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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Reply
Old 9th December 2019, 12:52 PM   #241
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,747
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Really?

A couple of minutes' searching turned up (nowhere near a complete list):
de Sitter, 1913
Tomaschek, 1924
Kennedy, 1926
Illingworth, 1927
Kennedy-Thorndike, 1932
Ives-Stilwell, 1938
Brecher, 1977
Wolf, 2003
Müller, 2007


Now I know you're joking.


Wow, just ... wow!

Have you considered posting in the Conspiracy Theory board?
They didn't do any better in the CT forum than they are here.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 9th December 2019, 12:56 PM   #242
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Really?

A couple of minutes' searching turned up (nowhere near a complete list):
de Sitter, 1913
Tomaschek, 1924
Kennedy, 1926
Illingworth, 1927
Kennedy-Thorndike, 1932
Ives-Stilwell, 1938
Brecher, 1977
Wolf, 2003
Müller, 2007


Now I know you're joking.
Were their apparatus traveling at 8000 m/s against the Earth's frame of reference? No.

Quote:
Wow, just ... wow!

Have you considered posting in the Conspiracy Theory board?
I already did.
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 01:00 PM   #243
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,691
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Because the frame of reference spinning with the Earth cancels the 30,000 m/s for short altitudes below the geostationary orbit (where the gravitational acceleration strength of the Earth equals the gravitational acceleration strength of the Sun).
What?!
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 9th December 2019, 01:07 PM   #244
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Were their apparatus traveling at 8000 m/s against the Earth's frame of reference? No.
So?

Look at this:
Originally Posted by philippeb8
Originally Posted by JeanTate
What's so magical about the ISS?
Because it travels at 8000 m/s.
Dude, I hate to break this to you, but the ISS does not "travel at 8000 m/s"

Rather, it "travels" at all kinds of speeds, from ~0 m/s to ~300,000 km/s.

I challenge you to show that the ISS "travels at 8000 m/s". Not 7999.9999 m/s, nor 8000.00001 m/s.

But thanks for all the jokes ...

Quote:
I already did.
So you say.

Evidence?
JeanTate 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 9th December 2019, 01:08 PM   #245
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,557
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Were their apparatus traveling at 8000 m/s against the Earth's frame of reference? No.



I already did.
Yes, the CT was the basic 'my brilliance isn't recognized, so there must be a conspiracy by the jews/illuminati/everyone, as I can't possibly be totally wrong'
Lukraak_Sisser 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 9th December 2019, 01:08 PM   #246
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Again, I don't understand what you mean. Could you detail it further?
I forgot to mention it's a one-way speed of light test. It's very simple: you have an apparatus consisting of a laser emitter pointing to a wavelength meter. By rotating the apparatus in all axes (X, Y & Z), you will measure a different wavelength.

Quote:
By saying that we've MOVED ON from his theories onto BETTER theories I'm saying that he was 100% right? Dude, that's the exact opposite of what I'm doing.
Ok so we all agree Einstein wasn't 100% right then?

Quote:
And how do you determine if it makes sense?
Correction: the probability it makes sense a great enough for me to believe it.

Quote:
That doesn't tell me what it is. What is it made of? How does it work?

You said it was chemical so I want to know where the issue lies.
You seem to be very loathe to put any effort into your answers.
That's all I know about plasma but it's not the point of the thought experiment.
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 01:08 PM   #247
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
What?!
Apparently, pb8 does not understand orbital mechanics and has never heard of Lagrange points.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 9th December 2019, 01:12 PM   #248
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
<snip>

So you have different states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Plasma is the one you get when the temperatures are extremely high.
What?

You mean that low temperature plasmas do not exist?

I'm sure the thousands of people working on such will be thrilled to know that!
JeanTate 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 9th December 2019, 01:14 PM   #249
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,393
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
you have an apparatus consisting of a laser emitter pointing to a wavelength meter. By rotating the apparatus in all axes (X, Y & Z), you will measure a different wavelength.
...and?

Quote:
Ok so we all agree Einstein wasn't 100% right then?
Everybody agrees on that. Even Einstein agreed to it. Scientific theories are built incrementially.

Quote:
Correction: the probability it makes sense a great enough for me to believe it.
Ah, ok: how do you calculate the probability?

Quote:
That's all I know about plasma but it's not the point of the thought experiment.
If you want to tackle the topic of stars you have to know the fundamentals of plasma. Plasma is gas with the electrons stripped away. It CANNOT do chemical reactions because those require electrons around the atoms.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th December 2019, 01:18 PM   #250
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
<snip>

That's all I know about plasma but it's not the point of the thought experiment.
Wait, what?!?

From the OP (my bold): "Can the star spin on its own and if so at what speed will the fire be ejected given an angular velocity omega?"

From post #93 (my bold): "I never said that. I said the reference frame will be spinning with the star explaining why the fire (or plasma) cannot be ejected."

Sorry, philippeb8, by your very own words, plasma is very much the point of the thought experiment.

Care to try again?
JeanTate 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 9th December 2019, 01:41 PM   #251
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,106
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Because the frame of reference spinning with the Earth cancels the 30,000 m/s for short altitudes below the geostationary orbit (where the gravitational acceleration strength of the Earth equals the gravitational acceleration strength of the Sun).
The place where they gravitational acceleration of the earth and sun are equal is not geostationary, it's about 45x farther away and orbits the sun not the earth. How can you expect to overturn any established physics when you can't get even the basics right?
phunk 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 9th December 2019, 02:32 PM   #252
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Regarding the particles: the particles will crash on each other. Why should the pair of particles start spinning?
They would crash into each other if they both had the same velocity, since there is an attractive force between them.

But they each have a velocity that is normal to the direction of that force, and in the opposite direction to each other.

So in that circumstance, why wouldn't that pair of particles spin?

So this is a clear example of a multi particle object which can spin with a definite angular momentum without any preferred reference frame and without any reference object.

I then showed how the same would apply as we added more particles to the object and showed how the same would apply to these larger objects.

And I showed how free particles would be ejected from this object with centrifugal force, again without the need for a preferred reference frame or a reference object.

And note that I didn't have to program the rotation or the centrifugal force into the model, I just programmed particles moving in a straight line and an attractive force between them. The rotation and centrifugal force are simply consequences of those simple rules.

Even if I choose a reference frame which rotates with the object, that doesn't alter their acceleration of the constituent particles with respect to each other.

So I don't see the problem with your star having a definite angular momentum.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 9th December 2019, 02:39 PM   #253
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
The place where they gravitational acceleration of the earth and sun are equal is not geostationary, it's about 45x farther away and orbits the sun not the earth. How can you expect to overturn any established physics when you can't get even the basics right?
So here is the contribution from the Earth (blue) and the Sun (red) in percentage:



So the intersection is:
2.5e8 m

Which is 7 times the geostationary altitude of 3.5786e7 m and not 45 times. Again this is an approximation and I haven't considered the uncertainties or the elliptical orbits.
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 02:40 PM   #254
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation A delusion that a "pretty curve" supports his FT fantasy

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
That's because I had the idea right but not a very "pretty rotation curve";
10 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that a "pretty curve" supports his FT fantasy.
Anyone can make up an equation that produces a pretty curve similar to a galaxy rotation curve. Pretty curves are irrelevant until they are matched to the real world. What makes his curves deluded is that we have over 50 years of galaxy rotation curve measurements that he has ignored.

His "pretty curve" is dubious until he shows how he got it. What change did he make in his FT fantasy to change his previous "pretty curve" that was obviously not galaxy rotation curves to that "pretty curve"?
Reality Check 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 9th December 2019, 02:55 PM   #255
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
You can find drafts here:
"Finite Theory - Galactic Rotation Curve" which is a coupe of graphs out of nowhere.
"Finite Theory - Galactic Rotation Curve Simulator" which has a post in that CQ thread as a "reference" and his simulator code on github.

Thus we'll end up with the following galactic rotation curve maxima for the Milky Way: and a curve that does not look like a galaxy rotation curve!
Reality Check 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 9th December 2019, 02:57 PM   #256
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So here is the contribution from the Earth (blue) and the Sun (red) in percentage:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ebd9da43a0.png

So the intersection is:
2.5e8 m

Which is 7 times the geostationary altitude of 3.5786e7 m and not 45 times. Again this is an approximation and I haven't considered the uncertainties or the elliptical orbits.
Oooh, look!

A graph (chart, whatever) with colored lines on it! And axes that have tick marks!

What is the world coming to? One day, soon perhaps, there'll be equations to go with the colored lines.
JeanTate 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 9th December 2019, 02:59 PM   #257
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that a "pretty curve" supports his FT fantasy.
Anyone can make up an equation that produces a pretty curve similar to a galaxy rotation curve. Pretty curves are irrelevant until they are matched to the real world. What makes his curves deluded is that we have over 50 years of galaxy rotation curve measurements that he has ignored.

His "pretty curve" is dubious until he shows how he got it. What change did he make in his FT fantasy to change his previous "pretty curve" that was obviously not galaxy rotation curves to that "pretty curve"?
The shape of the curve is good enough to show the dividing line between FT and GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities + ...
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:00 PM   #258
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation An ignorant fantasy that gravitons can produce "perfect cryonics"

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Actually time travel into the future is the easiest to achieve by sending a higher flux of gravitons through a body and therefore achieving perfect cryonics for those who needs to be kept alive for a cure we do not yet have:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics
Missed this: 10 December 2019 philippeb8: An ignorant fantasy that gravitons can produce "perfect cryonics"!
Gravitons are a hypothetical particle that carry gravity. A "higher flux of gravitons" is just a higher gravity. Not much use unless you want to turn people into strawberry jam !
Reality Check 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 9th December 2019, 03:03 PM   #259
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,393
philippeb8 I'm still waiting for your detailed explanation of how you could detect gravitons.

I'm also waiting for your acknowledgment about the nature of plasma, and why your comments re fire from stars were incorrect.

That would go a long way towards helping us understand your OP.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th December 2019, 03:07 PM   #260
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So here is the contribution from the Earth (blue) and the Sun (red) in percentage:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ebd9da43a0.png

So the intersection is:
2.5e8 m

Which is 7 times the geostationary altitude of 3.5786e7 m and not 45 times. Again this is an approximation and I haven't considered the uncertainties or the elliptical orbits.
The Earth's constribution:



The Sun's contribution:

philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:11 PM   #261
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The Earth's constribution:



The Sun's contribution:

Ooh, look!

Lots of symbols and none of them defined!

How easy it is to overthrow 300 years of physics...
JeanTate 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 9th December 2019, 03:12 PM   #262
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation Some deluded "GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities" lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
... GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities + ...
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Some deluded "GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities" lies.
It is Newtonian gravitation that is used to model galaxy rotation curves. These are the curves that do not match the data.
It is the addition of dark matter to Newtonian gravitation that produces galaxy rotation curves that match the data.
There are other observations that use GR such as detecting by gravitational lensing that colliding galaxy clusters have invisible mass that is not with the visible colliding gas. No one explains galaxy rotation curves with his delusion of "GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities". No one explains anything with his delusion of "GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities" !
Reality Check 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 9th December 2019, 03:12 PM   #263
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
philippeb8 I'm still waiting for your detailed explanation of how you could detect gravitons.

I'm also waiting for your acknowledgment about the nature of plasma, and why your comments re fire from stars were incorrect.

That would go a long way towards helping us understand your OP.
Ok the plasma is a nuclear reaction and not chemical. How does that make Einstein the almighty physicist?
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:18 PM   #264
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation Complete delusion about what a geostationary orbit is

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Because the frame of reference spinning with the Earth cancels the 30,000 m/s for short altitudes below the geostationary orbit (where the gravitational acceleration strength of the Earth equals the gravitational acceleration strength of the Sun).
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Complete delusion that a geostationary orbit is "where the gravitational acceleration strength of the Earth equals the gravitational acceleration strength of the Sun".

This is a geostationary orbit. This is nothing to do with the Sun. If the Earth was around a different star, the orbit would be the same.
Reality Check 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 9th December 2019, 03:23 PM   #265
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Ok the plasma is a nuclear reaction and not chemical. How does that make Einstein the almighty physicist?
The only person around here who refers to Einstein as "the almighty physicist" is you. You seem to have something against him.

Forget the man, concentrate on the physics.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 9th December 2019 at 03:24 PM.
Robin 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 9th December 2019, 03:23 PM   #266
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Some deluded "GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities" lies.
It is Newtonian gravitation that is used to model galaxy rotation curves. These are the curves that do not match the data.
It is the addition of dark matter to Newtonian gravitation that produces galaxy rotation curves that match the data.
There are other observations that use GR such as detecting by gravitational lensing that colliding galaxy clusters have invisible mass that is not with the visible colliding gas. No one explains galaxy rotation curves with his delusion of "GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities". No one explains anything with his delusion of "GR + dark matter + parallel universes + wormholes + singularities" !
And that's why I specifically pointed out Newton was wrong as well by disregarding rotating bodies. Once again Newton implies there is an absolute frame of reference and that the universe is not spinning itself.

I know Reality Check is smart enough to understand what I am saying but Reality Check unfortunately is trying to drag desperately the next generation of physicists into his prestigious oblivion.
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:25 PM   #267
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation Complete ignorance about plasma and Einstein stupidity

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Ok the plasma is a nuclear reaction and not chemical. How does that make Einstein the almighty physicist?
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Complete ignorance about plasma and Einstein stupidity.
Plasma is a partially ionized gas that by itself undergoes chemical reactions so that we see fairly complex molecules in clouds of plasma in space.
Stars have very dense, very hot plasma in there core and we get fusion there.
The post he replied to does not mention Einstein. What made Einstein a mighty physicist was a body of groundbreaking and valid physics which did not include any plasma physics. What other physicists can do is apply SR and maybe even GR to relativistic plasmas.
Reality Check 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 9th December 2019, 03:27 PM   #268
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation A deluded "Newton was wrong as well by disregarding rotating bodies" lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
And that's why I specifically pointed out Newton was wrong as well by disregarding rotating bodies. ....
10 December 2019 philippeb8: A deluded "Newton was wrong as well by disregarding rotating bodies" lie.
Newton was right as shown by 200 years of evidence until his physics was shown to be an approximation to SR and GR. Newton know that bodies rotate !
A possible "I specifically pointed out" lie since this is the first mention of Newton in this thread. In any case the unsupported opinion of an ignorant internet crank does not make any scientist wrong.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th December 2019 at 03:30 PM.
Reality Check 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 9th December 2019, 03:29 PM   #269
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
The only person around here who refers to Einstein as "the almighty physicist" is you. You seem to have something against him.
Yes because Einstein knew both SR and GR were partly plagiarized, are wrong and complicity promoted the propaganda.
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:31 PM   #270
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: A deluded "Newton was wrong as well by disregarding rotating bodies" lie.
Newton was right as shown by 200 years of evidence until his physics was shown to be an approximation to SR and GR. Newton know that bodies rotate !
A possible "I specifically pointed out" lie since this is the first mention of Newton in this thread. In any case the unsupported opinion of an ignorant internet crank does not make any scientist wrong.
... by disregarding the influence of rotating bodies.
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:37 PM   #271
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Complete ignorance about plasma and Einstein stupidity.
Plasma is a partially ionized gas that by itself undergoes chemical reactions so that we see fairly complex molecules in clouds of plasma in space.
Stars have very dense, very hot plasma in there core and we get fusion there.
The post he replied to does not mention Einstein. What made Einstein a mighty physicist was a body of groundbreaking and valid physics which did not include any plasma physics. What other physicists can do is apply SR and maybe even GR to relativistic plasmas.
Oh that's right. Einstein adjusted kappa of his GR with the perihelion shift, extended it to the light bending and there you go ...
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:41 PM   #272
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Complete delusion that a geostationary orbit is "where the gravitational acceleration strength of the Earth equals the gravitational acceleration strength of the Sun".

This is a geostationary orbit. This is nothing to do with the Sun. If the Earth was around a different star, the orbit would be the same.
Why? Because Einstein and his curved spacetime said so?
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:41 PM   #273
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 65,590
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The Earth's constribution:



The Sun's contribution:

Were these equations literally just copied and pasted from Wikipedia?
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 9th December 2019, 03:44 PM   #274
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Ok the plasma is a nuclear reaction and not chemical. <snip>
Perhaps that’s the case in the magical philippeb8 universe ... but we don’t live in such a universe ...

Maybe this is why there are, so far, no answers from you to my several questions ...
JeanTate 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 9th December 2019, 03:44 PM   #275
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Were these equations literally just copied and pasted from Wikipedia?
No because it has to do with FT.
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:45 PM   #276
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Yes because Einstein knew both SR and GR were partly plagiarized, are wrong and complicity promoted the propaganda.
Sure, because his use of terms like "Lorentz transform" and "Minowski space" did not acknowledge any other any other physicists.

He was known to have actively encourages theories which were inconsistent with GR saying that it could not be assumed that GR was right.

Again, put aside your weird personal dislike for Einstein and concentrate on the physics.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 9th December 2019, 03:49 PM   #277
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Were these equations literally just copied and pasted from Wikipedia?
They cannot have been so copied.

WP is propaganda, promoting the failed, 300 year old physics of Newton.

As you may know, philippeb8 has conclusively shown that his idea is The One True Physics. He did this in a book that is not yet published. So these equations must come from that inaccessible source ...
JeanTate 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 9th December 2019, 03:49 PM   #278
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Perhaps that’s the case in the magical philippeb8 universe ... but we don’t live in such a universe ...

Maybe this is why there are, so far, no answers from you to my several questions ...
I lost track of your questions but please restate them if they are conceptually related to the thought experiment or the mathematics of FT.
philippeb8 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 9th December 2019, 03:56 PM   #279
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I lost track of your questions but please restate them if they are conceptually related to the thought experiment or the mathematics of FT.
Not going to babysit you.

My questions are easy to find.

They all quote the OP you wrote, as well as other posts by you, directly related to the OP.

So, by definition, they are directly related to the “thought experiment” presented in the OP.

TBH, I’m pretty sure the reason you have not answered (and say that you have “lost track”) has more to do with fatal, internal, flaws in your own ideas than forgetfulness. Fatal flaws which my posts clearly identify.
JeanTate 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 9th December 2019, 04:05 PM   #280
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So here is the contribution from the Earth (blue) and the Sun (red) in percentage:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ebd9da43a0.png

So the intersection is:
2.5e8 m

Which is 7 times the geostationary altitude of 3.5786e7 m and not 45 times. Again this is an approximation and I haven't considered the uncertainties or the elliptical orbits.
This is yet another example of your horribly sloppy work.

The x-axis is labelled in units of "x" whatever that might be.
The y-axis is not at all labelled at all.

The two curves are labelled as "fun1" and "fun2" which indicates you are extracting the urine.

For all anyone can tell, the graph represents a comparison of cocaine use against heroin usage against credibility.

Just look at the Y axis. It is scaled from zero to one. Zero to one what? Is that a probability or a physical property? We don't know, and you don't either.

What we have there is a graph of the behaviour of some quantity "x" against some other quantity that has no units, resulting in a red line that means precisely SFA and a blue line that means precisely SFA.

How you think such vague assertions are evidence for anything eludes me.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

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 11:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.