Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - mathsman

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« on: September 30, 2014, 03:05:06 AM »
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« on: September 30, 2014, 01:25:16 AM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?

Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.

From Wikipedia:

A telescope is an instrument that aids in the observation of remote objects by collecting electromagnetic radiation (such as visible light). The first known practical telescopes were invented in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century, using glass lenses. They found use in terrestrial applications and astronomy.

Within a few decades, the reflecting telescope was invented, which used mirrors. In the 20th century many new types of telescopes were invented, including radio telescopes in the 1930s and infrared telescopes in the 1960s. The word telescope now refers to a wide range of instruments detecting different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and in some cases other types of detectors.

Happy to help.

63
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Flat Earth: General, Debate and Q&A
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:23:34 AM »
Has scepti been banned?

I miss him.   :'(

Not recently.  I think he is on a hiatus.

I wish to entertain theories as to what constitutes a scepti hiatus.  Mustang down Route 66 filled with a "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" amount of drugs?  Painting landscapes in Brittany?  Massaging his mother's bunions?  The possibilities are limitless.

Let's hope it's not a hiatus hernia.

64
I'm just not an Atheist idiot, having dealt with the so-called "challenge of atheism" a long time ago. I found that atheism could not respond to the simple Ontological Argument of Anselm.
Perhaps atheism doesn’t have to:
Religion relies on something that cannot be proven logically, namely, that God exists. Although there are strong arguments to suggest that he does, there are no logically conclusive arguments that guarantee that fact. I'm a religious man, but even I recognise this fact.

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Nothing Going on Here
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:17:22 AM »
'The Einstein Bullshit' is intended for those who have been suspicious of the premise that reality is so subtle that it can only be understood in terms of sophisticated abstract mathematics to which only the elite were privy.

I would suggest that mathematics, any mathematics is not confined to an 'elite'. Mathematics is available to anybody with pen, paper, curiosity and persistence.


66
Flat Earth General / Re: Credits for Bendy Light
« on: September 03, 2014, 02:09:54 AM »
René Descartes first published the laws of refraction in 1637.

'René Descartes was a drunken fart: I drink therefore I am.'

67
Flat Earth General / Re: Credits for Bendy Light
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:30:39 AM »
I thought the margin was too narrow.

68
Flat Earth General / Re: Credits for Bendy Light
« on: September 03, 2014, 12:14:47 AM »
Parsifal is a bendy light specialist.

Parsifal can't even calculate the Bishop constant.

69
Flat Earth General / Re: An old essay.
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:32:45 AM »
In Boolean algebra 1+1 does = 1, it describes the function of an and gate, the computer you are using has thousands of them in its guts.

And now you're misusing it. If x=1 and y =1 then x˄ y =1. Where the values of x,y and x˄y are not numbers but truth values. Other symbols could be used for the truth values. The and operator is not analogous to addition. If anything it is analogous to multiplication.

70
Flat Earth General / Re: An old essay.
« on: August 28, 2014, 03:32:21 AM »
The study bullhorn presents is correct.  It's a good example of the type of proof science demands. 

What surprises those who have participated in the experiment, is that anyone would be dispute the findings?  To see 1+1= 1 (raindrops) is a legitimate claim IF you take the time to confirm it.

To admit mathematics has limitations is just being realistic.

The limitations of mathematics are well known to mathematicians and aren't an issue. You are simply misusing mathematics out of ignorance. When you hear that little voice in your head that says 'I know better than everybody else', please ignore it.

71
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tom Bishop & Dark Matter
« on: August 16, 2014, 03:57:29 AM »
If experimental data approximates the form of the formula in the Wiki then calulating Bishop's constant should be a piece of cake.

Edited for spelling.

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why?
« on: August 06, 2014, 07:30:31 AM »
The conspiracy makes a ton of money by pretending that the Earth is round.  However, that is not their main objective.  If they can make people believe things that are not true, they control those people.

I've often seen this claim made on this website. In what substantive way am I being controlled by the conspiracy but you are not?

73
That website is hilarious, and did I spot sceptimatic in the comments section? You better believe I did.  ;D

It's nice he has some friends to play with.

74
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Inconsistent Moderation Standards
« on: August 02, 2014, 11:35:32 AM »
Anybody who does not like the way this forum is moderated is free to leave. I'm curious as to why a person would stay around if they weren't happy. Try growing a pair.

75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?
« on: August 01, 2014, 12:37:50 PM »
The date, 1876 exists for you as chit chat and text, plus pictures.It has never existed as any reality. It existed only for those that existed in the now of that time you look at. All you see is images and text.

As for existing now in 1 sec and move into the future, you simply don't. You can look at this three ways.
Your watch and date could move you into the future as it is that which you see advance.
You can assume you walk into the future with every step as you advance forward or backwards.

Or you can see that you live exactly now and neither move or be moved into any other reality but the actual reality you are stood in, which is now. Each word you read from this post is confined to history. Once you pass the word you read, you are in the now of the next word you're reading and so on.
By the time you finish reading this post, you are still in the now with the memory of what was written that you are memorising in the NOW not the past. See what I mean?

Unfortunately there is evidence of the past, hard evidence:
On the 19th July my girlfriend and I were involved in a car accident. My insurance company has records of the accident, the other driver's insurance company has records of the accident, the police have records of the accident; it would not surprise me if the local radio station has a record of the accident since it caused - according to the paramedics - a three mile tailback, the Countess of Chester hospital has a record of our admittance to A&E.

The mangled wreck of my car is a record of the accident, the injuries to my girlfriend are a record of the accident. Her pain is in the present, the cause is in the past. Her continueing improvement is a sign of time moving forward.

A piece of rotting fruit may be rotting in the present but at one time in the past it was fresh. An old man at one time in the past was a baby. A rotten piece of fruit can never be restored to freshness, the old man will never be a baby again. Time is built in to our bones and it moves forward.

76
Flat Earth General / Re: A zetetic world.
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:41:23 AM »

Have they ever mentioned relativity or quantum mechanics? No? I guess this means that these theories have no bearing whatsover on their 12-lane multispan suspension bridge. Oh sorry - you mean they can do their jobs without knowing anything about those things? I agree, but that doesn't mean those concepts aren't involved does it?

Yes it does mean those concepts aren't involved. Just as ornithology isn't involved, astronomy isn't involved and medicine isn't involved.
The link is to an engineering mathematics book which covers just about all the mathematics an engineer would need.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Advanced-Engineering-Mathematics-K-Stroud/dp/0230275486/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405510573&sr=1-3#reader_0230275486


Scroll down to the index; no mention of relativity or quantum mechanics.

77
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Infinity
« on: July 09, 2014, 11:53:33 PM »
Please get your infinities out of the Science section. Infinity is a monstrosity to a scientist, since it is simply an idea that only exists in mathematics. If there is a mathematics section of the forums, this thread would be welcomed there.

Mathematicians don't produce monstrosities they create objects of ineffable and unalloyed beauty.

I agree with Rama: you need a girlfriend.

78
PS:  I must speak to my partner about "gobble warming".  She's very warm of heart, but boy, those lips of hers can be like ice on these winter mornings LOL.

A nice cup of tea beforehand should solve that problem.

79
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Infinity
« on: July 01, 2014, 06:05:26 AM »
http://www.goodmath.org/blog/2014/06/25/flat-earthers-cant-do-math/#comments

Slightly unkind since you're only repeating what others have said.

80
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Infinity
« on: June 25, 2014, 11:54:57 AM »
Is it something to do with the fact that the set of Real Numbers is uncountable?

Spot on.

If you google 'cantor crank' you can be entertained by people getting themselves in to such a lather about this.

81
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Infinity
« on: June 25, 2014, 07:19:35 AM »
Here's a result that has probably, over the years, generated more heat than light.

Consider the natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,...; there are, not surprisingly an infinite number of them.

Now consider all the numbers between 0 and 1, there are also an infinite number of them. However this infinity is greater than the first infinity. How can this be?

This result was proved by Georg Cantor in the late eighteenth century. If anybody is interested I'll give my version of the proof.

82
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Infinity
« on: June 25, 2014, 12:29:04 AM »
On that first Numberphile video, I'm confused why he shifts the S2+S2 second sequence to the right, but doesn't do something similar when he subtracts S-S2.  Everything about this screams wrong to me.  I'll have to watch that second video whenever I have a bit more time.

You're absolutely right for it to scream wrong to you. The manipulations are done cavalierly in that divergent series are treated as if they are numbers. It even starts with a piece of nonsense:
let c or x or S= 1+2+3+4+... (depending on which part of the internet you are).
This equation has no meaning. The right hand side, whilst easy to understand, is undefined mathematically so to say it is equal to something is preposterous. Any algebraic jiggery-pokery after that is just flim-flam and sophistry.
We might as well claim that 1 = 3 and from that find that 2 = 6 and 2 = 4.

In fact, I'm going to have a bash at this infinity business. I claim that
2 + 5 + 8 +.....+ (3n-1)+...=0

A prize will be awarded to the first person who works out how I did this.

The sad part is that there are some beautiful results involving infinity in mathematics which are relatively easily explained to anybody with sufficient curiosity.

84
Flat Earth General / Re: No solar visor on helmet ON THE MOON
« on: June 11, 2014, 12:16:29 AM »
Show me how they actually measured it?

What I don't want to see you write, is, " oh, they saw this planet move and calculated this and came up with that", because you know what I think of your planets.

What I want to know, is how they measured the speed of light on Earth. On Earth; not by space in any way, shape of form. Ok, over to you.

Since you don't want any astronomical methods, here's an earth-based method that has been discussed before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Time_of_flight_techniques
Would you like to explain it briefly in your own words?

As has been made clear between the quoted post and now, explaining this to you in my own words would be utterly pointless. You would simply slip straight into name-calling/conspiracy/fantasy/bullshit mode like you always do.

I wish I'd said that to him instead of wasting my time.

85
Flat Earth General / Re: No solar visor on helmet ON THE MOON
« on: June 10, 2014, 05:50:58 AM »
No, I'm done.

86
Flat Earth General / Re: No solar visor on helmet ON THE MOON
« on: June 10, 2014, 05:38:05 AM »
You don't need a stopwatch, you need the number of rotations per second.
The length of time for light to travel back and forward between the two mirrors is
(rotations per second x 8 )-1 seconds.

Many years ago (possibly more than twenty) I saw the experiment reproduced on TV.

Whilst I was googling for an answer to your initial question I happened on a more academic treatment of this experiment.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1927ApJ....65....1M

In this second link the distance between the two mirrors is approximately 22 miles and the speed of rotation of the mirror is 528 revs per second. The speed of light is therefore 22 x 2 /(528 x 8 )-1 = 185,856 miles per second. The usual quoted figure is 186,282 miles per second. Not bad for that time: a 0.2% error.

Doubtless you will give this second link the same attention you gave the previous link.

87
Flat Earth General / Re: No solar visor on helmet ON THE MOON
« on: June 10, 2014, 05:00:19 AM »
The experiment has two mirrors, one flat and the other octagonal, twenty-odd miles apart. The octagonal mirror can rotate on its axis. A light is shone on the octagonal mirror. This light is reflected to the flat mirror and then reflected back to the octagonal mirror. The speed of rotation of the octagonal mirror is adjusted until the returning light can be seen. If the speed of rotation isn't correct, the returning light won't be seen. By knowing the speed of rotation the time between the initial light and the returning light can be calculated. the distance between the two mirrors is known beforehand so the speed of the light can be calculated.

88
Flat Earth General / Re: No solar visor on helmet ON THE MOON
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:26:26 AM »
Show me how they actually measured it?

What I don't want to see you write, is, " oh, they saw this planet move and calculated this and came up with that", because you know what I think of your planets.

What I want to know, is how they measured the speed of light on Earth. On Earth; not by space in any way, shape of form. Ok, over to you.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pCkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=speed+of+light+octagonal+mirror&source=bl&ots=fk2vfPza5H&sig=Pai6zlQBAzWH3VNu1iM7kiEz2oY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3tqWU9fLH8SAOM3DgZgM&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=speed%20of%20light%20octagonal%20mirror&f=false

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy Light and Sunset Clouds
« on: May 22, 2014, 02:00:58 AM »
If this link works there is a picture of the sun casting a shadow of a mountain on the underside of the clouds. (You have to scroll down a bit.)

http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.co.uk/2011_10_01_archive.html

Easily explainable on a round earth.

90
Flat Earth General / Re: To the "look out your window" crowd:
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:06:08 AM »
People will believe in anything if it makes them part of the crowd. Few will go against mass opinion. Only the very strong will do that.
You've probably all done some kind of test at school at one time or another, where you've played chinese whispers; basically pass on a snippet to each person until it comes back as something totally different. In our normal world it's called idle gossip...but the same scenario can start with something like, "hey, I just heard that crabby wears a womans ankle bracelet." To be replied with, " oh my god, what a strange person." Then that person tells someone else and says, " I've heard crabby wears an ankle bracelet and probably womens panties." This goes on until crabby is actually a transexual and has had the operation, etc.
Once that becomes the norm, then that's that and it's the same thing with anything.

Having said that. Let's talk about the fear of peer pressure and why people would rather stand by a belief even though they know it's wrong but keep questioning themselves that maybe it's right and they simply missed something that they believed 100% was correct in their mind.

The same circle of people are all in on the trick, except for you. The questioner asks you all to add these simple numbers up in your head and reel the answer off as you go around the circle.
Let's say there's 20 people and you are sat in 18th place.

The question is: 5+5+25+3. Now the answer is obviously 38 but the class (except you) have been told to say 36, so one by one they are asked, "what's your answer?" Number 1, "36", 2 "36" and so on and so on, all saying 36.
You are sat there adding uop again and again and each time you do so, it's 38...but as each person says 36, you are becoming confused and flustered. It's 38 for gods sake, you say to yourself in your mind.
9, 10, 11, 12, all say 36 and you are now seriously questioning your simply adding up skills, wondering what you're missing.
Now it's your turn and you have a decision to make. You can say 38 and face laughing ridicule or you can follow the crowd. 9 out of 10 people will simply say, 36, because it's easier to become part of the crowd than to stand against it.

This is indoctrination and brainwashing in it's more deliberate form. The other brainwashing techniques make questioning it much harder.
It takes a very strong mind to say 38. It takes a weak mind to say 36.

It doesn't take a strong mind, it takes a mind capable of simple arithmetic. And before you say that I've missed the point of your quote, I've been in a similar situation to the one you describe and I did go against the mainstream.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16