Why do ships disappear as they go over the horizon?

I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.

That's because what their high school teachers tell them is believable.

Sky mirrors are not believable. Weird huh?

Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 09:38:16 AM

I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.

That's because what their high school teachers tell them is believable.

Sky mirrors are not believable. Weird huh?

Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

There are a lot of generally unbelievable things out there in modern physics.

As far as high school teachers, they are a great bunch, but sometimes they get it wrong like anyone else. That is why its important to sometimes critically examine what one has held to be true. This is especially important if the idea becomes so self evident to oneself that it is assumed without thought in any situation.

Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?

Non of those are taught at high school. Thanks for posting.

Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:06:53 AM

Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?

Non of those are taught at high school. Thanks for posting.

Exactly true. And since none of these concepts are taught in high school you should not be surprised if someone gets annoyed with your attempt to use a high school level test to disprove them. I am sure a lot of physicists get quite annoyed at such attempts to disprove SR, such as the back to back flashlight experiment or the high-beams from a moving car (trying to prove that the light speed barrier can be broken) for example.
This concept illustrated:
http://xkcd.com/675/

I am sure a lot of physicists get quite annoyed at such attempts to disprove SR, such as the back to back flashlight experiment or the high-beams from a moving car (trying to prove that the light speed barrier can be broken) for example.

Whaaaa?! There's nothing taught in high school which attempts to disprove SR. What are you babbling about?

Curiously though there are many FEers on this forum that repeatedly espouse ideas that contradict SR. (not to mention other more basic laws)

Whaaaa?! There's nothing taught in high school which attempts to disprove SR. What are you babbling about?

No, but there are a bunch of know-it-all blowhards that think that they learned enough in high school physics to take on SR or QM.  Just try to count the number of noobs that keep (mistakenly) pointing out that it takes just under 1 year to accelerate to the speed of light at 1g.

Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 09:45:33 AM

Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 09:38:16 AM

I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.

That's because what their high school teachers tell them is believable.

Sky mirrors are not believable. Weird huh?

Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

There are a lot of generally unbelievable things out there in modern physics.

As far as high school teachers, they are a great bunch, but sometimes they get it wrong like anyone else. That is why its important to sometimes critically examine what one has held to be true. This is especially important if the idea becomes so self evident to oneself that it is assumed without thought in any situation.

And why do you rather believe there's a sky mirror?

I don't think he believes that.  From what I've seen, ERTW is not an "FE'er"

The sky mirror was disproved based on that the properties it would have to have to explain some phenomena would lead to side effects which are not observed in reality.

The sky mirror was disproved based on that the properties it would have to have to explain some phenomena would lead to side effects which are not observed in reality.

I pointed out ways in which all of those observations could be produced by a sky mirror, and you chose not to accept them.

Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:06:53 AM

Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 09:45:33 AM

Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 09:38:16 AM

I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.

That's because what their high school teachers tell them is believable.

Sky mirrors are not believable. Weird huh?

Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

There are a lot of generally unbelievable things out there in modern physics.

As far as high school teachers, they are a great bunch, but sometimes they get it wrong like anyone else. That is why its important to sometimes critically examine what one has held to be true. This is especially important if the idea becomes so self evident to oneself that it is assumed without thought in any situation.

And why do you rather believe there's a sky mirror?

It doesn't matter what I believe (sorry Parsifal, I just had to). My statement was directly squarely at the assertion that a sky mirror could not exist because it is a "silly" idea. I agree that using only optical observations from the ground a sky mirror is equally likely an explanation, since many complicated and highly detailed measurements would be required to show otherwise, and these are likely beyond the average individual's capabilities. However many people have said that there are simple observations that disprove it, but I have yet to see a clear diagram as to how this is so.

It doesn't matter what I believe (sorry Parsifal, I just had to).

Should have said, "My beliefs are irrelevant on this forum."  =D

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36111.0

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 26, 2010, 07:22:15 PM

The sky mirror was disproved based on that the properties it would have to have to explain some phenomena would lead to side effects which are not observed in reality.

I pointed out ways in which all of those observations could be produced by a sky mirror, and you chose not to accept them.

This is, in a nutshell, a lie.

Picture of the shuttle in orbit = fake picture. 

And they jacked it up by using a fish eye type perspective...obvious fail.  Proves nothing.

Seriously, you believe that the Earth is flat and you've got the cheek to even utter the word "fail"?

FAIL...