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 - John Davis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 437
1
Too many answers are being provided by people who are not the OP. This is your final warning to cut it out.

And OP, there are several wisdoms that you have ignored. It is your obligation to answer each and every one of them. This is your final warning. Answer the questions. WE NEED YOUR ANSWERS.
As moderators, we really shouldn't issue joke warnings :).

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Projecting things onto the dome.
« on: April 23, 2019, 03:06:37 PM »
That is a possibility, among so many other things. While it is true that there are more things in heaven and Earth, than are dreamt of in my philosophy, I'd like to see some more evidence.

I find the projection based explanations pretty weak in general though, and they seem to be pretty heavy handed on the hand waving.

3
The Lounge / Re: I am a 1. Semester Physics Student. Ask me anything.
« on: April 23, 2019, 07:08:40 AM »
I'll pull out the book when I get home and go over the first part of this if you'd like. It has been a moment and I'm afraid I'll misrepresent it.

4
The Lounge / Re: I am a 1. Semester Physics Student. Ask me anything.
« on: April 23, 2019, 07:08:06 AM »
I'd love to ask you a question.

Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?

The 80% is more of a feeling than some test result or so. According to my experience and friends from higher semesters as well as professors I talked to, what we do most of the day is calculation. Be that solving differential equations or simpler problems, the vast majority of work is math.

That is because math is a tool which is mainly used to derive conclusions from known values.
As I said, math is pure logic, 1=1 is simply true, there are no conditions.
Actually, this depends on axiom. It is entirely conceivable to choose a set of axioms in which 1 != 1. The conditions are the axioms of choice.

Quote
Similarly nature is I guess per definition logic as well and physics is the study of nature. So the strong relationship between math and physics is obvious.
My argument is that such a tie is not obvious, especially given one can perform physics without the use of mathematics.

Quote
Personally I think there is an extreme misunderstanding about physics out there. People look to e.g. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (as I did) or Bill Nye or watch documentaries. But all they say is extremely boiled down and simplified. They tell you the conclusions and ideas that were inspired by long processes of actual experimentation and evaluation of test results but they couldn't explain the actual reasons even if the explanation took an entire week. Their job is more to inspire people, not to teach them.
I agree very strongly with this.

Quote
I mean sure, stuff like the many worlds theory, Schrödingers cat, and so on is awesome to think about but that's not what physics/ science is about. No one knows what happens during the double slit experiment and the math only tells you what happens before and after. One can wonder if new universes are created each time there is a seemingly random event but that's not the point. Science and especially physics is about explaining phenomena but also about simply predicting outcomes from given circumstances.
In actuality, science isn't about explaining phenomena. What you are thinking about is aristotelian science which predates the scientific revolution. Science aims to describe. One cannot find 'true cause.'

Quote
But that doesn't mean that it is boring. I personally find it extremely fascinating that you can more or less describe a (simplified version of) an entire storm system with an equation that fits in one line. (In the end it is more complicated than that but still).


I guess what I am trying to say is that yes, Physics is mostly math.
If physics is mostly math, how can it be performed without use of math? I am happy to provide justification here if necessary, just ask.

Yeah, how do you perform Physics without math? I personally think that math also serves as a kind of guide for when my intuition is no longer capable of working with physics problems...

Field did so by axiomizing Newton's laws with no reference to functions or numbers. He started with Hilberts Axioms and added extra relations between points to do the work formally done by calculation and vector fields - and he did so without use of hilbert's abstract points and instead had them refer to real physical points.

From there he used this to show that every fact provable in 'normal physics' is also provable in his system, making mathematical physics a conservative extension of his theory - and thus a useful fiction.

5
The Lounge / Re: I am a 1. Semester Physics Student. Ask me anything.
« on: April 22, 2019, 01:15:53 PM »
I'd love to ask you a question.

Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?

The 80% is more of a feeling than some test result or so. According to my experience and friends from higher semesters as well as professors I talked to, what we do most of the day is calculation. Be that solving differential equations or simpler problems, the vast majority of work is math.

That is because math is a tool which is mainly used to derive conclusions from known values.
As I said, math is pure logic, 1=1 is simply true, there are no conditions.
Actually, this depends on axiom. It is entirely conceivable to choose a set of axioms in which 1 != 1. The conditions are the axioms of choice.

Quote
Similarly nature is I guess per definition logic as well and physics is the study of nature. So the strong relationship between math and physics is obvious.
My argument is that such a tie is not obvious, especially given one can perform physics without the use of mathematics.

Quote
Personally I think there is an extreme misunderstanding about physics out there. People look to e.g. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (as I did) or Bill Nye or watch documentaries. But all they say is extremely boiled down and simplified. They tell you the conclusions and ideas that were inspired by long processes of actual experimentation and evaluation of test results but they couldn't explain the actual reasons even if the explanation took an entire week. Their job is more to inspire people, not to teach them.
I agree very strongly with this.

Quote
I mean sure, stuff like the many worlds theory, Schrödingers cat, and so on is awesome to think about but that's not what physics/ science is about. No one knows what happens during the double slit experiment and the math only tells you what happens before and after. One can wonder if new universes are created each time there is a seemingly random event but that's not the point. Science and especially physics is about explaining phenomena but also about simply predicting outcomes from given circumstances.
In actuality, science isn't about explaining phenomena. What you are thinking about is aristotelian science which predates the scientific revolution. Science aims to describe. One cannot find 'true cause.'

Quote
But that doesn't mean that it is boring. I personally find it extremely fascinating that you can more or less describe a (simplified version of) an entire storm system with an equation that fits in one line. (In the end it is more complicated than that but still).


I guess what I am trying to say is that yes, Physics is mostly math.
If physics is mostly math, how can it be performed without use of math? I am happy to provide justification here if necessary, just ask.

6
The Lounge / Re: I am a 1. Semester Physics Student. Ask me anything.
« on: April 22, 2019, 12:36:15 PM »
I'd love to ask you a question.

Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Projecting things onto the dome.
« on: April 22, 2019, 12:32:07 PM »
To me its unbelievable that NASA would be able to project these images. They are likely, if they are projected, done by some other natural element that would be more consistent with our thousands of years of history seeing stars.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« on: April 22, 2019, 12:31:05 PM »
IIRC, MGP also produced inconsistent results.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« on: April 22, 2019, 12:28:13 PM »
Sandokhan has told me Relativity is easy to debunk and the Aether hypothesis is top notch and wins out, now it’s my turn. The luminiferous aether is easy to debunk, and with that, Sandokhans model dies down with it since it relies on this aether.

A basic experiment that geocentrists like to cite is the Michelson-Morley experiment, where the speed of light was compared in perpendicular directions and the result was negative. According to the Luminiferous aether hypothesis, the relative motion of matter through the aether should provide a directional change in the speed of light, so, with a rotating earth, it should match the daily rotation rate of the Earth. However, it didn’t, showing that according to the aether hypothesis, Earth is at rest in stationary aether (NOT rotating). It would also result in the orbit of the Earth around the sun if heliocentrism was correct, but no motion was detected. It then makes sense why geocentrists like this experiment so much and the aether.
From On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether (1887)
by Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley:
“Let sa, fig. 1, be a ray of light which is partly reflected in ab, and partly transmitted in ac, being returned by the mirrors b and c, along ba and ca. ba is partly transmitted alongad,

and ca is partly reflected along ad. If then the paths ab and ac are equal, the two rays interfere along ad. Suppose now, the ether being at rest, that the whole apparatus moves in the direction sc, with the velocity of the earth in its orbit, the directions and distances traversed by the rays will be altered thus:— The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab, being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba/, (aba/ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca/, and is reflected at a/, making ca/e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba/ and ca/, do not now meet exactly in the same point a/, though the difference is of the second order; this does not affect the validity of the reasoning. Let it now be required to find the difference in the two paths aba/, and aca/.
Let V= velocity of light.
v= velocity of the earth in its orbit,
D=distance ab or ac, fig. 1.
T=time light occupies to pass from a to c.
T =time light occupies to return from c to a/, (fig. 2.)

Then . The whole time of going and coming is , and the distance traveled in this time is , neglecting terms of the fourth order. The length of the other path is evidently, or to the same degree of accuracy, . The difference is therefore . If now the whole apparatus be turned through 90°, the difference will be in the opposite direction, hence the displacement of the interference fringes should be . Considering only the velocity of the earth in its orbit, this would be .  If, as was the case in the first experiment, , the displacement to be expected would be 0.04 of the distance between the interference fringes.”
More here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

A basic search on Wikipedia reveals the results:
“The expectation was that the effect would be graphable as a sine wave with two peaks and two troughs per rotation of the device. This result could have been expected because during each full rotation, each arm would be parallel to the wind twice (facing into and away from the wind giving identical readings) and perpendicular to the wind twice. Additionally, due to the Earth's rotation, the wind would be expected to show periodic changes in direction and magnitude during the course of a sidereal day.
Because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun, the measured data were also expected to show annual variations.
After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history.[A 13] Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement (Fig. 7), but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was "probably less than one-sixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth."[1] Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.[A 1] For instance, Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:[A 14]
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
— Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 ”
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Michelson.E2.80.93Morley_experiment_.281887.29

The Michelson Morley failed to detect the rotation speed of the Earth that was assumed.

However, a variation of the Michelson Morley experiment done with a large ring interferometer to detect the sagnac effect of Earth’s rotation was done, called the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.
The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment was basically a larger version of Michelson-Morley; its perimeter was 1.9 kilometers. This was large enough to detect the angular velocity of the Earth. To make a simplification of how this works, imagine you have Earth, and an aether wind uniformly moving across it. The longitudinal lines north of the equator would be smaller than the equator itself, giving a difference in aether speed across earth since the aether wind crosses earth at the shorter north distance in the same time as the longer equator distance. So, a large ring interferometer would detect a fringe shift with a rotating Earth or equivalent aether wind.

The Michelson-Gale-Pearson ring interferometer:




The Fringe displacement expected from the Michelson-Gale Experiment was represented by a simple equation:



= Fringe displacement
A= Area in km^2
= latitude
c= speed of light
w= angular velocity of Earth
= Wavelength used

The experiment accurately detected the supposed angular velocity of the Earth. With the Sagnac effect, which the aether hypothesis was consistent with, revealed a rotating Earth. This implies one of two things with the assumption of the luminiferous aether:
1.   The Earth is rotating once per 24 hours in stationary aether.
2.   The aether is rotating around the Earth once per 24 hours, basically an equivalent aether wind.
Both of these are basically the aether and earth moving relative to one another at once per day as predicted by a daily rotation of either the stars dragging it across or the rotation of Earth.

But wait a minute, the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect this rotation or aether wind, the results are inconsistent, the aether revealed an earth at rest in stationary aether (or nearly stationary) while also matching rotation. This implies a failure of the luminiferous aether hypothesis to be consistent with both the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, and therefore kills the aether, it simply doesn’t work.
“In 1924 Michelson and Gale used in Chicago a new fix interferometer. Both paths have exactly the same length. But one of E-W arm (DE in the sketch) is more than 300 meters located in the North of the other arm, which is by the way closer to the equator. The tangential speed of the Earth is not the same for both arms.
lac being the Chicago latitude, the result is a difference between the two duration of : t2 - t1 = (4 p L l sin lac)/(24 c2). Michelson and Gale measured an interference fringe displacement of 0,230 ± 0,005 fringe width (they performed 269 measurements) the theoretical displacement is 0,236. This is exactly the same experiment than Sagnac; It shows the rotation of the Earth.”
- http://editionsassailly.com/books/space.htm

Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment original papers:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Modern optical resonator experiments have confirmed that there is no aether wind to the 10^-17 level:
http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011

Relativity explains both of these experiments just fine, there is no aether wind in which the speed of light varies through with motion and the sagnac effect is consistent with relativity as there is no inertial frame in which the device may be at rest but rather an accelerating non-inertial rotating frame, explaining both the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.

Sandokhan, abandon your failed luminiferous aether hypothesis incorporated in your model and update your physics with Special and General Relativity. There is no luminiferous aether, it is best explained as a 4D space-time continuum (prefer GR but Minkowski space can work well with Special Relativity) with frames of reference defining motion along with inertia.

If you are going to create a flat earth model, do it without this luminiferous aether, it was falsified by having contradictory results with these two experiments.
I don't know of models that use luminferous aether, however it should be noted that the Michelson-Morely experiment actually resulted in a null result, which says nothing of whether it is true or not.

It is either disingenuous or flat out wrong to claim it disproves aether.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: the sun and temperatures.
« on: April 19, 2019, 08:49:40 AM »
Rowbotham, I believe, holds the heat is geothermic.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: the sun and temperatures.
« on: April 19, 2019, 08:48:06 AM »
John Davis is master on this issue and will be reply you soon.
What are you babbling on about now?

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie Sanders is not old enough
« on: April 10, 2019, 02:09:07 PM »
https://www.dailywire.com/news/45776/sanders-admits-hes-millionaire-if-you-write-best-ben-shapiro?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Why do people use that as attack? Is it suddenly not good anymore to be a millionaire?
It hasn't been for a long time, imo.

I did take an uber from an elderly fellow today. When I mentioned what I did, the car was silent the rest of the ride.

13
The Lounge / Re: How Do You Take Your Coffee?
« on: April 09, 2019, 09:24:50 AM »
I also do that often with tea. I used to do it with coffee when I was younger, but I drink coffee primarily at work now. 

14
Would you let people immigrate inside your house? On your property?

Would you be a bad person if you say no?

I would say that equating my country to my house isn't a good analogy.

Maybe a better analogy would be a high rise condominium where we have a crime problem and people who have just been stabbed keeped rushing the lobby and asking to use the phone to call the police and using the restroom to bandage their wounds.
A  very valid point; the contention is over asylum and refuge laws.

15
Your worldly goods and land and infrastructure rights are meaningless and worthless in the Kingdom of God.

16
Yes thats the quote;

Do I believe we should let anyone in? No, even as an immigrant myself.

Do I believe a Christian should believe we should let anyone in? Most definitely. Aside from the history of Romans, and what can be assumed to be illegal immigranation in the case of Joseph leading the chosen people to Egypt and slavery (or this could also be seen more specifically to the narrative told in the bible as Egypt recognizing and helping those that seek refuge), it seems clear from the New Testament that we are to treat anybody and everybody as Christ himself. Would a Christian refuse Jesus? Where the chosen people not strangers in Egypt?

To that I still hold this view.


So should we just let everyone in Willy nilly John? There shouldn't be any law and order to it?

Yes the first Americans came here as immigrants, however, they also put the time into building the land from nothing into something. So they deserve the right to choose who joins them.

It is like taking a plot of land noone owns...claiming the spot and building a house there. Is everyone entitled to walk in your house? No..

If I build a car from metal, then title the finished product, is it everyone's to drive? No

Would you let people immigrate inside your house? On your property?

Would you be a bad person if you say no?
I wouldn't be a bad person, but I wouldn't be following the example of Christ. Now, I recognize not everybody who is Christian can act Christlike; that said, without recognition that they are not acting Christlike, they are unable to ask for forgiveness for their transgressions.  If they neither act Christlike, attempt to, or ask for forgiveness when they are not - are they even a Christian in any meaningful way?

If I were a Christian and I turned down helping those in need, yes. Yes I would consider myself a bad person.


Quote
Yes the first Americans came here as immigrants, however, they also put the time into building the land from nothing into something. So they deserve the right to choose who joins them.

It is like taking a plot of land noone owns...claiming the spot and building a house there. Is everyone entitled to walk in your house? No..
Americans have such a right; as Christians, their duty is to give said right away freely:
Quote
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy,[l] your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are unhealthy,[m] your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

You are shifting to the argument then to them being entitled to the land, or taking it. This is not the argument at all; of course they aren't "entitled" to it. However, as a Christian, it would be the charge to give it to them.

Quote
you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
Quote
"Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Quote
'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
Quote
Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys.
Quote
When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
And so in.

17
Yes thats the quote;

Do I believe we should let anyone in? No, even as an immigrant myself.

Do I believe a Christian should believe we should let anyone in? Most definitely. Aside from the history of Romans, and what can be assumed to be illegal immigranation in the case of Joseph leading the chosen people to Egypt and slavery (or this could also be seen more specifically to the narrative told in the bible as Egypt recognizing and helping those that seek refuge), it seems clear from the New Testament that we are to treat anybody and everybody as Christ himself. Would a Christian refuse Jesus? Where the chosen people not strangers in Egypt?


18
The Lounge / Re: Stuff that has been going on
« on: April 08, 2019, 11:20:38 AM »
You are never causing problems by reaching out for help.

19
I always had a fondness for when Jefferson cut up the bible into the good bits.

20
The Lounge / Re: How Do You Take Your Coffee?
« on: April 05, 2019, 02:27:53 AM »
Its gayer!

21
Flat Earth General / Re: What about the moon?
« on: April 05, 2019, 02:26:04 AM »
What measurement would suggest?

22
To me the bible doesn't draw such distinctions, and purposefully does the opposite every chance it gets. To the least of us, you do upon Christ himself. You know. To drive it in - the basic fact. Stop hitting yourself. There is no distinction from man to woman, or foreigner to resident. To prisoner to freeman. If anything it again and again favors on the least of us. I am responding of course to Sessions citing Romans, of all the books ( the historical irony is thick here)

23
Also the fucking Romans. And all that noise. Egypt + Romans = pay fucking attention.

24
I agree with most of that.

When they came to Egypt, they came so on a promise from Joseph to enslave his own people against the fear of starvation.

Even the Pharaoh let them in at a cost. Clearly, even then, it was a bad idea to commit genocide or ignore necessary aid.  Aside from that, the whole bible - new and old - talks of not doing this shit.

There was no border, and yet, they gave the "chosen people" a chance to live. Yeah it was a shit chance it live. But they took that stick. And well. They took it.

Even the bad guys in the bible let in the foreigners.

25
Sessions's quotes aside.

26
Really?

27
The Lounge / Re: Stuff that has been going on
« on: April 05, 2019, 01:28:18 AM »
If you need help contact me.

28
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership Question
« on: April 01, 2019, 10:21:49 AM »
The cost on the medallions were too high to manufacture to match the prototype. Other priorities have taken our attention recently, but reopening membership is still on our radar.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Creationism
« on: March 29, 2019, 10:22:20 PM »
The reveals herself as a flat plane to anyone who looks upon her.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do asteroids fall down and Sun not ????
« on: March 29, 2019, 10:21:35 PM »
They are traveling towards the earth. The sun is not.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 437