The majority of FET is not zetetic

  • 229 Replies
  • 25678 Views
?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #210 on: June 28, 2011, 09:29:04 PM »
Because Lord Wilmore thinks that if you can't feel you're being pulled, then a force isn't being applied to you.

I haven't decided whether I should give him a crash course in Physics101 just yet or not.


I did not say or imply any such thing. Perhaps what's in order is not a crash course in Physics101 for me, but rather a crash course in reading comprehension for you.
Of course you didn't imply it since you don't know that you're wrong. And no, it's definitely the crash course for you.

When we're in a car and it starts to accelerate, we feel our backs pushing into the seat. In fact, we can feel our whole body (even our eyes) pushing back. This is because the contact force is acting on our backs and this create a series of Newton pairs (seat pushes one way, back pushes other way - eye sockets push one way, eyes push other way).

This is the scenario you're thinking of and your claim is that since we don't feel such an effect, then gravity cannot be real. This is wrong.

Gravity doesn't behave in the same manner. It doesn't act like a propulsion system attached to our feet or head or whichever other body part you wish. It acts everywhere. Our entire body - every last atom - is accelerated at the same rate, so there is no strain on any parts of our body as we fall, thus, we don't feel anything. If we were very tall with respect to the Earth's size however, then our feet would feel a larger acceleration than our head (since our head is so much further from the centre of the Earth) and in this case, our body would feel like it's stretching apart slightly.

If you want an example of this phenomenon, consider a magnet being succumb to a strong magnetic field. If the magnet is broken into 2 pieces and then stuck together with some low-grade glue, the pieces won't tear apart if the magnet is accelerated in a controlled manner. Now if we were to replace one of the pieces of the magnet with something that isn't magnetic, then both pieces will tear apart because only the magnet will be accelerated while the other won't be, so there will exist a Newton pair between them that has a non-zero force.

/crash course physics101
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 09:30:50 PM by Puttah »
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #211 on: July 08, 2011, 01:56:09 PM »
Because Lord Wilmore thinks that if you can't feel you're being pulled, then a force isn't being applied to you.

I haven't decided whether I should give him a crash course in Physics101 just yet or not.


I did not say or imply any such thing. Perhaps what's in order is not a crash course in Physics101 for me, but rather a crash course in reading comprehension for you.
Of course you didn't imply it since you don't know that you're wrong. And no, it's definitely the crash course for you.

When we're in a car and it starts to accelerate, we feel our backs pushing into the seat. In fact, we can feel our whole body (even our eyes) pushing back. This is because the contact force is acting on our backs and this create a series of Newton pairs (seat pushes one way, back pushes other way - eye sockets push one way, eyes push other way).

This is the scenario you're thinking of and your claim is that since we don't feel such an effect, then gravity cannot be real. This is wrong.

Gravity doesn't behave in the same manner. It doesn't act like a propulsion system attached to our feet or head or whichever other body part you wish. It acts everywhere. Our entire body - every last atom - is accelerated at the same rate, so there is no strain on any parts of our body as we fall, thus, we don't feel anything. If we were very tall with respect to the Earth's size however, then our feet would feel a larger acceleration than our head (since our head is so much further from the centre of the Earth) and in this case, our body would feel like it's stretching apart slightly.

If you want an example of this phenomenon, consider a magnet being succumb to a strong magnetic field. If the magnet is broken into 2 pieces and then stuck together with some low-grade glue, the pieces won't tear apart if the magnet is accelerated in a controlled manner. Now if we were to replace one of the pieces of the magnet with something that isn't magnetic, then both pieces will tear apart because only the magnet will be accelerated while the other won't be, so there will exist a Newton pair between them that has a non-zero force.

/crash course physics101
Here ya go: have a read
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #212 on: July 09, 2011, 09:00:35 PM »
Gravity doesn't behave in the same manner. It doesn't act like a propulsion system attached to our feet or head or whichever other body part you wish. It acts everywhere.
Here ya go: have a read
My guess is that you're being pedantic over "everywhere".

Why even bother bumping this thread for something so silly?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #213 on: July 09, 2011, 09:18:58 PM »
Gravity doesn't behave in the same manner. It doesn't act like a propulsion system attached to our feet or head or whichever other body part you wish. It acts everywhere.
Here ya go: have a read
My guess is that you're being pedantic over "everywhere".

Why even bother bumping this thread for something so silly?
Incorrect.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding (or lack of understanding) of the linked text.  I bumped it for your benefit.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #214 on: July 09, 2011, 10:58:47 PM »
Incorrect.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding (or lack of understanding) of the linked text.  I bumped it for your benefit.
Then would you care to elaborate on what I said that isn't correct?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #215 on: July 09, 2011, 11:22:28 PM »
Apologies, my mistake.  I must have gotten confused over which poster I was reading earlier in the thread or something.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #216 on: July 10, 2011, 12:10:32 AM »
No worries.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #217 on: August 01, 2011, 11:39:03 AM »
The Universal Accelerator is Zetetic.

When I get up on a chair and walk off the edge I can see that the earth rises up towards me. I can directly observe that the earth is moving upwards. This is an empirical observation.

I cannot see graviton particles or bendy space. There is no direct empirical evidence that sub-atomic particles are pulling me towards the surface of thee earth or that the fabric of space is bending. Hence, there is no reason to support those ideas over one which is directly observable.

By virtue of my many years of education and research in the Zetetic texts, I am qualified to say what is and is not valid evidence, and what is and is not a trustworthy source.

Someone posting on this forum during the course of debate claiming that they saw something to win that debate is not a valid form of evidence.

On the other hand, an impartial researcher on a third-party website saying that they saw something is a valid form of evidence.

Show us the logs of an impartial researcher and it will be a valid form of evidence.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #218 on: August 01, 2011, 12:02:41 PM »
The force holding objects to the earth is not uniform but varies in different places.

[/UA]
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #219 on: August 01, 2011, 01:54:33 PM »
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

Incorrect, you notice the distance between you and the floor decreasing, the rest is all speculation
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

?

Thork

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #220 on: August 01, 2011, 02:06:54 PM »
The force holding objects to the earth is not uniform but varies in different places.

[/UA]
No, we have had many threads proving this to be a baseless RE claim. NASA can make as many 'gravity' maps as they like. It is not what happens on earth.
[/gravity]

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #221 on: August 01, 2011, 02:13:08 PM »
The force holding objects to the earth is not uniform but varies in different places.

[/UA]
No, we have had many threads proving this to be a baseless RE claim. NASA can make as many 'gravity' maps as they like. It is not what happens on earth.
[/gravity]

Not all gravity measurements are made by Nasa, you know. A friend of mine did some several years ago in Chile with Raleigh International using ground based equipment. If you say it's a baseless claim then you're doing little more than refusing to accept good evidence.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39310
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #222 on: August 01, 2011, 02:42:03 PM »
The force holding objects to the earth is not uniform but varies in different places.

[/UA]
No, we have had many threads proving this to be a baseless RE claim. NASA can make as many 'gravity' maps as they like. It is not what happens on earth.
[/gravity]

Tell that to the oil exploration industry:
http://hendrikengineering.blogspot.com/2006_06_25_archive.html
Quote
Gravity Survey

Gravity surveys are performed to examine bedrock topography under the Earth’s surface, map large metallic mineral deposits, and locate subsurface caverns and also contacts between geologic units of differing mass and density.  It is a fairly complicated system but it is based on the premise that a target, oil reserve in this case, has a different density from the surrounding geology.  Computer models are once again generated to depict the general area where such gravity changes occur. Once the gravity survey indicates an area where there is density differences it is time to perform a seismic survey.
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.

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #223 on: August 01, 2011, 04:19:19 PM »
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.


Incorrect, you notice the distance between you and the floor decreasing, the rest is all speculation


I believe my statement deserves comment from the RE community.  I believe I have proven that your beliefs are based on non zetetic assumption
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #224 on: August 02, 2011, 01:04:31 AM »
Been there, done that. TB was going through an ignorance period again.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #225 on: August 04, 2011, 01:05:47 PM »
Updated the OP to include a couple more non-zetetic claims made by Bishop.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #226 on: August 04, 2011, 04:24:07 PM »
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

a positive charged object and negatively charged object attract each other. If you put the negatively charged object in a huge wooden sphere, and put a small positively charged object on the surface, the positively charged object is pulled to the sphere by an invisible force, though it looks to him like the sphere is rising to meet him. Just because you can't see gravity doesn't mean you can't have it.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #227 on: August 04, 2011, 04:42:00 PM »
That is one of the flaws with zeteticism, you cannot consider the possibility that anything may be beyond your ability to sense, and must invent a flawed incomplete mechanism to explain everything.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #228 on: August 04, 2011, 06:53:07 PM »
That is one of the flaws with zeteticism, you cannot consider the possibility that anything may be beyond your ability to sense, and must invent a flawed incomplete mechanism to explain everything.

Oh, I wouldn't go quite that far.  Zeteticism is great when dealing with things that fall neatly within the realm of our everyday experience, or behave according to mechanisms that are entirely observable.

The problem is, there are a lot of things in the universe that are beyond our capability to observe and which are also useful to us.  Unless you subscribe to the view that the universe was created specifically for human beings to inhabit (not an uncommon view, I think), then you must accept that we exist "accidentally."  That is to say, that the universe will continue to exist independent of humans when we become extinct and it existed before humans did.

From an evolutionary standpoint, our capability to observe certain phenomena in the world around us is entirely based on what physical things happen around us at a high enough frequency to be useful.  For example, although we are constantly bombarded by waves from most of the electromagnetic spectrum, we are only able to directly observe a very small range of this spectrum -- that of visible light.  That is largely because the Sun's emissions tend to peak in or near that range, and because this range of waves is more likely to reflect off of matter that is common in our environment.

So as a pure zeteticist, one is stuck explaining a fairly limited range of phenomena.  It is certainly possible to come up with pretty good, workable explanations in the realm which zetetics can operate, but there are definitely things that are far beyond a strictly observational capacity to explain.  Things which science has had great success in understanding, predicting and manipulating, but also things which are roundly rejected by the zetetic community because they rely on conclusions drawn from inductive evidence and data.

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #229 on: August 04, 2011, 08:22:39 PM »
I believe that Zeteticism is a very poor concept, and does not contribute to the advancement of anything except individual ego's.  The whole concept is dependant on believing that there are no experts, and you can individually determine the merits of other peoples research and professions without first undertaking an equal investment of education and experience.

If the whole world was zetetic, we would all live on farms, and each of us would be inventing our own language.  You would not be learning anything from anyone without first learning it on your own.
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you