Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

 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.
 9th December 2019, 04:14 PM #281 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by JeanTate 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?
 9th December 2019, 04:15 PM #282 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,422 A "Einstein knew both SR and GR were partly plagiarized" lie and propaganda delusion Originally Posted by philippeb8 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 04:16 PM #283 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by JeanTate 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.
 9th December 2019, 04:20 PM #284 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 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.
 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 ...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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 04:27 PM #286 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,422 More lies about Einstein, Einstein 's constant, etc Originally Posted by philippeb8 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 04:31 PM #287 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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.
 9th December 2019, 04:32 PM #288 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,422 An utterly deluded question when I gave the definition of a geostationary orbit Originally Posted by philippeb8 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 ! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 04:36 PM #289 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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?
 9th December 2019, 04:39 PM #290 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,422 Ignorant gibberish that frame-dragging involves "lateral acceleration" Originally Posted by philippeb8 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: Lense–Thirring precession. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 04:44 PM #291 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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: Lense–Thirring 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.
 9th December 2019, 04:46 PM #292 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,308 Originally Posted by philippeb8 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 “1 star”, and its “fire”. As it’s a magical universe, it’s unclear it’s even possible for there to be orbits.
 9th December 2019, 04:48 PM #293 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,525 Originally Posted by philippeb8 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.
 9th December 2019, 04:50 PM #294 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,422 ignorant and lying question when I have answered this already Originally Posted by philippeb8 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 ! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 04:55 PM #295 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Robin 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.
 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 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 05:14 PM #297 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,525 Originally Posted by philippeb8 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.
 9th December 2019, 05:20 PM #298 phunk Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,106 Originally Posted by philippeb8 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.
 9th December 2019, 05:21 PM #299 Craig4 Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State. Posts: 19,580 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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.
 9th December 2019, 05:23 PM #300 Craig4 Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State. Posts: 19,580 Originally Posted by philippeb8 The Earth's constribution: $\frac{G\, \mathit{m_e}}{{{\left( x-i\right) }^{2}}\, \left( \frac{G\, \mathit{m_s}}{{{\left( x-j\right) }^{2}}}+\frac{G\, \mathit Einstein was a Jew{m_e}}{{{\left( x-i\right) }^{2}}}\right) }$ The Sun's contribution: $\frac{G\, \mathit{m_s}}{{{\left( x-j\right) }^{2}}\, \left( \frac{G\, \mathit{m_s}}{{{\left( x-j\right) }^{2}}}+\frac{G\, \mathit{m_e}}{{{\left( x-i\right) }^{2}}}\right) }$ That's what you meant to say. __________________ A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
 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"
 9th December 2019, 05:58 PM #302 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,308 Thanks! Originally Posted by philippeb8 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?
 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 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 06:53 PM #304 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by phunk 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.
 9th December 2019, 06:57 PM #305 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Craig4 And we're getting to the OP's real problem. Einstein was a Jew. So then you’re 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?
 9th December 2019, 06:58 PM #306 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,308 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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.
 9th December 2019, 07:03 PM #307 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,308 Originally Posted by philippeb8 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.
 9th December 2019, 07:04 PM #308 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Robin 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. That’s 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 didn’t help then GR would be quite useless.
 9th December 2019, 07:15 PM #309 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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, it’s impossible to measure the spin of a singular and uniform star in an empty universe.
 9th December 2019, 07:17 PM #310 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,308 Originally Posted by philippeb8 One way or the other, it’s impossible to measure the spin of a singular and uniform star in an empty a magical philippeb8 universe. FTFY ...
 9th December 2019, 07:22 PM #311 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,422 An "impossible to measure the spin ..." lie Originally Posted by philippeb8 ... 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 07:22 PM #312 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by JeanTate FTFY ... JeanTate was being constructive until Reality Check came back out of nowhere after having thrown the towel last week.
 9th December 2019, 07:24 PM #313 abaddon Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 19,641 Originally Posted by philippeb8 The semantics of your statements are ill-formed. One way or the other, it’s 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...
 9th December 2019, 07:26 PM #314 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,691 Originally Posted by philippeb8 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!"
 9th December 2019, 07:28 PM #315 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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 that’s were you’re completely wrong because you’re 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.
 9th December 2019, 07:32 PM #316 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,422 A "Leibniz silenced in the history books" lie Originally Posted by philippeb8 ...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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 9th December 2019, 07:33 PM #317 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Well that’s were you’re completely wrong because you’re 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?
 9th December 2019, 07:36 PM #318 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,525 Originally Posted by philippeb8 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.
 9th December 2019, 07:37 PM #319 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by abaddon 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 it’s irrelevant.
 9th December 2019, 07:37 PM #320 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,422 An ignorant "implying a hard coded static grid in the universe" delusion Originally Posted by philippeb8 ... 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

International Skeptics Forum