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 - Ecthelion

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
211
Flat Earth General / Re: Rockets cannot work in a Vacuum.
« on: January 30, 2016, 12:11:45 AM »
At least PL, Scepti, myself and others are consistent: A rocket must push on something outside of itself to move.

No, it must push on something not connected to itself to move. Nowhere in the third law does it say anything about "outside" or "inside". It simply states "second body" - i.e. a body that is separate from the first body. Bodies can be separate even if they are inside each other.

Do you believe that if you pick up a stone and put it in your pocket, the stone becomes a part of you and consequently, when you tale it out and throw it, it's still part of your "body"?

What do you think happens if you fire a gun in a vacuum? Does it still have recoil?

212
Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.
« on: January 30, 2016, 12:03:58 AM »
That's called the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy:

Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove any empirical truth by using formal logic. Logic is deductive, so it cannot generate information.

If I want to generate information, i.e. I want to find out if something happened, then I will need at least one inductive element, and inductive elements always violate the rules of formal logic. This is easy to demonstrate: Prove to me you are a human using formal logic. Since you cannot do that without simply using the conclusion as a premise, I must assume you are not human.

An argument from ignorance is perfectly permissible, but it's strength depends on the completeness of the knowledge base. I can rephrase my argument as: Given all the pieces of evidence I have seen, the most likely proposition is that the moon landings actually happened. If my knowledge base is significantly incomplete, the argument would be weak. But in order to assess that, I would have to be presented with new observations which I haven't accounted for. Consequently, it makes no sense for me to list any individual piece of evidence that has me "convinced" since what makes the argument strong isn't the individual pieces of evidence but the assumption that my knowledge base is relatively complete.

213
Flat Earth General / Re: Rockets cannot work in a Vacuum.
« on: January 29, 2016, 12:46:25 PM »
Are you claiming that the centre point between a rocket and "the atmosphere it produces" does not move as the rocket ascends?

Assuming the exhaust and the rocket have the same mass, it wouldn't move. Why would it? both the rocket and it's exhaust (we can model poth as simple points in space for the purpose of this thought experiment) are moving away from each other at the same velocity. The middle point of the two will always be in the same spot.

214
Flat Earth General / Re: Rockets cannot work in a Vacuum.
« on: January 29, 2016, 11:09:39 AM »
Question: Do atmospheric jet engines actually generate their force by "pushing against the atmosphere"? It seems to me they just use the atmosphere as oxidizer and as mass.

215
Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.
« on: January 29, 2016, 09:26:55 AM »
YOUR most compelling evidence that has YOU convinced.

But that assumes that somehow I am convinced by any number of individual pieces of evidence, when the truth is much simpler: I simply haven't ever heard a convincing alternative theory (and I have looked into the question).

It's like asking "what is the most compelling piece of evidence that has you convinced everyone else around you isn't a robot?" There isn't a whole lot of positive pieces of evidence I could cite for that - it would all basically boild down to "I haven't seen anything that suggests that robots that complex and lifelike exist". It's the same for the moon landings: I haven't seen anything that suggests that any hoax that complex and wide-ranging is plausible.

216
Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.
« on: January 29, 2016, 08:18:59 AM »
That's funny. In other words,

"Everyone knows we went to the moon, so I know it too. I don't need no steeeenkin evidence!"

No, that's not what I mean.

What I want to say is that this whole notion of "provide evidence that X happened" is weird. It's not actually possible to provide any "waterproof" or "ironclad" evidence for any event. How would that work? How much evidence is enough evidence? How many people need to say something has happened for that to be proof that it did happen?

That an event happened is an empirical statement, and as such is technically just a theory - it's the claim that "the event happened" is the best way to explain all our observations. That means there is no standard of proof to be satisfied - just that there is explanation that is either more inclusive or just as inclusive but simpler. So the person who claims that the event didn't happen will have to show why that is a better explanation for all observations.

So what are we supposed to post here, an explanation of how "the moon landings actually happened" explain why we observe all the video footage, testimony, and technical documentation about how moon landings happened? I'd like to think that that is pretty self-evident. Is there anything else we could do in the absence of a specific other theory?

217
Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.
« on: January 29, 2016, 06:42:19 AM »
What do you need a list for? The evidence is well known and can easily be found. It's not like any of us was part of the program and could potentially offer any new insights.

218
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 29, 2016, 06:01:41 AM »
You didn't read what I wrote. I'll rephrase the first sentence you wrote for you:
"So gravity is a fundamental force, but gravity is not a newtonian force. I appear to be accelerating but I appear am not actually accelerating."

There's a lot of technicalities in this though. You are accelerating in relation to objects around you (such as the ground) when you are in free-fall. The gist is that the falling motion is non-inertial, so it is a straight line with a constant speed, but only in relation to the space you are currently in. In relation to all the space around you, your are accelerating. It's both right to say that you are accelerating and not accelerating. In relation to the space you exist in, you are moving straight with constant speed. But in relation to the ground, you are accelerating downwards at 9.82m/s^2. And because you technically aren't accelerating, you aren't subjected to any forces (newtonian ones, so f=ma is not present). When standing on the ground, the ground has to constantly accelerate you up, because constant motion for you would be an accelerating motion going through the ground (to the ground). This is why you can't feel if you are falling if you are in space, because there are no forces. You can feel where down is, because there is a normal force (the ground pushing you up).

Thanks for taking the time of going over this with me.
So, gravity is not a newtonian force, the newtonian force is a pseudo force caused by the fact that the earth is a non-inertial frame of reference. It is non-inertial because it bends space-time. Is that correct?

About your second paragraph, you write "the falling motion is non-inertial", isn't that supposed to be "the falling motion is inertial"? A straight line with constant speeds meens no acceleration, which means you're inert? By the way, does this mean if I am free-falling through a vacuum, I am actually observing things from an inertial frame of reference?

What do we call the normal force that the ground is exerting on me while I am standing on it?

219
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 29, 2016, 12:50:38 AM »

TheEngineer is right. Gravity is not a force, so when you are i free fall in a vacuum and accelerating towards a body with a mass, you are not subjected to any forces. When you are standing on the ground, the ground is accelerating you upwards at 9.82m/s. And the ground below the ground is accelerating that ground up at 9.82m/s. This models gravity as bent space-time. Because space-time is bent, you are actually moving with constant velocity (during frictionless free-fall) but you appear to be accelerating. However, gravity is also a force, but not as described by newtonian mechanics, but as described by the standard modell. This assuming that the graviton is real. Because it is modelled as bent space-time, it is really hard to understand the geometry (4 dimensions).

So gravity is a force, but gravity is not a force. I appear to be accelerating but I appear to not be accelerating.

I appreciate the effort to explain, but I don't quite get how this is supposed to work. How can a theory based on empirical observation state that there appears to be a force but there is not actually a force? That sounds like metaphysics. Explaining a force as the result of bent space-time isn't the same as saying there isn't a force at all.

220
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 28, 2016, 11:38:58 PM »
Only inertial frames are equal.  Non inertial frames invoke fictitious forces.  Do you see where this is going?

Yes. You want to equate saying "there is no force" with saying "the force is fictious". But if the frame of reference is under acceleration, a force must be acting on it. Hence there is a force.

Ok.  Let's do another experiment to see who is right:

Get an accelerometer app for your phone.  Hold it in your hand and jump off of something.  What does the accelerometer read?  If it reads zero, I am right.  If it reads 9.8m/s^2, then you are right.  Let me know what you find out.

Ok, the result is as you describe it. Now what does that mean?

No, the person was asking a FE specific question.  The answer was FE specific.  We, however, were not discussing FE/RE.  We are discussing how gravity is fake.


A pseudo-force is fake? That doesn't strike you as a tad dishonest?

Well, technically, yes. At roughly 9.8m/s^2.

So, technically, a force is accelerating the ground?

221
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The 3 big lies: atmosphere, gravity, refraction
« on: January 28, 2016, 09:45:00 PM »
Science is self-serving, always has been, which is the first problem.

Sceonce is a method. Did you want to say Scientists are self serving?

The second is that it's theory at best, not absolute truth, even if it seems like it.

The scientific method is absolute truth. The results of the scientific method are only empirical truth though, which means that they are bound to a human observer and constantly changing. But since no-one has access to any other form of truth about the world outside their consciousness, that's not a problem. It just needs to make accurate enough predictions, which it does.

Most supporting evidence lives in intangible computer models using math invented to explain itself.

You cannot invent math any more than you can invent logic. You can only discover it.

Using science to accredit science is weak, let's face it.

I don't need science to accredit science, I can use philosophy to do that. The scientific method can be proven by logic using only a-priori realities. Let me now if you want a quick summary.

And all this proves is that science is a perspective and nothing more. We could have just as easily went down a different path with different ways of explaining what we want, but unfortunately we can't unwind time, all we can do is just keep building on the stack, regardless if it is right or wrong,

No.

and it has been proven wrong, many many times.

No.

The Earth may not be flat,  but it is most certainly not round. A spherical shape in nature really only occurs within biological things, yet we are expected to believe that a rock floating through a vacuum has taken this shape...highly unlikely.

No-one knows what shape the earth actually is. But we know what shape it appears to be to a human observer.

What's interesting to me is that scientists are finally coming out and admitting that the Earth is not exactly round, and that it may be shaped like a pear. That's a big difference don't you think from what we are taught as children? This in itself shows how subjective science is.

No, not really. It just shows that new observations change the empirical truth, which is perfectly logical. In order to have an unchanging empirical truth, we'd need to be omniscient, at which point we wouldn't need science in the first place.

When you observe life through your natural born senses and not what someone taught you only then will you see reality in its true form.

No you wont. Your senses only give you a very subjective perspective of reality. Your mind is interpreting everything you see, and you only get your mind's interpretations, not the true form. A subject can't be an objective observer, it's a contradiction of terms.

222
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 28, 2016, 09:34:41 PM »
There isn't one (see below).

How can acceleration occur without a force causing it? a = F/m

One is pulling you down, the other is keeping you up.

You just repeated the question, not the answer. What is the difference between pulling down and pushing up? All frames of reference are equal.

Only when you are in contact with the Earth, directly or otherwise.

If that were the case, It would follow that once I am in the air, no change of momentum occurs. But it does. So this is false. I repeat: a = F/m.

That response was not to you, but to a separate question asked by another user.

So your opinions change depending on who you are answering to? Is the ground accelerating or is it not?

223
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 28, 2016, 12:04:08 PM »
Gravity is the name given to a fictitious force.

What is the real force then?

 
There is a big difference.

Namely?

And the force of gravity does not exist.

But there is a force.

Who was talking about the Earth moving up?

Up is relative. You said the ground was accelerating constantly.

224
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 28, 2016, 09:08:54 AM »

No. I took a brief look at wikipedia but what was described there seemed to either agree with what I am saying or have no relation to the discussion. If you have the time, could you try to briefly explain what you mean?

Ok, it was kind of a backwards way of getting to my point, ill admit that.
What i mean is that gravity is slightly narrower defined than how you think of it.

My point with the gaspedal-thing was that that is actually exactly how FE explains gravity...Earth is accelerating, and what you feel as gravity is the same thing you feel in your car when it accelerates.

That is why i said "or gravity is real". Because because the distinction between gravity and the feeling of acceleration, at least in this context, is more than semantics.

Does that make sense?

I think it does, yeah, thanks ;).

So what I think you wanted to tell me was that "gravity" refers to a bit more than simply the direct experience of a force pushing you down. In which case I deliberately simplified it to mean only the actual observation without any of the theory behind it, in order to get my point across.

Which, frankly, seems to have worked, since TheEngineer has chosen to respond to not respond to me. And if someone stops responding to you on a forum such as this one, that means you just won the argument.

225
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 28, 2016, 09:01:07 AM »
Too bad for you that gravity, as a force, does not in fact exist.

Then what is pushing me down into my sofa cushions right now?

I could also call the Leprechaun in my back yard Fred, but that does not make him exist either, even though the word Leprechaun has a definition.  Perhaps you could try harder next time?

I didn't say anything that has a definition exists. I said any term that has a definition is real. There are more real things than things that exist empirically - everything that's in your head, for example.

226
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The 3 big lies: atmosphere, gravity, refraction
« on: January 28, 2016, 08:51:13 AM »
Thanks for the teamwork and the respectful feedback, considering your point of view.

You asked questions, and you gave yourself the same answers I would have given you, to every single one of them. And I am left with only one question to answer: what is the alternative to your overcomplex theory? Flat earth.

We don't have to account for bubbles floating in space. We don't have to account for this absurd idea that a ball spins and doesn't lose all the water in it, like a wet tennis ball would. We don't have to account for the lies of space travel, such as the evident ones in the moon landing. Wow, the world finally becomes a place that makes sense: we're the subjects of someone's experiment in a big lab, and I think he has forgotten us for a few thousand years in this snow globe which we call "earth".

Pretty sad, yes, but at least we don't have to jam theories into our head through 20 years of education. We don't need no education, as flat earthers. You can figure things out by yourself. Education is brainwashing. We don't need no thought control.

This is either very elaborate trolling by someone who doesn't actually believe in FE (in which case, kudos to you) or someone who believes it but is honest about the why - wanting to escape from the complexities of reality into a simpler, more comforting answer - which also deserves respect.

If it is the latter though, do me one favor: If you have kids, give them all the opportunities to study and learn everything for themselves.

227
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 28, 2016, 08:42:31 AM »
There is no or here. Gravity is the name of the force that accelerates you. It doesn't matter if you think you are pulled down or pushed up - a force is acting, and that force has a commonly accepted name: gravity

Do you know about the equivalence principle?

No. I took a brief look at wikipedia but what was described there seemed to either agree with what I am saying or have no relation to the discussion. If you have the time, could you try to briefly explain what you mean?

We have that exactly because there is a difference between gravity pulling you down and being in an accelerated frame of reference with regards to the forces in play. The fact that we in certain circumstances cant distinguish between them, does not mean that they are the same.

See that's weird, because wikipedia says:
Quote
gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

Which seems to be in line with what I am saying. But perhaps I simply don't correctly understand what the principle means.

When you floor the gaspedal in your car, is it gravity pulling you back in your seat?

No. I wasn't saying that every force can be called gravity. I was saying that the force called gravity can be easily observed by anyone, at any time. How you believe gravity is caused has no bearing on whether or not gravity, as a force, exists.

Giving something a name, like gravity, does not make it a real thing.

It does - if a term has a definition, it is real. For it to exist in the empirical world, you of course need an observation - but gravity is constantly observed by anyone.

228
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth
« on: January 28, 2016, 08:27:42 AM »
Hello all - just want to bring up some points that may be relevant to this discussion.
1. I believe that science alone cannot be utilized to answer this (any) question due to the evolving nature of what is conceived to be true.

Why would the evolving nature of knowledge make previous answers wrong? Empirical truth does not need to be unchanging, it's purpose is not to settle a question forever, but to allow us to make practical decisions here and now.

2. There is a perpetual gap between theory and practice that has been evident dating back thousands of years, that can easily be conveyed between practiced laws and written laws in society - proving that things written are not always innately true.

Who ever claimed that something is true because it is written down?

4. Further, we are looking at something that is 3 dimensional, analyzing it in 2 dimensions and asking for one answer, seems silly. Unto that - we are assuming that the world is only explained in 3 dimensions based on limited human capabilities. I digress.

We are not assuming anything. Humans only perceive three spatial dimensions and time. That is a fact that every human can attest to. Therefore everything we perceive will be three dimensional. That doesn't mean that there are only three dimensions to any possible observer, but it does mean that for any human purpose, anything can be perfectly described using three spatial dimensions and time.

229
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 28, 2016, 08:06:35 AM »
If it reads zero, then you are correct and you are not accelerating.  If it reads anything other than zero (non-negative, for the Discount Chemist) then I am correct and you are accelerating.

Or gravity is real  ;)

There is no or here. Gravity is the name of the force that accelerates you. It doesn't matter if you think you are pulled down or pushed up - a force is acting, and that force has a commonly accepted name: gravity. Saying gravity doesn't exist is either blatantly false or pointless semantics.

@TheEngineer: You know this. I saw other posts of you where you demonstrated knowledge of Special Relativity. So you are aware that all frames of reference are equal and that therefore insisting that the earth is moving up is completely irrelevant.

Whether or not you believe any specific theory of gravity is a completely different question.

230
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The 3 big lies: atmosphere, gravity, refraction
« on: January 28, 2016, 06:48:40 AM »
As flat earthers, whenever we come up with evidence, or with questions, which were the simple questions asked by humans, before they went through schooling, we are always fed those 3 big lies that are meant to quell our doubts, and usually work.

When we ask:

1) if the earth is spinning, why aren't we feeling it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

2) if the earth is round, why don't those on the bottom fall off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

3) if the earth is round, why are we seeing these distant places across the lake (or the sea)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Let me know what you think.

Sorry for barging in here late OP, but I have a question about the "lies":

What you listed are essentially theories to explain certain observations that we make. So the question is, do you believe that the observations the theories are based on are made up, indeed are lies? Or do you simply believe that the theory is incorrect and that there is a better way to explain the observation?

Because a wrong theory isn't technically a "lie". And if you think the theories are wrong, then what would you like to see them replaced with? Do you know of more inclusive/simpler theories that should be used instead?

231
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctic sun
« on: January 28, 2016, 04:58:03 AM »
I think you misunderstand.

If the sun exploded you would still be happily sun bathing for eight minutes unaware the sun had gone.

For those eight minutes you would be seeing something that had ceased to exist in space.
Of course you would swear it's there because you are observing it,

My point being observing an object far away does not mean it exists,
only that it had once existed.
current locations of objects are not verifiable by observation.

Hence my point about a universe model sold as fact due to observation.

(all based on the most popular paradigm)

Thanks for your reply. I think I know where you want to go with your example, but you choose a situation that is a bit unusual, because we are dealing with the information already moving at the speed of light. I am not sure if the speed of light is also the maximum speed of information, because if that is the case, then you could reasonably say that if the "light-horizon" hasn't reached you yet, the event hasn't happened.

Now, I think you didn't actually want to go into the specifics of that scenario, so allow me to propose a different example: Instead of the sun, let's use a radio, or any other speaker, and let's say it is so far away that, when it explodes, you still hear it play for 30 seconds (the information could have traveled to you much faster, though).

I think the different example also makes the problem much clearer. It shows that there is a two step process: What you hear, and thereby observe, is the sound, not the radio. In the sun example, you observe light, not the sun. There is at least one extra step before you can say that the radio/the sun exists.

So you are not really observing something that doesn't exist. You simply conclude that whatever emitted the thing you are actually observing still exists - which unfortunately is an unwarranted assumption.

Note that this doesn't mean we can know nothing. You still know that the sound/light was emitted before it reached you and determine the cause.

232
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctic sun
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:14:35 AM »
The observable Universe is always finite, because infinity isn't observable. That is also why it can expand (an infinite universe couldn't expand anywhere).

But you can keep expanding the observable universe ad imfinitum.

Interesting,
But of course you are not observing the universe as it is bit rather as it was according to the most popular paradigm.

I might start a thread on it.

Maybe, but that differs between subjects. It's theoretically possible that an observation is unmarred by any specific cognitive bias (e.g. made by a child).

Obviously that wont enable you to observe anything as it objectively is. All observations are made by subjects and therefore subjective. In our case we see the Universe not as it is, but as it appears to humans.

233
Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctic sun
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:08:33 AM »
It's quite simple my friend,
By not knowing how your universal model works does not make it redundant in your opinion does it ?

your "expanding universe", you claim, is infinite.
but with no data or explanation so is your faith in this idea.

The observable Universe is always finite, because infinity isn't observable. That is also why it can expand (an infinite universe couldn't expand anywhere).

But you can keep expanding the observable universe ad imfinitum.

234
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 27, 2016, 11:23:16 PM »
Stand on a chair. Take a step forward. If you move and directon other than forward, you just observed a force acting on you.
When you are standing on the chair, you are being accelerated (force).  Once you step off, you become inertial (no longer accelerating, therefore, no force).  Once you get back onto the ground, you begin accelerating again (force).

That's just changing the frame of reference. The force is still constantly applied. You habe simply inverted all the values - but you still observe your upward momentum being canceled out - either a force pulls you down or it pushes everything up - but the force and ist's value is there

235
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 27, 2016, 10:52:06 PM »
There is no force. When you jump, why are you weightless until you reach the ground?  Why is it that you only experience a force when you are in contact with the Earth (directly or otherwise)?

You could conclude that there is a force, but you would be wrong.

How do you ever get back to the ground?

If
a.) I am weightless while in the air
And
b.) there is no force acting on me

I should float. But I don't.

Stand on a chair. Take a step forward. If you move and directon other than forward, you just observed a force acting on you.

236
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seafloor Spreading??
« on: January 27, 2016, 09:55:53 PM »
Oh, and 'gravity' does not exist.

Of course a force, commonly called "gravity" exists. I can jump up and observe I am pulles down. Conservation of momentum tells me I should have kept moving up unless a force acted on me. So I can conclude there is a force.

You can debate what the cause of the force is, but you can't deny the observation itself.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]