Understandable if you are struggling!
This is not a sensical response. Perhaps you misread my previous comment?
I would love to gain a greater understanding of this topic but the works I've been finding share alternate ideas.
Look earlier! Physics has been around for a long time. I am conveying the view of traditional/classical deterministic physics, often called the "billiard ball" view of the universe.
But you should not require any supporting documentation to understand what i am saying to you. When you don't understand, ask questions!
Could you please share a specific resource that can help me understand better?
I could, but i don't think it will help with this conversation (it will just be further tangent). It seems your problem is not primarily one of lacking understanding on this point, but wanting to disagree with/deny that understanding.
As i said before, just go ahead and disagree! If we agreed on everything, the conversation would be hopelessly boring, and a complete waste of time. Accept that in my view, there is only push - and move on with (or abandon, if you wish) the conversation.
Our previous discussion cannot continue because you lack basic understanding of forces that exist in the universe.
You misunderstand (because you assume). I have that basic understanding that you do (as most all who are educated are required to), and now disagree with it after further study.
I think it's not really serving to limit ourselves
In a conversation, to be productive, it is vital. There are too many tangents. I don't disagree that the conversation is free to go in any direction, i simply feel it is important to finish what is already in our mouths before taking another bite.
In some cases, yes that is correct!
Not in classical physics - because there is no mechanism for such a thing. As i am struggling to convey to you - everything is a billiard ball (including forces). Billiard balls can't pull, they can only push.
So how would you consider me pulling a cup towards me as push?
Correct, you apply a force from behind the cup towards you. You push the cup towards you. You may want to re-read my previous answer to this question given in previous comments. It may seem like an arbitrary convention, but without a mechanism for pull (traditional deterministic physics, aka "billiard ball", has no such mechanism) all is push.
If you can show me any documentation on classical physics that describes pushing being the only force that exists, I'll concede
I don't seek your concession, only understanding. There are many physicists who documented this in the past, but i am simply sharing my views so that you may understand them - not to force (or manipulate/convince) you to agree with them!
that in order for us to continue we must understand that more forces exist in the world that are not defined by pushing.
I understand your views. As long as you understand mine as well, we shouldn't have too much trouble discussing further without having identical views (in fact, how boring would that be?!?!).
Strange, how they only get boring after I provide sources, and ask you a specific question
Lol. As i said - don't get your panties in a twist. Neither of us have any obligation to continue a conversation - no matter the cause. There is no need to take it so personally!
I sent you a comment on the weight discussion that you never replied to
Just now, yes - i see that you did (though it isn't so much a response in a conversation, as it is a flippant declaration of your abandonment of it). Prior to that you did not, but there was (and is) no reason for anyone to be upset about that. Anytime you don't wish to respond, for whatever reason, is fine by me.
Asking specific questions is an excellent conversational habit (and citing/quoting is too!), however demanding answers like a petulant child and then throwing a tantrum when you don't receive them; isn't. It's best to understand this if you want conversations to be interesting and/or productive.
That's not what I asked you.
Of course it is. You want me to do your homework for you. But that would make you a worse student, so i wont spoonfeed you.
If you are so committed to not learning about the cosmology in the bible / of the biblical authors that you refuse to do any research whatsoever, then you are clearly happy with your current beliefs and choosing not to learn anything that might change them. That is your choice, though i would urge you to reconsider.
I'm open to being proven wrong.
Then prove yourself wrong! I am most happy to help you once you earnestly try and fail - but i can't and won't try for you! It will not take you long to find a list of the passages. Do you just want to be right so badly that you refuse to do even a few minutes of earnest research?
As i said, there are many books on the subject containing the lines in detail. Often these books are named things like "biblical cosmology" and "hebrew cosmology".
You could even search the christianity forum here and find links to such passages.
I will not do your work for you, because that would make you a weaker student - but i am happy to help you in any way i can if you earnestly try to research and fail!
and will eventually just stop replying.
Boring and unproductive conversations should be abandoned!
Like you did when we were discussing weight recently. Don't get your panties in a twist.
The bible doesn't describe the earth as flat.
Of course it does, and of course modern christians don't want that to be the case because it embarrasses them. It doesn't change the fact.
The bible describes a flat world because the people who wrote it viewed the world that way. There are no competent biblical scholars, now or in the past (going back more than a millennia) who don't know that.
At most, it says "4 corners of the earth", which has different translations:
One can (mis)use translation to discard / reinterpret anything they wish in the bible - however it will not indemnify them of their ignorance of what the biblical authors believed about the shape of the world.
The four corners is only one of many passages describing the flat world the biblical authors ascribed to. There are many books available (going back centuries, if not further) about the cosmology described in the bible along with the specific passages which contain that cosmology - if you are interested.
Why are flat earthers pro Israeli?
The same reasons anyone is.
Why are "globe earthers" pro israel? Same question, same answer.
Obviously there are many (likely the majority) who are not pro israel, regardless of what shape they think the world is.
Flat earth is Talmudic.
Because flat earth is biblical. The earth is described as flat in the bible, so it shouldn't surprise you that books of commentary on that bible (the first 5 books anyway) also describe the same.
Anyone who believes in FE a) can't determine objective truth for themselves
Anyone who believes in anything that they could/should/ought know!
If you believe the world is any shape; flat, spherical, or otherwise - you have faith not fact. The vast majority of people cannot determine objective truth for themselves, because they were both never taught to do so and encouraged/conditioned to appeal to authority instead ("i know because teacher told me so"). This is evident in the way most that think the world is spherical answer the question when asked (i.e. "I believe the world is spherical/ a sphere")
Is there a reason why you skipped my question about understanding the conversation up to now and no longer having any questions about weight being an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter? I'd like to finish our previous discussion (if possible), before moving on to new ones.
The topic at hand requires both parties to have a proper understanding of basic physics
Well i know i do! i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt ;)
Don't assume that because my views differ from yours that i don't know/understand what yours are (and why)! We were all taught largely the same things through "education", after all.
We are talking about basic physics and are largely speaking (abstractly) about archemides' principle.
Yes. Magnetic force is a great example of this.
I asked you nicely to start by thinking mechanically. But you couldn't help yourself, could you?
then a scenario such as a winch pulling in a load would be the load being pulled via a rotational method, no pushing of the leading object.
So no push is used to drive the winch? And push in a circle is no longer push?
You're pulling it inward
It appears that way, and - like many things in physics - as long as you are consistent there is nothing that prevents you from describing things this way - mathematically or otherwise. In that way, it is a bit like a convention - although in this case the convention has support beyond the purely arbitrary.
Some like to describe the earth as constantly accelerating upwards rather than objects accelerating downwards - for instance. Or the earth being the center of the universe. As long as you are consistent, your equations all still work.
In my view (and that of classical physics) there is only push, and pull is an illusion. A good example is in sucking with a straw. Intuitively we experience "pulling" the liquid to our mouths, but in reality we are watching the pressure of the air push the liquid up the straw. This can be confirmed by utilizing a low pressure (aka vacuum) chamber. All is push.
As i said, this is all tangential (at best) to our original discussion.
You're using a specific example of a billiard ball scenario
The billiard ball metaphor/analogy is not a scenario. It is closer to the conception/model of classical deterministic physics. Everything is a billiard ball, including forces.
Like i said, please try to focus on the topic at hand. There is no benefit in discussing this tangent for now - it's just distraction. It is well worth circling back to though.
Is an object being pulled by another experiencing a pushing force?
I'm happy to circle back to this topic once we are finished discussing the first one. Are you saying you have nothing more to say / question regarding weight being an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter and now understand what i'm saying?
Assuming that is the case, then the answer to your question is perhaps best answered socratically/dialectically :
Can an object be pulled by another object if the leading object itself is not pushed? (think mechanically for now)
If this is the case, that's a major issue, because there are many forces that are not pushing forces.
Not in classical (deterministic, aka "billiard ball") physics, no. How would a billiard ball pull?
As i said, this is all just distraction currently - it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Let's finish chewing on what's in our mouths before taking another bite!
It doesn't, because again there stands that there is matter at the top of the pile.
Not that can't be divided by 2. This is the core of zeno's paradox. The limit described would approach the actual weight. It's .99 repeating = 1 by different wording. You would always have another piece of matter with weight to do the "pushing from behind" and be consistent with your conception.
As i said, this was only for your benefit to try and understand/rationalize in a consistent way with your arbitrary convention. We see now that it didn't help. Best let it alone and try another approach if you are earnestly still interested in understanding.
And we then take the time to understand where that force comes from.
I've already done that (in much the same way archimedes undoubtedly did 2+ millennia ago). What we're doing now is trying to help you understand my conclusion that the force of weight is intrinsic and inexorable to all matter. Of course, you are free to disagree - but i think you are beyond the point of earnestly not understanding what i am saying.
Specifically?
As i said, at this point it is just more distraction. Let's try to stay focused on the one/current topic for now, and circle back.
So previously when you said it was "pushing" downward, was that just because you misunderstood that all force is pushing force?
I'm not sure i understand the question you are trying to ask. I am of the view that all forces are "pushing" forces, and that is the reason i omitted the word "pushing" from my description of your view that all (pushing) forces do so from behind, and thought the two statements equivalent (from my perspective). That's all - it was merely a rider to the apology so you would understand that there was no intention to deliberately mischaracterize your position.
Or do you still consider it to be a pushing force?
As i said, in my view all forces are pushing forces.
Eventually there is matter on top. What is pushing that? Its own weight pushing from within?
If you like, you may go all "zeno's paradox" on it and imagine the matter itself as infinitely divisible - if it helps you to understand/conceptualize. Most of these musings have only been for your benefit; to accommodate your self imposed arbitrary conventions. The matter above the matter on top of the object also pushes down upon it, if that helps you.
The matter itself has an intrinsic property called weight. That weight is what "pushes" down when the matter is heavier than the media it displaces.
We are not talking about an object at rest,
I am! And if there was some confusion about that, let's start with that example to discuss. Moving the object makes things needlessly more complicated.
we are talking about matter being "pushed" in a direction (downward)
We are talking about matter (which, because its weight is greater than that of the media it displaces, is) pushing in a downward direction with its weight. It does this at rest, sitting on a scale where we measure that weight.
Where are you getting this information from?
Science and the history thereof. In the traditional, deterministic, "billiard ball" conception of physics there is only push - but i don't think this aside is worth focusing on currently. It's only distracting from the actual conversation at the moment. It is well worth circling back to later though!
The only response that I have is that it's still not clear where the pushing force comes from.
It principally comes from the weight of the object. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. When an object weighs more than the media it displaces, this force is directed downwards. It's all pretty simple and straightforward.
As i explained before, if it helps you to conceptualize / rationalize with your arbitrary view that "pushing force must come from behind", then you may imagine the matter at the top of the object "pushing" the matter beneath it (with its own weight) which cumulatively pushes on the matter beneath that etc., until that cumulative weight/force is measured on a scale.
Let me know if you are still having trouble understanding, or need more clarification!
relative to the direction of motion
Strictly speaking, in an object at rest - there is no direction of motion. But there is a direction to the force (as forces are vectors) of weight, and it is down when the weight of the object is greater than that of the media it displaces.
By your description, it seems to come from within the object.
Weight is intrinsic to matter, yes. But like i said, it may help you to imagine an object as an aggregation of "pieces" of matter (atoms or smaller if you like) which all push upon each other to become the cumulative weight measured on a scale.
You do if you want to claim this photo supports a flat earth
You've already forgotten what we were talking about? That's a little sad :(
No one claimed any photo you shared supports a flat earth. Perhaps you need to go back and re-read in order to remember what we were talking about.
Especially after spending an entire day telling me how invalid this photo is as evidence due to distortion
I appreciate that is all you experienced / can remember - but i never said anything of the sort. I never said the photos you shared were invalid, and it didn't take me more than a single comment (a sentence or two, actually) to explain why the photos do not and cannot show the curvature of the earth. The "entire day", continuing into today - has only been to try and help you to understand those few sentences.
Also, you need to measure the distortion too, not just the distance in the photo.
Again, i'm not the one who is confused about the globe model or the extremely subtle (essentially imperceptible) curvature that is described in it and would be (by calculation) visible on such scales.
If the reason for the ostensible curvature is not due to distortion, which i agree is the presumptive/deductive cause, then what on earth do you think causes it? Do you truly believe the world is far tinier than the globe model describes / we're taught? I am having difficulty imagining another option.
I'm not wasting my time on any more novels from you
They are only a waste if you don't read and/or understand them. When you don't understand, the best thing to begin with is to ask questions!
How did you manage to measure the distance in a Arial zoomed in picture with no landmarks?
I don't need to, you do (although the landmarks in the pontchartrain shot are of known height and spacing) . They are your observations.
I already know (from both experience and calculation), that the curvature on the scales in your pictures is not visible. You are free to repeat such calculations at your leisure.
Weren't you ... telling me this photo can't be used as proof of anything due to distortion?
Sort of. I was telling you that science requires measurement, not simply looking at things and then making declaration. I am also telling you that the curvature in the photos has to be distortion because if it were actually the curvature of the earth (as you want it/ are biased to believe it to be) then the world would have to be much smaller than the globe model specifies.
You throw out any evidence that doesn't support your preconceptions, and uphold anything you can twist to support it
You are describing yourself. You want so desperately for these photos to contain the earths curvature that you don't even know (through trivial calculation and observation) why that's not possible. This doesn't have much to do with the shape of the world, but with bias and subjectivity.
In general, in flat earth research - no evidence is discarded - merely interpreted differently than you have been taught. For example, you see the curvature in the photos and declare "that's the curve of the earth", i see that same curvature and know from calculation and experience that it is due to distortion. Nothing is being thrown out.
And of course you have to ignore the MASSIVE amount of observations you can make on your own to confirm the earth is round like so many they could fill a fucking book
You completely misunderstand. Nothing is being ignored. If the world is flat, then every observation in that imaginary book of yours that appears to "confirm the earth is round" is simply interpreted incorrectly.
inventing optical illusions to explain everything
Don't pout and gripe like a child. Instead disagree and criticize the specific claim. Do you think the visible horizon isn't an optical illusion? It recedes away from you as you approach it, just like a rainbow, and for the same reasons. The visible horizon is not a physical place that can be reached, and it is not the edge of the world (regardless of what shape that world is). We were simply mistaught to believe it was.
and redefining the laws of physics with ZERO math to back it up
I am doing no such thing. Math is merely a symbolic language. Describing something in it doesn't automatically make that thing true/correct (just like every other language)!
For discussion (like most all scientists in history) i prefer english but if you would like a mathematical formulation of something i've said instead, i can accommodate you. However the idea that you would accept something said simply because it was written in mathematical symbols is silly, laughable, and untrue. If you don't understand something said in your native tongue, it is unlikely encoding into mathematic symbol will help you. When you don't understand, try asking questions! When you disagree, try disagreeing and providing specific reasoning and criticism for what you disagree with and why!
Pouting, griping, and lobbing baseless insult like a child instead just makes me pity you :(
"Your photo shows a curvature.... And that's inconsistent with a globe model..."
Correct, your photos show the wrong curvature (far too much curve over far too little distance). If the curve shown in your pictures were actually the curvature of the earth, the world would have to be far too small (which is NOT consistent with the globe model). The globe model is not "any curvature" at all, but the specific curvature over distance to be a globe of the size and shape the model explicitly describes.
Do you really not understand what i'm saying, or are you just being willfully obtuse?
completely doable in your fantasy sci-fi disc world
Everything is possible in fantasy. But we are talking about reality! I obviously have no fantasy involving a sci-fi disc world, and also i have not encountered anyone who does.
but impossible on a spherical globe
What's impossible on a spherical globe?
If the world is flat, then everything we observe is obviously possible (and indeed, actual) on it.
How hard is that?
Surprisingly hard AND expensive - but you are missing the point. There is no reason to assume that antarctica (especially the northern coast you will be allowed to travel to) is anywhere near any edge - even if one exists. Again, the people who believe in an edge of the world are the globe proponents and believers, not the others.
A flat map is supposed to be an accurate scale model of the Earth according to YOU...
Really? Could you quote/link what comment i made which made you think that? Clearly you have misunderstood me, or i misspoke. I can clarify what i meant if you refer me back to my statement.
If you can't accurately represent the Earth on a flat map... then guess what... That means the earth isn't flat!!!
This is a misunderstanding, but as it happens - virtually all maps are flat and always have been. I guess by your logic that proves the world must be flat - because otherwise we couldn't depict it on flat paper (a truly cuckoo idea) like we have for thousands of years...
Name one..... One observation that's inconsistent with a round earth.
Let's start with yours, shall we? Your observations (photos) ostensibly show curvature which is wholly inconsistent with the globe model (the world would have to be far too small).
Models are always wrong, and always contradict observation/reality to some degree. It's goedel's proof by other words.
If the earth is a disc then you should be able to go near the edge of the disk and go up high enough that you can see the edge, which would appear as a curve.
Only if the earth is a disc, has an edge, and you are close enough to that edge (and it is illuminated well enough) for you to view it. That's a lot of ifs!
Very few i have encountered that think the world is flat think it is a disc (and none of those think it is a disc "floating in space"). Many think it doesn't have an edge, and most that do think it has an edge also speculate that that edge is not reachable (for varying reasons).
The point is, if the earth were a giant flat disc (with edges that were too far from us to be seen, or without edges at all and a plane not a disc) or a sphere too large for us to discern its sphericity due to our relative scale - our experience/observations would remain the same in both cases.
It doesn't count
No, it doesn't apply. You seem to misunderstand that argument and its purpose. It isn't about our view of the world, which unquestionably presents itself experientially to us as (mostly) flat either because it is or because it is an illusion due to our relative scale. The pictures of the world that we take never show pieces of a (giant) basketball, and the horizon is always a flat line that surrounds us.
Every photograph that proves the earth is round is either fake cgi, or distortion that coincidentally conforms to scientific models of the earth
You misunderstand - i'm saying that it absolutely, unequivocally does not conform to scientific models of the earth. The curvature you show in both pictures would make the world far too small (that's one of MANY ways to determine that it is in fact due to distortion). If you don't believe me, do the calculations yourself!
Your map shows anartica or the "ice wall" as you put it to be like 500,000 miles long.... Like longer than every other continent's coastline put together.
Not my map! However AE maps are the preferred ones for military campaigns, by the by. Much like looking for the shape of the world in an optical illusion (the horizon), looking for it in a map is silly.
Wether antarctica is a giant ice wall surrounding the known world or a continent of the size and shape we are taught has no bearing on the shape of the world. The whole thing is a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) red herring; a product of the flat earth psyop.
I mean everywhere you look there are loose threads all over this theory that unravel at the slightest pull.
There is no theory for the shape of the world, flat, spherical, or otherwise. Scientific theories are never for determining or describing the shapes of physical objects.
As for "loose threads", there is much to justifiably criticize about the views of those who think the world is flat, as well as those who think the world is spherical. But that will never establish the shape of the world - right? The globe model is inconsistent with many of our observations, as all models always are - but that doesn't prove it wrong (and the inverse, that just because some of our observations are consistent with it doesn't prove it right) right? The truth is that scientific models are always wrong. Models are built for specific limited purpose and they are made to be (limitedly) useful. Useful is not the same as correct!
Or appears that way at least....
Granted. When speaking of the horizon, we are most often speaking of the visible horizon, which is very different than the actual/geographical horizon conceived in the globe model (aka the edge of the earth). What is most often missed is that this visible horizon is an optical illusion and not the physical edge of anything but our vision. That is one of the major reasons that it doesn't curve, and even if it did would not have bearing on the shape of the world.
As in no matter where you are?
Correct.
Wouldn't a flat earth have a round horizon in some places near the edge?
No, the visible horizon (which is the limit of your vision - a line surrounding you in 360 degrees) would be and is always flat.
Also, assuming the world flat - who says it would have an edge at all, let alone a curved one? The ones who believe in an edge are the globe proponents and believers - not the others.
you always see the same uniform appearance?
It's because the horizon is an optical illusion. It's the same reason the horizon appears to rise up to your eye level in the distance. It has to do with angular resolution limits of the eye, which is the cause of perspective. It also varies with weather conditions in distance / clarity etc.
Can you think of any 3D shape that will appear the same no matter what angle it's viewed from
That "argument" doesn't apply to observations made of the earth. That is a common argument for observations of the moon and such things, but it is a big mistake to think that the uniformity we observe on earth has any dependency on sphericity. It's the opposite. The world is flat either because it actually is, or merely because it appears that way to us because of our relative scale.
What's this then?
That is a picture with distortion in it. Most likely that is caused by distortion from the air/and things dissolved/commingling in it. This can be confirmed by seeing the same shot from a slightly higher vantage point which shows clearly there is no curving occurring. But as I said, science is about rigorous measurement not merely looking! Often what we see, especially at great distance, is not what is. We often forget that we are looking through an awful lot of stuff, and even the laws of perspective/optics as a result of the design/limitations of the eye are not particularly intuitive.
You ruled science out the moment you ignored all of it's findings to adopt a theory that necessitates gravity not existing.
I did no such thing! Science is about dissent, disagreement, and doubt my friend. "All of its findings" are not congruent and consensus is a curse word in science (also known by another term : bias). Truth is not a democracy, thank god.
It is precisely because of scientific findings, my adherence to the principles/philosophy of, as well as study and love of science that i have come to the conclusions i have.
Besides, you are misunderstanding my view. Gravity very much exists, and has formally for millennia. It is gravitation, invented a few centuries ago, which doesn't exist. I'm not subscribing/adopting any theory whatsoever - merely rejecting/discarding a theory (gravitation) misrepresented as a law which has never had any empirical support or reality. Newton didn't even bother to offer a hypothesis for it, because he understood it could never be empirical. He literally attributed its function/mechanism to the christian god.
It would be the most epic conspiracy and cover up in history.
I see this as an encouraged mistake/erroneous conflation.
What epic conspiracy and cover up was ever required for most all the educated people in the world to be wrong? They are simply all wrong because the are all taught the same wrong thing (often from childhood), en masse.
The humors, spontaneous creation, the sun being a giant ball of gas lit on fire - all of these and so much more absolute nonsense was taught as fact and defended fervently by the "learned" of their time.
No conspiracy or coverup is ever required for people to be stupid and wrong as they historically always are.
None of those rulers are near the center of the lenses yet they don't distort.
As i said, it is mostly due to the lens being calibrated for the focal length you are using, but it is also (at least in part) because the light which enters the center of the lens perpendicularly is the least distorted (that's regardless of focal length).
Seems like you guys just wanna make up any excuse you can to say you can't see the earth curve.
It's the opposite, though I am not one of "you guys". You want to be able to see the curve, and want to believe that the distortion you see in this picture (or from an airplane) is that curvature. This bias comes from what we call education. The truth is, that the curvature is not there/perceivable at any available (to you or i anyhow) altitude (this is also calculable).
We'll I got news for you.. You don't even need a camera. You can see it with your naked eye.
This is a common and popularized misconception. The horizon (unless distorted) is always flat, level, and horizontal. You can't see any curvature (even if it were there) with your naked eye from any available altitude, even with a two by four at your disposal. If you could, the world would have to be far too small. I encourage you to calculate it if you don't believe that.
And I'm sure there's barrel distortion going on there too....
There certainly is, however the shape of the retina and processing in the brain is supposed to correct for that. Still, malformation of the eye (and/or nerves/brain which processes the signals from it) is very real and certainly possible.
However in the example you mentioned, barrel distortion couldn't be the cause. Much more likely you would be observing a swell (water isn't motionless) or distortion from the air (and/or things dissolved/commingling in that air). Try that same observation on a large lake on a calm day!
Can't trust them lying eyes.
Exactly! That's what science is all about. We measure because simply looking isn't good enough and often leads to incorrect conclusions.
How come when I squish these photographs of a squaring tool and a ruler they don't take on a curvature?
Primarily it is because the lens is calibrated for that focal length. and that the least amount of barrel distortion is introduced by the dead center of the lens
It still introduces distortion, but it is less noticeable because of that calibration (traditionally done by photographing a grid pattern).
Does the barrel distortion disappear when photographing a straight object?
Of course not, it is present in all convex lenses regardless of the subject photographed. I encourage you to read about it.
In theory, not many.
In practice, there are 3 primary ones :
The question is asked disingenuously/disearnestly. Some examples of this are rhetorical questions (possibly part of a gish gallop), or questions that are purely intended to mock/deride/insult etc.
The question asked is a non-sequitur and/or distraction from the discussion at hand. This is a tactic essentially analogous to a red herring, though can certainly be unintentional as well.
The question asked is an exercise for the earnest student. In this case, although i could simply answer the question - spoonfeeding the answer actually weakens the student and makes them less capable of answering questions on their own in the future (feed a man a fish, and all that). In this case i am happy to supply any and all assistance i can to a student which has tried and failed to answer such questions on their own, but i can only do that once they explain what they have tried / where they have looked first - so that i can, hopefully, point them in the right direction.