Space

There are some situations where the "conspiracy" explanation is a legitimate response

Specifically, situation where all else fails. Shouting 'KONSPIRACY!!!!111' is not very convincing, so to say at least. This is mental equivalent to screaming 'La, la, la, I don't hear you' with hands on ears.

You lost.

Max, I still want to know who this convert was.

You should remember TheEngineer, you took part in the discussion.

It was user Graphix72.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

There are some situations where the "conspiracy" explanation is a legitimate response

You lost.

No, not really.

Suppose I said that my friend and I performed the same experiment Max Fagin did. We got on the NASA website, found a "satellite" that was supposed to be travelling over our town, and picked out a time to perform some basic measurements. Following the same methodology layed out in Max Fagin's post, we measured the angle above horizon of the "satellite", and we performed the same calculations.

But when we were done with our calculations, we discovered the height of the object was only 20 km.

How would you respond, MaDeR? Would it be a "1: Oh my, I have to accept satellites don't exist"; or would it be a "2: There has to be some other explanation..."; or would it be a "3: You're making it all up."

Which would it be? And why, when you chose 3, would it be any better than an FE doing the same?

You should remember TheEngineer, you took part in the discussion.

It was user Graphix72.

No offense, naturally, but I doubt very much that you "converted" anyone. There are very few "true believers" on this forum, and it is safe to say they would be no easier to convert than you would from your belief in RE.

No offense, naturally, but I doubt very much that you "converted" anyone. There are very few "true believers" on this forum, and it is safe to say they would be no easier to convert than you would from your belief in RE.

Maybe he was a true believer, maybe he wasn't.  It doesn't matter.

But one point your missing is that it is very easy to convert me from RE to FE.  All I need is experimentally derived evidence.

If you performed the experiment I described, and calculated that satellites were only 20 kms up, I would accept that as evidence to back up FE.

But before I completely change my belief system, I would ask two things:

1) Could I see your data?  This is the only way for me to confirm that the experiment was properly conducted, and that no serious errors were made.  Every major scientific experiment goes through this process; it's called peer review.

If I could find no errors in your experiment, I would then ask the second question.

2) Could you (Or me) repeat the experiment and get similar results?  Once a scientific hypothesis is proposed, it is subjected to rigorous experimentation by other scientists to confirm its authenticity.  If your experiment indicated that satellites orbited at 20 kms, and no error was found in your measurements, I would go outside on a clear night and perform my experiment again, to see which of us made a mistake.  That is what is so wonderful about scientific hypothesis.  They are universal, and they are testable.  Any scientist can perform an experiment and get similar results.

If both the above conditions are addressed and answered, I would abandon RE immediately.

I should also point out that you should hold me to these same standards.  If you like, I can provide you the raw data from my experiment, and allow you to confirm that there is no error.  And of course, I encourage you to perform this experiment on your own.

The scientific method is a wonderful tool, Unimportant.  Use it.

You should remember TheEngineer, you took part in the discussion.

It was user Graphix72.

I hate to break it to you Max, but he was just a troll.  Here is his first post:

What's outside the Earth, beyond the Wall of Ice?

What's underneat the Earth? Something has to hold it up, right?

What keeps the Sun, Moon, and stars up in the sky?

He never actually believed in the FE.  He just became a DA very quickly.  Sorry, but your convert record goes back to zero.

Whatever.  As I said in my last post, it doesn't really matter.  The thrill of debate is enough!

But when we were done with our calculations, we discovered the height of the object was only 20 km.

How would you respond, MaDeR?

Describe how, where and when, so I can repeat that experiment exactly. You know, this is called scientific method. Reapatable experiment within cotnrolled enviroment.

If I get 20 km value too, I will have SERIOUS problem.

So shouting Konspiracy!!!111 is big no no.

Figure it out, it's basic trigonometry.

Let me know what results you get.

Figure it out, it's basic trigonometry.
Let me know what results you get.

No, no, you give no details. Which satellite? Which time? How long distance between two persons? Etc.

Same as Max's, ask him.

While MaDeR is perhaps being a bit direct, he is completely correct, Unimportant.

We have done our work and provided our evidence.  It's your turn now.

I have performed this experiment before, and I will provide you with the specificities if you like.

The ball is in your court. You must perform experiments and gather data to support your position.

(Deleted)

Bump. . .

Unimportant, was I supposed to take that last post as a request for the detials of the experiment?

Heh, looks like Unimportant got pwned. :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:

Unimportant, you're missing the point. Max could be lying about the results of his test. He doesn't need to convince you he isn't. And at the same time, you could go out and perform the same test, and come back and say that you and your friend calculated measurements that supported the FE theory. There's no way for us to know whether you're telling the truth or not, but that's irrelevant.

The important thing is that you did the experiment. You could lie to us on here but know full well that the results of your experiment produced the same results as Max's. Or vice versa. Either way, both of you will know the truth.

So it's up to you. Do the experiment, don't do it, lie about it, whatever. That being said, the only reason left for you to try the experiment is for the sake of curiousity, to experiment for yourself. If you don't have the drive to find out for yourself, then don't bother.

It's not like any of us will know.

No pokey, I'm not missing the point. That is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

While MaDeR is perhaps being a bit direct, he is completely correct, Unimportant.

We have done our work and provided our evidence.  It's your turn now.

I have performed this experiment before, and I will provide you with the specificities if you like.

The ball is in your court. You must perform experiments and gather data to support your position.

Sure, give me the distances and measurements and all that jazz. Obviously I can't replicate your experiment unless I know the specifics.

Heh, looks like Unimportant got pwned. Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

Looks like Unimportant lost track of this topic because it got spammed off the front page.

I thought you said you understood that this was basic trig. If you don't know how to perform the experiment, you can just ask. Max will probably be able to explain it to you. If you trust that geometry is not a hoax, you should be able to understand.

I'm not Max and I didn't do the experiment, so I guess you'll have to wait till he comes back in.

Quote from: "MaDeR"

Quote from: "Unimportant"

There are some situations where the "conspiracy" explanation is a legitimate response

You lost.

No, not really.

Suppose I said that my friend and I performed the same experiment Max Fagin did. We got on the NASA website, found a "satellite" that was supposed to be travelling over our town, and picked out a time to perform some basic measurements. Following the same methodology layed out in Max Fagin's post, we measured the angle above horizon of the "satellite", and we performed the same calculations.

But when we were done with our calculations, we discovered the height of the object was only 20 km.

How would you respond, MaDeR? Would it be a "1: Oh my, I have to accept satellites don't exist"; or would it be a "2: There has to be some other explanation..."; or would it be a "3: You're making it all up."

Which would it be? And why, when you chose 3, would it be any better than an FE doing the same?

If you understood that the point of whether anyone is telling the truth is irrelevant, then what difference does it make that you think Max is lying, or that MaDeR said that you lost? You don't have to explain why you think he's lying, or why it wouldn't be any different if MaDeR didn't believe your results either, because there's no way to prove he or you are telling the truth. But you agreed to do the experiment, and I see no reason why two people who disagree on the validity of results wouldnt attempt the same experiment if they both believe in the underlying concepts of geometry.

So I was browsing the topics of old, and I found something I had missed the first time.

give me the distances and measurements and all that jazz. Obviously I can't replicate your experiment unless I know the specifics.

I just realized I never did that, Unimportant.  Sorry.  Here is the data if you still care.

Here it is:

This experiment was performed with two observers, N and S, 38.23 kms apart.  The distance was measured precisely with GoogleEarth, but has been approximately verified by a car odometer.

I occupied the N position, and my friend occupied the S position.

Angular measurements were made with an Orion 6-inch AstroView Reflector telescope with a skyview-pro equatorial mount, and a 4.4-millimeter aperture lens.

Telescope N was collimated with a LaserMate Laser Collimator, and polarly aligned with a Skyview Alignment scope ½ hour before observations.  The telescopes margin of error was 2 - 4 arc seconds (.03-.06 degrees) wide.  I don't remember the technical details of my friend's telescope, but we were using similar equipment.


Observations:

Angular altitude of ISS for observer N = 52.2 degrees
Angular altitude of ISS for observer S = 48.5 degrees

Satellite: International Space Station, which NASA claims is orbiting at 370 kilometers.

I will run through the math as well, if you like.

So, what happened?

I told you.  We calculated the altitude of the ISS that was reasonably close to the claimed altitude of 370 kms.

But don't take my word for it.  Check my math for yourself!  It's just simple Trig.