There are no presuppositions about a sphere for a Foucault pendulum. You just set up a big pendulum and start it swinging. Then you watch it precess. Nobody supposes anything to make it happen. It just happens.

Yes, please stop doing that. Please reiterate your definition of "experiment" including your discussion of "natural phenomenon" being something about not having humans involved. And in particular, we can resurrect the discussion about whether human shadows are natural phenomenon.

Let's try something simple. Is my height determinable by science? If so, please describe how it can be done.

I just asked him that with the width of my room. He said measurements are not science and I should stop equivocating or something.


PairTheBoard

This would be your observed phenomenon, correct?
And what is your presumed cause?

As above, we require

a) a natural phenomenon to be observed
b) a hypothesis predicting the cause of this phenomenon
c) experimental validation including independent, dependent and control variables.

No requirement for science, just measure it.

It was masque who was asserting that an observation alone constitutes an experiment which is his equivocation. Then you are asking me for experimental validation for finding a basic length. This was never my claim.

All experiments are observations.

I assume the hypothesis predicting the cause of the phenomenon says there's no force acting on the pendulum to make it change direction, so the ground underneath it must be rotating and that's caused by the rotation of a spherical earth.

So for c) if the hypothesis is true you can predict how the pendulum precesses depending on where on the planet you witness the same phenomenon. In particular, there should be no precession at the equator, and precession in opposite directions at the poles. I don't know what the independent, dependent, and control variables are for those experiments but they are experiments which would falsify the hypothesis if the predictions don't bear out.

That's not to say the experiments "prove" the hypothesis. But that's not the way science works. To be open to the scientific method the hypothesis must be subject to falsifiability via experiment.

What is your objection to that?


PairTheBoard

My objection is that it's a begging the question fallacy by assuming the outcome. Earth rotation is the thing we are trying to prove. Replace 'earth rotation' with 'invisible fairies' and it has the same validity.
This leads to a hypothesis that is an affirming the consequent formal logical fallacy:

If p then q, q therefore p

If earth rotation then precession, precession therefore earth rotation.

So we have a phenomenon that is conjured within the experiment and a fallacious hypothesis but let's run with it anyway and see if we can experiment. We have a dependent variable of rate of oscillation of the plane, our observed phenomenon. The independent variable, which must be our presumed cause, is earth rotation. Well this cannot be manipulated so that's a fail. Let's substitute this with relative position on a presupposed sphere, ie latitude, which we can manipulate by having multiple foucault pendulums at different locations. Earth rotation isn't a variable in the 'experiment', therefore it cannot be proved. Next we are arguing that the cause of the precession is latitude. Man made conventions don't cause things.

If the alternative hypothesis is proved then the null hypothesis is disproved, if the alternative is disproved then the null is proved. Science proves, and disproves.
The null hypothesis of no rotation of the plane of oscillation is equally void. There are videos of people setting up gyros and observing no drift of the plane and concluding this proves earth is stationary. It does not.

Doubling down on the equivocation, fair enough.
An observation is the first bit, the effect. The experiment should confirm or invalidate the presumed cause of this effect. Ie it explains why the thing happens.

The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon

4. Performance of experimental tests

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...AppendixE.html

Not the same thing.

All science is inductive.

We never say if q then p for sure. Only negatives can be proven in science. But if the q is so bloody specific and depends on so many different ps it becomes plausibly very difficult to see other explanations for what is happening.


I already explained before that we do not have to assume its rotating. We can assume it is doing some very generic motion and the experimental results obtained by observing the pendulum will reveal the parameters of the motion.


But this madness thing about gas particles needing a container in the presence of gravity extending thousands of km is ultra tilting and precisely what someone trolling would do. So i want to believe its not trolling but it looks frequently like trolling given how much effort i have offered to explain to you why you do not need wall barriers if you have potential barriers!!!

So US military is faking it, Russian also? And also European missions and Japanese and Indian and Chinese all the same lies together about the space, distances, speed of light and earth being a sphere etc?


How do you measure on your own the speed of light? Will you be happy if i design experiments you can do on your own to find the truth about anything discussed here? If it cost you 5k to do them would you buy the equipment? What if i can make it with 1k?

It is not the case that only negatives can be proved eg If the temperature reaches 100 degrees C the water will boil.

The affirming the consequent is in the hypothesis regardless. The presumed cause is earth rotation or its manifestation as a measurable quantity, whatever that is assumed to be, eg zero rotation.

Your argument re gas pressure/gravity is a contradiction. One model assumes gases move in straight lines randomly in all directions and require the presence of a container for them to collide with and cause gas pressure for which the equation requires a volume. The other model assumes they have bent trajectories, can be pressurised without containment, and require a force of gravity (contrary to mainstream opinion on what gravity is) to overcome inevitable dispersion into the lower pressure region, and have an unthinkable volume ie the whole of space.
Think of me as a troll if you wish, you cannot demonstrate a gas pressure without a container. Have gravity at higher strength here at the surface, still you will see gases move randomly and disperse into a lower pressure region.

Yes all space missions are fake.

Not sure what knowing the speed of light will prove about any of this. I plan to look again into special relativity though as without the assumption of earth rotation this changes things considerably I think in interpreting Michelson Morley etc.
Just donate me 1k and I will buy equipment for sure

There are no presumptions. We're just watching the thing go round and round as it goes back and forth. Do you accept that this happens?

Please elaborate on your definitions. What a "natural phenomenon" in relation to what might be called an "unnatural phenomenon"? Are you sure that an experiment must *predict* the cause of the phenomenon? If so, what sense of the word "predict" are you using?

Maybe it would help for you to elaborate on the types of experiments that you think justify the idea that the earth is flat, because I don't really see what you mean by the terms you're using.

You just said that...

The context of this is that you're saying that there is potentially a way to measure distance using the scientific method. I'm asking you to show me how this can be done.

Maybe science isn't "required" but it would still be helpful to have more scientifically verified information rather than less.

At this point, I will remind you that you've used a logical fallacy in your own argumentation:

You make unjustified conclusions, but you believe them. Why is that?

Do you believe that Bayesian reasoning can be applied to the scientific method so that one may use data to become more convinced that a statement is true?

Or perhaps a valid conclusion would be "precession, therefore not stationary."

I will give you 2k as bonus and motivation if you join a university (with evidence of classes taken and passed) and study physics and math for a year at least starting from this day forward. Its a promise. Take for sure kinetic theory/thermodynamics or statistical physics at some point.


All space missions are fake? Even balloons people build that go up many kms?

Why does pressure drop with height? Doesnt that imply you have lower number of particles per unit volume higher? What causes that if not gravity? You are trolling to death in the past 2-3 days. Why do your ears have a problem when you fly? Why are planes pressurized?


Do you dispute the way centrifuges work also? It is artificial intense gravity with extreme exact same principle effect in differentiating heavier molecules.

When a particle collides so frequently you do not get to see any bending in its trajectory but as they get higher you better believe it they follow as classical average statistical parabolas before collisions. They also feel fields and you can see classical physics electromagnetic trajectories that result in cloud chambers so why not gravity.

You are arguing it does not scientifically demonstrate earth rotation? If so, good. If not, what is the presumed cause? You understand what presumed cause means? It should be the independent variable in your investigation.

I thought you said you knew of the scientific method?
Foucault pendulum is not a natural phenomenon because a person built it (and may have for instance put a gyro or electric motor in their to create the effect). For the purposes of exposing this sham of an 'experiment' however you can have it as your natural phenomenon.

What is the presumed cause of the rotation of the plane?

I am using the term 'predict' in the correct way in a scientific context, the hypothesis is the prediction of the cause and effect relationship.

I don't know any experiments that justify the earth is flat.

To be clear, masque has the claim that science can be used to find the distance to the Sun (since "all experiments are observations") whereas I don't think we can. If science is claimed, it should be demonstrated by those claiming it.
My point above is that we won't find scientific proof, ie experimentation, but there could be an acceptable other proof, such as direct measurement were that possible.

Yes I may have had at one time or other some faulty reasoning.

Is this an implicit acceptance that the hypothesis for the foucault pendulum is an affirming the consequent? If so, well done. If not, please state your presumed cause of rotation of the plane.

Not sure what this is, I don't think it can be applied to a natural science experiment. Please explain.

This would not be a valid conclusion. It's essentially the same thing. There is an assumption of 2 reference frames which underpins the assumption of earth spin, therefore to conclude the second frame moves in any way is to beg the question.

I am enrolled for Feb already, maths and physics, first year is basic science. 6 years part time. I will send you my evidence. Profs in the US get paid too much if you are dishing out cash BTW.

I don't think a balloon would last long in space. I mean moon/mars/ISS etc

You believe that all pressure gradients have a vacuum at one end? Pressure drops with height because atmospheric gases are produced at the surface. If you have a lower pressure higher up, you have a gas pressure higher up. What do you need for a gas pressure? Container.

Btw on a related issue, read a quote the other day, can't remember where it is now or who said it, basically the model of star formation is incompatible with second law of thermodynamics, you can have gravity but still is not possible to condense gases to stop dispersion.

Articifial, not real, model, not evidence of gravity or its behaviour.

I better believe it, meaning you have no demonstration of this?
Because the electromagnetic force is a tangible force that will change the direction of particles. Gravity is not a force. Are you an electric universe guy? If so then you can have this argument I guess.

Can density or something released to the weight of the air above be a factor? Air pressure is greater lower because you have all of the weight of the air above pushing down, like how pressure increases underwater the deeper one dives, or is this really dumb?

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...r/prs/def.rxml

Not really dumb!

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "prove".

How would you scientifically "prove' that "If the temperature reaches 100 degrees C the water will boil?" Correct my if you have something else in mind, but I assume you would conduct the experiment, under controlled conditions, of heating water to 100 degrees C and observing that it boils. Then others would independently repeat your experiment and confirm your results. And in all the independent experiments the water boils at no other temperature than 100 degrees C.

Does that scientifically "prove" that, "If the temperature reaches 100 degrees C the water will boil?"

Well, it depends on what you mean by the statement, especially the word "will". If you conducted the experiment you've proved to yourself that the water "did" boil at 100C. But you haven't proved that if you conduct the same experiment next week that it "will" boil at 100C. If you believe the confirming results of independent experiments then it's been proved that water "did" boil at 100C in those experiments. But it hasn't been proved that water "will" boil at 100C if those experiments are repeated next week, or next year.

At best, all that's been proved is that a number of observations have been made under controlled conditions of water boiling at 100C. At best, this leads you to believe that under the controlled conditions water always boils at 100C, anytime, anywhere. This presuppose constancy of physical laws across time and space.

Furthermore, this does not give you "proof" that it's the continued heating of the water at 100C that is the "cause" of the water boiling. It could be that fairies "cause" the water to boil whenever they feel like and they've just happened to feel like doing it under these conditions for the past few thousand years because they've had the flu. But they'll be better soon and will go back to causing water to boil at random temperatures because they're fairies after all and like ****ing with people.

You have no explanation for why the water boils at 100C with additional heating so you have no reason to think the heating is any more than correlative with the boiling rather than causative.

You also don't know that there weren't other independent duplicative experiments done which falsify your "proof". And that these results were either not reported or suppressed for some reason. You also have no "proof" that out of the billions of pots of water boiled over the centuries there weren't millions of cases where the water boiled at far different temperatures than 100C, under very close to your control conditions.

Your thinking that science "proves" things is just wrong. And if you look into it you'll find out that way of thinking was discredited at least 50 years ago. To be a scientific theory it must be open to falsification. It can be falsified but not "proven".


PairTheBoard

Its kinda argueing in bad faith, when you withhold important information. Like, its pretty clear with the flat-earth & moon-landing conspiracy, that Billy doubts more than just the physics. You dont believe that stuff without some greater conspiracy behind all this. This is also why you wont be able to convince him. You can only miss because you arent even hitting the target.

Its important to understand that the conspiracy isnt "JFK wasnt killed by LHO", but whatever you replace it with.

Billies issue isnt that we never made it to moon, Billies issue is "whatever the reason is we never made it to the moon".

Now with a case like JFK you can easily go with something like greedy oligarchs, power hungry politicians or even something like russian intelligence. These are easy and realistic assumptions and they can stand alone. It is however a lot harder, when it comes to something like flat-earth. Here you dont have any clear incentive. Like what does a flat-earth vs globe-earth accomplish? There is no "obvious" intention for making a conspiracy about the shape of the earth. For us "normal" people there is no one gaining anything from spinning that narrative.

Now, me having been down the rabbit hole, Id take a wild guess and say that you cant convince Billy, because you yourself were tricked by either Illuminati, Reptiloids or something to do with Annunaki.

Haivng said all of that, Id sincerely like to know whats Billy actual reasoning is for disbelieving, in the hopes it isnt one of the above.

It was my understanding that there is to be no politics in SMP. And it definitely seems like this argument with Billy should be able to be settled without it.

Yeah this stuff is pretty common and it's flawed. I asked masque this question a few pages back, perhaps he missed the question. The question was whether he believes for example that 14.7 psi means the weight of a 1 square inch column of air above weighing 14.7 lbs.

For instance take a sealed cuboid of air at standard atmospheric pressure, the air pressure inside is 14.7 psi equally against every wall of the container, the pressure being the force per unit area of the gas colliding with the walls. There is no bias toward down. Gas particles move randomly in all directions with no inter molecular bonds. The idea there is a fixed cuboid shaped column of air of cross section 1 square inch pushing down on the ground from above makes no sense imo.
Also consider blood pressure and fluids inside the body being balanced with external pressure at 14.7 psi. We don't explode or implode because the pressure is spread equally all over our skin in both directions. There is no great weight pushing down from above.

But then what explains water pressure and why it increases as we dive deeper? It seems like the principle should be the same.

If the control variables are properly accounted for, eg air pressure which can massively alter thr results, addition of salts etc, basically proper controls as you say, then yes this has been proved.
The independent variable, temperature, is the only thing we are changing. If the temperature is the sole possible cause of the boiling then this proves the hypothesis to be true, that water boils at 100C. This is causation and is precisely why the variables, independent, dependent and control are the necessary constituent parts of an experiment. We can predict and confirm for future experiments and we will be validated once more. If it is presented that sometimes water does not boil at 100 with same controls just one time then this disproves hypothesis.
If alternative hypothesis is confirmed then null is invalid. And vice versa.