|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| So, you believe that everything revolves about the earth? |
I have stated my position several times already..
| Quote: |
| There are numerous problems with that idea in the present day world. |
Not really, you are just assuming that there probably is. No: it is entirely valid in physics to consider the centre of the earth as completely stationary and the rest of the universe as moving.
| Quote: |
| For example, if that were really true then the various Mars probes would not have made it to their destination since their programming assumes motion of Mars going around the Sun and not Earth. |
Not so: the distance to mars is calculated geocentrically, as is the distance to other planets and stars. Geocentrism does not deny that mars orbits the sun: it just orbits the earth as well.
In any case, strictly speaking, earth does not orbit the sun: they both orbit a common centre of mass that lies somewhere between the two.
Actually there are plenty of problems with heliocentrism. Its just that they have been shoved aside for the sake of convenience. Have a look:
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm
Heliocentrism is the widespread accepted paradigm and it is functionable for our current purposes, so it is easier to just go with it. Dumping heliocentrism at this stage or perhaps being equivocal about it would cause problems.
It'd be like recalling a million blue textbooks because red would do just as well.
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| How did that happen? What is the process involved behind an entire star exploding? Does it happen in an instant, or is there a longer progression of events? |
Let it go, bobby boy.
You chose an utterly irrelevant point, stop trying to pretend it was valid.
Nobody, including the scientists, doubt that the light rays left the star at the same time as the neutrinos: the issue is that the light rays were delayed by dust, gravity, particles and gas whereas the neutrinos weren't.
If you honestly think different (and are not just trying to save face) provide some evidence... instead of just speculating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You make it sound as if scientists want this to be true. Au contraire, the initial reaction from the scientific world is scorn- most scientists want this finding to be invalid. They don't like their preconceptions being turned upside down. |
Strawman. In their heart of hearts, I'm 99.762% sure all scientists lay awake at night daydreaming about making a discovery that would overturn their field. |
99.267%, Ya-Ta. You forgot to trick the data and hide the decline. |
Either one of us is not speaking English as I have come to know it, or doorknobs will blue hot daily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:39 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Sane people: I'd like to hear about the possible dimensions you talk of. What are they and how can we envision them?
Junior: I'm also curious about your commentary on Herr Neville's theory that Jackie O killed JFK:
http://www.realityreviewed.com/JFK%20murder.htm
I'd ask you to count how many times he says Jew or Jewess, but I suppose I can conveniently find that in his link to jewwatch.com.
| Quote: |
| I've never been quite sure if he's serious or not. |
He's as sincere as the Westboro Baptist Church
But, hey, I don't come around the CE forums to find someone who agrees with me. Look at the previous couple of pages, JR has helped all of us flesh out our arguments, and hopefully we've helped him with his.
Just don't take anything too seriously. It's all a matter of opinion anyways,
and, when he regularly and offhandedly announces that he's destroyed all of his opposition, just remember that he still has
-bucket crapping dinosaurs
-his floating species theory
-his swimming in fish stomachs theory
to contend with, even though he "tore them to shreds" years ago.
He just does that, m'kay?
Whatever you post, Junior reserves the right to just rubbish it.
The rules of CE Forum are:
1) You do not talk about CE Forum
2) You do not talk about CE Forum
3) Whatever you post, Junior reserves the right to just rubbish it.
4) DO NOT tell Enrique about these rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:43 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Sane people: I'd like to hear about the possible dimensions you talk of. What are they and how can we envision them?
|
Hi, I posted this already but you might have missed it. In mathematics parlance, a "dimension" is really just a variable in a mathematical model. As an example, we can easily visualize in 2-D and 3-D a mathematical model where all points are equidistant from a singular point. In 2-D, it's just a circle. In 3-D, it's just a sphere, like a perfectly-rounded ball.
Now imagine we cut up the 3-D sphere into infinitely flat "slices". Each slice would be a 2-D circle.
In four or more dimensions we call this model a hypersphere. We can't visualize a hypersphere directly, but we can visualize "slices" of one in 3-D. Much the same way each "slice" of a 3-D sphere is a 2-D circle, each slice of a 4-D hypersphere is a 3-D sphere, and each "slice" of a 5-D hypersphere is a 4-D hypersphere.
Does that make sense?
Some theoretical physicists claim time is the fourth dimension. If that's the case, then any moment in time is a 3-D "slice" of the 4-D model.
Last edited by silkhighway on Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:25 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe this link might help.
It's easier to imagine slicing 3-D objects into 2-D objects since we can see in both 3-D and in 2-D. If you take an infinitely thin slice of a mountain it will be a flat bell-shaped looking object. If you take an infinitely thin slice of a cube, it will be a square. You have to stretch your imagination to imagine a 4-D shape sliced into 3-D shapes, but an infinitely thin slice of a 4-D "hypercube" is a 3-D cube.
Any better? 
Now imagine the path neutrinos take can only be modeled using a 5-D model. Since we can only visualize in 3-D and experience 4-D if we include time, we can't actually visualize the path that the neutrinos take because we are only seeing a singular "slice" of their path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
Maybe this link might help.
It's easier to imagine slicing 3-D objects into 2-D objects since we can see in both 3-D and in 2-D. If you take an infinitely thin slice of a mountain it will be a flat bell-shaped looking object. If you take an infinitely thin slice of a cube, it will be a square. You have to stretch your imagination to imagine a 4-D shape sliced into 3-D shapes, but an infinitely thin slice of a 4-D "hypercube" is a 3-D cube.
Any better?
Now imagine the path neutrinos take can only be modeled using a 5-D model. Since we can only visualize in 3-D and experience 4-D if we include time, we can't actually visualize the path that the neutrinos take because we are only seeing a singular "slice" of their path. |
All of that is entirely theoretical of course, an imaginative figment of fantasy- a scientific tooth fairy-designed to avoid the recognition that neutrinos kick einsteins theory into touch. Some might call it string theory.
Its no different from the way evolutionists invent whole imaginary "ghost lineages" to link one creature to another completely different one. or fill in the massive gaps with imaginary creatures.
But remember kids to keep distinguishing between documented fact and wishful imagination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| silkhighway wrote: |
Maybe this link might help.
It's easier to imagine slicing 3-D objects into 2-D objects since we can see in both 3-D and in 2-D. If you take an infinitely thin slice of a mountain it will be a flat bell-shaped looking object. If you take an infinitely thin slice of a cube, it will be a square. You have to stretch your imagination to imagine a 4-D shape sliced into 3-D shapes, but an infinitely thin slice of a 4-D "hypercube" is a 3-D cube.
Any better?
Now imagine the path neutrinos take can only be modeled using a 5-D model. Since we can only visualize in 3-D and experience 4-D if we include time, we can't actually visualize the path that the neutrinos take because we are only seeing a singular "slice" of their path. |
All of that is entirely theoretical of course, an imaginative figment of fantasy- a scientific tooth fairy-designed to avoid the recognition that neutrinos kick einsteins theory into touch. Some might call it string theory.
Its no different from the way evolutionists invent whole imaginary "ghost lineages" to link one creature to another completely different one. or fill in the massive gaps with imaginary creatures.
But remember kids to keep distinguishing between documented fact and wishful imagination. |
What's fantasy? The math? The physics? I absolutely agree that the math is fantasy and human-developed. It also happens to be completely consistent and uncannily descriptive of the world around us. I also agree the physics is made up since I made up neutrinos traveling on a 5-dimensional path just as an example of how "more dimensions" might work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
bucket crapping dinosaurs
-his swimming in fish stomachs theory |
Please, please, I need to know more about these! They sound really delicious, something to really sink the teeth into! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| How did that happen? What is the process involved behind an entire star exploding? Does it happen in an instant, or is there a longer progression of events? |
Let it go, bobby boy.
You chose an utterly irrelevant point, stop trying to pretend it was valid. |
*sigh*
Yes, the physics behind a supernova are irrelevant to this discussion about neutrinos and light emitted by supernovae. 
Let's go over this again.
Your claim is that since the neutrinos emitted by a supernova arrive on earth shortly before the light, they must be faster.
If the neutrinos left sooner (or as others have suggested took different routes) then your conclusion is bunk.
| Junior wrote: |
Nobody, including the scientists, doubt that the light rays left the star at the same time as the neutrinos: the issue is that the light rays were delayed by dust, gravity, particles and gas whereas the neutrinos weren't.
If you honestly think different (and are not just trying to save face) provide some evidence... instead of just speculating. |
Go back. Read the link I've asked you to read twice now and point out where during a supernova, light and neutrinos are emitted at the same time in an instant because that is what you are claiming as "blatant truth" (and are now even suggesting other scientists deem the truth!) despite there being no evidence, or even a single observation of it whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've searched online for 'bucket crapping dinosaurs' and 'the swimming in fish's stomachs theory' but can't find any references. Dissapointing, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior on page 4 wrote: |
| There are, necessarily, entities that must travel faster than light. Have you not heard of tachycons? |
| Junior on page 5 wrote: |
| [Regarding multi-dimension string theory] All of that is entirely theoretical of course, an imaginative figment of fantasy- a scientific tooth fairy-designed to avoid the recognition that neutrinos kick einsteins theory into touch. Some might call it string theory. |
Tachyons are no less theoretical than multi-dimension string theory. Perhaps there's some heretofore undiscovered aspect of quantum theory that states theoretical physics is only necessarily true if it agrees with Junior, and total malarkey otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Yes, the physics behind a supernova are irrelevant to this discussion about neutrinos and light emitted by supernovae.
Let's go over this again. |
You're still hung up about this???
I believe the poster harpeau provides counselling services, although he would probably regard "trauma suffered from loss of face on an internet board" as a waste of his time.
| Quote: |
| Your claim is that since the neutrinos emitted by a supernova arrive on earth shortly before the light, they must be faster. |
I already explained to you that scientists think the light rays took longer because they interract with gas and particles more than do neutrinos.
Theoretically, scientists claim that light rays are faster in a "pure" vacuum (does such an environment even exist?).
| Quote: |
| If the neutrinos left sooner (or as others have suggested took different routes) then your conclusion is bunk. |
Its not my conclusion. It was the conclusion of the scientists. I posted you the link earlier.
| Quote: |
| Read the link I've asked you to read twice now and point out where during a supernova, light and neutrinos are emitted at the same time in an instant |
The fact that your link does not include neutrinos does not prove anything.
Thats like saying "If you can't find any mention of neutrinos on the back of your cornflakes then they must not exist".
| Quote: |
| despite there being no evidence, or even a single observation of it whatsoever. |
Lets go over this again. Are you sitting comfortably?
Then lets begin...
Scientists detected a sudden blast of neutrinos coming from a certain area in space.
3 hours later in the same area, they witness an enormous bright flash- a supernova.
Conclusion: the light rays took 3 hours longer to reach earth than did the neutrinos.
If you think the scientists are wrong, better write a letter and tell them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Scientists detected a sudden blast of neutrinos coming from a certain area in space.
3 hours later in the same area, they witness an enormous bright flash- a supernova.
Conclusion: the light rays took 3 hours longer to reach earth than did the neutrinos.
If you think the scientists are wrong, better write a letter and tell them. |
Compare to:
| Junior on page two wrote: |
A star explodes.
A wave of neutrinos from aforsesaid explosion arrives on earth.
3 hours later than the neutrinos, light from explosion arrives on earth.
Conclusion: neutrinos travel faster than light. |
The scientists did not conclude that neutrinos travel faster than light. You did.
Which is incorrect due to any number of unknown influencing factors on the neutrino and light emitted by supernovae. Factors directly involved with the physics behind a supernova which you are blithely dismissing as "irrelevant."
| Junior wrote: |
| I believe the poster harpeau provides counselling services, although he would probably regard "trauma suffered from loss of face on an internet board" as a waste of his time. |
I met him at a gig. Nice guy. Knows his Stan Rogers.
Unfortunately, fixing your cognitive disorder is probably beyond his abilities as a counselor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm becoming more convinced that Junior is just trolling at this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
