Fictitious Forces

  • 184 Replies
  • 89556 Views
*

svenanders

  • 832
  • +0/-0
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #120 on: March 21, 2009, 02:46:28 AM »
But just because we can't find the mechinism for gravitation doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which is something that really annoys me with the FE'ers on this forum...

"Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like someone's lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

Can you see your fingers if you hide them under a table? No.
Does this mean that they will cease to exist just because you can't see them? No.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #121 on: March 21, 2009, 03:00:33 AM »
Can you see your fingers if you hide them under a table? No.
Does this mean that they will cease to exist just because you can't see them? No.

Fingers have been observed, and the existence of fingers are easily peer reviewed.

The existence of "gravitons" have never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts them squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

At least some people claim to see ghosts. No one claims to see gravitons.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 03:03:21 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #122 on: March 21, 2009, 03:37:26 AM »
Gravitons have a rigorous theoretical basis, and the LHC will be actively searching for them.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45127
  • +90/-134
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #123 on: March 21, 2009, 07:25:48 AM »
Can you see your fingers if you hide them under a table? No.
Does this mean that they will cease to exist just because you can't see them? No.

Fingers have been observed, and the existence of fingers are easily peer reviewed.

The existence of "gravitons" have never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts them squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

At least some people claim to see ghosts. No one claims to see gravitons.

Tom, please learn the difference between "see" and "observe".  It's subtle, but significant.  Sub-atomic particles are generally indirectly observed as opposed to directly seen.  No one has ever seen an up quark, but through careful observation physicists know that they exist.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #124 on: March 21, 2009, 07:27:44 AM »
Quote
"Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like someone's lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

Yet you'll quite happily argue that although there's no evidence of bi-directional jetstreams in the southern hemisphere, it doesn't mean they don't exist. There's no evidence of a huge conspiracy, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no observations of the shadow object outside lunar eclipses, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no evidence of an army of blimp pesudolites, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It is a pretty poor excuse, and should be used only when there is no feasible way of 'seeing' them and something well established suggests they do exist. Yet the FE model uses it quite a lot. Why hold with such a model?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45127
  • +90/-134
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #125 on: March 21, 2009, 07:32:08 AM »
Quote
"Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like someone's lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

Yet you'll quite happily argue that although there's no evidence of bi-directional jetstreams in the southern hemisphere, it doesn't mean they don't exist. There's no evidence of a huge conspiracy, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no observations of the shadow object outside lunar eclipses, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no evidence of an army of blimp pesudolites, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It is a pretty poor excuse, and should be used only when there is no feasible way of 'seeing' them and something well established suggests they do exist. Yet the FE model uses it quite a lot. Why hold with such a model?

Especially since since zetetic philosophy demands inquiry by direct observation.   
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

hi

  • 302
  • +0/-0
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #126 on: March 21, 2009, 11:30:35 AM »
Ahh I love it when the FE'ers become hypocritical. Makes me laugh to see them defend themselves.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #127 on: March 21, 2009, 06:53:26 PM »
Quote
Tom, please learn the difference between "see" and "observe".  It's subtle, but significant.  Sub-atomic particles are generally indirectly observed as opposed to directly seen.  No one has ever seen an up quark, but through careful observation physicists know that they exist.

No one "observed" gravitons, either.

Quote
Yet you'll quite happily argue that although there's no evidence of bi-directional jetstreams in the southern hemisphere, it doesn't mean they don't exist. There's no evidence of a huge conspiracy, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no observations of the shadow object outside lunar eclipses, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no evidence of an army of blimp pesudolites, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I never argue for the existence of bi-directional jet streams. Whenever someone presents a flight time web page of a single flight I simply ask if the pilot took a jet stream to quicker reach his destination, since jet streams are known and have been observed and experienced in the past and pilots deliberately use jet streams on intercontinental travel. Next I'd point out that the layout configuration of the continents is completely hypothetical, and that it's impossible to reach any sort of conclusion from a single flight.

Quote
It is a pretty poor excuse, and should be used only when there is no feasible way of 'seeing' them and something well established suggests they do exist. Yet the FE model uses it quite a lot. Why hold with such a model?

I don't argue for anything that hasn't been observed and experienced.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 07:04:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45127
  • +90/-134
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #128 on: March 21, 2009, 07:16:08 PM »
Quote
Tom, please learn the difference between "see" and "observe".  It's subtle, but significant.  Sub-atomic particles are generally indirectly observed as opposed to directly seen.  No one has ever seen an up quark, but through careful observation physicists know that they exist.

No one "observed" gravitons, either.

Nobody claimed that they did, that's why it's still hypothetical.  What's your point? 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #129 on: March 21, 2009, 07:18:45 PM »
Nobody claimed that they did, that's why it's still hypothetical.  What's your point?

The existence of "gravitons" have never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts them squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45127
  • +90/-134
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #130 on: March 21, 2009, 08:32:06 PM »
Nobody claimed that they did, that's why it's still hypothetical.  What's your point?

The existence of "gravitons" have never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts them squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

The existence of "the Electromagnetic Accelerator" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

The existence of "the Shadow Object" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #131 on: March 21, 2009, 08:40:13 PM »
Quote
The existence of "the Electromagnetic Accelerator" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

The existence of "the Shadow Object" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Wrong.

When one shines a laser horizontally across a long stretch of standing water the receiving beam across the way arrives at a slightly higher altitude. This suggests that the light rays have traveled upwards.

When one observes the lunar eclipse one sees a shadow of a body intersecting the light between the sun and moon. This suggests that a body has intersected the light between the sun and moon.

EA and the Shadow Object are definitely suggested by easily conducted experiments and observations.

However, in direct contrast, there is nothing which suggests a "graviton". There is no evidence for it what-so-ever. It's completely and absolutely hypothetical.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 02:46:43 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #132 on: March 21, 2009, 08:46:24 PM »
Quote
The existence of "the Electromagnetic Accelerator" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.
...

Wrong.

When one shines a laser horizontally across a long stretch of standing water the receiving beam arrive at a higher altitude. This suggests that the light rays have traveled upwards.
What particle mediates this force? When did you directly observe it? Remember that you expect graviton observations to be direct, not by effect.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45127
  • +90/-134
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #133 on: March 21, 2009, 08:50:50 PM »
Quote
The existence of "the Electromagnetic Accelerator" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

The existence of "the Shadow Object" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Wrong.

When one shines a laser horizontally across a long stretch of standing water the receiving beam arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This suggests that the light rays have traveled upwards.

When one observes the lunar eclipse one sees a shadow of a body intersecting the light between the sun and moon. This suggests that a body has intersected the light between the sun and moon.

EA and the Shadow Object are definitely suggested by easily conducted experiments and observations.

They are also quite easily explained by RET.

Quote
However, in direct contrast, there is nothing which suggests a "graviton". There is no evidence for it what-so-ever. It's completely and absolutely hypothetical.

So was the bottom quark before it was observed.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #134 on: March 22, 2009, 03:23:01 AM »
Quote
The existence of "the Electromagnetic Accelerator" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

The existence of "the Shadow Object" has never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts it squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Wrong.

When one shines a laser horizontally across a long stretch of standing water the receiving beam across the way arrives at a slightly higher altitude. This suggests that the light rays have traveled upwards.

When one observes the lunar eclipse one sees a shadow of a body intersecting the light between the sun and moon. This suggests that a body has intersected the light between the sun and moon.

EA and the Shadow Object are definitely suggested by easily conducted experiments and observations.

However, in direct contrast, there is nothing which suggests a "graviton". There is no evidence for it what-so-ever. It's completely and absolutely hypothetical.
Wrong. When you drop object from your hand then the gravitons crab it and pull it to earth. So, gravitons are definitely suggested by easily conducted experiments and observations.

 
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #135 on: March 22, 2009, 04:03:03 AM »
Firstly it CANNOT be an electromagnetic accelerator. The photon does not carry charge, so it cannot be affected by other photons. Charged particles can impart momentum to each other via the exchange of charged particles photons themselves do not couple to other photons. We say that photons do not self-interact. The same is not true of gluons, which have strong colour charge and the weak bosons, which carry weak isospin. This means that the weak and strong bosons do self interact. If the photon self interacted the universe would probably be effectively opaque. As I said before one is free to construct a new field which couples only to the photon however I cannot see trivially where such a thing would fit into the standard model.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #136 on: March 22, 2009, 01:36:05 PM »
Can you see your fingers if you hide them under a table? No.
Does this mean that they will cease to exist just because you can't see them? No.

Fingers have been observed, and the existence of fingers are easily peer reviewed.

The existence of "gravitons" have never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts them squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

At least some people claim to see ghosts. No one claims to see gravitons.

Tom, please learn the difference between "see" and "observe".  It's subtle, but significant.  Sub-atomic particles are generally indirectly observed as opposed to directly seen.  No one has ever seen an up quark, but through careful observation physicists know that they exist.

And no one has "observed" a graviton. Did you manage to think up a point other than to derail?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #137 on: March 22, 2009, 01:38:21 PM »
Gravitons have a rigorous theoretical basis, and the LHC will be actively searching for them.

So do ghosts, and people are actively searching for them. I saw a show on cable just the other day.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #138 on: March 22, 2009, 01:49:59 PM »
Are you talking about Fadeev-Popov ghosts or departed spirits. Im not sure that ghosts have a massive basis in quantum field theory. Though a few people have made some interesting observations from the philosophy of quantum mechanics.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #139 on: March 22, 2009, 02:35:00 PM »
Well in the context of your sentence, that wouldn't make sense. Try harder.

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #140 on: March 22, 2009, 03:36:31 PM »
Why would I want to try harder? I just thought I'd throw something in on the off chance someone could be bothered to google it.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #141 on: March 22, 2009, 03:38:30 PM »
Why would I want to try harder? I just thought I'd throw something in on the off chance someone could be bothered to google it.

And I just thought you might try to understand an analogy. Oh well.

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #142 on: March 22, 2009, 03:48:31 PM »
I know its annoying when someone fails to get the most trivial of physical arguments/linguistic tools.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #143 on: March 22, 2009, 03:56:29 PM »

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #144 on: March 22, 2009, 04:14:36 PM »
Only with mustard. Was there a more subtle point to that or was it simply a case of extreme and penetrating wit?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45127
  • +90/-134
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #145 on: March 22, 2009, 04:27:16 PM »
Can you see your fingers if you hide them under a table? No.
Does this mean that they will cease to exist just because you can't see them? No.

Fingers have been observed, and the existence of fingers are easily peer reviewed.

The existence of "gravitons" have never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts them squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

At least some people claim to see ghosts. No one claims to see gravitons.

Tom, please learn the difference between "see" and "observe".  It's subtle, but significant.  Sub-atomic particles are generally indirectly observed as opposed to directly seen.  No one has ever seen an up quark, but through careful observation physicists know that they exist.

And no one has "observed" a graviton. Did you manage to think up a point other than to derail?

Many things can be known and understood without actually seeing them.

Also, no one has claimed to have observed a graviton so I'm not sure why he keeps bringing it up.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #146 on: March 22, 2009, 05:14:08 PM »
Can you see your fingers if you hide them under a table? No.
Does this mean that they will cease to exist just because you can't see them? No.

Fingers have been observed, and the existence of fingers are easily peer reviewed.

The existence of "gravitons" have never been observed, detected, peer reviewed, or suggested by anything beyond idle hypothesis. That puts them squarely in the realm of the paranormal and pseudo-science.

At least some people claim to see ghosts. No one claims to see gravitons.

Tom, please learn the difference between "see" and "observe".  It's subtle, but significant.  Sub-atomic particles are generally indirectly observed as opposed to directly seen.  No one has ever seen an up quark, but through careful observation physicists know that they exist.

And no one has "observed" a graviton. Did you manage to think up a point other than to derail?

Many things can be known and understood without actually seeing them.

Also, no one has claimed to have observed a graviton so I'm not sure why he keeps bringing it up.

They don't know a quark exists, it is simply the most plausible theory at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if we are completely wrong in most subatomic areas.

*

optimisticcynic

  • 2194
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #147 on: March 22, 2009, 07:20:24 PM »
Also FE doesn't say gravity doesn't exist. all the other planets have gravity. earth is the only one that does not You would need to argue why earth does not have gravity.
a quote from the FAQ
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Q:  Follow-up to previous question:  "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A:  This argument is a non-sequitur.  You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"  Snakes are not dogs or cats.  The Earth is not a star or the moon.  It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 07:38:36 PM by optimisticcynic »
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #148 on: March 23, 2009, 04:01:56 AM »
Quarks don't exist? Is that just to get a rise out of me or are you really that detached from science? That quark was originally postulated to explain the huge number of hadrons coming out of particle experiments in the 50's and early 60's. The number of hadrons and emerging patterns in properties gave a hint that there was an underlying structure. In the same way that the periodic table hints at the substructure of atoms. Deep inelastic scattering experiments were the first to prove directly that the proton was not fundamental, in the same way that nuclear scattering coule be used to show the atom had sub structure. Although so far we have only shown that the proton and the neutron are mode of something smaller not that the current theory of quarks is true. Infact while there was still a gap between the emerging theoretical opinion that quarks best fitted the data and the current experimental status the components of protons and neutrons were called partons, a term that has actually stuck today for some experimental constants largely independent of the underlying theory.

The quark hypothesis predicted a lot of heavier undiscovered particles, these became the object of searches to prove the existence of quarks. The discovery of the j/psi (two groups found it at the same time and gave it different names; they never resolved their differences hence it still having two names to this day) confirmed the existence of the charm quark giving the quark theory massive experimental backing. This is effectively the confirming experiment. However Kobayashi and Maskawa theorized another generation of quarks to explain CP violation. So they hypothesized the existence of two new quarks, named bottom and top. The bottom quark was found a few years after they made their prediction. However the top quark was not found creating a slight uncertainty in the theory. Finally the top quark was created directly at the Tevatron in 1995 it had been so hard to find because it was incredibly heavy (roughly, 200 times heavier than a proton). Now B mesons, pairs of B quarks, are created regularly to study CP violation and matter-antimatter asymmetry. Finally many of the conundrums  of the atom, such as why lots of positively charged protons stay closely bound, is very precisely explained by the strong force, which exists between quarks.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Fictitious Forces
« Reply #149 on: March 24, 2009, 02:08:03 AM »
Nobody is saying that quarks don't exist.