61

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Question about "aether" theories

« on: April 02, 2021, 05:42:59 PM »

How do aether theorists here and elsewhere explain this paradox?

In my view it isn't really a paradox at all (or, at least, may not be)

It isn't like they found no variance when altering the direction of the linear/box interferometer.  They just didn't find anything consistent with what would be expected if the earth was moving around the sun (a religious/philosophical belief).

The ring interferometer DID find variances expected if the earth were rotating OR (and this is the part left out of most science history) if the earth were stationary and the aether slowly rotated radially in regards to the earth's surface.

This rotation is pretty slow, 1 revolution per day.  It isn't surprising that it was more or less discarded as noise from the first linear/box interferometer.

More speculations abound if aether "dragging" is also conceived of.

62

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: April 02, 2021, 04:26:42 PM »

Thanks for keeping your last post short and sweet, jack.    Not!

Unconvinced asked many good questions which deserved adequate response.

it doesn't change the fact it's shape has been verified to an extremely high standard.

So we are taught to believe, yes.  When you get into the details, you find that it hasn't.

You've waffled on about hydrostatics and water being flat, so you obviously haven't heard of "global hydrostatic equilibrium?"

I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate any "waffling".

The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation (i.e. un/anti-scientifically).  This is at best negligence, and at worst fraud.

Water's surface has only ever been meausured to be flat, level, and horizontal at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant menisuc effects) Until measurement of the convex curvature (required by the globe model) exists, the globe will continue to be an unscientific posit that directly conflicts with the aforementioned natural law from hydrostatics.

Gravity is warped space-time.

In your faith/belief (conditioned by rote under the guise of education), yes.  In science, there is no "space time" to warp in the first place - nor is there any "gravity" to do the warping.

The planets of our solar system, prove the existence of gravity.

We have essentially no idea what those lights in the sky are.  Our creation mythology is just that.  Newton famously posited no hypothesis, and chalked up the motions to God almighty.  Lights in the sky don't "prove" anything in science.  Only experiment can do that.  Natural law can be established, but there is no inherent reason that such behavior in the sky would have any/much relevance to the behavior down here on earth.  Natural law deals with what, not why/how.

This is the field of orbital mechanics.

Yes, a highly spurious and consistently unsound "discipline". Let michio kaku explain it to you : there is almost no less dependable/correct "science" than astrophysics/cosmology.  They fully admit that they don't even use the scientific method (chiefly because they can't). The reason that they keep creating MORE speculative fiction (dark matter, super-de-duper massive "black holes", inflation etc.) is because the existing fiction doesn't work (not for our "solar system" and not outside of it either).

Gravitational fields are very real.

If that were at all true, they could be measured, rigorously defined, manipulated and most importantly experimentally demonstrated to exist.

What do you call the force keeping you on the ground?

If you must have a "force", that force is called weight.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter and is not "imbued" by fictional/non-real fields that defy explanation, measurement, and description.

63

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: April 01, 2021, 06:53:53 PM »

The scientific concern is that the theory is incomplete and there’s more work to be done, which is quite normal.

That is a concern - yes, though as you said it is "normal" for our theories to be incomplete and inaccurate (in various regards).

The serious concern I spoke of is very different.  It is the presupposition (which has slowly mutated into belief and even worship over time) of an unscientific (non-emperical) entity - the "field".

It is unacceptable in physics (and philosophy, of which physics is a branch) for something to act upon nothing.  If the "field" is real, then physicists have been remiss in their duties (and/or incompetent) to discover and make scientific progress understanding it for centuries now.

Flat Earthers tend to claim none of it is real.  Big difference.

Gravitational fields (or gravitons, if you wish) are not real, as far as anyone knows or ever has known (scientifically or otherwise).  The perspective on shape of the earth doesn't enter into it.

It is relatively clear how this fiction entered science and who is responsible for it.

Einstein came up with special relativity because of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment and because Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism were not compatible with Galilean relativity at velocities approaching the speed of light.

Every physicist worth their salt since newton has recognized the unscientific and philosophically unsound nature of gravitation - just as newton did when he first invoked (not invented) it.  It is not so much that what you wrote above about relativity isn't correct, it is more that it doesn't contradict what I said.  Relativity was created, in part, to break newton's magic spell of gravitation and make it, finally, scientific.  Without an aether (space-time) that physically exists to "warp" this cannot be done.  Which is why einstein said that if aether is disproven, so is relativity.

Sounds like science to me

It may SOUND that way, however science has strict and rigorous definitions.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge which that method produces (with the sole caveat of natural law, established through repeated measurement alone)

One cannot hope to understand, discuss, or practice science if their definitions are wrong.  The vast majority of people do not have or use the correct (working) definitions.

Erm, no.  Theories of light propagating through luminiferous aether were superseded by relativity.  Newton was a proponent of some kind of aether.

This is just what we are taught.  The history is more nuanced.  Relativity doesn't supersede aether, it depends on it (from einstein's lips no less)

What you find acceptable or not is irrelevant.

It is not simply my determination, it is one necessitated by the very definition of science (and the rules of philosophy/logic which it is bound by). I agree, my personal feelings are not what is relevant.

Measurements and observations are what matter, remember?

No, that is only useful to establish natural law.  In science, what matters is experiment! Experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement, nor can it ever be.

Aether theories of light were largely abandoned when they no long fit the available data.

That is again, merely what we are taught (today).  The history tells a different story, for those with an interest in such stories.

Funny that relativity is one of the main reasons that aether was done away with then.

Not so much funny as sad.  Once again, this is what we are taught today - but it is incorrect.

Not sure I follow this?

The simplest form of sophistry is the nagging child endlessly repeating "why".  Sophistry is a type of anti-philosophy designed to "unmake" conversations and philosophical progress. Sophistry is intrinsically connected to SOPHISTication. In this case, you are saying that because I recognize (and am claiming/stating) that magnetic fields are a mystery that therefore everything that we know about magnets (or perhaps, anything else) is also not understood.  It is to unmake knowledge, and to remove the necessity of further evaluation or discussion.  It is to be avoided and curtailed wherever found.

Scientific models are representations of the thing being studied (can just be a simple equation).  You build a model from your hypothesis and test predictions against experiments or observations.  How is that not following the scientific method?

Excellent question, very much at the heart of our discussion.

The scientific method does not involve models in any step.  The use thereof today is to limit experimentalism (for multiple reasons, one of the chief ones being money). One may (and arguably should, if not must) employ models to generate hypothesis, but experiment happens out here in the reality we hope to understand (and no place else)!  As I said above, experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement - nor can it ever be.

Yet you say you’re not even sure what Scepti is talking about. How can you say its a more sound concept?

Yes.  Because scepti's conception involves a material (emperical, unlike "fields" which are composed of mystery) cause, it is vastly more sound than the current lack of composition offered by the "field" (a scientific "placeholder" for science that was expected to come in the future - a deviation from the scientific method)

You know we have quantum mechanics, right?

I do! And you know why they call it that and not quantum physics right?

If scepti was correct, we would!

He’s not.

Like I said, the only way to determine that scientifically is by experiment.  Of course, the hypothesis needs to be valid and properly defined first in order to take any further steps.

And that would fine if he didn’t keep on about everyone else mindlessly believing what we’re told, which is kind of insulting.

Virtue untested is no virtue at all! If we are educated, and we know (and perhaps more importantly, know how we know, with conviction, and can convey that to others), then we shouldn't take such insults too seriously.

In fairness, our "education" process largely turns out parrots.  That is the purpose and result of conditioning by rote (under the guise of education).  It was because we needed more factory workers - more indians and less chiefs.  There is a great (great in explanation, terrible in terms of speechwriting/reading) speech that explains it all by woodrow wilson if you are interested.

And what do you suggest we do with all that experimental data?

There is nothing wrong with the latter, it just isn't science.  It's meta-science, and its only scientific purpose is the generation of hypothesis that can be experimentally validated or refuted.  We are not talking about mathematical formalization/generalization of data - that is all well and good (though the language you "translate"/represent scientific knowledge into/with is somewhat irrelevant)

You should check out his explanation for the sun and moon.

I may do that!  They are quite mysterious and most certainly not at all the things our creation mythology (disingenuously/erroneously taught as science from childhood) purports.

Nobody has to post anything at all, but if someone wants an honest discussion of their ideas, they should explain what they mean.

I agree!  As I said, if they want anyone else to understand their perspective they will have to do just that.  However, as I also said, it is easier said than done - especially when there is an inherent resistance to it caused by "education".  The committed will keep trying, though sadly may still fail to understand for a variety of reasons.  I agree it is significantly dependent on scepti's ability and success at explaining to us / helping us understand them.

What if imagine from the perspective of my own experience designing and testing things including pressure and vacuum systems?

That is a great place to start!  I think that scepti has done a mostly adequate job of addressing the "vacuum" issue.  They have said (or I have inferred from deduction) that the vacuum chamber cannot keep this, proposed/conceived, small matter out.  I agree that, at least in theory, it may be possible to test the "magnetic fields wane in strength under extreme low pressure" claim.  It also may be beyond our precision and ability to both evacuate a chamber sufficiently and measure a small change in the magnetic strength caused by it - ESPECIALLY if the "magneton" responsible doesn't have any difficulty entering and exiting a "fully evacuated" chamber from our perspective, if such a thing were possible.  It is important to recognize that what Scepti is saying about the evacuation is fundamentally correct and consistent with modern science.  When the vacuum pump creates an relative pressure imbalance, it does not suck the air/matter out of the container.  It allows the air inside the container to push outwards on its own.  This pushing happens as the gasses themselves expand to fully fill the (vacuum) container once more - always.  This is one way of describing/conceptualizing why "perfect vacuum" is unattainable, even in theory (at least the way we're commonly going about it).

But I also accept that what I personally understand barely scratches the surface of what’s been determined.  And that’s really the biggest difference between our positions.

I hope that isn't the case.  I hope Scepti shares this humility, as the alternative of pride is vastly worse (and more costly).

I give Scepti the benefit of the doubt that he means what he says, and isn’t just here for a laugh.

It is certainly possible, many come here for that specific purpose. Again, I hope not - but time will tell (for me, I recognize some have put in significant time and already come to that conclusion)

Maybe there is nothing more than he says?

Which is why I suggested that the discussion best turn to a scientific one.  Hypothesis and experiment - that will sort it out.  We can talk and imagine and model endlessly with little to no progress.  Empericism is the way out of the cul-de-sac.

A globe denier, but not a flat earther?  So what shape do you think it is?  And how do you reconcile that with your respect for science?

I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is, because like all people I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination.

The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant meniscus effects) is flat, level, and horizontal.  This is a well established law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries. In order to refute it, and to make the globe posit even conceivable in emperical science, something other than that would need to be directly measured repeatedly and rigorously (namely a sustained convex curve required by the globe model).  The fact that no such measurements exist should be enough to concern any empirical scientist.  Whenever water is measured at rest (with the caveats above, only mentioned to curtail irrelevant pedantry) it only has the one shape. That's why it's a law.

If you want to call photons a component of air, then it almost makes sense.  Although then maybe we can include gravitons too?  I don’t think that’s what denpressure is all about though.

It sure sounds like it to me, though that is merely my interpretation/rationalization.  Even the things the gas is made of is breaking down and recombining.

Ignoring the actual definition of air though.

Perhaps.  For the purposes of discussion, we can use any definition we wish as long as its meaning is shared.  Scepti has shared that air includes the things that air breaks down into, and I don't personally have any issue with that (inside this conversation nor outside of it) - do you?

You might be surprised just how much air we can evacuate in ultra high vacuum chambers.

Of course! Not as good as "space" though.  They should bring a container of that back for study (they should have and would have done it decades ago if it were possible)!

It’s not very clear what you mean, but it sounds like you think you get to decide what counts as science and what doesn’t?

By the definition of science (and the other technical vernacular of the scientific method, like hypothesis and experiment etc.), yes - WE do!

Scientists of years gone by also reasoned that such a fluid must be non interacting or very nearly non interacting with matter.  Unlike Scepti’s atmospheric stacking business.

That's true! However inertia remains a mystery... Drag caused by an interacting fluid would tie things up nicely - but so would other speculations (like the spin of all atoms creating a "gyroscopic" resistance to change in motion).  Scientists (people) are always wrong, and it never hurts to try again with old and new ideas alike.

No we don’t.  The notion of light being a simple wave is about 100 years out of date.

Only as taught to us in school.  In reality, that's not the case.  Waves can only exist in a media and are typically composed of that media to boot.  The "exception" for light is more or less indefensible, philosophically and scientifically.  Light does things impossible for matter, but easy/commonplace for pressure waves within that matter (instantaneous acceleration, reflection etc.)

Not that it’s completely dead, as some scientists are revisiting it.

As they ought, and I wish them the best of luck!

But they do so taking into account  everything we’ve since learned about relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. 

If they remain bound to equation and do not find the path back to experimentalism they will remain confused and lost. God does not play dice with the universe.

Light is not a wave according to current theory.

There are few, even theoretical, physicists that would agree with you.  Most proclaim that it is both a wave and a particle, or at least that it exhibits the behavior of both.  One of the most successful new conceptions considers the wave and the particle moved by that wave separate and distinct, it has been used to corporate and military success.  The proof is always in the pudding if you ask me!

It’s strong evidence that air has nothing to do with it.  The existence of a medium is an assumption.

It's a deduction! It also has lots of support, but like I said - it depends largely on interpretation of evidence / experiment - not the data itself!

People who fully understand the subject?

People who are competent physicists, both historically and contemporarily - yes. But who cares about accolades or pedigree?  Those never prevented any previous generations from being hopelessly wrong for centuries.

If Scepti wants to amend his ideas to something that could potentially be compatible with reality that’s up to him, but he doesn’t appear interested.

Well they clearly feel that the reality you speak of is non-real.  If there really is any contradiction (experimentally especially) I have yet to see it.  What did you have in mind?

So prediction isn’t part of the scientific method, apart from it being a vital part of the scientific method?

Prediction is required in the hypothesis.  Hypothesis is validated/invalidated by experiment alone.  There is no "predict" step.  A hypothesis can be a mere guess (not really a "prediction" the way you are using the word)

But once a model has been validated we have pretty high confidence it can be used for practical applications.   This is where applied science comes in.

I like pudding! If things are useful, let's use them!  It is a logical fallacy that all bayesians fall for/suffer from that useful = correct.  Useful is different from correct, and models are different from science.  Models are created for specific and limited use.  Use them and enjoy the pudding!

It’s cleared up your position a bit, but I still don’t agree with a lot you say.

Nor should you! I would hate for you to have to change your username!

Like Scepti, it will only take time and your earnest interest to clear up my position further.

64

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The sun<3

« on: March 31, 2021, 01:57:39 AM »

Hi all, after reading about flat earth I’m starting to believe this may actually be the real truth.

I strongly caution you against that.  Belief got us into this mess. It won't help us to dig our way out.

Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, most especially scientific. Seek to KNOW the shape of the world instead of believe.

I was wondering if someone could explain to me how the sun stays up in the sky? Is it attached to the dome or does it have no weight therefore does not fall down to earth?

Sure, keeping in mind that no one knows the answer to this question and all we can do is speculate.

Some speculations include :

The sun is outside of "the dome".
The sun is affixed to "the dome".
The sun is inside "the dome".
The sun we see is a reflection/refraction of the real light source.
The sun is a plasma/ionization effect, the light of which is coming from our air - not a "separate body".  The energy source that causes this luminescense may be invisible to us.

Personally, as I recognize that gravitation is fictional/non-real - it is more pleasing/consistent to speculate that the sun is really above our heads, and may have significant weight, but if so likely has an extremely low density. Otherwise it would violate the law of gravity (very different than gravitation, the law of gravity is millenia old).

If the sun is a tangible/material object (which it may not be, as speculated above), then it may well be "floating" above us.

65

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 28, 2021, 08:08:42 PM »

Jack, let's be really clear here.

I agree, we need to be as explicitly clear as we can.  Effective communication depends on it, and even with it - still poses significant difficulty!

You are expressing your opinions.  And if understand your point correctly, you are of the opinion that because we do not have a physical mechanism for electromagnetic fields, we do not know how magnets work.

It can be easily misinterpreted to be an opinion, yes.  As I said, the major difference between an opinion and a fact is what supports them (opinion on emotion, and fact on evidence) however there is more to "be really clear" about here.

Facts are arbitrary.  They are arbitrated by our "authorities"/teachers/books/etc.  They OUGHT to be supported by evidence, but often are not and even when they are they are often far from certainly true/correct.  It is a fact that there is no scientific explanation for magnetism in composition or mechanism (indeed, for all "fields").  The wonderful thing about this particular fact (not true of many/most of the others), is that refuting it is as simple as providing the composition and mechanism (that the fact purports NOT to exist).  I entreat you to do so!  Facts stand, right or wrong; correct or incorrect, until they are refuted (and sadly, often much longer than that).

This is your opinion.  You are more than welcome to it and I appreciate you sharing it here.

Demonstrate that it is my opinion (and wrong!) by demonstrating that science DOES have an explanation for the composition and mechanism.  Or accept the fact, or neither!

I think it is a silly opinion, and am treating it with some levity, so apologies if it comes across as some sort of game.  However, if I am being offensive to you in any way I do apologize.

I appreciate the candor/earnesty!  If we can't treat/temper this discussion with some levity, we would all be depressed/down all the time.  I am difficult to offend, and encourage all to speak our minds freely. Though I do take the subject seriously - there must always be room for levity.

I look at what happens if I apply your argument to other areas.  If we should conclude that we do not understand a phenomena if we can not have a physical description of any underlying fields used in our current understanding, then what do we find?

I'm not making a general argument, I am stating a specific fact (or opinion, from your perspective).  It is not a sophist posit/claim that "fields" are currently a place-marker for science that was expected to come in the future (we are still waiting, centuries after this blunder).

Well, our understanding of almost every molecular interaction utilizes electromagnetic fields.  Therefore we should say we don't know how any of these interactions work?  Chemistry is out the window?  Bummer, it was a good run while it lasted.

It would be sophistry if that were the purpose of raising this fact, which it is not.  You still seem to be struggling with the critical difference between using something / describing something, and understanding it.  Our conceptions (understanding, as you said above) are irrelevant to the manifest objective reality we hope to understand.  The history of science shows that facts (including scientific conceptions / theories etc.) are doomed to expiration.  They have a half life.

Does this mean that all science is useless? Of course not!  Incorrect conceptions can and have been VERY useful to humanity, and will continue to be so.  But useful is not correct!  In science, the only way to establish such consistency with manifest objective reality is by rigorous experiment.  Even then, it is provisional and (based on the history) doomed to be overturned / generally found laughable by subsequent generations.

To take this further, as Jack(black) has been trying (unsuccessfully, you keep selectively ignoring it for some reason) to get you to address, I also believe that your argument would rationally conclude that we don't know how anything works.  In our present understanding, everything is reducible to the effects of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. Their expression as fields is one of the great progressions in modern physics.  If we have to conclude that we dont know how something works if we do not fully understand the responsible underlying fields describing them, then as all phenomena do, we dont understand anything.

It is a misunderstanding.  I am making no such generalized argument from the fact.  It's just a fact.  We don't know what fields are.  We haven't for centuries.

I think this is a silly stance to take, but if you simply say we do not understand how magnetism works in the same way we do not understand how ANYTHING works, I will not disagree that this is at least a consistent opinion to have.

Fundamentally, I do have strong suspicions (informed from history) that our understanding of just about everything is flawed in some way.  This is not a radical, but rather a pragmatic, perspective.  It appears radical and perhaps "anti-science" when you misunderstand/misrepresent it as a sophist posit.

My opinion is that we know a tremendous amount about how magnets work.

Don't sell yourself short!  You are just as capable of recognizing, classifying, and defining/arbitrating fact as any other!  It is a FACT that we (humanity, and perhaps some in this discussion) know a tremendous amount about how magnets work.  This is evident in the sheer volume of knowledge that we have amassed on the subject.

We can build, design, and manipulate them amazingly.

True, however using is not the same as understanding AND understanding is most often not the same as understanding properly/correctly nor establishing veracity.

We do not know EVERYTHING, but we never will, and this certainly doesn't mean we dont know how they work except in the most pedantic and meaningless way.

Nor will we ever, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying!  Look at all the cool stuff we can do as a result of continuing to try anyway (MRIs being a good example), and continuously being wrong / making mistakes along the way!

What we don't know is how magnetic fields work, or what they are made of.  We know how to generate them, measure them, and manipulate them - and we can do LOTS of cool things with them.  We don't understand the magnetic field in composition or mechanism. 

Don't be so enamored with what we can do that you ignore the limits (and gaps) of our knowledge. Mind the gap!

The whole reason for bringing up the fact, which I did and scepti didn't (they simply asked a question that leads to it if one is being earnest and honest), was only to say that because currently there is no "mainstream" description of composition or mechanism for a magnetic field (again, you are most welcome to disagree and provide those descriptions and/or reasoning) - scepti's conception is not in inherent conflict with anything that we DO know about magnets/magnetism.

66

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 28, 2021, 07:14:44 PM »

I've seen no proof you have a physics background or ever graduated with any superior knowledge or achievement, regarding magnetism. Lots and lots of words that mean next to nothing, impress nobody.

And if you HAD seen proof, THEN you would have earnestly considered/evaluated the "lots and lots of words" (or worse, accepted them as "probably right" without another thought?!), but thankfully can simply ignore them? Credential worship is a scourge, and no claim should be accepted from any source without thorough validation first.

Your argument is exactly that of sceptimatic's. Advocating to verify and validate every single claim thoroughly, before accepting them, regardless of source.

Correct, though it isn't an argument. It is a prerequisite to being a capable student and to independent thought/research.

I heard a claim that if I dont wear a seat belt and am involved in a high speed collision, I will likely die. Please tell me how you would like me to validate and verify that claim?

The devil's always in the details. At the end of the day, "thorough validation" is subjective.  For some, simply evaluating the findings of car companies and scores of independent validation on what those car companies claim (with crash test dummies etc.) suffices.  For others, they might have to destroy some cars or do some scale testing and extrapolate from there. Some people need to stick their hands in the wounds, and it will not be real before then. Many of those "doubting thomas" types become scientists, and skepticism/disbelief is an asset in science. P.S. In regards to your example, it certainly doesn't help that in some crashes, the people wearing seatbelts all die but the person who wasn't is thrown clear and survives. AND that the cheap seat-belts we have (as cheap as possible for the manufacturers who were FORCED to put them in at all) don't distribute the force load and CAUSE huge amounts of unnecessary damage to passengers as a result (in less than lethal crashes).  The devil is always in the details...

If you don't understand how something works, or see it for yourself firsthand, therefore it doesn't work ... The common theme seems to be, if you don't understand something, it isn't real.

I agree that this is a very real danger.  There are a few rules of thumb I have found useful to determining the subjective criteria for "thorough validation" of a claim/fact.

1. Experimental validation; this is the best we have to verify a claim (especially a "scientific" one) but is not applicable in many (if not most) cases.
2. QED; this is next best but can easily be misleading because it is not validated rigorously like the above.  In general, if it can be demonstrated (by you) then there is likely something to it.  If it cannot, it is likely fiction/imagination/non-real.
3. All claims require thorough validation, but some call for more rigor than others.  As a fan of sagan, I also council that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  That evidence should ideally fall in the first, then (failing that) second catagories.

Extra-ordinary meaning outside of the realm of your common experience (not education).

67

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 28, 2021, 06:38:39 PM »

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?

You arrived late to the party! The "point" is that what Scepti is suggesting is not inherently in conflict with the "scientific placeholder" of the magnetic field.

Scepti has asked repeatedly for others internal definitions of magnetism (how it is created / what it is comprised of / how it functions), while they attempt to explain their own.  I suspect that this is a dialectic question intended to tease out / make explicit any conceptual conflicts that may exist and need to be discussed/addressed.

As you rightly point out, parroting why incessantly is sophistry and is to be avoided.  However, when it is a genuine question - it is merely inquisitive (and should be encouraged)

So why keep bringing this up?  If you dispute everything we know because there is more to learn, you are throwing away the entireity of human discovery. Not very useful.

I agree! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

68

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 22, 2021, 11:38:37 PM »

What now?  I think you must have mistaken me for the poster who claimed we had a demonstrated physical mechanism for the mathematical constructs that are used to describe all of the fundamental forces we have found in the world around us. 

Don't get distracted.  We were just talking about the fact - nothing more than that.  I'm happy you accept and admit that fact, as it's important to demonstrating earnesty and discussing in good faith.

No.  To refresh your memory, I'm the poster who took exception to your opinion that we have no idea how magnets work.  If this was just a ridiculous misstatement, and you would like to retract it, I will certainly not hold it against you, and will happily join forces in going after those field believing mouth breathers.

You misunderstood what I said.  I've explained that, but you seem more interested in calling people "mouth breathers".  We don't know how magnets work, because in order to do that we would need to understand what magnetism was and how the magnets made it.  Using something is not the same as understanding it.

Plus, you seem to be doing fine on your own, perhaps besides some self-importance about your own musings and opinions (shocking for a physicist, right?!?!)

I'm saddened that you do not come to share your knowledge freely.  It is the best course for all humanity.  However, you are not obligated to share; you must want to for yourself and ideally understand why you should.

What musings and opinions are you speaking of?  I certainly have them, as all subjective humans do, but I do try to leave them out of scientific discussion.  Most of the things I share, that are mine, are findings and conclusions bore of earnest research.

Still, that said, if you ever have any questions related specifically to biophysics, Im your huckleberry.

Biophysics eh?  I'm sure I would have more questions if I understood better what it was!  Is it like biochemistry (but with an emphasis on understanding how/why, rather than the what)?

Im sorry Jack, but I have to really laugh here.  I mean, you literally define an appeal to authority in your explanation of how what you are doing is not an appeal to authority.

This isn't a debate to me.  I don't engage in such silly games, they are beneath me.  If this were a debate, the judge may well agree and the mention of einstein and any other physicist would be inadmissible to the discussion.  I might even have some points deducted (oh no!) What we would be left with is MY claim.  You seem to be getting distracted again.

I engage in rational discourse.  Debate is across purposes to communication and learning (though the logical fallacies are of value, don't forget the fallacy fallacy!).  If I were saying that I knew that modern physics did not have an explanation for the magnetic field in composition or mechanism BECAUSE einstein or my teacher said so - then I agree we would have a problem worth discussing.  I'm not saying that, despite your wish that I am.

I am NOT advocating you to appeal to authority.  I am advocating you (and everyone) to verify/validate every claim thoroughly before accepting them, regardless of source.

Sure, feel free to rephrase the point you are trying to make with whatever terms you think most clearly describe it.  I certainly could have missed your point, and would be happy to check out any restatement of your opinion for clarity.

The statement I made was one of fact.  You have clearly interpreted me incorrectly, and are now choosing to continue to do so so you can play a pitiful debate game?

69

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 22, 2021, 11:14:57 PM »

It is a dishonest misrepresentation of that fact.

This implies intent.  The fact is just a fact, it has no ulterior motive unto itself.  You may suspect STRONGLY that scepti is only raising it to deflect more, and to undermine science in general - but I do not see that as a certainty nor a given.  In fact, as a dialectic question, it was intended to tease out if there were any reason for conceptual conflict (between your own and/or mainstream science's current, lack of, conception and scepti's).  As it stands, I don't see any if there is - and how could there be when there is just a placeholder for such science currently (the "field").  Scepti may well be wrong, as you are already certain they are, however what they are proposing doesn't appear to conflict with what we know about the magnetic field (necessarily anyhow) and would actually help us to explain a great deal that is currently a long standing mystery.  The real trouble is it posits an as yet unknown or misclassified/misunderstood type of matter - I think... Scepti would have to confirm.

I am not saying that that fact is wrong

Well that is progress (though if you were saying that before now, I clearly misunderstood you)!

but that you are dishonestly misrepresenting it to pretend there is a problem with magnetism.

It isn't dishonest, you just lack the historical context of physics that I have.  There is a MAJOR problem with "fields" in general, magnetism very much included.  It is fundamentally unacceptable in physics/philosophy for something to act upon nothing, or for the "spooky action at a distance" that physicists have been trying to shake since the magician/alchemist newton invoked it centuries ago.

In fact, with what I have said I have made it clear that I accept that fact, I just didn't do it in such a dishonest way which could then be used against me by pretending I think there is some massive flaw just for magnetism.

It isn't so much a "flaw", as an omission.  A placeholder for science one day in the distant future (it has been like that for centuries, and shows no sign of abatement/progress).  We can go through the scientific method and evaluate precisely why if you wish.  I don't think scepti is trying to have an argument with you, or use anything you say against you (in the manner you routinely treat them).  We all best search for truth (or failing that lofty goal, validated fact should suffice) together, not against one another!

I said that it applies to everything.

No, it applies to "fields" not everything.  This isn't a sophist posit, and it doesn't come from "flat earthers" (if such a thing there be).  It is a scientific concern of significant merit.

The fact that we cannot know everything is evident.  It is not the lack of knowledge that causes this issue, it is the placeholder for that knowledge.  After enough time, the placeholder becomes idolized and that is the situation we are in today.  A generation (and more) of physicists that don't know the history, and have forgotten that there is a problem there that needs to be solved.  In any case, the lack of a cogent/philosophically sound explanation for the magnetic field does not unmake or refute all (or almost any) of science, nor is it being made out to.

That ultimately regardless of what it is you are trying to explain, you eventually reach the point where we simply don't know.

Absolutely.  And when you reach that point, you best be honest with yourself and students about it.  If there were an aether, we could talk about contortions of it to cause the magnetic effect.  If there isn't, then the spooky action at a distance must be resolved (and can only be resolved experimentally, as that is how science progresses/discovery is made).

Otherwise why not be honest and admit that it applies to everything and stop singling out magnetism.

It applies to all fields of indescribable/unknown composition and mechanism.  I am not singling out magnetism, but neither am I talking about all of physics/science/knowledge.

I do work diligently to both be honest and earnest, and I encourage others to do the same.

70

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 22, 2021, 06:01:30 PM »

He refuses to define it.
Quit putting words in his mouth.

Lol.  Fair enough.

I was only trying to "translate" the words they HAVE used (like electrolysis and "breakdown of elements").

I agree that what I come up with may well be putting words into their mouth.

71

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 22, 2021, 04:28:40 PM »

We know its not air...

I generally agree, assuming air is ONLY gas.  If air includes things smaller than gas (which it does), then we can't be as certain.

In any case, scientifically we can ONLY know through experimentation (and even then, it is provisional).  All else is poetry and imagination.

72

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 22, 2021, 04:18:02 PM »

@jackblack

Again, this is an extremely dishonest misrepresentation.

It's just a fact.  You know what you have to do to refute it. You must provide the scientific description of magnetism/the magnetic "field" - which you can't do, because no one can.  That's why it is an unrefuted fact currently.

You are still approaching this like it is some sort of argument, and that admitting that fact would be putting you at some sort of rhetorical disadvantage. It is a mistake you seem committed to not correcting.

It would just be being honest to do so, not "throwing the match".

73

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 22, 2021, 01:15:25 PM »

@sobchak

I can readily believe that you are expressing you honest opinion, and that's great, and personally, I'm always interested in hearing others opinions.  However, you should be careful to not equate your opinions with facts.

Opinions are supported by emotion, facts are supported by evidence (ideally) - though there is often still great disagreement on which facts are correct.

The fact is that modern science in all its glory does not know what a magnetic field is or what it is comprised of.  Honest physicists most all recognize and admit this.

What fact/evidence do you have to refute this?

For example, I am:

1) A "physics knowledgeable" person
and

Cool! It's not everybodys cup of tea - as I said.  And there is an awful lot of physics to keep knowledgeable about, so individual perspectives are expected to vary.  I am most happy to benefit from your knowledge/perspective!

2) Honest (for the most part...)

Lol, one just has to be open and honest regarding this one question - then we can go back to being the lying pieces of shit we usually are.

It is more difficult (for many) in this context (due to apologetics and pride) to admit : "science doesn't have an answer for that".  On a physics forum, without any other context this question would receive the proper honest answer quickly (undoubtedly with many highly theoretical speculations and musings too) 

and I do not agree with your statement, as written, that we do not know how magnets work. 

I think you are hung up on phrasing in a way that I do not intend.  What we are really talking about is not the magnet though... Perhaps if I had phrased it "we do not know what magnetism is, what it is comprised of, or how it works" you wouldn't have the same reaction?

Honesty, while a great quality, does not always equal truth.

Absolutely!

And why the appeal to authority in the first place?  We are on a flat earth forum, and you are a "globe skeptic/denier", you should personally realize that appeal to authority is the very first thing dismissed out of hand here.  You do it yourself after all, right?

Sometimes I do it to help the credential worshipping indoctrinated.  Statements that come from "Einstein" sometimes are more readily taken notice of and earnestly evaluated.  I agree it should not be this way - but alas. Name dropping

In this case I am not making an appeal to authority.  I am saying that the most knowledgeable on this subject recognize and admit that there is no explanation for what a magnetic field is or how it truly functions in physics/science.

I encourage individuals to verify/validate all claims thoroughly, regardless of source, before accepting them as true.  This is one such claim that I, and many other physicists make.

As Jack(black) rightly points out, couldn't this be applied to EVERYTHING?  We dont really understand anything "fundamentally", do we?

You are missing the point.  Perhaps if I had phrased it differently - as "magnetism" - then you might not miss it?

It seems like you are using an impossible goal as the standard of which to judge our knowledge, and since we can never reach it, you dismiss the knowledge we do have.  It's strange.

That's just a misunderstanding on your part, perhaps due to my phrasing.

This is simple : if you claim that the fact that science has no knowledge of what a magnetic field is comprised of, or precisely how it functions is incorrect - then you should be able to find and share that knowledge.

I'm happy to wait while you collect your research.

74

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 22, 2021, 12:59:42 AM »

Yeah, yeah.  This is a classic flat earther argument against gravity too.

Bored already?  It isn't a "flat earther" argument, it is a major scientific concern and has been since newton invoked it.  Relativity was created, in part, BECAUSE gravity is not a philosophically sound or scientific concept (which newton well understood at the time, and freely admitted to).  Einstein attempted to do away with the magical "spooky action at a distance" (a profoundly unscientific / anti-physics concept) by describing a medium (aether) that could be contorted by matter.  Then aether-mcarthyism hit, and pulled the rug out from under it - leaving us once again in the sorry state where something acts upon nothing (completely unacceptable, anathema to physics) and causes spooky action at a distance.  Einstein is on record saying that if aether is done away with, then so was relativity.

But it can be applied to anything if you dig down to the most fundamental levels.  What is matter really? Why does it behave the way it does? Why are there 3 special dimensions (that we perceive)? Why does the arrow of time move forward? Why anything?

You are describing sophistry.  We MUST remain ever vigilant against such things.  This is not the issue with gravity, or "fields" in general.  It is not a sophist posit/criticism (it's also not new, or from "flat earthers" if such a thing there actually be - but from physicists and natural philosophers).  There is too much to discuss on this to do it justice in a few sentences.  Though come to think of it, the name of this thread suggests it is EXACTLY the right place to be discussing it...

In the meantime science is about finding the most complete models that match the available data.  As I understand it, the current winner is quantum electrodynamics, but even Maxwell’s version does a decent job for a lot cases.

Sadly you are correct.  It is sad because the scientific method does not include models - those are meta-scientific tools for specific (and limited) use.  Science is about rigorous adherence to the scientific method to obtain knowledge of manifest benefit to humanity (ideally).  It isn't about "building a better model".  It's about experiment.

This vague suggestion of something in the air that you can’t identify that pushes things together may more sense to you  than actual physics pieced together by actual physicists validated by actual experiments.  But there’s nothing “factual” about what you said, unless you have evidence for a model that fits all the data better.

It is a more sound concept, yes - but that doesn't make it correct nor factual!  We can only determine if the hypothesis is correct (and even then, only provisionally) through experiment.  If we can't experimentally validate/invalidate it, then it's game over (scientifically speaking).

What is factual is that it is a more sound concept than what we currently have (which is, essentially nothing - "fields" comprised of and within "nothing"; certainly nothing known).  We do not know what fields are, or what they are made of.  If scepti was correct, we would!

All models are wrong, some are limitedly useful for a time.  Comparison against models is a time/money saving approach, not science.  Often it simply avoids experimentalism altogether. But experimentalism is where the discovery (and all knowledge in science) comes from!

Scepti has thousands of posts about how weight is caused by the mass of atmosphere pressing down on things.  He seems to mean it quite literally, and now uses much the same argument for magnetism.

I did notice that (though haven't read the thousands)!  The unified theory of denpressure.

If he does really mean something else entirely, isn’t it up to him to explain things?  People are going to reply to what he says, not what they guess he really means.

Well, yes and no.  Yes if they want others to understand it!  No, they aren't obligated to explain anything.

However, when you imagine from the perspective that it "must be wrong" you are merely debunking and it is frightfully easy to do (even when it isn't, in actuality).  If you imagine from the perspective that "it must be right" you can do the same.  Objectivity requires us to try and do neither, which is a frightfully difficult task for a subjective biased being.

Assuming scepti is using the dialectic (which it seems likely they are), then the best way to make progress understanding them is to try our best to imagine how it COULD be possible - rather than why it must be impossible.  "Benefit of the doubt" if you will.

I agree that we can't really proceed without scepti making clear what they mean - though this is often more challenging than it seems.  Language is imprecise, and our emotions and subjectivity are also constant obstacles.

Are you sure you’re not just seeing more subtle because he’s the only other Flat Earther talking about these things?

Perhaps, people do love the underdog.  But, I'm not really a flat earther - I'm a globe skeptic/denier, and have different views than scepti (which is why I am interested in learning more!).

Is there any scientific evidence or theoretical basis for these “smaller things”?  Last I checked “air” is a well defined term.  It’s the mixture of gases found naturally in the atmosphere, which also a well defined term.

Absolutely!  However we rarely think of them when we talk about "air" and "atmosphere".  When we talk of air, we are talking almost exclusively of gas.  However, in that air are many things that are not gas.  What if we include subatomic things?  What if we include electrons and neutrinos?  What if we include radio waves / electromagnetic radiation / light? Etc.

So air isn’t just comprised of gas molecules, and atoms aren’t what we think?

The former, yes.  The latter, probably - but that was not a point I was making.

It contains something else, which causes both magnetism and for things to have weight.  That something else is somehow left behind when we evacuate the gas part of air (whatever that is) from a chamber.

That seems like a possible (if not plausible) interpretation of scepti's position, yes.  We know we can't evacuate the gas part.  In scepti's view, it seems that is because the pushing (that moves the gas from inside the vacuum chamber to the outside of it) comes from the gas itself (not the vacuum pump).  All you can hope to do is spread/seperate that gas out within the vacuum chamber - you can never hope to eliminate it.  Gas will always be touching every wall of the container, no matter what.  Scepti may well not agree with this, but this is my interpretation so far.

Yet there’s no evidence for any of this, you don’t know what IT is that contracts all that “indoctrinated” science we learn that’s based on actual measurements and experiments.  Is that about right?

I don't know exactly how scepti feels about it, but I like science a lot!  Indoctrination has more to do with the approach than the content.  The science that is derived from experiments (the only science that is based purely on measurements/observations is an exception - known as natural law) is as solid as knowledge gets for humankind.  One can, and many are, indoctrinated to accept such things - but much more dangerous and damaging is the indoctrination of things merely masquerading as such experimentally validated science when they are, in fact, not.

Abundance of evidence or lack thereof often depends greatly on perspective on/interpretation of that evidence.  Here is another example of "benefit of the doubt"-ing (I am using my own conceptions/knowledge and effort to MAKE the thing, at least potentially, work/cogent/conceivable) :

Assuming scepti is conceptualizing something infinitesimal, that acts as a fluid/gas and is a ubiquitous part of air/atmosphere - they are potentially describing aether.  Aether is described by many scientists of years gone by as an "ultra fine fluid".  Evidence for such a fluid is everywhere, but as I said - this depends largely on interpretation of the evidence.

We know that light is a wave, and that all waves are pressure variances within media.  We know this.  We make an exception for light because we have "done away" with such "primitive" notions as aether.  However, waves cannot exist irrespective of their mediums - we know that too.   The fact that we can evacuate a chamber of almost all of the air we think is in there, and light still has no trouble negotiating through it anyway - is itself strong evidence that the medium is (to us, anyway) omnipresent.  Many see experiments with light in vacuum chambers as clear, and obvious, evidence of aether's reality.

That’s right.  Scepti, yourself or anyone else who thinks their ideas are capable of overturning entire fields of physics need proper hypothesis, make predictions based the model and test them.

It won't overturn so much as you think (especially in this case, where a cogent and philosophically/physics sound description does not currently exist at all).  Good experimentally validated science isn't going to suddenly stop being useful if (and/or when) "denpressure" is accepted.

I am glad you recognize and appreciate what I'm saying, however predictions and models are not a part of science.  Yes, I know how insane that sounds.  The scientific method does not include a "model" step, or a "prediction" step.  The only prediction in the scientific method is the hypothesis, which predicts a causal relationship between an IV and a DV for the explicit purpose of experimental validation or invalidation (ideally).  All the rest - "my model predicts this and I saw it so it's all true" - is NOT science.

Maybe you shouldn’t be claiming that completely untested and unsupported ideas are factual, while dismissing real physics that’s verified by experimentation then?

I certainly shouldn't be, and am not!  I think you are misunderstanding me.  Hopefully my explanations above have cleared things up.  Let me know if not!

75

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 21, 2021, 11:35:04 PM »

Like sceptimatic, you seem to have a propensity to downplay things that we do have great knowledge and understanding of.

Perhaps, but not in this case.  In this case I am merely being honest.  Any honest physics knowledgeable person would (and does) admit the same.  We do not know what magnetism is or how it works.

I wonder why that is?  Maybe you have some of your own biases that color your perception?

We are all plagued by bias, and much of it is pernicious and intrinsic.  So much so that we are blinded to it.  If that were the case (as often is), I would need to rely on external evaluation and notification of such a thing.  I think in this case you are misunderstanding me, and taking minor statements as evidence of more grandiose "philosophy" you assume is there.  I am not saying that we know nothing about magnetism - we absolutely know (and have learned) a great deal.  A couple of the things that we do not know, is how it works and what it is composed of.

A moving charge creates a magnetic moment.

I am a fan of faraday.  Induction is the core of many technologies.  However, this doesn't work for permanent magnets.

We use this "how" to engineer the most incredible electromagnetic machines.

We can do a great many things that we don't really understand.  There are still arguments/discussions/disagreements among aviation/avionics engineers about how, precisely, a plane flies and which conceptions should be employed to make the best plane.   This is unthinkable to most students, but it is the reality.

For example, MRI machines are not magic wands given to us by interdimensional gods, but devices we have designed, built, and utilized using our collective knowledge of how magnets work.  We use these concepts to build devices that can actually image directly inside your body!  To say we have "no idea" is just incredibly ignorant.

This is a great example.  We can (and do) use magnetism to great effect, but we can also (and do) utilize it without really understanding what it is or how it works, fundamentally.  The concepts that are employed, to great effect - as you point out, do not contain the answers to these mysteries.

Thats fine, the history of science would indicate that it is incredibly likely that indeed more is going on, and you are more than welcome to your opinions/musings/imaginations about this, and I would love to hear more about them.

In due time!  I'm still trying to understand scepti for the time being.

But this idea that because we do not know the why of  everything, then we have "no idea" about anything, is bizarre.

That would be bizarre!  Thankfully that is a misunderstanding on your part, and not a claim I am making.

We know lots - we have an amazing collective pool of observations of the universe around us, and beautiful conceptualizations that link them in an amazing manner.  This backdrop of knowledge and wisdom shouldn't be dismissed or ignored. 

You are preaching to the choir, I assure you!

Don't get lost in your personal notions so deeply that you lose sight of the the greater world around you.  Just some friendly advice.

This is good advice!

76

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 21, 2021, 01:37:20 AM »

@ blackjack

Yes, technically it wouldn't be attraction, instead it would be the air on either side pushing it. But that results in a macroscopic effect referred to as attraction.

The difference, in scepti's view at least (if not reality), is not semantic - it's actual.  It merely APPEARS to be attraction, but attraction is not a thing in reality.  In the exact same way that we do not "suck" liquid/gas/matter into straws or vacuums, and for the same reasons!  It is the push from the atmosphere doing the work, and our "sucking" merely creates a pressure differential that allows that.

Conventional physics relies upon attractive and repulsive interactions. It is not simply all push.

Not traditionally, no.  And even in "modern" conventional physics there is no mechanism for it.  It is taken on faith, as many other things are.

Again, only having push/collisions only works for gas, and to a lesser extent fluids.

What scepti is describing, potentially, reconciles and allows for it to work for everything.  At least, that is what it appears they are attempting to do / have already concluded.

It is trivial to show that these poles will repel.

It is trivial to IMAGINE that they will POSSIBLY repel.  It is also trivial to imagine that they won't.  In imagination, all things are possible.  In reality, very few of our imaginings bare any resemblance to reality (yes, even when the conceptualizations with formalized mathematical description are useful).  This is why experiment is not optional in the scientific method.

But this causes issues for interactions with magnetic materials which are not magnets, raising the question as to why they are attracted to this pole rather than repelled by it.

Potentially, yes.  Though if you imagine the magnetic materials (which are not magnetized, at the outset) as small magnets themselves, it is easy to imagine how they align themselves properly on either side of the magnet and effectively become a part of it (as they do in the current mainstream conception, albeit for different supposed reasons).

For that, he switches to the other pole, where the flow causes things to be drawn towards it, and if something obstructs the flow, the difference in pressure (or in this case the abundance of magnetons) causes it to be force towards it. And at the more precise level, it would always be a gradient causing the motion.

This could be a problem, though I don't think we necessarily have a solid enough grasp on what scepti is thinking to be certain it IS.

One could actually conclude it could go either way, especially if you consider magnets of different strengths.
For example if you bring the abundant side of a strong magnet to the deficient side of a weak magnet, then the weak magnet can't accept enough and thus is pushed away.

Exactly!  In imagination all things are possible.  There is GOOD reason that experiment cannot be substituted for "imagination"/"musings"/"thought experiment" (or observation, or anything else) in the scientific method.  It's to figure out what is ACTUALLY happening (ideally), not merely what we imagine is.

Except this runs counter to every other type of flow, such as vacuum cleaners, where the flow is so great it sucks up little bits of dust.
And you have an abundance on the other side trying to push in, pushing them together.
So them trying to rush into the gap, with them coming from all around, will simply push them together.

I see what you are saying.  However, in this case - the proposed thing is so small that it cannot be fully "sealed" out.

In the case of one vacuum cleaner, we both understand that the atmospheric pressure is forcing its way in creating the flow and the illusion that the vacuum is "sucking".

In the case of 2 vacuum cleaners, I do agree that when the two vacuum hoses touch they will appear to attract one another until they lock together creating a sustained "airtight" (not really, but go with it) chamber which the air outside cannot penetrate.  This may not be analogous/applicable to scepti's description because the magnets themselves may already be saturated with as many magnetons as they can hold.  As a result the "free magnetons" rush into the space between the magnets causing repulsion where we would expect the illusion of attraction.

I wouldn't say trying to prop up a failed idea is acting in good faith.

I wouldn't say that describing it as a failed idea (which was your clear preexisting bias from the outset) simply because you can IMAGINE flaws in it is acting to earnestly evaluate / understand / test it.

Repeating the same lie wont magically make it true.

That's true.  I am simply stating facts. 

You can't hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if your definitions are wrong.  As I've said, and you cannot refute, thought experiment is ONLY useful, in a scientific context, to generate hypothesis.  Hypothesis can ONLY be validated or invalidated through experiment, and this is semantically inarguable.  It is a part of the scientific method, and you have no obligation to learn the correct definition of it.  You can remain incorrect if you wish.

I have clearly explained why thought experiments are a key part of science.

You have been miseducated to that effect. Thought "experiments" are not experiments, and they are not a part of the scientific method (i.e. NOT science).  This isn't an arguable point.

The point is the results have already been collected by previous experiments.

So you keep saying with undue certainty.  But the proposed magneton hasn't been expounded upon thoroughly enough to even begin imagining an experimental setup.  You are in too much of a hurry to avoid doing any science.

If Scepti's model requires magnets to have an attractive pole and a repulsive pole, such that 2 attractive poles attract each other and 2 repulsive poles repel, you don't need to carry out a physical experiment to test this.

Not certainly, no.  You perhaps need to understand a new mechanism, or new property - but nothing is irreconcilable just because you have a thought that suggests it might be.  We learn through experiment in science.  Not merely musings while we sit on our asses.

That means we don't need to test it.

My whole point is that currently we can't test it (experimentally, the only "test" that exists in science).  We would both have to understand more thoroughly what the proposed magneton is and how to measure and manipulate it.  We have none of that, and only your failed "thought experiments"/musings.

Or if you can demonstrate it is unsound.

It is true that we could potentially find the hypothesis not valid at the outset, but only with rigorous criteria to do so first - which vary depending on source.  As I said, most physics dept's would declare the current formulation of hypothesis (mine, not scepti's) invalid because it invokes theoretical things (things not known to empirical science), namely the magneton.

You even tried to appeal to one yourself, you just didn't call it a thought experiment.

It was merely for demonstration.  It doesn't remove the necessity for experimentation, and never could.  It would be unscientific, by definition.  A deviation from the scientific method.  I am not denying the use of "thought experiment" to generate hypothesis - but that is the extent of its scientific use.

What Clickljama's sometimes presents as thought experiments are not thought experiments because he has no idea what the results would actually be and instead just assumes them. That means they are not thought experiments.

This is why we test our conceptions ("thought experiments" if you must) against reality by experiment.  I can appreciate that if the experiment has already been carried out, that we can reference that experiment.  In this case, that is plainly not possible until more detail is given.  That's the whole point, which you seem committed to missing.

77

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 21, 2021, 12:34:09 AM »

@jackblack

The questions he is asking is in no way addressing the issues that are raised, and this is his standard tactic of deflection.

The purpose of the dialectic is to encourage the student to learn for themselves / come to their own conclusions.  By asking the right questions, and having the student earnestly try to answer them on their own - the lesson is learned in a more impactful way (ideally) because the conclusion belongs to the student and was reached by them alone.

The request, which you and most (but not all) have ignored, to explain how magnetic fields actually work and what they are composed of (in the "mainstream" view) is to help YOU recognize that you lack answers for those questions.  By admitting that, you would be demonstrating earnest interest in evaluating scepti's ideas further.  As usual, your antagonistic approach is across purposes to learning and communication.

If he wants to change his tune and instead claim no one has any idea how magnets work, including him, then he can try to ask questions about how we think it works.

If scepti DIDN'T have any idea how magnets worked (as the rest of us do not), then why would we be interested in hearing more from them on the subject?  The admission you are requesting would unmake the conversation, and the need thereof.  It's silly (and based in ego/pride).

Where has he admitted that he cannot explain magnetism with air, or actually made any genuine attempt at addressing the issues raised?

They do not think you are worth their time conversing with, due to your attitude and approach.  They have said, effectively, that it is not gas, as whatever it is can enter and exit an "airtight" container.  There are many smaller things than gas in our air that are known to science - yes, some of which can absolutely enter and exit an airtight container (even without magic like quantum tunneling).  Your evident lack of earnesty and civility is the cause of the lack of "genuine attempt" to engage with the issues you have with understanding what has been said so far.  It's tit for tat.  If you don't show any genuine attempt to understand, why should they?

It seems that that is not what you are seeing because you want to side with Scepti in your shared hatred for RE and science.

You keep making this baseless claim.  I suppose you can continue to ignore my responses to it, but don't expect to learn anything!  I like science a lot, and have no strong feelings towards "RE" which has no impact on it (or any of human experience).

Yet you decide to attack those trying to make it productive and side with the one using whatever dishonest tactics they can.

I am not attacking anyone, it is across purposes to communication.  You should try to do the same!  It is worth the effort!

If that truly was the case you would be trying to get Scepti to actually address the issues raised.

You mean by asking them directly?  Or by constantly insulting and assuming that they are wrong (and stupid) at the outset like you do?

We can't force scepti to answer any questions, but perhaps a DIAlog could be encouraged by asking and answering questions in kind (they answer, you answer, they answer etc.).

We can easily make predictions from key parts of his model which simply do not match reality.

That MAY be, however it is not how we determine if a hypothesis is correct or not in the scientific method.  Hypothesis can ONLY be validated/invalidated by rigorous experiment (save for your raised caveat, of further criteria for "valid" hypothesis) and that is its sole function!

The experiments have already been carried out. We don't need to do them specifically to focus on his model.

In order for this to be the case, which I agree it could (that there already exist well established and repeated experiments that have tested scepti's hypothesis already), we would have to understand exactly what is being claimed is causing the magnetic "pressure", and how to both measure and manipulate it.  Currently we don't have that.  It seems clear that scepti is talking about something smaller than gas, and something that is STILL inside a low pressure chamber (no matter how low, and also has no difficulty exiting and reentering it either, when gas cannot).

Trying to plead ignorance to pretend no experiment is possible doesn't help either.

I'm just pointing it out (in a vain attempt to bring focus to a wildly unproductive thread).  We should be focusing on experimental evaluation of scepti's posit, or dropping it altogether (decking out, as scepti says).

I AM pleading ignorance as to scepti's true vision and conception of magnetism, as I am not sure they have made it entirely clear yet.  I am speculating and filling in the gaps a LOT on my own, but again - this is the purpose of the dialectic.

The key thing I was focusing on with that statement is the interactions of 2 magnets, where reality has fundamentally different results.

Did you read my speculative explanation of that?  What part of that potential description did you take issue with?  It is not certain that what scepti is describing is as you are interpreting it (as impossible... not a great way to go about evaluating something earnestly.  You can only "debunk" when plagued with the pre-existing bias that it MUST be wrong).

Which is true of all the fundamental forces.

Except push / collision, yes.  (don't zeno's paradox me on this, pedantry will not aid this conversation)

No, because it shows it is false.
That means it is worse than the pixies, because it is quite difficult to show pixies don't exist.

That's what I said.  It is a MUCH better hypothesis than pixies, BECAUSE it can be (according to you) disproven.

78

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 20, 2021, 11:56:32 PM »

Funny that you insist that science should rely on experimental validation, whilst baseless stating that the idea that magnetism being due to some component of air is vastly more sound than what we know from real physics.

It isn't baseless.  It's factual.  There exists no mainstream explanation for a mechanism or composition of any type of "field" (magnetism very much included).  This is why scepti keeps asking for people to explain it themselves.  When they look inward for that knowledge, they will find it isn't there.  If they diligently look outwards (research), they will find that no such explanation exists at all - merely description.

And that has nothing to do with air.

Scepti is talking, from what I've interpreted - only they can confirm, about things in the air that are smaller than gas.  Things that can enter and exit an "airtight" (really, GAS-tight - gas is not the entirety of what we call "air" or "atmosphere" - there are many smaller things than that there!) container without issue.

The independent variable you want to control in this case is very easy.

No, it isn't and that is the trouble.  First, we need to understand what IT is - which we don't.  Only scepti can help clarify on that.  Scepti has made it pretty clear that it isn't gas (or not the atomic, usually diatomic, gas that we know and love).

THEN we need to be able to manipulate and measure it.  We can't proceed to experiment before we do both things.

Supposing that anything scepti says might be right are the thought experiments here

That's right.  And thought experiments that do not become actual experiments are a waste of time (and worse, prevent you from doing experiment / practicing real experimental science)

As I said, physics doesn't take place in discussion or inside the mind.  It takes place in objective manifest reality, by rigorous experiment.

79

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 20, 2021, 11:36:52 PM »

@solarwind

IV?  As in intravenous or as in the Roman numeral for 4?

Lol, it stands for independent variable and it is a required part of all experiments.  Sadly few people are properly educated on what the scientific method is, and the colloquial usages of experiment and hypothesis are incorrect.

A field in physics is a region of space where a particular type of force can be felt.  Electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields. There's nothing magical about fields.

The trouble is, that in the regrettably ongoing era of aether-mcarthyism, there is no space.  Something cannot act upon nothing.  It is absolutely anathema to all of physics, and the reason that no physicist worth their salt has ever been comfortable with newton's god-gravity (and fields in general. as I mentioned, einstein towards the end of his life became increasingly worried that fields were non-real).  Fields are made up of nothing (known, anyhow), in a medium of nothing.  This is not acceptable from the perspective of physics/natural philosophy. 

People who do not study the history of physics, cannot hope to understand it today.

80

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 19, 2021, 10:58:57 PM »

@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

So a simple test is one I described involving 3 magnets which clearly establishes the fact that like poles repel and opposite poles attract rather than magnets having an attractive and repulsive side.

I see what you are saying.  Though in scepti's conception, attraction is not an option that has any available mechanism.  In their view, which as we've discussed - is perfectly sound and traditional in conventional physics, is that there is only push (repulsion/collision).  One pole has an abundance of "magnetons" around it, and the other a deficiency.

It is easy to imagine why the 2 "abundant" poles would repel (and do so more strongly the more you forced them together). 

It is likewise easy to imagine why the abundant pole and the deficient pole would attract, as the "magneton" is not merely in and around the magnet, but surrounding everything (a part of the atmosphere).  As the abundant pole exudes (perhaps, as scepti has talked about sieves/funnels) the deficient one readily accepts and the combined loop becomes one magnet, effectively.

It is a bit harder to imagine how the 2 deficient poles repel, though conceivably it could be because the more intense that deficiency becomes, the more the available "magnetons" in the room rush into the gap.  I agree I am stretching and speculating, but I am doing so in good faith and earnestly.

A key part of physics does take place within the mind, and this allows thought experiments to be experiments. I know you really hate that fact.

Einstein did a lot more bad things than JUST marrying his cousin.  Thought experiments are in no way experiments, and in the minds of non-experimenters it is nothing but poison.  Your fact is not only demonstrably untrue, it is religious in origin.  Nothing has ever been learned in science by "thought experiment".  Knowledge, in science, is only obtained through rigorous adherence to the scientific method, of which "thought experiment" is most certainly not a part.  Of course imagining and speculating is an important part of hypothesizing (since brute forcing by mere random guess, is often slower), but a hypothesis is nothing but a guess without the experimental validation/invalidation.  This is how science, which I care deeply about, works.

This allows you to make up an experiment.

Ideally.  Unfortunately many hypotheses cannot be validated or invalidated by experiment.  Which makes them scientifically useless (or worse, in the way - bias).

You can then use your mind and previously obtained observations to see if you already have all the results you need for that experiment to determine the result of the experiment.

It's all merely musing until you do real experiment.

Or you can show that the hypothesis is internally contradictory.

True.  There are, in fact, many more criteria that have been worked out to determine a valid hypothesis - but this is usually beyond the scope of discussions since so few people understand the bones of the scientific method (which doesn't include explicit criteria on what a valid hypothesis is).

So you can use thought experiments to invalidate a hypothesis without needing to actually carry out the experiments.

In a way, by the exception/caveat above - yes.  If you can demonstrate the hypothesis itself to be invalid, then there is little reason to perform a valid experiment on it.

In some ways, because it invokes the "magneton" - a theoretical (not confirmed to exist empirically) form of matter - we have already invalidated the hypothesis in the eyes of many physics departments.  It is interesting to note that had those rigorous criteria existed in newton's time, gravitation would never have made it into any textbooks and the reverend john michell would have been simply laughed at (if he had bothered to perform his observation, disingenuously/erroneously presented as an experiment today, at all).

81

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 19, 2021, 10:57:07 PM »

@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

Scepti has baselessly asserted that everything is magically caused by his magic air. That is not claiming it is a mystery. That is claiming mainstream science is completely wrong and that it is magically caused by air.

Or something in that air / something that that air breaks into.

The reason that scepti is asking you questions (dialectic) instead of providing direct answers, is so you will work out what they (scepti) mean on your own (from your side, as scepti is saying).  By asking you to explain how magnets work, you are supposed to realize that we don't know - no one does (perhaps scepti does!).  They are not so much saying that mainstream science is wrong, but (I think) expecting you to realize and admit that mainstream science doesn't have an answer at all (not a cogent one anyhow).  We can describe and manipulate magnetism (making it orders of magnitude more real than gravitation), however we do not know what it is, or what "fields" are.  There is good reason to suspect, as einstein did, that they aren't real at all.

He uses whatever dishonest tactics he can to avoid admitting this.

That is not what I'm seeing, however I can appreciate that it seems that way from your perspective (and could conceivably be the case).  I see them fully "admitting"/explicitly stating that it is the atmosphere, though I am not sure exactly what they are intending to say by that (perhaps that atomos and atmos are the same?  After all, it is only missing one letter and that is NOTHING for etymology).  They HAVE already clarified that "airtight" containers both keep things out (like oxygen) and are permeable.  Logically, if both statements are true, then they are likely/possibly conceptualizing something smaller than what we consider to be "air" (though still is, or is a component of it).

Are you just trying to prop him up because you share a hatred of science and the RE?

I'm only trying to bring clarity and focus to a largely disordered, antagonistic, and unproductive thread.  I know it is likely futile.  I love science in any case, and my intention is not to "get scepti's back".  As I've said before, I am just like the rest of you here - trying to understand what scepti is saying and from where/what they derive their conviction.

I did, and showed how that would produce results fundamentally different to what is observed in reality.
That means he is not right.

As I said, the hypothesis that scepti is forwarding (perhaps a conclusion, from their perspective - or even a validated hypothesis, though this would require experiment that has been omitted so far) can only be validated or invalidated by experiment (not discussion).  No experiment is possible until we better understand what that IV is, and how to manipulate it.  Seeing (interpreted from description) as no container known (or perhaps in scepti's view, possible) can keep these proposed infinitesimal things out - we have a significant hurdle to creating an experimental setup.  Hypotheses that can't be tested are just guesses.

And honestly evaluating and showing that it is wrong doesn't mean we are merely debunking.

This is true.  Scientifically speaking, we just can't be certain that it is wrong until we A, understand it thoroughly, and B, invalidate it experimentally.

It is my knowledge (and love) of science (the scientific method, in particular) that requires this rigor.

When you bring 2 magnets together, like poles repel and opposite poles attract.

So then you agree that scepti's description is conceivable for magnets, but doesn't explain attraction of magnetic, but unmagnetized, materials to either pole?  I don't see this as a major issue when you think of the magnetic materials as many small magnets (that have the ability/freedom of motion to align and unalign themselves).  Have you ever seen the salt jump towards and away from the static?

You may as well claim it is magic pixies.

If they are not proposing something experimentally testable, you may well be right.  But we should reserve final judgement until that is clear.

So no, this is not sound at all.

It is more sound, at least potentially, because it talks of real/physical/tangible/POTENTIALLY empirical things.  It does not invoke "pixies" like "fields", which are both ill-defined and nonsensical (contrary to traditional / conventional physics).

At least mainstream physics actually matches what is observed in reality. I would say that makes mainstream science is far more sound.

That's the whole point.  What we have now in mainsteam science as an explanation for magnetism is a mere description of it.  We don't know what the magnetic field is or why/how it works.  We can talk about what it does, and some amount of how - but not why or what it truly is.

experimental invalidation of this hypothesis is entirely possible.

Well then it is a damn sight better than the pixies!

This hypothesis predicts specific results regarding the polarity of magnets.

I somewhat agree.

82

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 19, 2021, 09:30:53 PM »

@Themightykabool

Kind of.  I'm no rational positivist, and all thought takes place in the mind.

However, hypothesis (speculation often misrepresented as "theory") without experimental validation/invalidation is called guessing.  You CAN guess right, but it is VERY unlikely.

83

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 19, 2021, 07:46:28 AM »

Physics is not everybody's cup of tea.

Many in this thread are too busy playing apologist to earnestly engage in discussions about (theoretical) physics.

Scepti has been trying, by dialectic, to get you to recognize that "fields" are not defined and that magnetism is currently a mystery to all physicists as a result.  Einstein recognized that his "castle in the sky" (continuous fields / fields of any kind) may well be utter fiction towards the end of his life. We are NOT talking about wild or anti-conventional physics concepts here. 

Suppose for a second, that Scepti is right (benefit of the doubt, required to earnestly evaluate and not merely "debunk")

There is something VERY small, that is a component of our air, that is responsible for magnetism. There is an abundance of it on one side (pole) of a magnet and a deficiency on the other.

Putting aside that this is a vastly more sound conception than what we currently have (magic "fields" within and comprised of nothing), from a philosophical/physics perspective - the next step is to test the notion.

As I described earlier in this thread, no experimental validation or invalidation of this hypothesis is possible until we can measure and manipulate the IV (the proposed infintessimally small thing)

That should be the focus.  Physics does not take place within the mind, i.e. thought experiment is in no way experiment.

84

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 13, 2021, 08:07:22 PM »

In terms of 'edification', I don't really see this website as a means of improving myself or my intellect of anything.

Fair enough.  Perhaps you would have had less reaction/resistance had I used the word "clarification" instead of edification.  In any case, the reasons to engage in a site like this is precisely that, edification, in my view (about many things, and generally minimally to do with the true shape of the world)

My questions are simply a tool to try and find out how far those who present their 'alternative' ideas about the Earth have actually researched them. There is a huge difference between simply making a claim (that the Sun and Moon are holographic projections for example) and being able to produce real and verifiable evidence that those claims are actually correct.

Agreed. However, getting clarification on those claims by asking your questions will (ideally) lead to edification (even if that edifying is that Scepti cannot justify/support their claims adequately in your view)

If you can find any posts by Sceptimatic where he actually and explicitly admits he is wrong about anything he claims then please point me to them.

I can't speak to that, and I agree that the inability to be humble (required for objectivity and to recognize and address one's mistakes) is a major shortcoming.  I'm sure that Scepti has as much experience being wrong as the rest of us, and I hope that they would not delude themselves to deny that (to themselves or anyone else).

His consistent 'get out' clause is that he only presents his ideas as what he believes in and doesn't make them out to be factual and real.

That is a fine out, however of course it is not science.  Through mere discussion and imagination all things are possible/conceivable.  When you test those possibilities/conceptions against reality by experiment is when it begins to be science, and not before.

So if someone asked you for a clear and precise definition of magnetism and what causes it, what would you say to them?

I would say that honestly we don't know, but there are some conceptions that are popular and useful.  In one of my, admittedly speculative, conceptions of it the magnetic "force" comes from infinitesimal sized magnetic monopoles inside and surrounding the magnet. Much like einstein towards the end of his life, I have come to the conclusion that "fields" are not a thing in reality (only equation).  Everything is discrete, as the quantumnists have found/demonstrated.

The pressure comes directly from each magnet to the walls.

How?  What creates the pressure?

This is a question for Scepti. My stab at their potential response would be that the pressure is created by preferential absorption or expulsion (perhaps by the shape or structure of the magnetic material) of very fine / permeable things in and/or related to our air.

If I place a piece of brass or copper on the outside of the plastic box then move it around near the magnet inside the box it does not move.  Why not?

Again, a question for Scepti. I presume it will once again come down to the material itself being perhaps already saturated with, or maybe resistant to, the small things responsible for the magnetic effect and pressure thereof.

Are you certain the magnet will not move? We can certainly cause the magnets motion to be altered by simple proximity to copper (lenz's law) - so I would not be surprised to find a minor motion in the reverse (in fact, I would be surprised if it was completely absent)

It forms a pressure circuit.

Surely what you call a 'pressure circuit' is basically what I would call a magnetic field.  Yes?

Again for Scepti.

So I take it we are in agreement then that your claim (that Scepti partially confirmed my interpretation of their statements merely because I agree with them) was in error?

85

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 13, 2021, 07:24:59 PM »

Test was mentioned...
Whatever.
Point is.
Sceppy isnt doing anything beyond hypothsis.

Possibly, however I wasn't just "giving you the business" or being pedantic (for no reason, anyhow).

The point may be minor/pedantic, but it is important to science (and practicing it).

Test variables (beyond IV(s) and DV(s)) are not a thing in the scientific method, nor did you mention any procedure for testing them if they were presented as such.  I expect this was simply to save time, and you are not actually confused about experiment being the only way to validate/invalidate hypothesis in science (but many others are, sadly)

The only evaluation possible (and the sole function) of hypothesis is done through rigorous experiment alone.  Other "tests" are outside of the scientific method (i.e. not science/scientific).

86

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 13, 2021, 02:56:59 PM »

@solarwind

I am interested in addressing your further questions for your edification - however it is important to recognize my point first.

You claimed that Scepti responded the way they did, somewhat/partially confirming my interpretation of their statements so far, simply because I agreed with them. This is a claim that you would be hard pressed to support citing statements made by either/both of us.

I haven't been "agreeing" (nor disagreeing) with them - I've been earnestly trying to understand them!

So far as I understand it there may be direct/irreconcilable differences in our two views on magnetism.

87

Arts & Entertainment / Re: RIP Cliff Simon

« on: March 13, 2021, 11:36:18 AM »

He was so great/lovable they ended up making him a quasi good guy (like yu or mayborne).

SG1 is one of the (if not THE) best bad TV shows of all time.

The gouauld are an alegory for the "owners"/slaver class.

RIP indeed, and my (our, the people who appreciated him) sincerest condolences to his family.

88

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 13, 2021, 10:01:39 AM »

Bravo. At least you are trying and doing a decent job of it.

AKA you agree with me so you must be right.

You presume this.  You'd be hard pressed to show support for it from statements given.  I am earnestly trying to understand, as we all ought to be (unless one has concluded that Scepti is simply wasting our time, in which case one should stop engaging entirely).

Currently I am a monopolist.  Shit, that came out wrong.  I propose/suspect a magnetic monopole, and I am not alone (scientifically speaking)!

89

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 13, 2021, 09:51:15 AM »

@themightykabool

Thats how the scientific method works.

I agree with the spirit of your statement, but you left out the most important and critical step in the scientific method in your description: Rigorous validation/invalidation of hypothesis by experiment (no, "thought experiments" are not experiments - those are merely musings/speculations/imaginings)

Here is the actual scientific method (the one that produces knowledge of manifest value to humanity) :

Observation : Magnets attract and repel one another.
Hypothesis (Scepti may need to adjust this) : Magnets are attracted and repelled due to pressure differential.
IV: Pressure differential around the magnet(s).
DV: Magnetic attraction/repulsion amplitude.
Experiment : TBD

Experiment will not be possible in this case until we understand the precise nature of that hypothesized pressure differential (in order to manipulate and measure it).  If it is air pressure, then the experimental setups should be pretty straightforward.

But so far its been dodgedgodge.
You are reverso-Sando who spamspamspam.

Interesting distillation, and certainly possible. I think more research is required for scepti (using the dialectic is not "dodging" by default) and sando may well not be deliberately doing as you interpret/observe from your perspective.

90

Flat Earth General / Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

« on: March 11, 2021, 07:17:57 PM »

@solarwind

How then is photolysis  related to magnetism? Imagine you are a tutor for a course I am doing and I have asked you to explain it to me. Why does the process of photolysis only create a magnetic effect in certain metals and not others? 

Scepti is (or seems to be) describing how air pressure differential is the cause of magnetism.

My interpretation of what they are saying is that the magnets function relies on pressure differential - not just of the gas that is "expected" in the room, but also smaller (more permeable) things that those gasses break into via processes such as electrolysis/magnetolysis/photolysis etc.

As for your second question, I think it is supposed due to the structure of the substance itself (much like in the presumptive view, where atomic/molecular alignment is presumed to cause magnetism in ways we plainly do not understand) - but this is really a question only Scepti can answer.

I am very much trying, along with you, to understand it myself.