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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 14
181
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: January 22, 2013, 09:23:22 PM »
Here you go, sift through this.

I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
The argument is simple: air magically makes Newton's Laws of Motion work, so they cannot work in Space. never mind nobody has asked about the Laws in water, or how does air help to push rockets from behind but does not stop them with equal force at the tip.

You might think there is something to read in the middle 48 pages, but there is nothing worth your time. Just a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to explain Newton's Laws.

Exactly why I skipped it. And Newton's laws work everywhere. And I thought we were talking about star distances and such?
It would be nice to talk about that. Stars give us a point of reference that we cannot have in any other way. Galileo could not have understood the basic structure of our Solar System without them, and we cannot really accept supposed "theories" like the flat Earth theories seen here if they do not predict at least as much as Galileo did.

182
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Convince me the earth is flat.
« on: January 22, 2013, 06:04:59 PM »
Let's have a little fun. I believe RET is the correct theory, convince me otherwise. Go.

I don't think that's possible.  You have to allow it to happen yourself by opening your mind to the possibility.
Open your mind, and decide that for the rest of the day you will consider each and every opportunity of Earth being flat. Then look at the Sun, Moon and planets, and most stars, and see how they cross the horizon (dawn and dusk) in the North East and North West, respectively, in this flat Earth. Then look at where the Sun, Moon and planets really cross the horizon. Go out and see for yourself. With all your open mind you may become a true Flat Earther. But it will last just a day.

183
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: January 22, 2013, 05:26:35 PM »
Here you go, sift through this.

I only read the first page and this one, what is your argument again?
The argument is simple: air magically makes Newton's Laws of Motion work, so they cannot work in Space. never mind nobody has asked about the Laws in water, or how does air help to push rockets from behind but does not stop them with equal force at the tip.

You might think there is something to read in the middle 48 pages, but there is nothing worth your time. Just a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to explain Newton's Laws.

184
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 22, 2013, 04:45:51 PM »
So your article agrees with me. Nice.


Being as people aren't making money by moving gold about, I'm going to stick to the logical conclusion that the gold isn't really magically changing weight. This is another stupid blind alley that RET has run you up, because its a nonsense theory and makes no sense.
You really are a selective reader. The whole article evolves around one sentence:

Quote
Because people confuse mass and weight and because Earth’s grav­it­a­tional field changes the same bar of gold will be meas­ured to have a dif­ferent mass in dif­ferent loc­a­tions.

Since you are accepting the article and believe the article is supporting your conclusion, I must assume you understood how you were also confusing mass and weight. This article, which you support, is telling us that g is different in each of the cities mentioned. And it also clearly tells us that this free money scheme only works when people confuse mass and weight, just as you do.

185
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 22, 2013, 04:27:16 PM »
Its not a measurement of mass. I just told you. Its a weight. An ounce is a vector. It has magnitude and direction.

W = m * g

Now, the fact that W remains constant all over earth (W is directly proportional to price of gold) and m stays the same because the number of atoms remains finite. So g isn't changing either or it messes up the equation.
And now, when Thork has wasted another page or two of thread without addressing the fact that several quotes from several sources explain his mistake, and has not found anything to argue with except his repetition, here comes a real gem!

"An ounce is a vector"

Lets repeat it because it is kind of overwhelming:

"An ounce is a vector"

And Thork even gives the formula  (W = m * g) with a straight face. But here comes a little pesky detail from Mathematics: since "m" is a scalar and "g" is a scalar, then "W" is also a scalar.

Maybe Thork wants us to fight over another of his mistakes for a while so we might forget that he has no support whatsoever for his claim that g is the same everywhere on Earth. Not even the conspiracy theorist websites support this claim.

The truth is simple: no reputable gold merchant will ever use spring based mechanical scales because they cannot be calibrated to different local values of g. They will always use balances based on a set of calibrated metal masses or new electronic balances that can be calibrated. A potential error of 0.5% is not a big issue when buying vegetables that are changing weight (and mass) all the time due to evaporation, but it is a big problem with jewelers.

186
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 22, 2013, 01:22:10 PM »
I'm not trying to have it both ways.

It is clear that an ounce of gold is the same anywhere on earth. We all agree.

Its clear that the gold therefore is not changing weight else its value would change.

Ergo variable gravity can not be.
You are trying to have it both ways. By saying without a single piece of evidence, and with a lot of evidence against, that gold does not change weight when moving from one place to another on Earth, you are trying to have both the real definitions of weight and mass and your pet lie that they are equivalent.

Again, look at the quoted articles written by the manufacturers of precision scales, who are the ones who have to answer for the measurements done with their products, and the quoted material from the NIST, which is the organization that produces and polices the measurement standards in the USA. Or tell me where you live and I might be able to find the corresponding organization.

187
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« on: January 22, 2013, 12:48:03 PM »
Where is the 143 minute continuous footage of slow motion on the moon?
Exactly. The people like me who were alive at that time remember the continuous showing of long, unedited video. As far as I know, most of it was not preserved for posterity because it was just too difficult. The same goes for most local programming of that time's national television in my country and probably all others.

I can assure you, the quality of video from that time was really poor compared to today's video. The perfect cuts and scene changes we know just weren't possible. And the typical airing of weeks or months of programs without a single glitch, which is now the norm, was totally unheard of in those times. Video was full of problems. Films were frequently scratched, had visible marks, had visual signs for the operator to change reels, had white balance problems when changing scenes, and so much more. In fact, it was not uncommon to have long waits while the operator at your local cinema repaired the film after it had broken or got burned.

So, if you think they used 1969's technology for the videos, look for 1969's technologies' failures.

188
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« on: January 22, 2013, 11:36:04 AM »
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
This is textbook Strawman argument. The author said the exact opposite of what Tom Bishop is saying: in 1969 it was possible to slow video down to half speed according to the author What the author is saying is that the technology was not there to make a continuous slow motion video of several minutes. Any attempt at a slow motion video of such a length would be full of telltale splices, or would have at least a few scratches or particles of dust that would show that the slow motion was done with 35 mm film and then passed to video.

Creating a slow motion video was possible. Doing it so well that we cannot see the defects, even now that we have all the digital equipment that was thought impossible back then, is pretty close to impossible.

189
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 22, 2013, 07:55:06 AM »
Boot on the other foot.

Lets imagine we were trying to convince you that you weigh different amounts depending on where you were on earth and flat earth theory depended on this assertion, but round earth did not. You'd think we were a bunch of lunatics. The idea is completely absurd when you look at it objectively.
Thank you for asking such simple questions. Here you have the typical gravimeter that geologists use for their field work: Micro g LaCoste A10. And here you have typical results of such measurements for some cities. And here you have a complete article about measurement of mass. You might want to read carefully page 4, where the author explains that your misconception about mass and weight is common. You may or may not like the results of the GRACE project, but you still have gas for your car because geologists use GRACE's results and their own measures of local gravity among other measures to find the currently known reserves.

You have not understood in the years you have been in this forum that science does not care whether the Earth is flat, or round or cylindrical. The whole subject of Geodesy is not about proving that Earth is almost spherical, but to aid in the exploration of its surface and subterranean features. The shape of the Earth is just a result that science has reached centuries ago.

190
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 22, 2013, 03:20:44 AM »
A unit of weight having an equivalent amount of mass does not mean that the two are the same thing.
Exactly. They are not the same thing. Therefore you cannot define a unit of weight as equivalent to a multiple of a unit of mass. Since the kilogram is a unit of mass, and a Troy ounce is 0.0311034768 kilograms, the Troy ounce is also a unit of mass.

A unit of weight can only have an equivalent amount of mass for a specific value of g, which in most cases will be gn, or 9.80655 m/s2. And gn is an agreed middle value between the highest and lowest local values of g on Earth.

You have tried for hours to make an argument around the fact that people used weight and mass interchangeably in past centuries (until the 19th century). But centuries ago you could not have electronic scales in your own home, or spring scales with a precision better than 0.5%, so they had a good excuse to be wrong. What is your excuse?

191
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 21, 2013, 08:55:10 PM »
Every definition I found said that troy ounce is a unit of measure of weight.  I only posted one for brevity. 

I could not find troy ounce on the link you posted.
How strange you could not find it this is the first place you will normally find on a Google search.

And in most of the first 20 links on a Google search of Troy Ounce you will find that it is 31.1034768 grams.

Now that you found that several Google search results link to non-scientific web pages where scientific precision in the use of terms is not in their interest, you should learn to look for links to scientific institutions.

192
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 21, 2013, 08:32:12 PM »
One troy ounce is currently defined as exactly 0.0311034768 kg. Just as the kilogram, it is a measure of mass, not weight!. And you have not very much of anything if you find any sense in your phrase "the weight is good world wide".

Noun   1.   troy ounce - a unit of apothecary weight equal to 480 grains or one twelfth of a pound.
So, you found a dictionary with a mistake. Why don't you get a scientific source, for a change? Or, at least, give the reference to your less than meticulous dictionary?

These guys are the ones who actually own the "primary national standard" of the kilogram in the United States. Actually they have two of them. And they even explain that you are making a common mistake, since the definition of kilogram was clarified in 1901.

193
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can a FE believer explain this
« on: January 21, 2013, 06:36:05 PM »
If the air is what is limiting our view wouldn't the horizon be a sort of blurry haze  instead of a clearly defined line.
Not only that, but it would be a very variable place, sometimes as close as 10 meters, sometimes as far away as 100 km or more. But in reality it is quite clear that it is about 12 km away if you are standing by the level of the water, no matter how good the visibility.

194
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 21, 2013, 06:27:35 PM »
Oh, pi is a constant. It always equals 3.14159 etc etc.

And gravity is a constant too. Its always equals 9.81 m/s2.

But you bright sparks have decided that gravity is an exception and that the value actually varies depending on location, altitude etc. Thereby not making it a constant any more.

This does not mean that it is a constant. In truth, it is not a constant
I see.

Quote from: http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/showbiz_science/showbiz_science019.shtml
Physicists have determined that the acceleration of gravity is a constant.

Quote from: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question169.htm
The acceleration due to gravity is a constant.

Quote from: http://www.csiro.au/helix/sciencemail/activities/fallingbodiesexperiment.html
Acceleration due to gravity is a constant regardless of the mass of the object.

Quote from: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=149295
The aim of this experiment is to prove that a falling body has a
constant force of gravity on it, no matter what the distance or time taken for the object to fall.

Quote from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=football-projectile-motion
First, because the force of gravity is constant, g will be the same no matter how a punter kicks the ball.

It seems your theory has a few contradictions in it. Maybe you round earthers should come back when you have your story straight?
So much work finding quotes, and you just neglected to check that what they wanted to say is that gravity is a constant for each specific location.

And even you should see how inane your position about gravity being 9.81 is. Not even the accepted "standard gravity" is 9.81. It is 9.80655, and it is specifically defined as a nominal midrange value for Earth.

Well known local values of g vary some 0.5% above and below this midrange value.

As with almost everything you write, you try to reduce science problems to language problems. You try to make an argument by citing quotes out of context instead of looking at the actual science behind them.

195
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 21, 2013, 06:14:41 PM »
1 troy ounce coins are stamped 1troy ounce, it does not give the locations where that weight is good. As far as I have ever heard, the weight is good world wide.
One troy ounce is currently defined as exactly 0.0311034768 kg. Just as the kilogram, it is a measure of mass, not weight!. And you have not very much of anything if you find any sense in your phrase "the weight is good world wide".

Even my cheap electronic scale, which measures up to 100 grams with a precision of about 10 milligrams, has to be calibrated for the local gravitational pull.

And as I already said, good reference masses have to be made with the local g taken into account. Once made, the reference masses can be used anywhere.

196
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 21, 2013, 06:06:22 PM »

In fact below is a take-off performance chart. Note that altitude, temperature, elevation, and WEIGHT (not mass) are all factored in.
This is what happens when scientifically illiterate people try to use word games to argue what they do not understand about science.

The kilogram is a measure of mass, not weight! For most everyday use you do not have to make the distinction, but you just have to look at the definitions of mass and kilogram to find out. If you want to be correct and precise, you will not say you weighed 100 kilograms this morning, you would say you weighed 981 Newtons. Or that you had a mass of 100 kilograms. Similarly, the pound is a measure of mass, and the pound-force is a measure of weight.

And most measuring equipment at supermarkets, for example, is verified by local authorities. They check the accuracy using, for example, a 10 kilogram piece of metal. That is, a piece of metal that has a mass of 10 kilograms. These calibrated pieces of metal are made with a precision better than 0.1%, and therefore have to be made with the local g taken into account. Of course, once fabricated they can be used anywhere.

197
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 21, 2013, 04:40:49 PM »
to the fact gravity is a mathematical CONSTANT, not a variable.

So, Thork has a problem understanding that variables can be considered constant for specific measurements and experiments. This is a basic concept in problem solving that is taught to 7th graders. Even then, children are taught that π (pi) is equal to 3.14 as far as specifically marked problems are concerned, that g is 9.8 for other problems, and so on. Even seventh graders understand the concept of inexact but convenient approximations for some problems.

And in some specific problems you can consider g as a constant 9.80655 for simplicity's sake. This does not mean that it is a constant. In truth, it is not a constant, and geologists measure the local g on a daily basis as part of their studies. It would be quite stupid to measure it daily if it were a constant.

198
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 19, 2013, 07:14:34 PM »
"cuack?"
Cuack is the sound a duck makes. But the main message is that you must not confuse the constant "standard gravity", which was defined to keep the definition of "weight" valid when the precision of scales improved, with the local gravity.

199
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 19, 2013, 06:34:53 PM »
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. ::)
You just showed that you do not understand what the variable "g" is: the constant gn = 9.80655 m/s/s is the standard gravity, which is an average of the gravitational pull on several places on Earth. It is not the same as the variable g which is local to the place where you are, and changes according to the location of the Sun and Moon relative to your location. Other factors also change the variable g

So your argument is just an attempt to confuse the variable "g" with the constant "gn". You call the chicken "ducks" and wonder why they do not cuack.

200
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 19, 2013, 10:28:57 AM »
vacuum or not the effect is the same. a force applied to the bottom of a flat earth that is unbalanced would flip it.
But it is a lot worse than that. Even a balanced pressure will flip the flat Earth unless the flat Earth is perfectly balanced. That is, even the erosion of one mountain will unbalance it enough to ruin the perfect balance.

The only other option would be to have intelligent pressure. The aetheric wind would have to know where to press harder to re-balance the Earth.

The aetheric wind doesn't exist, according to FE'er Pongo.
Exactly. When a flaw is shown in one flat Earth "theory" someone jumps in to say he does not believe in that aspect of the theory, or that he believes in another flat Earth "theory". But if the thing that pushes the flat Earth is "dark energy" (not the one scientists talk about) the problem continues exactly as it is now. Whatever pushes the flat Earth, it has to do an incredibly precise balancing act to push every part of the flat Earth with a pressure exactly proportional to the mass of that part. If too much pressure is applied, that part will be destroyed. If not enough pressure is applied, that part of the Earth is also destroyed. If the Southern half of Earth is less massive, that half has to get less pressure, or the Earth will flip. Think of it as keeping a thin pancake in the air, horizontal and unfolded, with a leaf blower.

201
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis effect
« on: January 19, 2013, 07:34:53 AM »
Did you skim over the part about the ducks?
I checked the quoted web page and it does not even contain the word "duck". I will not dedicate much time to an article that leans heavily on missing figures, so I am not going to read it whole.

If you have a point about Coriolis being stronger than all the forces that shape sea currents, please make it.

202
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Cult of Gravity
« on: January 19, 2013, 07:26:55 AM »

unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

This had me in stitches. I refer you to Tausami and his marvellous explain-it-all aether theory.

If a mainstream physicist comes out with a new theory, are you, as a proponent of mainstream physics, duty-bound to from that point on advocate and support their theory?  Of course not.  There are many different theories on the same topic across science.  You can't be expected to actively support them all.  Why do you hold us to that standard.  I'm not saying that Tausami is wrong, I'm just saying that flat-earth theory is a rich scientific front and I've not had the chance to delve into the particulars of his theory.
As usual, you are showing total incapacity to understand the Scientific Method and the methods with which "mainstream science" works.

If there are several different supposed "theories" on a subject that produce conflicting predictions, they are not theories, they are hypothesis.

A hypothesis only acquires the status of theory if and when it is demonstrated that its predictive power is superior to the conflicting hypothesis. You do not have several conflicting theories to choose from.

Only the unscientific proponents of ideas like FET try to market them as theories, even though they are hypothesis that contradict current theories and have almost no predictive power. Or should we say no predictive power whatsoever?

203
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 19, 2013, 07:13:44 AM »
vacuum or not the effect is the same. a force applied to the bottom of a flat earth that is unbalanced would flip it.
But it is a lot worse than that. Even a balanced pressure will flip the flat Earth unless the flat Earth is perfectly balanced. That is, even the erosion of one mountain will unbalance it enough to ruin the perfect balance.

The only other option would be to have intelligent pressure. The aetheric wind would have to know where to press harder to re-balance the Earth.

204
Flat Earth General / Re: The motto - IN VERITATE VICTORIA
« on: January 18, 2013, 10:15:50 AM »
All I'm saying is that theories that posit the rotundity of the Earth are Round Earth Theories, including HET. For an interesting discussion of this, listen to our most recent podcast:


http://theflatearthpodcast.podbean.com/2012/12/12/the-flat-earth-society-podcast-episode-4-with-guest-hollow-earth-expert-professor-darryl-jones/
In a surprisingly good literary review of Utopian literature using a hollow Earth scenario and a few comments about some ancient attempts at finding these Utopian worlds in real life, the one thing that was never mentioned was "that theories that posit the rotundity of the Earth are Round Earth Theories, including HET".

In fact, the very idea of a scientific theory was never mentioned. No arguments were made towards lending plausibility to any theory, whether from this forum or from science or from Hollow Earth Believers. It was a literary review, and a good one at that.

205
Flat Earth General / Re: The motto - IN VERITATE VICTORIA
« on: January 18, 2013, 08:31:35 AM »
All I'm saying is that theories that posit the rotundity of the Earth are Round Earth Theories, including HET. For an interesting discussion of this, listen to our most recent podcast:


http://theflatearthpodcast.podbean.com/2012/12/12/the-flat-earth-society-podcast-episode-4-with-guest-hollow-earth-expert-professor-darryl-jones/
That would be good enough if you were not hijacking the word "theory" from science. "Hollow Earth Theory" and "Flat Earth Theory" are not theories in any scientific sense. "Round Earth Theory" does not even exist, since the knowledge about the shape of this planet is a result from scientific experiments and observations and not a scientific theory. Since it does not exist, it cannot have a subset called  HET, unless it is an empty set (which it kind of is).

206
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 18, 2013, 04:30:53 AM »
It would be unstable in the beginning, but after being pushed by a constantly moving current for billions of years it would stabilize eventually.
This is a totally unsupported claim which you reach only because you want it to be true.

If you have a coin, for example, which is pushed by a constant pressure from one side it will not stabilize perpendicular to the pushing force. It will flip because the heaviest side will lag, and might enter a pendulum motion or stabilize parallel to the pushing force, depending on friction.

And lets not even start talking about the possibility of the Earth breaking to pieces with a force like the UA pushing it. Earth would have to be perfectly balanced and the UA would have to be perfectly even to even have a hope of Earth surviving this tremendous push. In fact, the UA "theory" should be called the "teardrop shaped Earth theory" because that is the shape Earth would have by now.

207
Flat Earth General / Re: The motto - IN VERITATE VICTORIA
« on: January 17, 2013, 05:38:30 AM »
Actually, the earth not being hollow is integral to RET.  Hollow Earth Theory is a fringe RE theory because contradicts this tenet.  In this same way, non-conspiracy FET is a fringe FE theory.


I somehow missed this, but it should be addressed. You acknowledge that HET is a fringe theory within RET. Now, if something is integral to RET, then RET cannot do without it. If HET is part of RET, then clearly RET does not require that the Earth is hollow, as is obvious when one considers that the propose a round, yet hollow, Earth.


Similarly with the Conspiracy and FET.
This is yet another word game with no basis in reality whatsoever. A hollow Earth denies every thing we know about gravitation. And what you call "RE" really is what the rest of the world calls Science, which includes gravitation. Even if "FET" is a group of "theories" (more like unsubstantiated hypothesis) which only have a flat Earth as its common property, real Science does not have a group of theories under the umbrella of round Earths.

The "RET" that markjo mentions exists only in this forum, and follows the rules that the moderators have imposed, If you want to discuss about the real world, and not about the inner group of FES you just have to see hollow Earths as a very bad idea that nobody supports anymore, just like the four turtles and the elephant. Or we could require you FE'ers to show proof of the existence of the turtles every time you talk about a flat Earth.

208
Flat Earth General / Re: Aetheric wind / southern celestial pole
« on: January 16, 2013, 06:33:25 PM »
Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.
This is the kind of statements that scientific illiterates say just because they do not fully understand the Scientific Method.

In Science understanding and having predicting power are almost the same thing. And you definitely can predict a lot of results from a lot of experiments and observations about light without even having the notion of a photon.

Only around the time of Planck's Law (circa 1860) we were ready to understand the difference between light as waves and light as discrete photons. But most of the laws of Optics already existed in that time, and helped understand almost everything a non-scientist will ever have to do with light.

The same goes with gravitation and gravitons. We understand (that is, we can predict results from) just about every experiment and observation regarding gravitational pull, at any scale except at galactic and inter-galactic scales. We might learn some additional, interesting things if and when we incorporate the idea of a graviton to our models about gravitation. But that does not subtract from what we already know about gravitation.

209
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis effect
« on: January 16, 2013, 04:58:14 AM »
What? I am saying Corilois does not exist and that there are numerous examples of this being the case. Unlike you, I have provided a few examples for you to examine.
The Coriolis Effect exists, and that is mathematics, not FE or RE or whatever you want to call it. The Coriolis Effect caused by Earth's rotation is measurable, and has been measured in several ways. Whether somebody in the 17th century was able to do so or not is a subject for History, not Physics.

You have not given valid examples of Coriolis not existing. And you have avoided the simplest and most verifiable of all: the Foucault Pendulum. It only takes a little ingenuity and a few hundred dollars, or a few thousand at the very worst, to make a Foucault Pendulum and verify this fact for yourself. And then you can see that nobody has placed hidden magnets or anything like that. Some pendulums have an electromagnet to give an occasional push to the pendulum, but you can avoid magnets altogether and give the pendulum some initial speed by hand. And don't forget, by showing the world that such a basic experiment had been done wrong for centuries you will get, at the very least, a Nobel Prize, worth many times your investment, and the possibility of giving conferences in every major university in the world, at several thousand dollars per conference.

210
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis effect
« on: January 16, 2013, 03:23:34 AM »
Thank you for correcting my argument. Do FE'rs have any other explanation for coriolis other than denying it? Come on guys, think.
As you can see from Thork's post, the best they can do is a very poor argument from authority, citing somebody from the 17th century. Also, in some sort of inverse argument from authority, because so many people believe in the totally invalid toilet flush experiment, they declare victory by arguing correctly that toilets flush independently of any Coriolis Effect due to Earth's rotation and declare or imply that it is the scientists who say this toilet experiment is valid.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 14