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 - Euclid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Avatar, = Star Wars?
« on: January 25, 2011, 06:28:52 PM »
^This.

The story of the original Star Wars was fairly simplistic, but still original.  It was effective in drawing in the audience.  Enough said.  It only grew to "epic" proportions in the Empire Strikes Back. 

To be fair, Avatar still has the opportunity to grow a better story with sequels being made.  I'd be more forgiving to the first film if this happened.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic fields
« on: January 13, 2011, 08:22:17 PM »
It's not that hard to imagine...  The same principle works in FET.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Noether's Theorem
« on: December 28, 2010, 04:43:57 PM »
Through Noether's theorem (assuming all else to be equal ie fair test):
Momentum is conserved due to the fact that translation does not affect experimental results (this is used in lagrangian dynamics, hamiltonian dynamics and calculus of variations).
Angular momentum is conserved due to the fact that rotation does not affect experimental results.
Energy (that includes rest energy) is conserved due to the fact that a change in time does not affect experimental results (you would know this if you knew how to derive E=mc˛).
Charge, colour charge and the particle physics quantum numbers are conserved through gauge symmetry.
These are all consequences of the theorem.
This is relevant because UA, as is probably needed in a FE theory where things fall back to earth without earth reaching hydrostatic equilibrium (and thus becoming an oblate spheroid), assumes that space is not uniform in the up/down direction, meaning that momentum (yes i do know about gravity too, so we need to correct for it) would NOT be conserved in that direction.
Your point about me not knowing physics?
What have you learned of physics? 3rd Year physics student at Manchester.
Try me on physics.

Momentum isn't conserved along the vertical direction.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Davis Model, Gauss's law and gravitation.
« on: December 28, 2010, 04:30:19 PM »
I think you should try using Gauss's law again.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Warped priorities in western society
« on: December 19, 2010, 03:19:26 PM »
There's greater temptation to have sex than kill someone.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: December 13, 2010, 04:01:47 PM »
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.

Then go ahead and explain it. In detail.

Please use the search feature.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: December 12, 2010, 12:43:37 PM »
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.

8
I am posting in this quality thread.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE model support
« on: October 28, 2010, 04:26:37 PM »
ITT: Hortensius wins and Username's model is possible?

Nah, what about: Hortensius wins and Username's model is gravitationally unstable...

What are the causes of Earthquakes in Username's model? I recall in some models there aren't any tectonic plates.

Don't know, but for my argument it doesn't really matter what the causes are... And plausible is certainly not the right word...

If I remember you said that earthquakes could make it unstable, but didn't give any further reasons. I also couldn't find those calculations you said you would make.  :(

By now I have made the calculation, but it is far too lengthy and technical to post on this forum. I have shown Username how to reproduce it in a private message and I have given him some literature so that he can do the calculation for himself. So far he hasn't finished it presumably, and I don't expect him to because it involves some advanced physics...

I can haz calculation pm'ed to me too?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?
« on: October 25, 2010, 05:02:13 PM »
No one is saying all issues in FET have all the detailed physics convincingly worked out.

Quote
BTW, there are plenty of detailed physics on the issue for those you care to read them. What's stopping you?

That doesn't mean the explanation exists.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?
« on: October 25, 2010, 04:53:29 PM »
The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.
In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.
I'd like you to prove that.

The point is you can't.
NOU? Really? Well, I can:

Quote
16.   Dan Fischer Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
...
Just some thoughts from a seasoned amateur astronomer who has seen lots of visual as well as photographic artefacts over 30 years ?

I could say the same thing.  You would doubt my expertise.  Not proof.

This is all besides the point.  A convincing explanation has yet to be given.  People can holler atmospheric effect all they want, but it's not convincing without an explanation of the detailed physics.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?
« on: October 25, 2010, 04:40:00 PM »
The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.
In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.
I'd like you to prove that.

The point is you can't.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?
« on: October 25, 2010, 04:30:28 PM »
The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.
In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

There are no experts posting.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?
« on: October 25, 2010, 03:50:26 PM »
So explain it. Design a repeatable experiment and attempt to verify for yourself that it is indeed the Anti-moon before you jump to conclusions.

I don't claim it is until there is further evidence.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?
« on: October 25, 2010, 03:42:24 PM »
Did you even read the whole thing?

Quote
Actually there is only one sensible explanation: some sort of lensing/reflection phenomenon that is giving rise to multiple images. The two obvious culprits would be the camera lens itself, or the atmosphere. But Henry took the picture in the first place because he saw the ghost image with his naked eyes, so the camera lens is out. Atmosphere it is! This is somewhat corroborated by the fact that different exposures show different separations between the images — something that could be explained by changing atmospheric conditions.

The fact that the ghost image changed positions is not only explainable by an atmospheric effect.  Even if it really is an atmospheric effect, there is still much left to be explained.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?
« on: October 25, 2010, 01:58:13 PM »
I'll stake it up on a lens artifact.

Berny
Watching Judge Judy
I remember having to drive my grandfather back to where he saw this triangularly shaped UFO on the next day, just to show him that it was the Sun's reflection off his car's gull-wing window. People are so quick to assume the mysterious, like Euclid.

The fact is there is no certain explanation, hence the mystery.  Probably a trivial explanation, but it could be something more interesting.

17
While you were writing all these massive replies over whether Star Wars would beat Star Trek I was out enjoying my life.

You're not enjoying your life in a Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate?   ???

18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Galactocentrism
« on: October 25, 2010, 12:58:49 PM »
Galactocentricity is the proposition that the galaxy in which we live is at the center of the universe. A number of observations suggest a galactocentric universe, among them:

1.All objects in the universe beyond our galaxy have a red shift in their spectrum. None have a blue shift, which would imply an approaching object.
2.The degree of redshift varies directly as the distance of the object from our galaxy (Hubble's Law).
3.Quantized redshift, or the organization of extragalactic objects into distinct bands, is the strongest single observation that suggests
galactocentricity.

More info:
 http://creation.com/in-the-middle-of-the-action
http://creationwiki.org/Galactocentricity

It should not be confused with geocentrism (saw a thread below about that), geocentrism has obviously been debunked by astronomical observation. Galactocentrism however is a very interesting valid theory.


The idea that the Milky Way is at least at a near-central location is not without merit.

A model in which the Milky Way happens to be near the center of a bubble of an unusually low density of galaxies has been proposed to explain cosmic acceleration without need for the mysterious dark energy.

Such a model can be more convincing than the commonly accepted dark energy model depending on one's philosophical convictions.

This does not mean the Milky Way is truly at the center of the Universe in this model however.  Since we are constrained to observing events within the Hubble sphere, we may never be able to answer this question with certainty.  Any structure larger than the Hubble sphere is unobservable.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Small query about the Sun.
« on: October 21, 2010, 11:45:14 AM »
In the FAQ, it mentions that some FEers believe the Sun to be 32 miles wide, and 3000 miles above sea level.

How can they tell? How are these measurements...er...measured?

Rowbotham describes it in his book I think.  It's an estimate based on the position of the sun in the sky over locations separated by thousands of kilometers with an assumption that light travels in straight lines.

21
A geometric model can easily be constructed, but since it will inevitably require using historical data to calibrate to the required accuracy, Tom's prize is unwinnable.

22
The Lounge / Re: How do you tip?
« on: October 03, 2010, 08:16:14 PM »
Two pages in, and I'm glad that no one here has uttered the magic words, "I don't tip."  In almost every online discussion I've seen about tipping, there's usually at least at one smartass who thinks he's a fucking rebel because he doesn't tip.  If anyone here just "doesn't tip" on principle, let me tell you right now, you're an asshole, and you don't look edgy or cool for ignoring social folkways.

I don't tip.  I feel guilty occasionally and do it, but most of the time I'm too lazy/forget, a bad habit I know.  I just wish others well-being wasn't determined by my generosity.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Model of a Nuclear Sun is false.
« on: October 03, 2010, 08:10:49 PM »

The solar irradiance at the Earth's surface with the surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays is approximately 1 kW/m2. This is an experimentally measurable fact.

All other calculations using this figure are model dependent and are drastically different between RE and FE.

For example, assuming RE and a Sun - Earth distance of 1.50 x 1011 m, one finds that the Sun should radiate such power that a sphere with this radius will be irradiated with the above mentioned irradiance. This gives an estimate for the Solar power of:

PRE Sun = 103 W/m2 x 4 x 3.14 x (1.50 x 1011 m)2 = 2.83 x 1026 W

In FE, however, the Sun is about 3,100 mi = 5.0 x 106 m from the Earth. Then, the power is

PFE Sun = 103 W/m2 x 4 x 3.14 x (5.0 x 106 m)2 = 3.1 x 1017 W

Did you account for this huge difference of around 9 orders of magnitudes? Please note that the energy that the RE Sun could radiate in 1 second would be radiated by the Sun in FE in 29 years! Did you account for this discrepancy while "refuting" FE?
Even accepting your argument, (which I do not, since you have been rightly corrected about using the total irradiance of the sun and not the irradiance on Earth), you are still doing a dismal work on your model.

You conveniently used the 3100 mile "distance" for your calculations, but ignored that the mean distance, say, to Antarctica, would be ( (4988 km)2 + (12732 km)2 )1/2 = 13674 km. on a Flat Earth.

Furthermore, the surface of Antarctica is irradiated at a mean angle of  arctan(4988 / 12732) = 21 degrees.

Combining the two factors, any given patch of the surface in Antarctica would receive (3100/13674)2 x 4988 / 12732 times the energy, or 0.02 times the energy that a place near the Equator would receive at noon.

Converting this to temperatures, with an average temperature on Earth of about 287 degrees Kelvin, the temperature of Antarctica would be about (0.02 x 287) = 6 degrees Kelvin, or minus 267 degrees Celsius.

Considering the fact that some other heat sources are also in place, you would still have liquid nitrogen pools on top of Antarctica's ice.

PS. Whether you decide to use the 12732 km between the poles that I used, or any other calculation used in this forum, it is OK with me. It will not change the conclusion.

Temperature need not be proportional to solar flux nor does sunlight need to travel in straight lines.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Sun, and FEH
« on: October 03, 2010, 12:27:38 PM »

Well, I can measure that.  My theory predicts the solar spectrum should have black body form.  It does.




Than use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to show the Sun's temperature. Seems to me it will be much too hot to be degenerate matter.

I can't derive the Sun's temperature.  That's an empirical fact derived from the solar spectrum.  There's no argument that says degenerate matter can't be 5777K.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Sun, and FEH
« on: October 01, 2010, 10:16:03 PM »
The temperature, spectrum, and angular diameter of the sun are all easily accessible online, as are estimates of the solar distance on this site.

The formation of the sun is an unknown aspect of the theory and is even more speculative.  Gravitational collapse of gas?  Clearly for my model to be plausible, it had to have formed at temperature where gravitation is enough to overcome pressure, which is not implausible.  It stores energy like any hot body does, in the form of atomic motion.
The FE estimates are demonstrated to be wrong right here in FED.

Again what temperature do say the Sun started at?
I don't know.  It's not important to the plausibility of my model.

Quote
Again what spectrum did you use?
There are several online.  The exact numbers are not important to my model, only that it is approximated well by a black body spectrum of temperature 5777K.

Quote
Again what angular diameter of the Sun did you use?
Try googling.

Quote
Do you really think that gas exists at any temperature and pressure?
It doesn't. But it can exist in an ultra-dense state according to known laws.

Quote
Why do you think that gravity holds the Sun together when you can't even tell us its mass or temperature?
I can tell you its temperature.  Google it.  I will say that my idea is not too different from neutron stars and white dwarfs in RET.  The equation of state of this matter permits it to be gravitationally contained for a variety of different masses.

Quote
How long as the Sun been cooling in your model?

I don't know.  At least as long as life has been around.  An age of the Sun is not important to the plausibility of my model.


Until you show your work on how you came up with the density of the Sun, I leave you to your trolling. Suggesting that I Google to determine what number you used in your model is inappropriate and demonstrates that you've got nothing.

The exact numbers are unimportant in an order of magnitude analysis.  If you find an angular diameter of 31 arcminutes one place and I used 30 arcminutes in my calculation, it makes no practical difference.  If you want to repeat the calculation, I will guide you through it, but I have no obligation to put all my equations here.  Often in scientific publications, not all work is shown.  It is expected the reader can figure out the details themselves.  This leads to better reliability when others try repeat the calculation by different methods.  I have given enough details for a physics literate person to repeat my calculation to order of magnitude accuracy.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Sun, and FEH
« on: October 01, 2010, 10:04:48 PM »
The temperature, spectrum, and angular diameter of the sun are all easily accessible online, as are estimates of the solar distance on this site.

The formation of the sun is an unknown aspect of the theory and is even more speculative.  Gravitational collapse of gas?  Clearly for my model to be plausible, it had to have formed at temperature where gravitation is enough to overcome pressure, which is not implausible.  It stores energy like any hot body does, in the form of atomic motion.
The FE estimates are demonstrated to be wrong right here in FED.

Again what temperature do say the Sun started at?
I don't know.  It's not important to the plausibility of my model.

Quote
Again what spectrum did you use?
There are several online.  The exact numbers are not important to my model, only that it is approximated well by a black body spectrum of temperature 5777K.

Quote
Again what angular diameter of the Sun did you use?
Try googling.

Quote
Do you really think that gas exists at any temperature and pressure?
It doesn't. But it can exist in an ultra-dense state according to known laws.

Quote
Why do you think that gravity holds the Sun together when you can't even tell us its mass or temperature?
I can tell you its temperature.  Google it.  I will say that my idea is not too different from neutron stars and white dwarfs in RET.  The equation of state of this matter permits it to be gravitationally contained for a variety of different masses.

Quote
How long as the Sun been cooling in your model?

I don't know.  At least as long as life has been around.  An age of the Sun is not important to the plausibility of my model.


27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Sun, and FEH
« on: October 01, 2010, 09:51:48 PM »
I don't have a detailed model, nor could I.
I doubt that you have any model. If so, let's see it. So far, you haven't stated a single number, nor do I expect your ever will. Demonstrate your conclusion follows from your model or yield.

Quite simply, unless you have a detailed model, then your claim is not only false, it's a lie.

(I don't have a detailed model, but I know that it obeys all of the known laws.--what a crock!)

My model obeys all known laws by construction.  It consists of protons and electrons interacting via quantum electrodynamics.

My claim may be false, but it's my intention to show it is plausible.  

I don't have the data to constrain my model.  It is only nebulous because of the lack observations by FEers.  Any theory that has minimal data to begin with will be this way.  
I would say my model is about as solid as models of the RE sun were in the first third of the 20th century.

I have explained how my order of magnitude calculation works.  It yields a density of ~10^15kg/m^3.  An educated physicist or engineer should be able to reconstruct this number based on my description.
That's just ridiculous. A model can't be constructed to obey all of the known laws. A model answers a set of observation. You don't have observations, so you don't have a model.
It happens all the time.  The RE model of the sun is also constructed so it satisfies all known laws.  How else could it have been constructed?  It obviously doesn't invoke any unknown laws.

I have some observations.  I have the solar spectrum.  I have the temperature.  I have the apparent angular diameter.  I have FE estimates of solar distance.

Quote

Do tell us how you obtained that density. I challenge you to do so. You don't even use the word density correctly (average, maximum?). Tell us where your Sun gets the energy to free electrons and protons for this radically new energy source through QED. Tell us all about how the Sun converts this energy into its spectrum. Tell us how you can get a density when you don't have a clue about the Sun's distance or mass.

(Why don't you just admit that you've got nothing?)

I did tell you.  I assumed a uniform density in my calculation.  Anyone here is welcome to repeat it and ask me about any specifics they didn't understand or I didn't explain well enough.  In my model, the sun is continually losing energy through radiation and becoming cooler.  That's it.  There's no mystical energy source inside.  I've designed it so the cooling time is much longer than the age of the Earth.
Show your work. You never told us that you assumed a uniform density, so there was no way to obtain your result before now. So how did your Sun get hot in the first place? How much energy did it start with? How did it store that energy? Surely you're not hoping that gravity will hold the Sun together at any temperature.

You say you have the temperature, the FE distance to the Sun (which has been shown here to be false), the solar spectrum, and maybe more. Let's have those figures now. No more dodging.

The temperature, spectrum, and angular diameter of the sun are all easily accessible online, as are estimates of the solar distance on this site.

The formation of the sun is an unknown aspect of the theory and is even more speculative.  Gravitational collapse of gas?  Clearly for my model to be plausible, it had to have formed at temperature where gravitation is enough to overcome pressure, which is not implausible.  It stores energy like any hot body does, in the form of atomic motion.
edit: I don't intend tho show further aspects of my work unless someone intends to repeat it or does not understand a certain detail.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Sun, and FEH
« on: October 01, 2010, 09:18:21 PM »
I don't have a detailed model, nor could I.
I doubt that you have any model. If so, let's see it. So far, you haven't stated a single number, nor do I expect your ever will. Demonstrate your conclusion follows from your model or yield.

Quite simply, unless you have a detailed model, then your claim is not only false, it's a lie.

(I don't have a detailed model, but I know that it obeys all of the known laws.--what a crock!)

My model obeys all known laws by construction.  It consists of protons and electrons interacting via quantum electrodynamics.

My claim may be false, but it's my intention to show it is plausible. 

I don't have the data to constrain my model.  It is only nebulous because of the lack observations by FEers.  Any theory that has minimal data to begin with will be this way. 
I would say my model is about as solid as models of the RE sun were in the first third of the 20th century.

I have explained how my order of magnitude calculation works.  It yields a density of ~10^15kg/m^3.  An educated physicist or engineer should be able to reconstruct this number based on my description.
That's just ridiculous. A model can't be constructed to obey all of the known laws. A model answers a set of observation. You don't have observations, so you don't have a model.
It happens all the time.  The RE model of the sun is also constructed so it satisfies all known laws.  How else could it have been constructed?  It obviously doesn't invoke any unknown laws.

I have some observations.  I have the solar spectrum.  I have the temperature.  I have the apparent angular diameter.  I have FE estimates of solar distance.

Quote

Do tell us how you obtained that density. I challenge you to do so. You don't even use the word density correctly (average, maximum?). Tell us where your Sun gets the energy to free electrons and protons for this radically new energy source through QED. Tell us all about how the Sun converts this energy into its spectrum. Tell us how you can get a density when you don't have a clue about the Sun's distance or mass.

(Why don't you just admit that you've got nothing?)

I did tell you.  I assumed a uniform density in my calculation.  Anyone here is welcome to repeat it and ask me about any specifics they didn't understand or I didn't explain well enough.  In my model, the sun is continually losing energy through radiation and becoming cooler.  That's it.  There's no mystical energy source inside.  I've designed it so the cooling time is much longer than the age of the Earth.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Sun, and FEH
« on: October 01, 2010, 08:49:21 PM »
I don't have a detailed model, nor could I.
I doubt that you have any model. If so, let's see it. So far, you haven't stated a single number, nor do I expect your ever will. Demonstrate your conclusion follows from your model or yield.

Quite simply, unless you have a detailed model, then your claim is not only false, it's a lie.

(I don't have a detailed model, but I know that it obeys all of the known laws.--what a crock!)

My model obeys all known laws by construction.  It consists of protons and electrons interacting via quantum electrodynamics.

My claim may be false, but it's my intention to show it is plausible.  

I don't have the data to constrain my model.  It is only nebulous because of the lack observations by FEers.  Any theory that has minimal data to begin with will be this way.  

I would say my model is about as solid as models of the RE sun were in the first third of the 20th century.

I have explained how my order of magnitude calculation works.  It yields a density of ~10^15kg/m^3.  An educated physicist or engineer should be able to reconstruct this number based on my description.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Sun, and FEH
« on: October 01, 2010, 08:31:42 PM »
Get used to order-of-magnitude analysis.  I don't have a detailed model, nor could I.

The sun is likely a dense ball of degenerate gas that is still in the process of cooling.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that this is likely, or even possible?

Using an estimated value of the solar luminosity assuming the black body law and estimated distance to the sun gives an energy loss rate.  Estimating the specific heat capacity of the sun as that of an ideal gas (an awful approximation, but it shows the plausibility), one can estimate the needed density of sun if the energy loss isn't to lead to a significant change in temperature change over ~4.5 billion years. (A big change in solar temperature would change the solar spectrum, meaning plants wouldn't be able to photosynthesize.) This turns out to be a huge number comparable to the estimates of density in RET white dwarfs and neutron stars.  Thus, we are lead to the conclusion that the sun is composed of very dense matter (assuming it doesn't have a power source of its own).
So no evidence. Noted. Do come back when you have anything to support your claim.

Speculating on the nature of the sun is just that, speculation.  I can tell you that my idea is consistent with known laws of physics and observation.
Well, if you're just speculating you should say so.

Since you can tell us that your idea is consistent with know laws of physics and observation, I'd like you to tell us how you managed to review all the known laws against your idea.

Let's start with the mass of the Sun. What is it?
I don't know.  I can only estimate it within a few orders of magnitude.

Quote
Let's start with the color of the Sun. What is it?
Well, I can measure that.  My theory predicts the solar spectrum should have black body form.  It does.

Quote
From there tell us the surface temperature of the Sun.
I can measure that too from the solar spectrum.  My idea is consistent with that temperature.

Quote
Tell us what light frequencies plants currently use for photosynthesis.
I know at least it's close to the visible range.  So if my theory predicts the temperature of the sun changes so much that the maximum wavelength falls out of that range by a few orders of magnitude, it's wrong.
Quote
Tell us what light frequencies they have used over time.
I don't know.  Based on typical energy scales in molecules, I know it couldn't deviate too much from the visible.

Quote
Tell us why any shift in the Solar spectrum would prevent plant photosynthesis. (By the way, I know your claim is false, so go ahead and recant your claim to speed this along.)

Of course tiny shifts wouldn't do anything.  I'm talking orders of magnitude here.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24