Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by The Imp, May 4, 2010.
Where's the fun in that?
This got already answered, but I think it's in place to emphasize that you don't need frames of reference to refute that argument, the only thing you need to do is jump at the back of the truck.
If you use frames of reference in refuting that claim, you're committing to a fallacy: They're trying to give an counter example of Newtonian mechanics. You can't refute that counter example by repeating what Newtonian mechanics says should happen. You can refute it only by performing an experiment.
But what Newtonian mechanics says what should happen would be what was in an experiment many experiments over several centuries. Why'd you think they teach it in physics class, for a cheap laugh?
I wasn't saying that the Newtonian mechanics fails in this case. I said that appeal to Newtonian mechanics isn't a proper argument. This is just a matter of simple logic. You say that some laws of nature are true. They say there is a counter example that shows these laws aren't true. You say: no, there is no counter example, since these laws says that there can't be one. That's circular logic.
Unless what they showed was an experimental result, I don't see how it's a true counter example to Newton's laws. And once again, the experiments are done. Why make a new one? You don't see evolutionary biologists creating a new experiment every time some creationist makes a ridiculous claim (which is what the poster I linked to did).
So when the church proposes experiment, you appeal to authority of ancient texts?
I didn't say it is a true counter example:
Well, how many experiments they did do, and what makes you think that amount is sufficient to prove a theory?
You can provide these guys reference that shows their experiment doesn't work the way they say, a reference to an experiment. That is a valid rebuttal of their argument.
Instead, if you say only that the results they predict contradict Newtonian mechanics, you aren't giving a valid argument. They already know that, and they agree with that. The experiment they propose couldn't be even a candidate for a counter example if it didn't contradict Newtonian mechanics.
Yes, that's quite a good solution: to ignore the creationists and such. I tend to do that for one. It doesn't refute them, but life is a lot better when not spent talking with them.
It would be nice if the Bible was based on experiments too.
As long as most of the experiments show that the theory is true. As for how many is needed, I don't know. I just know there needs to be more than one well-designed experiment showing that the theory is true. Maybe other people here who have worked in academia or research in general can answer that.
And fine, I guess I should link them to Newton's experiment notes.
You could also ask them to provide the experiment, it would be the decent thing from them to do, since they are claiming something that is against common belief. You wouldn't need to dig out any references, and it's pretty clear they haven't performed any. In that case it's a good idea to dictate the situation beforehand: no acceleration (or deceleration), small and relatively small ball is dropped etc.
I was in previous posts talking more about the logic of refuting them, not the practice. In real life ignoring is the best way, trust me.
I don't see why you would really care to bother to counter it in that forum at all. That is not a discussion for debating truths. That is a place for people who are even more extremely closed minded than the general run of creationists to demand that others accept their ignorance as truth.
Holy crap, that thread sounds like a joke but these people are actually serious.
This one is the most inane, IMO.
The mass of the balloon vs. the speck of paper is maybe 20 to 1 at most.
The earth weighs (according to google) 5973600000000000000000000 kg's while your average human weighs maybe 70 or so.
And then he also ignores things like conservation of momentum. And the fact that the Coriolis force exists, and has played a major role in any battle involving long range artillery or guns.
It's funny. I proved conservation of momentum as a kid by experimentation by throwing a ball up into the air while running. I would initially try to angle it forwards, but I would always miss. Only when I throw it straight up does it return to my hands.
I myself have launched balloons with video cameras in them to 100K feet. And they took video footage of the curventure of the earth. The curve is *very* noticeable. Number 3 is instantly disproven with a simple experiment.
Also, I seem to recall being able to see Earth's curventure from even an airplane. It's hard to make out though.
My god... I fear for their children. I suppose they don't have lightbulbs or computers, because we all know that science is wrong!
I'm worried now that I see that.
Landover Baptist is actually a parody guys >< I have one of the books they put out.
Well that's a relief.
Not really. The idea of a flat earth is no more a farce than the idea of a 6,000 year old earth, yet a surprising number of people believe the latter
If i dug a hole that went through the center of the earth to the other side and I dropped something in that hole would it float in the air once it reaches the exact center of the planet? (This is ignoring the fact of how hot it would be in the hole and the impossibility of digging through miles of molten lava)
Well, it would accelerate to the center, and decelerate on the other side of the center. So neglecting air resistance, the object would be in harmonic motion with in the hole.
With air resistance, the object would eventually settle (and hover) in the center.
Not just air resistance to slow it down, coriolis effect would mean it hits the side of the tunnel.
Not unless it was pole to pole...?
Nah. Taking a model of earth as having constant density, the problem reduces to a simple harmonic oscillator. There will be no acceleration at the center of the earth but it will still be moving, and will oscillate from both ends of the hole. (ignoring the coriolis effect, air resistance, etc) It wouldn't float in the center unless you stop it there.
Separate names with a comma.