|
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. |
20th December 2017, 02:20 PM | #681 |
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
|
|
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here. |
|
20th December 2017, 10:07 PM | #682 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,530
|
Back in 2003 I was on a flight from Phoenix to Atlanta. While over Texas at 39,000 ft, with a pretty clear airmass containing a patchy layer of cirrus somewhat below our flight level, I noted some interesting phenomena.
1) The curvature of the Earth's limb was actually detectible. It definitely was not linear. This was not due to window distortion. 2) The cirrus cloud out at considerable distance, even though at a *lower* altitude than the plane, presented its *underside* to view as it was seen to curve downward over the curving planet. 3) A straight edge oriented to aim out one side of the plane directly in line with the horizon was very clearly seen to be aimed above the horizon seen out through the other side. I repeated this numerous times, so as to confirm the observation did not result from some momentary tilt while swivelling my head to sight along opposite directions. Again, window distortion definitely could not be so egregious as to mimic this. This revealed the horizon dip, whose angle at 39,000 feet is nearly 3.5 degrees. Which supports the perceptible limb curvature. The sighting of the distant cirrus deck's underside from a higher altitude would be a fairly common sighting for the observant flier. It's not particularly obvious due to the generally diffuse form of such ice crystal cloud. My experience as a weather observer for Environment Canada helped to better interpret the form and illumination, but any reasonably observant person can discern the geometry when the conditions are favourable. It's quite striking to see the cloud layer top side when nearby and out to 'intermediate' distance, thereafter transitioning to and 'edge-on' aspect and thence to a from-below aspect at great distance. When the airmass is nicely clear, the cloud deck's continuing arcing to a more downward angle as the planet's limb is approached is fascinating to witness. If the flattards go primarily by what the can see and interpret directly, they should spend time gazing out airliner windows, and bring along a straightedge. Actually, it just now occurs to me that a simultaneous sighting along opposite ends of a straightedge is facilitated by a small mirror affixed to one end. It is oriented perpendicular to the straightedge so that the reflected image of the edge is presented as an unbroken continuation of that directly seen. To confirm that window refraction/distortion is not the cause of the horizon depression at altitude, observe also at as low an altitude as is feasible--even on the ground while taxying. |
21st December 2017, 07:43 AM | #683 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
21st December 2017, 07:47 AM | #684 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
I...what?
I'm afraid to click that link. On an unrelated note, Electric Potato would be a great name for a band. |
21st December 2017, 08:13 AM | #685 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
21st December 2017, 08:18 AM | #686 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,658
|
|
21st December 2017, 08:31 AM | #687 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
21st December 2017, 08:48 AM | #688 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,920
|
|
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah |
|
21st December 2017, 09:04 AM | #689 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
Nope. I'm arguing that the only constraint to the range of the missile is its own inherent limitations; WHEN...if we were on a Globe Earth, it would be impossible to engage a surface target at anything more than 17.7 km i.e., the constraint would be "Extrinsic". In short, You can't have the NATO Sea Sparrow fired from a Ship engaging other Ships (Surface Targets) at anything more than 17.7 km and still adhere to a Globe-Earth. regards |
21st December 2017, 09:06 AM | #690 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
21st December 2017, 09:16 AM | #691 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
You'll note, then, that the figure you have for range is an absolute one as stated by the manufacturer. What's your reason for assuming that this represents the maximum extrinsic limit on range - which is of course not under the control of the manufacturer, who cannot foretell the circumstances in which the missile might be fired - rather than the maximum intrinsic limit on range? It's immediately obvious that it's not actually possible to quote an absolute extrinsic limit on range; for example, a ship in a landlocked bay, surrounded by cliffs no more than 5 miles away, would be unable to engage surface targets at greater than 5 miles whatever the shape of the Earth. So no sane manufacturer would state anything other than the intrinsic range limit of a missile - which, given that your own posts state that the Sea Sparrow is suitable for anti-aircraft use, would be an important factor where the extrinsic limitations exceed the intrinsic.
You have yet to post anything other than the manufacturer's specification as evidence that this has ever happened; and as we can see, the manufacturer's specification clearly does not serve as evidence that it has. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
21st December 2017, 09:16 AM | #692 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
The Missile's "RANGE" is 50 km. LOS is 17.7 km. The Missile REQUIRES LOS to engage targets. Case Closed.
Quote:
And...?
Quote:
How can you "Target" (eye or scope) something out of your LOS (eye or scope) ??
Quote:
It's a clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy from the Black Lagoon. regards |
21st December 2017, 09:18 AM | #693 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
Ah, the premature victory declaration again. Next: abuse.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
21st December 2017, 09:33 AM | #694 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
Profound.
Quote:
Then why do Helium Balloons rise? And you're treating the atmosphere as a single entity when it's an inhomogeneous anisotropic mixture of gases.
Quote:
1. That wasn't an Experiment. 2. Show...?
Quote:
Correct.
Quote:
Correct. Here's your Problem. The Outside Pressure is 10-17 Torr; to reach Equilibrium, Sea Level MUST BE 10-17 Torr. Sea level is 760 Torr; Ergo...you live in a Fairytale.
Quote:
Sure, much like the Fatal Flaw of Hydrogen Bonding is the presence of Hydrogen. Scientifically Validate your claim...? regards |
21st December 2017, 09:37 AM | #695 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
|
21st December 2017, 09:41 AM | #696 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
|
21st December 2017, 09:45 AM | #697 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
21st December 2017, 09:48 AM | #698 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
On a Flat earth, that LOS would not be a limitation unless something like a mountain got in the way. Assuming sufficient fuel, you'd be able to launch a LOS missile from the North Pole and have it hit any point on the Southern Rim Flat Earthers claims encircles the Earth.
The mere fact that you're putting ANY limit on LOS is against the idea of a flat Earth. Ah, that's right. Flat Earthers by necessity assume everything NASA has ever done was staged. |
21st December 2017, 09:49 AM | #699 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
1. So the Law of Universal Gravitation is a Theory, eh? 2. "...Einstein created his GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY — which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-nonlocality/ SEE the Dichotomy? 3. And Scientific Theories don't "DESCRIBE" they "EXPLAIN", Big Difference. regards |
21st December 2017, 09:53 AM | #700 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
Mount Everest, the flat earthers great white whale.
Changing atmospheric pressure! An horizon hundreds of miles away. Can’t see Dubai from there! Gravity is weaker at the top of Everest! Regards |
21st December 2017, 09:56 AM | #701 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
21st December 2017, 09:58 AM | #702 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science (and they certainly don't "PREDICT" anything lol)... Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!!)...? "A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis...nd-law-2699066 Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !! REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments---(Hypothesis TESTS). A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!
Quote:
So I'm up against Pseudo-Science. Yes, that's what I've been telling and illustrating to you guys for the entire thread. You finally GOT IT!! kudos regards |
21st December 2017, 10:00 AM | #703 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
Well, let's see how it compares to what you've decided is the only definition of a hypothesis you're prepared to admit to.
First of all, what are our two variables? Well, we can take one of them to be the angular component (α,β) of a vector from the centre of the Earth to the point on which we stand. Since I, the scientist, am able to decide where I stand, clearly this is an independent variable. The other is the scalar distance D between the point where I stand and the centre of mass of the Earth; this is clearly the dependent variable, as by choosing to stand on a certain point I must select a particular value for this distance. The hypothesis is that D is independent of (α,β), and the prediction is therefore that the distance to the centre of the Earth is, within narrow limits, the same wherever I stand. It matters little that you've carefully chosen your definition of a hypothesis to exclude what science actually does, which is to explore wider implications of a hypothesis - of which Eratosthenes' experiment is a good example - and to validate this hypotheses that cannot be validated by direct measurement. Sane people understand that it's equally valid to infer the sphericity of the Earth from other measurements, rather than only being able to determine it by drilling holes to the centre and dropping a plumb line. What matters is that you're simply slinging mud by complaining that "The Earth is a sphere" is not a scientific hypothesis; as you can see, it conforms to your own preferred definition of one. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
21st December 2017, 10:02 AM | #704 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
It's why we'll NEVER see Daniel give an explanation for how that pressure gradient can exist on a Flat Earth capped by a firmament. His act consists of regurgitating second grade level versions of Flat Earth talking points and embarrassing semantics games that even Creationists are abandoning.
|
21st December 2017, 10:05 AM | #705 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
Yes, and one in fact that has been superseded. BTW - you'll note that https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis...nd-law-2699066, one of your own sources, states that "A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years." In other words, a scientific law and a scientific theory are the same thing; so yes, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is indeed a theory, according to your own sources.
The clue is in the title on that one. As, for example, the Newtonian theory of gravity explains the motion of objects. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
21st December 2017, 10:23 AM | #706 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
21st December 2017, 10:23 AM | #707 | ||
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
Then that scuttles Newtonian 'gravity', so all that's left is Einstein's 'gr'.
Quote:
Yes. However, I was laughing too hard to finish it. 1. It's NOT an ACTUAL Scientific Theory. 2. So Relativity, "sr and gr" via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME !!
|
||
21st December 2017, 10:29 AM | #708 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
|
21st December 2017, 10:31 AM | #709 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
Oh, a GR denier too? Well, what a frickin' surprise. The crank index is off the scale.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
21st December 2017, 10:33 AM | #710 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
|
21st December 2017, 10:35 AM | #711 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
21st December 2017, 10:37 AM | #712 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
|
21st December 2017, 10:39 AM | #713 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
As we all know, that means you can't answer the question so you're just going to try and shout it down.
Begging the question and red herring fallacy. Atmospheric pressure exists; it's different at the top of Mount Everest and at sea level. You've admitted both these things. Therefore, the pressure is not the same everywhere in the atmosphere. Rant on about containers all you want; you're simply dodging a question you know you can't answer: Why are these pressures different? I would suggest to everyone else in the thread that they stop replying to Daniel with anything other than demands to explain why the pressure at the top of Mount Everest is different to that at sea level. As long as he dodges that question his dishonesty remains on public display. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
21st December 2017, 10:44 AM | #714 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
21st December 2017, 10:49 AM | #715 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
What I decided?? 1. I didn't invent The Scientific Method. 2. Contact: Colorado State California State Penn State And post your objections. Please share the substance of your conversation here. K?
Quote:
That's my Question to you!
Quote:
And pray tell, which Variable is that...?
Quote:
THANKS AGAIN!! Errr...the Independent Variable is the "Proposed CAUSE" of the Effect... "An Independent Variable is the presumed CAUSE, whereas the Dependent Variable is the presumed EFFECT .' http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm So where you are standing is CAUSING (lol) "that the distance to the centre of the Earth is, within narrow limits, the same wherever I stand." ??? Actual Non-Sequitur Fallacies are Blushing!! my word people |
21st December 2017, 10:53 AM | #716 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 973
|
|
21st December 2017, 11:21 AM | #717 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
21st December 2017, 11:25 AM | #718 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
Then you concede your constant referencing of the missile is irrelevant, as its range tells us NOTHING about the shape of the Earth. I trust you'll now stop bringing it up, unless of course you're a rank hypocrite who cares more about an insult war than actual discussion.
|
21st December 2017, 11:27 AM | #719 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,259
|
|
21st December 2017, 11:50 AM | #720 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
For all your smugness nothing you do or say will ever have an impact. You'll be always self satisfied and irrelevant.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|