|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
16th June 2017, 04:07 PM | #1361 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
I still think it's best to let him catch-up before anymore responses.
There really is nothing more to say in response to his nonsense. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
16th June 2017, 04:23 PM | #1362 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
16th June 2017, 04:29 PM | #1363 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
Originally Posted by bruno
But this is all irrelevant to the question of why thewholesoul prefers silly trolling to adult dialog. One of my schoolmates just got another flight assignment to the ISS. I'll have to send her congratulations. That's a lot more interesting to me than trolling ever could be. |
16th June 2017, 05:24 PM | #1364 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
Quote:
You will reply, that's because they don't leave earths atmosphere, or they don't need to reach orbital velocity, but these are irrelevant points. The point is westward bound rockets need more fuel added to reach an orbital velocity, it follows that without that extra fuel added they can not reach an orbital velocity. So the effect of rotational momentum is that, unlike rockets fired east, it physically slows down rockets fired west. So at last we have identified the physical cause behind the increased fuel consumption! But this produces a contradiction, as already mentioned above, how can we say the effect of rotational momentum slows down rockets, but it doesn't slow down commercial planes when they both stand on the same rotational surface? It sure sounds like someone wants to have jam on both sides of his bread. Are you claiming the effect of blind rotational momentum is selective? Personally I don't believe any extra fuel is added to westward rocket launches. And out if interest, has anyone here personally witnessed two identical rockets fired west, one with the allegedly "required" added fuel, and the other one without the added fuel failing to make orbital velocity? I bet none of you have witnessed that. Yet you all believe it unquestioningly. All the very best. |
16th June 2017, 05:42 PM | #1365 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
You're not very rigorous with your observations. Explain how the are time zones here on Earth with your flat Earth Model. Do you have a TV? With a satellite dish? Where is the satellite dish pointing?
Or do you have a terrestrial antenna? How many stations do you receive? You should be getting many more stations* with your Flat Earth than with a spherical world. Want to know why? Why do airports rely on an airplane's transmitter to relay information about course and speed etc.? Shouldn't the airport's radar be able to detect a plane anywhere on a flat Earth? * taking into account the power of the broadcasting transmitter, of course. http://www.nlsa.com/meade.html |
16th June 2017, 05:50 PM | #1366 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
|
And you prove ONCE AGAIN that either you don't understand or want to ignore reference frames. A plane flying to another location on the surface uses the SURFACE as the reference frame. A rocket going to orbit does not as it requires a velocity relative to the center of mass NOT the surface. This has been explained to you multiple times in multiple ways. Either you do understand it and choose to appear not to or you are incapable of understanding it and choose not to try.
|
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension. -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory. -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong. |
|
16th June 2017, 06:44 PM | #1367 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
You seem to have forgotten that a pendulum swings back and forth.
Quote:
Quote:
However, if you mean relative to the carriage and the thrower, this is totally testable, even without the train. Get a ball. walk across the room at a constant pace and halfway across throw the ball directly up as you walk. Does it come back down and land in your hand, or does it hit you in the head?
Quote:
But if we do the jump on the moon, so no air resistance to worry about, and a very slow rotation, then the jump could get really high before angular momentum come into play.
Quote:
Now if you had the air moving with the conveyor belt, there would be no air resistance and the Helicopter would move as expected, and no it wouldn't be because the wind was pushing it.
Quote:
The helicopter is already in motion because it is moving with the ground. Newton's first Law says that this motion remains until another force acts on it. In no other lateral force acts on it, it must remain in motion. It doesn't need any other forces to keep it moving.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
16th June 2017, 07:40 PM | #1368 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
Quote:
No feeling is an illusion. Feelings and sensations are real because they are really happening to us. And we experience them. We know they occur. Good point. Nice visual too. The real force moves the box and that force hits the astronaut his perception is false. A force is never illusory if it can cause a physical effect on objects in the real world.
Quote:
In the following videos you will see amateurs, homemade, non-experts, trying to demonstrate the counter motions of the stars that we observe in the skies but within a flat earth dome model. you won't like the videos phantumwolf so there is no point watching them. They are too low budget for your taste, but sometimes the truth can be low budget. I'm not saying the videos are definitive proof of anything, but they do provide an alternative explanation. The motion of the stars is not under debate, and not that relevant in terms of proving that the earth spins. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6SK7FmNEXc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNCqOoITczM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lhvlKbGEaa8 Polaris https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E Bonus vid https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xRUM8yMaI8k
Quote:
Quote:
Me and you down here we don't observe any rotation. We don't feel any either. Experiments proving spin and no spin are conflicted. Again with instruments some detect no rotational motion , others allegedly do. All he observations you refer to are derived from second hand sources and they are inconsistent. Some show spin some show no spin. Good point. Although the ugly ducking shared many features with the other ducklings he was still wrong to conclude that he was a duck. It could take a few weeks... All the very best to you. Gave a good one. |
16th June 2017, 08:55 PM | #1369 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
|
16th June 2017, 08:58 PM | #1370 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
The difference if that a rocket leaves its frame of reference (rotating Earth Frame) for a different one (Stationary Earth Frame). Or more simply, we start by measuring a rocket's velocity against the surface of the Earth and end up measuring its Orbital Velocity, or its velocity against a fixed non rotating point in the Earth's centre. The so called Boost, I still hate that term because it really isn't correct for what is occurring, is only recognisable in the switching of Frames. Commercial planes never leave their frame of reference, and so there is no discernment of a "boost". The rocket and the planes have exactly the same momentum given to them, but only the rocket enters a new frame and so can take advantage of it. The planes simply use it to remain within their own frame.
Let's use an example. Four kids are sitting on a spinning roundabout and they are throwing a baseball to each other. It doesn't matter if they are throwing with the spin or against it, they need to use the same amount of energy to throw the ball to the person next to them. This is because when they throw the ball with the spin, while the ball then has a velocity equal to the throw plus the speed of the roundabout, the kid it is being thrown to is moving away at the same speed as the roundabout, so the ball is only moving at the speed of the throw, relative to the kid catching it. Likewise when it is thrown against the spin, it has a velocity of the throw minus the sped of the roundabout, but since the kid catching it it also travelling towards the ball at the speed of the roundabout, they see it coming to them at the speed of the throw. This is the same as a commercial plane flying between two points on the Earth. Now a fifth Kid arrives, and he stands beside the roundabout. As the kid on the roundabout that has the ball comes around towards the fifth kid, he throws the ball to the kid on the ground. The ball has the speed of the throw plus that of the roundabout, just as it did previously, but this time because the catcher is stationary to the roundabout and will see the ball arriving at that much higher speed. This is the same as launching a rocket to the east. He now tosses the ball back and then is thrown the ball again, but this time the thrower waits until he has passed by him and is moving away. The ball this time has the velocity of the throw minus the speed of the roundabout, just as it did when thrown to another kid on the roundabout, but to the stationary kid on the ground, this results in a much slower ball arriving. This is the same as launching a rocket to the West. If you can't understand this, well.... |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
16th June 2017, 10:25 PM | #1371 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
Are you meaning what you feel when you step onto the ground? That's friction.
Quote:
A really fun trick. Get three buckets of water. One hot, one ice cold, and one luke warm to room temperature. Place one of your hands in the hot bucket (hot not scalding) and one in the ice bucket. Keep them there between 30 seconds to a minute, then take both hands out and put them in the luke warm bucket. Which hand is giving the more accurate sense of temperature in the middle bucket? Here's one you can do without leaving your computer, grab a piece of white paper and put it on the desk under your monitor. now stare at the white dot in the centre of the image below for a minute, then look down at the paper and tell me what you see. Remember that it's a b;lank sheet of paper, so anything you see isn't actually real even though you brain is telling you it is. Likewise with sounds and forces out bodies are dumb. Our body's senses can tell us that we are experiencing a force, or a sound, but it can't tell us which direction that force of sound is. For sounds our brains measure the time difference between the sound registering in our left and right ears to determine a direction, but it can't determine if the sound is ahead of or behind us, we need to have other things that help out there to allow our brains to determine the direction. Same with forces. Our body doesn't know if it is experiencing a force of the reaction to the force, so it can't give a direction. Here's something you can try with friends. Get a computer chair and a harness to keep you in the chair, then tie a rope about the chair and get a friend to hold it. Have a second friend hold a second rope, this one you hold the other end of. Sit in the chair with the harness on and wear a blindfold. Make sure both ropes are tight, and then have your friend's randomly tug on their rope trying to pull you to them while the other friend merely anchors themselves acting as a stationary point rather then actively pulling you. Try and determine which friend is the one pulling on their rope. This isn't to show that our senses are useless, but that they are limited, and when we are in situations that by psss those limits, our brain has trouble processing the data being sent and ends up giving us ambiguous, misleading, or totally wrong results. Some can even be deadly!
Quote:
Quote:
Briefly. #1 is just so wrong that it's hard to decide what to say. The quick thing to point out is that when you look at the reflection you see everything around the star disk as well, if it was a reflection as he showed, you'd be able to see the earth reflected in the sky just as it was in the video, there is no way to simply zoom like he did. Also when you looked to the north, you'd still see the northern stars, but instead of a celestial equator, there would be a band of blackness between the reflected circle and the bottom of the star disc. #2 This one I watched the first 12 minutes and face palmed when he got to Apollo and asked two questions that 15 secs on Google would answer. He also failed to realise that NASA is not the only Space Agency, and that people standing on a globe aren't all standing parallel to each other (i.e. the only place on a globe that the ground is at 90 degrees to the Equatorial Stars, is the Equator. As you move North and South that angle changes. #3 Seriously, they just get crazier. The only way to make his theory work would be to have a separate double dome for every person on the planet, that only they could see, and which moved with them as they walked. There isn't a face palm big enough for this video. Okay I'm done on this, if you want a deeper discussion as to how wrong these videos are, start a new thread.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
16th June 2017, 10:35 PM | #1372 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
16th June 2017, 11:29 PM | #1373 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
|
16th June 2017, 11:51 PM | #1374 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
17th June 2017, 12:32 AM | #1375 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
Quote:
I'll raise you a chunk of fake moon rock given by astronauts to a Dutch museum. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...n-is-fake.html https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZO6JPsszrY I could probably get you eye witness testimony from one person in Bolivia for less than 50 dollars! Commercial free? Well good propaganda isn't cheap You're telling me that someone watching the apollo 11 spacecraft approaching the moon from his telescope! That's amazing. Did he record it? I would love to see what he claims to have seen. They were listening on radio to apollo 11 approaching the moon? or were they beaming or bouncing radio waves off the apollo 11 space craft? Either way it's not as compelling as the live telephone conversation between the honorable Richard nixon an Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ieGKIh3koAI Yet to land on the moon. Slow coaches! I raise you a provably fake photoshopped "photo" from the surface of the moon. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dU9nEFeEPsc What a coincidence. Those Japonese satellite images, the ones I saw, weren't very convincing at all. they didn't show me anything discernable. I'm sure you could. And so could I. And where does that get us? But you didn't counter it. Pointing out supporting evidence for the moon landing does remove or not refute the claim made in the video, namely that the body language of Neil Armstrong indicated that he was lying. And we already know he gave away fake moon rock with his buddy knuckles Aldrin who punches a guy in the face for asking him to swear on the bible that he went to he moon. Strange reaction from the same guy who allegedly performed holy communion on the moon! http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/communion.html Not true I try to consider all information. It took me years until I completely withdrew my trust from NASA.gov Yes, That's one explanation. Where are the moon bases? I was expecting moon bases by now. No return mission in how many years? Yes, that sounds like a plausible explanation. But its not the only one. Challenger mission disaster entire crew incinerated live on television. Good news. 6 of the 7 are still alive today!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K5FFwOT2xwY Whatever floats your boat, but mine has longed sailed away from nasa. It's pointless arguing over the lost credibility of nasa, if the earth is stationary then it's a logical implication that NASA.gov are not being honest with us. You can believe what you wish.
Quote:
Quote:
I agree. But it would still be wrong to conclude from that that ALL claims of hoaxes are necessarily false. No thanks. It's sleep time for me. Time to rest my body and mind. While the rest of you spin! Adios |
17th June 2017, 02:28 AM | #1376 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
|
Tedious. Again with the poor research skills. Here's something for you to chew over:
No-one from the Apollo 11 goodwill tour gave any rocks to anyone. At all. You have fallen for bad reporting of an art stunt. The fossil in the Dutch museum was never claimed by anyone ever to be a moon rock. I await your proof that they did.
Quote:
Quote:
http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Doc...kingapollo.pdf http://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/apollo8stars.html I await your proof that the above aren't correct.
Quote:
Quote:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/lunokhod/luna.html I await your proof that they do not.
Quote:
Here's some worked through evidence for you: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/.../ch4_9_1b.html I await your proof that it isn't correct. A modern digital version of an image being put through photoshop is no surprise to anyone who uses it all the time. It proves nothing but the ignorance of the youtube video maker and your gullibility.
Quote:
I await your proof that they do not.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, how about you stop playing pointless word games and regurgitating unquestioningly every stupid piece of BS conspiracy garbage you've ever swallowed, stop playing the semantic masturbation game and provide us with actual evidence to support your case. Either that or stand by your promise that you were done with this and go. |
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to. ************************** Apollo Hoax Debunked |
|
17th June 2017, 05:31 AM | #1377 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
|
17th June 2017, 05:56 AM | #1378 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
|
And failing miserably
Thank you for showing the ignorance of the flat Earth "theory" and flat Earthers in general. NONE of these work and NONE explain what is actually seen. Proof that the maker of the video doesn't understand the scale involved. Proof that the maker of the video doesn't understand how the level app in a phone works. yet more proof that flatties are just ignorant of the world around them and nothing else. |
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension. -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory. -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong. |
|
17th June 2017, 06:14 AM | #1379 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
|
You can't prove ANY are fake.
NOT given by astronauts. First we KNOW that no rocks were given at all that year. Second we KNOW that they were never given to private citizens. Third we KNOW that all rocks given out were labled as such and encased in lucite. At BEST it was given by a US ambassador to a former prime minister. But it is FAR more likely that Drees' (the former prime minister) estate ASSUMED it was a rock AFTER his death. Thank you for proving you've never actually looked at the footage. And what is a conversation where they obviously relayed the phone through a radio supposed to prove? That you have no idea what you're talking about? Congratulations, we already knew that. They tried and had an active program trying until 1974, two years AFTER Apollo ended. But they couldn't get their heavy lifting booster, the N-1, to work. Can't get people to the Moon when your rocket keeps exploding on the launch pad. But thanks AGAIN for proving your lack of research. Proof of JPEG compression and hoaxie ignorance, nothing more. What a coincidence. Those Japonese satellite images, the ones I saw, weren't very convincing at all. they didn't show me anything discernable. Cherry-picked evidence is only proof of cherry-picking. Except he didn't, see above. Except that isn't what happened. But thanks AGAIN for proving your lack of research. Aldrin was got to the "interview" under false pretenses. Sibrel, a known and convicted stalker, LIED about who he was and when Aldrin tried to leave Sibrel blocked him and repeatedly shoved him. Who has wanted to pay for it since then? Congress is more concerned with what will get them reelected in 2 years or less, not something that will pay off 5-10 years later or more and get their successors reelected. SIMILAR looking people and relatives is proof only of similar looking people and relatives. ALL of those people were provably running their own lives at the times those on the Challenger were running their own. But thanks for AGAIN proving the depths you'll go to for your lies. |
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension. -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory. -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong. |
|
17th June 2017, 07:36 AM | #1380 |
I say nay!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
|
35 pages. Fascinating.
People are even still engaging in conversation, must be a slow month. |
__________________
Memento Mori |
|
17th June 2017, 09:18 AM | #1381 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
|
17th June 2017, 11:56 AM | #1382 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Trolls leave a scent similar to skunks. If we (me and the mouse in my pocket) could smell the thread, only one would remain to wallow in the filth of ignorance and the stink of flat earth lies.
|
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
17th June 2017, 03:16 PM | #1383 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,113
|
|
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi) |
|
17th June 2017, 08:50 PM | #1384 |
I say nay!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
|
|
__________________
Memento Mori |
|
18th June 2017, 12:33 AM | #1385 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
|
I'm convinced Flat Earthers are all trolls...no one can seriously think all space exploration is fake. Heck, most them believe that space itself is fake. Calmly and rationally debating them just gives their "movement" more credibility than it deserves. Ridicule is the only answer.
|
18th June 2017, 01:01 AM | #1386 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
Well, you can always challenge them to find the position of the sun, by triangulation.
Based on a flat Earth scenario, it is impossible. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
18th June 2017, 04:54 AM | #1387 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 761
|
|
__________________
The less they know the more they blow. |
|
18th June 2017, 05:36 AM | #1388 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
|
The mythical flat Earth is a disc with the North pole in the center and the Sun rotating above it about 3,000 miles up. This doesn't work for many reasons of which the fact that the sun would never appear to set at the distance and height they claim it to be so they invent fanciful reasons like reflections off the dome and that the direction towards the Sun would never be right. It would always curve off to the NorthWest when setting no matter the time of year. Then there is this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfiNq-__OiQ |
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension. -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory. -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong. |
|
18th June 2017, 07:39 AM | #1389 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
18th June 2017, 07:54 AM | #1390 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 761
|
I know all the other problems with the Sun already. So the triangulation problem is of course down to the direction from observer not matching the compass headings.
Giving any FE |
__________________
The less they know the more they blow. |
|
18th June 2017, 08:40 AM | #1391 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
My view of engaging with people like thewholesoul--troll or not--is twofold:
|
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) |
|
18th June 2017, 08:55 AM | #1392 |
New Blood
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22
|
I think I have devised an experiment that will open your eyes to the spinning globe beneath you. All you need to do is go into your back yard, away from any stationary objects and spin around for about 60 seconds. Once the 60 seconds are up, lay on the ground facing up and I’m confident you will sense the earth’s rotation without any difficulty.
|
18th June 2017, 09:46 AM | #1393 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
I've found this to be the case with typical Apollo "hoax" believers. But thewholesoul is too obvious a troll, and too lazy and hasty in regurgitating the Apollo stuff as a secondary Gish gallop, for me to be interested in.
But I did have fun thinking about how one would explain a geostationary satellite, which is launched with a (large) net eastward delta-V, winding up stationary with respect to a spot on the Equator with a non-rotating Earth. I almost never bother with flat-Earthers. The Earth is observed to be round. That's it. |
18th June 2017, 09:46 AM | #1394 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
(Triangulating the position of the sun).
What you do is take a stick of a given length (say, 1 meter), place it vertically on a piece of flat and level ground (a parking lot will do nicely), then measure the length and direction of the shadow. At the same exact time have at least two other people do the same in spots at least a hundred miles distant from you and each other. *) Now, with the flat surface of Earth as a basis, you can plot three lines, and where they cross, the sun must be. However, they don't cross in one spot. And the more sightings you take, the more crossings you will get. Obviously, the sun cannot be in more than one place at the same time. So what is wrong. Well, even simple trigonometry is a bit involved, but now it gets really hairy: If you assume instead that the basis, Earth's surface, is spherical, then you can make all the lines come together in one point. The distance to that point will prove to be quite far. So far that the lines become virtually parallel. The sun is so distant that the simple stick-and-shadow method is far too imprecise to give a useful result. However, with sufficiently sophisticated instruments you can determine it to be appr. 149,597,870,700 meters (92,955,807 miles). (Since Earth's orbit is slightly elliptical, the exact number varies). Hans *) If you don't wanna involve others, you can get the data from here: http://www.torbenhermansen.dk/almana...e/solhojde.php then you don't even have to go out in the sun. NOTE: Before any certain person brings up some conspiracy theory, sailors have been using this method for navigating the seas for at least several centuries. It works, is true, and empirically tested. |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
18th June 2017, 07:51 PM | #1395 | ||||||
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
In defense of p27, post 1143, part one, ontological breakdown
Hello all.
I have to say the criticism of the ontological argument was pretty weak, and that is putting it mildly. Not much to counter at all. Why? Why? Everyone is entitled to have an opinion Dave, even those expressed metaphorically. Now I am not saying everything there is the absolute truth, it's certainly open to revision. You need to say why it's complete *expletive*. So again you score an A for passion, but F for constructive criticism Dave. Next if I remember correctly you used to say that air wasn't a fluid. I can respect a person when they can admit when they are wrong. there is always more than one way to describe a relationship. I believe everything is energy, and that physical matter is simply a form of energy vibrating at a lower frequency than mental and spiritual energy. But what way would you describe the relationship? So you agree? Sorry I didn't understand your response. You are wrong
Quote:
http://www.differencebetween.net/sci...ential-energy/
Quote:
Quote:
So can we reach an agreement? Is a glass of water being transported by another object in a state of potential energy, or in a state of kinetic energy? We know it's not flowing, but we also know it's being transported/moved. Maybe there is a distinction between relative motion and kinetic motion? I agree with you, that from the perspective outside the train the glass is moving with the train. From this perspective it us moving with kinetic energy. But do you agree with me, that from the perspective inside the train and the fact that the water is not flowing it is therefore true to say it is in a state of rest? Why is this important? The earth is said to be spinning, this should cause the atmosphere to also spin with kinetic energy. A river flows with kinetic energy. The water in a swimming pool doesn't flow with kinetic energy even when it's being transported on a cruise liner. Our atmosphere should be spinning with kinetic energy there should be a constant unidirectional spin. But we experience no spin or rotational force? In other words we experience an atmosphere like a swimming pool but we should experience our atmosphere like a river/whirpool. Do you agree? Can you name one single thing that exists that has no energy? If you can, then you have grounds to refute the claim that everything is energy. The final claim is not a religious statement. You can believe that everything in existence is conscious living energy and not subscribe to any religion at the same time. So there you have it. Not much to counter at all. Peace and goodwill to each and all. Adios!
|
||||||
19th June 2017, 12:23 AM | #1396 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
As somebody once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own reality.
Can you name one single person that exists that has no anal sphincter? If you can, then you have grounds to refute the claim that all people are anal sphincters. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
19th June 2017, 01:51 AM | #1397 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
Well, the argument was pretty weak, and mostly off topic, so what did you expect?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Kinetic energy is just one of many forms of energy that matter can have. A force cannot have motion, in itself. I'm sorry, but to discuss physics, we have to be strict about terminology, otherwise it makes no sense.
Quote:
Quote:
Energy is neither living nor conscious.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Stay on your own topic.
Quote:
(on potential energy)
Quote:
Quote:
Imagine you stand on a 100 ft building and fire a rifle bullet horizontally. As the bullet flies it has (at least*) ) two forms of energy: 1) Potential energy, in the form of positional energy: It is 100 ft from the ground and will start falling with gravity, converting this potential energy to kinetic energy in the form of downward velocity. This energy is by virtue of its rest state, 100 ft up. Its downward movement will be a normal free fall, independently of its horizontal movement. 2) Kinetic energy: by virtue of its motion (which will initially be close to 700 m/s) it will move horizontally till it has lost its kinetic energy due to air resistance, or hits something. - Since it is also falling towards the Earth, it will follow a curving trajectory and eventually hit the ground. *) It will also have rotational energy, which is kinetic, and heat energy, which is a third form of energy.
Quote:
The glass of water in a vehicle has kinetic energy with reference to the surrounding world (kinetic energy is relative, remember) because it is in motion. It has potential energy if it can fall down, and it has some heat energy.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is possible to imagine matter that posesses no energy, but in practice, I doubt you will find any, anywhere in the universe. That does not mean that it is, energy, however, just that it posesses energy.
Quote:
Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
19th June 2017, 07:20 AM | #1398 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
What I'd like to see is some actual physics being done in the framework that thewholesoul is promoting. He clearly disagrees with newtonian physics, let alone relativity, yet the predictions of modern physics are incredibly well tested. Can he even give a mathematical framework from which to understand a simple physical situation?
I doubt it. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
19th June 2017, 07:46 AM | #1399 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
|
19th June 2017, 07:56 AM | #1400 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|