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, 04:14 PM   #281
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I challenge you to show that the ISS "travels at 8000 m/s". Not 7999.9999 m/s, nor 8000.00001 m/s.
8000 m/s is an average. Why does an uncertainty matter?
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, 04:15 PM   #282
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Thumbs down A "Einstein knew both SR and GR were partly plagiarized" lie and propaganda delusion

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Yes because Einstein knew both SR and GR were partly plagiarized, are wrong and complicity promoted the propaganda.
10 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Einstein knew both SR and GR were partly plagiarized" lie and propaganda delusion.

Einstein's 1905 SR paper and later papers on GR cited those who had contributed to both theories. Einstein never wrote any "propaganda - Einstein wrote scientific papers.
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, 04:16 PM   #283
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
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!
Maybe there is a low temperature plasma but this has nothing to do with 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, 04:20 PM   #284
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.


Here is what I asked (bold added):

Imagine you have an empty universe with 1 star in it. The star is a single atom of curium, of isotope 250.

What happens?

In particular, will it eject fire?
It will eject subatomic particles. Then what?

Quote:
What, in the magical philippeb8 universe, is the "plasma" in this case? Please be specific.
The plasma is the substance on the surface of the star.
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, 04:20 PM   #285
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
...by disregarding the influence of rotating bodies.
That sounds like the stupidity that Newton had to know about the modern knowledge of the influence of rotating bodies in GR (frame dragging). Or the insanity that Newton had to know about philippeb8's ignorant delusions about rotating bodies?
Newton applied the knowledge he had about the influence of rotating bodies.

10 December 2019 philippeb8: A deluded "Newton was wrong as well by disregarding rotating bodies" lie.
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, 04:27 PM   #286
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation More lies about Einstein, Einstein 's constant, etc

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Einstein adjusted kappa......
10 December 2019 philippeb8: More lies about Einstein, Einstein 's constant, etc.

Anyone who learns English knows that Einstein's constant kappa is a constant and cannot be adjusted.
Anyone who learns GR knows that the constant kappa is set by requiring that GR reduce to Newtonian gravitation.
A lie that kappa was adjusted to fit the perihelion shift. A "extended it to the light bending" lie.
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, 04:31 PM   #287
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That sounds like the stupidity that Newton had to know about the modern knowledge of the influence of rotating bodies in GR (frame dragging). Or the insanity that Newton had to know about philippeb8's ignorant delusions about rotating bodies?
Newton applied the knowledge he had about the influence of rotating bodies.

10 December 2019 philippeb8: A deluded "Newton was wrong as well by disregarding rotating bodies" lie.
The "frame dragging" is a misleading term that doesn't involve lateral acceleration at all.
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, 04:32 PM   #288
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Thumbs down An utterly deluded question when I gave the definition of a geostationary orbit

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Why? Because Einstein and his curved spacetime said so?
10 December 2019 philippeb8: An utterly deluded question when I gave the definition of a geostationary orbit.
A geostationary orbit is an orbit around the Earth selected to match the rotation of the Earth.
This is what a geostationary orbit is in the real universe. This is what a geostationary orbit is in a fake universe where GR was never found. This is even what a geostationary orbit is in a really fake universe where Newtonian gravitation was never found !
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, 04:36 PM   #289
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: An utterly deluded question when I gave the definition of a geostationary orbit.
A geostationary orbit is an orbit around the Earth selected to match the rotation of the Earth.
This is what a geostationary orbit is in the real universe. This is what a geostationary orbit is in a fake universe where GR was never found. This is even what a geostationary orbit is in a really fake universe where Newtonian gravitation was never found !
Then what is the equation that defines the geostationary orbit in my 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, 04:39 PM   #290
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation Ignorant gibberish that frame-dragging involves "lateral acceleration"

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The "frame dragging" is a misleading term that doesn't involve lateral acceleration at all.
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that frame-dragging involves "lateral acceleration"

Frame-dragging is the dragging of a frame of reference ! This can be rotational from a rotating object which produces a precession: LenseĖThirring precession.
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, 04:44 PM   #291
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that frame-dragging involves "lateral acceleration"

Frame-dragging is the dragging of a frame of reference ! This can be rotational from a rotating object which produces a precession: LenseĖThirring precession.
In the real world, this is what is generally portrayed when we are referring to "frame dragging":
https://einstein.stanford.edu/Librar...e-dragging.jpg

... which is completely misleading.
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, 04:46 PM   #292
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Then what is the equation that defines the geostationary orbit in my thought experiment?
There is no Earth in that. In fact, all there is is ď1 starĒ, and its ďfireĒ. As itís a magical universe, itís unclear itís even possible for there to be orbits.
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, 04:48 PM   #293
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Then what is the equation that defines the geostationary orbit in my thought experiment?
Assuming you mean the orbit where the speed of the orbiting body matches the angular velocity of the star than why wouldn't it be the same?

Are you still suggesting that we can't know the period of the star's rotation?
__________________
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 04:52 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, 04:50 PM   #294
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation ignorant and lying question when I have answered this already

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Then what is the equation that defines the geostationary orbit in my thought experiment?
10 December 2019 philippeb8: An ignorant and lying question when I have answered this already.
6 December 2019 philippeb8: Cannot understand how his "geostationary altitude" question is nonsense and irrelevant (the question answered !)

The equation is in the source I have cited several times. His scenario is insane because he has no observer. Add an observer and then it is possible to measure the star's rotational period and mass and plug the values into the equation. Otherwise we just have an unknown mass and period and the stationary orbit altitude cannot be calculated. I hope we will not get a rant about the fact that unknown variables cannot be plugged into an equation !
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, 04:55 PM   #295
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Assuming you mean the orbit where the speed of the orbiting body matches the angular velocity of the star than why wouldn't it be the same?

Are you still suggesting that we can't know the period of the star's rotation?


Basically, yes given the star is uniform.
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, 05:02 PM   #296
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
A "which is completely misleading" lie about a graphic illustrating frame-dragging

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
In the real world, this is what is generally portrayed when we are referring to "frame dragging":
https://einstein.stanford.edu/Librar...e-dragging.jpg

... which is completely misleading.
10 December 2019 philippeb8: A "which is completely misleading" lie about a graphic illustrating frame-dragging.
The graphic shows clearly what happens in the frame-dragging of a rotating Earth. The static Schwarzschild solution is shown in green with a drag of the frame produced by the rotation (presumably the orange arrows).

Also a lie by only linking to a graphic from the Stanford University web site. A more complete graphic is used on Spacetime and Spin about Gravity Probe B which also shows the effect of frame-dragging on it's gyroscope.
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, 05:14 PM   #297
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Basically, yes given the star is uniform.
That appears to be something you have added later. So you are now saying that there is no feature on this star that can distinguish one part of it from another?

Well fine, lets move the goal posts there and see if it can rescue your thought experiment.

We have established that there would be a definite angular velocity, now we just need to look at how an observer (a theoretical very heat resistant observer on the star) would establish the fact.

First, consider that if you are on a body out in deep space with no reference points, you can discover whether or not the body is accelerating.

An observer in a spinning reference frame is always under acceleration, the effects would be small but it would still be possible for the observer on the star to find out the angular velocity.

So, yes, it would be possible to find the altitude for that orbit on a body that is the only body in the universe.
__________________
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 05:15 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, 05:20 PM   #298
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,106
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.
You know how I know you're wrong? The point you're talking about, where the earth and sun's gravity is equal, is called the L1 lagrange point. It's not 7x the geostationary distance, it's about 1.5 million km away. We have put satellites there, and they have acted as predicted by the normal theory of gravity, not whatever you used to make that graph.
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, 05:21 PM   #299
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,580
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Einstein knew both SR and GR were partly plagiarized" lie and propaganda delusion.

Einstein's 1905 SR paper and later papers on GR cited those who had contributed to both theories. Einstein never wrote any "propaganda - Einstein wrote scientific papers.
And we're getting to the OP's real problem. Einstein was a Jew.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 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, 05:23 PM   #300
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,580
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The Earth's constribution:



The Sun's contribution:

That's what you meant to say.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 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, 05:47 PM   #301
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Maybe we can leave speculation about Phillipe's motives out for this particular thread.

We don't need to defend Einstein, it is well established that besides being very smart he was intellectually honest and not at all hostile to theories that would contradict GR. He is obviously the opposite of someone who would engage in propaganda for any theory.

Anyone who wants to say otherwise is obviously making a fool of himself.
__________________
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, 05:58 PM   #302
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Thanks!

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Thanks.


Here is what I asked (bold added):

Imagine you have an empty universe with 1 star in it. The star is a single atom of curium, of isotope 250.

What happens?

In particular, will it eject fire?
It will eject subatomic particles. Then what?

Quote:
What, in the magical philippeb8 universe, is the "plasma" in this case? Please be specific.
The plasma is the substance on the surface of the star.
Now I know that whatever your new idea is, it cannot possibly overthrow 300 years of physics. Or be a historical milestone in physics.

Unless, that is, you'd like to try again? And answer all the other questions of mine that you have, so far, failed to answer?
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, 06:43 PM   #303
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Well fine, lets move the goal posts there and see if it can rescue your thought experiment.
Note that he has to move the goalposts until his star is not a star which may be crucial fro his "thought experiment"!
Real stars are made of plasma which is not a solid. A rotating star will be an oblate spheroid from which its spin can be calculated. Move the goalposts so that we have a solid "star". Whoops, no star and no plasma (his "fire"). We end up with the trivial scenario that a classical spinning, solid, uniform sphere in an empty universe cannot have its spin measured.

GR and frame-dragging does give a way to measure spin of a spinning, solid, uniform sphere in an empty universe. So move the goalposts to an observer who does not have the apparatus to measure frame-dragging? Or a universe where GR does not exist?

We are left with the very trivial fact that a scenario can be constructed where spin cannot be measured.
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, 06:53 PM   #304
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
You know how I know you're wrong? The point you're talking about, where the earth and sun's gravity is equal, is called the L1 lagrange point. It's not 7x the geostationary distance, it's about 1.5 million km away. We have put satellites there, and they have acted as predicted by the normal theory of gravity, not whatever you used to make that graph.


I completely disregard the centripetal force and the Coriolis acceleration.
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, 06:57 PM   #305
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
And we're getting to the OP's real problem. Einstein was a Jew.


So then youíre implying these people cannot be challenged or else...

Note that Newton, Michelson and Morley also made their share of mistakes. Were they all Jews?

Talking about Newton, why was Leibniz silenced in the history books?
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, 06:58 PM   #306
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Note that he has to move the goalposts until his star is not a star which may be crucial fro his "thought experiment"!
Real stars are made of plasma which is not a solid. A rotating star will be an oblate spheroid from which its spin can be calculated. Move the goalposts so that we have a solid "star". Whoops, no star and no plasma (his "fire"). We end up with the trivial scenario that a classical spinning, solid, uniform sphere in an empty universe cannot have its spin measured.

GR and frame-dragging does give a way to measure spin of a spinning, solid, uniform sphere in an empty universe. So move the goalposts to an observer who does not have the apparatus to measure frame-dragging? Or a universe where GR does not exist?

We are left with the very trivial fact that a scenario can be constructed where spin cannot be measured.
philippeb8's "1 star" never had anything to do with the universe we live in (it's all about his magical universe).

Ditto the "fire" which this star can "eject".

I have asked philippeb8 quite a number of questions about what this "1 star" (and the "fire") can, and cannot, be. As has Robin.

What few responses philippeb8 has posted here make is abundantly clear that this "1 star" is quite magical, ditto the "fire".

Note that real stars can have a surface (e.g. white dwarfs, neutron stars). Also, I suspect that real neutron stars cannot have zero spin, as there's no way for the spins of the constituent particles to completely cancel.
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, 07:03 PM   #307
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
<snip>

Talking about Newton, why was Leibniz silenced in the history books?
Pulls a history of mathematics book from the bookshelf ... lots of references to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.

Pulls a history of physics book from the bookshelf ... Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is certainly there.

And so on.
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, 07:04 PM   #308
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Maybe we can leave speculation about Phillipe's motives out for this particular thread.



We don't need to defend Einstein, it is well established that besides being very smart he was intellectually honest and not at all hostile to theories that would contradict GR. He is obviously the opposite of someone who would engage in propaganda for any theory.



Anyone who wants to say otherwise is obviously making a fool of himself.


Thatís a good one. I heard different stories about Mileva Maric being the real author of SR and also victim of domestic violence.

And if Minkowski and Schwarzschild didnít help then GR would be quite useless.
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, 07:15 PM   #309
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Note that he has to move the goalposts until his star is not a star which may be crucial fro his "thought experiment"!

Real stars are made of plasma which is not a solid. A rotating star will be an oblate spheroid from which its spin can be calculated. Move the goalposts so that we have a solid "star". Whoops, no star and no plasma (his "fire"). We end up with the trivial scenario that a classical spinning, solid, uniform sphere in an empty universe cannot have its spin measured.



GR and frame-dragging does give a way to measure spin of a spinning, solid, uniform sphere in an empty universe. So move the goalposts to an observer who does not have the apparatus to measure frame-dragging? Or a universe where GR does not exist?



We are left with the very trivial fact that a scenario can be constructed where spin cannot be measured.


The semantics of your statements are ill-formed.

One way or the other, itís impossible to measure the spin of a singular and uniform star in an empty universe.
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, 07:17 PM   #310
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
<snip>

One way or the other, itís impossible to measure the spin of a singular and uniform star in an empty a magical philippeb8 universe.
FTFY ...
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, 07:22 PM   #311
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation An "impossible to measure the spin ..." lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
...
10 December 2019 philippeb8: An "impossible to measure the spin of a singular and uniform star in an empty universe" lie.
That post and other posts are textbook physics.
  • A singular and uniform star made of plasma will be an oblate spheroid and measuring its shape will give its spin.
  • Frame-dragging gives another way of measuring the spin of a singular and uniform "star" even if it is solid.
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, 07:22 PM   #312
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
FTFY ...


JeanTate was being constructive until Reality Check came back out of nowhere after having thrown the towel last week.
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, 07:24 PM   #313
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,641
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The semantics of your statements are ill-formed.

One way or the other, itís impossible to measure the spin of a singular and uniform star in an empty universe.
It doesn't matter. Please explain why you are unaware of Lagrange 1, let alone Lagrange 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Seriously, this is the funniest crap ever.
__________________
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, 07:26 PM   #314
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,691
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I completely disregard the centripetal force and the Coriolis acceleration.
Among a myriad of other things.
__________________
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, 07:28 PM   #315
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
10 December 2019 philippeb8: An "impossible to measure the spin of a singular and uniform star in an empty universe" lie.

That post and other posts are textbook physics.
  • A singular and uniform star made of plasma will be an oblate spheroid and measuring its shape will give its spin.
  • Frame-dragging gives another way of measuring the spin of a singular and uniform "star" even if it is solid.


Well thatís were youíre completely wrong because youíre implying a hard coded static grid in the universe.

But I retract what I said when I said Reality Check was smart because Reality Check cannot comprehend this simple scenario or explain what defines this hard coded static grid.
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, 07:32 PM   #316
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation A "Leibniz silenced in the history books" lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
...Talking about Newton, why was Leibniz silenced in the history books?
10 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Leibniz silenced in the history books" lie.
Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy. Newton and Leibniz had a very public and well documented spate about who invented calculus first. The sources in that Wikipedia article include history books!
Quote:
W. W. Rouse Ball (1908) A Short Account of the History of Mathematics], 4th ed.
Richard C. Brown (2012) Tangled origins of the Leibnitzian Calculus: A case study of mathematical revolution, World Scientific ISBN 9789814390804
Ivor Grattan-Guinness (1997) The Norton History of the Mathematical Sciences. W W Norton.
Hall, A. R. (1980) Philosophers at War: The Quarrel between Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. Cambridge University Press.
Stephen Hawking (1988) A Brief History of Time From the Big Bang to Black Holes. Bantam Books.
Kandaswamy, Anand. The Newton/Leibniz Conflict in Context.
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, 07:33 PM   #317
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Well thatís were youíre completely wrong because youíre implying a hard coded static grid in the universe.

But I retract what I said when I said Reality Check was smart because Reality Check cannot comprehend this simple scenario or explain what defines this hard coded static grid.


In a quest to help Reality Check, what says this hard coded static grid is not itself spinning?
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, 07:36 PM   #318
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Well that’s were you’re completely wrong because you’re implying a hard coded static grid in the universe.
No of course he isn't implying a hard coded static grid.
__________________
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 07:37 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, 07:37 PM   #319
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
It doesn't matter. Please explain why you are unaware of Lagrange 1, let alone Lagrange 2, 3, 4, and 5.



Seriously, this is the funniest crap ever.


Because itís irrelevant.
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, 07:37 PM   #320
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation An ignorant "implying a hard coded static grid in the universe" delusion

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
...
10 December 2019 philippeb8: An ignorant "implying a hard coded static grid in the universe" delusion.

10 December 2019 philippeb8: An "impossible to measure the spin of a singular and uniform star in an empty universe" lie. is simply that an observer can measure the radius of a star in various directions to see how oblate it is or use a gyroscope for frame-dragging.
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
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 11:13 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.