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 - RealScientist

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
121
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mountains
« on: March 12, 2013, 07:43:20 AM »
A quick one: If the earth is flat, why can't one see Andes from the top of mount Everest? Or the, so called, wall of ice that circles the "flat earth". Did the government put some kind of gigantic mirror in the sky that prevents us from seeing further than ~1000 kilometers? :D Or are the scientists wrong, and mountains are in holes? (Another scientific conspiracy :O )

Distance from Mt. Everest to Mt. Aconcagua: 17,726 km
Height of Mt. Anoncagua: 6962m
Angular size of Mt. Anoncagua as seen from Everest:   0.022503░
Angular resolution of human eye: 0.07░

Even were the air's opacity not accounted for, it is too small for the human eye to see. That is why you cannot see the Andes from Mt. Everest.

Who says that the observation has to be made by unaided eyes? This is just a neat little trick of putting some numbers that sound impressive but have nothing behind. Anyway, the right place to make this observation would be from a plane. Countless people travel a few thousand kilometers away from either mountain and do not see it. They frequently see a neat, well defined horizon all around them at about the same distance in every direction, and not the fuzzy mist that would be seen if the apparent horizon would come from the opacity of the atmosphere.

122
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« on: March 01, 2013, 02:31:53 AM »
The flat Earth models (if you are so bold you call them models) that you see in this forum are all falsifiable, and have been falsified a long time ago. They all predict specific apparent positions for the Sun, Moon, planets and stars, for any given day and time. They all predict specific distances between known places on Earth. And that is just the short list. The long list is far too long to even make it.

The true test for a scientific theory is not just that there are clear ways to find that it is wrong (falsifiability) but that those ways have been tested to a good level of certainty and found not wrong (non-falsified).

In another attempt at replacing science with word games, the flat earthers sometimes talk about falsifiability but do not give a clear model where anything falsifiable really exists, and other times they give something a lot closer to falsifiable, measurable models but do not talk about falsifiability.

123
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why FE vs RE?
« on: February 13, 2013, 10:20:22 AM »

Unless I misunderstand and what you're referring to is experiments involving the position of the sun, moon, stars, and earth. If thats the case as I understand it FE believers have explained that away already from their viewpoint.

You must understand that explaining away is absolutely useless in science. I have no problem at all with them giving unscientific explanations for everything. What does matter is when they try to pass their garbage as science, or in some cases, as even better than science.

Explaining away is the resource of the weak of mind. Creating a model that stands up to real scrutiny is the true work of a scientist.

124
Flat Earth General / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: February 12, 2013, 11:33:11 AM »
I was just stating what I learned and have read. I know the differences between a theory and a scientific theory, and am not discrediting a scientific theory in any way, but a law is generally described as something that states how, while a theory describes the phenomenon. There's obviously more to it than that, so here's a place that pretty accurately describes both: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

It is unfortunate that so many definitions, coming from several centuries and sometimes being included in apparently reputable dictionaries and other sources, contradict each other in such disastrous ways. I understand what you are trying to say, and feel you have tried hard to get to the bottom of this. But we could discuss epistemology and epistemology in science for a long time, just to end accepting that science does not really answer the "how" questions very well. In fact, we as humans have only found one ultimate answer to the ultimate "how" questions, and that is God, or Gods. And that answer stinks. As one mildly famous man said, "'God did it' is the ultimate non-answer".

So, because every "how" question gets, at best, a subjective answer in science, cheap philosophers like the ones here jump to say "science does not explain gravity", or "science does not explain evolution", or "science does not explain atoms". And because the answer is subjective, geniuses like skeptimatic jump to say the whole thing is a hoax.

Science got us to the technological boom we are living through predictability, not by answering "how" questions, and that has left armchair philosophers without a job, ranting in places like this one. Philosophy of science has showed pretty much nothing of use in the last century, so scientists have done their work in a sort of void of conceptual definitions, like the definition of "law" and the definition of "theory". Scientists understand each other in this subject, they are just not as good as they should reaching the general population.

In conclusion, I do not find fault in you, I find fault in the people who try to score points on scientists by playing with words instead of actually doing some science for themselves.

125
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« on: February 12, 2013, 07:24:58 AM »
Here's a little project for those who are not sure if the landings happened or not.
See how many anomalies and errors you can pick up out of this full video.
Put down the times of each one.
I'll wait a day before I pick out the silliness of it.
If you can't pick out any problems, then I don't want you to tell me...I'd prefer it if you said nothing. This is basically aimed at those that will clearly state it's all legit and how it should be. You know who you are.  ;D

The answer is simple: 0:01, 0:02, 0:03 and so on until 29:08. If you want to say "Ugh, that stinks" without a single good reason, everything is an anomaly.

If you want to do the actual work, then choose any one thing and demonstrate its falseness with an experiment.

126
Flat Earth General / Re: Possibilities of finding new civilizations
« on: February 12, 2013, 07:18:47 AM »
They took the God out of equation and proclaimed that men evolved from an ape.

*sigh*  Why do people insist on perpetuating this misconception?  Evolution says that humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes.  Seriously, if you want to discredit a theory, at least learn what it says first.  Also, who are you to say that evolution isn't God's doing?


To say that apes and humans had common ancestor is the same attempt to take God out of the picture. There is no evolution and yes it is not God's doing. Bible is very clear how mankind was created, Genesis tells us that God made man from the dust of the earth. It also says that God made each creature according to its various kind, this clearly shows that there was never any evolution.

It also said that Noah took ALL the animals 2x2 on to his Ark. Do you believe this also?

How did they all fit?
How long did it take to travel the earth and collect them all?
Was it really every single land animal on that boat?

I love hearing how Creationists and bible literalists explain that one.
I am particularly interested in how koalas and kangaroos swam through the Pacific Ocean, walked all the way across Asia, and then jumped into the Ark to avoid having to learn to swim in the first place. And did pandas learn to eat something other than bamboo so they could walk all the way across Asia to make a trip on a boat and then walk all the way back to their homeland, where bamboo had died under the flood, and survived until now to be endangered because they can't eat anything other than bamboo?

I thought that the animals were summoned by God and walked to the Ark by themselves, but I see no way the idea of an Ark works either way. Maybe God is a fan of Rube Goldberg and his incredibly complex machines to do simple tasks. God could have just electrocuted everyone with an intelligent bolt of lightning, or use the same magic that killed every single Egyptian first born without harming a single second born.

If you want simple answers, the Jews did not know a single thing about how complex the Ark project was, and made their God look stupid because of their own naivete when writing a bad novel.

127
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why FE vs RE?
« on: February 12, 2013, 06:38:21 AM »
My point is if they both equally provide a understandable definition of 3 dimensional space with a model of physics that describes interactions between objects in the same way, then there is no real difference between the two models other than basal frame of reference.
You still have a problem because you are assigning properties to the frame of reference that the concept of frame of reference does not have.

If you decide to limit the extent of the location on which you will do your experiments and observations to, say one building with closed drapes and doors, then you can place your frame of reference where you prefer, and your universe is either a flat Earth, or a round Earth or maybe even a banana Earth, and you just don't know or care.

But if your location for your experiments includes, for example, the stars, Sun and Moon, then the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is a lot more than a difference in frames of reference.

128
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: February 12, 2013, 04:45:00 AM »
No - what I showed is much simpler than that. The acceleration due to gravity is slightly different around the Earth - this is a matter of fact.
Yeah, of course we all disagree with that so then using that to prove us wrong is a bit pointless. We have UNIVERSAL acceleration which is a constant.

Unlike the round earth constant 'gravity' that is apparently not constant at all. Instead you claim it to be a variable. So if your constants aren't constant, might we assume at least that your variables vary?

Yet its our theory with all the flaws. ::)
Ok. So this seems to be fairly close to the root of the problem. G is a constant with a value of 6.67384*10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 (same value in N m2 kg-2). g is a variable calculated by GM/r2. Now given that M, the mass of the Earth, is constant, the only variable is r, the distance from the center of the Earth. Given the size of the Earth, I'm sure we can agree that Δ(r-2) would be some small, giving only minute changes in g, as shown in the tables that have been posted.

G is the Gravitational Constant, g is the Gravitational Field Strenght (N m-1) or the Gravitaional Acceleration (m s-2) {both little g's will have the same value). That clear things up?
Unfortunately the problem is quite a bit more complex. Earth is not perfectly spherical, so there is a significant difference between the poles and the Equator. Large and steep mountain ranges have more density than vast plain lands so they produce more local gravitation. Local gravitation even changes about twice per day due to the passing of the Sun and Moon.

All of this means that you will have to measure your local gravitation directly if you want to know it with the nine digits or so that we can currently measure. And the "residual gravitational pull from the stars" that Tom Bishop invented is only good to have something to laugh at.

129
Flat Earth General / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: February 11, 2013, 09:03:40 PM »
Yea, they both do both, but a law is proven and a theory hasn't (at least as much).
This is a common misconception that many have about Science. In general the name "law" was used in times of Newton and up to the 19th century, when scientists were much more certain that current scientific knowledge would never be corrected. More or less since then the name "theory" replaced "law" as the highest level of certainty in science to emphasize the fact that any law or theory might be revised when new information becomes available.

Even now we have "laws" like Ohm's law, that should have been renamed "theories" and supposed "theories", like String Theory, that should be named "String hypothesis", since it does not fill the requirements of a scientific theory. But right now the use of the words "theory" and "law" depend a lot on historic reasons and should be generally used as synonyms.

Actually, a theory describes something and a law is how something is happening. They're independent of one another in the sense that you couldn't call them synonymous, but they both are very important and can relate to one another. A law has a lot of math associated with it, and a theory doesn't. Also, one does not supersede the other, as a law doesn't become a theory or vice versa.
I have to stress my point because the geniuses in this forum make a fuss over it.

This "how" problem is not something you can evaluate scientifically. In general we cannot say "how" things work without getting into problems with the explanation of the mechanisms that make that "how" work. And then, if a level of explanations seems reasonable, the next level of explanations may or may not sound good enough. In the end, nothing is fully explained because there is something in some mechanism that we do not know "how" it works.

What does have a scientific solid ground is what is predictable. If my predictions, based on a hypothesis, happen to match the results of my experiments and observations, my hypothesis will be given the rank of "theory", which is the highest in Science.

Lots of pseudo-scientists are all over the place saying "evolution is just a theory" or "gravity is just a theory". This just does not have a meaning.

Also, think about Ohm's Law, Snell's Law, Newton's Second Law of Motion, Newton's Law of Gravitation, the Law of Conservation of Energy and so many more. They describe "what" happens but frequently say little or nothing about "how". They are all Scientific Theories.

130
Flat Earth General / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: February 11, 2013, 05:48:56 PM »
Yea, they both do both, but a law is proven and a theory hasn't (at least as much).
This is a common misconception that many have about Science. In general the name "law" was used in times of Newton and up to the 19th century, when scientists were much more certain that current scientific knowledge would never be corrected. More or less since then the name "theory" replaced "law" as the highest level of certainty in science to emphasize the fact that any law or theory might be revised when new information becomes available.

Even now we have "laws" like Ohm's law, that should have been renamed "theories" and supposed "theories", like String Theory, that should be named "String hypothesis", since it does not fill the requirements of a scientific theory. But right now the use of the words "theory" and "law" depend a lot on historic reasons and should be generally used as synonyms.

131
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why FE vs RE?
« on: February 11, 2013, 07:52:47 AM »
In the curved space model, light would follow closed paths, and Earth would appear totally flat. In other words, with a sufficiently powerful telescope (and if there was nothing in the way) I could look at the back of my own head.

In my opinion that curved space model does not fit FE very well. What I'm proposing you think of it as is more like this:

The Earth exists on a flat plane with infinite dimensions in every direction. The Earth itself may or may not be infinite. Placed directly on top of the Earth is a cylinder, which is standing up on one of the flat end s. It has a central point which all Celestial bodies rotate around as they follow the models posited in the FAQ.

I suggest one could literally rewrite Newtonian physics to fit this model rather easily and make predictions about celestial bodies as accurately as any RE physicist.

At that level it becomes a matter of human perspective. Unless of course I misunderstand FE or the views presented in the FAQ.
I think I understand your point of view, but I must digress from your argument. It is true that we can look at Earth as a plane in non-Euclidean spherical space, in which we do not have (x,y,z) coordinates but (latitude, longitude, height). And it is also true that we can, under specific circumstances, look at the immediate surroundings of ourselves as both an Euclidean and a non-Euclidean space.

But the problem is that all the Physical Laws and Theories work in an Euclidean space, not in a Non-Euclidean space. If you express your force and acceleration from the second Law of Motion from Newton in terms of latitude, longitude and height you will get all the wrong answers unless you are working in a very small space.

132
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« on: February 10, 2013, 12:46:34 AM »
Aetheric Wind Theory is highly falsifiable and so far has held up quite well to scrutiny. It's predictive and falsifiable. More than can be said of string theory.
Then I would like to see any one prediction with actual numbers that can be tested through observation or experimentation. Please calculate, for example, the amount of light bending that occurs over a stretch of 20 km of sea, or the speed of the wind that causes the bending that happens during the Equinox to make everyone on Earth see the Sun due East at dawn.

Predictive power does not mean a nice excuse with a lot of words for every phenomenon that cannot be predicted with actual numbers.

And falsifiable means that you can clearly define an experiment that tests the validity of the model, and if the result does not match the expected result, the theory becomes nothing. I want to see the phenomena that make the Sun not change in size or luminosity from an hour after dawn til an hour before dusk and an experiment that shows something about these phenomena as the proof of falsifiability of this wind.

Finally, String Theory is not a scientific theory and it is not presented as such in any scientific publication. It is an hypothesis that, if true, cannot be tested with anything we can currently devise. Scientists understand this fact and accept the name "theory" for it just as a historic anomaly. Scientists are intelligent enough to understand that strings are an intriguing idea to study, not a theory like Relativity.

133
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: February 07, 2013, 02:00:21 AM »
Most of the people I have learned under and respect are part of the Ivory Tower.  On the other hand, I'm my own person with my own will and beliefs.  I have no hate for the ivory tower, or envy.  If anything, pity.  Just an overwhelming sadness.  It really is one of the few times since I woke up that I've felt such remorse for their state in the game.
If you respect them, why do you pity them? You could find out that when they talk about a ring, they actually know what a ring is, and that they do not confuse it with finite state machines. But please, pity them on your way to receiving whatever prize they have equivalent to a Nobel after you have invented or discovered anything whatsoever of note in the field.

Pitying your intellectual superiors is a certain euphemism for envy. Pity them after you have demolished their cherished tower, not before.

134
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: February 06, 2013, 05:56:17 AM »

I know they are.  They do these great things by using the tool properly.   They are nude, but you are a fool.  Language need only be as suitably complex as to convey an idea distinctly enough for point and discussion.  It may be complex enough to convey several lines of ideas as well, some conflicting, some mathematical.  If I get the point across, it doesn't matter whether I break the rules.  The math police isn't going to arrest me, and so long as I do it up to par to the ivory tower of academia, I won't have any issue with any of my future publications.    Don't try to tell me to use a tool in an inferior way than it was intended while all the while arguing semantics from your lofty perch of self-satisfied glory.  Come to the flat earth site to feel good about yourself?  Might not work out so hot.  Its never fruitful or pleasing to try to dress yourself up through playing semantics king.

So this is what you were arguing about all the time. I had seen a few pointers, but now your whole position is here, in black and white. You are envious of the people in the Ivory Tower.

You are fighting a losing battle against an institution that, in essence, does not exist. Those who understand that there is not much to learn in the division by zero and look for real advances to be made in Mathematics, who use and do not abuse the tool while looking for new knowledge, do not have secret meetings in secret towers. They publish their new understanding so anyone who is smart and dedicated enough can learn and contribute.

In fact, I know a few people from this Ivory Tower. They have dedicated their lives to making Mathematics more accessible, not less. They have been working hard with people who felt as excluded as you feel. And they have taught Mathematics to people who chose their careers based on their supposed inability to learn Mathematics.

135
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: February 05, 2013, 06:35:43 PM »

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.
See? you are working in Mathematics as if Mathematics were Literature. In Mathematics you cannot say "context" when you mean "axioms"; you cannot say "possibility" when you mean "probability"; you cannot say "frontier" when you mean "limit". If you want to write a novel, use whatever synonyms you want, whether they are precise or illustrative or metaphorical or even funny. But leave Mathematics to those of us who did not sleep through Maths classes at the university.

I know a sequence of ones "has nothing to do" with rings.  However, one can define this sequence of ones, as explained above, as a state machine, or a suitably complex ring denoting operations of decimal precedent and place.
You know a sequence of ones has nothing to do with rings, that state machines have nothing to do with axioms, and you even know that "a suitably complex ring denoting operations of decimal precedent and place" has nothing to do with a sequence of ones. You have not connected any idea with any other. You are just saying a lot of things to sound eloquent, even though eloquence has nothing to do with Mathematics. For starters, if you want to define a ring, check the definition of a ring and define all the elements a ring needs.

I have an artistic license and wear no clothes.  So does the mathematician working towards something useful.
...
How else can we build new ideas and belief and art, if we are only to work within the contexts of a rote set of symbology (sic).
Of course you know that mathematicians are doing great work as we speak. They even found a way to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, which had eluded every mathematician in more than 200 years. You are the one who thinks Mathematics is "a rote set of symbology". So, if you cannot see the art in Mathematics and do original work, that is your problem, not the mathematicians'. They understand their own symbols and axioms without any need for your nudity.

136
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Geometry of Sunrise and Sunset
« on: February 05, 2013, 02:49:34 PM »
Seeing a perfect sunset is a rare occurrence. If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.

Great photographic evidence. It totally demolishes every "theory" Tom Bishop has ever claimed. There is no glare, the Sun does not reduce in apparent size until a "perspective effect" makes it disappear, the atmosphere is totally clear and does not impede watching the Sun that has to be behing several hundreds of kilometers of atmosphere, the inversion is clearly limited to a small part of the Sun's image so we can accept most of the image as unaltered by the atmosphere.

If we can all agree that this photo is not faked, we can discuss how it demonstrates all models of a flat Earth totally wrong and close the forum once and for all.

5 suns and not fake? YOU SIR ARE A FOOL!!!  ;D
It is called multiple exposure photography, and it is used a lot in both scientific for artistic purposes. Generally its purpose is not to deceive, so it would not be considered a fake.

137
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: February 05, 2013, 01:53:28 PM »
So you are telling me I am saying that the truths in math are not universal but contextual based off axioms.  Hardly seems like I'm pulling a "cheap trick" at all, but instead am simply speaking plainly.
Just find me any Mathematics book whatsoever where the word "context" is used and we can continue some sort of discussion. If you are saying that "context" is the same as "axiomatic system", then you are the only one, to my knowledge, in the whole world who does.

Mathematics is not literature. You do not use synonyms taken from a dictionary. If you want to use the word "context" in a discussion about Mathematics, you define it in mathematical terms before you use it. And by the way, finite state machines are not axiomatic systems, either. And the existence of a recurring sequence of ones has nothing to do with rings in mathematics. If you want to learn about rings in Mathematics, try this.

So, the cheap trick is to try to confuse people with a mix of Mathematics and common language. You have tried for a long time and continue trying. "Speaking plainly" seems to be your equivalent to "speaking in common language", which is fine if you are not talking Mathematics.

138
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Geometry of Sunrise and Sunset
« on: February 05, 2013, 11:41:44 AM »
Seeing a perfect sunset is a rare occurrence. If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.


Great photographic evidence. It totally demolishes every "theory" Tom Bishop has ever claimed. There is no glare, the Sun does not reduce in apparent size until a "perspective effect" makes it disappear, the atmosphere is totally clear and does not impede watching the Sun that has to be behing several hundreds of kilometers of atmosphere, the inversion is clearly limited to a small part of the Sun's image so we can accept most of the image as unaltered by the atmosphere.

If we can all agree that this photo is not faked, we can discuss how it demonstrates all models of a flat Earth totally wrong and close the forum once and for all.

139
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: February 05, 2013, 11:02:10 AM »
Incorrect.  In a trivial ring, 1+1=1.  A trivial ring can be used to examine many natural phenom

I'll have to look into this, I'm not familiar with the concept. Could be interesting.

This is just another attempt at confusing noobs with vague language and incorrect use of Mathematics.

You can define an axiomatic system where the only number that exists is 1, so therefore any operation made, whether it is addition, subtraction, multiplication, division or whatever you want, gives a result of 1.  This is a completely useless extreme case of a ring, which has no use to Mathematics, Science or anybody. There are slightly more interesting rings, where you at least have a 0 and a 1, and in those rings one plus one is not one.

The cheap trick that John Davis is trying to pull is the use of an axiomatic system that is not even remotely similar to the one almost every one uses all the time, but without saying it. Rings do not use the same axioms that your Maths teacher taught you at School, not by a long shot. It is like me saying that an army of a million soldiers was defeated by a single opposing unarmed soldier, and omitting the detail that the war was fought in another galaxy.

140
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: February 05, 2013, 10:44:06 AM »
We don't discover mathematics, we invent it to solve problems.  Sometimes we invent it out of curiosity or thought experiment, and it later turns out to solve problems; 
Please stop talking about things you just don't know about. Ever since axiomatic systems were defined, we define (or to use your words, invent) a system of axioms, which is the set of claims that is to be held as true without any proof. Then we discover theorems, which are consequences of the axioms, and are true if and only if the axioms are true.

Just because mathematics is consistent within a context, does not mean its consistent within itself overall (its not by necessity), or that its consistent with all of nature or all of truth.  There would be a lot less disagreement and work within mathematics if there was a consensus on any particular axiom within it.  As Descarte's saw, and we see again and again, there is never consensus and the burden of debt for science and math is too high to act reasonably within it, without faith.
Any given axiomatic system in Mathematics, of which there are many, can fall into one of the following categories:
- It has been proven to be consistent (it is impossible to prove a given theorem and the opposite theorem)
- It has been proven to be inconsistent (a theorem and its opposite were both proven)
- It has been proven that the consistency question cannot be answered
- We don't know yet.

Mathematics does not have to be consistent (whatever that means) with nature or with truth (depending on what you call truth). It only has to be internally consistent. The phrase you concocted:

    "There would be a lot less disagreement and work within mathematics if there was a consensus on any particular axiom within it"

is the best example I have ever found of a complete ignorant talking about Mathematics. Mathematicians do not need or want consensus about axioms. Each area of Mathematics uses its own set of axioms, and whoever wants to create a new set of axioms is welcome to try.

The consensus you are talking about exists in Science, not in Mathematics, and it is closely related to Scientific Theories. It is only then that abstract mathematical concepts, which are true by definition, get applied to real world observations and experiments and all the need for consensus start to have some sense.

The fact science can be done without mathematics can in one fel swoop remove its necessity and its necessitative connection to the world for most that would will it.
A very small subset of our scientific knowledge can be worked without Mathematics. That does not give any support at all to your claim that... just a moment... what the hell are you trying to say in that phrase? Anyhow, most Science is intimately related to Mathematics, and loses all predictive power if you take the mathematical tools away. Science without Mathematics would be like what you see in this forum.

141
Flat Earth General / Re: live iss!
« on: February 04, 2013, 11:47:56 AM »
I never said the hair was dirty.  The hair is a solid material.  Solid materals all have a degree of stiffness and elasticity in them.  Basic material science.  The girls on the plane have been in a 1g environment, so the hair's normal position is curved and parted, and probably have hair products in them.  The woman on the ISS has been sleeping in 0g and has had no gravity for a long time to keep the hair down, so it's adopted the upright position as normal.
Don't forget that their hair (in the ISS) has grown at least 5 cm, and the hair follicles have grown accustomed to the hair not being pulled almost all the time in the same direction. By being left alone the hair follicles may have straightened, contributing to this strange behavior of the hair. Also, even though this hair washing agent is partially removed from the hair, some of it has to accumulate on the hair over time. Even though it is a lot better than having dirty hair for six months, it just can't be as good as a regular shampoo and conditioner. And she may have frizzed her hair just for the fun of it by creating some static electricity.

This whole hair argument is called anomaly hunting. If something looks strange you immediately denounce it as a fraud. If something looks normal, you denounce it as a fraud because everything should be strange in outer space. If some strange behavior is expected, you just declare that another strange behavior should have happened. If any kind of demonstration appears, you call it a cover up.
Well I'm glad you came in to put me right. And here's me thinking it was unnatural eh.

I never thought for a minute about the shampoo building up on her hair. It makes so much more sense now.
So, should I accept your answer or should I accept the elasticity answer I was given as to why it happens. It's confusing isn't it.
I know you want to help these fella's out , so at least come up with something a little bit more convincing.
This fella is doing fine. But thank you for showing my point by saying we should be convincing, instead of coming up with some kind of evidence.

142
Flat Earth General / Re: live iss!
« on: February 04, 2013, 11:03:54 AM »
I never said the hair was dirty.  The hair is a solid material.  Solid materals all have a degree of stiffness and elasticity in them.  Basic material science.  The girls on the plane have been in a 1g environment, so the hair's normal position is curved and parted, and probably have hair products in them.  The woman on the ISS has been sleeping in 0g and has had no gravity for a long time to keep the hair down, so it's adopted the upright position as normal.
Don't forget that their hair (in the ISS) has grown at least 5 cm, and the hair follicles have grown accustomed to the hair not being pulled almost all the time in the same direction. By being left alone the hair follicles may have straightened, contributing to this strange behavior of the hair. Also, even though this hair washing agent is partially removed from the hair, some of it has to accumulate on the hair over time. Even though it is a lot better than having dirty hair for six months, it just can't be as good as a regular shampoo and conditioner. And she may have frizzed her hair just for the fun of it by creating some static electricity.

This whole hair argument is called anomaly hunting. If something looks strange you immediately denounce it as a fraud. If something looks normal, you denounce it as a fraud because everything should be strange in outer space. If some strange behavior is expected, you just declare that another strange behavior should have happened. If any kind of demonstration appears, you call it a cover up.

143
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: January 31, 2013, 06:34:31 AM »
Undefined values/results are a way of teachers and professors to teach concepts that students aren't responsible enough to deal with.
Okay. Then show me an equation where x/0=y, y being a real number.
Who says that y has to be a real number?  After all, the square root of -1 is i, an imaginary number.
Fair enough. x/0=y, y being a defined number, period.

How about 3/0(0)=3. 

amiright?
You are so wrong it is not even funny. Just to show you how the use of undefined numbers leads nowhere,

(3/0)*(0) = x*(0) = 0
(3/0)*(0) = 3

You can get any number to fit that undefined number if you play a little with formulas. That is what undefined means. You cannot give it any definition without creating contradictions.

But, the 0s cancel out.  Let me try to simplify it for you. 

(3/0)(0/1)=3

Does that make more sense?
You continue dancing around non-numbers as if you could somehow use eloquence to fix a maths problem.

It does not make sense now, it did not make sense before. If you have a formula that contains a division by zero in any way the result is undefined. In fact, canceling zeroes out of the denominator is so wrong that in any good school you would flunk.

144
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: January 31, 2013, 01:05:31 AM »
Undefined values/results are a way of teachers and professors to teach concepts that students aren't responsible enough to deal with.
Okay. Then show me an equation where x/0=y, y being a real number.
Who says that y has to be a real number?  After all, the square root of -1 is i, an imaginary number.
Fair enough. x/0=y, y being a defined number, period.

How about 3/0(0)=3. 

amiright?
You are so wrong it is not even funny. Just to show you how the use of undefined numbers leads nowhere,

(3/0)*(0) = x*(0) = 0
(3/0)*(0) = 3

You can get any number to fit that undefined number if you play a little with formulas. That is what undefined means. You cannot give it any definition without creating contradictions.

145
Flat Earth General / Re: live iss!
« on: January 30, 2013, 06:53:36 AM »
I don't dispute all telescopes seeing the moon. I am asking if it's possible to see a close up of the moon and still see the "whole" moon.
Since "close up" and "whole" are pretty much mutually exclusive terms, I would venture a guess and say no.
This one, as so many others, is a question based on the wrong selection of words, since sceptimatic wants others to the the work for him.

And he wants others to do the work for him because then he can decide whether he can spin the answer in his favor or call everybody a liar.

First, no astronomer that I know has ever used the phrase "close up". You can call anything you do with a telescope a "close up", since it is a close up compared with a camera with a normal (non-telephoto) lens. In that case, the answer would be "yes".

Second, a "close up" could be the use of a magnification that is strong enough that the Moon covers more than the field of view. If you use a regular-to-cheap eyepiece on your telescope you get a field of view of some 40 degrees. If you use the maximum magnification of an not-so-entry-level telescope, you will typically get some 200x magnification. Therefore you have a field of view of some 0.2 degrees, and the Moon has an apparent size of about 0.5 degrees, so you would see less that half the width of the full Moon, or just about all the Sea of Tranquility.

Anyhow, the discussion is pointless, since sceptimatic is not even trying to look at the Moon. He just wants to rant.

146
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Undeniable Proof
« on: January 29, 2013, 11:38:06 PM »
Ocean swells in the answer. The ocean has massive swells that block the ship as it moves to sea.
This is called special pleading. Every person who has actually photographed an apparently sinking ship happened to be looking at a ship entering a swell, but nobody has been casually looking at a ship climbing out of a swell.

If there are lots of swells, so many that everyone who has actually looked has seen a "sinking ship", there has to be as many people who have seen the opposite effect, which is a ship that seems like placed on the side of a mountain.

If you want to plead the existence of swells, you should be able to find lots of photos like that.

147
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: January 29, 2013, 10:41:04 AM »
Also, a very eminent member of this society has given thorough proof that 1+1 = 1

May I ask for the proof in full or link form?
You do not need to read the whole thread, unless you have sleeping disorders.

The claim is that the prhase:

     "when one drop of water touches another drop of water they sometimes merge into just one drop of water"

is the same as saying:

    1 + 1 = 1

They don't even understand how the word "merge" is not the same as the word or symbol "is equal to". In fact, they have problems with almost every single word and every single symbol in the equation and the phrase.

148
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« on: January 29, 2013, 02:40:47 AM »
Back to gravitational inconsistencies it is! Why then can two objects be seen to attract themselves in experiments then ? A.K.A Cavendish experiment

The FE explanation for Cavendish, I'm guessing, would be that gravity affects some things but not others.  In this case, it affects the balls used in the experiment but not the Earth.
Not quite. In this site the fact that you cannot easily get much better than 1% error is used as an excuse to declare the experiment totally bunk. Fact is, even though it is difficult to get many digits of precision, this experiment can be done easily with better than 10% error, which makes the existence of gravitational pull in general like the one we feel from a round Earth a scientific fact.

There are a lot of reasons why no one should trust the Cavendish experiment, REer or FEer alike.

That link gets blocked by my spyware filter.
Try going to viproxy_._info (or any other proxy page) and write the ur_l "http://mi_lesmathis.c om/caven.html" on the w_eb ad_dress box.

The previous paragraph is full of spurious "_" because the forum's software does not like something in that line. Please ignore them.

This is a very dense article that requires a lot of time to work through, but the main point is that what we have seen as gravity until now is really a combination of forces and effects. But even Miles Mathis thinks that there is something called gravity (or gravitational pull, if you prefer) and that it makes up most of what Newton expressed in his formula for gravitation.

149
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« on: January 29, 2013, 01:50:29 AM »
Back to gravitational inconsistencies it is! Why then can two objects be seen to attract themselves in experiments then ? A.K.A Cavendish experiment

The FE explanation for Cavendish, I'm guessing, would be that gravity affects some things but not others.  In this case, it affects the balls used in the experiment but not the Earth.
Not quite. In this site the fact that you cannot easily get much better than 1% error is used as an excuse to declare the experiment totally bunk. Fact is, even though it is difficult to get many digits of precision, this experiment can be done easily with better than 10% error, which makes the existence of gravitational pull in general like the one we feel from a round Earth a scientific fact.

There are a lot of reasons why no one should trust the Cavendish experiment, REer or FEer alike.
There is just about one single person claiming that the Cavendish Experiment is wrong apart from the FE "theorists": Miles Mathis. And even he is questioning the precision of the experiment, not the existence of gravity as Newton expressed in his laws. Even though he thinks Newton's gravity is a unified field that includes effects not previously considered, he considers Newtons equation essentially correct.

What FE "theorists" need for their UA is the total rejection of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, not just the possibility that the calculated value of "G" (the "big G", as it is called by some) might be slightly wrong.

Quote from: Miles Mathis
My compound field is all contained within Newton's equation and within the historical F. Unlike LeSage, in my theory gravity is still there, expressed not by a bombarding field but by simple acceleration. It is the E.M foundational field that is blocked or shielded here, not gravity. Look above: gravity is never shielded or absorbed or expressed as an emitted or bombarding field.

150
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Government Conspiracy
« on: January 28, 2013, 03:48:08 PM »
In fact, I imagine most believe themselves to be of a privileged status, smarter than everyone else and definitively hating groups like ours.   Mostly this hate stems from an ignorance of what we are all about.
There is no need to consider yourself the victim of hate. In fact, deflecting the issue towards a hate problem is just one more word game.

Since you consider anyone who did not sleep through Physics and Mathematics since 7th grade somebody "of a privileged status", I am quite amazed at how low you place the bar. I can only imagine that every adult in industrialized countries of the Pacific Rim are "of a very privileged status" according to you.

You are not a very good ambassador to "groups like ours" if you really believe that the dictionary definition of the words serves any purpose for a physicist or a mathematician. In fact, it is common practice to give words its own meaning in these subjects. "Theory" is not the same in common language and in Physics. "Probable" is not the same in common language as in Mathematics. In fact, "flowering", "division", "infinite", "limit" and so many other words have a meaning in common language and another in science and mathematics.

So, listen more to the concepts and less to the words. And loose your dictionary before entering classes of sciences and mathematics.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14