Atmoplane

Quote

I hope that no one ever learns that from any site ever. It's wrong and harmful. We must build upon each other's work. Without that trust and teamwork, we'd not have the technologies that we're using in this thread.

So where do we draw the line? Why shouldn't I just send all my money to the church of scientology - I mean, I should just trust that what they say is correct, right?

I leave it to you to draw your line. I've drawn my line. I read the work involved. I talk with my peers. I evaluate. I study. I question. Then, and only then, do I accept, reject, or hold in abeyance.

I refuse to reject without reason though. You do.

If you think that you've found an error by Einstein, do pray tell enlighten all of us! If not, then admit that you're wrong, again.

It doesn't work like that - Einstein is not de-facto correct. Our investigation does not start with a state of innate Einstein-correctness. Einstein's implied claim that nothing can travel faster than the universal speed of light must be demonstrated.

It's interesting that you argue that since you've not personally experienced the atmosphere above 40,000 feet that you know that it's not there.

Not what I said. It's that I don't know it IS there, and I have no reason to think it's there, except people saying so. It's the same with God. I have no reason to suspect he exists except people telling me he does.

But you also argue that even though you've only travel personally at 600 MPH that you know that there are speeds greater than 300,000 m/s. It seems to be that your belief system varies with the need to support your FE idea.

that there can be speeds greater than 600 MPH is self-evident, because speed doesn't "exist" in the same way that God, or the atmolayer-above-40k-feet MIGHT exist. Speed is a measure of something, so debating its existence is nonsensical. It's like asking if the number 194932832948293829103 exists. I have never personally counted to 194932832948293829103, but its existence is a given because of what it is. It does not require verification, it exists by its own nature.

It doesn't work like that - Einstein is not de-facto correct. Our investigation does not start with a state of innate Einstein-correctness. Einstein's implied claim that nothing can travel faster than the universal speed of light must be demonstrated.

I believe, and someone else can hopefully back me up here, that Einstein doesn't say nothing can travel faster than c, but nothing can accelerate to c.

"Physics states"? Physics is just the say-so of scientists. Your argument boils down to "Earth's Hypothetical Speed is impossible BECAUSE SCIENTISTS SAID SO". Don't you see the fallacy? The appeal to authority? Back up your statements or leave the thread as you had planned to.

Opposed to appealing to a book?  Physics does not change.  We just don't understand all of it yet.  We change what we know but we cant change absolute physics. 
There are many experiments that show GR as right.

You're just stating your beliefs, not bringing any legitimate evidence to the table, and here's why - your only evidence is that Einstein says so and Einstein has to be right about everything. It's not that I "don't know science", it's that I don't BELIEVE in YOUR science. There's a huge difference.

You don't believe is science because it goes against your view. 
You talk about and ask for proof yet you have no proof about anything you have claimed.  Show us your proof then or leave as you say. 

I refuse to reject without reason though. You do.

No. You categorically reject any claim which might suggest that globularism is incorrect, and actively, fiercly and with blind enthusiasm seek ways to make said claims seem false.

Face it - every time you log into the FES forums, you have a preconceived notion of what is true, and you will not, under any circumstances, revise that opinion despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:25:44 PM

I refuse to reject without reason though. You do.

No. You categorically reject any claim which might suggest that globularism is incorrect, and actively, fiercly and with blind enthusiasm seek ways to make said claims seem false.

Face it - every time you log into the FES forums, you have a preconceived notion of what is true, and you will not, under any circumstances, revise that opinion despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

And? 
I sure do.  I have never seen one argument on here that makes me thing the planet is anything other then round.
You are guilty of it too.  You just can't believe that people and balloons have been 25 miles up and still been in the atmosphere.   

Quote

I would say that we should always be ready to dismiss a claim or to hold our opinion in abeyance on even the most fundamental principle. To reject an authority's work just because it doesn't agree with your prized idea is a mistake of grave proportions.

Those two sentences are in direct contradiction...

No, they're not.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:11:12 PM

No. Simply no. You're wrong. You're basically saying you can't throw an apple out of your car because your car is accelerating. You can.

Your car doesn't normally accelerate vertically at 9.8m/s^2 - if it does, you should worry.

You avoid the challenge. Coward.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:11:12 PM

You can also see that you're wrong by answering the question: How wide is the edge of the Earth? The answer is: It isn't wide. The edge is a line without thickness. So in your argument, the air needs to maintain its acceleration for no time as it travels over the edge.

The Ice Wall is quite thick - DIDN'T JUST MAKE IT UP, said it earlier in this very thread.

The thickness of the Ice Wall is not related to the width of the edge. The Ice Wall can support the air above it.

Oh, and just how do you KNOW that the Ice Wall is thick? I say you, or some other FEer, just made the thickness figure up, like you do with so many numbers.

Quote

I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.

So you admittedly enter into a discussion with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. It certainly shows in your tone of debate.

Quote

I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You  fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.

But respect-in-field has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong! Both you and Sokarul are guilty of an appaling appeal to authority. You just cannot accept that a scientist might be wrong about something.

We can most certainly accept that a scientist might be wrong about something. You attack a straw man. You need to make a concrete documented case for your theory. Document your evidence. You have nearly 30 documented experiments in the RE Primer to answer. The Forum's FAQ is out of date, inaccurate, and in places just plain stupid. You've left the photoelectric effort and UA argument hanging for a month. If you want us to believe you over a reputable scientists, you have work to do. Don't blame us for insisting that you support your idea with evidence and repeatable experiments. That's science.

The thickness of the Ice Wall is not related to the width of the edge. The Ice Wall can support the air above it.

Oh, and just how do you KNOW that the Ice Wall is thick? I say you, or some other FEer, just made the thickness figure up, like you do with so many numbers.

Of course the numbers are made up. None of them really coincide with observable evidence, and the lack of revision in accordance with challenge and evidence is what is hurting the FET argument.

Quote from: Dogplatter on August 01, 2007, 07:07:12 PM

Quote

I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.

So you admittedly enter into a discussion with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. It certainly shows in your tone of debate.

Quote

I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You  fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.

But respect-in-field has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong! Both you and Sokarul are guilty of an appaling appeal to authority. You just cannot accept that a scientist might be wrong about something.

We can most certainly accept that a scientist might be wrong about something. You attack a straw man. You need to make a concrete documented case for your theory. Document your evidence. You have nearly 30 documented experiments in the RE Primer to answer. The Forum's FAQ is out of date, inaccurate, and in places just plain stupid. You've left the photoelectric effort and UA argument hanging for a month. If you want us to believe you over a reputable scientists, you have work to do. Don't blame us for insisting that you support your idea with evidence and repeatable experiments. That's science.

Gulliver, Dogplatter is currently (or in the very near future) compiling his model.  You might want to hold your questions until you can see the model in its entirety.  This will, hopefully, simplify these arguments.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:17:01 PM

Yes, there is an independent FoR. It's the history FoR, where we were when. It doesn't go away just because we've accelerated out of it.

You're right it doesn't. It goes away because time passes.

Nope. A FoR is not a dairy product. You need to stop just guessing about science.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:55:23 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on August 01, 2007, 07:07:12 PM

Quote

I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.

So you admittedly enter into a discussion with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. It certainly shows in your tone of debate.

Quote

I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You  fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.

But respect-in-field has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong! Both you and Sokarul are guilty of an appaling appeal to authority. You just cannot accept that a scientist might be wrong about something.

We can most certainly accept that a scientist might be wrong about something. You attack a straw man. You need to make a concrete documented case for your theory. Document your evidence. You have nearly 30 documented experiments in the RE Primer to answer. The Forum's FAQ is out of date, inaccurate, and in places just plain stupid. You've left the photoelectric effort and UA argument hanging for a month. If you want us to believe you over a reputable scientists, you have work to do. Don't blame us for insisting that you support your idea with evidence and repeatable experiments. That's science.

Gulliver, Dogplatter is currently (or in the very near future) compiling his model.  You might want to hold your questions until you can see the model in its entirety.  This will, hopefully, simplify these arguments.

Just keep thinking that. 

Considering I only just asked him to, and he said he would, and I have no reason not to believe him, I will.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:21:25 PM

If you think that you've found an error by Einstein, do pray tell enlighten all of us! If not, then admit that you're wrong, again.

It doesn't work like that - Einstein is not de-facto correct. Our investigation does not start with a state of innate Einstein-correctness. Einstein's implied claim that nothing can travel faster than the universal speed of light must be demonstrated.

Sorry, but you're wrong, again. Einstein is demonstratively correct. SR and GR have been backed by more experimental evidence and scrutinized by harsh critics. Einstein's various works have been evaluated. Some have been rejected, but most are currently accepted. It is inane that your investigation picks and chooses which parts of science to accept, even seeming to vary by day which you believe. (Eramus has a post referenced in the FAQ that used the velocity addition formula from SR that you today seem to reject with your hypothetical speed greater than the speed of light.)

It must be difficult to keep straight what laws of physics and chemistry you believe in.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:21:25 PM

It's interesting that you argue that since you've not personally experienced the atmosphere above 40,000 feet that you know that it's not there.

Not what I said. It's that I don't know it IS there, and I have no reason to think it's there, except people saying so. It's the same with God. I have no reason to suspect he exists except people telling me he does.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:21:25 PM

But you also argue that even though you've only travel personally at 600 MPH that you know that there are speeds greater than 300,000 m/s. It seems to be that your belief system varies with the need to support your FE idea.

that there can be speeds greater than 600 MPH is self-evident, because speed doesn't "exist" in the same way that God, or the atmolayer-above-40k-feet MIGHT exist. Speed is a measure of something, so debating its existence is nonsensical. It's like asking if the number 194932832948293829103 exists. I have never personally counted to 194932832948293829103, but its existence is a given because of what it is. It does not require verification, it exists by its own nature.

Your argument is without merit. You argue one way or the other based only on what you want.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:25:44 PM

I refuse to reject without reason though. You do.

No. You categorically reject any claim which might suggest that globularism is incorrect, and actively, fiercly and with blind enthusiasm seek ways to make said claims seem false.

Face it - every time you log into the FES forums, you have a preconceived notion of what is true, and you will not, under any circumstances, revise that opinion despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

Nope. I did perform my own experiment and described its design here and documented the results right here. My dog didn't eat my lab report. I made up my mind based on the results. I then worked with the RE team here to document 70 challenges to FE, 29 experiments, and a host of flaws in FE and consolidated the consensus in the 80-page RE Primer. That's work, scientific work. It does convince me that RE is correct--until the FE presents a better case. Do you believe enough in your cause to produce the level of evidence that we have?

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:48:53 PM

The thickness of the Ice Wall is not related to the width of the edge. The Ice Wall can support the air above it.

Oh, and just how do you KNOW that the Ice Wall is thick? I say you, or some other FEer, just made the thickness figure up, like you do with so many numbers.

Of course the numbers are made up. None of them really coincide with observable evidence, and the lack of revision in accordance with challenge and evidence is what is hurting the FET argument.

Well said, sir. Well said.

...
Gulliver, Dogplatter is currently (or in the very near future) compiling his model.  You might want to hold your questions until you can see the model in its entirety.  This will, hopefully, simplify these arguments.

I'll believe that when we see it. dogplatter has let me down of a number of commitments. I'll try to respect your request, though.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 07:11:12 PM

No. Simply no. You're wrong. You're basically saying you can't throw an apple out of your car because your car is accelerating. You can.

Your car doesn't normally accelerate vertically at 9.8m/s^2 - if it does, you should worry.

As long as my car is in contact with the Earth, according to FE, it's accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s². I can throw an apple out the window. So you must be wrong, again.

>>>As long as my car is in contact with the Earth, according to FE, it's accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2. I can throw an apple out the window. So you must be wrong, again.<<<

Gulliver you have 1000's of posts , I'm not having a go at you , but why do you bother?

Thank you for joining us for the Gulliver show.

Reading through Gulliver's posts I am reminded of a moth banging its head against a hot light bulb over and over and over and over and over and over .......

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

-Albert Einstein.

That's Gulliver all right!

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

-Albert Einstein.

That's Gulliver all right!

No. 

Dogplatter pussed out so Gulliver had time to answer every response. 

No. 

Dogplatter pussed out so Gulliver had time to answer every response. 

Or I went away from my computer for a couple of days to visit my family while Gulliver nit-picked my every word.