Gravity isn't constant

Post hoc does indeed mean "after this". In science, a "post hoc hypothesis" is a hypothesis that seems supported by a subset of data that was not collected for this purpose. See also, data dredging.

If I collected data on the positive affect of globularism on intelligence, I might collect data sets from around the world that suggests there is no detrimental or helpful effect.  But if one of my subsets collected data from RAB's Australian province and where ever you call home, I may by chance or statistical noise find globularism makes one very dimwitted.

If I force a new hypotheses into the data aready collected, ie "There is an adverse effect of globularism on those living in Australia and Jack's residence" or "There is an adverse effect on intelligence if one is a globularist whose screen name starts with a J or R", that is not supported by the larger data set and was not the subject of my initial collection, then I have created a post hoc hypothesis. The hypothesis was not subject to a new data set. I used the old one. I created the new hypothesis after analyzing preexisting data collected for a different purpose and found a statistical correlation.


An ad hoc hypothesis is introduced to prevent a theory from falsification. If I say coal is formed by geoprocesses over thousands of years, and then find a living frog in a lump of coal, I might invent ad hoc speculation to prevent the falsification of my original theory. "Frog slime speeds coal formation".  Or "there is undetectable matter in just the right amounts and locations there that will make the math work because without it GR fails it's predictive test".


So no, it's not semantic. In science words mean things. Weight is a force. You cannot find the measured force exerted by an object via multiplying acceleration and the force exerted by the object.

You cannot invent new meanings for words or terms and expect everyone to just go along for the ride while hiding behind "it's just semantic", Jack.

What is it in science when someone claims the moon is 20 degrees up at 7 am when the moon is in the full phase?

Direct observation.

It's nice to know that you find yourself unable to quibble with anything so you have to try to drag a thread off-topic to attempt to rescue Jack. Maybe you can invent a new pseudo -scientific latin phrase to describe it. You guys are pathetic.

Direct observation.

It's nice to know that you find yourself unable to quibble with anything so you have to try to drag a thread off-topic to attempt to rescue Jack. Maybe you can invent a new pseudo -scientific latin phrase to describe it. You guys are pathetic.

What’s really pathetic is you are a “moderator” on this forum.  You spend more time making ad hominem attacks and throwing insults then most forum participants. You personally continually try to throw forum debates into array with useless red herrings not related to the OP. What exactly are you moderating by such behavior?  Isn’t the job of the the moderator to keep the participants debating and to encourage good behavior for the betterment of the forum?

 Granted, your behavior is light years better then the other FET forum where they just boot everyone and control every word everyone says resulting in little conversation and a nearly dead forum as a result.

You know who I talk down to? The same three or four dullards who have no idea what they are talking about but continue to pose as some sort of authority while posting nonsense. The ones who have been here for years, but approach each topic as though it was their first time hearing it because they either are not capable of building an abstract thought or unwilling to actually learn anything. The ones who continuously post falsehoods and half-truths and when called to account change the subject or wave it away as some "semantic" mistake. Who drag every new conversation into the mire, going off on every tangent and revisiting decades old discussions they failed to grasp or reconcile the first time. The ones who make each thread a chore by making new people who might actually be interested in learning something wade through their shit because their narcissism compels them to show their "knowledge" when by all accounts they have little or less knowledge of the subject at hand. The ones who are continuously aggressive, snide, and rude, in some cases for over a decade, and then play the victim when treated in kind.

As for moderation, feel free to visit a " more reputable" forum and see how quickly abrasive people with no manners simply disappear. They don't abide rude autists for years or decades.

Direct observation.

It's nice to know that you find yourself unable to quibble with anything so you have to try to drag a thread off-topic to attempt to rescue Jack. Maybe you can invent a new pseudo -scientific latin phrase to describe it. You guys are pathetic.

I’m not dragging it off topic. I’m pointing out how he corrected himself multiple times yet you can’t comprehend it. Then you get mad when others do the same thing.

Weight is a force. It cannot semantically change meanings in a conversation about physics. He used the terms interchangeably, as is common, but is completely useless to the discussion and belies his understanding of mass/weight. We cannot proceed until the error is acknowledged.  To his credit, he admitted a mistake and shallow understanding of physics in a bout of honesty rarely seen here among a globularist (though now he seems to be back-tracking by saying he knew the difference all along and just chose the wrong word, "semantic").
We (kabool and I) cannot have a meaningful and fruitful conversation without correctly defining the terms.
Jack refusing to acknowledge a fundamental difference between weight and mass that cannot be semantically used interchangeably in this context or making up new uses for "post hoc" to make himself sound smart isn't helping. You trying to derail the thread also serves no seemly purpose.

Let it go man.
We re all in board.
F = ma.
I incorrectly stated it.
But go on.
Keep red herring.

Read this and comprehend it.

I am extremely confident person who understands the context cannot make such an error.  I am equally confident that a person who made such an error and now realizes the error cannot deem it "semantic". It is at its core definitional to the whole conversation. So I cannot let it go if we are to make any progress in a discussion on varying acceleration and weight of invariant mass.

Your follies are not our problem. The mistake was corrected. If you can’t let it go, so be it. But that is not are fault and we will not be punished for it.

Make sure you have safety glasses on while you make straw man arguments, lol.

Ok, terrific

You will not get my pee sample.

continue to pose as some sort of authority while posting nonsense. The ones who have been here for years, but approach each topic as though it was their first time hearing it because they either are not capable of building an abstract thought or unwilling to actually learn anything. The ones who continuously post falsehoods and half-truths and when called to account change the subject or wave it away as some "semantic" mistake. Who drag every new conversation into the mire, going off on every tangent and revisiting decades old discussions they failed to grasp or reconcile the first time. The ones who make each thread a chore by making new people who might actually be interested in learning something wade through their shit because their narcissism compels them to show their "knowledge" when by all accounts they have little or less knowledge of the subject at hand. The ones who are continuously aggressive, snide, and rude, in some cases for over a decade, and then play the victim when treated in kind.

Wow, Son of Orospu just got burned.  Then again, this could all apply to John Davis as well.  Hard to which one you're referring to, to be honest.

Oh, look. Another drawn like an obnoxious fly to honey.

Post hoc does indeed mean "after this". In science, a "post hoc hypothesis" is a hypothesis that seems supported by a subset of data that was not collected for this purpose. See also, data dredging.

Yes, such as collecting data on variation in g around the globe, and then creating a hypothesis that this is due to local mass variations, or collecting data on galaxy rotation speeds and then creating a hypothesis that this is due large amounts of dark matter distributed near the edges.

So no, it's not semantic. In science words mean things.

And semantics is dealing with the meaning of words.
So yes, it is semantics.

Again, as you are ignoring the main point and instead discussing the meaning of words, it is semantics.

Even if people use the wrong words, if the meaning is clear (as it was in this case, especially with the formula provided), and you focus on the words used and what they actually mean vs what was meant, you are focusing on semantics rather than the argument.

People forgetting a term doesn't mean they don't understand. It means they don't remember the term.

If you weren't going to play semantics you would have just noted that he should have used mass rather than "mass weight" and went from there.
You wouldn't have misrepresented it as if "mass weight" meant weight, when it is clear from the context it meant mass, and wouldn't have wasted so much time focusing on it and the meaning of words.

Jack refusing to acknowledge a fundamental difference between weight and mass

And where have I done that?
My first post on this issue stated quite clearly that the words that should have been used are weight/force and mass respectively.

making up new uses for "post hoc"

You mean using the existing use?

If we're having a discussion about zoology/taxonomy and someone says, "that Galapagos turtle spends a lot of time on land", the usage is wrong, no matter how common the misuse is. Tortoise and turtle are not interchangeable words. They have specific definitions. Someone making that mistake does not have a grasp on the fundamental definition of turtle. You can't handwave that away by redefining words to make it purely "semantic". You can, but it just reinforces the perception that you are clueless.

Someone continually misusing "post hoc" exposes themself similarly for anyone who knows the actual definition. Congratulations.

If we're having a discussion about zoology/taxonomy and someone says, "that Galapagos turtle spends a lot of time on land", the usage is wrong, no matter how common the misuse is. Tortoise and turtle are not interchangeable words. They have specific definitions. Someone making that mistake does not have a grasp on the fundamental definition of turtle. You can't handwave that away by redefining words to make it purely "semantic". You can, but it just reinforces the perception that you are clueless.

Someone continually misusing "post hoc" exposes themself similarly for anyone who knows the actual definition. Congratulations.

So... how much do you weigh?
You use lb or kg?

Ski, clearly we are just supposed to read his mind and fix his arguments and point of view for him.

So... how much do you weigh?
You use lb or kg?

I measure my weight in pounds.

If we're having a discussion about zoology/taxonomy and someone says, "that Galapagos turtle spends a lot of time on land", the usage is wrong

And focusing on those semantics is semantics.
In taxonomy, those semantics can be quite important and the relevance of them will  depend upon the actual point being discussed.

If you are having a discusion on things falling and someone picks up a stone and says "look at this rock, it falls", and you say "no it's a stone" that is playing semantics.

You can't handwave that away by redefining words to make it purely "semantic".

Again, who here is doing that? (other than you with your rejection of the definition of post hoc)
Again, it is you focusing on the meaning of words rather than the actual argument which is semantics.
It is clear what he meant. You chose to pretend he meant something else (which if you want to argue he couldn't have meant mass, it is just as right (or should I say correct?, after all, I wouldn't want to misuse the word right when it is meant to mean the direction opposite of left) to say he couldn't have meant weight), and repeatedly focus on the meaning of his phrase.

Someone continually misusing "post hoc" exposes themself similarly for anyone who knows the actual definition. Congratulations.

Likewise, someone who can't recognise a correct usage, merely because another word can also be used in that case, and the word can be used in other cases exposes themself as not knowing the actual definitions.
Again, what you are doing there is basically the same as arguing that if people mean a statement is true they should only ever say correct, never right, and using right means they don't know the actual definitions.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 12, 2019, 12:49:22 PM

So... how much do you weigh?
You use lb or kg?

I measure my weight in pounds.

So now we point out you don't know the meaning either?
After all, the pound is a unit of mass and currency, not weight.

Now do you understand why he said "mass weight" in the first place?
Because a lot of people treat mass as weight including apparently you.

If I'm discussing amperage with someone and they tell me

"W=V*A

W=Watts
V= volts
A= amps volts"

It's pretty clear they have a pretty loose grip on the subject.  Just because people frequently confuse voltage and amperage doesn't mean they are the same. Hell, even signs stupidly use them interchangeably.

[Img]
https://www.autodesk.com/products/eagle/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/danger-high-voltage.jpg

Besides using the wrong letters for that law, whats wrong with it?
Edit: oh i see, A= amps volts. Sorry about that

After all, the pound is a unit of mass and currency, not weight.

No, a pound in this context is a unit of force. Because weight is a unit of force.

If I measured my mass, it would be in lbm.

I don't arbitrarily switch the definitions of words for fun. It might confuse the less educated among us. *cough*

If someone asked my mass, I would not use weight or other units of force to define my mass.

I don't arbitrarily switch the definitions of words for fun. It might confuse the less educated among us. *cough*

Well so far the only one to do that is you.
Remember he didn't say M=weight. He said M=mass weight.
That isn't switching the definition of weight to mean mass, that is inventing a new term (which can happen a fair bit in science), perhaps one to help laypeople understand what is meant and to realise "weight" that they think of isn't actually weight in the scientific sense.

He helped people understand by inventing a term that uses a term defined as a force to explain an unrelated concept of mass?  Why didn't everyone else think of that? 

He helped people understand by inventing a term that uses a term defined as a force to explain an unrelated concept of mass?  Why didn't everyone else think of that? 

By inventing a term that uses a word which is used by laypeople to mean mass, and mass.
Yes he would have been better off by just using mass. But it is clear he didn't mean it as weight as a force.

He helped people understand by inventing a term that uses a term defined as a force to explain an unrelated concept of mass?  Why didn't everyone else think of that? 

The topic is "Gravity isn't constant" so what is the point of bickering over what one person may or may not have meant by a term.
This seems to be the offending post:

Quote from: Ski on February 07, 2019, 01:30:16 PM

Well, you have a common, but incorrect (mis-)understanding of how the acceleration values would be measured. That's the first problem.

so the same weigh scale taken to different locations on earth.
calibrated.
then taken that the measured scale weight and dividing it by mass weight is incorrect.
it's three numbers.
F = MxA.
F = scaled weight
M = mass weight
A = accel.

where's the error/
or does F= MA not work?

Note that Themightykabool is answering this accusation "you have a common, but incorrect (mis-)understanding of how the acceleration values would be measured".
And says "then taken that the measured scale weight and dividing it by mass weight is incorrect".
Now I take "scale weight" as simply the weight as measured on the scale and "mass weight" as the true mass of the standard.
I agree that he should have written simply "mass" and not "mass weight" but what is the point of bickering over it for pages.

Surely the object here is find what is really observed and not what one person writes or thinks about it.

In closing, since you claim that Themightykabool has "a common, but incorrect (mis-)understanding of how the acceleration values would be measured" maybe you could explain the correct method if measuring the acceleration values.

I ask you to watch the video all the way through, do you agree what it implies, or disagree, and why.

First of all, the discussion seems to once again have gone out of hand. The terminology used here isn't as important as the actual discussion. If someone fails to argue correctly, simply correct them and then move on in the discussion. This goes for both the believers of a round earth and a flat earth.

Now, here is the actual problem that I'd love for us to discuss:

1. The exact same object will have a different weight at different points of the globe. It will be heavier at the poles than at the equator. The difference won't be big, but if you're measuring big things that need to have weights in a spectrum of a few milligrams, the difference will be important. (This weight of course derives from the acceleration of the object, according to F = m * a, but that may be ignored in flat-earth-physics. That is okay.)

What I believe your proposal for a solution to this problem is, is that there is a property to objects that makes them heavier at different parts of the globe. You can't explain this at the moment, and "blame" it on philosophy. (or at least you haven't showed proof for it yet.) That is okay, we can't expect you to know everything, since proving this would need a lot of expensive instruments and knowledge about (alternative-) theoretical physics. Still, I don't think that this theory adds up, due to the second part of the problem.

2. The same object will accelerate with different magnitudes (a differences of a couple of centrimeters each second) around the globe, or plane. This can be shown by some pretty simple experiments, where two people drop objects from a couple of meters and measure the time for them to reach the ground. Of course the experiments would need to be performed in a vacuum for the clearest results, but even just the roof of an apartment building can suffice. If you can accept that this difference in accelerational magnitude exists, you can accept experiments done by acknowledged scientists instead of doing them yourself.

This is the problem that is really hard to explain on a flat earth. Your theory is the earth moves upwards at ~9.8m/s². All objects should seem to fall towards the earth at this pace. This pace can't differ around the earth, since that would lead to tearing of the plane.

You're saying that my problem is based on a common misunderstanding. I don't really understand what this misunderstanding is. If you could clear up your physics for me, that would be lovely. I am open to change my mind.

First of all, the discussion seems to once again have gone out of hand. The terminology used here isn't as important as the actual discussion. If someone fails to argue correctly, simply correct them and then move on in the discussion. This goes for both the believers of a round earth and a flat earth.

Now, here is the actual problem that I'd love for us to discuss:

1. The exact same object will have a different weight at different points of the globe. It will be heavier at the poles than at the equator. The difference won't be big, but if you're measuring big things that need to have weights in a spectrum of a few milligrams, the difference will be important. (This weight of course derives from the acceleration of the object, according to F = m * a, but that may be ignored in flat-earth-physics. That is okay.)

What I believe your proposal for a solution to this problem is, is that there is a property to objects that makes them heavier at different parts of the globe. You can't explain this at the moment, and "blame" it on philosophy. (or at least you haven't showed proof for it yet.) That is okay, we can't expect you to know everything, since proving this would need a lot of expensive instruments and knowledge about (alternative-) theoretical physics. Still, I don't think that this theory adds up, due to the second part of the problem.

2. The same object will accelerate with different magnitudes (a differences of a couple of centrimeters each second) around the globe, or plane. This can be shown by some pretty simple experiments, where two people drop objects from a couple of meters and measure the time for them to reach the ground. Of course the experiments would need to be performed in a vacuum for the clearest results, but even just the roof of an apartment building can suffice. If you can accept that this difference in accelerational magnitude exists, you can accept experiments done by acknowledged scientists instead of doing them yourself.

This is the problem that is really hard to explain on a flat earth. Your theory is the earth moves upwards at ~9.8m/s². All objects should seem to fall towards the earth at this pace. This pace can't differ around the earth, since that would lead to tearing of the plane.

You're saying that my problem is based on a common misunderstanding. I don't really understand what this misunderstanding is. If you could clear up your physics for me, that would be lovely. I am open to change my mind.

This sort of thing?

Flat Earth vs Globe - Does weight change with Latitude?
Is this evidence the Earth is spinning? Wolfie6020