and learn the basics

Quote
This is the current theory of gravity for YOUR model, which you are refusing to fully acknowledge.

No one is disputing general relativity, only your silly claims. 

5
There is no force acting on the accelerometer other than the earth.
And by "the earth" are you including gravity?
Of course not. If a force (including but not limited to gravity) was acting upon me after I stepped off the chair, I would be able to measure it.
It is only when the accelerometer is placed on the accelerating earth that acceleration is measured.

Childish nonsense.

Accelerometers arenít magic, they are mechanical or electromechanical devices.  They read deflection of springs or voltage changes in a circuit and convert that to a number for acceleration.   They canít tell the difference between gravity and acceleration, because of, wait for itÖ.the equivalence principle.

Just because they have ďaccelerĒ in their name proves nothing.  You could just as easily say you can use a force gauge to prove that gravity is a force, because it has the word force in it.

6
I donít know.

I can tell you what shape the earth appears to have to people who moved sufficiently far away and took photos of it.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: expand the conspiracy?
« on: June 13, 2024, 12:40:48 PM »
If the earth didn't exist there wouldn't be a flat earth. It is critical that the earth exists.

If the earth didn't exist there wouldn't be flat earthers.

If the earth didn't exist there wouldn't be angry globularists.

No, no.  Youíre getting it all wrong.

If the globe didnít exist, there wouldnít be angry globularists.

Iím not really sure what anyoneís point is here.  Itís probably the most trivial argument Iíve ever seen.   

8
Flat Earth General / Re: expand the conspiracy?
« on: June 12, 2024, 10:56:07 PM »
If the earth didn't exist there wouldn't be a flat earth. It is critical that the earth exists.

If the earth didn't exist there wouldn't be flat earthers.


9
Oh, Tom.

Things fall at the same rate (excluding air resistance) according to Newtonian mechanics.  Simple things like freefall work just fine.

I don’t know which is funnier?  That you jumped straight to reading about relativity without first learning classical mechanics.  Or that you apparently think that it would have ever gotten anywhere being so fundamentally broken, let alone still used for most cases today.

10

This is a story book re-telling of the story that does not match reality. It's not your fault that you've been lied to, but LeVierrier made errors in his assumptions, and by chance actually found Neptune in the "wrong" place. It's a modern myth perpetuated by school books. Like Cristoffa Corombo and the round earth paradigm.

My citation, because no doubt your faith in the holy books you were fed as a child will need one:

Is your citation based on a flat earth model of the solar system with a tiny sun?

If not, you have vastly bigger discrepancies to resolve here.

Where are the flat earth calculations for the orbits of the planets?

Please refrain from citing our holy books, and use your superior scientific flat earth models to demonstrate your extensive flat earth research.

11

In the above the girl's hair become weightless. However, if there was something invisible pulling every atom of the hair "down," it should not become weightless.

Quote from: Tomís citation
So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevatoróbecause you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless.

See how your own citation says the exact opposite to your claim?


12
Stack is correct. An accelerometer in free-fall proves that it is inert and that the earth is accelerating upwards. It can also be seen with a water balloon, which acts as a crude accelerometer.



Source

When in freefall bodies become weightless. This is also demonstrated on one of those zero-g airplane flights. When the aircraft falls the occupants in the craft become weightless.



However, if there was something invisible pulling every atom of the hair "down," it should not become weightless.

For example, consider if we had a horizontal length of rope on one of the zero-g aircraft flights. While the cabin is falling there should still be "gavity" pulling every point of the rope "down" as in the left hand side of the below image. Parts of the rope should not be able to float and deform upwards weightlessly without resistance against gravity, as in the right hand side of the image.



Hence, we have a demonstration that reality acts as if freefalling bodies are inert and the earth is accelerating upwards.

You probably should have learned how stuff works before writing an enormous wiki on all the things you fail to understand.

The cabin and everything in it are all falling at the same rate.  It’s ALL in freefall.  Why do you think her hair or your rope should be pulled down faster than anything else? 

13
There are plenty of ways to demonstrate the earth is rising. Step off a chair and watch the earth rise to meet you.
The floor would argue that you are the one falling down to meet it. 

Hmmm...

Who should I believe?

Einstein says that you're both right and there is no way to tell the difference .


Actually, there is a way to tell the difference.  Acceleration will create forces on each object which will be vectors, all perfectly parallel.  A gravitational field will create forces on each object which will be vectors pointing to the center of the earth... so, not perfectly parallel. 

If your equipment is sensitive to this, then the issue is decided. 



Or just move to another location.

14
Based on what scientific evidence? Since you love science so much.
Look out your window.

LOL.  Very scientific.

Quote
Quote from: Unconvinced
I see you are ignoring the point that your definitions are just wrong.
Not at all.

Quote
And I suppose you also think that Newton’s law was named after it’s replacement over 200 years later?
No. He theorized that gravitation was due to a force and was dependent on the mass of objects. He called that force "Gravitatis". Or "Gravity". It's where we got the english word (in that context). We also know that isn't true. The phenomenon he believed Gravity explained was gravitation.

Gravitation is the interaction between all particles.  Gravity is the effect on an object in a substantial gravitational field.  Or to put it another way, we use the word gravitation in discussing theories, and gravity for why it hurts when you drop a brick on your toe.

Apparently you don’t you care about the accepted definitions of words any more.

Quote
Quote
You can start with how Newtonian mechanics was accepted by scientists.
Newton's Gravity was not accepted by scientists. It was non-cartesian, for one, which at the time made it unattractive. It had no stated mechanism (and gravitation is no closer to finding a mechanism today), which was also incredibly unattractive.

It wasn’t immediately accepted by everyone, but gradually cartesianism gave way to empiricism.  Old ideas were discarded in favour of the better model.  You might say that they were falsified.

Newton’s laws are generally regarded as the culmination of the scientific revolution, which marked the beginning of the enlightenment.  Classical (Newtonian) mechanics were the foundations of the engineering used for the industrial revolution, and still used today.  You can thank Newton not only for his enormous contribution to the science you claim to respect, but also in giving you the ability to post your musings on the internet.

Quote
Third, it didn't actually match planetary motion. It gradually gained traction, and then almost immediately started losing it again when Le Verrier himself, published perturbations it could not describe. Then it was quickly repudiated by Maxwell, Gauss, Lorentz, and others trying to explain observed perturbation.

Almost immediately?

Newton first published Principia in 1687.  Le Verrier wasn’t even born until 1811.  Le Verrier is best known predicting the existence of Neptune, which turned out to be right where he said it should be according to Newton’s laws.  A marvelous validation for classical mechanics.

Of course none of the works of the people you misappropriate should mean anything to someone who believes in a tiny sun circling impossibly above a flat earth, and all the other nonsense you dream up to go with it.

Quote
Quote
Try to reconcile either of these scientific advancements with your batty beliefs about the shape of the earth.
How lauded can the "advancements" be if they do not even describe reality?

Oh the irony.  Maybe flat earthers should concentrate more on the simpler questions that ancient civilizations pondered.  Like where is the Sun hiding at night?  What are the stars and planets? 

Quote
Quote
What fascinates me is your apparent total lack of scientific curiosity about your own beliefs.  Are you happy to just witter on about how science works on the internet, or are you going to put some thought into how to test your own ideas?
One of you (you, I believe) just went on an obscurantist rant about how things do not even need to be falsifiable, just useful to you. But you want me to spend time describing things to you?  To what good?  I am quite confident in my belief. I have over a decade and a half of posting on this forum. If you wish to read what I think or what I have done, feel free to use the search function.

Oh, I have searched.  Many times.  I’ve scoured this site, Tom’s wiki and everywhere else I could think of for any hint of scientific methodology in all this.  I found none.

I really don’t care that you believe it.  You can believe it all you like.

But since you like to lecture “globularists” about the scientific method so much, I wonder if you’ll ever bother to apply those principles to your own beliefs? 

Or if this really is the best you can do?

Look out your window.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: June 09, 2024, 01:00:50 PM »


No, I don't think so. The ordinary conservative voters do not want to have 15 kids. Probably the only serious opposition to contraception comes from the Catholics, and I bet most of their congregation use birth control. I do see some weird opposition to the IUD, and of course "the morning after" pill.

I think you do have a point about things becoming normalized, though. The Dems have managed to normalize a bunch of freaky shit! Could you imagine a grown man dressed like a satanic clown flashing his dick at children while reading to them in a public library 15 years ago?

Only a few years ago no one would have imagined an outgoing president attempting to cling on to power by trying to overturn the election result.  Look how unbothered everyone is about that now.

Trump talks about being president for life, about how he shouldnít be constrained by any laws, about the retribution he will bring to his enemies and no one bats an eyelid anymore.  Heís literally spelling out his desire to become a dictator, like all the dictators he constantly praises, with the full support of the Republican Party and few people seem to care.

His hardcore fans of course want this, itís everyone else apparently prepared to let it happen thatís so shocking.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: June 09, 2024, 11:50:03 AM »
Its horrible but irrelevant to Trump.  Post this in the war thread so we can rant about it.

Not totally irrelevant.  Trump is 100% on board with what Netanyahuíís government is doing, as well as crushing the protestors who disagree.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: June 09, 2024, 11:41:49 AM »
All the Dems are saying "contraception is on the ballot" now. The Republicans are going to have to answer for their "anti-women" agenda". It's so obviously election year bullshit. They don't give a shit about women either.

Trump fished for a reaction when he talked about going after contraception. He immediately walked it back. I think people do not realize that conservatives are happy to not have 15 children.

All that aside, I hope our asshole politicians do not make contraception a political football.

Textbook tactics.

Say something unthinkable, get a reaction and then walk it back.  Deny it or say it was a joke, it doesnít matter.  Next time you hear it, or something similar it will seem a little less shocking.

This is how things that were once totally unacceptable become normalized.  Before you know it, you are forced to where a bonnet and call yourself Ofdonald.


18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why care if the earth is flat?
« on: June 02, 2024, 11:56:11 AM »


Why are you guys arguing this here?  Can't you allow a single thread to be free of your rancor?

I see you are new here.


19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why care if the earth is flat?
« on: June 02, 2024, 01:19:33 AM »
Personally I find the topic quite fascinating, but I donít expect to change anyoneís mind.

How do people come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat in 21st century? 
How did this all explode a decade or so ago?
How can they reject science on such a fundamental level or how do they think that they are on the side of science?

I strongly disagree that there are no observations you can make to determine the shape of the earth yourself.  There are loads, many very simple, particularly if you can either travel to other parts of the world or are willing to work someone else you trust.  Thereís also a bunch of other things to consider not based on personal observations, but on how the modern world works.

I donít get too involved in the flat earth debates all that much anymore.  More likely to discuss politics and stuff here, and thatís mainly just because itís a very small forum where people have some very different views on things.


20
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: May 31, 2024, 02:26:33 PM »

Since as gnuarm says, it's pointless changing the minds of certain people, let's let a video do the talking.

This one is pushed.

At 1:12, it encounters a slight upward slope, rolls back, and stops. Wind resistance? Roll resistance? I didn't see any of that.

But, you say, that wasn't a good example. The boulder split, the ground wasn't totally smooth, and it was kinda unsatisfying. You're right, I wanna see more boulder rolling action.



Oops, sorry. That's about you.

Let's try again.



Comes to a stop before it gets to the next hill. Air resistance? Didn't happen. Kept rolling until it got to a large patch of flat area.



Here's a tire, since most of the boulders aren't satisfyinly round, and most of them chip and shrink. It did encounter friction, and slowed some from water too. But mostly, you could see it losing speed over distance, once there was no more slope. Momentum is mostly caused by slope. On a flat level surface, there is only so far an object can go before it stops rolling.

But, if you're still convinced it's "air resistance", I found a video that shows momentum in a vacuum using Newton's Cradle. (Skip to about 3:46)



He times the point they each come to a stop.
With air: 11.94 seconds
Without air: 14.02 seconds

So much for your grand theory that vacuums produce infinite energy. Infinite momentum...


So again, whatever momentum you bring in might last a little longer, but buoyancy is shit in a vacuum. You would have to use tremendous amounts of fuel to push upward, but ummm you sorta tossed away your thrusters.

You do a great job of ďdebunkingĒ the things youíve made up yourself.  I believe thereís a word for that.

If thereís air, thereís air resistance, it doesnít matter that you canít see it.  Rolling resistance is a real thing too, and more energy is lost with every bump you hit on uneven ground.

As for Newtonís cradle.  Congratulations, youíve just shown that air resistance makes a difference.  But there is also a bit of energy lost every time the balls hit each other, and energy is lost where the threads/wires pivot in the frame due to friction.  This is even explained in the video.

You can feel the effect of all these factors just from how hard you have to pedal when riding a bike and how far you can freewheel when you stop pedaling-
-Itís harder on round ground than smooth road because all the bumps you hit take some energy away.
-Itís harder wearing a massive coat rather than skimpy clothing because of air resistance.
-Itís harder if you have shit bearings because of friction.
-itís harder if you donít inflate your tires enough because of increased rolling resistance.

All these factors are resisting the  work you put in and your forward momentum.

Vacuums donít ďproduceĒ momentum, they just donít resist it.  No one is talking about infinite energy or infinite momentum except you.

Youíre right about changing peopleís minds though.  I know thereís nothing I can say that will stop you thinking that you know better than everyone else in the world.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: May 31, 2024, 03:44:24 AM »

Here's a far more common situation. A bit of shell or fossil becomes a boulder over time through a process called cementation. Meanwhile, the mountain where it forms slowly erodes into a slope.  Then after sitting for centuries, wind and rain cause a mud slide, and the boulder starts to roll. Momentum takes it down the hill. Momentum even takes it several extra feet on level ground. If objects in motion truly stayed in motion, shouldn't we see this boulder continue to roll along the rounded surface of the so obviously round Earth?

Newton is wrong about this, and he's wrong about gravity. What else is he wrong about?


No, because even if the boulder was improbably perfectly spherical and the ground perfectly smooth, air resistance, friction and rolling resistance are real things.

Things don’t keep moving on earth without applying a force because these effects can only be reduced, not completely eliminated.  You are ignoring real world factors.

In a vacuum there is no air resistance, when an object is not in physical contact with another body there is no friction or rolling resistance.  Such as a rocket moving through space.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: May 29, 2024, 02:57:59 PM »

Sorry, but that doesn't work.

It really does.

Quote
In fact, we have handy momentum calculator already.

p=mv

This means that if I multiply 120 lb by 7 ft/s (fuck the metric system), I get a total momentum of 840. And no, not having air doesn't magically make this not deplete. That's the amount of moment the object has, and when it's gone, it's gone.

It only ďdepletesĒ when something is acting against it.  Like air  resistance, friction or other forces.  Because conservation of momentum. 

These are the laws of physics used to build all the technology we rely on.  Feel free to look it up.  There is no contradiction.  The idea that momentum just disappears on its own is entirely made up by you or whatever nonsense videos youíve been watching.

Quote
Also, conservation, not conversation.

Well shit.  You got me there.  Iíve always had a problem typing those two words for some reason. 

Quote
Also, the point of these conservation laws is that you can't create something infinite from finite materials. You're basically doing alchemy, dreaming of a philosopher's stone that will allow you to bypass equivalent exchange.

Nothing infinite is created.  Just forward momentum equal to the backwards momentum of the combusted fuel.

Quote
Or as Newton put it, equal and opposite reactions. If you want a rocket to move forward, you have to push back with something (ignited fuel, water, gas pressure). Once you run out of things to sacrifice, all motion stops. Except maybe you fall back to Earth.

Nearly there, but all motion doesnít stop.  Only the forward thrust.

When you throw a ball you only apply a force until you let go.  But the ball keeps moving after you let go, right?

In this case, the ball will be slowed a bit by air resistance, and more significantly falling back to earth and hitting the ground.  With no air and no ground, it would just keep going.

These are all the same laws of motion used for everything else.  Rockets do not violate these laws at all.  They depend on them.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: May 29, 2024, 08:52:51 AM »

I haven't read this comment yet, but I daresay you've already violated some law of science. Probably something simple like the conservation of energy. Or maybe even cause and effect.

Remember, any momentum that vastly exceeds the total amount of kinetic energy is impossible. That is, no matter how little air resistance there is, a pool ball cannot be made to stay in motion.

Conversation of momentum is all you need to worry about to get this.

If a rocket is just floating in space with a tank of fuel it has zero momentum.  If you blast some fuel out the back then that fuel now has momentum.  The total momentum of the rocket and fuel must remain constant, so the rocket moves in the opposite direction.

If the rocket didn’t move it would violate conservation of momentum.  It would be physically impossible for the rocket not to move.

It’s very similar to recoil when firing a gun (you like guns, right?).  Bullet goes forward, so the gun moves back.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: May 28, 2024, 02:18:08 PM »
Smoke Machine, you are so sure that I'm the one with the diseased brain and that , you haven't bothered to think about the possibility that groupthink is not always correct.

Do you ever wonder about the possibility that the millions of physicists, engineers, etc in the world who have to understand these principles to do their jobs are right and itís you thatís wrong?

Itís not group think.  We learn the laws of physics and how to use the equations because they work. 

There are no special rules for rockets, they follow the same laws as everything else.  If rockets couldnít work in space, the entire scientific and engineering communities would have immediately called bullshit the moment anyone claimed to launch one.  That didnít happen of course, because there is no problem.

Do you actually believe no one else thinks about these things?

25
Amazing.

Is this kind of thing setting off any alarm bells yet, or is everyone still worrying about Biden being a bit old?

26
You are over 2000 years behind.
Or 6000 years ahead.

Based on what scientific evidence? Since you love science so much.

Quote
Quote from: Unconvinced
Gravitation didn’t replace gravity,
How surprised Albert will be.

Not at all, probably.  I see you are ignoring the point that your definitions are just wrong.

Quote
Quote
That’s why General Relativity is also known as Einstein’s Theory of Gravity, compared to Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
By people other than himself, I suppose?

And I suppose you also think that Newton’s law was named after it’s replacement over 200 years later?

Quote
Quote
PS.  Fancy answering my earlier questions on the falsifiability of your own wacky ideas?
You could make a good start by demonstrating your assertion that "gravity is a force", I suppose. It is not, but if you could demonstrate that it is, it would certainly falsify universal acceleration. I suppose demonstrating the mechanism of either gravity or gravitation may falsify universal acceleration pending the actual mechanism.

You want me to demonstrate something I don’t claim? 

I have never disputed that relativity is the superior explanation.  I’ve only said that Newtonian mechanics is still widely used because it works extremely well for most things on earth.

Force is still often used to describe gravity/gravitation for simplification, despite being technically incorrect (as far as we currently understand it at least).  For most normal uses, we don’t need to go into all the spacetime business.

Your turn!

You can start with how Newtonian mechanics was accepted by scientists.  Something about explaining the observed motions of the bodies in the solar system, I believe.  Then move on to how it was surpassed with relativity based on other observations of the solar system and universe.

Try to reconcile either of these scientific advancements with your batty beliefs about the shape of the earth.

BTW, you misunderstand me.  I don’t need to falsify universal acceleration or flat earth.  What fascinates me is your apparent total lack of scientific curiosity about your own beliefs.  Are you happy to just witter on about how science works on the internet, or are you going to put some thought into how to test your own ideas?

If I thought the world was vastly different to what has been determined by science, I’d be looking for ways to see if I was actually right.  ie do a science on it.

27

Imagine having a several page discussion on Newton, Einstein, and falsifiability and coming out of the other side of the conversation believing that Gravity is: real, a force, and that physicists take it seriously.

You're only 110 years behind the first part of the discussion and 165 years behind the other.

Imagine thinking the world is flat and accelerating upwards and lecturing other people on science.  You are over 2000 years behind.

I specifically said force or interaction, because whether it’s due to mass warping spacetime is irrelevant to the uses of the words gravity and gravitation. Gravitation didn’t replace gravity, it’s just the universal term, where gravity is for  more specific cases.

https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics/difference-between/gravitation-and-gravity/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20people%20are%20considering%20these,the%20very%20big%20object%20earth

That’s why General Relativity is also known as Einstein’s Theory of Gravity, compared to Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

If you’re going to hide behind definitions in your bonkers anti science world view, you might as well try to get them right.

PS.  Fancy answering my earlier questions on the falsifiability of your own wacky ideas?

28
Of course variations can exist. The variations simply need be caused by something other than the Universal Accelerator.

You mean, something like gravity?
No. Noone takes gravity very seriously anymore. Yet, possibly something like gravitation.

LOL

Gravity is what we call the force (or interaction) on a small body by a much larger body, usually the earth, but could be the moon or another planet.

Gravitation is the more general force/interaction between any two bodies.

Saying no one takes gravity seriously is total nonsense.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: WHO / WEF Terror Organizations
« on: May 26, 2024, 03:44:31 PM »
You forgot to mention George Soros.

I have to deduct points from your conspiracy theorist batshittery rating for omitting him.

30
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?
« on: May 24, 2024, 02:19:09 PM »
Demonstrably false.  Iíve been attacking specifics, which you are now complaining about.  You are the one arguing on ďprinciplesĒ.  Or some might say extremism.
The problem is when those specifics you attack already exist in the current system you are defending.
That is you attacking it on principle and using whatever excuse you can to attack it.

They only exist for morons who think that stepping on a set of scales is the same thing as punching someone about the head until they fall over.


Quote
Quote
When most people talk about sexism, they mean the discrimination that has a negative impact on peoples lives.
No, that is only 1 side.
The other side is discrimination that has a positive impact on a select group of people's lives.
For example, if someone decided to give $1000 to every male, but no female, that would be sexist, even though it is just a positive impact.

It is sexist because it provides one sex an opportunity which is denied to people of the other sex.

Then you need to explain how removing the discrimination gives those people the opportunity you  say they are being denied.

Quote
Quote
If you just make all events open, the all the men currently being ďdiscriminated againstĒ who could beat the best women are precisely zero places higher in the open rankings than they were in the mens.  All the men further down are even further from the top.  Youíve ended the ďdiscrimination against menĒ and no men are better off, while the women loose a great deal.  Awesome.
If you literally just make it open and have all the female sports just vanish, with no other changes, then sure.
But that is not what is going to happen.
If instead you put what would have been given to those female events to the open event, you can allow more people to compete in that open event. So some would be better off.

We can even see the reverse happening in boxing at the olympics.
In 2008 there were 11 divisions for males.
Then in 2012, that was cut to 10.
In 2020, that was cut to 8.
In 2024, that will be cut to 7.
Why the cuts?
Well in 2012, 3 female divisions were introduced.
In 2020 that grew to 5.
In 2024, it will grow to 6.

By putting on more divisions for the women, they are taking away divisions that could be open to everyone.

And if the best argument you can come up with as to why removing the sexism is bad is because the people currently being advantaged by it would lose that advantage, then your argument leaves a lot to be desired.

Oh my fucking God!  An argument on how many divisions there are! This is the exact thing I asked you for examples of for your ideas and you refused to answer, because apparently itís not your problem.

You then backtracked from all that and said this:

And again, the simple way to do that is to just remove it, no divisions at all. That is better because it is not discriminating on the basis of sex, just like removing raced based segregation was better because it meant you don't discriminate on the basis of race. You then need to try to justify why having sexism is better.

Which is what I was talking about In the reply above.  Your proposal can be one division or many divisions, but it canít change like magic when someone asks a question or makes a point you donít like.  It canít be everything and nothing all at once.  That is not honest debate. 

MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND. 

Quote
Quote
Performance meaning winning matches, races, scoring the most points in gymnastics, etc, etc.
No, it doesn't.
For races, performance is getting a good time.
It provides a measure entirely removed from if you win or lose.
Winning or losing is then comparing your performance against those of others.
For boxing, as there isn't a simple number, winning matches is an easy measure, but even that is not really all that great without something like an ELO system to balance it.
Someone who wins 100 matches against weak opponents isn't as good as one that can only win 1 against a much stronger opponent.

In races the person with the fastest time wins, Jack.  Surely even you know this?

Obviously it matters who the boxer beats.  No one gets a world championship title by beating the guys in the local gym.

Is there no shit too dumb for you to try to make an argument out of?

Quote
Quote
To avoid being excluded from your ridiculous performance based divisions, they would need to avoid winning too often to stay at just the right place in the rankings.
Again, athletes are already artificially capping themselves.
The best of the featherweights is the best of a group of people artificially capping their potential.
Sure sounds quite similar.

Are the best of the women ďartificially capping themselvesĒ by being women?

Quote
Quote
Many of these won a world championship in one class and the next one up the following year:
And some even went down.
But look at the other times.
Thomas Harns took 2 years to go from welterweight to light middleweight, then 4 years to get to light heavyweight, before dropping back down to middleweight.

No thatís how long it took him to WIN A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE in the new class. Not just to ďget toĒ it. You asked for an example, I gave you several.  The fact itís possible at all makes my point.

Quote
Quote
People who play anything in their spare time at their local sports center donít tend to take it as seriously as the people competing internationally.  Whoíd have thought?
You seem to be missing the point here.
The top sporting events, which you previously said are meant to be about finding the best, is exactly where the athletes are intentionally trying to not be their best.

THE BEST IN THE CLASS THEY ARE COMPETING IN.

Quote
Quote
You explicitly claim that any argument based on physiological differences between men and women can only work if EVERY man is faster, stronger or whatever than every woman.
And I have explained why.
Look at the boxers, who happily control their weight to go into the different divisions.
You can't do that with sex.
Weight is not a protected characteristic, sex is.

Youíre right, women canít do that.  So no matter how good they are or much they train, they wonít be able to compete with the top men.  This doesnít help your argument.

Itís also NOT the point Iím making.  Which is about correlation between weight and boxing ability vs sex and sporting ability. 

You claim that for sex based divisions to make any logical sense EVERY man needs to be better than EVERY women.  Obvious bullshit.

Quote
Quote
But the top women would stand no chance against the top men in most sports
And do you think that because you think they aren't "good at the sport" or because other factors are more important?

That is not an either/or question, dipshit.  Male physiology is a very significant ADVANTAGE, just like weight is for boxing.  Being good at the sport is more important.  Between two people who are equally skilled and train equally hard, thatís when such advantages becomes the deciding factor.

Quote
Quote
So you donít care about what would happen to all the millions of people who play sport under the current system or the people who watch it?
As opposed to the millions of people who currently can't do so because they are excluded based upon their sex and aren't good enough to be the best?

Which is why I ask for a coherent and consistent explanation of how those people would be more included under a different system.

Quote
Quote
I think outcomes matter.
And in this case the outcome is removing sexism. Removing people being treated differently based upon their sex. Removing giving people an advantage based upon their sex.

Nope.  Giving women an advantage would mean granting them free points or more players on the team or whatever when they compete with men.  Not what happens.  There is no advantage or disadvantage given, the womenís leagues are just completely separate things to the mens leagues and they do not affect each other.

But people are interested in watching the women play and thatís what you canít stand, right?  Because you donít think they deserve the attention.  Tough shit.

Quote
Quote
It doesnít detract from mens sports at all.
It is a zero sum game.
You can't introduce something, without detracting from something else.
Boxing at the Olympics is a great example as above.

Womens international football is getting more popular, but just as many people will watch and enjoy the mens Euros this year as they always have, if not more.

If you kill off womens football, thatís ALL you do.  Take it away from the athletes who compete and the fans who enjoy it, while the mens game gains nothing.  And I know you donít care.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97