Show Posts

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


Messages - John Davis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 441
1
I imagine, since it uses direct quotes unattributed, that would be a satire - not parody. I believe the only the latter is covered fully as fair use. They would have to provide a pretty strong argument to have it covered.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The infinite plane.
« on: July 12, 2019, 01:15:53 PM »
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.
What exactly do you think would happen to every other object in the Universe and the "Fabric of Space-Time"?

Have you ever divided by zero?
Of course I have. Last time I did it I tried 1/0 and got ∞ using a riemann sphere. Another time I using IEEE floats I tried 10/0 and got ∞ and for 0/0 I got that it wasn't a number. In fact, to find the slope of a tangent to a point on an arbitrary curve, I can divide by zero.

Luckily for us, every other object in the universe didn't explode. Why do you think division by zero is relevant?


I suspect some high school teacher or uni professor is to blame here. Of course, they also think the earth is round, so its hard to fault them and their cute little religion.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The infinite plane.
« on: July 12, 2019, 08:19:37 AM »
It's very weird to say "we can't solve the maths for how this works, so therefore it can't actually work in real life.... even though we can see it working"
Has this been said? On the other hand its odder to say "We believe this theory is accurate, in spite of being unable to define it." As far as it being what we "see", I have to disagree. Its but one interpretation of what we see.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The infinite plane.
« on: July 12, 2019, 08:17:20 AM »
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.
What exactly do you think would happen to every other object in the Universe and the "Fabric of Space-Time"? 

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The infinite plane.
« on: July 12, 2019, 08:16:16 AM »
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.
But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.
Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.
What? Space can't expand at increasing rates like it does in RE? :D

And tell me. What would the curvature of an infinite sphere be?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The infinite plane.
« on: July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM »
Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.

It sounds like Rab is now trying to work within a restricted 3 body system, ignoring the mass of one or more bodies. While this might have some experimental success in prediction, the patently wrong system of the Aztecs could predict heavenly motions as well. This highlights that man with his greatness for invention can create spurious systems that at first seem to solve the problem at hand, but in the end fail due to their lack of rigor.

Either that or he doesn't realize that it doesn't matter if you have the mass of each body to any degree of accuracy. The problem is not solvable, or at least has not been solved in the general sense.

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident. More than this, it has held the attention of greats like myself, Rowbotham, Shenton, and Johnson.

The infinite flat earth is one of the strongest gravitational models I know of in regards to a flat earth.

7
I'm pretty confident no one on our team authorized the use. I'd contact the publisher and author with a cease and desist if I were you.

8
Objects in free fall feel no acceleration. This is why we know gravity isnít from pressure.

Wrong. They are accelerating related the earth. You feel the wind. According to your logic, nothing feel acceleration because it is stationary related to itself.
Feeling the wind is not the same thing as feeling acceleration. For example, you can travel at a constant speed and direction in a car and feel no acceleration as you are not accelerating. You can travel a constant speed and direction in a car and feel no acceleration and still feel wind against your face.

I'm not entirely sure you know what acceleration is.

What exactly do you think the pull that you feel when you turn left or right in an auto is?

9
They work because acceleration exists and gravity does not.
You don't seem to accept the UA hypothesis so what acceleration?
Thank you for taking the time to put together your questions Dirk. I don't believe in UA but I'll answer as if I do, given what I know about it.
I believe that what we call gravitation is the acceleration due to preventing an object from following its geodesic in spacetime.
This is very similar to centripetal acceleration being due to preventing an object from following a straight line in space.

But I would not say that gravity does not exist, just that it's not directly caused by mass attracting mass.
You answered the question you asked me directly afterwards.

Of course UA is another solution, or anything that would cause acceleration. If an accelerometer is measuring acceleration, its likely something is accelerating. Whether this is due to some sort of pressure, an equivalence principle sorta UA situation, or space time is irrelevant.

It measures acceleration, not gravity. Nobody claims that things don't accelerate towards the ground, round or flat as the earth might be.

10
I'd love to know why I'm mistaken.

The only serious attack has been UCs, which I don't believe is a real issue but am investigating none-the-less. At worst, it seems it would show that the ratio is an inverse relationship not a direct one.

11
To UC's earlier reply, I can see how that might be confusing. I'll try to come up with a good analogy for it in the future that might help with that.

It reaches orbit because the pseudo forces cancel out and it reaches an inertial state. I would argue a preferred state. You bring up a good point about other bodies that are not in this state - which is why I specifically talked towards that and talked about considering looking at those states without the influence of the false force and looking at the non gravitationally affected path.

12
Holy shit. I saw it on the new age telly! You are right. Ok guys, let's shut it all down. Game over.

13
They work because acceleration exists and gravity does not.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Round earth and Flat Milky Way Galaxy
« on: June 09, 2019, 01:22:21 AM »
It's a cute and fun meme. But so is a cube earth. No substance, and no action. Just cute and fun. Invest in passion and truth, not these trappings.

15
The Lounge / Re: The Cooking Thread
« on: June 09, 2019, 01:14:09 AM »
That is the sexy jerky. Teach me your secrets.

16
Ok, if the satellite is accelerating, tell me how.

I can easily be wrong. I have been a lot of times. But a perfect satellite is not accelerating.

Please prove me wrong.

If there are inconsistencies in that, and I'm sure there are, they need to be worked out. But we also have to acknowledge that our current system is looking at things at an odd angle, and the Earth Is Not A Globe.

I will let this theory die the day I know that the satellite is accelerating. Happily.

17
Well, that's why it didn't work. How can you model a non-euclidean thought experiment in 3d software? Or Clay?

I get it, its a leap, - like when one first learns what a derivative is. Or why you can't walk half the distance to something, repeatedly forever.

I'm interested to see the practical applications too, but that is not my lot.

If you can accept the axioms, then the result is just mathematics and logic. If the satellite travels flat, what's the spat?

And yes, biblical literalists, I just gave you a huge freebie.

18
It would be really hard to calculate the motions of the planets if you had not the benefits of modern technology and method.

Oh hey, Mayans.

I guess empiricism says nothing about actuality.

We can all predict anything by simple tabulation. That says nothing of what is actually happening.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I researched how GPS works
« on: June 09, 2019, 12:40:50 AM »
At least sandokhan had pizzaz.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I researched how GPS works
« on: June 09, 2019, 12:40:06 AM »
Oh and also books I have read. Thanks wise. Sorry for thinking a few works are notable in context. Good job on that one.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I researched how GPS works
« on: June 09, 2019, 12:38:55 AM »
It doesn't matter where the accurate clocks are, the laws of physics don't change based on your frame of reference. Better mathematicians could work out the details, but they are able to work out those details based off the undeniable claim: the laws of physics are immutable and no frame is preferred. All you need is enough information to do the math. A triangulation is a good start, but a network of gps satellites makes the work easy to reduce.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question
« on: June 09, 2019, 12:33:37 AM »
Someone, please explain how Christopher Columbus didn't sail right off of the edge of the earth.  If it was flat he would've.
How could he? He was sailing from Europe to America. Do you really think an edge to the earth would be as simple as looking at a map posted on the wall?

Even then...


It's very clear he could make the trip.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Non-debate proof for globe earth
« on: June 09, 2019, 12:29:55 AM »
Explain it so we can all get it, without knowledge of higher mathematics then. The truth should, by most accounts, be simple and obvious but beyond our reach.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space travel cannot be faked
« on: June 09, 2019, 12:28:24 AM »
To the topic name, yes it can. How could you train those that go to space without first faking it for them. Without first doing the studies that said it was ok for them to go.

Yes. You can fake going to space. We do it as easily as we send kids to a camp to learn about nature. It's space camp. And its really not that hard to fool us. We'd like to think it is, but in reality - it takes very little to convince even the skeptic he's in space let alone the man who trained for that his whole life.

25
Jack, has not religious knowledge helped humanity, and again and again grown scientific knowledge? Let alone just helped folks every day.

What do you say to those that were the libraries of the old days? Those monks and centers of knowledge and power that built the shoulders you stand upon?

They are fools?

No. Of course not.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Luminiferous Aether is easy to debunk
« on: June 09, 2019, 12:22:45 AM »
It is the text book example of a null result. Prove that wrong.

MM says nothing about anything.

27
It depends on the strain of skepticism, but yes I'm far more on that side than any other.

Do I think that knowing anything is impossible? It would depend very heavily on what you mean by "knowledge." However, I will say I tend towards the post-modern interpretation of realism and thus agree with most of the assertions of historicism and reject positivism.

28
It is not an attempt to turn a ball flat. It follows directly from Newton's laws, the equivalence principle, and observational evidence. The fact it describes a flat earth was a happy coincidence.

I find it odd. We use the slightest bit of math (I have actually used none here or perhaps next to none), and we are accused of playing "math tricks." Its clear you won't be happy with any explanation or model, no matter how reasonable or how much it matches known data Themightykabool. This to me shows me that you are treating the matter as a priest might treat the triad nature of god - beyond question or discussion and an axiom chosen out of faith. You might as well write your own articles of faith.

29
This statement

Actually no - I am wrong - everything about everything to make any definite statement. That's why we have traditions of knowledge. Without complete knowledge of a system, which is impossible perhaps shown by Godel, then we have no basis to put any firm fact on any ground and are left to axioms of faith and convenience. Or inconvenience as it might be.

seems to contradict this one:

That is after all the beauty of mathematics - and why it can "prove things"; it's because it chooses its axioms of faith at the get go.

As people in a real world with real problems, we don't have that luxury - that privilege of perfect axioms - and we must work with what we got.

Science isnít mathematics (although it uses maths).  It is evidence based, and relies on testing hypotheses.  We can only verify what can actually be tested.

The exception is theoretical physics, which is a highly speculative field.  But thatís fine as long as everyone understands thatís what it is.  In reality theoretical physicists doesnít work in a vacuum, and are still looking at possible ways to test their hypotheses.
Science can use mathematics (it does not have to), and yes they are distinct.  My statements do not contradict.

Mathematics can't prove that its self consistent in a meaningful way and thus can't say anything about anything definitively - this is aside from other arguments about how it is not able to talk about the real world as I happen to side towards nominalism; however given a small enough set of axioms you can prove things given those axioms in that context alone.

30
So my starter questions for John:

1.  Does this mean space is real, satellites/probes are real, and/or NASA isnít generally faking stuff?
Yes

Good to know.  That appears more rational than all the vast conspiracy theories to me at least.

Quote
Quote
2.  Is the warping of spacetime due to gravity or something else?
Are you asking whether gravity is due to gravity?

Asking for clarification.  You have often made arguments based on there being no complete theory for quantum gravity.  So wasnít sure if gravity as we understand it factors into your hypothesis.

Quote
Quote
3.  Are the moon and other planets flat but warped by spacetime the same way the Earth is, or is that unique to the Earth?
In so much as they can support an orbit of some kind, the similar logic would apply.

This is the biggest issue I have with your hypothesis.

An object in orbit around the moon (for example) travels on a geodesic less curved by the effect of gravity (or whatever) on  spacetime than an object in orbit around the Earth.

Yet as the moon is smaller, the surface of the moon is curved more than the earth, which implies itís more affected by spacetime distortion.

That appears to be a direct contradiction in your hypothesis.
The both have the same "curve" - none. One might have less space within that "curve" however.

Presuming they have similar densities, a smaller body will distort space time less and thus will have a smaller inner area. A larger mass would do so more - and have a larger area. It is only when you look at it as if it were a globe in euclidean space that you end up with this incoherency as a smaller area would appear to have a greater curve when in actuality what you are noting is a smaller closed surface space.

Even if I were to accept your proposition, it still doesn't seem to touch the original problem of satellites traveling in straight lines. If a satellite is only affected by gravity (and other minor forces) and is in free fall, and can arrive back at its starting point then we are left with no other conclusion that it is traveling straight and a flat bounding space exists "around" the earth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 441