Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational:  We are all the Body of Christ.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BenTheBiased

1
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
What's fascinating to me about Heinz (and all persistent defenders of clearly wrong beliefs on the internet) is what's actually going on there in terms of psychology/motivation? Is he...

1. Entirely insincere - just a remarkably persistent troll doing this all for the lulz or as some kind of performance art?
2. Actually that ignorant and ineducable about basic physics (seems almost impossible--I mean, ignorance is one thing, but not getting it after repeated explanation is entirely another--but maybe)?
3. Aware of some basic physics, but so committed to his belief that the cart can't possibly work that he is able to subconsciously rewrite physics in his head in absurd ways just to be able to "prove" to himself that he's right?

3 is the most interesting to me (and maybe the most plausible?) because it's just such a fascinating psychological phenomenon. The other alt-sci "trolls" around here (Hawkins, socrates, etc.) seem to be the same way. There's this extreme Dunning-Kruger effect, mixed with this extreme narcissism where they can't even seem to imagine the possibility that they might be wrong. And then there's the projection. Heinz's go-to insult is to call us cult members when he is the one who is irrationally committed to defending a belief.

I don't know, tldr, I find alt-sci trolls psychologically fascinating.
2
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
The only energy the belt has is rotational kinetic energy!
That depends on exactly how you make the translational/rotational distinction, which to some extent is arbitrary.

It's also a total red herring.  It doesn't matter whether you call the belt's KE "rotational" or "translational".
Yeah, he's using it to try to show some sort of non-equivalence between the belt and the road, but he hasn't actually described a way that this proposed difference would affect the functioning of the cart. Even his ideas of how the cart advances on the belt don't seem to be affected in any way by that distinction. It is entirely a red herring.
3
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
You really don't get Galilean relativity, do you?

Of course not. If he did, he wouldn't be making a fool of himself on this thread.

Imagine if a 50 foot section of that belt were cut and powered only by the horizontal guide rollers. According to Heinz, anything that happened on that belt section would have intrinsically different physics than on the same section being pulled around end pulleys as a continuous belt. Looking at the world his way must be extremely confusing, or just appear as magic.
You can imagine that all you like. I imagine the cart will not advance on such a surface., so irrelevant.
Wait, why wouldn't it? Your theories of how the cart advances don't have anything to do with your belief that the belt is rotating. They have to do with your belief that it's moving at a certain speed and possibly vibrating, right? Why would those factors be any different?
4
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I wonder if he still thinks propeller blades move in a straight line. Hey, Heinz, a propeller is an example of something that actually rotates!
5
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
There's some serious AFDave's 7th Law going on here.
6
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Therefore, there is NO inertial frame where the top of the belt is ever at rest.


Except for the one that's moving in the same direction as the top of the belt at the same speed as the top of the belt, in which, by definition, the top of the belt is at rest.

Same question: If there is paint mark on the belt, does it remain at rest in an inertial frame?

Yes, until it stops being on the top of the belt, at which point it won't be in contact with the wheels of the cart, so it won't be relevant to any interaction with the cart until the cart encounters it again, at which point it will again be at rest. For the purposes of interacting with the cart, it's really no different from painting a mark at fixed intervals on a road. You really don't get Galilean relativity, do you?

You mean "yes, until it rotates"

Yup, "at which point it won't be in contact with the wheels of the cart, so it won't be relevant to any interaction with the cart." Did you miss that part?

You are a fucking clown. The belt rotates, and you just admitted it!

All the belt has is rotational kinetic energy. PERIOD.

The cart can tap into that in any inertial frame.

How can it when it's never in contact with any part of the belt that's rotating?

7
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
You people are idiots.
Well, the ones still responding to you certainly are.
LOL
8
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Therefore, there is NO inertial frame where the top of the belt is ever at rest.


Except for the one that's moving in the same direction as the top of the belt at the same speed as the top of the belt, in which, by definition, the top of the belt is at rest.

Same question: If there is paint mark on the belt, does it remain at rest in an inertial frame?

Yes, until it stops being on the top of the belt, at which point it won't be in contact with the wheels of the cart, so it won't be relevant to any interaction with the cart until the cart encounters it again, at which point it will again be at rest. For the purposes of interacting with the cart, it's really no different from painting a mark at fixed intervals on a road. You really don't get Galilean relativity, do you?
9
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Therefore, there is NO inertial frame where the top of the belt is ever at rest.
Except for the one that's moving in the same direction as the top of the belt at the same speed as the top of the belt, in which, by definition, the top of the belt is at rest.
10
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
If only you'd spent some of that time in physics classes.
11
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
I mean I guess it has to be because if I think about the fact that we basically alienated a country that was helping us for the most idiotic possible reasons, it's just  :gonk:  :staregonk:  Like, on top of the flat-out evil stuff this administration is doing, there's this disastrous stuff they're doing because they're just fucking idiots who have no idea what they're doing. It's just...yeah. This administration can't end soon enough.
13
Science / Re: The Big Bang Theory is Unfalsifiable
Testable predictions that could be the result of something else.
That's why you can't prove a theory true in science. But the Big Bang would still be falsified if those predictions were wrong.
So, you are telling me that huge swaths of Newtonian mathematics that correspond over and over and over again with observable phenomena  are not considered proven? Surely, you jest..
No, not in the sense that mathematical formulas can be proven. In science, repeated success of a theory to make predictions makes it a useful model. It doesn't prove it true in some absolute sense. But that's kind of a side issue. My point was that proving a theory true and proving it false are two distinct concepts. The latter is possible in science. The former is not. The Big Bang could be proven false, so it is a scientific theory.
14
Science / Re: The Big Bang Theory is Unfalsifiable
Testable predictions that could be the result of something else.
That's why you can't prove a theory true in science. But the Big Bang would still be falsified if those predictions were wrong.
15
Or I guess it would be if he ever paid on his bets.
16
Science / Re: The Big Bang Theory is Unfalsifiable
I've heard it said that Portuguese is a combination of Spanish and French.
17
Anyone ever played poker with Hawkins? Seems like pretty easy money.
19
Science / Re: The Big Bang Theory is Unfalsifiable
There are a bunch of clips where people have removed the laughter. I think the overall effect is that the pauses where the actors are waiting for the laughter to subside before delivering their next line tend to come off as vaguely creepy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs
20
Science / Re: The Big Bang Theory is Unfalsifiable
More importantly, it's a crap TV show.
You can tell because it has a laugh track.

I hate hate hate laugh tracks.
true, as a general point, but it feels wrong not to finish by emphasizing that the show itself is just godawfully unfunny.  the fact that its ratings keep going up anyway proves there is no justice in the world.
Maybe equally disturbing is the fact that it actually doesn't have a laugh track. It's filmed in front of a live studio audience. Those are real people actually laughing because they think the show is funny.
21
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
As for the US cooling trend, it shows up clearly in the data.  Even GISS hasn't adjusted the data enough to remove the puzzling "warming hole".
Yes, it's interesting that certain areas during certain times of the year show cooling trends over certain periods while the global average for the year as a whole shows a warming trend. It's not amazing, and it doesn't mean that climate science is bullshit, but it's interesting.
22
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
It was a blatant lie anyway.
There you again. What exactly was "it" that you lied about?

What does "it" mean in your statement?  Lack of clarity is the bane of science.

See? It's hilarious!
23
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
True. It was a blatant lie anyway. Unclear antecedents can be a great source of humor.
24
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Just as a clue, if our data set happened to be planetary surface temperatures between, but not inclusive of, the orbits of Mercury and Mars and we determine an average temperature for that set - do you think there would be outliers?
BTW, I bet this is a pretty devastating point in the argument with the strawman "alarmist" you always seem to think you're having.
25
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
No! Pronouns with unclear antecedents are never funny!