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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th June 2017, 05:49 AM   #1761
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Apparently thewholesoul has never swum against a tide. An amazing revelation awaits him if he does.
This thread disproves both your points.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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 24th June 2017, 06:11 AM   #1762
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,255
I misplaced the physical barrier keeping the water in my swimming pool and now all of the water has been sucked into the lower-pressure atmosphere. Does anyone know where I can get a new replacement barrier?
jadebox 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 24th June 2017, 06:19 AM   #1763
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,915
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
This thread disproves both your points.


Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans 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 24th June 2017, 08:50 AM   #1764
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,737
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
This thread disproves both your points.


Well played.

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2017, 09:25 AM   #1765
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,138
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
This thread disproves both your points.
Ah nicely said......and correct.
Hans 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 24th June 2017, 09:52 AM   #1766
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,168
Hello everybody!!!

Quote:
So it will be a draw? It couldn't possibly be the "exactly the same result" in my mind. Not when there is a different variable such as a rotating fluid in kinetic flow versus stationary fluid, and remember we can always speed up the spin!
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Seems as if your best analogy has a basic flaw: you can't understand it.
I do understand the analogy. And it has less flaws than inside vehicle analogies because it includes the cause and effect relationship between the spinning surface and the surrounding fluid.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
If the two machines have to make one 'lap' of the globe, moving through a fluid which is stationary relative to the globe, then they experience equal amounts of drag caused only by their own speed through the fluid.
Correct. We all agree with that. But when the fluid is flowing in a certain direction the machine going against this ENERGETIC current will use more energy.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Allow me to offer you a perhaps simplified analogy to your analogy:
You build a long narrow fish tank. You drop two goldfish into the middle and as it happens they swim off in opposite directions. As they are equally strong swimmers they reach the opposite ends of the tank at the same moment.
Agreed

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Okay so far? That's roughly equivalent to your first race.
Yes because the fluid is physically stationary

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Now you repeat the race, but this time the fish tank is sitting in the aisle of a railway carriage, and the train is moving smoothly along at a steady speed. Even though the tank is moving and the fluid is moving with it,
The fluid is not physical flowing, it's stationary. Difference.
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
the fish repeat their first race and end up at the ends of the tank at the same moment. Why would they not?
Agreed

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Still with me?
Im hanging in there brother! (Please don't report me for calling you brother!)

Quote:
So the machine going against the force of the rotational fluid wins!! Are you seriously saying that a rotating fluid with kinetic energy has NO force? Can you provide me with an example of this in the real world?
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Well now we need to modify the simplified analogy to make the fluid move a little slower than the tank itself.
Why? Is the atmosphere of Earth said to be moving a little slower than the surface of earth, or at the identical speed? Your analogy is swerving off again.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
You get some hoses and a water pump. Set it up so you siphon water out of the tank at the end nearest the rear of the carriage and pump it back in at the other end nearer the front of the carriage. So now as the train rolls along there's a slow drift of water from front to back in the tank. The tank is being carried forwards by the train while the water in the tank is also being carried forwards but very slightly more slowly than the tank. Clear so far?
The flow in the tank should be from the back forwards, in the same direction as the moving object (train).

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
So when you re-run the fish race, the fish swimming toward the rear is slightly assisted by the current and the fish swimming forwards is slightly hindered and it loses the race
Correct when we add flowing water into the equation as opposed to stationary water we get....wait for it....a different result. So I suppose you are going to concede in your next post that I was right to say:
Quote:
It couldn't possibly be the "exactly the same result" in my mind. Not when there is a different variable such as a rotating fluid in kinetic flow versus stationary fluid,
You didn't answer my question either. So I will repeat it.
Are you seriously saying that a rotating fluid flowing with kinetic energy has NO force? Can you provide me with an example of this in the real world? If you can't can you admit that you can't so I don't have to repeat asking the question?

Have a happy healthy and prosperous day! I enjoyed your post, you put some thought into it.

Last edited by thewholesoul; 24th June 2017 at 09:54 AM.
thewholesoul 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 24th June 2017, 09:54 AM   #1767
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,081
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hello everybody!!!





I do understand the analogy. And it has less flaws than inside vehicle analogies because it includes the cause and effect relationship between the spinning surface and the surrounding fluid.



Correct. We all agree with that. But when the fluid is flowing in a certain direction the machine going against this ENERGETIC current will use more energy.



Agreed



Yes because the fluid is physically stationary



The fluid is not physical flowing, it's stationary. Difference.


Agreed



Im hanging in there brother! (Please don't report me for calling you brother!)





Why? Is the atmosphere of Earth said to be moving a little slower than the surface of earth, or at the identical speed? Your analogy is swerving off again.



The flow in the tank should be from the back forwards, in the same direction as the moving object (train).



Correct when we add flowing water into the equation as opposed to stationary water we get....wait for it....a different result. So I suppose you are going to concede in your next post that I was right to say:

You didn't answer my question either. So I will repeat it.
Are you seriously saying that a rotating fluid flowing with kinetic energy has NO force? Can you provide me with an example of this in the real world? If you can't can you admit that you can't do I don't have to repeat asking the question?

Have a happy healthy and prosperous day! I enjoyed your post, you put some thought into it.
It's been answered multiple times, try harder next time.
__________________
I AM THE DREADED PAPIER-MÂCHÉ CENSOR!
------------------------------------------------
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
Nay_Sayer 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 24th June 2017, 11:15 AM   #1768
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,079
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

You didn't answer my question either. So I will repeat it.
Are you seriously saying that a rotating fluid flowing with kinetic energy has NO force? Can you provide me with an example of this in the real world? If you can't can you admit that you can't so I don't have to repeat asking the question?
It's been answered numerous times.

You can test it yourself. Float along in a river with two buoys, one upstream and one down. There will be no difference in effort need to swim between the buoys in either direction. Your travel along the bank and stream bottom is irrelevant because your only focus (frame) is the buoys.

Try it. I'll eat my hat on YouTube if you can show a difference.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2017, 11:28 AM   #1769
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,915
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
But when the fluid is flowing in a certain direction the machine going against this ENERGETIC current will use more energy.
No. It is in the same inertial frame, so it will not use additional energy.

Quote:
Are you seriously saying that a rotating fluid flowing with kinetic energy has NO force?
Not within its own inertial frame.

Quote:
Can you provide me with an example of this in the real world?
Yes. See my next post.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 24th June 2017 at 12:01 PM.
MRC_Hans 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 24th June 2017, 11:57 AM   #1770
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,915
So in recognition if Dave's work at Sesame Street level explanations, I shall try to make my contribution:

Moving in inertial frames.

In this example, we will use a river. Where this happens it is wide and deep and flows slowly and smoothly. It is a hot and calm day, with no perceptible wind.

We have two protagonists: Bill and John. Both have decided to take a small trip rowing in the river.

Bill is out in the middle of the river. He feels warm, and decides to cool himself off. So he pulls in his oars, strips to his shorts, and jumps into the river. Feeling the fresh and relatively cool water, Bill decides to take a swim. He swims away from the boat in a direction that happens to be downstream. Bill swims for five minutes, then he turns around and and swims back towards the boat. It takes him five minutes to get back, and he climbs back on board, nicely refreshed.

At the same time, John, in a slightly different position on the river, also decides to take a swim. However, John is the careful type, so before he jumps into the water, he drops the anchor of his boat. When he feels the jolt that tells him that the anchor has taken hold in the bottom, he goes into the water and starts swimming in the direction that happens to be downstream. After five minutes, he turns around and heads back to the boat. At this point, he notices that the boat is disconcertingly far away, and it takes him a full twenty minutes of swimming before he can climb back on board, short of breath and as hot as before from the exercise.

So what happened? Well, Bill was swimming inside the inertial frame of the river, and his boat also stayed there. So for Bill, It didn't matter which way he swam, it was as if the water was stationary.

John, on the other hand, decided to drop his anchor. This meant that he and his his boat effectively moved to a different inertial frame, namely that of the surrounding landscape. The jolt he felt as the anchor took hold was the acceleration that brought him to a different inertial frame. However, as soon as he jumped into the water, he was quickly taken back to the inertial frame of the flowing river. There was a jolt there too, but he probably did not notice in the midst of jumping into the water. He now swam downstream for five minutes, but in that time, the river took him along with its own inertial frame, so when he turned around, the boat was much farther away than he could possible have swum in five minutes. Going back he had to negotiate not only the his own speed through the water, but also the river's speed through the landscape.

But as all stories, this has a morale:

When Bill had dried himself and started rowing home, he found he was quite far downstream from his starting point and he had a long hard rowing-trip to get back the the jetty he started from, whereas Bill was still close to home and had a short and easy trip back.

So there it is: As long as you stay within a single inertial frame, it does not matter for you what velocity that frame has. You may be able to observe it, like when John looked ashore and found himself quite a bit down the river, but it has no influence on your movements inside your inertial frame.

And this is the reason that Airliners are not affected by the rotation of Earth, because they stay in its inertial frame, whereas space rockets are, because they have to leave it.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 24th June 2017 at 12:00 PM.
MRC_Hans 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 24th June 2017, 01:46 PM   #1771
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,369
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You didn't answer my question either. So I will repeat it.
Are you seriously saying that a rotating fluid flowing with kinetic energy has NO force? [b][i]
That's not what I'm saying, no.

The fact that you ask it implies you do not understand your own analogy. If you understood, and were sincere, you would not ask that question.
Jack by the hedge 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 24th June 2017, 02:13 PM   #1772
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 20,798
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
This thread disproves both your points.
Took me a second. Good call.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto 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 24th June 2017, 02:16 PM   #1773
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,495
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Are you seriously saying that a rotating fluid flowing with kinetic energy has NO force?
Force's only occur when objects in different inertial frames interact with each other and create acceleration.

F = ma

Between objects in the same inertial frame there is no velocity difference (this is the definition of an inertial frame) and without any velocity difference then acceleration is zero and thus

F = m x 0 = 0

Force must be zero within an inertial frame.

Since the rotating Earth, all objects on the Earth, and the atmosphere are all in the same inertia frame, none of them can apply force to any other of them. The forces we feel are those created by localised movement such as weather, or when we move and force the air to part, creating air resistance, and this is because when weather or our own movement occurs, we are creating a new inertial frame separate but inside that of the Earth's rotating one.

On top of that, a constantly moving object by itself and of itself, that is not interacting with other things, cannot have force. Such an idea is utterly nonsensical.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 24th June 2017 at 02:24 PM.
PhantomWolf 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 25th June 2017, 01:42 AM   #1774
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,915
Agreed, however there is one complicaton:
In an accelerating inertial frame, such as a rotating one, the accelerating force can be detected. Hence the Coriolis effect.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans 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 25th June 2017, 02:20 AM   #1775
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,737
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Agreed, however there is one complicaton:
In an accelerating inertial frame, such as a rotating one, the accelerating force can be detected. Hence the Coriolis effect.

Hans
Slight correction; an accelerating frame is not, by definition, an inertial one, so "accelerating inertial frame" is an oxymoron. ITYM "In a non-inertial frame, such as a rotating one..."

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2017, 02:26 AM   #1776
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,637
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Are you seriously saying that a rotating fluid flowing with kinetic energy has NO force?

No, if it is rotating it will have a force accelerating it towards the centre of rotation. Unless the rate of rotation is increasing or decreasing it will not have a force in the direction of rotation.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 25th June 2017 at 02:32 AM.
Mojo 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 25th June 2017, 05:29 AM   #1777
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,915
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Slight correction; an accelerating frame is not, by definition, an inertial one, so "accelerating inertial frame" is an oxymoron. ITYM "In a non-inertial frame, such as a rotating one..."

Dave
Point taken. But then, since someone is bound to sooner or later jump on that bone, how do we correctly describe the frame of Earth and its co-rotating atmosphere?
As far as I can see, it can still be treated as an inertial frame locally, since the forces resulting from rotation are generally negligible except on a fairly large scale.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 25th June 2017 at 05:50 AM. Reason: Clarity.
MRC_Hans 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 25th June 2017, 06:26 AM   #1778
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,802
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
No, if it is rotating it will have a force accelerating it towards the centre of rotation. Unless the rate of rotation is increasing or decreasing it will not have a force in the direction of rotation.
If the rotation were due to such a force like say in an orbit. Otherwise the force (inertial force) of rotation is centrifugal, like say on a roundabout or carnival ride. The momentum of a body tends to continue straight and that inertia can be perceived as a force. In the case of a rotating sphere the centrifugal force would be perpendicular to the axis of rotation. As noted before the attraction of the gravity of the Earth and the centrifugal force from its rotation don't directly oppose except at the equator.



https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm

So the result is an offset of the attraction of gravity and the bulging of a gravitationally bound rotating sphere. Which we find both on the Earth and other planets.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 25th June 2017 at 06:28 AM. Reason: typo
The Man 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 25th June 2017, 04:23 PM   #1779
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,079
After watching Space X stick another landing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZMBVLSUxLg

How many people are in on this conspiracy to hide the shape of our planet?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2017, 04:36 PM   #1780
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,731
What happens when an aircraft flies across the no spin flat earth edge?

Flat earth cult members have no clue what celestial navigation is.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 25th June 2017, 06:24 PM   #1781
mike81
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
After watching Space X stick another landing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZMBVLSUxLg

How many people are in on this conspiracy to hide the shape of our planet?
Pretty soon everyone will be in on it except the flat Earther's.
mike81 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 25th June 2017, 07:45 PM   #1782
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 20,798
Actually the whole conspiracy thing makes abundant sense. Think about it. Obviously, if one were to provide real proof of the conspiracy, the conspirators would have to kill you. That is, I'm sure, why nobody has brought back good clear pictures of the edge of the disk, and other such things we mere toilers at convention would accept. The doughty conspirators sneak up and garrotte them, or plant bombs in their planes, jam the radio waves, blur the film and doctor the records. What a dilemma. The only way to be both a truther and stay alive is to spout nonsense so insane that nobody will take it seriously enough to kill you. The genius of posters here tiptoeing the tightrope of truth is inspiring.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto 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 25th June 2017, 08:55 PM   #1783
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,168
In defense of the deductive argument post 1148 part 6

Hello everyone!

I have to admit the criticism was effective against premise 5. So I need to go back to the drawing board. Before doing so I will respond to the criticisms.

Quote:
In other words, if you want to debunk the conclusion you must debunk at least one of the 5 premises outlined below

1. All solid spinning surfaces must have kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of matter in motion.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
"Surfaces" do not have kinetic energy, objects have kinetic energy, so this is bollocks.
Can you name one 3 dimensional object that doesn't have a surface Dave? Besides even if only the surface of an object is moving then the surface of that object has kinetic energy.

Quote:
2. All stationary fluids in physical contact with a solid spinning surface WILL receive kinetic energy from the spinning surface until their velocities have been harmonized.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Which is why the atmosphere spins together with the Earth, as anybody who isn't 'too stupid to understand' knows.
But our atmosphere is not physically flowing/spinning with kinetic energy. That only occurs in your mind

Quote:
3. The effect of kinetic energy is relative. Only the solid objects suspended in the fluid medium and rotating at the same speed and in the same direction will experience no friction.

4. All opposing forces experience friction. All solid objects moving against the rotational fluid with kinetic energy must experience some degree of friction.

5. But we don't experience any extra friction or drag when walking or flying through Earth's atmosphere in a westardly direction.

Therefore we know with certainty that Earth's atmosphere is not spinning with kinetic energy.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Therefore we know that Earth's atmosphere is not rotating relative to the Earth.
We have two competing explainations. They can't both be true. But there is a problem with premise 5 if we can derive different conclusions from it. We need to find a general principle we can both agree on.

Quote:
Check mate!
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
and they've won, so he puts the pieces on the board at random, moves them around a bit at random, tips all of them on the floor and shouts,

Check mate!
and then throws a tantrum when the grown-ups try to explain to him why he isn't a Grand Master yet.
I never claimed to be a master at anything. But if you ever fancy a game a chess let me know. Best of 3? However I will tell you a joke I heard that I read on some comment board...

Arguing with a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon, it knocks all the pieces over, poops on the board and then struts around like he won the game!

Quote:
1. All solid spinning surfaces must have kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of matter in motion.

2. All stationary fluids in physical contact with a solid spinning surface WILL receive kinetic energy from the spinning surface until their velocities have been harmonized.
Obviously.

3. The effect of kinetic energy is relative. Only the solid objects suspended in the fluid medium and rotating at the same speed and in the same direction will experience no friction.
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Obviously.
Finding agreement is essential in a oconstructive debate/duscussion

Quote:
4. All opposing forces experience friction. All solid objects moving against the rotational fluid with kinetic energy must experience some degree of friction
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
.False. Objects moving relative to a medium will experience friction, regardless of direction.
That's what I said.

Quote:
5. But we don't experience any extra friction or drag when walking or flying through Earth's atmosphere in a westardly direction.
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No, because that is not expected. Any movement relative to the ambient medium will cause friction, no matter the direction. Thus there is no extra friction in westerly directions.
Is it harder to move against flowing fluid or stationary fluid?

Is it harder to move against fluid flowing at 10mph than 1mph?

there's a principle in here i'm trying to flesh out

Quote:
5. But we don't experience any extra friction or drag when walking or flying through Earth's atmosphere in a westardly direction.
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Of course we experience "friction" when walking or flying through the Earth's atmosphere.
Agreed.

premise 5 is definitely problematic. Thanks for the criticism.

Last edited by thewholesoul; 25th June 2017 at 08:57 PM.
thewholesoul 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 25th June 2017, 09:06 PM   #1784
Sandy McCroskey
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Relativity, both sr and gr, were falsified by Incoherent 3rd Graders at Recess...

So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME !!

Primary School Falsification:

TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day).
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.

I mean c'mon now, let's reason together...can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"??
Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper??

" FREEDOM " is a Concept also...can you Bend that?

That which you are using to measure...isn't the thing you're measuring.

** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field bend also? **
(The Yardsticks are analog to the Clock) -- (The Football Field is analog to TIME)

So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's "Alleged" rotation in relation to the Sun is Affected?
These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!


Would you like the "Grown Up" Falsification, to 'Cherry On Top' this fiasco??
Say When!


regards

A lot of people have trouble understanding relativity. There's no shame in that. No need to disguise it with a massive serving of indigestible word salad.
Sandy McCroskey 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 Yesterday, 12:27 AM   #1785
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,915
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hello everyone!

I have to admit the criticism was effective against premise 5. So I need to go back to the drawing board. Before doing so I will respond to the criticisms.
OK, respect for that. May I suggest you try to put a round, spinning Earth on your drawing board, just for kicks? You will see how it all fits, then.

Quote:
Can you name one 3 dimensional object that doesn't have a surface Dave? Besides even if only the surface of an object is moving then the surface of that object has kinetic energy.
No. A surface is not an object. The object moves, and of course the surface moves with it, but the surface is not a thing, it is a definition.

Quote:
But our atmosphere is not physically flowing/spinning with kinetic energy. That only occurs in your mind
No, it occurs in your mind. There is no such thing as "flowing with kinetic energy", it is not a valid expression. The atmosphere is moving with Earth, so it has kinetic energy, but not, - and this is the point -, NOT relative to Earth. Therefore that kinetic energy does not exert a force on the earth or objects on Earth. (Of course we ignore weather, here.)

Quote:
Arguing with a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon, it knocks all the pieces over, poops on the board and then struts around like he won the game!


.... And you're proud of being the pigeon? Or are you telling us you are really just trolling?

Quote:
Is it harder to move against flowing fluid or stationary fluid?

Is it harder to move against fluid flowing at 10mph than 1mph?
The ONLY thing that matters is your own velocity relative to the fluid.

I think you have been told this about twenty times by now. Excuse me, but which of the words do you not understand?

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans 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 Yesterday, 12:47 AM   #1786
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,637
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day).

Are you going to suggest that there are four of them happening simultaneously?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 Yesterday, 12:59 AM   #1787
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Are you going to suggest that there are four of them happening simultaneously?
Don't go there, man!
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:22 AM   #1788
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,737
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Can you name one 3 dimensional object that doesn't have a surface Dave?
As I said earlier, properties are not objects.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Besides even if only the surface of an object is moving then the surface of that object has kinetic energy.
Can you name one 3-dimensional object whose surface can move without any part of the actual object moving? You can't even define the question. Your standards are slipping, you know; you're starting to get obvious.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
But our atmosphere is not physically flowing/spinning with kinetic energy. That only occurs in your mind
Circular argument; this was, from the start, the conclusion you set out to address. You don't get to use it as a premise.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
We have two competing explainations. They can't both be true. But there is a problem with premise 5 if we can derive different conclusions from it. We need to find a general principle we can both agree on.
Since your entire modus operandi is disagreement with any general principle however clear, obvious and well-supported by observation, this is not going to happen. This is your approach to avoiding the possibility of any resolution, since...

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Finding agreement is essential in a oconstructive debate/discussion
And so, back to your persistent point of carefully manufactured misunderstanding:

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Is it harder to move against flowing fluid or stationary fluid?

Is it harder to move against fluid flowing at 10mph than 1mph?

there's a principle in here i'm trying to flesh out
The principle is the equivalence of inertial frames of reference, and you've had it fleshed out for you in excruciating detail throughout this thread. If you were interested in anything but prolonging a stupid argument, you'd have made some progress with it by now; it's long past the point where it's obvious that you're not getting this because you choose not to get it.

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:26 AM   #1789
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,637
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Can you name one 3 dimensional object that doesn't have a surface Dave? Besides even if only the surface of an object is moving then the surface of that object has kinetic energy.

What is the mass of a surface?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 Yesterday, 01:49 AM   #1790
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,444
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Can you name one 3 dimensional object that doesn't have a surface Dave? Besides even if only the surface of an object is moving then the surface of that object has kinetic energy.
How would you go about calculating the kinetic energy of the surface of an object?

In the Newtonian limit:
E = mv2/2

So, what is m?

I know how to do this for an object but not for just it's surface. Funnily enough the kinetic energy calculated based on the actual mass of the object squares with the physical results of collisions in the real world, with the energy necessary to accelerate object to particular velocities, etc.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 Yesterday, 02:23 AM   #1791
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,915
Oh, and this.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

I never claimed to be a master at anything.
Yes you did. You are claiming to be able to debunk, hands down, just by argument, a scientific paradigm that has been evolved and confirmed empirically by generations of scientists worldwide for 2,400 years.

That would indeed require a grand master. But I agree: You do not seem to be that grand master.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans 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 Yesterday, 05:04 AM   #1792
Dabop
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
All they have to do is drive across Australia. These guys think it's something like 8000 km across...
I actually have driven across Oz- twice no less
And flown across it 3 times

It may `seem' like its 8000km (esp when driving across the Nullarbor)- but if it had been, I would have run out of fuel money long before I got back home

http://www.fleetcare.com.au/news-inf...ullarbor-plain
Originally Posted by The Nullarbor Plain
The Nullarbor Plain, famously known as the longest stretch of straight road in the world, is a piece of Australia which few of us cross and many of us don’t seem to know a lot about. Here we share with you ten things you may not know about the Nullarbor.

The road which people drive across the Nullarbor Plain is called the Eyre Highway. This stretch of road originally got its name from a man named John Eyre who crossed the Nullarbor in 1841.
The Eyre Highway is approximately 1675km long and takes approximately two days to cross.
The name Nullarbor originated from the Latin terminology nullus arbor meaning ‘no trees’ because quite literally you are lucky to see any surviving tress along this desert plain.
The Nullarbor Plain is home to the earth’s largest piece of limestone.
The first motorcar crossed the Nullarbor Plain in 1912.
Another form of transport to cross the Nullarbor is by the Indian Pacific Train. This train runs twice weekly from Perth to Sydney via Adelaide and takes 3 nights to cover the 4352km journey.
At one point (which is the above mentioned straightest road in the world) I dipped the high beams when seeing another set of lights approaching and waited....
and waited....

and waited....

and waited....

20 mins later a semi passed me going in the other direction

We were both doing a bit over the limit (I was sitting on about 120 lol)

thats how far you can see on that road- and how dark it is on a moonless night when there are NO lights for hundreds of kilometers

I have photos of us crossing the SA/WA border, and also of the museum that has many of the props from Mad Max 2 there, actually sat in the mechanics crane from the movie
(probably known better to the yanks as The Road Warrior series- but watching THAT abortion makes me ill- Mel Gibson with a badly dubbed `US' voiceover- bah)
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader

Last edited by Dabop; Yesterday at 05:56 AM.
Dabop 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 Yesterday, 09:30 AM   #1793
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 6,953
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Actually the whole conspiracy thing makes abundant sense. Think about it. Obviously, if one were to provide real proof of the conspiracy, the conspirators would have to kill you. That is, I'm sure, why nobody has brought back good clear pictures of the edge of the disk, and other such things we mere toilers at convention would accept. The doughty conspirators sneak up and garrotte them, or plant bombs in their planes, jam the radio waves, blur the film and doctor the records. What a dilemma. The only way to be both a truther and stay alive is to spout nonsense so insane that nobody will take it seriously enough to kill you. The genius of posters here tiptoeing the tightrope of truth is inspiring.
It's really much simpler than that. There are guards stationed all around the edge. If anybody goes there that shouldn't be there, they just push them off the edge.
CORed 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 Yesterday, 09:48 AM   #1794
Dabop
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
It's really much simpler than that. There are guards stationed all around the edge. If anybody goes there that shouldn't be there, they just push them off the edge.
hmmm how big would this `imaginary circumference' be?? (its too late at night for me to even bother trying to calculate it) and how many guards are required to safely secure it from us `commoners'- and what keeps them quiet about it?

I suspect the number required would be mindboggingly large for a `conspiracy' to work...
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop 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 Yesterday, 10:06 AM   #1795
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,036
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
hmmm how big would this `imaginary circumference' be?? (its too late at night for me to even bother trying to calculate it) and how many guards are required to safely secure it from us `commoners'- and what keeps them quiet about it?

I suspect the number required would be mindboggingly large for a `conspiracy' to work...
Obviously, there are what we would call 'aliens' guarding the edge. They don't mingle with us. On occasion, the aliens have to take a short cut across the flat area and they are seen. This is why governments don't investigate UFOs, they already know about the aliens at the edge.
__________________
- "Who is the Greater Fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the Fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool 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 Yesterday, 10:11 AM   #1796
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,234
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
What is the mass of a surface?
It's the volume of the normal multiplied by the material density.
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.
alexi_drago 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 Yesterday, 10:26 AM   #1797
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,637
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Obviously, there are what we would call 'aliens' guarding the edge. They don't mingle with us. On occasion, the aliens have to take a short cut across the flat area and they are seen. This is why governments don't investigate UFOs, they already know about the aliens at the edge.

There are already plans to build a fence around the edge to keep them out.

And make them pay for it.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 Yesterday, 10:43 AM   #1798
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,561
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Obviously, there are what we would call 'aliens' guarding the edge. They don't mingle with us. On occasion, the aliens have to take a short cut across the flat area and they are seen. This is why governments don't investigate UFOs, they already know about the aliens at the edge.
(Shakes fist) Hey! You aliens! Stay off my lawn!
sts60 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 Yesterday, 11:04 AM   #1799
mike81
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I tell you what I will answer the question on one condition. You tell me who provides my script. Only then will I answer the question.

Invert a rainbow so it may smile in your minds eye!
Sounds like an admission to trolling.
mike81 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 Yesterday, 11:25 AM   #1800
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,456
I've been at Glastonbury festival all weekend. I can assure you all that it's definitely spinning.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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