Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet

  • 42 Replies
  • 5294 Views
Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« on: May 21, 2013, 11:04:05 AM »
I think the bottom/underside (the side we don't see) of Earth is made of metal.  I read this on another FES thread:  "The magnetic south pole is near the geographic North pole, while the magnetic North pole is on the underside of the Earth.  The ice wall is not the South pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the Earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the Aurora Australis." We don't know whether the shape of the Earth is circular, triangular, square or rectangular, etc, but it's clear to (some of) us that it's NOT a sphere and the surface we live on is flat.

There is no doubt in my mind that the universe is electric and magnetic. The following video shows how the tides are caused by the moon's "push" instead of pull. They use a RE model but imagine how that would work on a FE.  This suggests to me that the moon and Earth (and possibly the sun) work like magnets.  We've all seen those videos of two magnets that can only get so close to each other without touching, even with force applied. This might also explain why the moon is locked with Earth. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

These 2 videos show how liquid nitrogen (the ice wall) makes the crystal disc super conductive:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 11:07:19 AM by EarthIsASpaceship »

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2013, 08:42:15 AM »
I would love a theory like this to be supported by anyone with any credentials of any kind, whatsoever. Oh well.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5447
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2013, 08:46:31 AM »
That shows the distant magnetic force can travel,  but didn't you see what happened to the balanced magnet when the first moved closer?   The closer to the magnet the stronger the force.  Iron would not exist on Earth or it would be so heavy that it'd be near impossible to move
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2013, 08:59:31 AM »
That shows the distant magnetic force can travel,  but didn't you see what happened to the balanced magnet when the first moved closer?   The closer to the magnet the stronger the force.  Iron would not exist on Earth or it would be so heavy that it'd be near impossible to move
The earth does not move on a FE model (most of them).


*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5447
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2013, 09:11:09 AM »
That shows the distant magnetic force can travel,  but didn't you see what happened to the balanced magnet when the first moved closer?   The closer to the magnet the stronger the force.  Iron would not exist on Earth or it would be so heavy that it'd be near impossible to move
The earth does not move on a FE model (most of them).

Okay?  What's your point?   I didn't mention anything about the Earth moving.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2013, 12:39:31 PM »
I would love a theory like this to be supported by anyone with any credentials of any kind, whatsoever. Oh well.
Your idea of "credentials" is a degree in studying falsehood. It's like asking an atheist to produce a diploma for his doctorate in divinity.

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2013, 09:23:56 PM »
I would love a theory like this to be supported by anyone with any credentials of any kind, whatsoever. Oh well.
Your idea of "credentials" is a degree in studying falsehood. It's like asking an atheist to produce a diploma for his doctorate in divinity.

Hm. Cute use of the word "falsehood".

It is like asking a child to show the remains of the homework that the dog ate, rather than taking his word for it. FE and RE people can say whatever the heck they want to. As long as there is no evidence for it, it is useless (for our purposes).

One of the few experiments that FE has accomplished, I respect. The bedford level. This has at least some useful data in it, which presents a few errors in RE. There have been several reasons why RE people believe it is not conclusive, but another thread for that.

In RE, physicists can say whatever the heck they want to about string theory, big bang (not denying it, but the "dark energy" part baffles me), dark energy, antimatter,.....that is all cool and fine. But without evidence for any of those things (except big bang), they are useless to us. We can't test them.

All I want is for anyone, RE or FE, to actually explore these theories, rather than mere assumptions.






Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2013, 11:36:24 PM »
I would love a theory like this to be supported by anyone with any credentials of any kind, whatsoever. Oh well.
Your idea of "credentials" is a degree in studying falsehood. It's like asking an atheist to produce a diploma for his doctorate in divinity.

Hm. Cute use of the word "falsehood".

It is like asking a child to show the remains of the homework that the dog ate, rather than taking his word for it. FE and RE people can say whatever the heck they want to. As long as there is no evidence for it, it is useless (for our purposes).

One of the few experiments that FE has accomplished, I respect. The bedford level. This has at least some useful data in it, which presents a few errors in RE. There have been several reasons why RE people believe it is not conclusive, but another thread for that.

In RE, physicists can say whatever the heck they want to about string theory, big bang (not denying it, but the "dark energy" part baffles me), dark energy, antimatter,.....that is all cool and fine. But without evidence for any of those things (except big bang), they are useless to us. We can't test them.

All I want is for anyone, RE or FE, to actually explore these theories, rather than mere assumptions.

String theory is the only one on that list without real-world evidence. But it's not just some hokum coming from nowhere, it is based on mathematical reasoning, and on principles and observations that have already been tested and approved. String theory itself cannot be properly tested yet, because it isn't even complete, and coming up with an experiment to prove something like this isn't easy in the first place... also, such experiments, even if we do come up with them, may be outside our current physical capabilities as the human race.

The others on your list are confirmed on real evidence. The idea for dark energy, in fact, comes entirely from the observation about how the universe is expanding. Dark energy is, in fact, just observational, there isn't even a theory behind it.

And antimatter... well, even I have created and detected the presence of antimatter in a lab, it isn't even a big deal. Antimatter is incredibly common, in fact, there should be a few particles of antimatter in this very moment inside you - of course, they don't last long, but others are created.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2013, 03:46:04 AM »
It is all fine and dandy claiming the planets work like magnets and using that to explain why the moon is locked in an orbit around the earth, but this goes against all already established ideas into the planetary bodies? The models in place right now are perfectly adequate enough to explain the rotations of the planets. You stick a few numbers into the equations and it pops out answers that are completely verifiable, this is with a view that gravity governs the motion of planets.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

And at this current moment in time, the old model works perfectly well, why is there a need to insert this pseudoscientific magnetism idea? You have essentially encumbered yourself with the task of mashing together already known physics (or inventing some of your own) to come up with a model that works just as well as the model we have now.

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2013, 04:31:55 AM »
There's no magic involved, Newton's works (for which he invented calculus, mind you) alone explain the model perfectly, nothing extra required.

Granted, there has been a lot of further study and loads of great accomplishments in the field, all of which are more precise, more correct, and implemented much better, but Newton's laws are good enough by themselves to make the model work.

The fact that you believe some unexplained magic has to take place somewhere, just shows you don't understand it. Everything seems "magical" until you understand how it works.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 04:36:07 AM by icanbeanything »

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2013, 04:45:17 AM »
Something noteworthy about this "fake" model with "fabricated" equations that don't work, and isn't reality...

This is the legendary Feynman talking, among other things, about the discovery of Neptune:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Richard Feynman on Discovery of Neptune, from Lecture on Gravitation

So, anyone care to tell me how it's possible that those "fabricated" equations of Newton, that "aren't real", were able to point out where a completely new, never-before-seen planet should be, and that when you actually looked at that point on the sky, the planet was actually there? This alone completely binds those equations to reality.

EDIT in before NASA conspiracy:

Neptune was discovered in 1846
NASA was formed in 1958
Hell, even Feynman's lecture above happens years before NASA existed.

It wasn't NASA that came up with the structure of the solar system...
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 05:03:08 AM by icanbeanything »

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2013, 05:03:31 AM »
It is all fine and dandy claiming the planets work like magnets and using that to explain why the moon is locked in an orbit around the earth, but this goes against all already established ideas into the planetary bodies? The models in place right now are perfectly adequate enough to explain the rotations of the planets. You stick a few numbers into the equations and it pops out answers that are completely verifiable, this is with a view that gravity governs the motion of planets.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

And at this current moment in time, the old model works perfectly well, why is there a need to insert this pseudoscientific magnetism idea? You have essentially encumbered yourself with the task of mashing together already known physics (or inventing some of your own) to come up with a model that works just as well as the model we have now.
The model you have now doesn't work, unless you go along with the magic that appears to make it work.
You mention equations all fitting and what not but the equations are only fitting a fabricated model, so they're bound to fit aren't they.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this "fabricated model" business. What do you mean by fabricated model? Kepler's third law for example, "The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.", is an example of our current "model". Kepler worked hard, noting the positions of planets in the sky over many many years and then used his results to derive that equation.

Of course the equations work because they are based around observations. You must be insinuating the observations are wrong? That in fact, planets do not orbit in elliptical paths around the sun, there are not 8 planets in the solar system etc?

To use your magnetism ideas and make them work, you are going to have to make the exact same observations as many astronomers have done over the hundreds of years and then derive your magnetism formulae from the same information that has already been collected. Unless of course you believe that all the observations over the past hundreds of years to do with planetary bodies have once again been fabricated for nefarious purposes.

Wouldn't surprise me if you did.

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2013, 05:22:44 AM »
Something noteworthy about this "fake" model with "fabricated" equations that don't work, and isn't reality...

This is the legendary Feynman talking, among other things, about the discovery of Neptune:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Richard Feynman on Discovery of Neptune, from Lecture on Gravitation

So, anyone care to tell me how it's possible that those "fabricated" equations of Newton, that "aren't real", were able to point out where a completely new, never-before-seen planet should be, and that when you actually looked at that point on the sky, the planet was actually there? This alone completely binds those equations to reality.

EDIT in before NASA conspiracy:

Neptune was discovered in 1846
NASA was formed in 1958
Hell, even Feynman's lecture above happens years before NASA existed.

It wasn't NASA that came up with the structure of the solar system...
What does any of what he says prove anything?

Oh, well. I guess I'm not surprised you didn't get the message, even though I wrote it clearly down in my post.

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2013, 05:29:58 AM »
I go on about this, as do others, time and time again and this is only one conclusive proof to me but a massive one that proves earth is not a rotating globe.


Yeah, but sadly it takes a few notions about inertia and fluid dynamics (especially laminar flow, look it up) to understand why there's no problem with the air rotating along with the rest of the Earth.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2013, 05:40:35 AM »
Scepti, you seem like you are in this position where if somebody doesn't subscribe to consensus view of the planet, gravity, it's atmosphere, they are definitely a credible source of information and their insight should be trusted.

If I was to link you a video of a well renowned physicist explaining why the atmosphere can move with the earth (think about it, if it just escaped into space, where would it end up again?  ans. earth), and why the earth cannot be attracted to the sun through magnetic means you would completely dismiss it, even though the physicist may have a much more in depth knowledge of physics and be much smarter than the guy you just linked.

It seems to me if you have a small, secondary school, knowledge of physics and science and you come the conclusion the earth cannot be rotating then you must be onto something. But physicists who have gone through university, post-graduate studies and they thoroughly understand the physical literature come to the opposite conclusion, they have simply been indoctrinated.

I did however, watched a few minutes here and there of the video and the guy is an utter moron. "Example A of the earth rotating, i'm going to refute this example by saying it couldn't possibly work and it doesn't obey the laws of physics". Like he cares about the laws of physics...

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2013, 05:47:08 AM »
I go on about this, as do others, time and time again and this is only one conclusive proof to me but a massive one that proves earth is not a rotating globe.


Yeah, but sadly it takes a few notions about inertia and fluid dynamics (especially laminar flow, look it up) to understand why there's no problem with the air rotating along with the rest of the Earth.
Sadly, it's a shame that intelligent people like you hang on to stuff like that and equate them to earth solid to air rotation in unison.

Believe me, I don't hang on to them without reason. The moment I figure out something is wrong, I instantly put that something aside. I've done this countless times; in fact, it's one of the "symptoms" of personal intellectual development.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2013, 05:49:30 AM »
The scientific consensus is much more convincing than any grandiose, delusional crack-pot.


?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2013, 06:30:00 AM »
The scientific consensus is much more convincing than any grandiose, delusional crack-pot.
There you go again. A free thinker is a crackpot, because they don't share the scientific consensus.
The words to describe a person who thinks alternatively, like crackpot, tin foil hat and the many other names, are just as ingrained into your psyche as are the reasons for what you believe earths shape to be.

He is a crackpot because he is formulating a grand alternative explanation to something that is already thoroughly agreed upon amongst academics who actually have an understanding of physics. He is a crackpot because he believes he is so unbelievably smart, so smart, that in fact no scientist on the face on this planet, over hundreds of countries, no scientist has discovered the truth, but he has.

If he was really onto something he should create a paper and send it to the peer review for it to be reviewed by academics, or at the minimum post it online. He isn't going to do something every scientist has to do to establish their ideas because he is a crank. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and that is it.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2013, 06:35:12 AM »
It doesn't matter who you are, whether you are a renowned scientist or a guy on the internet who comes up with alternative theories in his spare time, if you don't provide substantial evidence to back up your claims nobody is going to believe what you say.

The majority of theories are wrong, you never hear about them because they are wrong! And they never made it past the peer review process! The theories that do make it past the peer review process and are agreed upon by a large body of scientists are the theories you come across every time you what to know the explanation for something. There isn't some secretive elitist group of scientists who decides what theories are going to be chosen and what are going to be thrown away.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2013, 07:00:17 AM »
The scientific consensus is much more convincing than any grandiose, delusional crack-pot.
There you go again. A free thinker is a crackpot, because they don't share the scientific consensus.
The words to describe a person who thinks alternatively, like crackpot, tin foil hat and the many other names, are just as ingrained into your psyche as are the reasons for what you believe earths shape to be.

He is a crackpot because he is formulating a grand alternative explanation to something that is already thoroughly agreed upon amongst academics who actually have an understanding of physics. He is a crackpot because he believes he is so unbelievably smart, so smart, that in fact no scientist on the face on this planet, over hundreds of countries, no scientist has discovered the truth, but he has.

If he was really onto something he should create a paper and send it to the peer review for it to be reviewed by academics, or at the minimum post it online. He isn't going to do something every scientist has to do to establish their ideas because he is a crank. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and that is it.
No scientist on the face of this planet? This isn't a planet but anyway.
You are basically saying that all scientists on this earth believe everything that's told about this earth in it's rotation etc?
Can you tell me how many air miles you clocked up visiting all of the scientists on this earth that got you to this conclusion?
Or have you just said this, simply because you know you are in the majority of thinkers of this fallacy?
How many meeting have you been to, where all the scientists get together to peer review all this stuff?

Or.
Have you read all this in books and relied on what you were told?
I'm just curious, that's all.

I was being dramatic, there are bound to be scientists who believe the earth is flat and not rotating just like there are biologists or do not accept evolution. Those biologists may be "free thinkers", they may not "buy into the mainstream", but they are essentially wrong. They are wrong because what every biologist, virologist, palaeontologist requires to be true to do research, they cannot make it compatible with their religious beliefs about genesis in the bible, simple as.

Scientists don't "get together" in big groups to peer review each other's work, there are conference in many disciplines of science that are held each year that allow scientists to show off their new ideas/discoveries, but they still have to go through peer review. Peer review isn't a magical dimension that doesn't exist, they are journals and websites:

Medicine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Atmospheric science: http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/review/
Very big science journal: http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
Theoretical physics journal: http://iopscience.iop.org/1751-8121

These are a few examples of hundreds you can find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals

I ask you to go to the wikipedia page and slowly go down all these journals. In neuroscience alone there are 9 journals universities and research centres can publish their results! 9 journals for physics, 12 or so for engineering... the list goes on.

You PUBLISH YOUR DATA THERE and then researchers go over it and see if it holds up, if it doesn't, like the majority of theories (as I was told by a mathematics professor at cambridge when I went on a visit day), then it is tossed away never to be seen again or they go back and work on it.

THIS is how humanity progresses, this is how we have computers, life saving medical equipment etc. Not buy these "free thinkers" on the internet who feel so powerful poking invisible holes in well established ideas.


?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2013, 07:44:40 AM »

Should really watch this:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Feynman on Scientific Method.

If you don't want to watch all 9 minutes, watch from around 6:50 onwards. He expresses perfectly how all (MOST) scientists feel about these alternative theories. Very worth watching, hilarious man.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2013, 08:03:28 AM »
Feynman appears like a salaried puppet. If you can't tell the truth, feyn it man.

You didn't watch the video did you...

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2013, 09:22:43 AM »
Feynman appears like a salaried puppet. If you can't tell the truth, feyn it man.

You didn't watch the video did you...
I watched from 6.50 onwards like you said.
My answer stands. He is no more than a paid puppet, just like many others like him.
All those in the audience will become indoctrinated and some will go on to teach the same stuff to other willing students.
You don't think people idolise and scream at pop groups because their music is meaningful do you. They do it because those groups get the limelight and those that don't, fade into obscurity.
It's called mind conditioning, or brainwashing.

A paid puppet to push what agenda? The scientific method and quantum electrodynamics?

Please scepti.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2013, 09:43:43 AM »
Feynman appears like a salaried puppet. If you can't tell the truth, feyn it man.

You didn't watch the video did you...
I watched from 6.50 onwards like you said.
My answer stands. He is no more than a paid puppet, just like many others like him.
All those in the audience will become indoctrinated and some will go on to teach the same stuff to other willing students.
You don't think people idolise and scream at pop groups because their music is meaningful do you. They do it because those groups get the limelight and those that don't, fade into obscurity.
It's called mind conditioning, or brainwashing.

A paid puppet to push what agenda? The scientific method and quantum electrodynamics?

Please scepti.
Companies employ salesmen to further their agenda. What's different?

Companies employ salesmen to further their sales, companies give money to politicians to further their political agendas, why is a company giving money to a theoretical physicists? To further what agenda? You can't just say "they are a shill" every time you come across somebody making a valid point...

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11801
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2013, 10:32:39 AM »
It is all fine and dandy claiming the planets work like magnets and using that to explain why the moon is locked in an orbit around the earth, but this goes against all already established ideas into the planetary bodies? The models in place right now are perfectly adequate enough to explain the rotations of the planets. You stick a few numbers into the equations and it pops out answers that are completely verifiable, this is with a view that gravity governs the motion of planets.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

And at this current moment in time, the old model works perfectly well, why is there a need to insert this pseudoscientific magnetism idea? You have essentially encumbered yourself with the task of mashing together already known physics (or inventing some of your own) to come up with a model that works just as well as the model we have now.
The model you have now doesn't work, unless you go along with the magic that appears to make it work.
You mention equations all fitting and what not but the equations are only fitting a fabricated model, so they're bound to fit aren't they.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this "fabricated model" business. What do you mean by fabricated model? Kepler's third law for example, "The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.", is an example of our current "model". Kepler worked hard, noting the positions of planets in the sky over many many years and then used his results to derive that equation.

Of course the equations work because they are based around observations. You must be insinuating the observations are wrong? That in fact, planets do not orbit in elliptical paths around the sun, there are not 8 planets in the solar system etc?

To use your magnetism ideas and make them work, you are going to have to make the exact same observations as many astronomers have done over the hundreds of years and then derive your magnetism formulae from the same information that has already been collected. Unless of course you believe that all the observations over the past hundreds of years to do with planetary bodies have once again been fabricated for nefarious purposes.

Wouldn't surprise me if you did.
The rotating globe model and much about what we are told about the universe is fabricated. It's just tweaked over time to fabricate more clap trap as time goes on and as more amateurs start to notice discrepancies and they will again or have and are.
It's a case of, who will listen and who would print their findings.
You do not live on a rotating globe, I can state that with 100% certainty simply by using logic but I'm probably never going to prove it.

I go on about this, as do others, time and time again and this is only one conclusive proof to me but a massive one that proves earth is not a rotating globe.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Does the atmosphere spin with the earth ?
This video was interesting. It's a shame people dismiss it so quickly.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2013, 06:39:03 PM »
Feynman appears like a salaried puppet. If you can't tell the truth, feyn it man.

You didn't watch the video did you...
I watched from 6.50 onwards like you said.
My answer stands. He is no more than a paid puppet, just like many others like him.
All those in the audience will become indoctrinated and some will go on to teach the same stuff to other willing students.
You don't think people idolise and scream at pop groups because their music is meaningful do you. They do it because those groups get the limelight and those that don't, fade into obscurity.
It's called mind conditioning, or brainwashing.

I agree! The first thing I noticed about that Feynman video is he seemed to be entertaining the audience like a comedian would.

Is it bad to skew in a few quirky remarks as jokes? It's just a thing of Feynman. He was always about the popularization of his work, meaning he was very good at explaining scientific stuff to the average joe.

I believe it's your first "meeting" with the guy, but I seriously can't endorse calling Feynman a brainwashed, conditioned, fake individual. He was one of the brightest minds ever. Not only was his research significant, he was a very lifelike individual, very sociable, and very honest about any opinions he held.

And there was no limelight for him - he won the Nobel Prize, but he didn't care at all about it, for him it was the satisfaction of having done his work that did it all.

Also, like I pointed out before, he was active way before NASA was a thing, so he couldn't have been part of any NASA conspiracy.

There is no indoctrination involved in any of this.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2013, 12:53:04 AM »
I'm sorry, I just have to say this.  How do we know the Nobel Prize isn't similar to winning the presidency?  I think it's all predetermined.

It is predetermined, predetermined by a panel of judges in sweden who decide which scientific or non-scientific breakthrough deserves thorough recognition and appraisal. Being a nobel prize winner is nothing more than bragging rights (and a sweet 1,000,000 prize). Majority of nobel prize winners go straight back to their normal jobs as a researcher/professor at a university. I've walked past and spoke to some when I went on a visit day to Cambridge Uni before, they aren't regarded as Gods.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18638_4-nobel-prize-winners-who-were-clearly-insane.html

Not sure if it is relevant, but it is a funny read. Some of these nobel prize winners are HIV-AIDS deniers, believe black people have less "good genes" and telepathy is a real phenomenon! Perfect example of how you can be extremely knowledgable in some esoteric, specialised field but with everything else you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2013, 03:33:54 AM »
I'm sorry, I just have to say this.  How do we know the Nobel Prize isn't similar to winning the presidency?  I think it's all predetermined.
Basically that's what I think it is. It could be meaningful if it was given to the real genuine scientists who actually do discover genuine breakthroughs.

Do you even follow the nobel prizes that are given each year?? In physics the researchers were able to manipulate and record quantum systems for the first time ever, without disrupting their superposition. In Chemistry it was awarded to two scientists who make breakthroughs in the study of G-protein-coupled receptors which is used in understanding medicine. In medicine it was awarded to two scientists who showed that mature cells can be programmed to become stem cells.  This is just in 2012 alone.

I mean, all of this is ground breaking, world changing stuff, how can you sit there and say these aren't genuine breakthroughs? The medicine one in particular, this will lead to stem cell research and stem cell cures that do not require the blastocyst of a fetus, something that is extremely controversial.


Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2013, 04:30:01 AM »
Nobody is calling feign man brainwashed. He is the "brainwasher"...employed to indoctrinate by use of his intelligence and acting skills. My opinion.

I understand that it looks a lot like some guy saying something and the audience just blindly accepting it. Seeing as this is a general course, probably being held to students of completely different fields, not physicists, this is likely the case.

But within the field of physics, it does not happen like that. We don't accept what a famous scientist says because of his credentials. Any achievements of a scientists are used only as a form of respect, not authority to say whatever they like.

We accept something to be true because we do the mathematics and see that it works. Literally, we do this ourselves - if you want to understand a physical phenomenon, you HAVE to do the math yourself. Granted, it was already done by someone else, but you have to go through it to understand it. And there aren't multiple ways to interpret math. Each and every step is exact, precise, it means exactly the same thing to anybody. Mathematics is universal, unbiased, and cannot brainwash you in any way.

Of course, we don't base our knowledge purely on math. For something to truly be considered a theory, it has to have experimental evidence. We conduct experiments tailored to a mathematical model to confirm its validity. Every experiment has to be reproducible, which means it can be done again at any time, anywhere, by anyone, and yield the same results. A single experiment isn't conclusive proof, but when countless institutes around the world do the same experiment and get the same results, it becomes obvious that the model is correct within the circumstances of the experiment, therefore it can be used in the real world.

The works of Nobel Prize winners in Physics in the last century have been the basis of nearly every technology developed since. Things you use every day, like the computer (or smartphone, whatever - they're essentially computers too), wouldn't exist without those works. Now, this doesn't make these people superior, godlike, or anything like that. If they hadn't done these works, someone else would have, eventually. But it is just historical fact that they were the first to do it, and they get their nifty little prize for that (by the way, most physicists don't really care about the Nobel Prize, even after they win it).

Winning a prize in physics makes you respectable as a scientist, but doesn't give you authority to say whatever you want. You can have all the prizes in the world, but if you try to create a theory without working math (which can and WILL be checked by others), and without an experimental basis, that theory will never be accepted. This is why physics is NOT CREDENTIAL BASED.

Re: Earth Is A Huge Flat Magnet
« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2013, 06:11:27 AM »
icanbeanything:
Tell me honestly how your maths comes about when working out stuff.
For instance, let's take the moon and it's one sixth gravity.
Now how did you come to accept the moon has one sixth gravity. Can you tell me how you came to do the maths on this?
I don't want you to tell me anything about what you read in a text book or were told by the scientists in front of you, I want you to tell me how you calculated the moons one sixth gravity by your own observations and deductions and tell me what you used to come to this conclusion. Cheers.

The thing is, when I said do the math, I mean serious math, and it can take multiple pages just to calculate the expression of a single property of a single part of a mathematical model.

If you want the whole thing from the beginning, without any premise, coherently, it has to contain all the math referring to mechanics, lots of geometry, all the calculations that arrive to the expressions of everything regarding gravity, and so on. You understand this would probably be material in the volume of multiple books. Filled with mathematical analysis. There is a reason why there are books written on mathematics and physics. If you want it all, from scratch, without referring to any books, you have to do all those things those books contain. Understand?

It's certainly possible, that's why those books exist in the first place, and I have read and understood countless physics books (I mean the math in them), since it's kind of my job. But you understand that doing what you requested, from scratch, using no prior knowledge, is a very long process? It's something that takes years.

I can, however, show you how to get the expression of the Moon's gravitational acceleration by using only the Moon's size and density. It will, however, contain lots of material that was previously worked out, and I guess you won't like that. Right now, I have to finish some labs, but when I'm done I can show you.