Yes, bob lazar is a ball munching phony.
The slightest bit of research on that despicable ingrate will reveal that very quickly.
Crater earth is a fun fiction, but it just “passes the buck” on the real issues with the globe model.
Planets are wandering stars. They aren’t terra firma like we see on tv.
fake and gay, confirmed.
There is a good paper out there on the parallax issue(s) and lazy reusing of dlp (most likely/presumably) backgrounds during apollo.
and their insane black budgets for it to be a nothingburger.
Oh, i assure you sir/madame - the embezzlement is quite real.
The rest of it is hollywood ;)
i love how you are dead serious, and your faith is unshakable in the face of any possible evidence!
Pardon the delays, busy here.
Life should get in the way! No pardons ought be required!
It is important for our purposes to be clear on definitions.
Agreed, which is why i have been very explicit and straightforward about them. If you need any clarification on them, please ask!
I am only aware of the correct one
Lol, if only it were so simple ;)
which is that massive objects attract other massive objects relative to their mass
That is the newtonian definition yes, from the “law” of universal gravitation. It has generally not been used for 70+ years. Modern physicists do not think there is any attraction between objects, nor define gravitation that way.
the problem is that it does exactly this, and nobody knows why
So it is believed! But belief has no place in knowledge, least of all science. It is known as “bias” and is a 4 letter word ;)
gravity must act faster than the speed of light
Indeed, one of the many impossible things it must do. If it were real, that is!
Because it isn’t real, it doesn’t have to do any of those things - and doesn’t.
but aren't understanding the actual problems
I understand many of them pretty well, but i could always learn more!
instead, they have been deliberately (((stifled))). Ask for more if interested.
In general i think we are in agreement on this. I am very much asking for more, and would like to subscribe to the newsletter!
Some of what we are discussing has relevance to what i call aether-mcarthyism, an example of the “stifling” above. No one ever seems to consider the military / national security significance of physics ;)
Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can.
Fair enough. The law [phenomenon] of gravity is caused by density, but not the density you are likely thinking of.
Things only fall because they are heavier than the volume of media they displace. The density is weight density, and the interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it is what causes gravity, levity, and neutrality.
There are no experiments (that i am aware of anyway!) that contradict this, or support your view that “gravitation” is in fact responsible for those phenomena. In fact, the only experiments that exist regarding gravity show plainly that the interplay mentioned above is certainly the cause (experimentally verified).
Before we go too far down the rabbit hole, i would like to clarify that an experiment is NOT an observation. Many things presented as experiments, especially in regards to gravitation, are in fact - merely observations. The cavendish observation/procedure is probably the quintessential one. It is in no way an experiment, was never referred to as an experiment by anyone involved with it, and does not even involve a hypothesis.
Experiments are hypothesis tests. They, provisionally, validate or invalidate a valid hypothesis by establishing a causal relationship between at least one IV and DV. Hopefully we can agree on this scientific definition, and discard the colloquial erroneous/unscientific ones.
Has what you are describing ever been taught?
Certainly! Has it been taught by anyone other than me? I assume so, though it would be surprising if they used the exact same terminology.
It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either
Things we make up are, by default, not real. Doubly so in science! It has to be known/demonstrated to be real and measured in order to be part of empiricism [aka science].
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations.
You are misunderstanding me. There is no significance to fictional terms in an equation which describe things which do not exist in reality.
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times.
Again, that mass could not possibly be the mass we use today. That is a synonym for matter. There is no magical field in keplerian times to bestow weight to base mass. Please let me know if you disagree!
and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).
Density is at least as old as archimedes, and likely much older. The density you are talking about, mass density, could obviously only exist after newton.
Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one
Lol, making things up isn’t science. Proposing and believing stupid things, then teaching it en masse to scores of students is NOT science. Epicurus never established any scientific principle. There is nothing to overturn. Ergo, with newton’s invocation of it, there is also nothing to overturn.
except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
Of course it can, and should! When we make things up / guess, instead of practicing rigorous science, we are essentially guaranteed to be wrong, and are engaging in mythology. Of course it isn’t completely impossible that we could guess and turn out to be correct, but this would be both extremely rare and require extraordinary validation.
This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
I didn’t say it was always easy/convenient to measure them! I just said that everything real can be measured. It’s a fundamental axiom of science, and required for it (empiricism). Yes, you can measure the volume and weight of a cloud. No, it isn't easy or convenient.
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible
It is done through experiment. You hypothesize the mechanism and then experimentally validate it to confirm/refute that hypothesis. I agree it isn’t foolproof, is provisional, and historically is doomed to be overturned - but it is certainly (provisionally) possible.
All that can be known is falseness
Science is comprised only of partial, provisional, positive statements. Negative statements require the totality of knowledge to verify. This is the cause of clarke’s first law.
it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is
So you believe, and i do not! That is the rub! Science has no place for belief, except limitedly in generation of hypothesis.
so usefulness is all that we have
Perhaps, but it is important to be aware of the distinction all the same! Conflating the two together is a grave mistake. I agree with sagan on this point, that “correct” is absolutely determined as best as possible - yet still provisionally - by experiment in science.
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible
Interesting! So not so much a “contribution” as an impediment to powered flight, but interesting all the same. Clarke’s first law strikes again!
Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.
Interesting! And thanks for the link - i’ll take a look. It seems newton may be a source for our modern “phantom time hypothesis” after all!
The top two panels are the same.
NPC’s won’t/can’t do more research than a couple quick google searches and “factchecker”/“debunker” canned responses anyway.
Everything on both lists could be absolutely real, and they would never know.
PEOPLE WHO USE THE WORD AUTHORITARIAN
Oh no, is that another word you don’t know the definition of? Try looking it up! That’s what we do when we don’t know what words mean.
IM JUST TELLING YOU FACTS
In all caps with incessant ad hominem, attitude, and emotion. If you could skip all that, get a handle on your emotions, and actually “just tell me facts” this would be a far more productive conversation and much less unpleasant for you.
AND REFUSES TO LARN HOW REALITY WORKS
Not at all! As i said, first i have to figure out what it is you are trying to teach about how reality works (which is made much harder with your constant bitching), and then i have to validate it is correct! We are still on step one, but this would go much faster without all your drama. This is a mundane conversation that doesn’t warrant any offense, and your emotions and your pride are getting the better of you :(
- “please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.”
Since there are so many examples “ALL OVER THIS THREAD” why can’t/couldn’t you mention even one specifically?
- I'll skip this part
You skip a lot, but what i write is for your benefit - not mine. Your all caps and vapid insult have no impact on me, they only hurt you :( It is sad that you can’t see that, and i want to help you to be able to communicate effectively with me and others in the future if i can. On the other hand, you can continue to refuse my help and just “skip” the whole conversation!
CORECT YOUR WRONG IS NOT PART OF TEACHING
If you want to teach people, or even just communicate with them effectively - a necessary prerequisite to teaching, you have to have them tell you what you told them in their own words/understanding. This is what “examination” [aka exams] are for in education. Just because you have taught/said something to someone doesn’t mean they automatically understand it properly - you have to check! Yes, a lot of teaching is correcting peoples errors in understanding and repetition is necessary to effectively teach/communicate.
YOU HAVE NO DUTY
I disagree with this degenerate libertine “philosophy”. We have duty, and a part of it is to share the truth we discover with others. Even if we didn’t have such a duty, we should want to to expose that truth to criticism for refinement, to encounter other’s truth, and to make the world better through the elimination of ignorance [the cause of evil]! You can never have too much truth! I agree that truth is an ideal, and i am more than happy to settle for validated/demonstrable fact in the meantime.
NO, NOT AT ALL, SILENCE IS GOLDEN, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO STFU
Fair enough, if you feel that way - then practice what you preach and don’t share your “truth” in the future. Simple. As for me, i like to learn from others and to communicate and that can’t be done through silence. Enjoy your monastery and quiet contemplation (it should help you)!
SO APPEAL TO CON-SENSES
As i’ve told you before, you have been spending too much time steeped in the flat earth psyop - it’s bad for you. This isn’t a debate, which is a stupid game to keep morons busy - this is (supposed to be) an earnest discussion. It is not an appeal to consensus when you point out the fact that words have definitions, and that if you use different/opposite definitions you need to make that clear to the person you are discussing with if you want to communicate with them. It’s basic semantics/language, not appeal to anything.
OK, WHICH PERCENTASGE OF LIGHT BLOCKING?
Opacity is a scale, opaque is the maximum on that scale (100% of visible light to answer your question) - everything beneath that maximum is translucent and then the minimum - transparent.
Opaque means visible light (typically. in a scientific context it can refer to non-visible light frequencies) blocking - not partial / not a percentage of it - all of it. The ground is opaque and so we can not see through it. If it were non-opaque we could see through all of it or colloquially - through some of it.
DEPTH IS QUITE PHYSICAL, ITS REALLY THERE
Who said it wasn’t? It is just that depth appears [looks] different because of the laws of perspective. In reality it is exactly the same as the other dimensions (length and width), just in another axis.
“ Do you understand what i am saying now?” YES
You misspelt “no”. You might want to read it again and try to understand it earnestly. If you still don’t understand what i mean, and/or disagree then ask questions and/or provide specific criticism. Repeating “No you’re wrong, la la la la i can’t hear you” over and over is not specific criticism, it is embarrassing childish stupidity.
APPERENT DOES NOT MEAN ILLUSION, IT MEANS ostensible rather than actual
If there is a difference between ostensible and actual - then there is a necessary component of illusion/misunderstanding involved. If you take offense at the word, insert a synonym - instead of “illusion” read “not actual”.
Then you’ll agree and stop bitching?
IT DOESNT MAKE THAT GROUND AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.
Right, as i said repeatedly - the ground is not an optical illusion (that would be stupid), the apparent rising of it is! As you said, it appears to rise but it isn’t actually.
BUT ITS JUST AN OPTICAL BATTLE OF TWO APPERENTS THINGS AND THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER
In terms of brightness - usually the deciding factor in “winning” (like with the stars during daylight) - the sun would always win.
Light can’t block other light, and though it can “wash out” dimmer light making it appear to us that it is blocked (like with light from the stars during daylight) the brighter light never “loses” in such “contests”.
In any case, your belief that it can cannot be demonstrated (on a smaller scale / repeatable controlled demonstration) which is another good indicator that it is wrong.
NO ONE SAID MAKING MODEL WAS EASY
I don’t care for models. I care about determining what is going on in reality, and that is NOT what models are for.
LOOK AT 25 PHOTOS OF A ZOOMED IN HORIZON WHERE YOU CAN STILL SEE THINGS PROTRUDING FROM THE HORIZON, NOTICE HOW THINGS BEFORE THE HORIZON ARE 3D WHILE THINGS BEYOND THE HORIZON ARE NOT
Photos are 2D. They cannot (and do not) contain depth. No matter where the photographed target is - closer than, beyond, over the horizon - it will always be 2D!
Do you have, or can you find, 2 photographs (any two photographs) where you think one has depth in it and the other doesn’t? It may help to convey what you are thinking/saying.
oH LOOK, ANTHER BASELESS CLAIM
As i’ve said before, what better base can there be for a claim than your own observations?! Go outside, watch a plane receding from you overhead. It will change apparent size as it does so. Take pictures so you can compare the size when overhead to the size as it approaches the horizon.
You really don’t seem to understand why things change apparent/angular size as they recede - otherwise you couldn’t believe that it would stop at some distance. You’re locked into defending some stupid position because you are trapped in a “debate” in your imagination (against yourself!). The sun doesn’t change apparent size MUCH, but that is no reason to get locked in to your position.
DID THE DEPTH DISAPEAR?
Yes! That’s what i’ve been saying to you this whole time. Depth comes from two eyes. Perspective doesn’t disappear (which causes the illusion/“not actual”/apparent tapering towards the vanishing point), at any distance. Depth disappears the moment you close one eye.
“your foolish pride” PROJECTION
I’m only trying to help you - for both our benefits, despite your protests and childish behavior. It is not pride that encourages me to continue trying to discuss with/reach you. It IS your pride which prevents you from just no longer responding, communicating effectively, and enjoying this discussion which is about a topic you clearly/should have a great interest in!
WRONG, ITS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE CORRECT ORDER, SO YOU ALWAYS KNOW YOUR PLACE
Authoritarian morons always think stupid, proud, and egotistical things like this. They use force because they can’t use intellect. If you have intellect, then you (typically) don’t need to resort to baser methods. If you have it, use it! If you don’t then i understand why you are acting the embarrassing way you are - and you should too and work harder at it!
YA, BY YOU REVERTING TO YOUR IM A VICTIM FEELINGS TO PROTECT YOUR PRIDE IN BEING A LOW IQ STALKER + TROLLER
You are the only one who has volatile feelings in this, which is why you are acting so emotional and unable to have a simple and mundane conversation with me. I’m not the victim of your actions/emotions, you are! As i said, if you don’t get control over them you will continue to be their slave.
IM JUST TELLING YOU THE TRUTH,
If only you had the truth to give (and i always give the benefit of the doubt, and hope that you do have such truth to share!), then you wouldn’t need to yell/insult/condescend! You could just plainly share your truth and answer my questions about it, with no unpleasant emotion (which is causing YOU distress!).
YOUR USING DOUBLE SPEAK AND WRONG THINK
Doublespeak is when you say one thing and mean another, or say both contradictory/paradoxical things out both sides of your mouth. Please provide one example of me doing that so i can explain myself (likely a misinterpretation on your part, but possibly an unintentional mistake on mine!)
As for wrong think, that’s when you tell someone their views are unacceptable and they aren’t allowed to have them. It is NOT when you tell someone their views are incorrect, like when you point out that the definition of the words and terms they are using are not in any available dictionary or encyclopedia. There is no reason to take such offense! You are swinging wildly with these baseless criticisms because your feelings have been hurt - but it was not (and is not) my intention to hurt them or you in any way.
If you think that isn’t the case, and there is any merit to the criticisms above, please provide specific examples so we can discuss them.
THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP HARPING ON YOUR EMOTIONAL DAMAGE AND FEELINGS OF ATTITUDE, IS IT TO DISGUISE THE WEAKNESS OF YOUR LOGIC
It is a disguise for the weakness of logic - that’s exactly what i said! I have never harped on MY emotional damage, but the damage you are allowing your emotion to cause yourself (and this otherwise easy and mundane conversation) :( You are so afraid and threatened at being wrong that you have been freaking out almost from the beginning. Cast off your needless fear along with your foolish pride which causes it. You make mistakes all the time! You are wrong about lots of the things you think and say! Take heart! So does/is everybody else!
IM NOT TEACHING ANYTHING, IM JUST CORRECTING YOUR WRONG.
You are trying (failing currently) to teach your explanation for the cause of the sunset, your unique definition for diffraction limit, your unique (and opposite) definition for opaque, that 2D has depth, one eye can perceive depth, the list goes on and on. Yes, correcting peoples misunderstandings of what you teach is part of teaching!
ALSO TEACHERS GET PAID
If we have the truth, brother or sister - it is our duty to share it. Why bother sharing a video like this in the first place? Did you really expect to be paid for it? Sharing the truth is its own reward, don’t you agree?
THIS WORD ALSO HAS SYNONYMS WHICH HINT AS ITS OBSURRED COMPLTE MEANING
Even if this were true and supported your usage, the definition of the word is common among people and exists. When you use the word incorrectly, in this case with your belief that it means the opposite of what the definition does, that causes confusion when trying to communicate! You shouldn’t get mad about it; opaque means light blocking - not translucent (they are different words for a reason!). When you redefine common words you should try to make sure you are both upfront about that and that there is a good reason for doing so. You did neither - you just immediately used the word incorrectly.
“Depth appears different due to perspective, but that is an illusion – obviously.” WRONG
Surely you mean to say, right. Go back to your cube example. You hold it up and slightly tilt it forward so you can see the top of it clearly. you know that it is a cube, and has exactly equal height, width, and depth. Yet when you observe the top in the dimension of depth - you can see that it tapers like a trapezoid towards the back! The top of the cube is a perfect square, but in the dimension of depth it APPEARS to be a trapezoid. This is an illusion. Do you understand what i am saying now?
THE GROUND AT THE HORIZON IS REALLY THERE , ITS NOT A OPTICAL ILLUSION, IT IS QUITE PRYSICAL
No one said the ground was an optical illusion - that would be stupid. I said that the apparent rising of it was an illusion. It may LOOK like it has risen in the distance, but it hasn’t (assuming it is flat, that is).
It is never in between the sun and the observer (when it is flat). So if it is never between it, then regardless of how opaque or “non-opaque” it is, it can never block any light coming from it. Right? Can you explain/describe how the ground blocks light when it isn’t ever between the light and the observer?
IVE SEENS TONS OF VIDEO OF ITEMS DISPPEARING BOTTTOM FIRST OVER 50 FEET ON A TOTALLY FLAT FLOOR
Me too! But when i try to replicate them, i can’t. Have you tried to replicate any of them? Videos can be misleading, and i prefer to validate things myself - not trust the tv [screens] - don’t you agree?
Also in those videos the item is usually right against the surface of the flat plane, not above it and allowing perspective to make the two appear to converge AND when you zoom in the “occulted” portion is fully restored - so it isn’t really analogous to what you think is happening with the sunset. The sun is always FAR above the ground, even when it appears (due to perspective) to be close to it.
“but you think depth exists in 2D” GOOD
No, it isn’t good to think things that are clearly wrong. Depth does not exist in 2D - by definition/convention. It doesn’t matter how far that 2D plane is from you - there is NO depth in it nor is depth possible in 2D.
YEAH FOR A SHIP 10 MILES AWAY, SURE, BUT THE SUN IS MUCH MUCH FURTHER AWAY
That’s exactly my point. no amount of magnification can restore the “occulted” part of the boat once it has partially “set over the horizon”. Of course the bottom of the sun, although certainly much further away, can ALSO not be restored for the same reasons. The light from the bottom of it is simply not reaching the observer anymore. no amount of magnification/optics could ever change/fix that.
WELL IF DEPTH IS AN ANGLE, WHERE DOES THIS ANGLE END
It isn’t an angle, but i understand what you mean when you say that. Depth is a linear dimension, along with height and width. Perceived/experiential depth is caused by parallax from the difference between what the left and right eyes see. Your “depth angle” conception requires two eyes to be sensical.
Yes, there is a distance at which objects do not exhibit noticeable parallax and so we do not experience noticeable depth as a result (although, as i said - the brain has other tricks to infer depth when that detail is missing - light/shadow etc.). This distance is NOT the diffraction limit, and beyond it objects still shrink in apparent size as they recede for all the same reasons they do when they are closer. You may be correct about other things you are saying, but these things are plainly and demonstrably wrong.
“Experiential depth is from parallax” STOP MAKING UP WORDS THAT MEAN SHIT, PARRALAX IS COMPARING ONE VIWW TO ANOTHER
Yes, exactly! I recognize that the word parallax is not usually a word applied to visual/experiential depth, but it is completely appropriate when you understand what parallax is. Your brain compares the one view from the left eye, to the one view from the right eye - and that is how it generates experiential depth! Haven’t you ever wondered how 3D glasses work?
, AND DEPTH IS NOT DUE TO YOU HAVING TWO EYES, WE WENT OVER THIS
Depth IS due to having two eyes, and we DID go over this. But effective communication (and education, beyond that) requires repetition! Don’t you remember? :)
OBVIUOSLY YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF DIFFACTION LIMIT IS POOR
Perhaps, but i know what it is and didn’t simply make up a new definition for it (or worse, pick it up from someone else who also didn’t know what it meant). Why can’t/won’t you just look it up?
wHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE DEFINITIONS IN THE DICTIONARY ARE PERFECT ALL THE TIME
Nowhere! And i am perfectly fine with redefining words when there is a good reason to, or even just arbitrarily for the purposes of a conversation / effective communication. Your pride is the only thing preventing you from admitting (and even recognizing!) that the common definition (that everyone else knows and uses) for opaque is the opposite of the one you use. Why not just admit it, and move on?
WHY DO YOU ASSUME IM UNCORMFORTABLE
I don’t assume! You are demonstrating it through your embarrassing behavior :( You are also literally saying it when you say this conversation is “rape”. Unless you are most comfortable when being raped?
IVE ASKED YOU 6 TIMES TO STOP BUGGING ME WITH YOUR MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF REALITY
And yet your foolish pride doesn’t allow you to simply stop responding yourself - which would have ended this “conversation” immediately! I’m using your weakness against you, for your own benefit, and i do it out of love for the subject and for you brother or sister!
I assure you, though this discussion is very difficult for you - it will benefit us both if you continue it. It will not be so uncomfortable if you can just calm down and discuss logically/rationally. We are talking about objective reality, and there is no reason to be emotional - even when you are wrong! Pride is a fool’s fortress and shame’s cloak - cast it off if you can and you will be better for it!
MY CONDESENSION IS EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED
Condescension is never needed. It is a flimsy shield to protect your pride :( As long as i am “the idiot” and you are the “intellectual superior”, you never have to admit your mistakes, earnestly engage in conversation with me, or learn anything.
It’s an excuse to avoid discussion, and you would do well to drop it if you can. If you are my intellectual better, then you don’t need to resort to petty rhetorical trickery. You can just convey your perspective and answer my questions. No need for ad hominem, emotion, and attitude - those are only needed when your position and thoughts are weak. Strong ideas stand on their own merits and don’t require (or benefit from) belligerence and condescension.
AND YOURE RESISTING LEARNING
Lol. If you have something of value to learn, i will surely learn it! First i need to understand what it is you are teaching (which has been hard enough with all your emotional bitching), then i need to validate/confirm that it is correct. Does that sound so unreasonable to you?
THE REASON YOU DONT UNDERSTAND OPAQUE IS BECAUSE IT IS A SCALE
You aren’t following. Opaque is a word, it has a definition - look it up.
Yes, it is true that nothing is fully opaque. no, that isn’t relevant. For god’s sake pick up a dictionary, or if not - simply accept that you are using the word with your own definition (that differs from everyone else's) and make that clear.
There is good reason to do that sometimes, though in this case i don’t see it. We have three words that do the jobs just fine - opaque (blocking), translucent (partially blocking), and transparent (minimally/no blocking).
dOES THAT MEAN THAT DEPTH IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, THAT ITS NOT REALLY THRERE ?
Yes. The cube doesn’t taper towards the back of it the way it appears, it only appears that way because of perspective. You even said exactly this previously in this conversation (or perhaps it was in your video).
Of course depth exists, but it is no different than width or length. They are arbitrary (by convention) linear dimensions. Depth appears different due to perspective, but that is an illusion - obviously.
YES, THE GROUND IS OBSTRUCTING THE APPERENT ANGLE TO THE SUN
But how can the ground obstruct when it isn’t in the way? Also, can you demonstrate this believed phenomenon on a smaller scale? If not, why not? Please do not ignore this question yet again. It is the crux of the conversation.
ANGULAR RESOLUTION
Exactly. That IS the diffraction limit, they are one and the same.
The reason things shrink is due to perspective, and the reason they cannot be resolved after a certain amount of distance is because their angular resolution is too small to be seen.
i KEEP TELLING YOU THEY ARE NOT.
Only because your definition of diffraction limit is wrong. To everyone else, they are one and the same. To you, diffraction limit has something to do with depth - but that isn’t the case for everyone else.
A THREAD WILL DISPPEAR FROM YOUR EYE AFTER 10 FEET, IS THAT BECAUSE ITS REACHED ITS APPERENT SIZE LIMIT OR REACHED THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT?
Both! They are one and the same.
(ITS THE FIRST) tHE SUN IS ALWAYS BEYONG THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT, BUT ITS STILL RESOLVABLE IN 2D, length AND WIDTH, NEVER DEPTH.
Yes, you have said this many times - but you think depth exists in 2D so that kind of unmakes your position :(
I don't think you know how nonsensical what you are saying is. I would like to help, or at least help you to effectively communicate your views to others in the future.
CHANGING THE ANGLE OF INCEDENT LIGHT JUST ENOUGH FOR THE OPTICS TO LET ITS REFRACTED LIGHT REACH YOUR EYE
This is almost correct! The only, minor, criticism i have is that the light from the small boat was always reaching your eye - the lens just increased the angular resolution so you could see it again.
i SUPPOSE YOU COULD DO THE SAME WITH TH SUN
You would suppose incorrectly. We already have adequate magnification - the bottom of the “set” ship cannot be brought back. Not with 1000 not with 5000 not with a million. The light from it is NOT reaching the observer anymore. Wasn’t this your whole argument? The ground is occulting (blocking/preventing) the light from the sun (or bottom of the ship) from reaching the observer - so no amount of optics could ever restore it...
iF YOU DOUBT THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS ALSO YOUR LIMIT TO PERCIEVING DEPTH MAYBE YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSEF WHAT IS DEPTH BUT A PERCIEVED ANGLE
I know that it has nothing to do with depth, but i understand that your (unique to you) definition of it defines it that way.
Experiential depth is from parallax - comparing the view from the right to the left eye. We’ve been over this!
THOSE LINES BEING 1. YUOR EYE HIEGHT + 2 DISTANCE TO THE OBLECT - AS THAT ANGLE APPROACHES ZERO, ITS DEPTH IS UNABL TO BE PERCIEVED
So you can’t perceive the depth of an object that is directly at your eye height? (Because the line of your eye height is directly in line with the distance to the object). Please correct this understanding if i have misinterpreted you. I am imagining a perfectly straight line coming out of your eyes, and a direct line (hypotenuse) from the object to your eye - so if the line from your eye is the same as the one to the object (as it is whenever the object is directly in line with your eye) then you cant see the depth of a basketball if you hold it in front of your face? You couldn’t possibly mean this, so please let me know where/how i have misunderstood you.
think OF THAT WORD AS A SCALE OF OPAQUNESS
Ok, if you wish - for the purposes of effective communication in this discussion i am happy to. As long as you are aware it isn’t what the word means and isn’t the way it is used by anyone else. When we want to talk about an object that blocks light, we call it opaque. When we want to talk about an object that is slightly opaque, we call it translucent.
aLSO AS CONVERSATION IS BETWEEN 2 WILLING PEOPLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS
I know this is uncomfortable for you. I am challenging your views, and i am asking questions that are hard for you. You do NOT have to continue it, but i am quite sure that if you do - it will benefit us both.
I THOUGHT I BLOCKED YOUR RETARDED ASS
I’m glad you didn’t! This conversation will benefit both of us as long as you can keep control over your emotions. Your feigned condescension is a flimsy shield, and if you are correct - you wouldn’t need it at all anyway!
OPAQUE MEANS TRANLUCENT
I understand that you are using it that way, but - no - opaque means light blocking (look it up!). Translucent means translucent. That’s why they are separate words and are NOT synonyms! I’m concerned you picked this up from wherever you got your flawed conception of diffraction limit from...
ITS YOUR DUMB ASS THAT IS MISCONSTRUEING APPERNT AND ILLUSION
Consider it “poetic license”. What i meant was, and you seem to understand and agree with my meaning, that the surface only appears to rise in the distance - it doesn’t actually rise (it’s an illusion created by the way we see / laws of perspective). Because the ground doesn’t actually rise - it can’t actually block/“occult” anything. Again, since you believe it can actually block things - even though it is NOT in the way of them and only appears that way if you misunderstand perspective - can you demonstrate this perfectly flat surface blocking/“occulting” things in the distance on a smaller scale? If not, why not?
OF COURSE THE GROUND CAN BLOCK THINGS
Things that it is in front of / obstructing - yes! But the ground isn’t obstructing the sun in the distance. There is no ground in between the sun and your eye. The apparent perspective that the ground is rising up in the distance is an illusion (it isn’t ACTUALLY happening, it just looks that way because of the laws of optics). So, since it seems like we agree, if the ground is NOT in between your eye and the light from the sun - how could it ever block the light from it? This is the crux, so please don’t ignore this question even though it will be very difficult for you.
YOUR DESCRIBING THE APPERNT SIZE LIMIT OF AN OBJECT,
As i’ve explained several times now (effective communication takes repetition!), apparent size is caused by perspective.
YOU DONT UNDERSTASND WHAT THE DIFFRACTRION LIMT IS
Believe me, the feeling is mutual :) Try to stay cool and keep control of your emotions - they are making this mundane conversation a LOT harder than it has to be.
My understanding of the diffraction limit is the same/similar to everyone else that learns about it - while yours is wildly different. I don’t have a problem with that, personally, but you should be aware of it when you are discussing with other people! Otherwise using a term with an existing definition like “diffraction limit” and meaning “the point beyond which depth of an object is no longer perceivable” will only cause confusion!
The diffraction limit is the angular resolution limit - they are one and the same. Please let me know if you disagree, or don’t understand what I’m saying.
THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS BASED ON YOUR EYE HEIGHT,
No, it isn’t. It isn’t dependent on your altitude in any way. Your personal definition of it may be - but not the actual/common definition. The distance to the apparent horizon does change with altitude (eye height) and it seems this is what you mean.
SO WHEN YOU USE A ZOOM LENSE, YOUV CHANGED YOUR EYE LENSE, SO U CHANGED THE DISTANCE, DUH
But that’s my whole point, and the reason for discussing the small boat disappearing BEFORE reaching the horizon (which you call the diffraction limit)! You didn’t change the distance at all! The distance to the visible horizon remains the same, and once that small boat goes “over it” no amount of zooming will ever restore it. By your own admission, the diffraction limit is the horizon AND the distance to it does not change regardless of the magnification you use. Please let me know if you disagree!
What the magnification lense does is increase the angular size of the distant small boat so that it is above your eye’s diffraction limit / angular resolution limit so that you can resolve [see] it again
It does not, and cannot, change the distance to the horizon nor see things that have “set” “over” it. Right? So in your view, the diffraction limit remains the same (i.e. the horizon stays the same distance from you) no matter what magnification you use).
THE DIFFACTION LIMIT (AKA THE HORIZON) IT S NOT JUST AT THAT LINE, ITS ALL AROUND YOU IN 360 DECREES
True, which shows that the horizon is not the diffraction limit. The horizon could be A diffraction limit, but the diffraction limit exists absolutely every direction you look.
ITS THE LIMIT OF PERCIEVING DEPTH
You should be aware that this is only in your definition. Diffraction limit has a meaning, and it does not include anything about “perceiving depth”. I am fine with using alternate definitions, but you need to be aware that when you use this term trying to communicate your ideas with others - that your definition is wildly different than most everyone else’s.
If you don’t believe me, please look it up!
iF IT WAS THE LIMIT OF ALL SIGHT AS YOU SUGGEST, @ LETS SAY 10 MILES , AND IT EXISTS ALL AROUND YOU (NOT JUST AT THE HORIZON, HOW DO YOU SEE THE SEE THE SUN ABOVE YOU AT NOON , IS THE SUN WITHIN THE DEFRACCTION LIMIT?
Now you’re asking the right questions! Yes, the sun is within the diffraction limit (everything you can resolve as an object with your eye is)! The diffraction limit isn’t a flat/fixed distance, it is a distance that depends on the size of the object and the receptor density in your eye! Of course, this is for actual diffraction limit, not the term you are using which doesn’t exist in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or textbook.
i THINK THE POPLE THAT CALL fLAT eARTH A PSYOP ARE THE PSYOP
Ok. However, you should know that i don’t call flat earth a psyop. i call it an extremely valuable subject. I call the flat earth psyop a psyop which has the purpose of suppressing, preventing, and discrediting the valuable subject and its earnest researchers.
NAW YOUR JUST HERE TO WASTE MY TIME
I know it feels that way, but that is just an emotion you are allowing to get in the way of communication. I am having (attempting to have, in any case) this conversation to benefit us both! If you are wrong, i would like you to know it and to understand why. If i am wrong, i would like to know it and understand why.
WOW SEE THIS IS HOW STUPID YUO ARE
This is a somewhat fair point. I commented first, so therefore i started the conversation - fair enough. I should have said, and meant, that this conversation is entirely voluntary and you have no obligation to continue it. I only do continue it because i value the subject and want to explore it further as well as exchange views on it with other people with the same interest in it. Hopefully you are of a similar perspective!
sO IF YOU WANT TO QUESTION THE TRUE MEANING OF OPAQUE, THEN WHY ARE SNYOMS FOR THAT WORD ambiguous arcane cryptic dark deep Delphic double-edged elliptical elliptic enigmatic enigmatical equivocal fuliginous inscrutable murky mysterious mystic nebulous obscure occult
You don’t seem to understand a lot of the definitions of those synonyms either, or you would see the pattern. Dark (is translucent dark?). Inscrutable/cryptic (is transparent / see-through inscrutable/cryptic?). You bothered to look up the word opaque in a thesaurus but couldn’t bother to just look the word up in a dictionary first? You are letting your pride hurt you - let it go! We all fuck up all the time. So you used the word opaque incorrectly - who gives a shit? Recognize your mistake, apologize if you feel like it, and most importantly try to do better in the future! If you refuse to recognize and admit your mistakes, you are doomed to make them again :(
YOUVE MUCH TO LEARN
Yes, that’s always true and the feeling is very much mutual. Don’t give up on learning, and don’t run away just because the conversation is difficult for you and not going the way you hoped. Stay frosty. Learning and sharing knowledge is difficult, takes a LOT of effort and repetition, but it is well worth it - for yourself and others!
The ground is non opaque , opaque being translucent or see though
Opaque is the opposite of translucent or see through. If the ground were translucent or see through, then we would expect to see through the ground and it wouldn’t fully “occult” things anymore. Right?
You are so busy yelling, insulting, and becoming emotional that you don’t even notice the MANY silly mistakes you make.
it optically rising, is not an optical illusion
So the ground is REALLY rising in the distance? And railroad tracks are REALLY growing closer and closer together in the distance as they appear to us? Are you sure it doesn’t just LOOK like these things are happening because of the laws of perspective (i.e. they are optical illusions)? You don’t actually think you have to go uphill on a flat plane to reach the horizon do you?
The optical rising is precisely that - optical. It isn’t actually rising and as such it can’t actually block anything.
apparent size and the diffraction limit are not the same thing, stop conflarting the 2
I’m not, you are just misunderstanding me. The diffraction limit is the distance where you stop being able to resolve an object. Technically it is right at (or right beyond) the distance where the object you attempt to resolve has shrunk to (or beyond) a point. The reason for apparent size has nothing to do with the diffraction limit, it is due to perspective. Please let me know if you still don’t understand or need more clarification!
When you zoom ion on the boat - YOUR NOT USING YOUR EYE
How would you zoom in with your eye? Why are you answering a (stupid) question no one asked? The question was - if a boat disappears from view and no longer has visible depth long before reaching the horizon (what you call the “diffraction limit”) then what is the diffraction limit at all? It can’t be the point at which you can’t perceive the depth of distant objects anymore, because that would necessarily include the tiny boat which you can’t see the depth of and ISN’T at the diffraction limit yet (according to you)?
NO MY UNDERWTANDING OF DIFFRACTION LIMIT IS NOT UNIQU TO ME
It is not the correct/common understanding. you have made up a new term with new attributes. Or someone else did, and you adopted it.
Diffraction limit means something. It has a definition which you can look up whenever you feel like it. It has nothing at all to do with the perception of depth. Go ahead, look it up.
dUUDE fLAT eARTH IS NOT THE pSYOP.
I agree. “Flat earth” is not the psyop. The flat earth psyop is the psyop. The shape of the world, or studying independently to determine what it is - is in no way a psyop. The massively advertised and funded advertising campaign of “flat earth” - often including ostensibly stupid, and trivially refutable claims like that perspective is the cause of sunsets IS. It is a controlled opposition and part of the larger anti-flat earth psyop designed to prevent, suppress, and discredit this valuable subject and its earnest researchers.
YOUR TOO DUMB TO LEARN ANYYTHING
Lol. You have been struggling to answer my simple questions and scream and insult when i don’t automatically agree with you :( It would be easy for me to conclude that you are too stupid to understand my questions or criticisms of your views, but i know that communication takes time and you are suffering from pride :( I would like to help, but you sure aren’t making it easy!
Pride is a fool’s fortress and shame’s cloak. Cast it off if you can. It’s hurting you, and preventing you from being able to share your views as well as refine them. It’s also preventing you from properly understanding me, because you assume i must be stupid to protect your damaged and flimsy pride :(
fOR THE LOVE OF GOD , GO AWAY.
You began this conversation, and i know it didn’t go the way you hoped it would where everyone in your echo chamber automatically agrees with you and parrots what you say. However you have no obligation to continue it or to learn anything - ever! You can keep thinking that opaque means translucent/transparent, you can keep thinking that perception of depth has some bearing on angular size (it doesn’t), and you can keep thinking that the diffraction limit has something to do with depth perception (it doesn’t).
I don’t like that you will continue to be demonstrably wrong and try and share those mistakes with others completely unwittingly and with undeserved condescension - but i can’t stop you and i can’t force you to do any better (nor would i if I could)!
I just want to help you to share your ideas effectively, and to expose them to rational criticism and validation so that they can become better refined. Screaming and running away from that is what the religious do to protect their flimsy beliefs. Don’t be a zealot if you can help it, and stay frosty!
The rising optical non opaque ground that ends at your eye height, thats why the background becomes occulted
The rising of that non opaque ground is an optical illusion, how can an optical illusion physically block light? Can you demonstrate this on a smaller scale? If not, why not?
Your example it just ridiculous cause i dont think you could ever see a car past the horizon
I should have been more careful with my phrasing. I meant beyond the distance to the visible horizon at sea level (which is a few miles give or take - and you claim is the diffraction limit/distance) You can easily see beyond a few miles from a higher vantage point, like a mountain - which is why i specified that in the example.
If you believe that the diffraction limit changes when you are up higher - what causes that in your view? Diffraction limit does not change with altitude, and is a physical limitation of the eye/receiver itself.
you just contradicted yourself by saying of course they are different things and then stating how they are the same
This is why we need repetition in communication! You just misunderstood me, but your misunderstanding only became clear when you repeated your interpretation of what i told you! Now i can clarify your misunderstanding. This is the way it is supposed to work!
The horizon isn’t exactly the diffraction limit. The diffraction limit IS the distance at which objects (the distance depends on the size of the object) shrink to dots, then become fuzzy dots, and then disappear. The example you gave of the small boats that completely disappear but can be zoomed in upon and fully restored is the perfect example. They are beyond the diffraction limit for the eye, which is why they are no longer visible - even though they are still there and the light from them is still reaching your eye. They can only be brought back into view by the eye with magnification, and they are not yet at the distance of the horizon. This shows plainly that the horizon and the diffraction limit are separate. Please let me know if you still don’t understand or disagree!
Objects can become too apparently small to see well before the diffraction limit, and just because an object has reached the diffraction limit, doesnt mean it will shrink to a dot.
Your definition of diffraction limit is unique to you. It has a meaning to everyone else, and has nothing to do with depth perception. I think i understand your particular meaning, but you haven’t been able to convey/explain what depth has to do with seeing objects. The boats that have shrunk too small to see anymore but are not beyond the horizon yet don’t have any depth. But you say they are not yet at the diffraction limit? So things that are within/before the diffraction limit can also lack depth? Then what really determines when depth suddenly stops being perceivable, if it isn’t the distance to the diffraction limit?
you can perceive depth from one vantage point,
Yes, with two eyes. Those are the two vantage points which allows for the brain to process the parallax into experiential depth.
With one eye, that can’t happen. It’s just like watching a tv. Without the 3d glasses, you will not experience depth. You can still infer depth (from artistic perspective, light and shadow, etc. but the image you are viewing is 2D and 2D has no depth. Please let me know if you still disagree that 2D has no depth.
question is beyond the diffraction limit, so depth never reaches your eyes.
There is no depth in a 2D image, and images of things beyond the diffraction limit can’t be seen as anything but a blur... You fundamentally don’t seem to understand what the diffraction limit is, or why.
Depth is not required to see an objects angular size.
some of us dont need parroting
You misunderstand. Repetition is not merely parroting (though it certainly can be)
Repeating exactly what you said again, either you or me, is usually not helpful/elucidating.
Repeating what i understood from what you said IS, and is required to be certain that my understanding of what you said is what you meant to say. Language is imprecise, and we are not perfect.
Im just trying to tell you facts you demonstrated here
I’m more interested in demonstrating/validating the facts you are claiming are correct. Anyone can (and often does) claim facts - but that isn’t good enough in and of itself to determine if the claimed fact is correct. First i have to understand the facts you are claiming, then i need to validate them.
my video does not say perspective causes sunsets, it say occultation does
Your video is a minor variation, and even says explicitly in the beginning of it that the perspective limit that the horizon is referred to as by other flat earthers is not incorrect - just incomplete.
If i was the one "learning" i wouldn't debate the host with repeated parrotings, like you are.
I know this is difficult for you. I am not trying to make it hard, and i’m not parroting. I am certainly not debating, because that is a stupid game for morons. I am just trying to understand your perspective and validate it. If you were correct, and i was incorrect - i would want to know it! Hopefully you feel the same way in the reverse case too!
im super cool
Super cool people don’t have caps lock attacks, and don’t mindlessly/reflexively attack the person they are speaking to because they don’t like what they have to say. Ad hominem is the last resort of the intellectually feeble. They attack the thinker out of desperation because they lack the competency to attack the thought.
Stay cool, attack the thought!
YOU HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THAT YOURE WRONG
Of course! That’s why i am (trying to anyway) discussing with you! If i am wrong, i should like to know it and to know how i can validate it for myself! How about you?
A TACTIC FROM DISINFO TROLLS LIKE YOURSELF
You are the (only!) one who is childishly insulting... Speaking of “disinfo tactics” and the actions of trolls.
Try to stay on topic. Address content, not the speaker!
ANOTHER WALL OF WRONG, FROM THE TROLL DESPERATE 4 Attention not wasting my time dealing with your crazy
That’s too bad, i guess you can’t keep control of your emotions well enough to even consider having a conversation about how you might be incorrect or defend your views. I hope you cool off, regain composure/capacity, and try again one day!
I’m no troll, and i don’t seek attention. I seek truth and rational discourse. Your emotion is preventing both rationality and discourse, sadly :( You can’t learn or share your learning with others as long as you flip out like this whenever there is a disagreement/differing view.
iM NOT SAYING "PERSCPECTIVE" CAUSE SUNSETS
The video you shared does. Anyway, as i said - you are saying something a little different which i stated (my understanding/interpretation of) clearly in the last comment. Did you see it? Responding to it may help me to understand, and you to explain now and in the future, your position.
STOP PUTTING YOUR STUPID IN MY MOUTH
I’m not intending to do that. As i said, i earnestly receive and interpret what you say and share that with you so that you can correct it if needed. Why not just correct it, instead of mindless emotional tirade that serves no one, explains/clarifies nothing, and makes you stressed?!
YOU ARE A BLACK HOLE OF ERROR
Perhaps, but if this is so - i should like to know how i can determine/validate that for myself and do better! If you were, in fact, the black hole of error - wouldn’t you want the same?!
FOR IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF
For idiots and geniuses alike. All humans require repetition to effectively communicate and learn. There is no shame in admitting that reality.
WHERE'S THE POST THAT MY GOAL IS TRYING TO CONVINCE IDIOTS OF A THING
Who said you were?
YOU WILL DIE AN IDIOT - 100% POSITIVE.
Again, try to stay cool. You are letting your emotions get the better of you, and misconstruing attacks on/criticism of your views as criticisms of yourself - necessitating/justifying this embarrassing attack in your mind.
Such emotion only serves to make communication and learning (in either direction) impossible. Stay frosty, brother or sister! If you don’t master your emotions, you will continue to be their slave :(
YOU ARE COMPARING ONE DEPTH PERCEPTION TO A SECOND EXAMPLE OF DEPTH PERCEPION
There is only the one - actual depth perception. It comes from having two vantage points a known distance apart from one another and comparing the different images. The brain has tricks to approximate such things when that data is not available - the way we can “see/perceive” three dimensions when looking at a two dimensional image, or blocking one eye - but this isn’t real depth perception - it’s an estimation based on light/shadow and other things.
aS TO WHY THERE IS NO NOTIBLE PARRALAX IN THE STARS IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PERCIEVABLE DEPTH
Stars (of which planets are one type - the “wandering” kind) DO have noticeable parallax which is how determinations of their depth are calculated. The planets have parallax from two observers spread out on the world, and stars have parallax over the course of the year.
In any case, this is all moot because we are in agreement. When looking at a star or planet with your eyes you do not perceive depth (because they are too far away, and our eyes are too close together).
THR APPERENT SIZE OF AN OBJCT MAY DISSAPPEAR TO YOUR EYES BECAUSE OF INBILTY TO FOCUS ON IT
That’s true! That’s because of the size of the object and the receptor density, just as i explained! You don’t seem to understand what the diffraction limit / angular resolution limit is or what causes it. I can help if you let me!
If the object is larger, or the receptor density is greater - you can resolve it - regardless of its distance to you (assuming of course, its light can reach you and is bright enough when it does!)
THERE ARE STILL 2 OTHER DIMENSIONS U CAN PERCIEVE, THOSE BEING LENGTH AND WIDTH
You are positively obsessed with “depth”. Depth is in no way required to see the angular size of objects distant or very close. Why on earth do you think it is?
Imagine a picture. A 2 dimensional picture. No depth, right? Now imagine, in that same picture, you are looking at a car and a bus that are in the far distance one driving in front of the other - perhaps a view from a mountain - which are both much further than the distance to the visible horizon ( a few miles ). Do you really believe that you won’t be able to tell if the bus is larger than the car in the picture? The angular size that is apparent when viewing distant objects does not suddenly stop existing when you lack depth or when things are beyond the distance of the visible horizon. I cannot understand why you think they would, could, or ever do.
APPERENT SIZE ANF DIFFACTION LIMIT ARE NOT THE SAME THING
Noone said they were! The diffraction limit / angular resolution limit is the point at which you can no longer resolve an object of a given size - because it is too small (apparent size) for the receptor density in your eye. It (diffraction limit/angular resolution limit) is the distance limit where the view of distant objects shrink to a dot (then becoming a fuzzy dot) and then disappear.
THE DIFFRACTION LIMIT ENDING WOULD NOT CAUSE AN OBJECT FROM 10 MILES AWAT TO SHINK, IM NOT SAYING THAT, YOU ARE
You seem to be misunderstanding me. The diffraction limit is the distance at which objects of a particular size (dependent on your receptor density) can no longer be seen AFTER they have shrunk to a dot. The “cause”, if you like, of the apparent shrinking is perspective.
ONCE AN OBJECT IS ACTUALLY OCCULTED, THE ONLY WAY TO BRING IT BACK IS TO RAISE YOUR VIEWING HEIGHT
Right, because the light from the “occulted” object is no longer reaching the observer. What is blocking the light? Why can’t the object be zoomed back in upon, like you can with the boats which have disappeared due to being beyond the diffraction limit of the naked eye? If your view were correct, you ought to be able to do that - right?
You're discarding successive experiment, experiments which led to the discarding of the theory you are proposing.
Not to my knowledge, no. There are no experiments which contradict my, historical, view. If you know of one to discuss, please mention it!
We still use archimedes’ principle today!
You call are calling mass 'weight', and what everyone else calls weight, you call 'effective weight' - the terminology doesn't change what you are talking about.
It seems that way at first glance, and is often taught that way - but it is incorrect. Certainly there are some conceptual parallels though.
Mass, like gravitation, is entirely fictional. It does not exist outside of equation and does not refer to any quantity of matter. The mass of an object does not refer to the matter - however weight does. Mass is simply mass - a calculated fiction with no reality. Weight, on the other hand, is a property of the matter itself.
It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as.
Effective weight is the measured weight - which includes many sources of variance chief among them being buoyancy.
The concept of Mass is ancient,
The concept of matter is ancient. Mass is attributed to newton. Who do you think spoke of mass prior to the concept of gravitation existing to imbue it, magically, with weight?
This concept is also ancient, also dating to Grecian times.
Again, this is not exactly right - though the word gravity (not gravitation) did exist and was used by epicurus. He is who newton credits with the philosophically unsound (i.e. unscientific) concept of gravitation which newton invoked. It was stupid (and unscientific) then to assume that there must be an intrinsic magic that attracts all matter to all other matter, and it is stupid now for the same reasons. At least newton fully understood that when he invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem.
I suspect you don't know the buoyant force is measurable
That’s a silly thing to suspect. Real things are all measurable!
That is, the effect of buoyancy in air, due to its density (which is also measurable) is some 3 or 4 decimal places smaller than the measured effects of gravity
If true, that is interesting. However it doesn’t change much even if it were,
Minuscule attraction between some types of matter does not demonstrate the existence of the fictional entity contrived to explain it. It just isn’t how science works. If you want to prove that gravitation is real, and the cause of weight - you need to demonstrate that gravitation is a real entity in the first order (no - minuscule attraction between some types of matter is not that, that is merely attraction) and then experimentally validate the hypothesis that it is responsible for causing weight by manipulating it. Newton didn’t bother to even try to do any of that - why di you think that is? He famously didn’t so much as offer a hypothesis because he recognized and accepted that it could not be done.
In short, it hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
You aren’t exactly understanding the “grift”. There is no mass to measure. There is no gravitation to measure. There is ONLY weight. Of course mass and gravitation equal the weight we measure - we ensure/define that they do.
It isn’t so much an issue or right and wrong, or true or false. It is an issue of real (empirical) or fictional (unemperical).
Again, the math doesn't pretend to describe the realities of how nature works, and assuming math describes realities will get you lost very fast.
That’s true, and a big part of my point. Mass and gravitation has been “sold” as real through the usefulness of such equations. I agree that a grave error has been made in looking for reality inside equation (it’s out here!), and get’s you lost very fast. The quantumnists are some of the biggest offenders, and people, in general, struggle with (and are encouraged to struggle/avoid) the difference between useful and correct.
It was also refreshing to hear your, correct, description of mathematics. Math worship is a scourge and i encounter it a lot!
Something isn't right about how this is worded - as if you assume that science is something that is 'practiced' by practicians
That is a part of my point, however science - especially today - does have a rigorous definition that outlines the something that is practiced (what we call the scientific method).
Even in the early formative baconian method, not much has changed. People who adhere to that method to understand nature are scientists and practicing science - those who do not aren’t.
It is fundamentally unreasonable to expect newton to “practice science” the way modern scientists did after him - however he certainly did do a lot of good empirical science - but the invocation of gravitation is not among that.
Science has never historically been done by 'scientists' as a profession.
That doesn’t bother me in the slightest! In my view, anyone who adheres to the scientific/baconian method is practicing science and is a scientist. Anyone who doesn’t - isn’t one even if they are a salaried/employed scientist!
but his enormous contributions are certainly worthy of note,
Completely agreed! I like newton, the arrogant agelastic prick.
from calculus,
Mathematics - essentially gravitation was invoked under his efforts as a mathematician - not an empirical physicist/scientist.
to contributions to flight,
I’m not aware of this. What are you talking about?
to cleaning up the known chronology, etc.
Scholar, this is probably the most appropriate term for newton. This is the first (second, technically) i’m hearing about any of that, but i am intrigued. In what way did he clean up the chronology and where/when did you hear about this?
Don’t forget optics!
No, there most certainly are not. Many people believe they can see the curve of the horizon even from sea level or on a commercial plane (MUCH higher than any building). It is completely impossible to see any such curvature from either (even if it existed), but people still believe they do. Placebo is powerful business.