An unbiased debate.

  • 112 Replies
  • 9966 Views
*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #60 on: June 30, 2015, 08:23:55 AM »
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?
Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

I would do the EXACT same thing I did before, only I would replace the numbers with my new observations.
What new observations. How would you know to do this. Just explain what you would do and how you decided it was 3 feet diameter ball and half a mile, now.

Show me the calculations for this like you did with the last.

Sure. If I do the same thing I did before, my new observed angle will be 88.57621 degrees. The tangent of 88.57621 degrees is 40.2331684355. 40.2331684355 multiplied by 20 meters, the distance we walked, is 804.6634 meters. The angular diameter of the ball is exactly the same as it was before, 0.0651 degrees. Plug that into the tangent half-angle formula and we get D=1609.338 * (tan(0.03255)) = 1609.338 * (0.0005681) = 0.9143

So now we have 804.6634 meters for the distance to the ball and 0.9143 meters for the diameter of the ball.

Please don't ask me to do another one as these do take some time and doing the same math problem over and over again is rather boring. If you've ever taken a geometry course in high school you should be able to do this yourself.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 08:28:28 AM by Poko »
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

Mikey T.

  • 2443
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #61 on: June 30, 2015, 08:28:11 AM »
Oh scepti you truly do not get geometry huh.  The distance to the ball from the observer decreased without the observer knowing, but when they do the triangulation method of measuring from perpendicular points from the line from them to the ball, the angles would change.  This is how the perspective argument fails miserably.

Edit ** more so trig than geometry, and I see poko posted a better answer while I was typing.  Its all about the right triangles.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 08:35:49 AM by Mikey T. »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24660
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #62 on: June 30, 2015, 08:39:11 AM »
Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?
Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

I would do the EXACT same thing I did before, only I would replace the numbers with my new observations.
What new observations. How would you know to do this. Just explain what you would do and how you decided it was 3 feet diameter ball and half a mile, now.

Show me the calculations for this like you did with the last.

Sure. If I do the same thing I did before, my new observed angle will be 88.57621 degrees. The tangent of 88.57621 degrees is 40.2331684355. 40.2331684355 multiplied by 20 meters, the distance we walked, is 804.6634 meters. The angular diameter of the ball is exactly the same as it was before, 0.0651 degrees. Plug that into the tangent half-angle formula and we get D=1609.338 * (tan(0.03255)) = 1609.338 * (0.0005681) = 0.9143

So now we have 804.6634 meters for the distance to the ball and 0.9143 meters for the diameter of the ball.

Please don't ask me to do another one as these do take some time and doing the same math problem over and over again is rather boring. If you've ever taken a geometry course in high school you should be able to do this yourself.
Not exactly accurate are you but nevertheless. I won't ask you to calculate any more close range stuff. You now need to set up your little tools and tell me about the sun and the moon. I want distance and diameter.

Now bear in mind I've allowed you a calculator, something that your little idols of the time did not have.
Ok, so ready when you are.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #63 on: June 30, 2015, 08:40:39 AM »
Oh scepti you truly do not get geometry huh.  The distance to the ball from the observer decreased without the observer knowing, but when they do the triangulation method of measuring from perpendicular points from the line from them to the ball, the angles would change.  This is how the perspective argument fails miserably.

Edit ** more so trig than geometry, and I see poko posted a better answer while I was typing

A lot of people have probably already come to this conclusion, but I've noticed something while doing this math. If the sun were truly a spotlight, it would have to be at several different distance away from the earth at once. If you find the distance when the sun is 90 degrees above the horizon for one person and 80 degrees for another person, your calculated distance would be different from it you calculated it with the sun at 90 degrees for one person and 50 degrees for another. In fact, as the difference in angles approaches 90 degrees, the necessary distance of the sun approaches infinity. Keep in mind that these would be for measurements taken at the same time.

It's almost like math completely destroys the flat earth.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24660
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #64 on: June 30, 2015, 08:41:34 AM »
Oh scepti you truly do not get geometry huh.  The distance to the ball from the observer decreased without the observer knowing, but when they do the triangulation method of measuring from perpendicular points from the line from them to the ball, the angles would change.  This is how the perspective argument fails miserably.

Edit ** more so trig than geometry, and I see poko posted a better answer while I was typing.  Its all about the right triangles.
Sit back and scratch your nuts  for a few minutes before you jump in next time, Mikey boy.  :P

*

Mikey T.

  • 2443
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #65 on: June 30, 2015, 08:45:48 AM »
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #66 on: June 30, 2015, 08:47:56 AM »
Not exactly accurate are you but nevertheless. I won't ask you to calculate any more close range stuff. You now need to set up your little tools and tell me about the sun and the moon. I want distance and diameter.

Now bear in mind I've allowed you a calculator, something that your little idols of the time did not have.
Ok, so ready when you are.

It's inaccurate because finding a trig function of a rational number will always result in an irrational number (if somebody well-versed in math could confirm this for me, that would be great) so you get an infinite number of digits and are forced to round.

As for the sun and the moon, please refer to the video I linked earlier which you clearly did not watch. It explains how you can find the distance to Mars and to the sun. You can use the exact same formulas used in the Mars calculation to find the distance to the moon.

Here's a video that explains how trig functions can be evaluated without a calculator.  I'm just using a calculator because it saves a hell of a lot of time and is free from human error.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 08:53:57 AM by Poko »
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

?

guv

  • 1132
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #67 on: June 30, 2015, 09:04:37 AM »
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.


He writes books as well and he is a pilot and an explorer and and and a ____put in what you want. Nut case springs to mind.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24660
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #68 on: June 30, 2015, 09:06:43 AM »
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.
Use angry ranting for this girly stuff. Let's leave it out of here because it just spoils it. Or pm me and let it all out.  :P

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24660
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #69 on: June 30, 2015, 09:09:31 AM »
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.


He writes books as well and he is a pilot and an explorer and and and a ____put in what you want. Nut case springs to mind.
Come on Guv, you're more well versed on here. Don't start damping down with a freshman.  ;D

*

Mikey T.

  • 2443
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #70 on: June 30, 2015, 09:32:23 AM »
No no scepti its too late to pull yourself from the muck now and try to pretend that you are taking the high road. 
You began the insulting behavior, yet now you wish for those people who haven't looked into your previous crap to think you are above all that huh. 
Here is what you tried to do.  You tried to set up the perspective argument with the ball's dimensions being halved with the distance.  Your intention was to try to trick someone into saying something that you thought you could disprove with the perspective argument.  Yet someone showed you the math that you asked for twice.  You are now going to try to disprove their math or say that it was done incorrectly, which I think you have already done with no explanation of what may be incorrect.  So you are flaunting your ignorance again.  I am just calling your BS again.  So now you should attack my character, as this is your normal methods.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #71 on: June 30, 2015, 09:40:23 AM »
You are now going to try to disprove their math or say that it was done incorrectly, which I think you have already done with no explanation of what may be incorrect.

The most he said was that my math was "not exactly" accurate. This combined with complete inability to do the calculations himself shows that he probably has no idea what trigonometry is, and probably thinks it's some form of voodoo magic. Congratulations, scepti. You have successfully shown everyone that 8th grade mathematics is way over your head. Well done.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #72 on: June 30, 2015, 09:59:25 AM »
Didn't you used to claim to have multiple doctorates scepti?  And you still do not understand high school level mathematics.  Sure, insult away.  It is your only recourse when someone shows you how ignorant you really are.


He writes books as well and he is a pilot and an explorer and and and a ____put in what you want. Nut case springs to mind.
Not forgetting he's also a North Korean dissident and a multi-millionaire inventor.  Who invented a "diving implement".
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24660
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #73 on: June 30, 2015, 10:09:06 AM »
I'm getting a good laugh off you three.  ;D

What about the sun and moon measurements with your historical idols tools of usage, Poko?

I allowed you to play little triangles with the balls., now do it with the sun and moon. 93 million miles away for your sun and 237,000 miles away for your moon. 867,000 miles in diameter for your sun and around 2000 miles for your moon.

point your little stick at the sun like you did with the little ball and let's see how it works. Of course, you don't need to do it. You're not forced. You can back out. Most do when this stuff is put forward.
They usually respond with stuff about my mother and stuff.  ;D

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #74 on: June 30, 2015, 11:56:37 AM »
You are now going to try to disprove their math or say that it was done incorrectly, which I think you have already done with no explanation of what may be incorrect.

The most he said was that my math was "not exactly" accurate. This combined with complete inability to do the calculations himself shows that he probably has no idea what trigonometry is, and probably thinks it's some form of voodoo magic. Congratulations, scepti. You have successfully shown everyone that 8th grade mathematics is way over your head. Well done.

I've noticed that your avatar seems to be giving an implied face palm.  That's how I feel around flat earthers too.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2443
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2015, 12:43:19 PM »
So for something that is far away, like the Sun, the difference for the leg of the right triangle that we would be using to calculate the position of the Sun would be very miniscule.  Therefore if you do take differing measurements from opposite ends of the globe and the angle still shows very near the same then this means the Sun is very far away.  Also using your perspective examples too, if the angular size of the Sun is the same for two different spots on the Earth at the same time, this could only mean that the Sun is very far away.  If the Sun is very far away, then you can calculate the size of the Sun knowing the distance to it.
But you will call this nonsense since you do not understand it.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2015, 02:45:05 PM »
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

?

homo superior

  • 136
  • make way
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2015, 03:21:45 PM »
I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid.

BiJane... is that you?

*

Mikey T.

  • 2443
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2015, 03:32:26 PM »
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Scepti gave it, saying it was 5 degrees off of when they were at 90 degrees.  and you cannot have an angle of over 90 degrees in any triangle.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2015, 04:35:16 PM »
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Scepti gave it, saying it was 5 degrees off of when they were at 90 degrees.  and you cannot have an angle of over 90 degrees in any triangle.

Actually, I made the numbers up because I was just doing an example problem. If we were to perform this experiment in real with a road 57.253 meters across, we would observe the angle to be 5 degrees.

Scepti, this is the third time I've said it. Watch the video I linked. It explains exactly how we can calculate the distance to the sun. Don't ask me to calculate the distance again until you watch the video.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2015, 04:36:03 PM »
Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby  ;)
So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.
Where'd you get 85 degrees from?
Scepti gave it, saying it was 5 degrees off of when they were at 90 degrees.  and you cannot have an angle of over 90 degrees in any triangle.

Actually, I made the numbers up because I was just doing an example problem. If we were to perform this experiment in real with a road 57.15 meters across, we would observe the angle to be 5 degrees.

Scepti, this is the third time I've said it. Watch the video I linked. It explains exactly how we can calculate the distance to the sun. Don't ask me to calculate the distance again until you watch the video.

! No longer available
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 04:40:23 PM by Poko »
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

JerkFace

  • 10945
  • Looking for Occam
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2015, 06:41:56 PM »
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 06:43:58 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #82 on: July 01, 2015, 02:08:23 AM »
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.

Why do research and double-check actual theories when you can troll and spew tinfoil mumbo jumbo instead?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24660
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #83 on: July 01, 2015, 02:40:15 AM »
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.
Let me see if I can get what you're saying about this string theory. I'll use an analogy to marry up with what's been said.

Ok, so you go to the beach and see a man with a fishing rod. You ask him if he's caught any fish. "not yet, comes the reply but everything's in place to do so, as this is scientific fishing."

 You say: "why is it scientific?"

 Naive wannabe scientist says: "well I'm using this string but you can't see it, yet I've tied it to an invisible hook and cast out. I've calculated the casting distances of this invisible string and the depth at which is will settle. It's beautiful."

You say: "but you can't catch fish on invisible string and hook and you also cannot calculate the distance cast to or the depth, unless you're just pretending you have cast a certain length of invisible string out and done a depth test of the water."

 Naive wannabe scientist says: " ahh, you uneducated people will never understand the complicated formulas that make this so beautiful."

You can say that again.  ::)

In theory the scientific fisherman can catch many fish. The only think stopping him doing so is trying to actually prove that the invisible string and hook will do the job and bring one in so he can shout "eureka".  :P

This is your bullshit science and this is why people's heads are so screwed up by spending time studying this total and utter blatant, in your face, pile of frigging crap.

When you go knocking at a random door, don't tell me that Martha Constance lives there and she's in if you don't really know if Martha Constance does live there, or of she's really in at that time, because that means I am standing there waiting for someone to answer the door called Martha Constance.
Of course, I can't actually call you a liar, because there's a small possibility that there does happen to be a Martha Constance who does live there.
The chances are extremely slim to none but there is a chance. The chances of her answering the door if she's not in, is zero.

The problem is, you know that if I walk away from the house, I will always have the thought that Martha Constance really did live there.
I can say to you, "ahhh but she wasn't in." and you can say" yeah but that was just a theory about her being in. Next time we go back, she may be in and then you'll see."


String theory and all the rest of the shite is simple and easy. It's something that maths beautifully explains that does not exist. It's perfect.

Next time you see a tree with no apples on it, count the apples on that tree and those that are not on the floor that didn't fall off that tree.
This way you can work out pie. You can work out how many pies you can't make with all the apples that are not on nor below that tree.

The math is beautiful.

I'm glad I'm not a weepy person because if I was, I could cry for the naive bastards that actually fall for this and sob for the one's that actually spend most of their life studying it and wondering why they never seem to get any further forward.

I just don't know what to say. One thing for certain. Don't ever call me uneducated and believe that I'm hurting from it. I will be belly laughing at clowns like you that buy into this utter clap trap.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #84 on: July 01, 2015, 03:02:18 AM »
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.
Let me see if I can get what you're saying about this string theory. I'll use an analogy to marry up with what's been said.

Ok, so you go to the beach and see a man with a fishing rod. You ask him if he's caught any fish. "not yet, comes the reply but everything's in place to do so, as this is scientific fishing."

 You say: "why is it scientific?"

 Naive wannabe scientist says: "well I'm using this string but you can't see it, yet I've tied it to an invisible hook and cast out. I've calculated the casting distances of this invisible string and the depth at which is will settle. It's beautiful."

You say: "but you can't catch fish on invisible string and hook and you also cannot calculate the distance cast to or the depth, unless you're just pretending you have cast a certain length of invisible string out and done a depth test of the water."

 Naive wannabe scientist says: " ahh, you uneducated people will never understand the complicated formulas that make this so beautiful."

You can say that again.  ::)

In theory the scientific fisherman can catch many fish. The only think stopping him doing so is trying to actually prove that the invisible string and hook will do the job and bring one in so he can shout "eureka".  :P

This is your bullshit science and this is why people's heads are so screwed up by spending time studying this total and utter blatant, in your face, pile of frigging crap.

When you go knocking at a random door, don't tell me that Martha Constance lives there and she's in if you don't really know if Martha Constance does live there, or of she's really in at that time, because that means I am standing there waiting for someone to answer the door called Martha Constance.
Of course, I can't actually call you a liar, because there's a small possibility that there does happen to be a Martha Constance who does live there.
The chances are extremely slim to none but there is a chance. The chances of her answering the door if she's not in, is zero.

The problem is, you know that if I walk away from the house, I will always have the thought that Martha Constance really did live there.
I can say to you, "ahhh but she wasn't in." and you can say" yeah but that was just a theory about her being in. Next time we go back, she may be in and then you'll see."


String theory and all the rest of the shite is simple and easy. It's something that maths beautifully explains that does not exist. It's perfect.

Next time you see a tree with no apples on it, count the apples on that tree and those that are not on the floor that didn't fall off that tree.
This way you can work out pie. You can work out how many pies you can't make with all the apples that are not on nor below that tree.

The math is beautiful.

I'm glad I'm not a weepy person because if I was, I could cry for the naive bastards that actually fall for this and sob for the one's that actually spend most of their life studying it and wondering why they never seem to get any further forward.

I just don't know what to say. One thing for certain. Don't ever call me uneducated and believe that I'm hurting from it. I will be belly laughing at clowns like you that buy into this utter clap trap.

Your fishing analogy is completely inapplicable. Here is a better one.

Imagine a fisherman who spends his life fishing in a lake. The lake starts out absolutely teeming with fish. The fish are very easy to catch at first. All he has to do is look for the fish, reach down into the lake with his hand, and pluck out a fish. Over time, the lake starts to empty and fish becoming harder and harder to come by and there are no fish visible from the shore. By now the fisherman is very experienced in fishing and he thinks he can find fish if he goes out onto the lake with a boat. Using his knowledge of the locations where fish like to hide.

A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in July of 1687, he catches the biggest fish anyone has ever seen.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in December of 1916, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in May of 1964, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in March of 2013, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. He hasn't caught the next big fish yet, but given his track record, it's reasonable to predict that he will eventually catch it.

In this story, the fisherman represents the great scientific and mathematical minds of history. The fish represent major scientific breakthrough, namely Universal Gravitation, General Relativity, the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the discovery of the Higgs Boson. The passerby who berates the fisherman represents you in all of your scientific ignorance.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

JerkFace

  • 10945
  • Looking for Occam
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #85 on: July 01, 2015, 03:05:25 AM »
I just don't know what to say. One thing for certain. Don't ever call me uneducated and believe that I'm hurting from it. I will be belly laughing at clowns like you that buy into this utter clap trap.

You are in fact uneducated, and sadder still unable to be educated,  and yes, it hurts you,  I suspect deeper than you are prepared to admit.   So laugh away,  but look in the mirror while you do it.  You need to see who you are actually laughing at.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24660
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #86 on: July 01, 2015, 03:08:58 AM »
I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.
Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud.  ;D

It's hard to come down to your level of comprehension but I'll try,    a string is a little bit like a rubber band.   
If it's a circle,  then it's a closed string.    Cut the rubber band so that it now has two ends,   now it's an open string.

Open strings of zero mass are photon like,   closed strings of zero mass are graviton like.   
Study the maths of superstrings vibrating in 11 dimensions  (10 spatial and 1 time)  and you get M-theory.

String theory is completely unproven,  but the maths are so elegant,  it would be sad if it turns out not to be true,  but who knows.
The standard model of particle physics on the other hand is now supported with overwhelming physical evidence and accurate predictions.

Ok, scepti,  back to you for more trolling and insults,  or you can choose to take the other path and indulge in "unbiased debate"  for a change of pace.
Let me see if I can get what you're saying about this string theory. I'll use an analogy to marry up with what's been said.

Ok, so you go to the beach and see a man with a fishing rod. You ask him if he's caught any fish. "not yet, comes the reply but everything's in place to do so, as this is scientific fishing."

 You say: "why is it scientific?"

 Naive wannabe scientist says: "well I'm using this string but you can't see it, yet I've tied it to an invisible hook and cast out. I've calculated the casting distances of this invisible string and the depth at which is will settle. It's beautiful."

You say: "but you can't catch fish on invisible string and hook and you also cannot calculate the distance cast to or the depth, unless you're just pretending you have cast a certain length of invisible string out and done a depth test of the water."

 Naive wannabe scientist says: " ahh, you uneducated people will never understand the complicated formulas that make this so beautiful."

You can say that again.  ::)

In theory the scientific fisherman can catch many fish. The only think stopping him doing so is trying to actually prove that the invisible string and hook will do the job and bring one in so he can shout "eureka".  :P

This is your bullshit science and this is why people's heads are so screwed up by spending time studying this total and utter blatant, in your face, pile of frigging crap.

When you go knocking at a random door, don't tell me that Martha Constance lives there and she's in if you don't really know if Martha Constance does live there, or of she's really in at that time, because that means I am standing there waiting for someone to answer the door called Martha Constance.
Of course, I can't actually call you a liar, because there's a small possibility that there does happen to be a Martha Constance who does live there.
The chances are extremely slim to none but there is a chance. The chances of her answering the door if she's not in, is zero.

The problem is, you know that if I walk away from the house, I will always have the thought that Martha Constance really did live there.
I can say to you, "ahhh but she wasn't in." and you can say" yeah but that was just a theory about her being in. Next time we go back, she may be in and then you'll see."


String theory and all the rest of the shite is simple and easy. It's something that maths beautifully explains that does not exist. It's perfect.

Next time you see a tree with no apples on it, count the apples on that tree and those that are not on the floor that didn't fall off that tree.
This way you can work out pie. You can work out how many pies you can't make with all the apples that are not on nor below that tree.

The math is beautiful.

I'm glad I'm not a weepy person because if I was, I could cry for the naive bastards that actually fall for this and sob for the one's that actually spend most of their life studying it and wondering why they never seem to get any further forward.

I just don't know what to say. One thing for certain. Don't ever call me uneducated and believe that I'm hurting from it. I will be belly laughing at clowns like you that buy into this utter clap trap.

Your fishing analogy is completely inapplicable. Here is a better one.

Imagine a fisherman who spends his life fishing in a lake. The lake starts out absolutely teeming with fish. The fish are very easy to catch at first. All he has to do is look for the fish, reach down into the lake with his hand, and pluck out a fish. Over time, the lake starts to empty and fish becoming harder and harder to come by and there are no fish visible from the shore. By now the fisherman is very experienced in fishing and he thinks he can find fish if he goes out onto the lake with a boat. Using his knowledge of the locations where fish like to hide.

A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in July of 1687, he catches the biggest fish anyone has ever seen.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in December of 1916, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in May of 1964, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. Finally, in March of 2013, he catches another gigantic fish.

Determined to find more fish, he works out where the next big fish will be hiding. He sails to that spot and casts his rod. A passerby sees the fisherman and shouts to him "You fool! There are clearly no fish in this lake! Stop wasting your time!", but the fisherman persists. He hasn't caught the next big fish yet, but given his track record, it's reasonable to predict that he will eventually catch it.

In this story, the fisherman represents the great scientific and mathematical minds of history. The fish represent major scientific breakthrough, namely Universal Gravitation, General Relativity, the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the discovery of the Higgs Boson. The passerby who berates the fisherman represents you in all of your scientific ignorance.
A nice story but he still can't reel them in by having a theory that he has a fishing line (string) dipped into the water, when he simply can't see one.

The person shouting from the riverside won't be able to make out whether he's using a real line or not.
Your analogy isn't quite true to form. Mine is because that's what you people are trying to show other's with your invisible bullshit.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #87 on: July 01, 2015, 03:26:49 AM »
A nice story but he still can't reel them in by having a theory that he has a fishing line (string) dipped into the water, when he simply can't see one.

The person shouting from the riverside won't be able to make out whether he's using a real line or not.
Your analogy isn't quite true to form. Mine is because that's what you people are trying to show other's with your invisible bullshit.
[/quote]

Your analogy is simply false. The theory is not the fishing line itself. The theory is how the fisherman determines where to go looking for the fish. It can also be used to predict how big the fish will be and what type of fish it will be. That's the point of a theory, to make predictions.

Observation is the fishing line. Observation is how we go looking for scientific discoveries and how we test our theories. If our observations don't match the theory, we go back and adjust the theory. That's how scientific progress is made.

As for not being able to tell whether observation are being made, that's on you. You didn't put in the effort to get a science education so you don't understand the observations being made and the theories being tested. Instead, you chose to sit on your ass and make empty claims in the hope that you will disprove centuries upon centuries of scientific discoveries.

I hate to make an appeal to authority, but do you really think that you know better than the physicists? You don't even understand high school geometry, and you think you know more about physics than the men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to understanding it?
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24660
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #88 on: July 01, 2015, 03:36:11 AM »
A nice story but he still can't reel them in by having a theory that he has a fishing line (string) dipped into the water, when he simply can't see one.

The person shouting from the riverside won't be able to make out whether he's using a real line or not.
Your analogy isn't quite true to form. Mine is because that's what you people are trying to show other's with your invisible bullshit.

Your analogy is simply false. The theory is not the fishing line itself. The theory is how the fisherman determines where to go looking for the fish. It can also be used to predict how big the fish will be and what type of fish it will be. That's the point of a theory, to make predictions.

Observation is the fishing line. Observation is how we go looking for scientific discoveries and how we test our theories. If our observations don't match the theory, we go back and adjust the theory. That's how scientific progress is made.

As for not being able to tell whether observation are being made, that's on you. You didn't put in the effort to get a science education so you don't understand the observations being made and the theories being tested. Instead, you chose to sit on your ass and make empty claims in the hope that you will disprove centuries upon centuries of scientific discoveries.

I hate to make an appeal to authority, but do you really think that you know better than the physicists? You don't even understand high school geometry, and you think you know more about physics than the men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to understanding it?
[/quote] In 20 words or less, explain what a string is.

In 20 words or less, Explain where it is and in 20 words or less, explain what it does.

In 20 words or less, what microscope picks these up to know they're there.

In 20 words or less, how do they become super string.


Ok, now as far as me knowing more than physicists and not knowing school like geometry. You decide what I know in your mind. Your mind can decide what anyone knows.
What you can't do is actually know what I know. All you can do is try and dissect my mind by what I type and make a decision by what you believe I'm capable of. You are entitled to think of retard or backward schooling, down to the gutter for as long as you want to. It's not ever going to give you any knowing but it will keep your fantasies going, just as mainstream science is doing, so I say, you keep at it if that's what makes you happy.

*

JerkFace

  • 10945
  • Looking for Occam
Re: An unbiased debate.
« Reply #89 on: July 01, 2015, 03:41:43 AM »
One last try,  everything is vibrations,  every particle, every force, all energy,  all vibrations on tiny tiny strings.   

That's it.  18 words, I'm done.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.