ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags flat earth , flat earthers

Reply
Old 1st December 2017, 07:40 PM   #281
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,822
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
The LOS is between the Ship's Tracking Radar and The Target. If the Target is below "The Horizon" ...then the Target couldn't be Illuminated by the Tracking Radar to begin with.







Unbelievable. You don't FIRE IT unless you have LOS to the Target by the Tracking Radar, Skipper.
If you lose LOS... You MISS. It's a Football Bat






LOS is from the Tracking Radar "ON THE SHIP". Is it your contention that ships are 35 Miles above Sea Level?


regards
If it's a ship over the horizon, don't fire at it. If it's a helicopter at 35 miles high enough, fire at it. It's not only for ships. Geeze.

And I'm not a Captain. Commander, USN reserves, retired.

You can use a missile for multiple purposes. And your own article you linked to described Over The Horizon targeting. Cherry pick much?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 08:03 PM   #282
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,822
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Nope. And "Infinite" doesn't exist mathematically let alone in Reality.







1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2. Oh Never Mind...

"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

You can confirm this yourself. Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens.






Did I CITE this...? NOPE...Ergo; I'm not responsible to SUPPORT IT.

Ya see... if I CITE from a Reference, Encyclopedia Britannica for example --- lets say in the "A" section Page 3, you can't Invalidate my CITATION or Rationale or "Cry Foul" if: something in Section B Page 3 is FALSE and/or is not RELEVANT... i.e., Red Herring Fallacy, Or say: "Your Claim is Trash because Section B makes a Claim that supports something I said yesterday!!" (rotflol) Follow? (It's Rhetorical at this point).

See ya next year in 8th Grade!
That's why they call them "CITATIONS"!!

ps. Water (liquid) is NOT a Gas.


regards
Gravity has been proven in the laboratory. Several times with the Cavendish Experiment
(Awaiting rebuttal referring to crank physicist who nonetheless believes Earth is a globe)

Also proven more recently with lead blocks and an intererometer.

And you never did really do away with the very visible curve of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain, your very Un-Christian self-declared victory notwithstanding.

Maybe it's time for you to take up Calvin and his doctrine of Accommodation.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)

Last edited by LSSBB; 1st December 2017 at 08:09 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 08:12 PM   #283
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,337
You do realise that this...

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
The mere fact that Air Pressure decreases with altitude
contradicts this...

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Let's get specific, shall we...??

"The Narrative" is we have a Vacuum ("Outer Space") attached to a Non-Vacuum ("Earth").
According to the Laws of Entropy: Unless "Physically" hindered, Gases will flow down a Pressure/[ ] gradient until Equilibrium is reached.

"Thus the diffusion of solute particles takes place DOWN the Concentration Gradient (A *PRESSURE GRADIENT* with respect to partial pressure of *GASES* ) until uniform concentration is achieved".
[ i.e., until EQUILIBRIUM is reached ]
Chatterjea, MN., Shinde, R: Textbook of Medical Biochemistry; 8th Edition, p. 817

According to "The Narrative": Interstellar Space Pressure = 10-17 Torr.

Ergo, Equilibrium MUST = 10-17 Torr.
Ergo, Sea Level MUST BE...10-17 Torr !!
But...The Surface Pressure at Sea Level is 760 Torr.
Therefore, either 'The Narrative' is False OR The Laws of Entropy are False.

Guess where my money's going, ALL IN!!
End of Story!
You Live in a Fairytale.
See according to you, the gas has to reach an Equilibrium state, so ergo the pressure at the top must be the same as the pressure at the bottom, you can't have pressure decreasing with altitude, otherwise there is nothing stopping that continual decreasing in pressure from reaching 10-17 Torr.

You can't advocate for both a system with a graduated pressure different dependant on altitude and one that flows from high pressure to low pressure and reaches equilibrium. They can't exist at the same time.
__________________

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)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 08:21 PM   #284
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,337
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
Gravity is a pseudo force created by mass bending space in a fourth dimension.

Newton measured the pseudo-force and because it acts as a force for all purposes considered it a force. Similarly for many purposes we consider Centrifugal Force a force, but it's not a real force either, it's created by the inertia of an object resisting rotational acceleration. Einstein recognised it for what it was, a curvature in space/time that cause objects to appear to change their direction as they pass through the area of curved space. In reality they are still following Newton's laws of motions and travelling in a straight line, it's just that they are following that straight line through curved space/time.
__________________

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)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 09:06 PM   #285
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,226
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Gravity has been proven in the laboratory. Several times with the Cavendish Experiment
(Awaiting rebuttal referring to crank physicist who nonetheless believes Earth is a globe)

Also proven more recently with lead blocks and an intererometer.

...
I am troubled by these results Daniel. I am new to flat earthery but my faith is waning. These results suggest that gravity and matter are linked. The more matter the more gravity and at some point something as large as the flat earth would begin to self assemble in to something approaching a sphere. What material is the flat earth made of that allows it resist the force of gravity?



The equation above is Newton's gravity equation and it is essentially what the Cavendish experiments seem to confirm. What is intriguing here is that Newton used mathematics including the equation above to predict the motion of the planets throughout their orbits. That certainly suggests there might be something to the idea that Newton was right about gravity. Of course, if flat earth theory makes testable predictions that better explain the nature of the Earth it is time to give up on Newton and all the astronomers and accept flat earth theory.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 09:15 PM   #286
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,226
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Y...

See according to you, the gas has to reach an Equilibrium state, so ergo the pressure at the top must be the same as the pressure at the bottom, you can't have pressure decreasing with altitude, otherwise there is nothing stopping that continual decreasing in pressure from reaching 10-17 Torr.

You can't advocate for both a system with a graduated pressure different dependant on altitude and one that flows from high pressure to low pressure and reaches equilibrium. They can't exist at the same time.
This does seem to be a problem for the theory that a container is necessary for gas to have pressure, Daniel. The idea the round earthers have in their head is that the atmospheric pressure gradually tails off as the altitude increases until the gases at the top of the atmosphere can escape only very slowly because the individual molecules only rarely have enough velocity to escape earth's gravity. No container necessary unless you count the top of the atmosphere as the lid of the container, but beware of this because there is not a boundary where the atmosphere drops from very low pressure to zero. It just keeps falling until someplace in interstellar space where the pressure is extremely low..
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 1st December 2017 at 09:21 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 02:06 AM   #287
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,320
And, by the way, Norway has never had an indigenous tank design.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:38 AM   #288
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,669
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
If it's a ship over the horizon, don't fire at it. If it's a helicopter at 35 miles high enough, fire at it. It's not only for ships. Geeze.

And I'm not a Captain. Commander, USN reserves, retired.

You can use a missile for multiple purposes. And your own article you linked to described Over The Horizon targeting. Cherry pick much?
Indeed you can. We used Seacat at surface targets.

Why has this thread changed from talking about the conference to arguing with a Poe?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:57 AM   #289
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,226
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
...

Why has this thread changed from talking about the conference to arguing with a Poe?
Well thanks for that. First the convention is over so you missed it. Second I thought I'd check out some of the people and their videos. Yikes. There went some neurons that I'm not going to get back.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 06:02 AM   #290
Arisia
Graduate Poster
 
Arisia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 26.2 from Boston
Posts: 1,033
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
...

And I'm not a Captain. Commander, USN reserves, retired.

...
US military... and so part of the sphericalist conspiracy, just like all of us with Geography degrees!
Arisia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 08:40 AM   #291
Halcyon Dayz
Critical Thinker
 
Halcyon Dayz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nederland - Sol III
Posts: 315
I don't get the whole air pressure thing.
If Earth was a disc and the pseudo-force we experience as gravity was produced by constant acceleration, than air would still have weight.
So in a column of air pressure at the bottom would HAVE TO BE larger than higher up, there's after all more air weighing down on it.

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
could we start making a list of all the organizations and groups of people who are in on the conspiracy?

Would all the following be in on it? Who else?

All aerospace organizations
Mountain Climbers
Anyone involved in GPS
Compass makers
The list of organizations and groups of people who are NOT in on the conspiracy would probably be shorter.


My own question: What do flaterists say is the cause of what Round Earthers call Cosmic Rays?
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. -- Don Marquis
Join the Illuminati
Halcyon Dayz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 10:59 AM   #292
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Is the pressure of a gas within its container consistent or does it vary throughout the container?

Still I see. Begging The Question (Fallacy)...Where's the Container to have Gas Pressure (Atmospheric Pressure) to begin with?

After you answer my actual argument, THEN we can get to "Varying" Pressure if you'd like.


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:04 AM   #293
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
Oh crap, can I trust this compass thingy

That's Interesting, thanks for bringing it up. How in the World can a Compass work in the Southern Hemisphere on a Sphere ?? Wouldn't the needle be buried in the ring?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:05 AM   #294
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Still I see. Begging The Question (Fallacy)...Where's the Container to have Gas Pressure (Atmospheric Pressure) to begin with?

After you answer my actual argument, THEN we can get to "Varying" Pressure if you'd like.


regards
Regards, you are the one who is claiming that there has to be a container, remember?

The factual people have shown using your own cites that atmospheric (spheric, lol) pressure is based on good old gravity.

Regards.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:09 AM   #295
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
That's Interesting, thanks for bringing it up. How in the World can a Compass work in the Southern Hemisphere on a Sphere ?? Wouldn't the needle be buried in the ring?


regards
You don’t know how a compass works?

Wow.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:14 AM   #296
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So you just accept that pressure varies over altitude although you don't have an explanation for why?

Well it has nothing to do with "My Argument". Would you like me to post "My Argument" again since you apparently missed it?



Quote:
Gravity explains it well but, considering you deny gravity I would have though you would have some other explanation.

Factually Incorrect:

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2. Oh Never Mind...

"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

You can confirm this yourself. Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens.




Quote:
I guess I'll give up on a spherical Earth when someone comes up with a better explanation.

1. Well the compelling factor in the matter is not whether there's an "Explanation"; it's whether that "Explanation" is COHERENT and/or Scientifically Viable.

2. What's the "Explanation" of a Spherical Earth that is COHERENT and/or Scientifically Viable that has you adhering to it in the First Place...?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:20 AM   #297
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
It is hard to tell what flavor of flat earth science you follow.

Well the Flat (or Sphere) Earth or any other shape, isn't "Science" to begin with. Do you need me to explain why (Again)??
Isn't it telling... that I would even need to?




Quote:
how do you account for gravity?

The same way I account for Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes, I don't.

'gravity' what's that?

THEN: Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:25 AM   #298
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,329
Answering a question with further questions is not really answering.

You also conveniently forgot to answer my second question: Is the sun a sphere?
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:25 AM   #299
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Do you have a source for the underlined?

For Contingent Necessary Facts?? It's called "Logic". Do you need to post a link explaining Necessary and Sufficient Conditions?



Quote:
Also, are you saying we don't have atmospheric pressure or that there is a container?

I'm saying that since we have Atmospheric Pressure (Gas Pressure)...for it to "EXIST"... then we must have a Container to begin with so to afford that Condition (Gas Pressure).


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:26 AM   #300
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,669
Stop feeding him. Anyone who asks 'gravity, what's that?' is winding you all up.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:28 AM   #301
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Stop feeding him. Anyone who asks 'gravity, what's that?' is winding you all up.
I don't believe for a second that Daniel is a flat earther. He's constantly poking large holes in his own arguments.

Tell me, Daniel. How does a flat earth not have an infinite horizon?
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:31 AM   #302
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
[size="4"]In Daniel's model it can't exist.

Straw Man Fallacy: I don't and never had a 'model'. Why? Well...

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science:

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis...nd-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments --- (Hypothesis TESTS).
A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:33 AM   #303
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by erlando View Post
Is the Sun a sphere?

I have no idea. (and neither does anyone else)


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:36 AM   #304
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
1. Well the compelling factor in the matter is not whether there's an "Explanation"; it's whether that "Explanation" is COHERENT and/or Scientifically Viable.

2. What's the "Explanation" of a Spherical Earth that is COHERENT and/or Scientifically Viable that has you adhering to it in the First Place...?


regards
Gravity explains the shape and atmosphere on Earth. It's been verified through experiment. The fact you don't believe it is not my problem.

One important fact, "flat earth" has never be verified and there are no images to support the belief, yet thousands of images prove it wrong.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 2nd December 2017 at 11:39 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:41 AM   #305
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,518
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...?
From your link:

Quote:
The Bohr model of the atom,

https://www.thoughtco.com/bohr-model-of-the-atom-603815

for example, depicts electrons circling the atomic nucleus in a fashion similar to planets in the solar system. This model is useful in determining the energies of the quantum states of the electron in the simple hydrogen atom, but it is by no means represents the true nature of the atom.

Scientists (and science students) often use such idealized models to get an initial grasp on analyzing complex situations.
That last sentence is where models fit into the scientific method.
__________________
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
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:43 AM   #306
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Begging the question. Who says you need a container?

Factually Incorrect:

1. Common Experience.
2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
3. The Definition...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

and...

"Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle's Law...

Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the WALLS OF THE CONTAINER causes PRESSURE (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of GAS MOLECULES with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE."
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html



Quote:
Does water pressure increase as you go further down?

1. False Equivalence Fallacy: AGAIN... Water (Liquid) is NOT a Gas even though both are arbitrarily classified as Fluids.

2. You still need a container for water to have... Water Pressure.



regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:44 AM   #307
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Straw Man Fallacy: I don't and never had a 'model'. Why? Well...

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science:

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis...nd-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments --- (Hypothesis TESTS).
A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!


regards
Daniel has no idea of how the scientific method works, part 4769
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:44 AM   #308
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,750
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You don’t know how a compass works?

Wow.
Declination is a thing. Pass it on to our science-denying interlocutor, who obviously needs a lot of help.....
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 11:48 AM   #309
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
That is incorrect

So "Na'ahh" defense, eh? Riveting!


Quote:
The Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gasses says you're promoting crack pottery.

Really?

"Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle's Law...

Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the WALLS OF THE CONTAINER causes PRESSURE (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of GAS MOLECULES with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE."
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

It's clearly saying "You're" the crackpot.



regards and Thanks!
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:00 PM   #310
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
So "Na'ahh" defense, eh? Riveting!

Really?

"Kinetic Molecular Theory Explanation of Boyle's Law...

Observations about pressure may be explained using the following ideas. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the WALLS OF THE CONTAINER causes PRESSURE (force on a unit area). Pressure is proportional to the number of molecular collisions and the force of the collisions in a particular area. The more collisions of GAS MOLECULES with THE WALLS, the higher the PRESSURE."
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

It's clearly saying "You're" the crackpot.

regards and Thanks!
From your cite!

Quote:
Atmospheric pressure varies with height just as water pressure varies with depth. As a swimmer dives deeper, the water pressure increases. As a mountain climber ascends to higher altitudes, the atmospheric pressure decreases. His body is compressed by a smaller amount of air above it. The atmospheric pressure at 20,000 feet is only one-half of that at sea level because about half of the entire atmosphere is below this elevation.
REGARDS and SUPER THANKS!
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:01 PM   #311
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Other than that it seems to say what you think it needs to say to make your claim, why is this link gospel?

It's Pathetically Woeful that I even have to provide a link to a topic that an Incoherent 2nd Grader knows as Prima Facie Apodictic and can reconcile in less than a Planck Time.
Dont'cha Think??



Quote:
Exactly what makes it the perfect truth?

Experience, Millions of Times... Without Exception.



Quote:
I can provide many links that talk about air pressure and atmospheric pressure that don't talk about having to have a container, rather that air pressure is the force applied to a surface or object created by the weight of the air.

Are ya kiddin me sir? There's a Special Category that will stare: Self-Evident, Scientifically Validated, Indubitable Prima Facie Truths in the Face and DENY THEM. It's called Religious Zealotry.


ps. Thanks for the "kids-fun-science".



regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:16 PM   #312
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
If it's a ship over the horizon, don't fire at it.

Begging The Question Fallacy: "over the horizon"...is what you're attempting to prove.



Quote:
If it's a helicopter at 35 miles high enough, fire at it. It's not only for ships.

Straw Man (Fallacy): I didn't say it was only for ships. jeez



Quote:
And I'm not a Captain. Commander, USN reserves, retired.

And you still can't reconcile this? It indicts you even more!!!

ps. US Army (retired)... Land Lover



Quote:
You can use a missile for multiple purposes.

Did I say otherwise?



Quote:
And your own article you linked to described Over The Horizon targeting. Cherry pick much?

Did I CITE it? SEE Multiple Explanations to this fiasco in previous posts.

So you call CITATIONS "Cherry Picking" ??

ALL (52) CITATIONS here, according to your logic, MUST BE "Cherry Picked"...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/

Because they didn't deal with "ALL" the SUBJECT MATTER in each REFERENCE!

Downright Hilarious Sir!! Thanks



oy vey
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:25 PM   #313
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Did I CITE it? SEE Multiple Explanations to this fiasco in previous posts.
Do you still not cotton to the difference between "quoting" something and "citing" something?

Oh dear.

You see when you "quote" something your provide a "cite" for it, which is a place where people can see on their own whether the "cite" supports the "quote."

In this case you have repeatedly "cited" to sources that specifically destroy your flat earth claims.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:36 PM   #314
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,885
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Begging The Question Fallacy: "over the horizon"...is what you're attempting to prove.
Since you've already postulated a horizon, -1


Quote:


Straw Man (Fallacy): I didn't say it was only for ships. jeez
Non Sequitur. -1



Quote:

And you still can't reconcile this? It indicts you even more!!!
Non Sequitur. -1



Quote:


ps. US Army (retired)... Land Lover
Thank you for your service. +1



Quote:





Did I say otherwise?
Straw man. -1



Quote:







Did I CITE it? SEE Multiple Explanations to this fiasco in previous posts.

So you call CITATIONS "Cherry Picking" ??

ALL (52) CITATIONS here, according to your logic, MUST BE "Cherry Picked"...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/
Outright falsehood and redefinition of "Cite". -10



Quote:

Because they didn't deal with "ALL" the SUBJECT MATTER in each REFERENCE!
/quote]
Outright falsehood and redefinition of "Cite". -10



Quote:





Downright Hilarious Sir!! Thanks



oy vey
Argument for incredulity -5

Your score on this examination is -28 points
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:43 PM   #315
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Gravity has been proven in the laboratory. Several times with the Cavendish Experiment
(Awaiting rebuttal referring to crank physicist who nonetheless believes Earth is a globe)

Also proven more recently with lead blocks and an intererometer.

Really? OK...

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2. Then (for both Cavendish and lead blocks and an inter"F"erometer') ...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?



Quote:
And you never did really do away with the very visible curve of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

Oh yes, I surely did. Here it is again...

The total distance of these power lines over Lake Pontchartrain is 15.9 Miles.
Per Soundly: Viewer Height was between 35 - 50 Feet, so let's say 40 Feet.
The distance between each Pylon is .18 Miles. (~88 Pylons)
I counted ~ 40 Pylons in Soundly's now infamous "P-900" shot...roughly 7 Miles, with some significant curvature.
Louisiana Length (North/South = 379 Miles)

If these Pics/Video are TRUE; THEN, we MUST LIVE on...

"PLANET LOUISIANA" !!

Furthermore, according to your 'Spinning Ball' Narrative, every point along a Tangent from your feet falls away from you in every direction at 8" per mile2.

The horizon at 7 Miles from 90 degrees --- through Zero --- to 270 degrees is 21.5 MILES.

So you're saying that we see significant curvature on the Z Axis....which is at 7 Miles BUT along the X Axis...which is 21.5 MILES: It's FLAT, No Curvature ???


So to remain "COHERENT" with Soundly's Z-Axis, the X-Axis should look like this...

http://imgur.com/iWg9vSZ


Do you need more Gasoline with your Matches?


Moreover, I've been told for about 2 years now that there is no way to see curvature from anything less than (65,000 Feet - 12,000 Miles, and everything in-between ) THEN... Soundly (smh) shows it from 35 Feet!!


Let's take a look at these pics from Lake Ponchartrain...




and ...



^^^ Soundly's pic.


What's going on here between these 2 Pics?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:53 PM   #316
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You do realise that this...contradicts this...

It doesn't, You're Confused... and continue with a Red Herring Fallacy.

Can you state "My Argument" please...?




Quote:
See according to you, the gas has to reach an Equilibrium state, so ergo the pressure at the top must be the same as the pressure at the bottom, you can't have pressure decreasing with altitude, otherwise there is nothing stopping that continual decreasing in pressure from reaching 10-17 Torr.

Begging The Question Fallacy (467th Time). Where'd you get Atmospheric Pressure without a Container, FIRST...?

Ya see, before we can discuss "Varying Gas Pressure" we have to Iron Out where we got "Gas Pressure" FIRST. Follow? (It's Rhetorical at this point)



Quote:
You can't advocate for both a system with a graduated pressure different dependant on altitude and one that flows from high pressure to low pressure and reaches equilibrium. They can't exist at the same time.

Well the only thing I'm "advocating" for at the moment, ya know -- "My Argument" is that you can't have Gas Pressure Without a Container.


Let me know when you're ready to discuss the ACTUAL Argument, mmm k?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:58 PM   #317
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,822
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
That's Interesting, thanks for bringing it up. How in the World can a Compass work in the Southern Hemisphere on a Sphere ?? Wouldn't the needle be buried in the ring?


regards
Magnetic fields follow a spherical model around the globe. How do you get consistent magnetic field patterns like that, plus a wandering pole, in a flat Earth?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 01:24 PM   #318
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,822
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Really? OK...

1. Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a. Is gravity a Force?
b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
  1. Gravity is a demonstrable attraction between physical objects based on mass
  2. Gravity is the observable attraction between physical objects based on mass
  3. Gravitational attraction is a property due to the mass of objects, the underlying communication method has been modeled using theories such as general relativity, however it's observational existence has been verified and needs to be accounted for.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
2. Then (for both Cavendish and lead blocks and an inter"F"erometer') ...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?
Your requests are unnecessary and irrelevant. Gravity has been shown to exist via different experiments. Mt. Everest exists, my theories of how it got there don't have a bearing on that fact.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Oh yes, I surely did. Here it is again...

The total distance of these power lines over Lake Pontchartrain is 15.9 Miles.
Per Soundly: Viewer Height was between 35 - 50 Feet, so let's say 40 Feet.
The distance between each Pylon is .18 Miles. (~88 Pylons)
I counted ~ 40 Pylons in Soundly's now infamous "P-900" shot...roughly 7 Miles, with some significant curvature.
Louisiana Length (North/South = 379 Miles)

If these Pics/Video are TRUE; THEN, we MUST LIVE on...

"PLANET LOUISIANA" !!

Furthermore, according to your 'Spinning Ball' Narrative, every point along a Tangent from your feet falls away from you in every direction at 8" per mile2.

The horizon at 7 Miles from 90 degrees --- through Zero --- to 270 degrees is 21.5 MILES.

So you're saying that we see significant curvature on the Z Axis....which is at 7 Miles BUT along the X Axis...which is 21.5 MILES: It's FLAT, No Curvature ???


So to remain "COHERENT" with Soundly's Z-Axis, the X-Axis should look like this...

http://imgur.com/iWg9vSZ


Do you need more Gasoline with your Matches?


Moreover, I've been told for about 2 years now that there is no way to see curvature from anything less than (65,000 Feet - 12,000 Miles, and everything in-between ) THEN... Soundly (smh) shows it from 35 Feet!!
Your math is guesswork and apparently supposition as it is unreferenced, and does not negate the fact that a curve is shown.
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post

Let's take a look at these pics from Lake Ponchartrain...




and ...



^^^ Soundly's pic.


What's going on here between these 2 Pics?


regards
The first picture has no traceability provided nor anything showing it's exact location and time. There is nothing to indicate they are identical points of view under identical circumstances.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)

Last edited by LSSBB; 2nd December 2017 at 01:54 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 01:28 PM   #319
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post

...Well the only thing I'm "advocating" for at the moment, ya know -- "My Argument" is that you can't have Gas Pressure Without a Container ...

Our beautiful globe Earth is the "container" and the "weight" of the gas itself (many miles thick) is what is causing the pressure.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 01:33 PM   #320
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I am troubled by these results Daniel. I am new to flat earthery but my faith is waning.

What was your "FAITH" based on...?



Quote:
These results suggest that gravity and matter are linked.

What "Results"...?



Quote:
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/me...6b53e72468303a

The equation above is Newton's gravity equation.

Ahhh, No it's Not. This is Newton's Equation...

Fg ∝ m1M2/d2



Quote:
and it is essentially what the Cavendish experiments seem to confirm.

Factually Incorrect:

1. Equations are "Descriptions"; whereas, Experiments provide "Explanations". So your appeal is Non-Sequitur Fallacy.

2. Your 'scientific community' doesn't follow "Newtonian gravity" ...

"...Einstein created his General Theory of Relativity— which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-nonlocality/

Please Reconcile...?



Quote:
What is intriguing here is that Newton used mathematics including the equation above to predict the motion of the planets throughout their orbits.

1. Mathematics isn't "Science".

2. Equations don't make "Scientific Predictions". Watch...

Please Define:

1. "Scientific Prediction"...?
2. "POST"- diction...?
3. Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...?
4. Cyclic Repeat - diction...?

Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of each and place Your "Equation Prediction" trainwreck in the appropriate category...?

3. Begging the Question Fallacy (x2): 'planets' and 'orbits'.




Quote:
That certainly suggests there might be something to the idea that Newton was right about gravity.

So much so that your 'scientific community' (as if) doesn't follow it!




Quote:
Of course, if flat earth theory makes testable predictions

Now I posted a retort to this Nonsensical Buffoonery a number of times in this thread but you still can't pull yourself away from 'The Narrative' can ya??

The Flat Earth (or Sphere) isn't "Science" to begin with. Ergo...there is no Flat Earth (or Globe Earth) 'theory".

Read this real slow about 5 times, mmm K?? ...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

"The Scientific Method is Hypothesis-Driven;"
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/s...ypothesis.html

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) . It's a classic: "If" this "Then" that, motif.

"A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning. A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but EXPLAINS WHY they are related.
Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect'--- How/Why questions. Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking:

How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False??

i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis;
Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis;
Ergo...This isn't "Science"!!

Ergo... by you merely claiming/contemplating this, unequivocally demonstrates that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and WHISTLED DIXIE!!!!!

You just EXPOSED yourself and would "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

Thanks for Illustrating, couldn't have done it without'cha




Quote:
it is time to give up on Newton...

It was "TIME" about 100 Years ago...


"First I want to tell you what goes WRONG with Newtonian Mechanics...the double-slit experiment is a problem; that's what put's THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR NEWTONIAN PHYSICS."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Quantum Mechanics II: (3:18 minute mark)


So we have a Double Slit Experiment with a "Newtonian Particle"--- an Electron. We close one slit and fire a Bevy of Electrons and we get 10 hits @ Point A. We close that slit and open the other slit and fire a bevy of Electrons and we get 8 hits @ Point A.
The "Newtonian Prediction" would be if we fired the same bevy of Electrons with both slits open we MUST GET 18 hits @ Point A. Well ...

We Get A Big Fat ZERO !!

And what does that mean? Well...

"That is the End of Newtonian Physics."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Quantum Mechanics II
http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/i...nscript20.html



Quote:
all the astronomers

Ass'tronomy isn't "Science" either. Crocheting is more Scientific...

Why?? Well Ass'tronomers inherently can't follow 'The Scientific Method'...
"SCIENCE" !!!!

Watch...

Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed in the entire history of ASStronomy...?

OR...

Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?

Ya see, AGAIN...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

"The Scientific Method is Hypothesis-Driven;"
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/s...ypothesis.html

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

"The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT!!"
Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5.


"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...appendixe.html

EXPERIMENT is the ONLY means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.”
Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983

Uh Ohh...

"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm



So, Crocheting is more "Scientific" than Ass'tronomy. It's nothing but Poetry and IMAGINATION.


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.