Gravity, UA, and why they can't get along.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 08:25:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 12, 2011, 08:11:08 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 07:55:57 PM

Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".

The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why.  However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can."  Maybe it's just me. 

I have no problem at all with your reading. I would just expect that you can't know something and not be able to explain why something is true. At least reference the smarter people who can explain, not just a "go research it" cop-out.

I don't know how the more advanced map projections work, but I did provide a link to Wolfram Research that did start to explain and provided references to anyone wishing to fully understand the science involved.

It's common knowledge that acid+base=water+salt, but before this year I couldn't have told you why.

1) No. Acid-base reactions often result in water and a salt, but not always as you claim. An counter-example would be CH₃COOH + NH₃ → NH⁺₄ + CH₃COO⁻.
and 2) Irrelevant. You made a claim that the unwinding of strings causes strings to multiply. When challenged to support your claim, with an explanation or reference, you dodged, rather than withdrawing your claim, with the lame "go research it".

Quote from: Tausami on December 13, 2011, 12:07:30 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 08:25:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 12, 2011, 08:11:08 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 07:55:57 PM

Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".

The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why.  However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can."  Maybe it's just me. 

I have no problem at all with your reading. I would just expect that you can't know something and not be able to explain why something is true. At least reference the smarter people who can explain, not just a "go research it" cop-out.

I don't know how the more advanced map projections work, but I did provide a link to Wolfram Research that did start to explain and provided references to anyone wishing to fully understand the science involved.

It's common knowledge that acid+base=water+salt, but before this year I couldn't have told you why.

1) No. Acid-base reactions often result in water and a salt, but not always as you claim. An counter-example would be CH₃COOH + NH₃ → NH⁺₄ + CH₃COO⁻.

Nice try, but acetic acid and ammonia make water and ammonium acetate. The equation would be:
CH₃COO^- + H₃0⁺ + NH₄⁺ + OH^- → NH₄CH₃COO + H₂0

...
Nice try, but acetic acid and ammonia make water and ammonium acetate. What you wrote was a dissociation equation, which assumes that water is formed.

I guess I should have provided you with a reference, given you flights of fantasy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction

"The reaction of ammonia, a base, with acetic acid in absence of water can be described to give ammonium cation, an acid, and acetate anion, a base ..."

Quote from: Tausami on December 13, 2011, 12:37:19 PM

...
Nice try, but acetic acid and ammonia make water and ammonium acetate. What you wrote was a dissociation equation, which assumes that water is formed.

I guess I should have provided you with a reference, given you flights of fantasy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction

"The reaction of ammonia, a base, with acetic acid in absence of water can be described to give ammonium cation, an acid, and acetate anion, a base ..."

So it would appear. The internet lied to me. I've really got to start thinking about things before Googling them. Ammonium is a Bronsted-Lowry base. I was discussing Arhenius bases, which should have been obvious because if we're including Bronsted-Lowry bases then we're also including Lewis bases, which are just about everything.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 12:43:09 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 13, 2011, 12:37:19 PM

...
Nice try, but acetic acid and ammonia make water and ammonium acetate. What you wrote was a dissociation equation, which assumes that water is formed.

I guess I should have provided you with a reference, given you flights of fantasy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction

"The reaction of ammonia, a base, with acetic acid in absence of water can be described to give ammonium cation, an acid, and acetate anion, a base ..."

So it would appear. The internet lied to me. I've really got to start thinking about things before Googling them. Ammonium is a Bronsted-Lowry base. I was discussing Arhenius bases, which should have been obvious because if we're including Bronsted-Lowry bases then we're also including Lewis bases, which are just about everything.

I hope that I'm not breaking any rules, but kudos on your honesty. You've shown that you've reached a goal I yet aspire to. Good job.

But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.

But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.

The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.

Quote from: momentia on December 13, 2011, 02:25:49 PM

But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.

The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.

So the mass of the earth is perfect to balance their multiplying?

Anyways, superstrings can't just divide and double their mass. Conservation of momentum still holds.

Quote from: momentia on December 13, 2011, 02:25:49 PM

But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.

The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.

Please tell how you reached yet another astounding conclusion unless of course you can't explain that too.

Quote from: Tausami on December 13, 2011, 02:28:00 PM

Quote from: momentia on December 13, 2011, 02:25:49 PM

But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.

The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.

Please tell how you reached yet another astounding conclusion unless of course you can't explain that too.

Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.

Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.

1) Nope. Modern instruments detect variation in the acceleration due to gravity. Reference from Thork: http://geophysics.esci.keele.ac.uk/Research/microgravity/gravity/
2) cum hoc fallacy.

Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.

change over time or location?

also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.

Quote from: Tausami on December 14, 2011, 01:41:19 PM

Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.

change over time or location?

also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.

Time. As I said before, the changes over location are due to limited gravitational pull.

Quote from: momentia on December 14, 2011, 05:36:26 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 14, 2011, 01:41:19 PM

Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.

change over time or location?

also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.

Time. As I said before, the changes over location are due to limited gravitational pull.

If your theory required two unknown forces, UA and gravity, then why not just go with the simpler theory with only gravity?

Quote from: Tausami on December 15, 2011, 01:18:02 PM

Quote from: momentia on December 14, 2011, 05:36:26 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 14, 2011, 01:41:19 PM

Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.

change over time or location?

also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.

Time. As I said before, the changes over location are due to limited gravitational pull.

If your theory required two unknown forces, UA and gravity, then why not just go with the simpler theory with only gravity?

Because that would result in a round Earth, and the Earth is flat.

Because that would result in a round Earth, and the Earth is flat.

I see your problem there... That's a great case for the logical fallacy called "Argument from Final Conclusion". Reference: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx.

Quote from: Tausami on December 15, 2011, 07:22:32 PM

Because that would result in a round Earth, and the Earth is flat.

I see your problem there... That's a great case for the logical fallacy called "Argument from Final Conclusion". Reference: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx.

Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion. Also, I find it odd that I'm being accused of logical fallacies instead of making the accusations.

Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.

Of course it is a final conclusion.  After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion.  That sounds pretty final to me.

Quote from: Tausami on December 15, 2011, 07:41:27 PM

Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.

Of course it is a final conclusion.  After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion.  That sounds pretty final to me.

If we considered it an impeachable conclusion why would we spend 150 years debating RE'ers about it?

It's not like astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc., debate what they believe in.

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2011, 08:03:32 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 15, 2011, 07:41:27 PM

Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.

Of course it is a final conclusion.  After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion.  That sounds pretty final to me.

If we considered it an impeachable conclusion why would we spend 150 years debating RE'ers about it?

It's not like astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc., debate what they believe in.

So you're giving up on the Zetetic Method?

"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

Oh and you already said that you know that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: easytoprove on February 10, 2008, 06:38:48 PM

pretty simple to rent a boat and sail around Antartica.  If you travel in an inward circle - earth is flat. If you can travel in an outward circle - earth is round!

simple!

Why should we bother doing any of that when we already know that the earth is flat?

The earth is flat, but commoners such as myself are simply too dull to know it. I blindly accept what is told to me by my government overlords who have god-like control over all of society.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2011, 08:59:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2011, 08:03:32 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 15, 2011, 07:41:27 PM

Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.

Of course it is a final conclusion.  After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion.  That sounds pretty final to me.

If we considered it an impeachable conclusion why would we spend 150 years debating RE'ers about it?

It's not like astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc., debate what they believe in.

So you're giving up on the Zetetic Method?

Quote from: Parallax, ENaG, p. 5

"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

Oh and you already said that you know that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2008, 04:37:29 PM

Quote from: easytoprove on February 10, 2008, 06:38:48 PM

pretty simple to rent a boat and sail around Antartica.  If you travel in an inward circle - earth is flat. If you can travel in an outward circle - earth is round!

simple!

Why should we bother doing any of that when we already know that the earth is flat?

We know that the earth is flat, but that knowledge isn't unimpeachable. Over the last 150 years we've constantly welcomed RE'ers to try and contradict that knowledge.

If RE'ers are not able to contradict it, then FET can be said to be "beyond the power of contradiction," and meet the burden Samuel Birley Rowbotham outlined.

There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. "Beyond the power of contradiction" and "absolute knowledge" are not one in the same. "Beyond the power of contradiction" simply means that our opponents are unable to contradict it and the subject matter must be considered truth until, perhaps, at some future date when FET can be contradicted.

We know that the earth is flat, but that knowledge isn't unimpeachable. Over the last 150 years we've constantly welcomed RE'ers to try andto contradict that knowledge.

If RE'ers are not able to contradict it, then FET can be said to be "beyond the power of contradiction," and meet the burden Samuel Birley Rowbotham outlined.

There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. "Beyond the power of contradiction" and "absolute knowledge" are not one in the same. "Beyond the power of contradition" simply means that our opponents are unable to contradict it.

Let's stop over at Webster's first:

to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

Well it seems that you've modified the definition, as you 'know' but are no longer certain of. So when an FEer says that he/she 'knows' something, I guess that means just that he/she are 'pretty sure' only.

Next, let's turn to Parallax:

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

Okay, then you indeed have left the Zetetic Method behind. I guess that it wasn't working out for you.

Finally, let's visit Parallax on whether he concluded the Earth flat:

If, to ascertain the true figure and condition of the earth, we adopt the "Zetetic" process, which truly is the only one sufficiently reliable, we shall find that instead of its being a globe--one of an infinite number of worlds moving on axes and in an orbit round the sun, it is the directly contrary--a Plane, without diurnal or progressive motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the firmament analogous to itself; or, in other words, that it is the only known material world.

Robotham concludes that the Earth is flat and published that conclusion in 1881. I have to wonder the reason you disagree with him now. Is the Zetetic Method faulty and was Robotham wrong?

You can draw a conclusion about something, or consider something true, without it being "absolute knowledge."

Rowbotham demonstrates and presents overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty, but the knowledge is not absolute.

If Rowbotham considered the knowledge absolute he wouldn't bother engaging in public debates. People who believe their knowledge is absolute don't debate with people (astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc).

Over the course of 30 years Rowbotham travels the isles of Britian, to debate with the greatest minds of the day at the biggest universities and institutions. RE'ers are given the chance to defend their model, but again and again, they are steamrolled in debate.

You can draw a conclusion about something, or consider something true, without it being "absolute knowledge."

Rowbotham demonstrates and presents overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty, but the knowledge is not absolute.

If Rowbotham considered the knowledge absolute he wouldn't bother debating with people.

Wow! 'Certainty' is not absolute. Please let Oxford know. They have been wrong for so long.

Certainty can be defined as either:
perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or
the mental state of being without doubt

Your last statement is a non sequitur. By your logic, an innocent defendant would not debate in court--ever.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2011, 11:59:41 PM

You can draw a conclusion about something, or consider something true, without it being "absolute knowledge."

Rowbotham demonstrates and presents overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty, but the knowledge is not absolute.

If Rowbotham considered the knowledge absolute he wouldn't bother debating with people.

Wow! 'Certainty' is not absolute. Please let Oxford know. They have been wrong for so long.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty

Certainty can be defined as either:
perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or
the mental state of being without doubt

Your last statement is a non sequitur. By your logic, an innocent defendant would not debate in court--ever.

No, "certainty" is never absolute.

"Certainty" is based on all available evidence. When someone is "certain" of something, it is based on past experience and an accumulation of all available evidence. Obviously there might be unavailable or unknown evidence which they did not have access to. Hence why "certain" is never truly absolute no matter the subject.

FET is true because --

- The evidence is cumulative
- The evidence is overwhelming
- The arguments supporting it are beyond the power of contradiction

Rowbotham steamrolls the best and the brightest of the biggest universities of Britian over a period of 30 years. RE'ers were unable to debate to any success or present a convincing case. Hence why Rowbotham calls the subject-matter beyond the power of contradiction.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 16, 2011, 12:06:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2011, 11:59:41 PM

You can draw a conclusion about something, or consider something true, without it being "absolute knowledge."

Rowbotham demonstrates and presents overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty, but the knowledge is not absolute.

If Rowbotham considered the knowledge absolute he wouldn't bother debating with people.

Wow! 'Certainty' is not absolute. Please let Oxford know. They have been wrong for so long.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty

Certainty can be defined as either:
perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or
the mental state of being without doubt

Your last statement is a non sequitur. By your logic, an innocent defendant would not debate in court--ever.

No, "certainty" is never absolute.

"Certainty" is based on all available evidence. When someone is "certain" of something, it is based on past experience and an accumulation of all available evidence. Obviously there might be unavailable evidence which they did not have access to. Hence why "certain" is never truly absolute.

FET is true because --

- The evidence is cumulative
- The evidence is overwhelming
- The arguments supporting it are ]beyond the power of contradiction

Thus far RE'ers have not been able to present a convincing case for their beliefs. As illustrated in the above link they have trouble defending the things they know to be true.

Link broken...

Please provide references for your claims. Where in Robotham's works is it ever stated that the conclusion that the Earth is flat should or could be modified?

Quote from: ClockTower on December 15, 2011, 09:20:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2011, 08:59:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2011, 08:03:32 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 15, 2011, 07:41:27 PM

Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.

Of course it is a final conclusion.  After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion.  That sounds pretty final to me.

If we considered it an impeachable conclusion why would we spend 150 years debating RE'ers about it?

It's not like astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc., debate what they believe in.

So you're giving up on the Zetetic Method?

Quote from: Parallax, ENaG, p. 5

"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

Oh and you already said that you know that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2008, 04:37:29 PM

Quote from: easytoprove on February 10, 2008, 06:38:48 PM

pretty simple to rent a boat and sail around Antartica.  If you travel in an inward circle - earth is flat. If you can travel in an outward circle - earth is round!

simple!

Why should we bother doing any of that when we already know that the earth is flat?

We know that the earth is flat, but that knowledge isn't unimpeachable. Over the last 150 years we've constantly welcomed RE'ers to try and contradict that knowledge.

If RE'ers are not able to contradict it, then FET can be said to be "beyond the power of contradiction," and meet the burden Samuel Birley Rowbotham outlined.

There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. "Beyond the power of contradiction" and "absolute knowledge" are not one in the same. "Beyond the power of contradiction" simply means that our opponents are unable to contradict it and the subject matter must be considered truth until, perhaps, at some future date when FET can be contradicted.

We've found lots of evidence that contradicts the notion that the Earth is flat, however every time you see something that doesn't support your world view you pull a conspiracy out of thin air.

Please provide references for your claims. Where in Robotham's works is it ever stated that the conclusion that the Earth is flat should or could be modified?

Where did he state that it couldn't?

Obviously if he is debating the subject in the open and giving people the chance to challenge it in public debates he is open to the idea that he might be wrong. Otherwise he would just give sermons like scientologists and priests.

We've found lots of evidence that contradicts the notion that the Earth is flat, however every time the you see something that doesn't support your world view you pull a conspiracy out of thin air.

It's not out of thin air. There is plenty of evidence that the space agencies are faking things.

Quote

Please provide references for your claims. Where in Robotham's works is it ever stated that the conclusion that the Earth is flat should or could be modified?

Where did he state that it couldn't?

Obviously if he is debating the subject in the open and giving people the chance to challenge it in public debates he is open to the idea that he might be wrong. Otherwise he would just give sermons like scientologists and priests.

Quote

We've found lots of evidence that contradicts the notion that the Earth is flat, however every time the you see something that doesn't support your world view you pull a conspiracy out of thin air.

It's not out of thin air. There is plenty of evidence that the space agencies are faking things.

And likewise, there is plenty of evidence that space agencies are doing exactly what they say they're doing.

When you have to imagine a conspiracy that spans centuries, secretly controls the entire word, and whose primary goal is to mess with people for the lolz, I think your reasoning has gotten lost along the way.