Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Phil Indeblanc on November 17, 2016, 01:49:21 am
-
I can't wrap my head around it....
I know the horizon bends due to the lens curvature on wide lenses, and being a landscape photographer much of the times I photograph, I thought I would post this here,
since many folks are much more knowledgeable in optics, physics and relativity.
https://youtu.be/Rz6u2_hltSQ
-
Phil, it's onvious: that's why NZ is having it's earthquakes: catching up with the rest of Earth. Once that's achieved, these little anomalies will vanish for ever.
Rob C
-
Start by looking at this:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=150&h0=3&unit=metric
Now draw a straight line from the base of h0 and h1. That represents a flat Earth. In that scenario, you can see h1 from "sea level" to the peak. Except, in the video, you can't. You can't see the base of the mountain. That's because there's something in the way. The curvature of the Earth is in the way.
He shows that his angle lines match such that the peaks are the correct distance above sea level. Well, of course they are. Whether you have a curve or a straight line between base h0 and base h1 doesn't change the top of h1. His hypothesis is that with curvature, sea level is different compared to a right angle (flat) plane from the base of either h0 or h1, and if you "rotate" the view to get that line level, then the top of h1 would be higher and so his lines shouldn't match up. Except, of course, that if you rotate the frame of reference, you rotate everything in it, including his angle lines, so they will always match the peaks even if you "level" the two points.
In fact, when you look at the diagram in the link I provided, the angles of the lines from h0 base to h1 peak relative to a tangential plane at either base, can only work, and maintain respective heights about sea level for the observer and mountain peaks, if the Earth is curved and has a circumference of about 40,075km...
So, basically, he just proved the Earth is curved.
-
Or, use Rob's answer, which snuck in whilst I was typing. Although be careful, Rob, someone will take offence at your joke given 2 people died in the latest quake...
-
Or, use Rob's answer, which snuck in whilst I was typing. Although be careful, Rob, someone will take offence at your joke given 2 people died in the latest quake...
Man, there's always somebody ready, willing and able to take offence; it's the penalty of having a voice. You just have to soldier on regardless, and put your faith in sanity.
;-)
Rob
-
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but does anyone know whether flat earthers believe that the earth is a big flat circle or a big flat square (or rectangle, or trapezoid). I ask because if it is not a circle, then there will be corners. Those corners would be important places, no?
The guy from that video should do another video explaining time zones.
-
I can't wrap my head around it....
Hi Phil,
As said, we cannot see the sea-level at the mountain's base (in part because it's hidden by the curvature of the earth, in part because there is no sea in that location), but we may be able to see the tops if they are high enough for the distance they are at. He states that the images were taken from Wellington's south coast, but at what elevation (Wellington itself is at 127 metres)? Looking at the footage, he was apparently well above sea-level, that's because a lot of rock formations in the foreground are well below the horizon line/curve.
Also, many of the mountain formations are on ridges that roughly run in the direction of the line of sight, so we may rather be looking at less distant ridge tops than more distant peaks. Too many unknowns to be more precise.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but does anyone know whether flat earthers believe that the earth is a big flat circle or a big flat square (or rectangle, or trapezoid). I ask because if it is not a circle, then there will be corners. Those corners would be important places, no?
The guy from that video should do another video explaining time zones.
I think the existence of flat-earthers is a bigger myth than a flat earth.
-
I'm concerned with what's happening to all that water that's running off the edge. It could be the reason the western USA is having drought problem.
-
I think the existence of flat-earthers is a bigger myth than a flat earth.
To their defense, those who reached/crossed the edge probably fell over the edge and were no longer able to report their findings... Just trying (very hard) to keep an open mind.
In fact, there is a Dutch scientist who developed a new theory (http://nltimes.nl/2016/11/08/dutch-scientist-publishes-new-theory-gravity) that explains that Dark Matter (assumed to be the explanation for inconsistencies in gravity theories that even Einstein could not explain, but is still unproven) does not exist and gravity works in a different way than is so far assumed by the scientific community.
Flat earth (or hollow earth) on the other hand, or the denial of the human influence on climate change (hockey stick curves following the start of the industrial revolution) ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Start by looking at this:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=150&h0=3&unit=metric
Now draw a straight line from the base of h0 and h1. That represents a flat Earth. In that scenario, you can see h1 from "sea level" to the peak. Except, in the video, you can't. You can't see the base of the mountain. That's because there's something in the way. The curvature of the Earth is in the way.
He shows that his angle lines match such that the peaks are the correct distance above sea level. Well, of course they are. Whether you have a curve or a straight line between base h0 and base h1 doesn't change the top of h1. His hypothesis is that with curvature, sea level is different compared to a right angle (flat) plane from the base of either h0 or h1, and if you "rotate" the view to get that line level, then the top of h1 would be higher and so his lines shouldn't match up. Except, of course, that if you rotate the frame of reference, you rotate everything in it, including his angle lines, so they will always match the peaks even if you "level" the two points.
In fact, when you look at the diagram in the link I provided, the angles of the lines from h0 base to h1 peak relative to a tangential plane at either base, can only work, and maintain respective heights about sea level for the observer and mountain peaks, if the Earth is curved and has a circumference of about 40,075km...
So, basically, he just proved the Earth is curved.
The link you posted is irelevent to the video I posted, as that is formulating the info its input.
We can leave that alone for now.
Hi Phil,
As said, we cannot see the sea-level at the mountain's base (in part because it's hidden by the curvature of the earth, in part because there is no sea in that location), but we may be able to see the tops if they are high enough for the distance they are at. He states that the images were taken from Wellington's south coast, but at what elevation (Wellington itself is at 127 metres)? Looking at the footage, he was apparently well above sea-level, that's because a lot of rock formations in the foreground are well below the horizon line/curve.
Also, many of the mountain formations are on ridges that roughly run in the direction of the line of sight, so we may rather be looking at less distant ridge tops than more distant peaks. Too many unknowns to be more precise.
Cheers,
Bart
The video this guy made is AT sea level. he is on the coast. His elevation is roughly or abolute zero.
How do you see him above?
Looking at the footage he is AT sea level. He has used the peaks in the distance as ref points, not where he is measuring from.
Even if he was a few feet up, it would still be way within Pythagorus theorum application to barely see the mountain tops.
Maybe watch the video again?
-
The video this guy made is AT sea level. he is on the coast. His elevation is roughly or abolute zero.
How do you see him above?
Large rock formations near his position are below the vanishing points at the horizon. His "from Wellington's South coast" is a bit vague as to his actual vantage point and elevation (just 'a couple' of metres above sealevel?), but we can get a rough idea.
Even if he was a few feet up, it would still be way within Pythagorus theorum application to barely see the mountain tops.
Not really. Take mount "Tapuae-O-Ueneku" at approx. 74.45 miles or 120 km distance, give or take. Take the Earth Curve calculator's modest default 3 metres elevation as viewpoint, and 120 km distance. That will mean that the 2885 m elevation will be well above the lower 1016.6 m that is occluded by the earth's curvature. Or mount Manakau with an elevation of 2608 m, also well above the horizon of the earth's curvature (if you look at 2m00s into the video where the 'sea level' or rather earth curvature is above his 'actual sea-level'). And since we're on a roughly spherical (or ellipsoid) surface looking more to the left or right, it will still be at the same heights, but the horizon is a circle when looked at from directly above.
Maybe watch the video again?
Doesn't change the facts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In fact, there is a Dutch scientist who developed a new theory (http://nltimes.nl/2016/11/08/dutch-scientist-publishes-new-theory-gravity) that explains that Dark Matter (assumed to be the explanation for inconsistencies in gravity theories that even Einstein could not explain, but is still unproven) does not exist and gravity works in a different way than is so far assumed by the scientific community.
My friend K, with whom I visited beaches & drank delicious coffee during my recent travels, has spent a chunk of her career so far on versions of MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). The idea is that gravity, beyond a certain threshold of low matter density and great physical distance, behaves differently than described by Newton's equation (or by the more complex math of General Relativity) and that this accounts for the observed gravitational anomalies that have given rise to the idea of dark matter. She doesn't think MOND is ultimately right, and is dubious of "believers" in it like Verlinde, but does consider it worth investigating. It'll certainly be interesting to see if and how Verlinde deals with known MOND issues. So far, though, he seems more focused on PR. Bit of a red flag, that.
I've never met a flat earther "in the flesh." :)
-Dave-
-
Large rock formations near his position are below the vanishing points at the horizon. His "from Wellington's South coast" is a bit vague as to his actual vantage point and elevation (just 'a couple' of metres above sealevel?), but we can get a rough idea.
Not really. Take mount "Tapuae-O-Ueneku" at approx. 74.45 miles or 120 km distance, give or take. Take the Earth Curve calculator's modest default 3 metres elevation as viewpoint, and 120 km distance. That will mean that the 2885 m elevation will be well above the lower 1016.6 m that is occluded by the earth's curvature. Or mount Manakau with an elevation of 2608 m, also well above the horizon of the earth's curvature (if you look at 2m00s into the video where the 'sea level' or rather earth curvature is above his 'actual sea-level'). And since we're on a roughly spherical (or ellipsoid) surface looking more to the left or right, it will still be at the same heights, but the horizon is a circle when looked at from directly above.
Doesn't change the facts.
Cheers,
Bart
As long as you see close to or thee contact point of the body of water from the two shores you are good to go, that is seeing across a flat plane. This doesn't need a lot of anything besides a straight line. You can start saying its much more complicated than that, but all you are doing is confirming if you have clear line of sight across a plane that is long enough to have a curvature to obstruct vision across. You don't need much else...Unless it was some hypothetical model. But its not. So its a WYSISYG.
You say you saw the horizon as a circle from above?
-
The link I posted is critical in understanding why his hypothesis is incorrect. Look at the visual representation of what's happening, then follow my comments to create a "flat" earth model. That model, to work, requires rotation. Rotation causes the lines he drew to change their angle relative to the tangent at h0. As such, they don't work. They only work if the Earth is curved with a circumference of 40,075km. For reference, I put his distance above sea level as 3 metres.
So, if you ignore what I posted and linked, then you're missing the explanation.
Also, in a more practical manner, the distance from h0 to h1 is just about 150km, which on a circumference of 40,075km is very small. When you then reduce that down to the scale of the video, any variations become imperceptible and make his lines "line up". It's like taking a fuzzy image and downscaling it massively to make it sharp.
-
+1 for farmer;
I think he explained it very well and gave the right answer.
-
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but does anyone know whether flat earthers believe that the earth is a big flat circle or a big flat square (or rectangle, or trapezoid). I ask because if it is not a circle, then there will be corners. Those corners would be important places, no?
It's a disc, of course, carried on the backs of four elephants, themselves standing on a giant turtle. Don't you know anything? ;)
Jeremy
-
or the denial of the human influence on climate change (hockey stick curves following the start of the industrial revolution) ...
Bart, someone of your obvious mental capacity should be ashamed of such a statement. Unless it was all in fun. If you are an adherent to real science you know that there are three problems with your hockey stick. First, the concept of "true-true and unrelated". True: the industrial revolution happened during a period of time. True: the earth got warmer during this period of time. Unrelated: the industrial revolution made it get warmer. Non-scientists will scoff at this. But for the science to be meaningful the relationship between cause and effect has to be established firmly. In this case you have potential and theoretical causes but the effect relationship is yet unproven. And probably cannot be. The second problem is fascination with the hockey stick of the moment . There have been other hockey sticks. The little ice age for instance. So the fact that a hockey stick exists is hardly testimony to any man made cause. The third problem is that handle of your hockey stick is too short to give the blade significant meaning. We've been recording temps accurately for what, maybe 150 years. All other data is extrapolated, agreed on by consensus and otherwise unverifiable.
Even with those weaknesses manmade global warming is a reasonable hypothesis. It may even represent the best science we have available. But here is the problem, and it is three-fold. First, the conclusion of the hypothesis demands drastic global changes that effect lives, nations, cultures and economies all of which are being demanded without _any_ clear evidence that they will have a meaningful positive effect. That's a tall order for such weak science. Second, there is zero hard evidence that the effects of warming will be all negative of even negative in the balance! Finally, there is your statement lumping those who are skeptical with manmade global warming with flat-earthers. It is a little offensive. It glosses over the numerous problems with manmade global warming theory. And it is counter to scientific inquiry. Virtually all major scientific breakthroughs come because someone questions the prevailing science.
Apologies to this off topic rant. But he started it. ;D
-
Bart, someone of your obvious mental capacity should be ashamed of such a statement. Unless it was all in fun. If you are an adherent to real science you know that there are three problems with your hockey stick. First, the concept of "true-true and unrelated". True: the industrial revolution happened during a period of time. True: the earth got warmer during this period of time.
Not only did it get warmer (which might until then be explained by other natural phenomenae), but it suddenly accelerated dramatically (on a scale of what natural phenomenae can do) when fossil fuel and other combustibles (releasing the stored Carbon to form Carbon (Di-)Oxides in an accelerated rate) got used at the scale it did.
Of course, accelerated deforestation also doesn't help to at least catch some of it, and the resulting climate changes worsen the results by erosion and rainfall that washes away fertile soil.
Unrelated: the industrial revolution made it get warmer. Non-scientists will scoff at this. But for the science to be meaningful the relationship between cause and effect has to be established firmly. In this case you have potential and theoretical causes but the effect relationship is yet unproven.
While it is true that correlation is not necessarily the same as causation, in this case there is no better explanation for such a massive breach in trends which continues to this day ever since. If you have a more plausible cause to offer, the world would be happy to hear what it is, so one can address it. Nature will be grateful, although it will do fine/better without humans.
And probably cannot be. The second problem is fascination with the hockey stick of the moment . There have been other hockey sticks. The little ice age for instance. So the fact that a hockey stick exists is hardly testimony to any man made cause. The third problem is that handle of your hockey stick is too short to give the blade significant meaning. We've been recording temps accurately for what, maybe 150 years. All other data is extrapolated, agreed on by consensus and otherwise unverifiable.
You're contradicting yourself. If the observations were only from the last century and a half, then how could we know what the temperature and CO2 concentration was during any Ice Age? ;)
I'll leave the other remarks for another thread, e.g. when Trump revives the US coal industry and withdraws from the global efforts to mitigate the issues (which also urges developing countries to not repeat the bad example and make even larger contributions to the issues).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart N80 is making some sense to me, though, not sure how we went to the ice age... :-)
He is explaining about the exact thing that you are trapping your idea with. At least from what I am reading.
You are mixing an apples and oranges comparison....
When doing an experiment, you can NOT use correlation as a founding premise to ANY quantifiable scientific data. That is something you can do in abstract, and create theories and models. You CANNOT apply such things when they are disproved by observational science, the core and the foundation of empirical evidence.
I think you have so much knowledge Bart that you are beyond the normal levels of science perhaps, but this may have detached your connection of what science is, something we can observe and repeat in a lab, where ever you may choose that lab to be. Science that gives us facts are based on *repeatable observation.
You know. As photography, and landscape photography in particular, the knowledge and open minded discussion could not occur in any better place, and thats why I posted this here. I think, as long as we can freely think and share our observations, and experiences personally, we can have an amazing discussion with some many people. I am hoping to have a constructive discussion, so while I enjoy humor very much, I enjoy critical thinking much more.
Preset agendas, or "what I learned is absolute" can really slow it down. We cannot take theories in science as observable absolutes in all things. While they may come from great thinking minds, this doesn't mean some ideas are off, or wrong, or not disproved.
Don't watch this entire video, as I DONT assume of anything being such as flat earth and such, I am question something that relates to us as photographers and observers.
...but we have to be open to challenge our understanding, and this video is interesting in that respect.
https://youtu.be/p2QmEcDydzQ?t=7m5s
-
Bart N80 is making some sense to me, though, not sure how we went to the ice age... :-)
He is explaining about the exact thing that you are trapping your idea with. At least from what I am reading.
You are mixing an apples and oranges comparison....
When doing an experiment, you can NOT use correlation as a founding premise to ANY quantifiable scientific data. Not just a mention that it may not.
That is something you can do in abstract, and create theories and models. You CANNOT apply such things when they are disproved by observational science, the core and the foundation of empirical evidence.
I think you have so much knowledge Bart that you are beyond the normal levels of science perhaps, but this may have detached your connection of what science is, something we can observe and repeat in a lab, where ever you may choose that lab to be. Science that gives us facts are based on *repeatable observation.
You know. As photography, and landscape photography in particular, the knowledge and open minded discussion could not occur in any better place, and thats why I posted this here. I think, as long as we can freely think and share our observations, and experiences personally, we can have an amazing discussion with some many people. I am hoping to have a constructive discussion, so while I enjoy humor very much, I enjoy critical thinking much more.
Preset agendas, or "what I learned is absolute" can really slow it down. We cannot take theories in science as observable absolutes in all things. While they may come from great thinking minds, this doesn't mean some ideas are off, or wrong, or not disproved.
This video should NOT tell you anything about the earths shape, BUT
there are things that you will reject, or if you understand some of these things at the fundamental level, you will find it at the least INTERESTING.
I had put a wrong time in the video link!
I forgot to say to not watch all of it for this discussion, so we can concentrate ont his part....
https://youtu.be/p2QmEcDydzQ?t=6m42s
-
The link I posted is critical in understanding why his hypothesis is incorrect.
Ummm, he is not claiming or making a hypothesis.
If you are using "hypothesis" as a defintion to observational science, which is the foundation to empirical evidence, it maybe good to clear these things up first.
You cannot disprove repeatable observation. This is the backbone and the foundation of science.
-
The objective of science isn't to prove anything. It's to weed out BS. Claims that don't hold up to amassed evidence and critical scrutiny get tossed. This brings you closer to an accurate view of the nature of things, but you never get all the way there. Any "truths" established along the way are provisional, subject to revision or even dismissal via additional data & analysis.
Climate science, like all science, is iterative. More data is gathered and evaluated, models get further refined, understanding is improved. But, as I've written about elsewhere here, because this particular branch of science directly impacts economics and therefore politics and therefore ideology (the great Achilles Heel of the human species) it's become surrounded by a thick cloud of radioactive noise. Some of this IMO is the fault of some of the scientists. Much of it is due to the usual merchants of doubt. But it was bound to happen regardless: as I've also written about here, we humans suck at long-term thinking & planning. If necessary, any coordinated & sustained response to unambiguously negative climatic change will happen only when our backs are up against the wall. Short of that we'll do the usual can kicking. Or maybe we'll get lucky and our basic understanding of chemistry & thermal dynamics will turn out to be wrong. (I'm being sarcastic.) None of this is an excuse for head-in-sand-ism, just an acknowledgment that humans be fvgged up. People care more about maintaining the belief systems they've constructed (or adopted) to make sense of the world than they do about whether or not these systems actually describe the world. This is just how it is.
-Dave-
-
I'm not sure I want to get into a drawn out discussion about whether the original video's creator has biased assumptions regarding the "experimental" set-up but there are starting assumptions which are not properly accounted for.
1) Earth Curvature: The earth is not a perfectly spherical object, and not all area's are equally "round", for example, the earth has a larger radius at the equator than at the poles.
2) Light travels linearly: As photographers we should understand that light doesn't really always travel in a straight line, depending atmospheric disturbances (heat etc) and focus errors could make the measurements fairly inaccurate)
3) Localized gravity and "Sea Level": I don't agree with where the video creator placed the "actual sea level" horizon in the video, rather than just where is was convenient to agree with his hypothesis (he hand waved away the difference as being "waves and swell"). Also the annotated sea level and actual "sea level" can be quite different (i.e. tides) and "sea level" might not mean what you think is does (especially in relation to measuring the heights of mountain peaks).
I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4
Mike
-
Ummm, he is not claiming or making a hypothesis.
If you are using "hypothesis" as a defintion to observational science, which is the foundation to empirical evidence, it maybe good to clear these things up first.
You cannot disprove repeatable observation. This is the backbone and the foundation of science.
Of course it's a hypothesis. It's a proposition to explain an observation based on limited evidence. i.e. "my lines line up so the Earth is flat". So, nothing needs to be cleared up on my end.
And, of course you can disprove repeatable observation. It happens all the time. Through the scientific method a hypothesis is tested and refined and becomes a theory - the best model we have for something that we observed. At some future point, we refine our observation or make additional observations or perform some other test and determine that the theory, based on previous repeatable observation, was wrong. This is what is meant by being open minded and applying the scientific approach - not simply saying "well, everything is reasonable and I should be open to it".
In the case in point, our flat Earth friend is making repeatable observations, but he's ignoring other available data which shows not only that his observation (as described by him) is wrong, but ironically proves the counter of his position.
As for the nonsense in the Tesla video...wow. Tesla claimed that the atom couldn't be subdivided and didn't believe in the existence of electrons (for example). He spoke against any concept of conversation of matter to energy. When he spoke against Einstein, it was before a practical test had been conducted (i.e. The Manhattan Project). This is a classic case of repeatable observations (those made by Tesla which concluded the existence of "ether" that transmitted electricity, among other things. This observation has long since been shown to be incorrect. So, yeah, someone selectively quoting Tesla doesn't really make for an interesting video except, perhaps, for some psychology students. This is not to say that Tesla didn't make great contributions or that he lacked intelligence. For his time, he observed what he could and created a theory and from that achieved practical results. It's just a great example of the scientific theory at work, refining observations and resultant theories. And, again, that's a real open minded approach - not the sophist quackery preached by flat Earthers or that most recent video that you posted.
-
I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4
Minute Physics is great :-)
-
I made an error and put the wrong time link. It was supposed to start a bit before 7Min into it, and I meant to include, to not watch all of it. But..I update the link time, so.
Farmer. A hypothsis is the idea, taking the idea to test is an observation to draw out conclusions from. Luckily I only did 2 years of chemistry....Any more and I too might forget some basics with so much more info to learn ...something gets erased :-)
If you are going to simply apply what you learned in class, of course you're not going to be open to any different, new or contradicting information. This isn't meant to cause contradictions in thought. This is for those who can think out of the box. If you didn't know any rules or laws and watch the first video I posted, what you do see is that there is a straight line with no curve. Here are a couple other engineers explaining THEIR understanding, not the one that has been prescribed.
https://youtu.be/nR2q3ifFcN8
-
I'll just note that figuring out the (not perfectly) spherical nature of our planet took both the capacity and the willingness to notice things most people didn't. Read up and watch video on Eratosthenes.
The history of human scientific & technological achievement is about a relative handful of people running ahead of the herd and pulling everyone else along with them. Without those people we'd all still be living in caves. Well, some of us would. Most of us would've never been born. Some of us clearly resent being pulled along at all.
-Dave-
-
I like what you say Telecaster, regardless of how you might want to apply your perspective, what you say has often been the case.
...And it is why as mentioned that we might have come to a point that past theories we set forth as unproven fact, with so much theoretical modeling, and built on the model to a point that we need to revisit these old premises.
It would be crucial to bring up the basics and test those models BECAUSE our tools of measure have improved so greatly.
Our tools of communication are endless. Our ability to extract data, process it, and fact check it in observation is so accessible with current transportation, ...
So what ever in the very far past that only a VERY few had access to(let alone error margins), and few could even author to quantify were dictating what laws we govern under.
Just as rulers and war winners wrote the history books, such rulers dictated what we theorize and build our knowledge atop.
And if there is debate or any contradiction, a invincible figure of authority will squash it with support of society rulers, ridicule, belittle and gain of laughter of the masses. People are not dumb, but put a large group together in front of a charismatic speaker, and you got yourself a herd.
In todays' time, while we have billions of people uncovering new ways of photography, new ways of creating music like never before, new levels of skill/professionalism.....
Sure with many that produce below the average, but with so many above and beyond our understand, that everyday those presistant have the aid of a shrunken learning curve, they get better and better.
There is NO WAY you can dispute it. The populous can and will overturn what was once only visible to a very few, as you see it happening in industry.
You are kidding yourself if you think this turn of the century was only technological and revolutionary in photography...It is in many and spills into all areas.
Science is ALSO something that many people can pioneer in, as new evidence across the globe(or whatever), will discover and uncover what was hidden, or misrepresented. If you don't fact check, and you are under the mainstream of information only fed to you, you are a product of that info and things will not wait for you.
My signature has said for the past few years that; If you buy a camera, you are a photographer". This is your litmus test that you are behind as a personal being, while the industry, the craft of it has moved right past you...But if you don't try and see what is real, and fact check, you too will be left behind.
When you can raise a few eyebrows, and then some will say, lets retest, and then you see people in different parts of the world seeing the same thing, that they just dont see a calm level water rise and obstruct the view over a long enough distance based on our past taught calculations and models we formulated.......You fall under just a few categories....
1. The more you are well versed in the language, the more you are vested to fight any knew or unknown, or contradicting info. You will fight it with simple repitition of what you know. You will not accept it. Arrogance can easily cloud things.
2. You know that something has been wrong for some time now, but its not in your interest to make it public and make it a new norm. You will ridicule, and try and gain the support of just being the cool and fun guy that leads the herd. This person will try and discredit the individual, if they cannot discredit the info. Often will just refute the validity of the info.
3. You have open eys, and you accept things only as science and reality allow you to test them, and simply draw observations and facts based on testing, and using the scientific method. You are open to different forms of thinking. This is usually an independent, or classic educated with zero badges or diplomas enlarged on his wall behind the desk. Truely someone who loves the observation of science, and not the business of.
Now if you look at those that are putting ther reputation on the line. They are vulnerable claiming things that simply don't make sense in the accepted societal norm. They are either..
1. Crazy,
2. Or they have seen something that certainly sparked their interest enough to test it. And they found that it contradicts a rule they know. Then they share this to add a external perspective. And then check the work and the way it is applied. Now then you have some serious backing to what you claim. So you will have people with simple education to highly expert in the field under the classical theorems and understanding do one of the above 1, 2, or 3
So this guy has sparked my interest to see if this shore to shore test is accurate.
I want to test this myself.
What can you suggest I do to satisfy those folks such as we have in this thread?
I would think I need a decent zoom lens.
2 points across a body of water. (on a calm day)
Someone to video tape the test. What else?
-
A hypothesis is an idea, but you need to have made an observation or had some prior knowledge to seed that idea. You then present that idea and test it or obtain feedback. Your flat Earther mate is presenting a hypothesis. We know it can't be theory, because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny as an effective model to describe the observations. If you want, I can call it bat-shit crazy nonsense, but in the interest of further discourse and in keeping an open mind, I've given it at least some credence and considered it a hypothesis.
I don't mind either way, in terms of naming.
-
Terribly difficult, intellectually challenging thread to follow; and I find that with "Artists' Statements", too. Best I leave 'em both alone.
Rob
-
Terribly difficult, intellectually challenging thread to follow; and I find that with "Artists' Statements", too. Best I leave 'em both alone.
Rob
Not a bad strategy when it comes to complex scientific subjects that take a lifetime of study to understand fully. As a lay person you have the choice of believing what the vast majority of qualified people conclude, or believing what some guy on the internet types. Of course option A is not a guarantee of success, but it seems a smarter choice to me.
-
Not a bad strategy when it comes to complex scientific subjects that take a lifetime of study to understand fully. As a lay person you have the choice of believing what the vast majority of qualified people conclude, or believing what some guy on the internet types. Of course option A is not a guarantee of success, but it seems a smarter choice to me.
Thats just it! Of course you would! Its our instinctive nature to want to be with what is safe for survival and not stray from the pack. But today the layman has access. The most important freedom for a thinking breathing being. The tools we have has made it easier for the average person to advance him or herself in what they can understand on their own with scientific testing.
The "complex scientific subjects" of understand from centuries ago have been based on some theories that were NOT easy to measure, and we based some key BELEIFS on those...But now is very possible by the somewhat average person with some resources to simply test.
This is NOT a complex test. This is simply showing that water acts as measuring tool for a level straight line. Over a distance we are TAUGHT that this line curves. Before it was pretty impossible with lens designs to actually see far enough without a very distorted image. Instead of talking about the past tools, and debating about that which is one thing, we HAVE THE TOOL to simply see now. The atmosphere and water have not changed in a couple hundered or more years. We can get the heck out there and test the theorem. Why debate it?! Why take my ARM yourself to disagree with something stated when you can test it yourself! This is NOT a complex test, or equation, or anything other than SIMPLE GEOMETRY with a fantastic a2+b2=c2 , a proven mathematic formula that can be repeated constantly.
You may have processed film, written down each setting you changed for the condition you were shooting, mixed the right chemicals, used the right times and output in light....This industry alone...this small area only available to those that practiced it, is now in EVERY persons pocket as a tool. Used correctly you can achieve success in using it. These are small things, but they are also happening in many industries.
Great advancement that directly effect or improve people rarely occurred under rule. Any great thing achieved was from those that went against the given understanding or law, but they had enough momentum and tools and abilities with support to sustain, and emerge. This is what improvement is, to give ability to the masses to think for themselves, and not be bound with endless entertainment and work that occupies our ability to think outside this box and packaged understand.
So when the test of seeing a flat line you say is from some laymen on the internet, you have people doing it in the thousands. I found this one interesting, as it does a pretty good job. He has repeated the test in part 2 with more detail and addressed some things.
There will also ways be those that fall into the category I described above in previous post. Who cares if some person thinks PAST what we are discussing, or how that info can mean so many other things. It wont make our short lives much different. But we need to take small steps to measure and account what we NOW can measure. Very few people even had a telescope centuries ago, let alone have the understanding of how a lens distorts the horizon line.
-
Phil, I sometimes think that I would be perfectly happy were the status quo of twenty years ago to have continued for ever. Not a lot newer has made me feel one iota more happy, and probably noticeably less so.
Rob C
-
OK, Phil. You want to test this? Lie flat on a beach and watch the sun set. At the instant the last bit of the sun goes below the horizon, stand up. You'll get to watch the sun set again. That only works because the Earth is curved.
-
My strategy for dealing with flat-earthers or Bigfoot believers or whatever would be to cut through all the claims & associated rigmarole and go straight for the undeniable evidence. If the planet is flat, take me to the edge and show it to me. If Bigfoot exists, bring me live specimens to study. Short of that: get lost.
-Dave-
-
OK, Phil. You want to test this? Lie flat on a beach and watch the sun set. At the instant the last bit of the sun goes below the horizon, stand up. You'll get to watch the sun set again. That only works because the Earth is curved.
I apologize, but I cannot take your given perspectives thus far into account in this test. You are expecting me or others put energy and to test something at 2 points to be "level to level" with something we believe to be up high millions of miles away. Why even make such a proposterous suggestion? Please I would love to hear your ideas, as I think anyone is capable of valid input, but they have to be of constructive and apples to apples rational thinking. Perhaps you have some resistance to this, and you have ridicule in mind.
See my previous post about the 3 different reactions people get when they do something challenging to something you either whole heart-idly believe, or whole heart-idly have interest in not being , etc
This is the point you either join in a simple test, maybe best as observer.... or storm off with insults of lunacy (not that I want to involve anything lunar).
:-)
-
My strategy for dealing with flat-earthers or Bigfoot believers or whatever would be to cut through all the claims & associated rigmarole and go straight for the undeniable evidence. If the planet is flat, take me to the edge and show it to me. If Bigfoot exists, bring me live specimens to study. Short of that: get lost.
-Dave-
I think putting the theory of "flat earth" is a bad idea, specially in something we want theory to be excluded from. Keep in mind, most theory is based and extrapolated from observational fact, for the most part. This is a simple test that mathematics and simple(In todays time) observation can solve.
Air travel is very costly. Let alone trekking through deep snow into an area unknown to 99% of ~8billion people.
-
I wonder how flat-earthers account for time zones. (It shouldn't be necessary to state this, but I'm being facetious.)
People are odd in what they choose to "believe" or "not believe" or what to be mystified by. Decades ago my ex father-in-law expressed bafflement one day on how computers worked, that he could not understand them. For some reason this really bothered him because he felt that modern life was slipping away from him. So I said, ok, how do radios work then, you've been listening to them your entire life and it has never bothered you. And he had no idea how radios worked, they were just familiar. I could just as easily have said, how do they smelt iron ore? How many people know that.
In a previous life, I got a couple of physics degrees and remember getting into conversations with non-physicist friends about relativity (both special and general). I remember a couple of them expressing dis-belief in time dilation, that it could not be so because it made no sense. As if it were a matter of opinion or belief. I find it odd that someone would dismiss something because they happen not to understand it. My only answer to any of them, and the answer was unsatisfactory, was this: Have you ever seen a bacteria? Do you believe in them? If your appendix burst, would you be happy if the surgeon didn't wear surgical gloves? Why not? How does a person accept unquestioningly one aspect of modern science and not another? What prejudice is in effect to produce that paradox?
-
I wonder how flat-earthers account for time zones. (It shouldn't be necessary to state this, but I'm being facetious.)
People are odd in what they choose to "believe" or "not believe" or what to be mystified by. Decades ago my ex father-in-law expressed bafflement one day on how computers worked, that he could not understand them. For some reason this really bothered him because he felt that modern life was slipping away from him. So I said, ok, how do radios work then, you've been listening to them your entire life and it has never bothered you. And he had no idea how radios worked, they were just familiar. I could just as easily have said, how do they smelt iron ore? How many people know that.
In a previous life, I got a couple of physics degrees and remember getting into conversations with non-physicist friends about relativity (both special and general). I remember a couple of them expressing dis-belief in time dilation, that it could not be so because it made no sense. As if it were a matter of opinion or belief. I find it odd that someone would dismiss something because they happen not to understand it. My only answer to any of them, and the answer was unsatisfactory, was this: Have you ever seen a bacteria? Do you believe in them? If your appendix burst, would you be happy if the surgeon didn't wear surgical gloves? Why not? How does a person accept unquestioningly one aspect of modern science and not another? What prejudice is in effect to produce that paradox?
I totally agree.
Its so much easier when you take your beliefs out of the equation when doing some simple scientific observation. the 101 of what be base our models on.
But its understandable for some to get up in arms, as they may have invested so much in it, or their direct livelihood may depend on it, etc
(oddly, I do have to say that time, although based on light vs dark/sun, is a construct we have implemented(long "time" ago), which we also LEARNED by new tools and OBSERVATION, know to be incorrect in the past 40 some odd years.... which is why astronomers don't use it for anything other than knowing when to take a lunch break, etc).
-
IMO the best way to deal with claim-makers is to insist that they deliver the goods. Take 'em out of their comfort zone. Then you'll find out how serious they are.
Responding to Robert's post: In my own experience and observation, refusing to accept this or that despite evidence and even repeatable demonstration…it's usually about something else the person believes deeply but chooses not to acknowledge publicly. The thing being refuted or denied would, if acknowledged as being real or genuine, undermine (in the mind of the person in question anyway) that deeper something else.
Then there are the hucksters and chain-pullers. But they're generally not hard to spot.
-Dave-
-
IMO the best way to deal with claim-makers is to insist that they deliver the goods. Take 'em out of their comfort zone. Then you'll find out how serious they are.
Responding to Robert's post: In my own experience and observation, refusing to accept this or that despite evidence and even repeatable demonstration…it's usually about something else the person believes deeply but chooses not to acknowledge publicly. The thing being refuted or denied would, if acknowledged as being real or genuine, undermine (in the mind of the person in question anyway) that deeper something else.
Then there are the hucksters and chain-pullers. But they're generally not hard to spot.
-Dave-
very well said
-
I'll just note that figuring out the (not perfectly) spherical nature of our planet took both the capacity and the willingness to notice things most people didn't. Read up and watch video on Eratosthenes.
The history of human scientific & technological achievement is about a relative handful of people running ahead of the herd and pulling everyone else along with them. Without those people we'd all still be living in caves. Well, some of us would. Most of us would've never been born. Some of us clearly resent being pulled along at all.
-Dave-
I did just now!
Interesting what it suggests...
First, due to it being 250 Before Chris, I had to be forgiving :-)
I first questioned his level of accuracy for measuring the 5000 stads, no prob, that can be a looser given (could be just a small number error that makes little difference for the overall suggestion/theory).
But also, I questioned the suns rays being parallel! Hello! As we today can extrapolate that they are not parallel.
This is another reason why we photographers have an advantage and should INDEPENDENTLY test... Not some authoritative figure or even company, or anything like that claim one way or the other and we swallow information as if it were fact. We can test things with what we have!
Math is obviously not to blame, its the application on theory that can sometimes end up distorted and false.
So we know that the sun rays going through atmosphere is certainly not parallel do to refraction. This alone would suggest that his test, while great for the time of 250BC was greatly based on the assumption that light from the sun is parallel. Something else as photographers know by scientific observation...We understand concave vs convex. When we pass light through a convex curvature we know that wavelengths merge together vs spread out. So even if it was something considered back then in 250BC, it would not make sense with our current abilities. There are things that don't need theories any longer. We can simply observe them, and witness it.
So, while a great test for his time, surely something that was based on theory that was FALSE. As now we can observe and calculate with modern tools, and mechanical devices.
I know it was not that directly related to the test I was considering, but surely tells you something else. I don't think we use it for current developed theories..I would hope not!!
-
Phil, for sure Eratosthenes got some important stuff wrong. But he did well for his time. Most significantly he noticed phenomena other people didn't notice (or were uncurious about), thought about what those phenomena might mean and then gathered further info to help him understand. He was inquisitive and iterative. It's possible to hold him up as a scientific pioneer despite his mistakes because he got the basic process right.
-Dave-
-
I apologize, but I cannot take your given perspectives thus far into account in this test. You are expecting me or others put energy and to test something at 2 points to be "level to level" with something we believe to be up high millions of miles away. Why even make such a proposterous suggestion? Please I would love to hear your ideas, as I think anyone is capable of valid input, but they have to be of constructive and apples to apples rational thinking. Perhaps you have some resistance to this, and you have ridicule in mind.
See my previous post about the 3 different reactions people get when they do something challenging to something you either whole heart-idly believe, or whole heart-idly have interest in not being , etc
This is the point you either join in a simple test, maybe best as observer.... or storm off with insults of lunacy (not that I want to involve anything lunar).
:-)
It's very simple, Phil. Try it. There's no ridicule, it's just a simple experiment. It shows that the object blocking your view of the sun is curved.
-
I remember when my daughter wanted to give me my first computer. I recall telling her that there wasn't much point, as I had no intentions of computing anything. From the name, I assumed it was for doing calculations.
Anyway, I brought the thing (an old Mac she wanted rid of) back from Scotland in the car, thus losing the trunk space I'd hoped to fill with a couple of boxes of French wine.
Only later did I discover it was for writing letters and entertainment...
Frankly, I don't know if I'd have been better off with the wine. It certainly changed my habits, but years later, I still don't really know if that was a good thing or not.
Rob
-
It's very simple, Phil. Try it. There's no ridicule, it's just a simple experiment. It shows that the object blocking your view of the sun is curved.
Farmer, if you cant see the setup for failure in such an experiment, I honestly don't have much advice for you. Your suggestion is not only impractical, its MAJORLY flawed. Let me put it this way....
If you wanted to know if the table you are sitting at is level, would you take a straight edge and put it up against the table or would you do something else? Like see if its in the line of sight with the wall someplace?
You need to see my post about people that either have a well vested interest of not wanting a simple test conducted, suppressing true information, or you are just not logical enough, but likely a very good student and can process information you are given.
-
Impractical? I suppose if you are never likely to be near a beach that might be the case. If it's majorly flawed, list a few of the flaws.
Your comparison to the table and being level is unrelated to the experiment of watching the sunset twice. Level and straight are not the same thing.
I've listed numerous things that show that the flat Earth video that you posted is flawed and in fact proves that the Earth is curved. You fail to address any of the issues raised by myself and others from a practical point of view and instead introduce vague sophistry that sounds somewhat philosophical and implying that we're all just not seeing the point. Yes, we are. The point is the Earth is curved and it's easy enough to prove. Sure, spend a moment or two now and then to reconsider the evidence in light of any new observations that come along - that's the scientific method - but ALL (since you like shouting for emphasis) flat Earth hypothesis are routinely disproved through pretty simple science.
Thanks for your attempted character assessment, too, it made me laugh. If you can present a logical argument supported by peer reviewed study and evidence, we can probably have a discussion. Otherwise, it's just silly babbling and Rob's reminded me that there's not enough time devoted to drinking wine to waste it on extensive babble.
-
I think I've discovered the truth at 2.01:
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/
If you check out 2.01 of the showreel, you'll see that the Earth is actually not flat, but concave (or convex, depending on your political point of view, and whether you are insider or outsider) and an enormous globe - possibly oblate spheroid - and you can't ever see the opposite sides because they are too far away for light to travel, which explains everything.
Rob C
-
Indeed :-)
-
Nature will be grateful, although it will do fine/better without humans.
That's an odd response. Science tells us that we humans are no more or less a part of nature than any given tree, rock, reptile or mammal. And nature, given that nature is only the collection of randomly arranged energy and matter, cannot be grateful for anything. Further, given that nature is only the collection of randomly arranged energy and matter, it cannot do "fine" or "better" or bad or worse. It is what it is at any given moment. What we do to it is no different from what an ant does to it...........unless we assign designations like "fine" and "better", which is silly.....if its all just protons, neutrons and electrons.
You're contradicting yourself. If the observations were only from the last century and a half, then how could we know what the temperature and CO2 concentration was during any Ice Age? ;)
Not really. The Little Ice Age was in that late 1700s. But double, triple or x10 my assessment of 150 years or so. In terms of global history that frame of time is statistically insignificant.
-
3. You have open eys, and you accept things only as science and reality allow you to test them, and simply draw observations and facts based on testing, and using the scientific method. You are open to different forms of thinking. This is usually an independent, or classic educated with zero badges or diplomas enlarged on his wall behind the desk. Truely someone who loves the observation of science, and not the business of.
It seems to me that you have put up a few ad hominem barriers up yourself. Diploma=closed mind?
It seems that you have also taken liberty with the word "reality". Science has been excellent at providing us with practical reality. It has been far less successful at providing us with ultimately measurable and quantifiable reality. Quantum physics being the best example, maybe.
I also see a role for the skeptic. It is okay to ask the question without having the ability to answer it. I find the climate change dialogue to be ironic in this regard. There is this notion that climate change science cannot be questioned. The first problem, of course, is that climate change science is quite broad and is built upon layers and layers of premise and consensus. Some of it is quite solid. Some of it is quite weak. The second, elephant in the room problem, is that science can become a cult when there is an environment in which it cannot be questioned. It becomes god-like and the average citizen, the well informed citizen and even the skeptic are asked (commanded) to accept certain tenets on faith. Failure to do so results in ridicule, typically equating the skeptic with some backwards sect or other, and the voices that question are drowned out. Excommunicated. And this is not science.
I also find a disparate popular response to those who are thoughtfully skeptical of portions of climate change science. You are equated with those who reject climate change science without understanding the science. You are stupid. On the other hand, those who incorporate climate science into their worldview who also have no understanding of the science are typically considered smart and on point. Both of these parties are accepting beliefs on faith. Both are equally guilty. Only one is ridiculed. This damages the credibility of the science in question.
-
Amusing though it is to imagine that someone in 2016 still believes in flat earth, it is also a little scary to think that someone with similar views may soon be in charge of education in the US.
-
I also see a role for the skeptic. It is okay to ask the question without having the ability to answer it. I find the climate change dialogue to be ironic in this regard. There is this notion that climate change science cannot be questioned. The first problem, of course, is that climate change science is quite broad and is built upon layers and layers of premise and consensus. Some of it is quite solid. Some of it is quite weak. The second, elephant in the room problem, is that science can become a cult when there is an environment in which it cannot be questioned. It becomes god-like and the average citizen, the well informed citizen and even the skeptic are asked (commanded) to accept certain tenets on faith. Failure to do so results in ridicule, typically equating the skeptic with some backwards sect or other, and the voices that question are drowned out. Excommunicated. And this is not science.
I also find a disparate popular response to those who are thoughtfully skeptical of portions of climate change science. You are equated with those who reject climate change science without understanding the science. You are stupid. On the other hand, those who incorporate climate science into their worldview who also have no understanding of the science are typically considered smart and on point. Both of these parties are accepting beliefs on faith. Both are equally guilty. Only one is ridiculed. This damages the credibility of the science in question.
I don't know of anyone who claims that climate science cannot be questioned - I suppose that there are such people but I haven't see them as a significant voice. What I would say, though, is that if you wish to question the science you first have to understand exactly what you are questioning. This is the step that many skeptics seem to want to skip, choosing the alternative and wholly unsatisfactory route of Philosophy 101.
-
This is the step that many skeptics seem to want to skip, choosing the alternative and wholly unsatisfactory route of Philosophy 101.
Not sure what you mean by your reference to Philosophy 101.
There is often conflict between the sciences and philosophy. It is a lopsided relationship. Science has little to say about the ultimate concerns of philosophy. Philosophy has a lot to say about the ultimate concerns of science.
-
Not sure what you mean by your reference to Philosophy 101.
Probably I maligned philosophers - I had in mind the sort of piffle of which there are reams above^^^^^^^
-
I think I've discovered the truth at 2.01:
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/
If you check out 2.01 of the showreel, you'll see that the Earth is actually not flat, but concave (or convex, depending on your political point of view, and whether you are insider or outsider) and an enormous globe - possibly oblate spheroid - and you can't ever see the opposite sides because they are too far away for light to travel, which explains everything.
Rob C
In this 2:01 example, it is a convex, since we would be considering the inside of the earth to take the cancave point of view...But we know for a fact that the earth is not level, and while this would be nice there ARE actually a few other parts in this footage that DO show a level plane. 2:13, 2:18 are not things to base anything on, but they are suggestive that it is a rectilinear lens and that looks flat to me. But we need more than this snippet.
-
Impractical? I suppose if you are never likely to be near a beach that might be the case. If it's majorly flawed, list a few of the flaws.
Your comparison to the table and being level is unrelated to the experiment of watching the sunset twice. Level and straight are not the same thing.
I've listed numerous things that show that the flat Earth video that you posted is flawed and in fact proves that the Earth is curved. You fail to address any of the issues raised by myself and others from a practical point of view and instead introduce vague sophistry that sounds somewhat philosophical and implying that we're all just not seeing the point. Yes, we are. The point is the Earth is curved and it's easy enough to prove. Sure, spend a moment or two now and then to reconsider the evidence in light of any new observations that come along - that's the scientific method - but ALL (since you like shouting for emphasis) flat Earth hypothesis are routinely disproved through pretty simple science.
Thanks for your attempted character assessment, too, it made me laugh. If you can present a logical argument supported by peer reviewed study and evidence, we can probably have a discussion. Otherwise, it's just silly babbling and Rob's reminded me that there's not enough time devoted to drinking wine to waste it on extensive babble.
I'm sorry for this thread, with your suggestions, I do have to move on and not waste time. Feel free to join in constructively..
Keep in mind. You suggested I measure a surface being plane and level on the ground, by measuring it using the sun.
-
It seems to me that you have put up a few ad hominem barriers up yourself. Diploma=closed mind?
It seems that you have also taken liberty with the word "reality". Science has been excellent at providing us with practical reality. It has been far less successful at providing us with ultimately measurable and quantifiable reality. Quantum physics being the best example, maybe.
I also see a role for the skeptic. It is okay to ask the question without having the ability to answer it. I find the climate change dialogue to be ironic in this regard. There is this notion that climate change science cannot be questioned. The first problem, of course, is that climate change science is quite broad and is built upon layers and layers of premise and consensus. Some of it is quite solid. Some of it is quite weak. The second, elephant in the room problem, is that science can become a cult when there is an environment in which it cannot be questioned. It becomes god-like and the average citizen, the well informed citizen and even the skeptic are asked (commanded) to accept certain tenets on faith. Failure to do so results in ridicule, typically equating the skeptic with some backwards sect or other, and the voices that question are drowned out. Excommunicated. And this is not science.
I also find a disparate popular response to those who are thoughtfully skeptical of portions of climate change science. You are equated with those who reject climate change science without understanding the science. You are stupid. On the other hand, those who incorporate climate science into their worldview who also have no understanding of the science are typically considered smart and on point. Both of these parties are accepting beliefs on faith. Both are equally guilty. Only one is ridiculed. This damages the credibility of the science in question.
You are right I think... I don't say diploma is closed mind exclusively. Yet I can understand that for us that have one some can take it with a little insult. I didn't mean all. Sorry. I am just saying there are those that do have a study and a authorship of the subject that may have much vested interest to protect what they believe.
Yes, perhaps I agree. I don't pretend to know any of the workings of quantum physics.
What I am saying is very simple.
If some ball has a curvature to it. Lets take a proven formula, and apply it! This has NOTHING to do with what one may believe, or what ever the earth is, or what it suggests.
We have basic tools:
Plumb bob
High power lens(rectilinear)
Gimble, gyroscope
Math
Sometimes theories have been passed to us as law, because we didn't have the mechanical and capable tools to measure with higher precision in the past. Now we have better tools that doesn't take a authorship in the subject, but a open mind, a logical person, with understanding of the tools used in measuring, and some good math.
I do understand the skeptic point of view, and I can surely fit the bill. But lets not complicate the task at hand with the idea of those that are skeptic means that they all are some how against Climate Change. You are doing the same thing your first sentences suggested I was, and I noted it.
Did I take liberty with the word "Reality" ? You maybe right. I don't mean to do such. I will agree that science has been excellent at providing us with practical reality. What can be observed and what can be repeated and measured.
This is why this is a simple test. Yes, and a lot of science has been based on theories that we have applied so much calculations atop that it has manifested itself as a given. Which makes sense IN THE theoretical MODEL, but not when tested in practical science. Because it cannot be put to practical test.
So I simply believe that we do need to confirm our practical scientific understanding. Is this soooo hard to consider? Why ALL the fuss? Why not just leave out for a minute what we may have learned in the past 70 years, which is really a short time...and say...Well, lets just confirm a few things.
Why do we have to show or prove one is right or wrong with what we think we know? Well this is harder for those in position, and why I said it N80.
So not take a clear fresh look? The tools I know are listed above.
What gives us photographers a little advantage is the fact that some of us have decades of experience looking at imagery and understand a pretty good amount of it. Also lenses, and a gimble we know a little about also. Math, well, many engineers I'm sure.
All I am suggesting to do is look at a body of water across a long distance and simply measure the curvature. So far, a number of people with pretty darn respectable technical backgrounds are doing it, and I don't think they have ill reason to show what they found...But who cares! why not just do this test. It would be pretty straight forward to show.
-
You are right I think... I don't say diploma is closed mind exclusively. Yet I can understand that for us that have one some can take it with a little insult. I didn't mean all. Sorry. I am just saying there are those that do have a study and a authorship of the subject that may have much vested interest to protect what they believe.
Agreed. We can all be attached to what we believe is true for many many reasons.
I don't pretend to know any of the workings of quantum physics.
Me either. I'm not sure theoretical physicists do either. In a nutshell, the big picture of quantum physics suggest that almost anything is possible. Probabilities and not 'laws' seem to rule that field.
Sometimes theories have been passed to us as law, because we didn't have the mechanical and capable tools to measure with higher precision in the past.
Agreed. And I think scientists and the popular culture confuse what is a fact, or a law or the 'truth' with is often just the best science that we are capable of bringing to bear on a subject. But there can a huge difference between the best science available and good science. Popularizing the best we can do as rock solid science sows the seeds of legitimate skepticism. Which is often fruitful and not necessarily destructive.
I do understand the skeptic point of view, and I can surely fit the bill. But lets not complicate the task at hand with the idea of those that are skeptic means that they all are some how against Climate Change.
Agreed. I find myself less a skeptic of the basic tenets of climate change, even man made issues, than the calls to action which have far less real science behind them. I have just found that questioning climate change at all seems to provoke ridicule. Usually from people who are no more or less qualified than I am to examine and process the evidence. Maybe others have had better experience than I have.
You are doing the same thing your first sentences suggested I was, and I noted it.
I'm not sure what you mean, but you are probably right.
Did I take liberty with the word "Reality" ? You maybe right. I don't mean to do such. I will agree that science has been excellent at providing us with practical reality. What can be observed and what can be repeated and measured.
And we all get in trouble when we talk about 'science' as if it is a large, cohesive body of work that all agrees and supports one another. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unified field theory eludes us still. For 100 years in which the tools of science and the volume of data has grown exponentially. And yet, if you want to land something on Jupiter, the physics remain largely Newtonian.
-
In a nutshell, the big picture of quantum physics suggest that almost anything is possible. Probabilities and not 'laws' seem to rule that field.
Hmmm… Quantum mechanics is as deterministic as Maxwell's electromagnetism. It's rules are precise, in fact the most precise we have for anything. But there's a twist: you can't know all the properties of a quantum mechanical object or system at the same time. Therefore you must deal with probabilities…because that's the best you can do. In attempting to study the behavior of, say, protons, you inevitably disturb them, thus altering their behavior. In precisely determining one property of the proton—its location maybe—you end up smearing out (yet within a precisely delimited range…that is, a range of probability) your knowledge of a related property such as its trajectory. This is a hard observational limit, not something that can be overcome with better tools or techniques. Anything is in fact not possible. But within a precisely known range of something, multiple maybes have varying likelihoods of being definite. It's hard to convey this any better without getting into the math, which is the native language of all this stuff. Anyway, the world of the very small is most certainly not our world shrunk down. It's a different thing altogether. It may seem weird to us, but that's our hangup.
Again, re. climate science: the scientists doing the nitty gritty work aren't confused about what truth is. Truth is just "our best current understanding." These folks are always gathering more info and updating their models and conclusions accordingly. But when interpreting the data for the broader public it's inevitable that individual concerns and biases creep into the mix. Especially when you're dealing with something having such large economic and political implications. You can see this at work in the fossil fuel industry too. And then you have a media environment where anything complex & subtle gets reduced to a declaration of certainty, the more sensational & provocative the better. Given this, something like our current impasse was IMO also inevitable.
My own preference is to tune out the short-term noise. IMO diversifying our sources of energy is a good thing regardless of climate issues. We'll have to do it eventually anyway.
-Dave-
-
But there's a twist: you can't know all the properties of a quantum mechanical object or system at the same time. Therefore you must deal with probabilities…because that's the best you can do.
That's Copenhagen interpretation. Which I think is correct... BUT...
NASA has recently (finally!) conducted experiment with the famous/notorious/infamous (depending upon your POV...) EmDrive. Official results arrived literally few days ago. And guess what, they confirmed it does generate thrust: some 1.2 mN/kW (small, but still two orders of magnitude more powerful than light sails). WOW. Preprints were all over the internet (spreading from arxiv, I guess...), but now it's official. Here's a good account of the matter (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120).
What does it mean?
IFF it proves to be true, probabilities in quantum mechanics might at some point become things of the past. The thing is that the only feasible explanation of why the damn thing works is based on pilot-wave theory ("realist interpretations of quantum mechanics that conjecture that the statistical nature of the formalism of quantum mechanics is due to an ignorance of an underlying more fundamental real dynamics"); see section 10 on the page I linked above. I still say "IFF it proves" because several earlier experiments conducted by different groups failed. This time though, it's NASA themselves who're dealing with it, which makes it almost as reputable as it gets. Eagleworks Labs. Well, still not Jet Propulsion Lab at Caltech, but close enough ;)
-
Thanks George
Interesting posts, no doubt.
So....
1. Find 2 points of land, or even better a structure that has some height to it, i.e. bridge, etc
2. See that the water is calm.
3. Measure the distance of the 2 points. Measure the height of the object or land mass.
4. Measure how much of it has been obstructed by water vs its point at zero level, and apply the math/Pythagoras Theorem/law to see that it works, and we do have a curve.
This should do it, no?
-
Hmmm… Quantum mechanics is as deterministic as Maxwell's electromagnetism. It's rules are precise, in fact the most precise we have for anything. But there's a twist: you can't know all the properties of a quantum mechanical object or system at the same time.
I'm sure you're right. But I'm not sure that it's any more relevant to the rest of us. And by the rest of us, I don't mean the uneducated. I mean everyone else who isn't a physicist.
Therefore you must deal with probabilities…because that's the best you can do.
What I was trying to say, just not very well.
In attempting to study the behavior of, say, protons, you inevitably disturb them, thus altering their behavior. In precisely determining one property of the proton—its location maybe—you end up smearing out (yet within a precisely delimited range…that is, a range of probability) your knowledge of a related property such as its trajectory. This is a hard observational limit, not something that can be overcome with better tools or techniques.
As in Heisenberg with electrons. A hard observational limit as well. This is another way of saying that science has limits. Others say that is NOT the proper conclusion of the Uncertainty Principle. Not sure how that can be avoided. But it sure isn't the popular mantra. "Science is limitless!"
Anything is in fact not possible.
I'll take your word for it but have read differently. Maybe semantics. Maybe my misunderstanding. Maybe the difficulty you referred to below of explaining quantum mechanics without doing quantum mechanics.
Anyway, the world of the very small is most certainly not our world shrunk down. It's a different thing altogether. It may seem weird to us, but that's our hangup.
And efforts to reconcile the differences are moving slowly, if at all.
Again, re. climate science: the scientists doing the nitty gritty work aren't confused about what truth is.
Disagree. I think this is part of the problem with the popular perception of science. We see "scientists" as these two dimensional Mr. Spock/Mr. Data figures in starched white lab coats. The truth is that scientists are just as human as everyone else and all that being human comes with including conflicts of interest, ideologies, pride, hubris, ego, greed, dishonesty and even misplaced good intentions. All of this affects science. Always has. And usually weakens it. Fortunately open discourse and transparency help prevent some of the issues that go with us being human. Sometimes not. There was a book written 15 or 20 years ago about how theses sorts of things have shaped the state of science over the centuries. I wish I could remember the name.
Truth is just "our best current understanding."
Yet science has a long history of being wrong. Some see the glass half full and suggest that each new "best current understanding" was built on the previous "best current understanding". Certainly this is valid, but the fact is, yesterday we were wrong. Or less right.
But when interpreting the data for the broader public it's inevitable that individual concerns and biases creep into the mix. Especially when you're dealing with something having such large economic and political implications. You can see this at work in the fossil fuel industry too. And then you have a media environment where anything complex & subtle gets reduced to a declaration of certainty, the more sensational & provocative the better. Given this, something like our current impasse was IMO also inevitable.
Exactly.
My own preference is to tune out the short-term noise. IMO diversifying our sources of energy is a good thing regardless of climate issues. We'll have to do it eventually anyway.
Absolutely. Diversify. Conserve. All good ideas regardless of what we think of the science. But the noise is hard to tune out when it drives policy that isn't supported by the science much less the noise. And maybe it would be better for people like me to concede the science of climate change and challenge the projected consequences (how can they ALL be negative?) and the proposed solutions neither of which have much more than speculation behind them.
-
I'm sorry for this thread, with your suggestions, I do have to move on and not waste time. Feel free to join in constructively..
Keep in mind. You suggested I measure a surface being plane and level on the ground, by measuring it using the sun.
No, I didn't. I gave you something simple and practical to do by way of observation that would help you to see first hand that the Earth must be curved. That is constructive. Far more constructive than posting links to wild assertions presented as fact without any actual evidence (as if the scale of an HD video was sufficient to measure precise variations of fractions of a degree).
-
Hmmm… Quantum mechanics is as deterministic as Maxwell's electromagnetism. It's rules are precise, in fact the most precise we have for anything. But there's a twist: you can't know all the properties of a quantum mechanical object or system at the same time. Therefore you must deal with probabilities…because that's the best you can do. In attempting to study the behavior of, say, protons, you inevitably disturb them, thus altering their behavior. In precisely determining one property of the proton—its location maybe—you end up smearing out (yet within a precisely delimited range…that is, a range of probability) your knowledge of a related property such as its trajectory. This is a hard observational limit, not something that can be overcome with better tools or techniques. Anything is in fact not possible. But within a precisely known range of something, multiple maybes have varying likelihoods of being definite. It's hard to convey this any better without getting into the math, which is the native language of all this stuff. -Dave-
Dave,
I find that an excellent explanation for what is often termed 'quantum weirdness'. It makes complete sense to me.
I think the inquisitive mind searches for meaningful and rational explanations for all observed phenomena. Even though a more complete understanding might require an expertise in disciplines one has not mastered, there needs to be available an explanation in common language that can be generally understood.
Was it Einstein who is reputed to have said something to the effect, 'Don't believe in a theory which cannot be explained in ordinary language'?
Now, I don't want to be accused of getting off topic. However, for photography, I think the subject of 'light' can never be off-topic.
One weird aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity, is the constancy of the speed of light. When observing the speed of all the stuff that is detectable through our senses, it makes perfect sense that the speed of anything is always relative to the speed of something else.
For example, I'm sitting at my computer, motionless (apart from very minor movements of my arms and finger, and a slight swaying and blinking of my eyes, and a slight expansion and contraction of my body as I breathe, and so on), yet I understand if my reference point is the sun, I'm actually travelling at about 10,000 kilometers per hour. I'm not aware of that fact through my physical senses, because my immediate surroundings are also travelling at the same speed.
So far, so good. If I'm following a car which is travelling at 100km per hour, but I am travelling at only 90km per hour, then the car I am following is travelling at 10km per hour relative to my car. That's perfectly clear.
However, if that car I'm following is shining a beam of light, the speed of which I'm measuring with the latest scientific instruments, then the speed of that light would be shown as constant whatever the relative speeds. If the car I'm following were to suddenly stop, the speed of the light that was emanating from the car would remain the same. If the car I was following were able to accelerate to ridiculously high speeds, the speed of the light emanating from the car would not change, relative to my car.
How does one explain this phenomenon in ordinary language? The traditional explanation, so far, is that time and space warp in order to ensure that the speed of light is constant. However, time and space are very nebulous concepts. They are constructs of the human imagination.
How can we actually measure, completely objectively, the warping of space and time? Just as it's impossible to measure and detect all the activities of a photon, at a precise moment in time, which results in this 'duality' of particle and wave, how is it possible to measure the warping of space and time, without another reference to a standard?
What is the ultimate standard? Well, the theory which makes the most sense to me, and is in a sense very obvious, is that all our theories and understanding of all issues are based upon, and limited by, our human faculties and characteristic as a biological organism, which includes all the processes that our organism relies upon for its survival.
I think Neuroscientists would agree that our mental processes involve electrons in our brains travelling at the speed of light. All our sensory perceptions are related to the speed of light. Therefore, how could we possible measure any variation in the speed of light.
The explanation of the warping of space and time, in this context, seems just too convenient to be true.
Please nominate me for a Nobel Prize. ;D
-
"I think Neuroscientists would agree that our mental processes involve electrons in our brains travelling at the speed of light. All our sensory perceptions are related to the speed of light. Therefore, how could we possible measure any variation in the speed of light.
The explanation of the warping of space and time, in this context, seems just too convenient to be true.
Please nominate me for a Nobel Prize." ................ Ray
That's a very flattering remark, Ray, but entirely undue. In my case, anyhow, and I suspect the same holds true for everyone else here - they just don't know it yet.
I have never known anyone who does not hesitate, at least momentarily, when thrown an unexpected question.
Okay - I nominate you; why not?
Rob
-
What is the ultimate standard? Well, the theory which makes the most sense to me, and is in a sense very obvious, is that all our theories and understanding of all issues are based upon, and limited by, our human faculties and characteristic as a biological organism, which includes all the processes that our organism relies upon for its survival.
Why should the physical universe give a shit about whether you, or any other biological entity on a non-descript planet on an outer arm of a minor galaxy, are able to understand it?
I think Neuroscientists would agree that our mental processes involve electrons in our brains travelling at the speed of light.
You might think that. I've never met a neuroscientist that does. I've never met a theoretical physicists that does... nor one that believes a massive particle such as an electron will travel at the speed of light anywhere.
Ray, I'm afraid you are a walking example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
-
Thought certainly doesn't happen at the speed of light.
http://www.livescience.com/14735-neuron-synapse-speed-clocked.html
It takes, for example around 0.3 seconds for our brains to react to visual stimuli. In 0.3 seconds light in a vacuum travels nearly 90,000km. Even the largest brains in humans aren't that big :-)
-
Why should the physical universe give a shit about whether you, or any other biological entity on a non-descript planet on an outer arm of a minor galaxy, are able to understand it?
What a strange question! Are you personifying the entire universe as a sentient being who shits? A 'non-descript planet on an outer arm of a minor galaxy' is nothing more than a human description.
You might think that. I've never met a neuroscientist that does. I've never met a theoretical physicists that does... nor one that believes a massive particle such as an electron will travel at the speed of light anywhere.
Good point! I wasn't clear. It's not the individual electrons that travel at the speed of light, but the electrical signal that travels, or can travel in ideal circumstances, at the speed of light, or at least close to the speed of light. However, there are many chemical reactions that also take place in any thought process in the human brain, which obviously slows things down.
To rephrase my point, the processes in our brain are dependent on certain activities that take place at a certain maximum speed, which is the speed of light. Some processes are slower than the speed of light, such as chemical reactions, but none are faster than the speed of light. We are therefore trapped within the conditions of our own existence, and cannot measure any speed faster than the speed of light, in our external world. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my point. ;)
The following site sheds some light on the speed of electrical signals.
http://sciencequestionswithsurprisinganswers.org/2014/02/19/what-is-the-speed-of-electricity/
"The individual electron velocity in a metal wire is typically millions of kilometers per hour. In contrast, the drift velocity is typically only a few meters per hour while the signal velocity is a hundred million to a trillion kilometers per hour. In general, the signal velocity is somewhat close to the speed of light in vacuum, the individual electron speed is about 100 times slower than the signal velocity, and the electron drift speed is as slow as a snail."
-
I remember when my daughter wanted to give me my first computer. I recall telling her that there wasn't much point, as I had no intentions of computing anything. From the name, I assumed it was for doing calculations.
Anyway, I brought the thing (an old Mac she wanted rid of) back from Scotland in the car, thus losing the trunk space I'd hoped to fill with a couple of boxes of French wine.
Only later did I discover it was for writing letters and entertainment...
Frankly, I don't know if I'd have been better off with the wine. It certainly changed my habits, but years later, I still don't really know if that was a good thing or not.
Rob
The pleasure of wine is so temporary, but the pain of constant computer upgrades is eternal.
-
Thought certainly doesn't happen at the speed of light.
I'm glad you guys are on the ball, so to speak. You're right. Neural processes involve chemical reactions, so there are always time lags in relation to the speed of light.
My point is that the speed of light is the limiting factor in the speed of neuronal activity. No process can happen faster than the speed of light, although many processes happen slower because of a convoluted chain of reactions.
I'm really addressing the explanation for the constancy of the maximum speed of light. It seems to me we are projecting onto the universe a human interpretation, in terms of the warping of space and time, in order to explain this constancy, when in fact a truer explanation might be that our thought processes, although not as fast as the speed of light, taking the whole chain of reactions into consideration, are limited by processes in the brain that do take place at the speed of light.
For example, the speed of light can sometimes appear slower, when observed through glass, or liquid, or air, which is known as diffraction, but in a vacuum it has a maximum speed which is unrelated to the speed of the observer.
If an asteroid were whizzing towards earth at say half the speed of light, one might logically expect that any light (from the sun) that was reflected off that asteroid, as we observed it from the earth, would be travelling faster than the normal, constant speed of light. It's not so, apparently.
If that asteroid were travelling away from observers on Earth, at half the speed of light, the light reflected from the asteroid to earth, would still be measured at the same constant speed.
-
We are therefore trapped within the conditions of our own existence, and cannot measure any speed faster than the speed of light, in our external world.
No process can happen faster than the speed of light..
"Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one hundredth of a percent of the travel time of light between them."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Just stirring the pot...
-
I'll let this simmer down, and maybe we can setup a test as I first thought to do.
this sure did take a turn :-) now electromagnetism vs gravity can be discussed :-)
-
NASA has recently (finally!) conducted experiment with the famous/notorious/infamous (depending upon your POV...) EmDrive. Official results arrived literally few days ago. And guess what, they confirmed it does generate thrust…
Not so fast. The data gathered by the EmDrive researchers has passed peer review as has their methodology. Whether or not it actually works is an open question. No independent group has yet replicated it. The researchers' proposed explanation of how EmDrive works, if it works, is almost certainly nonsense. The "quantum vacuum" they refer to isn't a fixed frame you can thrust against.
This is a perfect example of how something preliminary and in many respects tenuous gets mutated into something certain and revolutionary by the combo of clickbaiting media and eager-to-believe public. We'll see soon enough whether or not there's something in it. Until then, caution is in order.
As for interpretations (edit: corrected spelling mistake) of quantum mechanics, I lean more towards Everett (relative state, aka "many worlds," aka Feynman's sum-over-histories) than Copenhagen. But this is unimportant. The objective is simply to understand it as best as possible. If EmDrive turns out to be useful in this, great. But…caution.
-Dave-
-
this sure did take a turn :-) now electromagnetism vs gravity can be discussed :-)
Phil, we do it all here! ;D
-Dave-
-
Not so fast. The data gathered by the EmDrive researchers has passed peer review as has their methodology. Whether or not it actually works is an open question. No independent group has yet replicated it.
I beg to differ on this one.
NASA's lab is that independent group, the first to confirm the original experiments done by Shawyer and Fetta.
As to caution: who'd argue about the necessity to be cautions? Definitely not me. Let me quote myself: "I still say "IFF it proves" because several earlier experiments conducted by different groups failed. This time though, it's NASA themselves who're dealing with it, which makes it almost as reputable as it gets. Eagleworks Labs. Well, still not Jet Propulsion Lab at Caltech, but close enough ;)"
-
I'll let this simmer down, and maybe we can setup a test as I first thought to do.
this sure did take a turn :-) now electromagnetism vs gravity can be discussed :-)
Sorry. ::)
-
Some good stuff here.
As in Heisenberg with electrons. A hard observational limit as well. This is another way of saying that science has limits. Others say that is NOT the proper conclusion of the Uncertainty Principle. Not sure how that can be avoided. But it sure isn't the popular mantra. "Science is limitless!"
I'd go with "the pursuit of knowledge is limitless," meaning we'll never learn everything there is to learn. Some folks, however, declare "science has limits" in the interest of shielding certain things—typically cherished beliefs—from critical scrutiny. This I have no respect for.
Re. the world of the very small: I find it best to think of things like photons, electrons, etc. as being wave-like but sometimes, when detected by certain measurement devices (like camera sensors), appearing to be particle-like. When I say a wave of light is 720 nanometers long, that's just another way of saying that if I were to detect the light as individual photons they'd all show up within a 720 nm span on my detector. I can't say where within that span any particular photon will appear, even if I know its point of origin, but I know with certainty that they'll all be within that span. Probability within a deterministic framework.
We see "scientists" as these two dimensional Mr. Spock/Mr. Data figures in starched white lab coats. The truth is that scientists are just as human as everyone else and all that being human comes with including conflicts of interest, ideologies, pride, hubris, ego, greed, dishonesty and even misplaced good intentions. All of this affects science. Always has. And usually weakens it. Fortunately open discourse and transparency help prevent some of the issues that go with us being human. Sometimes not. There was a book written 15 or 20 years ago about how these sorts of things have shaped the state of science over the centuries. I wish I could remember the name.
I don't think we disagree much here. Scientists are humans, and humans are complicated and often contradictory. But I'd push back against the view of "science" as an edifice or an accumulation of data & interpretation. Science is just a process and a tool we use, often to better understand the world and our place in it but sometimes for other reasons.
You're probably thinking of Thomas Kuhn's book. That book is IMO a problematic tangle of good points, wooly-headed thinking and post-modernist horseshit. It was written in an environment of contempt towards any endeavor claiming to be anchored in anything objective. Solipsism to the max. To be fair this was provoked by the abuse of science by the Nazis and other totalitarian movements. But I'd recommend John Gray's book The Immortalization Commission as a superior take on the same basic subject matter, minus the "we can't really know anything about anything" slant.
Yet science has a long history of being wrong. Some see the glass half full and suggest that each new "best current understanding" was built on the previous "best current understanding". Certainly this is valid, but the fact is, yesterday we were wrong. Or less right.
Like I said, science is a process. The majority of the results generated by doing science at any given time will turn out to be wrong. That's how it is, and it's okay. As you've noted, we're humans and not robots. Needing to be right is a sign of dogmatic rather than inquisitive thinking. A good scientist is comfortable with "I don't know for sure but let's keep working on it" being the best answer to many if not most questions. If we ever get to a place where most human beings are comfortable with "I don't know…" then we'll really have got somewhere.
Diversify. Conserve. All good ideas regardless of what we think of the science. But the noise is hard to tune out when it drives policy that isn't supported by the science much less the noise. And maybe it would be better for people like me to concede the science of climate change and challenge the projected consequences (how can they ALL be negative?) and the proposed solutions neither of which have much more than speculation behind them.
I certainly think challenging the doomsayers rather than obfuscating the data is the way to go. Standing in the way of this is a worldview insisting that the basic parameters of the world can't change, therefore nothing to fuss over regardless of the data. At the other end you've got a competing worldview insisting that the basic parameters of the world shouldn't change, that they have some sort of intrinsic perfection (ignoring the planet's entire history of geological & climatic upheaval, large-scale extinctions, etc.) and therefore must be preserved. Gonna be tough to deal with.
-Dave-
-
NASA's lab is that independent group, the first to confirm the original experiments done by Shawyer and Fetta.
Read the Eagleworks paper more carefully. They haven't made or tested an EmDrive themselves. They've just confirmed that the folks who have made and tested one followed valid procedures and got what appears to be a genuine result. I imagine NASA will build one themselves now.
-Dave-
-
Read the Eagleworks paper more carefully. They haven't made or tested an EmDrive themselves.
Dave, the article I linked reads: "The thrust measurements were made using the low-thrust torsion pendulum at NASA Johnson Space Center."
No matter how carefully I read that, the result is the same... But I believe you might have reasons to say what you're saying.
Can you please point me to the source you're using?
-
Dave, the article I linked reads: "The thrust measurements were made using the low-thrust torsion pendulum at NASA Johnson Space Center."
Yep, the EmDrive was tested at JSC. I missed that earlier. Keep in mind, though, that Eagleworks is affiliated with NASA but is not itself NASA. The details are important.
The article I read was published earlier today on the (US) Astronomy magazine website. Ironically I read it just before reading your earlier post.
I hope the thing is legit. I also hope it sparks off some new physics. But let's get there before we start claiming we've got there. :)
-Dave-
-
Some folks, however, declare "science has limits" in the interest of shielding certain things—typically cherished beliefs—from critical scrutiny. This I have no respect for.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cherished beliefs". But the truth is, science has little or nothing to say about the "old verities and truths of the heart". I have no respect for those who think science does.
-
science has little or nothing to say about the "old verities and truths of the heart"
See: On Intelligence, by Jeff Hawkins. Chapter 7, section 9.
Though I have to say it is very unlikely that you'll understand it without reading the rest of the book.
-
This thread has become a phenomena on its own :)
i call it Phenomina
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "cherished beliefs". But the truth is, science has little or nothing to say about the "old verities and truths of the heart". I have no respect for those who think science does.
i won't even pretend to fully understand ... there seems to be plenty of doubt about just what was shown -
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/nasas-em-drive-still-a-wtf-thruster/
-
See: On Intelligence, by Jeff Hawkins. Chapter 7, section 9.
Though I have to say it is very unlikely that you'll understand it without reading the rest of the book.
I'm not sure how to take that. ;)
I would likewise refer you to God and Other Minds and Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (particularly in regard to intelligence). Both by Alvin Plantinga.
I don't know you so I can't say how much you will be able to understand. 8)
-
I would likewise refer you to God and Other Minds and Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (particularly in regard to intelligence). Both by Alvin Plantinga.
There's a much better source than that, the famous Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters:
Where God Went Wrong,
Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and
Who is this God Person Anyway?
-
This thread has become a phenomena on its own :)
It's a phenomenon, technically.
Jeremy
-
There's a much better source than that, the famous Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters:
Where God Went Wrong,
Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and
Who is this God Person Anyway?
In my opinion there is no better assessment on the interaction between religion-philosophy-science than Alvin Plantinga. His work transformed modern secular philosophy across the academic spectrum. He has had little impact on popular ideas in philosophy. Those are difficult to transform as pablum and old habits/beliefs/traditions usually are. His hallmark work is on warrant and belief.
I do not know the author you are referring to. And while some say it is unfair to judge a book by its cover, the titles smack of the influence of marketing and pop philosophy. If that is the more appropriate arena, I can provide you with an entertaining list of titles there too. :D
Observation: What a bunch of nerds we all are.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "cherished beliefs". But the truth is, science has little or nothing to say about the "old verities and truths of the heart". I have no respect for those who think science does.
This is an area where we definitely part company. I'll leave it at that.
-Dave-
-
It's a phenomenon, technically.
Jeremy
Yes lets talk now about language,
Made two mistake already today...
potato ;)
-
I do not know the author you are referring to. And while some say it is unfair to judge a book by its cover, the titles smack of the influence of marketing and pop philosophy. If that is the more appropriate arena, I can provide you with an entertaining list of titles there too. :D
Observation: What a bunch of nerds we all are.
You may not be nerdy enough. The resource you are looking for comes via Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and ever expanding trilogy totalling 5 books).
-
This is an area where we definitely part company. I'll leave it at that.
-Dave-
Well, I would agree that this is not the thread to discuss it in, but I would be happy to have a civil discussion, at the highest possible level, on this topic. It is unlikely that I could convince you to change your mind (people rarely do that regardless of the topic or the argument) but I assure you that you would find my arguments compelling enough to understand why I hold them and be unable to fault me for doing so.
-
You may not be nerdy enough. The resource you are looking for comes via Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and ever expanding trilogy totalling 5 books).
I think you are right. Never read it. Not compelled to. But, there are different subspecies of nerds you know.
-
Don't watch all this video, but watch from about 6:10 to 8:20
https://youtu.be/acL84oWPOQM?t=6m11s
Its directly related to the OP I had.
-
Don't watch all this video, but watch from about 6:10 to 8:20
https://youtu.be/acL84oWPOQM?t=6m11s
Its directly related to the OP I had.
What an extraordinary video, promoting the theory of a flat earth and claiming the moon landing was a hoax. It was so amusing. ;D
It's extraordinary because of the effort made to address so many issues in some detail, especially in the following video by Dave Moor who attempts to provide critical evidence in support of the concept of a static, flat earth which was promoted in the first video. It would be interesting to see a detailed and convincing rebuttal of all the points that were raised in support of the concept of a flat earth at the centre of our galaxy. ;D
I'll address just one of the arguments made by Dave Moor, that was so obviously ridiculous, albeit amusing.
At some point in the video he asked, if the earth were really a sphere which is spinning at the rate of 1,675 km/hour at the equator, but spinning at a slower rate as one approaches the poles, why is it that we don't notice a difference after we take a plane flight from a northern country, where the surface of the earth is moving more slowly, to a country at the equator where the surface of the earth is moving at, say, double the speed? Surely we should feel dizzy, or our senses should detect in some way that we are spinning at an increased velocity.
The explanation is obvious. The speed of anything can be described, measured or experienced only in relation to the speed of something else. There has to be a reference point, and that reference point will have its own velocity in relation to the velocity of yet another moving body, or another reference point.
It's clearly ridiculous to imply that a person could be situated at the equator whilst simultaneously experiencing the movement of the earth's surface in another country thousand of kilometres to the north or south. We experience movement in relation to our immediate surroundings, that is, surroundings which are close enough to be in the range of our senses.
The exception appears to be the speed of light in a vacuum, which is constant whatever the speed of the observer, and is also the fastest speed that can be observed, as I understand.
ps. Here's the direct link to the amusing Dave Moor YouTube video. ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvR1c4rU6Vc
-
If we could teleport from pole to equator instantaneously, and if the process didn't account for a change in momentum, then we would indeed suffer the effects of a rapid change in velocity. Because planes travel relatively slowly (it would take half a day, roughly, and because that velocity itself changes our momentum, we don't have an issue. The slow change that occurs during flight is not noticeable.
-
Ya, don't watch the other stuff.
The original video post I made is something claimed as empirical evidence. This is something that either needs to be clarified, refuted or repeated, regardless of what results or what follows. This is the most simple, and most interesting to me.
Yes Ray, In that video he says a couple things that have no relation. But all else sound like interesting, but old theories, YET to be tested with new tools. That is why the relation from the earth to anything not tangible is mostly theoretical, unless you take ones word for it. This test I think is something you can actually base some math on and can be documented.
-
If we could teleport from pole to equator instantaneously, and if the process didn't account for a change in momentum, then we would indeed suffer the effects of a rapid change in velocity. Because planes travel relatively slowly (it would take half a day, roughly, and because that velocity itself changes our momentum, we don't have an issue. The slow change that occurs during flight is not noticeable.
No. We wouldn't suffer at all. Death would be instantaneous. An instant acceleration of our surroundings, equivalent to an increase in velocity of 1,600 km per hour, or equivalent to 96,000 km per hour if the change in momentum were introduced in one second (which is much longer than an instant), would be sure to kill us.
However if the process doesn't involve any change in momentum, on departure or on arrival, then we wouldn't be aware of any change in velocity.
A person's experience of movement is always an experience in relation to the movement of things in his immediate surroundings, that are within range of his physical senses. Whatever the part of the planet we are situated, and whatever the rotational speed of the particular section of the earth's surface we are standing on, we cannot be aware of the velocity of that section of the earth we are standing on, because we are also moving at the same speed as the surface we are standing on.
If it were possible to teleport someone instantaneously from the pole to the equator, without any change in momentum, (which of course is only possible in science fiction films like Star Trek), I can't see any reason why we would experience a change in the velocity of our new location, unless a change in momentum were suddenly introduced on arrival.
This is all getting very fanciful. ;D
-
Ray, it sounds like you'd have a easy time explaining the first part of this video. For some reason the math doesn't add up.
I know you have lots of info to counter 20 or so minutes in.
Pardon the title and his assumptions.
https://youtu.be/zGc7Xd6HP54
-
No. We wouldn't suffer at all. Death would be instantaneous. An instant acceleration of our surroundings, equivalent to an increase in velocity of 1,600 km per hour, or equivalent to 96,000 km per hour if the change in momentum were introduced in one second (which is much longer than an instant), would be sure to kill us.
However if the process doesn't involve any change in momentum, on departure or on arrival, then we wouldn't be aware of any change in velocity.
A person's experience of movement is always an experience in relation to the movement of things in his immediate surroundings, that are within range of his physical senses. Whatever the part of the planet we are situated, and whatever the rotational speed of the particular section of the earth's surface we are standing on, we cannot be aware of the velocity of that section of the earth we are standing on, because we are also moving at the same speed as the surface we are standing on.
If it were possible to teleport someone instantaneously from the pole to the equator, without any change in momentum, (which of course is only possible in science fiction films like Star Trek), I can't see any reason why we would experience a change in the velocity of our new location, unless a change in momentum were suddenly introduced on arrival.
This is all getting very fanciful. ;D
p=mv
Sci-fi like Star Trek refers to inertial dampers and the like, something to deal with changes in momentum such that it doesn't squish or stretch poor humans into destruction (and spaceships, for that matter).
In our current reality, we can't do that, and so movement by plane from pole to equator adjusts our rotational velocity (as well as the linear velocity due to the movement of the aircraft) in increments which are easily handled. So the premise of the video is easily dismissed.
So we have two options. Either our velocity matches the destination from an inertial frame of reference (in which case our velocity relative to the local frame of reference at destination is zero), or our velocity matches the departure from an inertial frame of reference (in which case our velocity relative to the local frame of reference at destination is significantly high as per your numbers).
Assuming a match to the destination local frame of reference: Since our mass stays pretty much the same (ignoring normal organic variations at various times...) if our velocity changes (as it must do between departure and destination compared to an inertial frame of reference) then our momentum must also change. It doesn't matter what our perception of our environs is - only what it is in relation to an inertial frame of reference. Since our momentum increases (because our velocity increases) we must be subject to a force. F=ma. Our mass is unchanged, so as you note our change in velocity requires a massive acceleration to avoid having a relative velocity to the physical frame of reference, and we would die.
Assuming a match to the departure local frame of reference: As above, except no change in momentum and therefore no change in velocity and therefore no match in velocity to the local destination frame of reference, which means the world around us would be moving more than 1,000km/h compared to us (although to local observers already matched to that local frame of reference's velocity, it would appear that we were moving at that velocity). As soon as we hit something, we'd die.
Yes, totally fanciful, much like the flat Earther's hypothesis.
-
You may not be nerdy enough. The resource you are looking for comes via Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (an ever expanding trilogy totalling 5 books).
Not expanding any more, sadly: Adams died in 2001.
Jeremy
-
Not expanding any more, sadly: Adams died in 2001.
Yup, but that's how Adams described the series once So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish came out, so I still use the phrase :-)
-
Yup, but that's how Adams described the series once So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish came out, so I still use the phrase :-)
IIRC, my copy of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe had "Volume two of the trilogy of five" on its cover. Adams was a true Master of the word, so what can you do... These phrases just stick.
-
IIRC, my copy of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe had "Volume two of the trilogy of five" on its cover. Adams was a true Master of the word, so what can you do... These phrases just stick.
"Don't Panic"
Although I do question the mental sanity of the Flat-earthers, assuming they even believe themselves.
The recent video that Phil pointed at, mentioned as proof for the earth being flat that the Earth is stationary, and the sun only vanishes behind the horizon during sunset, because it moves further away ...
I rest my case. Enough time wasted.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yup, but that's how Adams described the series once So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish came out, so I still use the phrase :-)
To be strictly accurate, the phrase he used was "the fifth book in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhikers' Trilogy". They were fun, though, as were the radio and TV series, if not that awful film.
Jeremy
-
Yes, but I wasn't trying to be strictly accurate, Jeremy, just enjoying the memory. Yes, the movie was dreadful, despite wanting it to be great.
Still, my favourite lines in the whole series are:
"It's unpleasantly like being drunk."
"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
"You ask a glass of water."
-
"Don't Panic"
Although I do question the mental sanity of the Flat-earthers, assuming they even believe themselves.
The recent video that Phil pointed at, mentioned as proof for the earth being flat that the Earth is stationary, and the sun only vanishes behind the horizon during sunset, because it moves further away ...
I rest my case. Enough time wasted.
Cheers,
Bart
This is wher eI don't bother eirther. Who am I to PERSONALLY understand and explain things. If X tells me so, I certainly wont be the first buying into what X tells me. So I rather try and see things for myself. Like the curvature test.
Bart, What if you went out and did a few tests in calm waters and saw for yourself and applied the math and calculated that the water you were measure was indeed level. What would you think of things then?
Then what do you do?
How do you interepret your personal well conducted and repeated observation? How can that apply to ALL the things you learned and studied? Besides that the formula, the theorem that defines and stablizes all the things we build on it. And those things we cannot explain, we simple rely on "smarter" people to come up with theories that can be proven in a model, yet we take for truth because some one or group or entity has said to take it as such.
We are in 2016. There are footage from a few commercial rockets that have gone up. and their footage shows that the rocket just hits the top. The video was made to just see how high it would go, and with lack of O2, and thrust it slowed down and then it made a hit at some top point, which to me is just something I cannot process.
WHat explanation do you have for this incident? Not any theory or what was supposed to happen. Assuming the footage is authentic. We have 2 camera views time synced. Which is a HUGE amount more than any "official" footage we have been provided by other organizations.
What do you make of that? Not to say its all hog wash, and the easiest thing to do is to not even addess it and repeat what you know.
Look at the evidence of this thread alone. From one test, we have 6 pages of explanations that tell you so many things about what we have ALREADY studied and can repeat it, expand on it, all nicely and with great intellect to boot. But it all has simply avoided a test that gives the basis of basic science that is the empirical evidence facts are based on.
I'd like to try and avoid the next pages to come in this thread to all be based on that of which we have already read and accepted as an understanding. And then go off into some piss match where one person read someone else theory and how they coinside and they are both happy they were able to reitterate this info as the gospal, and be merry.
I posted this hear in my curiosity with consideration that we not only have "scientists" here, but mainly observers. Those who have traveled and seen the horizon as I have on so many occasions, and for a brief second cross the mind that what I see is not always in sync with what I have studied and known to understand, but move on, as what I learned must be so. We have civil engineers here, pilots, sea captains, fisherman, coast guards, and mainly observers of how the sun rays fall on us. As we apply what we know in the practical world, and make a mental DISCONNECT when we talk of things we cannot, or have a hard time experiencing ourselves. Maybe not all of us, asi some can be thinking about everything as energy and such. But without theories....
....Maybe this needs a hypothetical approach to even consider doing a simple, documentable test? (As others have, and as it leave much open for dispute, or at least textbook conversation as in these pages).
uncut footage, GoFast Rocket
https://youtu.be/001IXnp0ogc
If this video doesn't tell you anything you can expand on, it should tell you one thing. We the mass public have enough tools and capabilities to conduct tests that help us understand and qualify what once only theories could.
-
This is wher eI don't bother eirther. Who am I to PERSONALLY understand and explain things. If X tells me so, I certainly wont be the first buying into what X tells me. So I rather try and see things for myself. Like the curvature test.
Bart, What if you went out and did a few tests in calm waters and saw for yourself and applied the math and calculated that the water you were measure was indeed level. What would you think of things then?
Water is not level. It is attracted by gravity, and thus follows the shortest route to the lowest level (nearest to the center of gravity). It is easier to see that it follows the curvature of the earth's surface as the viewing distance increases, but the water horizon is at the same short (say 5 km) distance when you look around, so it doesn't look curved when looking sideways.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Water is not level. It is attracted by gravity, and thus follows the shortest route to the lowest level (nearest to the center of gravity). It is easier to see that it follows the curvature of the earth's surface as the distance increases, but the water horizon is at the same short (say 5 km) distance when you look around, so it doesn't look curved when looking sideways.
Cheers,
Bart
1. "Water is not level" ? This I am not sure I follow.
So the top of a body of still water is not level?
2. Water follows the shortest route to the shallowest point, and fills up once that "container" is filled. We see this from small masses of water bodies, to very large. When we go over miles of bodies, this principal law of empirical fact doesn't get distorted. Our vision gets limited. Which we can counter and see further.
3. "It is easier to see that it follows the curvature of the earth's surface as the distance increases"
So far, since this is something we can do currently with modern tools, I think we need to establish this evidence.
Why? because there are hundreds if not thousands of video footage with both showing a level horizon from a far distance, and those showing a curvature to the horizon. This would mean that the flat footage is either false, or the curvature footage is false. The curved footage is often, if not always the case of a fisheye lens.
4. This I may need to look at myself. So if I look straight ahead miles across, I see a level horizon, Because , you are explaning that what I see is too close for it to have a curve? Am I understanding this right? Looking sideways, I think you lost me, or I lost you :-)
-
IMO most of this stuff comes down to the fact that getting far enough away from our planet to see the whole thing at once is something so few people have done. If this ever becomes commonplace enough that anyone can in principle do it, even if most people don't actually do it, the resulting shift in worldview will be such that the moon-landing/spherical-earth denial phenomenon will fade. In the meantime, while it can be fun to engage with such notions in the abstract, trying to actually reason with these folks is IMO a waste of time.
-Dave-
-
IMO most of this stuff comes down to the fact that getting far enough away from our planet to see the whole thing at once is something so few people have done. If this ever becomes commonplace enough that anyone can in principle do it, even if most people don't actually do it, the resulting shift in worldview will be such that the moon-landing/spherical-earth denial phenomenon will fade. In the meantime, while it can be fun to engage with such notions in the abstract, trying to actually reason with these folks is IMO a waste of time.
-Dave-
"If this ever becomes commonplace enough"
I have a similar point of view on it...At least for the premise of it.
With what we are shown, OF COURSE it will be commonplace for anyone with some loot to travel as astronauts.
Don't we have commercial space rockets now? Doesn't Virgin and Musk, and maybe a few others have such a thing now?
According to hot air balloons, which is the cheapest way to travel up, we can simply have a O2 tank and a hot air balloon ride to go very high. Sadly a lot of the footage is with a fishEye, as GoPros are very popular.
All this stuff leaves me with questions that point BACK to the source of the footages. Are we simply saying this footage is false, fabricated? showing some phenomina that is only explained by a few? Which is it?
Did you see the GoFast rocket footage I posted?
What do you think of it?[/b]
What can you explain JUST FROM THAT?
Not your understanding of what you know. But define what you are observing. (And certainly not reading over 500 comment posts replying to that same very question of why it stops abruptly. If you read those posts, you minimize your chance for you to think independently.)
How can something this clear and so "undeniable" still be so polarizing and misrepresented in 2016?
Please respond in order...Don't omit what you care not understand. Try! Your beliefs may sway from the classic religious understanding, to todays expansion on "theory approach" of understanding. The most important one is the video response.
Here is the link again
https://youtu.be/001IXnp0ogc
From 2004, which halted their work as they did 72+ miles. Then in 2014, 10 years later to only reach about the same limit, or more accurate reading of 73 miles.
-
So the top of a body of still water is not level?
If you are referring to a body of water on the surface of the earth, then yes, it is not absolutely "level". I put level in quotes because if you mean by level, that all points on the surface of the water are equidistant from the center of the earth, then yes, it is level. However, if you mean that all points on the surface of the water lie on a straight line, then no, it is not level.
-
If you are referring to a body of water on the surface of the earth, then yes, it is not absolutely "level". I put level in quotes because if you mean by level, that all points on the surface of the water are equidistant from the center of the earth, then yes, it is level. However, if you mean that all points on the surface of the water lie on a straight line, then no, it is not level.
Just being pedantic here,
The surface of the water is affected by the gravity vector (which does not necessarily point exactly to the center of the earth) and by the combined gravitational forces of the sun and moon (otherwise we would not have tides). So all the points on the surface of the water are just "approximately" equidistant to the center of the earth.
In relation to whether the earth is flat or a sphere, it is 2016, no time for this kind of nonsense.
Regards
-
Bart, What if you went out and did a few tests in calm waters and saw for yourself and applied the math and calculated that the water you were measure was indeed level. What would you think of things then?
I'm sure Bart is much better at maths than I am. It would be an interesting mathematical exercise to calculate how much of a rise in the centre of, say, a 5km stretch of sea horizon should be observable if the sea waters were perfectly still, and the camera and lens, or measuring device, were perfectly accurate with no distortion, and, as Francisco points out, we were able to eliminate the gravitational effects of the sun and moon.
The circumference of the earth is about 40,075 km at the equator. The diameter of that circle is about 12,756 km. A 5 km stretch of horizon represents about 0.0125% of the circumference of the earth. That's as far as my maths takes me. I think I'm right on that point, but please correct me if I'm wrong. ;)
-
It would be an interesting mathematical exercise to calculate how much of a rise in the centre of, say, a 5km stretch of sea horizon should be observable
roughly a half meter
Using your numbers and referring to the diagram below...
The radius of the earth (line AD) is 6378m. If the arc DE is 5km, then the arc DC is 2.5 km, and the line BD is approximately 2.5 km.
The line BC is the height of the water above a straight line between the points D and E (which are 5 km apart) due to the curvature of the earth.
BC = AC – AB
and because AD = AC, BC = AD – AB
Some trigonometry (remember that old Indian chief)…
AB = 6378 cos (invsin (2.5/6378)) = 6377.99951 (from my little TI calculator)
So BC = 6378 – 6377.99951 = .489m
(http://)
I'm done with this. The tryptophan is kicking in and it occurs to me that nothing I can say will ever convince a flat earther that the earth is not flat. My time is better spent taking a nap. Happy Thanksgiving everyone, flat earthers included. :).
-
roughly a half meter
Thanks. One would not expect such a small rise in the middle of a 5 km stretch of horizon to be noticeable, considering the rise and fall of waves and the pulling of the moon and the sun's gravitational effects, especially when taking a photograph of such a horizon when there's always some degree of barrel or pincushion distortion present, and/or always some correction to the image that takes place.
-
On a normal ocean, it wouldn't be noticeable.
There is a reason, of course, why the territorial waters limit was generally considered to be 5 miles. That was a the distance at which someone on the coast could generally see a sailing ship. Beyond that, it's hidden by the curvature of the Earth. If you can't see it, you can't really tell it to go away and, for that matter, neither can the ship see land until around that distance (various mountains and so on obviously change that, but for flat coast it holds true).
-
Yes, but I wasn't trying to be strictly accurate, Jeremy, just enjoying the memory. Yes, the movie was dreadful, despite wanting it to be great.
Still, my favourite lines in the whole series are:
"It's unpleasantly like being drunk."
"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
"You ask a glass of water."
Those are among my favourites too. Others include
"It's at times like this that I wish I'd listened to what my mother used to tell me when I was a child."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know. I didn't listen."
and the description of a Vogon spaceship as "not so much designed as congealed".
Jeremy
-
roughly a half meter
Yes, so roughly ArcTan[0.5m / 5000000 m] = 0.00000573 degrees , or e.g. 0.005 micron at 50mm focal length, a fraction of a fraction of a pixel.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Those are among my favourites too. Others include
"It's at times like this that I wish I'd listened to what my mother used to tell me when I was a child."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know. I didn't listen."
and the description of a Vogon spaceship as "not so much designed as congealed".
Jeremy
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
-
It's slightly amusing to read the ramblings of a flat-earther on a photography website; much more troubling when similar ignorance ascends to a position of power
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/betsy-devos-picked-as-presidentelect-donald-trumps-education-secretary/
-
It's slightly amusing to read the ramblings of a flat-earther on a photography website; much more troubling when similar ignorance ascends to a position of power
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/betsy-devos-picked-as-presidentelect-donald-trumps-education-secretary/
I don't think anyone here, nor person of power (depending on your order of importance) has claimed to be a flat earth believer.
The "ignorance" falls on you as the observer, and the amusement for all else.
You measuring someones intellect from a webpost only digs yours lower...let alone inaccurately. It also exposes your arrogance and self righteousness.
-
I don't think anyone here, nor person of power (depending on your order of importance) has claimed to be a flat earth believer.
The "ignorance" falls on you as the observer, and the amusement for all else.
You measuring someones intellect from a webpost only digs yours lower...let alone inaccurately. It also exposes your arrogance and self righteousness.
Agreed. As I mentioned way back in this post, I doubt the existence of any credible flat-earthers and suspect the notion of such is primarily there to make others feel better about themselves.
-
Agreed. As I mentioned way back in this post, I doubt the existence of any credible flat-earthers
No kidding.
-
No kidding.
And if they're not credible......then they're not worth mentioning.
-
And if they're not credible......then they're not worth mentioning.
Would you say for you, would evidence matter to make someone credible?
(feel free to have a list of evidence requirements that might make someone credible)
-
Since we have a few here....you might find this interesting...
https://youtu.be/xYClIRXKiT4
-
Since we have a few here....you might find this interesting...
Not really interesting, just funny. The first glaring thing he deliberately misses, if the earth is flat, then why does it cast a cresent shaped shadow? And no, it's not due to the curvature of the moon surface, because the shadow cresent is similar on the top and the bottom of the moon surface.
The second thing is that his diagram of the sun/earth/moon, has totally wrong proportions, so the size of earth's shadow disc (not a plane) moving across the moon surface is actually much smaller than the diagram suggests.
The third thing is that the sun does not rise, but the earth itself rotates, and so does the moon around the earth.
the fourth thing is that only part of the eclipe is shown, so his timelapse location and the date of the eclipse was carefully selected to serve his purpose, by not showing the full event.
I'm back to doing something useful. Bye.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Would you say for you, would evidence matter to make someone credible?
(feel free to have a list of evidence requirements that might make someone credible)
If someone in 2016 thinks that you can sail off the end of the earth, they are not credible. Someone in 2016 who gives them credibility in order to argue that you cannot sail off the end of the earth is only slightly more credible.
But let's not get caught up in the word credible. The point is the same.
-
Not really interesting, just funny. The first glaring thing he deliberately misses, if the earth is flat, then why does it cast a cresent shaped shadow? And no, it's not due to the curvature of the moon surface, because the shadow cresent is similar on the top and the bottom of the moon surface.
The second thing is that his diagram of the sun/earth/moon, has totally wrong proportions, so the size of earth's shadow disc (not a plane) moving across the moon surface is actually much smaller than the diagram suggests.
The third thing is that the sun does not rise, but the earth itself rotates, and so does the moon around the earth.
the fourth thing is that only part of the eclipe is shown, so his timelapse location and the date of the eclipse was carefully selected to serve his purpose, by not showing the full event.
I'm back to doing something useful. Bye.
Cheers,
Bart
Well thanks for the feedback. I have not read much about our solar system past HS or some college reference to it. From the day I started the thread, I have been very interested. I do think there is enough interest and presentations for me to have the desire to try at least one or 2 points of the first post I made. I simply was looking for advice on how to conduct it. Its amazing how no one responded with any constructive help. Just everything in the extreme likeness to drowning one out to see tied to rocks and checking if one floats as in Salem.
I did learn a lot from this thread. It surely brings out a lot of ones character.
George,
The folks that are in the mindset that the eartch is flat think that Antarctica surrounds the edges, and why that there is no specific south pole, and why it is illegal to travel there, besides a dedicated area, until 2045. There is some nice history to the area from WWII to now. Even before that with sailors and their records. Yes, credibility can also be "proven" by volume.
Here is another level test across water. This was done by a group that wants to prove that the earth is flat
https://youtu.be/GBhDFO4NMrw
-
It's not illegal to travel to the south pole. You can book a holiday there if you like:
https://www.discover-the-world.co.uk/destinations/antarctica-holidays/south-pole
-
It's not illegal to travel to the south pole. You can book a holiday there if you like:
https://www.discover-the-world.co.uk/destinations/antarctica-holidays/south-pole
Looks like you can only have escorted tour and cruise ship form $about $2000,
or a $10+ or $35K Guided tour.
I wonder if other parts in such weather conditions have such restrictions?
Anyways, The amount of info I have gone through in a week doesn't change that the earth is as I once "understood" it as spherical.
But to bridge the gap, it maybe that there is a test we can do to personally measure, or have some confirmation that is observable from a photographic perspective.....
The test is to show curvature as an object goes below the horizon line....
As the distance of an object increases away from the camera the object from bottom up will start dipping below the horizon line
VS
The idea that converging lines and the vanishing point are the explanation...by looking again with zoom the object reappears fully.
It would be interesting to know the object height, distance and see if the given values of the earth size applies and equates accurately in the math. Its a practical way about it, no? Anyone try it before?
-
George,
The folks that are in the mindset that the eartch is flat think that Antarctica surrounds the edges, and why that there is no specific south pole, and why it is illegal to travel there, besides a dedicated area, until 2045. There is some nice history to the area from WWII to now. Even before that with sailors and their records. Yes, credibility can also be "proven" by volume.
At the risk of being Captain Obvious here....we have seen the earth from space. Both first hand and photographically. We have flown around it in its own atmosphere.
To ignore that simple data is de facto evidence of having no credibility. Which speaks to my point: there are no credible flat earthers any more than there are credible people who believe that the moon is made of cheese. Which makes me wonder why we are discussing them or even the concept of a flat earth? Maybe I need to re-read the whole thread. Not!. ;)
-
The test is to show curvature as an object goes below the horizon line....
As the distance of an object increases away from the camera the object from bottom up will start dipping below the horizon line
VS
The idea that converging lines and the vanishing point are the explanation...by looking again with zoom the object reappears fully.
It would be interesting to know the object height, distance and see if the given values of the earth size applies and equates accurately in the math. Its a practical way about it, no? Anyone try it before?
Plenty of tests around, e.g. this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZOh4SUWUc). And even in the flawed test in the last video link you posted, at 20 minutes, the 'bottom' of the boat started disappearing as it got further away than 5 km, i.e. it was hidden by the lake's curvature.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In the 1600's sailors knew that you could see a ship on the horizon sooner if you were up a mast. Thus the crow's nest. They also knew that you could see an approaching ship's mast come above the horizon before the hull. Thus the term "hull down". They used this principle to calculate the distance between them.
Are we re-inventing the wheel?
-
In the 1600's sailors knew that you could see a ship on the horizon sooner if you were up a mast. Thus the crow's nest. They also knew that you could see an approaching ship's mast come above the horizon before the hull. Thus the term "hull down". They used this principle to calculate the distance between them.
Are we re-inventing the wheel?
Yes, it seems some are, but then Eratosthenes (276 BC – 195/194 BC) has beaten all of them since he invented the discipline of geography, and was the first man known to calculate the circumference of the earth.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So, how many angels are there on the head of pin?
-
So, how many angels are there on the head of pin?
Only one that matters....
-
I hope I learned more but mostly about people... than anything new about the earth, along with more questions on some other "revealing" videos.
I did see many different images and videos. Some BS stuff. Some I couldn't be clear on without Barts help, and others that were interesting.
This BBC documentary was interesting, and I was a bit puzzled.
https://youtu.be/52a0Xjuaixo?t=18m17s
I start the video from 18 min in, and the interesting part really starts at 27min into it. I wonder what y'all think?
As far as reinventing the wheel...
I think its not a bad idea to reinvent or at least step back and take a fresh look at the wheel, once every thousand years or so.
Here is what Good year came up with :-)
https://youtu.be/8ZXSAAMmEMs?t=15s
-
Will Truth please stand up and be identified.
;-)
Rob C
-
Getting back to something more grounded (though esoteric in almost any other context!), here's a new video from PBS Space Time concerning the deBroglie/Bohm (aka "pilot wave") approach to understanding, or at least attempting to understand, quantum mechanical behavior. It came up briefly in an earlier post in this thread, and IMO is worthy of some consideration. The video is a pretty good introduction.
https://youtu.be/RlXdsyctD50
I think all attempts at "making sense" of quantum mechanics are hampered by our natural inclination to fit something new and seemingly strange into some or other pre-existing framework. The Bohm approach in particular is mostly driven by a philosophical unease with probabilistic behavior. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a wrong approach. It could be on the right track even if inspired by unfounded assumptions, a la Democritus and the concept of atoms.
-Dave-
-
Kinda exposes how the entire group had to bend one anothers theoretical concepts and was forced to push something "agreed" on for one objective.
While Tesla on the other end was slamming gravity vs electromagnetism.
Sure, a mastery of math and being at the right time of creating theories...living in a boxed manifestation with a strong imagination and good note taking... it would help me understand it better :-)
but there is a disconnect from physical to the conceptual...
Anyway, the PBS channel surely has its own agenda, and surely there needs be some new concepts that were conveniently available that we now have a more clear understanding of, and will help fill the holes.
Love the closing statement..."Btw, this is why science is so important",
Rather the religion of science as perpetually constructed, reconstructed ... Its so important to "their" institutions.
-
This one is also very interesting....
I start it at the point Farmer wanted to make, that you can travel to the continent, so it picks up there.
But the footage before it explains how for some reason there is always a flight or 2 across, but they never actually happen. Claims they are not real, or they end up getting a stop over, and somehow they are dodged and not flown over.
https://youtu.be/Pi6psthAscQ?t=21m52s
Pretty interesting amount of information. While circumstantial, and you can ignore it, as you can also know that correlation is not causation...yet if you add up the number of instances, and also the number of people showing the math for 8" a mile squared.. is not adding up, or even close to it as a calculation, and out of many tests the further the test goes, it does show some slight curvature, but nothing close to the math it should align with to some degree. Then you have this footage which is of official docs....
https://youtu.be/PxXGcc5OdmA
If you take your head out of our "understood reality" and the calculations that do add up, you can see this thing grow some legs.(just from these links, besides soooo many others)
-
Please, mummy, make it stop :'(
-
ITs rather funny how we can sit and discuss all day, yet the tools are in front of us, and we have the simple ability to just test for ourselves, but we fall back on texts that someone else wrote. Why and how are these people supposed to be soo much smarter than you? Why would you not simply test it and see for yourself? In 2016, with the easy tools we have it is not hard! I started this post to do the test, but wanted some advice on the right way to doit, NOT based on ANY conclusion. Simple math of proven theorems, and simple repeat observation.
Its amazing how institutionalized some minds are. Its a waste of time to verify the actual place you stand? We learn over and over in history how every few hundred years the understanding of civilization changes what they once knew as fact. This is the technological time of recorded imagery, communication, and precision tools available to the masses...YET we have not ONE true image from orbit showing this "reality" yet you defend it like a sacrd religion in the name of the EXACT practice it undermines! How lazy can we be at times? And then not only do we spew what we learned, and the better we took time to understand it the more we are convinced it must be the only answer.
Do you think questioning something of this simplicity is a easy position? Do you think people who believe one way or the other were born this way?
It WOULD be easy to confirm, with some effort, if we looked at things scientifically without arrogance, without the idea of "I know something more and I will school what I learned onto you"!... YET you can PROVE and test what you learned yourself, BUT, you have to do the simple tests. The physically proven. The tests basic physics teaches us. Observational tests. Repeatable ones with both sides. And this test is not law as our physical state is in a perpetual change. Maybe years down the line, or the NEXT day a contradicting test comes up. The test is not to show your right or wrong! ITs to define, and that is ALL HUMANS DO, and its what science does, is to define what we observe. We don't create it! And we don't trust the givens! When you have marketing and authoritarian rule dictate what you know, while its in front of you to confirm, how can you not check?
But it most importantly takes a true scientific mind to admit that the science proved them wrong. And that's where the scientist and the indoctrinated diverge.
There are a number of you here that know the information we learned very well and we hold it VERY close to our identity of what we believe to be true and is as we understand reality. But if you are a scientific mind, and you honor that understanding that you observe and report. This is what drove you away from religion in the first place! I know it did for me. If you are true to that scientific METHOD, than you test. If you are just a believer, you hold on to your believes like the church. There is nothing too wrong with that as a person, but if a man is of scientific understanding, you just cant do that. A rational, logic based thinker does not allow indoctrination take over this area in his or her life.
There are a number of postulate positions you should be faced with just in what I presented. If you are fit or fat and happy with your life and how the world surrounds you, and the direction of man kind and wish to NOT be rational, and stick to what you think you know...then I ask you to do so someplace other than this thread....
If you think the shape of something is one way over another than we should measure it, and define it as we find it. "But Phil its already been done since 250 BC!". I know. I learned a lot of the same things you did. I'm sure a couple of you at least learned it much better than I. Further than I. Fantastic. Give yourself a round of applause. I learned other things that might be in a macro view. And another person learned something else in a micro topic. Fantastic! These are NOT things that work against one another. These are what bring advancement in understanding. But they have to be quantifiable. Your study of some text books in another area of thought doesn't make you smarter than I, or him, her, or anyone with rational. You simply expanded your vocabulary in that school of thought.
And I do understand that we can predict things, like rise and fall of sun and moon, etc. I just want to learn more. And I like doing it hands on with testing. But if we only take the information that is immediate to us on such a large planet that has been measured to ~23k miles, I think a collective pool would give a more accurate idea from different areas. At the same time we can observe the sun getting smaller as it approaches the horizon, we can observe crespecular rays, we can observe the clouds shadows, calculate the distance, triangulate the suns converging position. So we have basic things to measure for physical evidence...with some effort, it is simply testable..
Otherwise keep your religion to yourself, as that is what you are doing. Perhaps you process information faster, or slower, and you can have a larger memory, or small. But you are not this idea of a superior intellect. We as a human race have moved slowly this far due to collective experience and knowledge. While we have so much technical advances we have made, yet so little or NONE to even show for it. Use this internet while the channels of global communication are open. Just this alone made advancements not long ago SO hard. Why do you think we are here at this desk? Its those advancements from technology that we have to thank for. Testing is the least we can do.
This maybe helpful:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html
-
Kinda exposes how the entire group had to bend one anothers theoretical concepts and was forced to push something "agreed" on for one objective.
You can't "expose" what isn't hidden. Establishing concensus is how cooperative enterprises work. Science works better than others because the concensus is inevitably challenged by continued data gathering, analysis and plain ol' cogitation. As in this case.
but there is a disconnect from physical to the conceptual...
Not really. If it weren't for quantum mechanics no-one would've conceived that transistors could even exist, much less have a theoretical framework showing them how to make transistors. No transistors, no modern electronic technology.
Love the closing statement..."Btw, this is why science is so important",
That was a joke, Phil. ;D Context is everything.
Rather the religion of science as perpetually constructed, reconstructed ... Its so important to "their" institutions.
"Scientists" making claims without evidence inevitably get shot down, as they should. No religion works that way.
-Dave-
-
Getting back to something more grounded (though esoteric in almost any other context!), here's a new video from PBS Space Time concerning the deBroglie/Bohm (aka "pilot wave") approach to understanding, or at least attempting to understand, quantum mechanical behavior. It came up briefly in an earlier post in this thread, and IMO is worthy of some consideration. The video is a pretty good introduction.
https://youtu.be/RlXdsyctD50
I think all attempts at "making sense" of quantum mechanics are hampered by our natural inclination to fit something new and seemingly strange into some or other pre-existing framework. The Bohm approach in particular is mostly driven by a philosophical unease with probabilistic behavior. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a wrong approach. It could be on the right track even if inspired by unfounded assumptions, a la Democritus and the concept of atoms.
-Dave-
This is what Tesla knew of about 100 years ago. Now we regurgitate it with a title to tie into something we oppositely defined, but still massaging it to work out the issues to make it work... Brilliant!
-
You can't "expose" what isn't hidden. Establishing concensus is how cooperative enterprises work. Science works better than others because the concensus is inevitably challenged by continued data gathering, analysis and plain ol' cogitation. As in this case.
Consensus is the weakest form of science and should always be regarded as such.
"Scientists" making claims without evidence inevitably get shot down, as they should. No religion works that way.
Incorrect. Religion, at least Christianity (and by extension Judaism), is completely open to verification and therefore to refutation as well. To date there is no slam dunk scientific verification but there are certainly historical and archaeological corroborations that support it and there are solid philosophical arguments to support logical warrant for holding theistic beliefs. And lack of objective, repeatable verifications do not stand in the way of science either, so this is hardly a weakness unique to the defense of religion. Likewise, to date, there are no absolute scientific or philosophical refutations for theism. There are many that are popularly presumed but few withstand close scrutiny, those that do still lack the definitive power to absolutely refute.
It is a broad and complicated topic. Inappropriate for this forum. I would be glad to discuss it privately if anyone is interested. But suffice it to say that the popular assumption that science has buried God has more to do with faith in science than any real science.
-
Looking at where Michelson and Morley "fail" test left off, and where Tesla picked up, one can understand people talking about what CERN project is a bit differently. Then you can see how field and magnetism is tested and observable science. But without ignoring what I learned and built a separate understanding how relativity gets disproven, you see why now you have aesther testing, as you can see the effect on ferrocell experiment. So much we don't currently learn in school yet keep the void filled with old content.
-
But suffice it to say that the popular assumption that science has buried God has more to do with faith in science than any real science.
I explicitly referred to religion. Different thing.
-Dave-
-
Consensus is the weakest form of science and should always be regarded as such.
Concensus is just a way station en route from one paradigm shift to the next. Kuhn in his book gets this part right IMO, though I think he intended to be more pejorative than he reads. It's as useful to consolidate gains in knowledge & understanding into a consensus as it is important to later break that concensus and leave it behind via new & better evidence & analysis. Such is the case currently with the Standard Model of particle physics. There's broad concensus that it's as correct as we can currently make it. But is it a complete picture? Nope. In eventually making a more complete picture current sacred cows will surely be gored.
-Dave-
-
I explicitly referred to religion. Different thing.
-Dave-
Your are absolutely right. My mistake.
However, in regard to at least one specific religion I still contend it remains verifiable and by extension, refutable. Mankind has struggled with this for centuries. The conversation is not over, though some presume it to be.
-
Concensus is just a way station en route from one paradigm shift to the next.
Agreed. The problem is when some, possible lesser lights, equate consensus with 'fact' or when consensus becomes the corner stone upon which theory is built without the level of verification science demands.
There's broad concensus that it's as correct as we can currently make it.
Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. I only ask (expect) that we acknowledge it as such. In the popular media "scientists say..." takes on the weight of "God said...." This is, of course, not the fault of science per se. This is the fault of those who would manipulate science for specific purposes.
In eventually making a more complete picture current sacred cows will surely be gored.
That's a strange metaphor but I think it is spot on.
-
The following theory by Kenneth Chan appeals to me, but of course I'm not qualified to assess the scientific validity of his theory. It just makes sense to me at a fundamental level, and I tend to go along with what makes sense.
However, I'd be interested to read of any 'debunking' of his theory by a more knowledgeable person than myself.
http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/why-relativity-exists/
Following is a summary of his theory, which I misrepresented earlier in the thread by implying that electrons travel at the speed of light when I really meant 'electromagnetic transmission'.
"We perceive the speed of light to be constant because the physiological functioning of our body (including our brain) depends on the speed of electromagnetic transmission (which is the speed of light), and we have defined our time according to how we physiologically experience it. We have thus effectively used the speed of light as the standard for defining our time, and that is why the speed of light is always constant according to our time.
This also reveals that relativity exists because our science is actually a science of what we experience, and not a science of a universe independent of us as observers. If scientists ignore this fact, we would be like the prisoners in Plato’s Cave, who have no idea that they are trapped by their perceptual limitations. Thus, in science, we need to take into account our crucial role as conscious observers."
-
This measurement of time has nothing to do with our physiological functioning:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/physicists-record-smallest-slice-time-yet-180961085/
At this fragment of time, light travels just about 3*10^-13 metres. A single proton (hydrogen nucleus) is about 1.75x10^-15m or about 15*10^-15m for a uranium nucleus. This is orders of magnitude less than any of our physiological functions - it's literally at the sub-atomic level.
Our ability to measure and utilise this information is far beyond our physiological limits, so to suggest that our physiological limits somehow determine what we are able to measure is extremely lacking in evidence, given there is so much evidence to the contrary.
-
This measurement of time has nothing to do with our physiological functioning:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/physicists-record-smallest-slice-time-yet-180961085/
At this fragment of time, light travels just about 3*10^-13 metres. A single proton (hydrogen nucleus) is about 1.75x10^-15m or about 15*10^-15m for a uranium nucleus. This is orders of magnitude less than any of our physiological functions - it's literally at the sub-atomic level.
Our ability to measure and utilise this information is far beyond our physiological limits, so to suggest that our physiological limits somehow determine what we are able to measure is extremely lacking in evidence, given there is so much evidence to the contrary.
Sorry! I'm having difficulty in grasping the logic of your argument. The article you've linked to makes no mention of any measurement that is greater than the speed of light. Rather, it seems to be describing the measurement of a record small period of time, of a trillion of a billionth of a second or so.
It's obvious that as technology progresses we are able to make finer and more accurate measurements using more sophisticated instruments. However, the issue that Kenneth Chan is addressing is the explanation for the apparent constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, which seems to be independent of the speed of the observer.
Einstein's explanation is that space and time warp in order to ensure that the speed of light is an absolute constant, which sounds a bit too convenient.
Kenneth Chan's explanation is that our very existence is dependent upon and limited by physiological processes that can occur no faster than the speed of light, although they occur often much slower than the speed of light, just as light can slow down when passing through a liquid or semi-transparent substance.
The photoelectric effect described in your linked article also occurs in our bodies, according to the following.
PHOTOELECTRIC FACTS:
What’s the photoelectric effect? It’s been determined experimentally that when light shines on a metal surface, the surface emits electrons. For example, you can start an instantaneous DC current in a circuit just by shining a light on a metal plate or some of the proteins or lipids in us. Light of specific and sensitive power that hits anything with loose electrons called de-localized electrons is capable of this effect. All semiconductors that are non metals use this effect in technology. It turns out most of the lipids and proteins in our cells also use this effect. This also has been experimentally proven by Robert O. Becker in human bone tissue in the 1960’s. It has been proven operational in many other tissues as well because of transcranial and transcardic magnetic stimulation
-
The point is that measurement of things is independent of our physiology. We have no direct way of measuring such things, so our physiology is irrelevant to that measurement.
The speed of light in our bodies (photo-electric) is different to the speed of light in a vacuum - so there's no logical nexus between the two in terms of any imposed limitation of measurement, quite apart from the fact that we do not measure these things directly ourselves.
So the logic is simple - it's a demonstration of a measurement that occurs independently of our physiology to show that our physiology does not impose any limitations.
Take all modern measurements of the speed of light. They all agree. However, all of them taken at different places are relatively different to each other in terms of absolute velocity (consider an inertial frame of reference). Our perception of light (our physiological ability to measure it) has no impact on the result at all. It is measured by devices, not by people.
The appeal that Special Relativity (and also check Galileo's Relativity for a mechanical, rather than electro-magnetic, version of much the same thing (conceptually and in practice)) is somehow convenient is extremely poor. Special Relativity has evidence to support it through observation and theory (predicting certain outcomes), including things such as time dilation which has been measured quite reliably many times, whereas Chan's concept lacks any proof or repeatable results based on the theory.
Special Relativity may be wrong, but it's the best model that currently exists and Chan's model does not stand up to the existing evidence.
-
The point is that measurement of things is independent of our physiology. We have no direct way of measuring such things, so our physiology is irrelevant to that measurement.
Surely all measuring devices are products which are designed and constructed by the human imagination in such ways which are meaningful, relevant, related to, and even inextricably tied to inherent human characteristics.
Whatever the type of measuring device which is used, the results always have to be interpreted through the human senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch.
The speed of light in our bodies (photo-electric) is different to the speed of light in a vacuum
And the speed of light in water or glass is also different to the speed of light in a vacuum. I'm referring to the maximum speed of light which remains unchanged from the perspective of the human observer, whatever speed the human observer is travelling in relation to the object emitting or reflecting the light.
So the logic is simple - it's a demonstration of a measurement that occurs independently of our physiology to show that our physiology does not impose any limitations.
Sounds like you are talking about measurements that occur independently of human existence. Our existence is dependent upon our physiology. The measuring devices we use are dependent upon human physiology (intelligence and creative imagination). The application of the measuring devices is dependent upon human physiology and the interpretation of the results are dependent upon human physiology.
Take all modern measurements of the speed of light. They all agree. However, all of them taken at different places are relatively different to each other in terms of absolute velocity (consider an inertial frame of reference).
Please elaborate. Are you referring to the concept, for example, that light from an electric light bulb will be emitted in all directions and that one particular beam of light travelling in the opposite direction to another beam of light, should be travelling at twice the speed of light in relation to that other beam of light?
As I understand, there's no point of view from which we can measure, (interpret the data from) anything moving faster than c. Logically one might imagine that two photons travelling in opposite directions should be travelling faster than the speed of light in relation to each other, but in practice we can't measure such a phenomenon. Time dilation (or the slower running of clocks) ensures that the photon moving in the opposite direction to another photon, is still moving at c (the speed of light) in relation to that other photon.
-
We regularly measure things that are completely outside the human capacity for experience. We can measure temperatures that would simply atomise us. We can detect particles which only exist at certain high energy states through inference due to their effects on other particles, we can detect planets around distant stars, and so on. We also have many more than 5 senses. We have a sense of balance, we have a sense of motion, we have a sense of heat, a sense of pain, a sense of time, a sense of proprioception, a sense of air pressure, a sense of humidity. Some people have displayed a sense of echolocation. The list goes on. Some are related, but clearly the traditional 5 are not adequate to cover the whole of human experience, let alone all animal and plants.
The assumption that what we can measure is limited by our senses is wrong. Yes, we translate into something that is meaningful to us (but not necessarily to everyone - some of the levels of mathematics are beyond most people, for example), but there is no logical nexus that the measurement itself is limited by us.
An inertial frame of reference is a concept of a frame of reference which is essentially perfectly still compered to everything else. It's a concept required to discuss relativity and special relativity. The fact that you rely on time dilation to explain away the two photons moving away from each other means relying on special relativity.
Rather than the universe being limited by our physiology, it seems far more likely that our physiology is limited by the universe. Our photo-electric reactions are limited by the universal speed limit of the speed of light, not the speed of light limited by our physiology. Placing us at the centre of the universe is something we managed to grow out of centuries ago (give or take a few inquisitions and enduring extreme literalists).
So, again, provide some repeatable, falsifiable, observational data and theories to support the notion, or else there's nothing to support Chan's hypothesis (which is rather simply dismissed with a few logical considerations of the premise, as per above).
-
That's a strange metaphor but I think it is spot on.
If I were inclined to try digging myself out of my own semantic tangle here I could say: "the more complete picture will be painted with cow's blood." ;D But I think that would only land me in other cow product.
-Dave-
-
Rather than the universe being limited by our physiology, it seems far more likely that our physiology is limited by the universe. Our photo-electric reactions are limited by the universal speed limit of the speed of light, not the speed of light limited by our physiology. Placing us at the centre of the universe is something we managed to grow out of centuries ago (give or take a few inquisitions and enduring extreme literalists).
This! (Well, the entire post but this part in particular.) In our particular post-modernist, solipsistic moment humility is IMO a precious commodity.
-Dave-
-
Placing us at the centre of the universe is something we managed to grow out of centuries ago (give or take a few inquisitions and enduring extreme literalists).
That sort or smug pejorative is exactly what I have referred to above in regard to the popular misuse of science. The irony is that it amounts to the same thing being ridiculed: faith. It turns science into a religion. You believe something that you cannot support with evidence. As I have stated above, I'll state again, nothing in science, math or philosophy presents any significant challenge to the idea of a creator god or the importance of humankind that such a god entails. The smugness of your comment suggests that you know of some such evidence or argument. If it is that simple and straightforward, let's have it and be done with it. The ball is in your court.
-
We regularly measure things that are completely outside the human capacity for experience. We can measure temperatures that would simply atomise us.
Well, I would challenge that statement in respect of the word completely. A creature which could not experience changes in temperature would not be able to measure temperatures or even design thermometers. It is because we can experience the differences between hot and cold, as humans, and are able to witness the devastating effects of high temperatures in fires and smelting factories and so on, that we are able to extrapolate those effects and imagine the consequences of being exposed to exceptionally high temperatures which would cause a painful and sudden death. We can also observe the effects of even higher temperatures which can turn solids such as metals into vapour. That observation is itself an experience.
To extend the analogy, would a race of blind creatures, unable to detect through any sense organ any part of the electromagnetic spectrum, ever be able to develop a telescope?
We also have many more than 5 senses. We have a sense of balance, we have a sense of motion, we have a sense of heat, a sense of pain, a sense of time, a sense of proprioception, a sense of air pressure, a sense of humidity. Some people have displayed a sense of echolocation. The list goes on. Some are related, but clearly the traditional 5 are not adequate to cover the whole of human experience, let alone all animal and plants.
Sorry for being less than clear. I should have added 'and so on' at the end of my sentence. I never stated there were only 5 senses. That's a separate subject. Considering that the portion of the human genome we originally 'cracked', represented only 2 to 3 per cent or so of our total DNA (the rest having been considered 'junk DNA' which we are now beginning to realise might not be junk), I suspect we might be able to define in the future even more 'senses' than are currently listed.
On the subject of DNA, recent Russian research on this so-called 'junk' DNA, has revealed some fascinating associations between the apparently useless junk DNA and the types of languages that human communities speak. It seems there is evidence suggesting that even the characteristics of our written and spoken languages, including the rules of grammar, might be a reflection of our inherent DNA.
"Russian researchers' findings and conclusions are simply revolutionary! According to them, our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body but also serves as data storage and in communication. The Russian linguists found that the genetic code, especially in the apparently useless junk DNA follows the same rules as all our human languages. To this end they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar. They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. So human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA."
The assumption that what we can measure is limited by our senses is wrong. Yes, we translate into something that is meaningful to us (but not necessarily to everyone - some of the levels of mathematics are beyond most people, for example), but there is no logical nexus that the measurement itself is limited by us.
You seem to have some concept that there can be a measurement of something which is independent of human existence. Such a concept seems totally illogical to me.
All measurements are expressions of human activity. Even if a thermometer is linked to a computer and is automatically programmed to record a temperature every minute in the middle of the Sahara Desert, or on the planet Mars, every stage of the entire process is limited by our capabilities; the design of the thermometer, the accuracy of the thermometer, the robustness of the thermometer and related devices, and our ability to retrieve the data, and interpret the data, and so on.
An inertial frame of reference is a concept of a frame of reference which is essentially perfectly still compered to everything else. It's a concept required to discuss relativity and special relativity. The fact that you rely on time dilation to explain away the two photons moving away from each other means relying on special relativity.
I don't personally rely upon it. I find it very puzzling. Kenneth Chan's explanation simply makes more sense to me, which is why I raised the subject.
Rather than the universe being limited by our physiology, it seems far more likely that our physiology is limited by the universe. Our photo-electric reactions are limited by the universal speed limit of the speed of light, not the speed of light limited by our physiology. Placing us at the centre of the universe is something we managed to grow out of centuries ago (give or take a few inquisitions and enduring extreme literalists).
Sounds like you've misunderstood all along the main point I've been making. I assure you I make no claims that the universe is limited by our physiology. Rather, it is our perception and understanding of the universe that is limited by our physiology. Do you see the difference? ;)
-
Correct. Even our ability to process information is physiological.
-
Correct. Even our ability to process information is physiological.
Yes. It seems to me a very obvious and undeniable fact that so many people seem unable to grasp. I suspect this is the root cause of much of the trouble and conflict in the world, an unfounded certainty which excludes not only the general effects that our physiology has on our beliefs, attitudes and perceptions, but the effects of the conditioning that takes place through our particular culture (including 'brainwashing', for want of a better word), from the time we were in our mother's womb.
-
That sort or smug pejorative is exactly what I have referred to above in regard to the popular misuse of science. The irony is that it amounts to the same thing being ridiculed: faith. It turns science into a religion. You believe something that you cannot support with evidence. As I have stated above, I'll state again, nothing in science, math or philosophy presents any significant challenge to the idea of a creator god or the importance of humankind that such a god entails. The smugness of your comment suggests that you know of some such evidence or argument. If it is that simple and straightforward, let's have it and be done with it. The ball is in your court.
It's not smug, except I guess in your eyes. I have something that is wholly supported by evidence. Observation, falsifiable theory, prediction and testing. As I already said, that doesn't mean that it's locked as the only explanation, only the current best explanation. If you want to replace it, then provide a theory that better describes and predicts.
I'll state, for the first time, that the concept of a creator god or the importance of humankind that such a god entails (which god, by the way, of the dozens that have been widely worshipped in the last 2,000 years?) has no evidence. God is a construct of society (all societies which create a god) to help them to rationalise things which they cannot explain. Faced with the inexplicable, the creation of a supernatural entity as the explanation gave satisfaction to a thirst for knowledge and understanding prior to gaining / improving the ability to seek out more suitable answers - ones which can be tested, used to make accurate predictions, and so on.
Your premise that it's my responsibility to disprove your hypothesis of god, rather than your responsibility to demonstrate evidence to support your position, is typical. You want me to prove a negative, but you're not willing to prove your positive. Instead, you provide faith - something that is intrinsically untestable. I have no problem with faith. I have faith in many things/people/ideas/etc. Faith, however, doesn't explain the universe anymore than saying the explanation is 42. It's also absurd that scientific method is accused of being anything other than a method. That method demonstrates to us that we're not even the centre of the galaxy, let alone the observable universe (and if we're not the centre of either of those, why would it follow that the whole universe is created for us to be the centre of it?).
Originally, it made some sense to consider ourselves as the centre, but as evidence has shown this not to be the case, such notions are nothing but remnant ego. If there's any smugness or pejoration, it's from those who say they have the answer as a simple "god", and that nothing else could possibly be correct and, more than any other aspect, that the particular god of favour of that person is the right interpretation.
There may or may not be a creator. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that it's a question that can't be answered and I'm happy to accept the possibility. That in no way provides any evidence to support the notion of a human-centric universe or that our scientific method isn't currently the best one we have for gaining knowledge about the universe.
If you want to have a sensible discussion about any of this, stop smugly waiving your hand and dispensing poetastrical sophistry as if that's any sort of worthwhile or logical point. Stop setting a fallacious premise from which to argue - if your ego will allow it.
-
Our perception can change our reality...."I think, therefor I am".
Since our brain works on frequency, this can also be altered. The discussion is here, while there are a number of groups already using it. A resigned FBI chief has already done a video discussion of such operations in practice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfdX7duuFsM&list=PLa7W3bV_yw5iho0iKEJ6X_iFFJkvn7Ik3&index=39
Hard to imagine, but I certainly cant doubt it.
Even TV programming has much to do with how we shape what we think.
It not only influences our precetion, but it also remains in memory. This is proven in neurosciences with the mapping of the brain activity and how it alters perception. Sending signals can stop brain activity, and "control how it functions to a degree, at least alter its output and physical actions. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is just touched upon in neuro, yet its progressed further in undisclosed testings. If you get lazy and don't control your mind, something or someone else will control it for you. Just like atoms have energy, so do our thoughts.
https://www.google.com.au/patents/US6506148
-
Well, I would challenge that statement in respect of the word completely. A creature which could not experience changes in temperature would not be able to measure temperatures or even design thermometers. It is because we can experience the differences between hot and cold, as humans, and are able to witness the devastating effects of high temperatures in fires and smelting factories and so on, that we are able to extrapolate those effects and imagine the consequences of being exposed to exceptionally high temperatures which would cause a painful and sudden death. We can also observe the effects of even higher temperatures which can turn solids such as metals into vapour. That observation is itself an experience.
To extend the analogy, would a race of blind creatures, unable to detect through any sense organ any part of the electromagnetic spectrum, ever be able to develop a telescope?
We have no capacity to detect radio waves through our physiology. None. Nor x-rays, and other high energy particles. Yet we developed devices that could both detect and create these things. As we had no possible way to experience them directly, then it would appear to be demonstrably the case that you do not need to be able to directly experience something in order to develop a device to experience it. Of course, many explanations preceded the current theories which led to our ability to harness these things. There are things that a 4 year old today understands which could not even be conceived by a genius 100 years ago. Just because we don't currently have a capacity to understand or detect something, doesn't mean that we can't and there is no evidence that our physiology impacts on this. If physiology played a part in the speed of light, for example, then it would be different for different people with physiological variations.
You seem to have some concept that there can be a measurement of something which is independent of human existence. Such a concept seems totally illogical to me.
All measurements are expressions of human activity. Even if a thermometer is linked to a computer and is automatically programmed to record a temperature every minute in the middle of the Sahara Desert, or on the planet Mars, every stage of the entire process is limited by our capabilities; the design of the thermometer, the accuracy of the thermometer, the robustness of the thermometer and related devices, and our ability to retrieve the data, and interpret the data, and so on.
The design is limited by our capabilities. Yes. And as our capabilities increase, so does our ability to measure things. If the limits were physiological, how would we continue to increase them? Our physiology hasn't changed.
Sounds like you've misunderstood all along the main point I've been making. I assure you I make no claims that the universe is limited by our physiology. Rather, it is our perception and understanding of the universe that is limited by our physiology. Do you see the difference? ;)
I see the difference - I'm not misunderstanding, but the discussion has moved on (or so I thought) and an extrapolation of your view is that since we can only perceive within the limits of our physiology, and since our existence is entirely perceptual, for all intents and purposes the universe is limited by our physiology. If not, then how can we reasonably accept the premise that only our perception and understanding are limited and that the universe mysteriously exists in unfathomable ways all around us without our ever having any ability to know it.
Consider, also, that our current understanding does not preclude super-luminal velocities. Such particles would, however, according to the current model, necessarily travel in the opposite direction in time. That would make detection difficult, but theoretically not impossible. So if we already grasp the possibility of super-luminal velocities, where's the limitation? Also, bear in mind that the phase velocity of x-rays through glass can exceed the speed of light. It's just that the phase velocity doesn't represent the velocity of the transmission of information. So, there's a very simple example of a super-luminal velocity which doesn't break special relativity and removes the concept of not being able to measure/sense/etc. super-luminal velocities because of our photo-electric physiology. There are many other examples of observed super-luminal velocities.
-
The design is limited by our capabilities. Yes. And as our capabilities increase, so does our ability to measure things. If the limits were physiological, how would we continue to increase them? Our physiology hasn't changed.
Even Socrates could have answered that over 2400 years ago. Know thyself. It's a long process. ;)
As I mentioned earlier, just a few decades ago we succeeded in decoding just 2 to 3 per cent of our DNA which we thought served a purpose because it was protein-encoding DNA, and we mistakenly thought the remaining 97%, which is non-protein-encoding DNA, was junk.
Also, a few decades ago we thought the expansion of the universe was already in the process of slowing down. Then, through our expanded sensory perception resulting from the development of the Hubble telescope that we sent to outer space, and through our physiologically-dependent interpretation of the data received, we were surprised to find that, according to our current theories of astrophysics, the expansion of the universe appeared to be accelerating. It's a total mystery. What's the explanation?
Either our theories of physics are wrong on the very grand scale of the universe, or there exists some type of matter exerting a gravitational effect, which we can't detect. To explain this accelerating expansion (inferred by our theories), the amount of undetectable and completely invisible matter and energy, known as Dark Matter and Dark Energy, represents as much as 95% or even 96% of all matter and energy in the universe.
So, after many centuries of scientific endeavour we are at the stage of having decoded about 3% of our DNA, and are able to design instruments that have the potential of being able to detect about 4% or maybe even 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. That's progress. ;)
However, I confess that I feel no certainty about the truth of Kenneth Chan's explanation for our inability to detect any photon travelling faster than the speed of light, and/or detect any photon travelling slower than the speed of light in a vacuum, in circumstances, for example, where we were travelling in a rocket with our measuring device, at an enormous speed chasing a beam of light travelling in a similar direction or opposite direction.
Kenneth Chan's hypothesis merely resonates with my world view or philosophy and has a certain logic which makes sense to me. But I agree, it's no more than a hypothesis.
-
It's not smug, except I guess in your eyes.
Okay fine. I regret using that terms as it provoked, I guess, a good bit of vitriol at the end of your post. My apologies for setting the wrong tone. There is no reason that this cannot be discussed in a civil fashion.
I have something that is wholly supported by evidence.
What is that something? If that something is that God does not exist, then 1) I think you are mistaken and 2) Then the ball is surely in your court to do so. That is only fair.
If you want to replace it, then provide a theory that better describes and predicts.
Again, we will have to agree on what "it" is. If "it" is the origin of the universe then the notion of God is no more irrational than any other theory of why there is something as opposed to nothing.
I'll state, for the first time, that the concept of a creator god or the importance of humankind that such a god entails has no evidence.
I disagree. As above, I would point out that something exists and most scientists agree that this something had a beginning. Currently, the best science available offers little by way of explanation for why matter/light/energy and time exist. So if the existence of the universe is not evidence of God (and this can be rationally debated) then science offers little better explanation.
God is a construct of society (all societies which create a god) to help them to rationalise things which they cannot explain. Faced with the inexplicable, the creation of a supernatural entity as the explanation
First, this very premise (which was expanded by Freud) has no real proof of why people believe in a deity. It is a reasonable theory, but lacking in any evidence. Second, and more importantly, it says nothing at all about whether God actually exists or not. Even if the premise is correct it can only tell us why some people believe in a deity. That is all. So this is a logical fallacy in terms of proving, disproving or even understanding the existence of God. Humans have had all sorts of constructs to explain things like disease and gravity that have been wrong. This does not say anything about the existence of actual gravity.
Your premise that it's my responsibility to disprove your hypothesis of god, rather than your responsibility to demonstrate evidence to support your position, is typical.
I don't think that is my premise. I may have stated it that way, I don't recall. It is a long thread. But, I think it is still valid, yet, it isn't important. let me restate it, if you find it unfair: My premise is that it is perfectly reasonable, rational and warranted to believe in a creator God. I can provide proof that it is and I invite proof that it is not.
You want me to prove a negative, but you're not willing to prove your positive.
I do not know what you mean.
Instead, you provide faith - something that is intrinsically untestable.
You are misrepresenting me. I have not done so. Any argument I make for the rational belief that God exists will be made in a secular, empirical fashion open to refutation by modern secular thought. So again, you are claiming I have said something that I have not.
It's also absurd that scientific method is accused of being anything other than a method.
I agree 100%. I'm not the one who is doing that.
Originally, it made some sense to consider ourselves as the centre, but as evidence has shown this not to be the case, such notions are nothing but remnant ego.
I think this depends on what you mean by 'centre'. Do you mean spatially? If so, no argument here. If not spatially then what? Importance? Significance? If so, science has nothing to say about that. So we need some clarity here.
If there's any smugness or pejoration, it's from those who say they have the answer as a simple "god", and that nothing else could possibly be correct
I agree. It is insufferable. I am not one of those people. The problem is when people substitute science for God in that scenario. They are equally insufferable.
There may or may not be a creator. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that it's a question that can't be answered and I'm happy to accept the possibility.
That is not what your statements suggest. If there is a possibility that there is a creator then there is certainly the possibility that he/she/it created humans at the metaphysical centre of creation. You seem to believe that that part is unimaginable. Why draw the line there?
That in no way provides any evidence to support the notion of a human-centric universe or that our scientific method isn't currently the best one we have for gaining knowledge about the universe.
Okay. But historically the best methods we have have been quite unreliable.
If you want to have a sensible discussion about any of this, stop smugly waiving your hand and dispensing poetastrical sophistry as if that's any sort of worthwhile or logical point. Stop setting a fallacious premise from which to argue - if your ego will allow it.
That all seems a bit heavy handed and likely to attract moderator intervention, but I accept the responsibility for using the word 'smug' above. My bad. I hope the rest of this response has been more acceptable?
The bottom line is this: I cannot absolutely prove the existence of God with science, philosophy or math. Likewise neither can science, philosophy or math disprove the existence of God. That being the case, it remains perfectly reasonable, logical and warranted to believe in a creator God given the available evidence provided by observation and logic (which I am happy to discuss). But, the intellectual elites on the agnostic or atheistic side often claim that it is in error, or illogical or unreasonable or stupid or outdated to hold such beliefs. This is a popular notion. Yet, again, they do not hold the evidence to make this claim. On the other hand, among intellectual theists (which include many of the greatest names in science) there is no attack on the tenets of science.
-
My response to all this is the same as it would be to a flat earther, were I ever to encounter one. If you're gonna make specific claims, of the kind that can in principle be empirically tested, you better be prepared to deliver the goods and at a level matching that of your claims. It's not on me or anyone to disprove a claim: anybody can claim anything about anything. No solid ground there. Demonstrate that your claim can play on the field of evidence & analysis and it'll earn the right to be taken seriously. Otherwise it has no place on that field.
I have friends, in the sciences, who are people of faith. But there's no conflict in it for them because their beliefs aren't of the sort that compel them to attempt verifying the unverifiable.
-Dave-
-
My response to all this is the same as it would be to a flat earther, were I ever to encounter one. If you're gonna make specific claims, of the kind that can in principle be empirically tested, you better be prepared to deliver the goods and at a level matching that of your claims.
That cuts both ways though right?
A "specific claim" could be that science has disproved a creator God. Right? And that is pretty much what Farmer suggested. No empirically testable evidence has been presented to support that claim. He can't. No one can.
A "specific claim" could be that God created the universe. I don't think anyone has made that claim have they? I certainly did not. So it is not on me to provide empirically testable evidence to support this claim. I can't. No one can.
A "specific claim" could be that belief that God created the universe is warranted and rational. That is different from the second claim. It is what I am claiming. I feel like I can support it but the nature of this claim is philosophical, not empiric.
It's not on me or anyone to disprove a claim: anybody can claim anything about anything.
Agreed. See above. The problem is that Farmer has made claims about the existence of God and man's place in the universe. Not me. (I checked.)
Demonstrate that your claim can play on the field of evidence & analysis and it'll earn the right to be taken seriously. Otherwise it has no place on that field.
So who is at bat then? As I see it, the claim in question is that God did not create the universe. I'm all ears waiting for the evidence. But for some reason it seems no one wants to touch that one. Farmer seems to think it unfair. He wants to put the suggestion out there but does not want to defend it. If that is not his claim then he needs to say so. To claim that he has made no claim at all seems disingenuous.
So fine, no big deal. That need not slow us down. I'll step up to the plate and claim that there is sufficient warrant for a person with properly functioning senses and mental capacity to believe that God created the universe and that such belief can be based on the same sorts of evidence and analysis used to form beliefs that we all can agree are valid. If I am able to do so, and maybe I cannot, then it remains unclear about what location in the universe that man happens to inhabit, metaphysically speaking...of course.
But if there is an expectation that I am going to step up to the plate and claim that I can empirically prove that God created the universe then I decline. I cannot.
I have friends, in the sciences, who are people of faith. But there's no conflict in it for them because their beliefs aren't of the sort that compel them to attempt verifying the unverifiable.
-Dave-
That's all well and good. But it seems to suggest that anything that comes under the idea of theism or religion is unverifiable. I reject this notion outright. It also suggests a specific view of science that is dominated by naturalism. The naturalistic (or materialistic if you will) approach to science is no more than a belief structure that is added to the principles of science and is, patently unscientific in its claims. Many thoughtful scientists and laymen adopt this approach to science almost subconsciously, or possibly because it dominates academia, but without ever really thinking about it. I'd love to discuss that too, but maybe somewhere else.
-
My response to all this is the same as it would be to a flat earther, were I ever to encounter one. If you're gonna make specific claims, of the kind that can in principle be empirically tested, you better be prepared to deliver the goods and at a level matching that of your claims. It's not on me or anyone to disprove a claim: anybody can claim anything about anything. No solid ground there. Demonstrate that your claim can play on the field of evidence & analysis and it'll earn the right to be taken seriously. Otherwise it has no place on that field.
I have friends, in the sciences, who are people of faith. But there's no conflict in it for them because their beliefs aren't of the sort that compel them to attempt verifying the unverifiable.
Dave,
The 'flat earth' arguments, as presented through video links in this thread, are in a different category to a belief in a God. All the flat-earth arguments I briefly noted in some of the videos I watched were not only amusing but interesting because they were good examples of a type of superficial and specious argument that can be so easily debunked through sound scientific evidence and mathematical calculation, and yet they are still believed by some folks, apparently. I imagine that similar specious arguments on all sorts of issues are also accepted by many people, which is the source of much confusion and conflict in the world.
The concept of a Creator God is clearly beyond the realms of scientific verification or falsification. My attitude is similar to that of some of the ancient sages of China, such as Confucius and Lao Tzu, and Gautama Shakyamuni of the Shakya clan in ancient India (or Nepal). Don't waste your time speculating on the existence of something which basic common sense should tell you is beyond our abilities to comprehend. Rather, we should attend to matters that have the potential to improve our circumstances at the present time on this planet.
There's an interesting story attributed to the Buddha (but who knows), which attempts to clarify this issue through analogy or parable. The parable is claimed to be the Buddha's response to a questioning monk who was rather troubled by the Buddha's silence on matters such as 'life after death', the origins of the universe, the existence of a Creator God, and so on.
Here it is:
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.'
The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."
-
By the way, is it not possible to edit the title of a thread? There's no such word as 'phenomina'. It's phenomena. Has this been mentioned already? I haven't read every post.
-
By the way, is it not possible to edit the title of a thread? There's no such word as 'phenomina'. It's phenomena. Has this been mentioned already? I haven't read every post.
But the typo does manage to make the thread harder to find in a search on keywords. Surely that's a bonus? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
That sort or smug pejorative is exactly what I have referred to above in regard to the popular misuse of science.
But don't you think it's a misuse of faith if they tell you to unlearn or disbelieve scientific results because it doesn't align with their beliefs?
I have no problem with faith and the existence of a "God", but when it's sliding down to a power struggle of "who is right" I lose faith [pun intended].
-
But the typo does manage to make the thread harder to find in a search on keywords. Surely that's a bonus? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
Well, I am surprised at your slightly sarcastic attitude, Bart. ;)
I thought you would relish the opportunity to debunk all those silly arguments put forth in support of a flat earth. You could have listed them, 1 to 20 or so, and pulled each one apart, using your great understanding of maths and science, for the great benefit of all those deluded flat-earthers. ;)
-
But don't you think it's a misuse of faith if they tell you to unlearn or disbelieve scientific results because it doesn't align with their beliefs?
Of course. But in regard to this thread, have "they" or anyone else even suggested that? Has anyone even suggested using faith as evidence here? It seems to me that I have automatically been lumped together with whoever "they" are just because I suggested that science cannot disprove God. Which is really all I ever did. Again, I went back and checked. I haven't brought faith into the fray and I never claimed that God created the universe. These have been attributed to me, it seems, due to stereotyping....maybe.
I have no problem with faith and the existence of a "God", but when it's sliding down to a power struggle of "who is right" I lose faith [pun intended].
I get that. But in the end someone "is right".
-
Of course. But in regard to this thread, have "they" or anyone else even suggested that? Has anyone even suggested using faith as evidence here? It seems to me that I have automatically been lumped together with whoever "they" are just because I suggested that science cannot disprove God. Which is really all I ever did. Again, I went back and checked. I haven't brought faith into the fray and I never claimed that God created the universe. These have been attributed to me, it seems, due to stereotyping....maybe.
I get that. But in the end someone "is right".
No need to feel attacked or threatened. Nothing personal against you or any other poster here. I asked a neutral question to (rhetorically) make the observation that while some scientists have sometimes lumped "faith" as unproven hogwash but that the other side is that officials of the "faith institutions" have disregarded scientific results for no other reason then not being aligned with their beliefs.
So for me it's just a case of the famous pot and kettle, where I think most reasonable people will accept scientific results as well as a spiritual (unproven) faith.
On some cases it's not needed that someone is "right", I think that way of thinking has caused many senseless wars and fights for no other reason then "power" while being advertised as: we're right and we're fighting to save the others from following the "wrong" faith.
-
No need to feel attacked or threatened. Nothing personal against you or any other poster here.
No worries. This is not an emotional issue for me (in this context). And for the record, I have not made any statement, that I recall, about my own belief structure. I'm just making an observation about how easily we go from considering the rationality of believing in a creator to citing examples of the worst sort of religious based anti-intellectualism.
And I may be at fault for the converse of this. I believe that using science to deny a creator God is among the worst sort of pseudo-intellectualism.
I can only state that I do not share the views of religious anti-intellectuals and that I try to avoid pseudo-intellectualism couched in science. Maybe I have not done a good job at either one.
And at this point I'll interpret the lack of reply from those in the middle of this portion of the discussion due to being exasperated with me or simply bored with the topic, and not that they are conceding anything. But again, I extend the offer to discuss it privately with anyone who is interested.
-
A "specific claim" could be that belief that God created the universe is warranted and rational. That is different from the second claim. It is what I am claiming. I feel like I can support it but the nature of this claim is philosophical, not empiric.
Yes, philosophical. The scientific process can and IMO should be informed by philosophy—and vice versa too—but it isn't itself philosophy. There are even philosophers of science who aim to keep the two in touch with each other. This is good. But in the end science and philosophy are different realms with different methodologies. I personally feel it's extremely important to recognize and respect those differences.
-Dave-
-
But in the end someone "is right".
I personally take very seriously the possibility that we all are wrong. Which isn't to say "no-one can really know anything" but rather to admit that we are limited creatures.
-Dave-
-
I personally take very seriously the possibility that we all are wrong. Which isn't to say "no-one can really know anything" but rather to admit that we are limited creatures.
-Dave-
Not far from my thoughts. We can all be right as well, within our perspective. There is a point of a departure from the common ground at some point. And that is usually interpretation, or someone elses that we have accepted as "truth".
Collectively I think wisdom can be reached. But if we keep trying to solve problems from the excepted and original perspective, the outcome will be trash, no matter how well and deep you are in the understanding of what you know.
Your ignorance can only be ignorant of your ignorance.
-
Yes, philosophical. The scientific process can and IMO should be informed by philosophy—and vice versa too—but it isn't itself philosophy. There are even philosophers of science who aim to keep the two in touch with each other. This is good. But in the end science and philosophy are different realms with different methodologies. I personally feel it's extremely important to recognize and respect those differences.
-Dave-
Agreed. But I don't think one is lesser or greater either.
-
I personally take very seriously the possibility that we all are wrong. Which isn't to say "no-one can really know anything" but rather to admit that we are limited creatures.
-Dave-
I agree with that as well.
And of course the idea that "no-one can really know anything" (Hume?) is self defeating because if we can't know anything then we can't know that we can't know anything.
-
And of course the idea that "no-one can really know anything" (Hume?) is self defeating because if we can't know anything then we can't know that we can't know anything.
This is an issue of language and semantics. I think the situation can be clarified by making a distinction between 'knowing' and 'being aware'. We can be aware that we don't really know anything, provided we define knowing as a complete understanding.
If we define 'knowing' in a partial and incomplete sense, which it has to be, because no-one has a complete understanding of anything, then it's clear that we can't know that we can't know, but perhaps we can be aware that we can't know, or be aware that we can't have a complete understanding of anything. In other words, if knowing is defined as a 'partial understanding', then knowing that we can't know anything, translates as having a partial understanding that we can't have a partial understanding of anything, which, I suggest, is not true. ;)
There are lots of oddities in human language. One of my favourites, as an Australian, would be the following statement, "All Australians are liars". Since I'm an Australian, such a statement cannot be true, therefore the statement "All Australians are liars", must be a lie. :D
-
But the typo does manage to make the thread harder to find in a search on keywords. Surely that's a bonus? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
A further bonus is that it gives a good idea as to the mentality of the thread originator, so the casual reader knows not to proceed except in search on comedy.
-
A further bonus is that it gives a good idea as to the mentality of the thread originator, so the casual reader knows not to proceed except in search on comedy.
It was originally a typo. Since the thread went to the moon and back, I renamed it "....Phenomania".
It also makes it less intimidating for the number of people that are just watching to join in on the posts.
Please share what specific part you find funny so others can join in on the fun.
-
A further bonus is that it gives a good idea as to the mentality of the thread originator, so the casual reader knows not to proceed except in search on comedy.
If you want comedy, THIS IS COMEDY....
https://youtu.be/E9sblb7GfUs
And this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVUIgKXjS3Y&t=626s
-
Any feedback on the last 2 videos?
-
Not comedy but a comic:
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-4
-Dave-
-
That was long, with a twisted form of humor :-)
Watching this(same) is still a bit more funny to me...
https://youtu.be/E9sblb7GfUs
-
Plenty of tests around, e.g. this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZOh4SUWUc). And even in the flawed test in the last video link you posted, at 20 minutes, the 'bottom' of the boat started disappearing as it got further away than 5 km, i.e. it was hidden by the lake's curvature.
Cheers,
Bart
This test is a fraud.
If you look at the calculations, they come out correct ONLY if you were looking at the math from sea level.
Do the math with the 2.5-3 feet of the tripod height and you have a FALSE FRAUD LIE of a video.
They do this on BOTH tests. They just fail to use the tripod height.
What does this say? They already had a calculation of the outcome and adapted an experiment that would fit their preset calculation.
Except they forgot to adjust the calculation to the viewing height.
OPS!
Does this prove anything?
Well it certainly proves that Steven Hawkins didn't do jack all in doing this experiment. Or he maybe losing it.
It proves that they took all this time and production to make sure the outcome was to SHUT everyone up. But, they did screw up. The test is FALSE, Steven Hawkins or not.
-
Well it certainly proves that Steven Hawkins didn't do jack all in doing this experiment. Or he maybe losing it.
It proves that they took all this time and production to make sure the outcome was to SHUT everyone up. But, they did screw up. The test is FALSE, Steven Hawkins or not.
1. His name is Hawking.
2. "didn't do jack all"?
3. Why do you imagine that BLOCK CAPITALS do other than discredit such argument as you might have?
Jeremy
-
They do this on BOTH tests. They just fail to use the tripod height.
Care to share your math?
And even with the "wrong math" (which you claim) there's no way these experiments can lead to a conclusion that the earth is flat.
So I don't think it's a fraud.
-
Wait a minute. Are we seriously talking about a flat earth here? I haven't been following and typically don't click on links to videos (if you have something to say, say it).
At the risk of getting in the proverbial wrestling match with a pig, why is there a discussion about MATH when it comes to the earth being round (ish). I'll repeat what I've said before....average people have flown AROUND it. Above average people fly around it every few minutes in orbit. End of discussion right? As if.
Merry Christmas.
-
Its a test that is supposed to prove that the earth is a sphere and that this is provable by the 8" per mile squared. Which is what they did. But that formula only works if you are calculating from sea level.
They ended up with the formulated answer WITHOUT doing the correction from the raised camera angle. Looks like a Fail.
This has nothing to do with flat anything. Yes videos do end up with a bunch of that stuff. But the point is to simple measure the curvature like we are supposed to be able to.
So I got into reading about this, and I though, I have a few nice zoom lenses, it shouldn't be so hard to go to a calm body of water like a lake, or very calm day at ocean shore, and take the steps to confirm to myself that these folks are a bunch of bible friendly folks that don't care for science.(Not that there is anything wrong with that for some folks).
So far there are MANY documentations of the test. with overwhelming number of them not getting a curve outcome in the calculation as they are able to see what is supposed to be below the horizon.
Some are testing it wrong, some not calculating it right, and some in poor conditions. with some false readings of a curve due to reflection.
But so far I asked for some simple advise in how to best conduct the test so I would have it done as correct as possible.... and it has been a lot of pages of people just trying to be smarter than the other by telling one another what they know.
I don't know why anyone would jump from a sphere to flat.
Why wouldn't you simple first prove that it is not flat?
We have these days excellent knowledge base and communication. advanced tools from 700 or what ever years ago it was first tested to be a sphere (they had crap tools then).
Why redefine the shape flat? No reason.
So. we are standing on the damn thing, it should be the most logical way to know for one self that the size is correct, or the shape is not a sphere like we see in the pictures we are provided.
-
Its a test that is supposed to prove that the earth is a sphere and that this is provable by the 8" per mile squared. Which is what they did. But that formula only works if you are calculating from sea level.
They ended up with the formulated answer WITHOUT doing the correction from the raised camera angle. Looks like a Fail.
OK, you're already toned down from "fraud" to "fail", that's certainly a step in the good direction ;)
Given the way they measure (on the boat with choppy waves and looking at the difference in height between the two spots of the laser) and the helicopter (what's the "level" there, the skids, the middle of the cabin or the rotor?) the 2-3 feet tripod height above the water level of the lake (not the sea level) is unimportant for the first point and overall not all that significant in the overall accuracy of the measurement of the second point.
Also any refraction through the air mass (temperature/humidity differences) will have a significant influence on the accuracy of the outcome.
So I don't think they got a false result, just an inaccurate result.
But the tests do very well prove the earth is not flat, it's just a question of how much it's curved.
-
So they forget an entire step in taking correct readings yet they get a textbook result. Doesn't that bother you? They did a full production of a show! The camera angle above makes a big difference the further your target is. They were 6 miles if I remember right. They are very off, and enough to be a Fail. It is a fraud when you create a production footage, and all the while they are working backwards from textbook to match the results.
-
So they forget an entire step in taking correct readings yet they get a textbook result. Doesn't that bother you? They did a full production of a show! The camera angle above makes a big difference the further your target is. They were 6 miles if I remember right. They are very off, and enough to be a Fail. It is a fraud when you create a production footage, and all the while they are working backwards from textbook to match the results.
Life is too short to be bothered about such things. Remember, it's entertainment, not a court of law or a peer reviewed article in a renowned scientific journal.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-QCnzSZK/0/O/i-QCnzSZK.jpg) (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/n-SzsWG/i-QCnzSZK/A)
I'm much more bothered by using wrong science to try and prove the earth is flat, but even that is'nt really worth "fighting"
-
I would like to hear what flat earthers think of gyroscopes. Or pendulums for that matter.
-
I would like to hear what flat earthers think of gyroscopes. Or pendulums for that matter.
Isn't it a case of "don't confuse me with facts!"
Tony Jay
-
Life is too short to be bothered about such things. Remember, it's entertainment, not a court of law or a peer reviewed article in a renowned scientific journal.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-QCnzSZK/0/O/i-QCnzSZK.jpg) (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/n-SzsWG/i-QCnzSZK/A)
I'm much more bothered by using wrong science to try and prove the earth is flat, but even that is'nt really worth "fighting"
Funny you should post that cartoon.... In of itself is an error.... (Are you guys looking at things right side up ?:-)
Its the other way around. The internet is right, the TV and Steven Hawkin was wrong.
-
I would like to hear what flat earthers think of gyroscopes. Or pendulums for that matter.
Me too. I have been reading about this a bit.
Looks like they are completely mechanical. Even the ones in commercial airlines. A pilot did a documentary on his flight experience and what happen to his plane when his gyroscope that is supposed to do calculations took a risk flight without the "correction". He did some investigating, and turns up that they are simply for emulation purposes! Weird stuff. The more you read, and see evidence, the less you can ignore it. A basic gyroscope works on a flat surface, and a gyrocompass I think has a emulation for curve. Only company is Honeywell, who sub contracts to a independent service company.
-
Isn't it a case of "don't confuse me with facts!"
Tony Jay
Exactly! The only thing that interests me are the empirical evidence. All else should go to the theoretical dump when you discuss this.
That is why I posted, as it looks basic enough to do the curve test oneself.
-
Me too. I have been reading about this a bit.
Looks like they are completely mechanical. Even the ones in commercial airlines.
Mostly mechanical, yes (although electronic versions exist, e.g. in Phones), and their behavior at different latitudes (e.g. at the equator versus the poles, or at different North orientation settings) is exactly consistent with a spherical/ellipsoidal earth (see this link (http://www.slideshare.net/DheerajKaushal1/74784234-gyrocompass), one of the first that came up so there may be better ones). They need to be adjusted manually for drift over time and location. Even a flight simulator program on a PC has an option (when realism is increased) to need to adjust for Gyro bias.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The internet is right, the TV and Steven Hawkin was wrong.
You mean the earth is flat? :o
-
You mean the earth is flat? :o
Of course.
So then I guess mountains are just an illusion invented to entertain photographers. ???
-
Of course.
So then I guess mountains are just an illusion invented to entertain photographers. ???
Mate,
Light itself is just an illusion - didn't you know? ::)
Tony Jay
-
If the earth is flat, someone needs to tell Santa. Quick.
-
You mean the earth is flat? :o
No, I mean the earth is not a curve based on a 24,900 miles around.
We are photographers, and if you put the theories of stars and planets as something we have good understanding of, we should be able to measure things.
Any true scientist, researcher, physicist will measure for curvature by the simplest means. If you want empirical evidence, repeatable evidence, observable, quantifiable, you go to a calm body of water and measure for curvature.
If you see things like the Chicago skyline, Balloon video over 100K feet up and see no curve(distance up vs size of earth vs focal length), that is behind the horizon water level, you just found evidence that shows no curve. Oahu from Kauai at sea level (almost 100miles).
And many other tests all around the world. No one should be claiming anything, but the documentation, or evidence if you will showing no curve is growing.
"Light itself is just an illusion". Perhaps, but it is measurable by us to give it some quantity and values. But as landscape photographers, we should be more understanding of how much curve can be perceived or not with our eyes, and some zoom lenses.
As far as the gyro...oddly, or maybe as expected?...there are physicists that dispute Foucault's 1852 findings for rotation.
This was first disputed with the pendulum he was using and then later contested and verified by how the pendulum changes its direction and movement during a solar eclipse. Its either the magnetic fields are being disrupted, as science understands it, OR that or the earth starts to spin another direction. LOL.
So, no I do not believe you are right, as experiments prove it.
Eric, you are being silly. When people claim it is flat, they are just referring to its ground level or sea level plane.
The horizon is said to be flat in their theory, not that there are no peaks or valleys. This is why they use a still body of water to do the test for curve.
-
...
"Light itself is just an illusion". Perhaps, but it is measurable by us to give it some quantity and values. But as landscape photographers, we should be more understanding of how much curve can be perceived or not with our eyes, and some zoom lenses....
In my case the statement, "Light itself is just an illusion" was a somewhat sarcastic and silly comment in synch with some other posts.
I thought the context was pretty obvious.
I cannot speak for others but for myself the empiric evidence for the existence of light as well as its essential characteristics is fairly incontrovertible.
Tony Jay
-
In my case the statement, "Light itself is just an illusion" was a somewhat sarcastic and silly comment in synch with some other posts.
I thought the context was pretty obvious.
I cannot speak for others but for myself the empiric evidence for the existence of light as well as its essential characteristics is fairly incontrovertible.
Tony Jay
I didn't want to leave you out, as the rest of my posts are documented. I thought you were leaning to try and explain it and such. But didn't want to get off topic like it has for the past 10+ pages. :-)
-
This is Japan's official moon landing exploration video.
If you think this is real, you should start learning about imagery, 3D from another website, then come back here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiU95utHq1o