Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Alternative Science Subforum

Alternative Science Subforum Everything from novel but testable hypotheses to Pseudoscience

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-17-2012, 05:31 PM   #1710500  /  #801
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,832
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
...
Nice to see you understand why Maxwell demons like "long age biopreservation", "dark energy" and "dark matter" are nothing other than modern-day epicycles, introduced to save the appearances in a program of research which otherwise would have to admit to a vast, gaping maw between its predictions and observations.

Good work, Vix!
Lord, but you're dumb.
You still haven't looked up Maxwell's Demon?
Even after your nose was rubbed in the mess you made of it?

You've reinforced my point: you have no idea what you're talking about. But even more: you've shown that you're incapable of learning, even when your errors are explicitly pointed out.
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 05:36 PM   #1710507  /  #802
buttershug
Hung
Zaptonia Defense Champion, Summer Sports Match Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Mario & Friends Tower Defense Champion, Budapest Defenders Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Flash RPG Tower Defense Champion
 
buttershug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 18,331
buttershug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
...
Nice to see you understand why Maxwell demons like "long age biopreservation", "dark energy" and "dark matter" are nothing other than modern-day epicycles, introduced to save the appearances in a program of research which otherwise would have to admit to a vast, gaping maw between its predictions and observations.

Good work, Vix!
Lord, but you're dumb.
You still haven't looked up Maxwell's Demon?
Even after your nose was rubbed in the mess you made of it?

You've reinforced my point: you have no idea what you're talking about. But even more: you've shown that you're incapable of learning, even when your errors are explicitly pointed out.

He probably read it on a preaching to the choir website.
And doesn't understand that that stuff is not to be thought about or analyzed and certainly not discussed with people who think things through.
__________________
Quote:
Only the madman is absolutely sure.

Robert Anton Wilson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3YQ24i1wP0
buttershug is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 05:53 PM   #1710529  /  #803
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,832
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
...
He probably read it on a preaching to the choir website.
And doesn't understand that that stuff is not to be thought about or analyzed and certainly not discussed with people who think things through.
Seriously, Rick...
Where DID you get your "understanding" of what Maxwell's Demon is?
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 05:56 PM   #1710533  /  #804
Rick DeLano
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 705
Rick DeLano
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGodfrey View Post
And Rick's evidence for any of this bullshit is what pray? You know damned well that the co-ordinate shift doesn't account for this.

You still haven't explained why bullets behave the way they do, nor how weather and earthquakes slow down the universe.
Well, Dave, at least you've given up on the Voyager bs.

That is well.

Let's pretend for a minute that the earthquake/weather arguments had never occurred to the GC scientists.

Let's assume that this is something they just.......didn't happen to consider.

Now.

Let's see if you can walk the walk, or if you just talk the talk.

PROVE scientifically, that is, by direct, repeatable observation:

1. The rate of rotation of the Earth is changed by earthquakes.

2. The rate of rotation of the Earth is changed by weather.

Once this evidence is in hand, we'll see whether it constitutes the kind of "Voyager" knockdown you have just hilariously fallen flat on your face with........

or whether it constitutes a legitimate challenge to the model, which would be really cool.

Let's just assume nobody in the GC camp ever thought about this before, OK?

This will be fun.

Oh: btw the bullets argument is more stupidity based on the same ignorance of Einstein which sank your "Voyage". Unnecessary to refute. It refutes itself, if advanced by any objector operating within the metaphysical assumptions of relativity. See Einstein:

“If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around”--Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

Last edited by Rick DeLano; 02-17-2012 at 06:00 PM.
Rick DeLano is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 06:02 PM   #1710546  /  #805
Rick DeLano
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 705
Rick DeLano
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
...
He probably read it on a preaching to the choir website.
And doesn't understand that that stuff is not to be thought about or analyzed and certainly not discussed with people who think things through.
Seriously, Rick...
Where DID you get your "understanding" of what Maxwell's Demon is?
From Dennis Sciama, Vix.
Rick DeLano is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 06:10 PM   #1710554  /  #806
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,832
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
...

Well, Dave, at least you've given up on the Voyager bs....
What makes you think he "gave up" on the Voyager evidence? And what makes you think it's "bs"?
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 06:15 PM   #1710559  /  #807
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,832
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
...
He probably read it on a preaching to the choir website.
And doesn't understand that that stuff is not to be thought about or analyzed and certainly not discussed with people who think things through.
Seriously, Rick...
Where DID you get your "understanding" of what Maxwell's Demon is?
From Dennis Sciama, Vix.
Well, you got it wrong.
I'm quite certain that Sciama never said "Maxwell's Demon" was anything like what you're saying here. More demonstration that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but are incapable of learning.

Of course, I'm going to look pretty foolish when you produce the quote from Sciama supporting this definition of Maxwell's Demon, amn't I?
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 06:42 PM   #1710596  /  #808
DaveGodfrey
Demoderated
 
DaveGodfrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,812
DaveGodfrey
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGodfrey View Post
And Rick's evidence for any of this bullshit is what pray? You know damned well that the co-ordinate shift doesn't account for this.

You still haven't explained why bullets behave the way they do, nor how weather and earthquakes slow down the universe.
Well, Dave, at least you've given up on the Voyager bs.
Nope. I'm still waiting for you to reconcile what you actually think -that is, that relativity is bunk, with what you're arguing- which requires relativity.
Quote:
That is well.
You're nearly as condescending as Socko the Clown.
Quote:
Let's pretend for a minute that the earthquake/weather arguments had never occurred to the GC scientists.

Let's assume that this is something they just.......didn't happen to consider.
Let's see you deal with the objection then...
Quote:
Now.

Let's see if you can walk the walk, or if you just talk the talk.

PROVE scientifically, that is, by direct, repeatable observation:

1. The rate of rotation of the Earth is changed by earthquakes.

2. The rate of rotation of the Earth is changed by weather.
References have already been supplied by others.
This graph for instance:



Quote:
Once this evidence is in hand, we'll see whether it constitutes the kind of "Voyager" knockdown you have just hilariously fallen flat on your face with........
I'm still standing, and you're still ignoring the questions.
Quote:
or whether it constitutes a legitimate challenge to the model, which would be really cool.

Let's just assume nobody in the GC camp ever thought about this before, OK?
Why should I "pretend" anything. Answer the question. Its a direct challenge to your model.
Quote:
This will be fun.
Indeed...
Quote:
Oh: btw the bullets argument is more stupidity based on the same ignorance of Einstein which sank your "Voyage". Unnecessary to refute. It refutes itself, if advanced by any objector operating within the metaphysical assumptions of relativity. See Einstein:
But you claim that Einstein is wrong. Elsewhere you've already stated you don't agree with relativity. You can't claim Einstein as support and then claim he's wrong. So your inane repetition of Einstein is irrelevant.
__________________
Why do I bother?
DaveGodfrey is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 07:08 PM   #1710635  /  #809
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 22,616
RAFH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
To Queenie

Quote:
The distance from Voyager to Earth decreases slightly for a brief period every year.
No, Queenie. The distance changes over the course of the year. The Earth does not stop and change directions in your model. It orbits the Sun on a non-uniform path.

Do the coordinate shift, you dunderhead.
Bzzzt! Wrong, well, you are partially right, it doesn't stop. But it does change direction, continually, resulting in an orbit which at times takes it closer to Voyager, at times perpendicular and at times away. Sort of like the merry-go-round takes you closer and farther away from the brass ring dispenser.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Quote:
Why is that Princess?
Because you are a dumb as a fencepost, Queenie.
Oooh, that's a strong argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Quote:
I know you crapped your pants again and ran from the earthquake and wind data too, but one messy accident for Rick at a time.
Queenie, you are apparently too stupid to understand Einstein. I have quoted him enough that even you ought to have gotten the hint by now. But you haven't.

I can only suppose this is because you are too stupid to do so.
You have repeatedly quoted one phrase which you think supports your view. I don't think that qualifies as understanding Einstein.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Rick earlier:
Oh, oh, self-quotification. Look out Occams. He's using the Ultimate Validation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Quote:
The graph is equally attributable to:

1. An orbital motion of Earth around Sun
2. An orbital motion of cosmos around Earth
Wait, I thought the cosmos orbited the earth on a daily basis, not an annual one. For the effect you claim, it would have to be engaged in an epicyle of approximately 1AU radius, as Occams has pointed out. Can you offer any explanation for such a motion?

Interestingly enough, this same phenomenon is observed the other planets and solar system objects, the distances to which vary annually. In fact, they all are observed to orbit the sun, rather than earth. Unless you start adding in those pesky epicycles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Queenie:

Quote:
HOW Princess? How PHYSICALLY does the universe stop, reverse direction, and move the Voyager closer to the stationary Earth?

HOW Queenie? How PHYSICALLY does the Earth stop, reverse direction, and "move the Voyager" closer to itself?
Um, seems you've treid to answer Occams' question with a question. Not good protocol. Worse, your question also needs answering, by you. If the earth is stationary, how does it "move the Voyager" back and forth, along with the universe?

By the way, our model does not state that any of these objects stop and reverse direction. What it does state is the earth is in orbit, roughly circular. That results in an apparent back and forth motion. Just think about a piston engine, with the piston going away from and back towards the crankshaft. The bearing the connecting rod connects to on the crankshaft is akin to the orbit of the earth, going round and round the axis of the crankshaft, and the piston goes back and forth. For our model, that's all that's required, simple orbital geometry and mechanics. For yours, you need to explain why the entire universe traverses a 1AU epicycle. Make sure you include the forces and mechanics to explain this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
You poor blunderer.
Yes, you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Do the coordinate shift.

Take whatever explanation you have (you will notice it does not involve the Earth stopping and changing direction, but instead translating in a non-uniform orbit about a point taken as fixed: the Sun).

Now.

Take the Earth as fixed.

Have the cosmos perform an annual series of daily orbits around it, on a non-uniform path.

Yeah.

That's right, Queenie.

You just figured out Einstein:


"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."
*
---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212
But you are not dealing with the issue. In the standard model, this apparent motion is readily explained. Simple orbital mechanics. In your model, there is this epicycle of 1AU radius. Do you have an explanation for this epicycle or will you just ignore it?

Also I think you have quote-mined Einstein here, I believe the context of the above was limited only to the earth-sun system, and was illustrative only of the principle of the interchangeability of mathematical coordinate systems.

I suspect this because you are using a quote from Einstein to reject Einstein. It's a pretty common tactic of pseudos, like yourself.

Anybody out there have the full context of this quote?

As a matter of fact, neither of the statements in the above quote are true, other than a simple abstract illustrations (the sort your ilk fall all over themselves about), models as it were. Neither the sun nor the earth are at rest, they orbit each other. Of course, the center of those orbits much closer to the center of the sun than to the center of the earth.

Oh, by the way, how do you explain the wobble of the earth's axis, and it's precession? I suppose you could employ a Field of Ignorance on this as well. I'm sort of amazed you can maintain so many of these FoIs at one time. It must be exhausting.
__________________
Invent the Future
RAFH is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 07:21 PM   #1710663  /  #810
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 29,985
Steviepinhead
Default

Quote:
I'm sort of amazed you can maintain so many of these FoIs at one time. It must be exhausting.
Crop rotation.
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 07:27 PM   #1710683  /  #811
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,832
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
...
He probably read it on a preaching to the choir website.
And doesn't understand that that stuff is not to be thought about or analyzed and certainly not discussed with people who think things through.
Seriously, Rick...
Where DID you get your "understanding" of what Maxwell's Demon is?
From Dennis Sciama, Vix.
By the way, did I call this sort of bullshit, or what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
... And this, in a nutshell, is pretty much the extent of any of Dr. Rick's "arguments". He'll mention this or that author, as if that proves his point, as if it's OUR job to go look up everything said author wrote and show how it DOESN'T prove his point. Standard pseudoscience troll procedure.
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 07:32 PM   #1710693  /  #812
Resi
Token Female
 
Resi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 3,376
Resi
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
To Resi:

Hi Resi! Sure I remember you. <snip>
Thanks for your detailed comment. Just give me some time, please, to go over it with a fine comb - might take some time.
Resi is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 07:58 PM   #1710740  /  #813
Rick DeLano
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 705
Rick DeLano
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGodfrey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGodfrey View Post
And Rick's evidence for any of this bullshit is what pray? You know damned well that the co-ordinate shift doesn't account for this.

You still haven't explained why bullets behave the way they do, nor how weather and earthquakes slow down the universe.
Well, Dave, at least you've given up on the Voyager bs.
Nope. I'm still waiting for you to reconcile what you actually think -that is, that relativity is bunk, with what you're arguing- which requires relativity.
Quote:
That is well.
You're nearly as condescending as Socko the Clown.
Quote:
Let's pretend for a minute that the earthquake/weather arguments had never occurred to the GC scientists.

Let's assume that this is something they just.......didn't happen to consider.
Let's see you deal with the objection then...
Quote:
Now.

Let's see if you can walk the walk, or if you just talk the talk.

PROVE scientifically, that is, by direct, repeatable observation:

1. The rate of rotation of the Earth is changed by earthquakes.

2. The rate of rotation of the Earth is changed by weather.
References have already been supplied by others.
This graph for instance:



Quote:
Once this evidence is in hand, we'll see whether it constitutes the kind of "Voyager" knockdown you have just hilariously fallen flat on your face with........
I'm still standing, and you're still ignoring the questions.
Quote:
or whether it constitutes a legitimate challenge to the model, which would be really cool.

Let's just assume nobody in the GC camp ever thought about this before, OK?
Why should I "pretend" anything. Answer the question. Its a direct challenge to your model.
Quote:
This will be fun.
Indeed...
Quote:
Oh: btw the bullets argument is more stupidity based on the same ignorance of Einstein which sank your "Voyage". Unnecessary to refute. It refutes itself, if advanced by any objector operating within the metaphysical assumptions of relativity. See Einstein:
But you claim that Einstein is wrong. Elsewhere you've already stated you don't agree with relativity. You can't claim Einstein as support and then claim he's wrong. So your inane repetition of Einstein is irrelevant.
You have been completely refuted on Voyager, and all similar arguments self-falsify.

We move on to the earthquake/weather argument.

Your "evidence" consists in an image I cannot read.

It does not link to a primary source.

Please rectify.

Also please tell me exactly how this constitutes scientific evidence of a variation in the Earth's rotational speed- how was the evidence obtained, what observational framework was used as the fixed frame of reference by which it was obtained, etc.

Thanks in advance.
Rick DeLano is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 07:59 PM   #1710744  /  #814
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,832
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
...
You have been completely refuted on Voyager, and all similar arguments self-falsify.
Right.
Just like I have been about Maxwell's Demon:
By Dr. Rick saying so.

__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 08:16 PM   #1710766  /  #815
uncool
Senior Member
Plasmatron Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 13,862
uncool
Default

Rick, you haven't responded to this post yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncool View Post
What general relativity says is that there are no preferred inertial frames, Rick. A rotating frame (such as the "one of the bucket") is not an inertial frame; the laws of physics are different (namely, we see an extra gravitational force in that frame).

A gravitational force, by the way, means any force that is proportional to mass (in general relativity).
=Uncool-
Do you understand this?
=Uncool-
uncool is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 08:16 PM   #1710767  /  #816
Rick DeLano
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 705
Rick DeLano
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
...
He probably read it on a preaching to the choir website.
And doesn't understand that that stuff is not to be thought about or analyzed and certainly not discussed with people who think things through.
Seriously, Rick...
Where DID you get your "understanding" of what Maxwell's Demon is?
From Dennis Sciama, Vix.
Well, you got it wrong.
I'm quite certain that Sciama never said "Maxwell's Demon" was anything like what you're saying here. More demonstration that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but are incapable of learning.

Of course, I'm going to look pretty foolish when you produce the quote from Sciama supporting this definition of Maxwell's Demon, amn't I?

Yup.


"No one would take this theory seriously, of course. One reason for this, no doubt, would be the obviously ad hoc and, indeed, ludicrous appearance of the theory. But the fundamental reason for objecting to the theory is that the demons cannot be observed except through the very phenomenon they were invented to explain. The introduction of the demon thus adds nothing to what we know already"---Dennis Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, 1961, p. 103, emphasis his.
Rick DeLano is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 08:20 PM   #1710771  /  #817
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,832
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
...
He probably read it on a preaching to the choir website.
And doesn't understand that that stuff is not to be thought about or analyzed and certainly not discussed with people who think things through.
Seriously, Rick...
Where DID you get your "understanding" of what Maxwell's Demon is?
From Dennis Sciama, Vix.
Well, you got it wrong.
I'm quite certain that Sciama never said "Maxwell's Demon" was anything like what you're saying here. More demonstration that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but are incapable of learning.

Of course, I'm going to look pretty foolish when you produce the quote from Sciama supporting this definition of Maxwell's Demon, amn't I?

Yup.


"No one would take this theory seriously, of course. One reason for this, no doubt, would be the obviously ad hoc and, indeed, ludicrous appearance of the theory. But the fundamental reason for objecting to the theory is that the demons cannot be observed except through the very phenomenon they were invented to explain. The introduction of the demon thus adds nothing to what we know already"---Dennis Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, 1961, p. 103, emphasis his.
That's odd;

no mention of Maxwell anywhere in that quote.

Try again.
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 08:31 PM   #1710782  /  #818
Rick DeLano
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 705
Rick DeLano
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttershug View Post
...
He probably read it on a preaching to the choir website.
And doesn't understand that that stuff is not to be thought about or analyzed and certainly not discussed with people who think things through.
Seriously, Rick...
Where DID you get your "understanding" of what Maxwell's Demon is?
From Dennis Sciama, Vix.
Well, you got it wrong.
I'm quite certain that Sciama never said "Maxwell's Demon" was anything like what you're saying here. More demonstration that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but are incapable of learning.

Of course, I'm going to look pretty foolish when you produce the quote from Sciama supporting this definition of Maxwell's Demon, amn't I?

Yup.


"No one would take this theory seriously, of course. One reason for this, no doubt, would be the obviously ad hoc and, indeed, ludicrous appearance of the theory. But the fundamental reason for objecting to the theory is that the demons cannot be observed except through the very phenomenon they were invented to explain. The introduction of the demon thus adds nothing to what we know already"---Dennis Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, 1961, p. 103, emphasis his.
That's odd;

no mention of Maxwell anywhere in that quote.

Try again.
No, that's OK.

Sciama, unlike you, is capable of generalizing from particulars.

Asked, answered.

Now.

About that earthquake/weather primary source data........
Rick DeLano is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 08:35 PM   #1710789  /  #819
uncool
Senior Member
Plasmatron Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 13,862
uncool
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Seriously, Rick...
Where DID you get your "understanding" of what Maxwell's Demon is?
From Dennis Sciama, Vix.
Well, you got it wrong.
I'm quite certain that Sciama never said "Maxwell's Demon" was anything like what you're saying here. More demonstration that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but are incapable of learning.

Of course, I'm going to look pretty foolish when you produce the quote from Sciama supporting this definition of Maxwell's Demon, amn't I?

Yup.


"No one would take this theory seriously, of course. One reason for this, no doubt, would be the obviously ad hoc and, indeed, ludicrous appearance of the theory. But the fundamental reason for objecting to the theory is that the demons cannot be observed except through the very phenomenon they were invented to explain. The introduction of the demon thus adds nothing to what we know already"---Dennis Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, 1961, p. 103, emphasis his.
That's odd;

no mention of Maxwell anywhere in that quote.

Try again.
No, that's OK.

Sciama, unlike you, is capable of generalizing from particulars.

Asked, answered.
No, that isn't an answer, Rick. We're asking you to show that that's a use for the phrase "Maxwell's demon" anywhere. I at least am certain that you are using the phrase incorrectly, as I know what is meant by Maxwell's demon. However, it is possible that I have learned incorrectly, and am willing to correct myself if you show that it is necessary. So far, you have not in this matter. Where can you show a use of the phrase "Maxwell's demon" that specifically denotes what you said it does?
=Uncool-
uncool is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 08:42 PM   #1710796  /  #820
eversbane
Big Time Nerd.
 
eversbane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PETM
Posts: 23,770
eversbane
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
<< woooooooooo >>
that was fun
__________________
"probability isn't an absolute fact about the world"
-Febble
"None of these labels are very homogeneous."
-Febble
"equilibrium points are not dense in the phase space."
-el guapo
eversbane is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 08:43 PM   #1710797  /  #821
Rick DeLano
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 705
Rick DeLano
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncool View Post
Rick, you haven't responded to this post yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncool View Post
What general relativity says is that there are no preferred inertial frames, Rick. A rotating frame (such as the "one of the bucket") is not an inertial frame; the laws of physics are different (namely, we see an extra gravitational force in that frame).

A gravitational force, by the way, means any force that is proportional to mass (in general relativity).
=Uncool-
Do you understand this?
=Uncool-
Yes, uncool. If we accept relativity, then the bucket experiment is explainable in Machian terms.

The problem is that we must believe in magic (action at a distance, curved space-time) in order to believe Relativity's Machian explanation.

If we agree to believe in this, we can leave all absolute frame arguments out of the question entirely- under Relativity none can, possibly, exist, by postulate.

The only way to proceed in this discussion would be to falsify that postulate.

This is done, I think, by requiring that magic be ruled out, and forces logically demonstrated to physically propagate via a physical medium.

On these grounds, I argue that Newton's Bucket discloses an absolute frame, just as Sagnac does.
Rick DeLano is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 08:50 PM   #1710802  /  #822
uncool
Senior Member
Plasmatron Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 13,862
uncool
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLano View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncool View Post
Rick, you haven't responded to this post yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncool View Post
What general relativity says is that there are no preferred inertial frames, Rick. A rotating frame (such as the "one of the bucket") is not an inertial frame; the laws of physics are different (namely, we see an extra gravitational force in that frame).

A gravitational force, by the way, means any force that is proportional to mass (in general relativity).
=Uncool-
Do you understand this?
=Uncool-
Yes, uncool. If we accept relativity, then the bucket experiment is explainable in Machian terms.

The problem is that we must believe in magic (action at a distance, curved space-time)
So your claim is that curved space-time is magic? Because honestly that's getting pretty ridiculous.
Quote:
in order to believe Relativity's Machian explanation.

If we agree to believe in this, we can leave all absolute frame arguments out of the question entirely- under Relativity none can, possibly, exist, by postulate.
False, and a basic misunderstanding of relativity. Relativity says that there are no preferred inertial frames. That's not the same thing. To go further, this fact is what you just acknowledged.
=Uncool-
uncool is offline   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 09:00 PM   #1710808  /  #823
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,832
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncool View Post
No, that isn't an answer, Rick. We're asking you to show that that's a use for the phrase "Maxwell's demon" anywhere. I at least am certain that you are using the phrase incorrectly, as I know what is meant by Maxwell's demon. However, it is possible that I have learned incorrectly, and am willing to correct myself if you show that it is necessary. So far, you have not in this matter. Where can you show a use of the phrase "Maxwell's demon" that specifically denotes what you said it does?
=Uncool-
I guess Dr. Rick thinks that the "Maxwell's" part of the phrase, "Maxwell's demon" is completely irrelevant; you've seen one demon, you've seen them all.

Frankly, I don't know whether what we see here is stupidity or dishonesty. I think it is most likely a combination of the two.

In any case this little side trip has demonstrated, in spades, that he not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but is incapable of learning. Because he's incapable of recognizing when he's wrong. Even when it's this obvious.
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X

Last edited by VoxRat; 02-17-2012 at 09:03 PM.
VoxRat is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 09:01 PM   #1710810  /  #824
eversbane
Big Time Nerd.
 
eversbane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PETM
Posts: 23,770
eversbane
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
To Queenie

Quote:
The distance from Voyager to Earth decreases slightly for a brief period every year.
No, Queenie. The distance changes over the course of the year. The Earth does not stop and change directions in your model. It orbits the Sun on a non-uniform path.

Do the coordinate shift, you dunderhead.
Bzzzt! Wrong, well, you are partially right, it doesn't stop. But it does change direction, continually, resulting in an orbit which at times takes it closer to Voyager, at times perpendicular and at times away. Sort of like the
merry-go-round
takes you closer and farther away from the brass ring dispenser.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Quote:
Why is that Princess?
Because you are a dumb as a fencepost, Queenie.
Oooh, that's a strong argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post

Queenie, you are apparently too stupid to understand Einstein. I have quoted him enough that even you ought to have gotten the hint by now. But you haven't.

I can only suppose this is because you are too stupid to do so.
You have repeatedly quoted one phrase which you think supports your view. I don't think that qualifies as understanding Einstein.



Oh, oh, self-quotification. Look out Occams. He's using the Ultimate Validation.

Wait, I thought the cosmos orbited the earth on a daily basis, not an annual one. For the effect you claim, it would have to be engaged in an epicyle of approximately 1AU radius, as Occams has pointed out. Can you offer any explanation for such a motion?

Interestingly enough, this same phenomenon is observed the other planets and solar system objects, the distances to which vary annually. In fact, they all are observed to orbit the sun, rather than earth. Unless you start adding in those pesky epicycles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Queenie:

Quote:
HOW Princess? How PHYSICALLY does the universe stop, reverse direction, and move the Voyager closer to the stationary Earth?

HOW Queenie? How PHYSICALLY does the Earth stop, reverse direction, and "move the Voyager" closer to itself?
Um, seems you've treid to answer Occams' question with a question. Not good protocol. Worse, your question also needs answering, by you. If the earth is stationary, how does it "move the Voyager" back and forth, along with the universe?

By the way, our model does not state that any of these objects stop and reverse direction. What it does state is the earth is in orbit, roughly circular. That results in an apparent back and forth motion. Just think about a piston engine, with the piston going away from and back towards the crankshaft. The bearing the connecting rod connects to on the crankshaft is akin to the orbit of the earth, going round and round the axis of the crankshaft, and the piston goes back and forth. For our model, that's all that's required, simple orbital geometry and mechanics. For yours, you need to explain why the entire universe traverses a 1AU epicycle. Make sure you include the forces and mechanics to explain this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
You poor blunderer.
Yes, you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Do the coordinate shift.

Take whatever explanation you have (you will notice it does not involve the Earth stopping and changing direction, but instead translating in a non-uniform orbit about a point taken as fixed: the Sun).

Now.

Take the Earth as fixed.

Have the cosmos perform an annual series of daily orbits around it, on a non-uniform path.

Yeah.

That's right, Queenie.

You just figured out Einstein:


"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."
*
---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212
But you are not dealing with the issue. In the standard model, this apparent motion is readily explained. Simple orbital mechanics. In your model, there is this epicycle of 1AU radius. Do you have an explanation for this epicycle or will you just ignore it?

Also I think you have quote-mined Einstein here, I believe the context of the above was limited only to the earth-sun system, and was illustrative only of the principle of the interchangeability of mathematical coordinate systems.

I suspect this because you are using a quote from Einstein to reject Einstein. It's a pretty common tactic of pseudos, like yourself.

Anybody out there have the full context of this quote?

As a matter of fact, neither of the statements in the above quote are true, other than a simple abstract illustrations (the sort your ilk fall all over themselves about), models as it were. Neither the sun nor the earth are at rest, they orbit each other. Of course, the center of those orbits much closer to the center of the sun than to the center of the earth.

Oh, by the way, how do you explain the wobble of the earth's axis, and it's precession? I suppose you could employ a Field of Ignorance on this as well. I'm sort of amazed you can maintain so many of these FoIs at one time. It must be exhausting.
By Jove! I think he's got it!
__________________
"probability isn't an absolute fact about the world"
-Febble
"None of these labels are very homogeneous."
-Febble
"equilibrium points are not dense in the phase space."
-el guapo
eversbane is online now   topbottom
Old 02-17-2012, 09:04 PM   #1710812  /  #825
eversbane
Big Time Nerd.
 
eversbane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PETM
Posts: 23,770
eversbane
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFH View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
To Queenie

Quote:
The distance from Voyager to Earth decreases slightly for a brief period every year.
No, Queenie. The distance changes over the course of the year. The Earth does not stop and change directions in your model. It orbits the Sun on a non-uniform path.

Do the coordinate shift, you dunderhead.
Bzzzt! Wrong, well, you are partially right, it doesn't stop. But it does change direction, continually, resulting in an orbit which at times takes it closer to Voyager, at times perpendicular and at times away. Sort of like the merry-go-round takes you closer and farther away from the brass ring dispenser.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Quote:
Why is that Princess?
Because you are a dumb as a fencepost, Queenie.
Oooh, that's a strong argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post

Queenie, you are apparently too stupid to understand Einstein. I have quoted him enough that even you ought to have gotten the hint by now. But you haven't.

I can only suppose this is because you are too stupid to do so.
You have repeatedly quoted one phrase which you think supports your view. I don't think that qualifies as understanding Einstein.



Oh, oh, self-quotification. Look out Occams. He's using the Ultimate Validation.

Wait, I thought the cosmos orbited the earth on a daily basis, not an annual one. For the effect you claim,
it would have to be engaged in an epicyle of approximately 1AU radius, as Occams has pointed out.
Can you offer any explanation for such a motion?

Interestingly enough, this same phenomenon is observed the other planets and solar system objects, the distances to which vary annually. In fact, they all are observed to orbit the sun, rather than earth. Unless you start adding in those pesky epicycles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Queenie:

Quote:
HOW Princess? How PHYSICALLY does the universe stop, reverse direction, and move the Voyager closer to the stationary Earth?

HOW Queenie? How PHYSICALLY does the Earth stop, reverse direction, and "move the Voyager" closer to itself?
Um, seems you've treid to answer Occams' question with a question. Not good protocol. Worse, your question also needs answering, by you. If the earth is stationary, how does it "move the Voyager" back and forth, along with the universe?

By the way, our model does not state that any of these objects stop and reverse direction. What it does state is the earth is in orbit, roughly circular. That results in an apparent back and forth motion. Just think about a piston engine, with the piston going away from and back towards the crankshaft. The bearing the connecting rod connects to on the crankshaft is akin to the orbit of the earth, going round and round the axis of the crankshaft, and the piston goes back and forth. For our model, that's all that's required, simple orbital geometry and mechanics. For yours, you need to explain why the entire universe traverses a 1AU epicycle. Make sure you include the forces and mechanics to explain this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
You poor blunderer.
Yes, you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick DeLamo View Post
Do the coordinate shift.

Take whatever explanation you have (you will notice it does not involve the Earth stopping and changing direction, but instead translating in a non-uniform orbit about a point taken as fixed: the Sun).

Now.

Take the Earth as fixed.

Have the cosmos perform an annual series of daily orbits around it, on a non-uniform path.

Yeah.

That's right, Queenie.

You just figured out Einstein:


"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."
*
---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212
But you are not dealing with the issue. In the standard model, this apparent motion is readily explained. Simple orbital mechanics. In your model, there is this epicycle of 1AU radius. Do you have an explanation for this epicycle or will you just ignore it?

Also I think you have quote-mined Einstein here, I believe the context of the above was limited only to the earth-sun system, and was illustrative only of the principle of the interchangeability of mathematical coordinate systems.

I suspect this because you are using a quote from Einstein to reject Einstein. It's a pretty common tactic of pseudos, like yourself.

Anybody out there have the full context of this quote?

As a matter of fact, neither of the statements in the above quote are true, other than a simple abstract illustrations (the sort your ilk fall all over themselves about), models as it were. Neither the sun nor the earth are at rest, they orbit each other. Of course, the center of those orbits much closer to the center of the sun than to the center of the earth.

Oh, by the way, how do you explain the wobble of the earth's axis, and it's precession? I suppose you could employ a Field of Ignorance on this as well. I'm sort of amazed you can maintain so many of these FoIs at one time. It must be exhausting.
Occam?


__________________
"probability isn't an absolute fact about the world"
-Febble
"None of these labels are very homogeneous."
-Febble
"equilibrium points are not dense in the phase space."
-el guapo
eversbane is online now   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Alternative Science Subforum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org