John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I have knuckled down at times , but every time I come across something that is not logically correct, or has an alternative that also works, am I suppose to ignore that, and allow myself to learn something that I deem to be wrong or misunderstood? I know your definition of viscosity, honey and water, but I also know that weather systems have different energy levels and density, gases, a laser through smoke, etc. and ok, i will start another thread and simply show you that online poker is flawed in a big way, i will do that later though , and hopefully you can give what i have found a name. "And knowing distance etc, is based on time." It isn't, the units we happen to choose are related, but that's just for convenience. How conceited do you have to be to think "I don't understand this so everyone who looked at it before is wrong"? It's not "my" definition: it is the definition. I'd bet that it already has a name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) How conceited do you have to be to think "I don't understand this so everyone who looked at it before is wrong"? Dunning-Kruger effect I'd bet that it already has a name. It is a bizarre variation on the gambler's fallacy. Edited July 28, 2014 by Strange 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Yes but I have got to avoid a viscosity conversation. Surely this attitude is the height of disrespect for all those in the past who have worked to provide the wealth of knowledge that we possess today. All you need to do is acknowledge that Poiseuille has got a prior claim on the word viscosity almost two centuries before you. No one will complain if you admit you are wrong - in fact they will applaud. This is why science is stuck and had no breakthroughs in years because you are looking at the maths all the time, models, and sometimes the obvious does not need a model. Gosh, perhaps you should look at real scientific literature instead of the encyclopedia of guesswork and listen to some real scientists. No breakthroughs??? My 'modern' nuclear physics was learned 50 years ago, so is woefully behind the last fifty years lack of progress, as I'm constantly being reminded by more knowledgeable members here. So I learn things and say thanks. I'm suprised no one has mentioned The Higgs, Buckeyballs, cloning, cures for many diseases, electronic computers, Fermats proof, the Four Colour proof,.........where dos the list end? Edited July 28, 2014 by studiot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Posting on-line that there have been no breakthroughs is like baking a cake in the shape of the words "Ovens do not exist". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Surely this attitude is the height of disrespect for all those in the past who have worked to provide the wealth of knowledge that we possess today. All you need to do is acknowledge that Poiseuille has got a prior claim on the word viscosity almost two centuries before you. No one will complain if you admit you are wrong - in fact they will applaud. Gosh, perhaps you should look at real scientific literature instead of the encyclopedia of guesswork and listen to some real scientists. No breakthroughs??? My 'modern' nuclear physics was learned 50 years ago, so is woefully behind the last fifty years lack of progress, as I'm constantly being reminded by more knowledgeable members here. So I learn things and say thanks. I'm suprised no one has mentioned The Higgs, Buckeyballs, cloning, cures for many diseases, electronic computers, Fermats proof, the Four Colour proof,.........where dos the list end? I am not trying to claim any words, I am not trying to win awards or anything like that, I just think you have some of it wrong, or there is alternatives that also fit, so I dont share my thoughts, then that would be wrong. just in case...... I can not find a logical argument about my time, myself, I am trying to break my own thoughts but am unable too, the logic is solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I am not trying to claim any words, I am not trying to win awards or anything like that, I just think you have some of it wrong, or there is alternatives that also fit, so I dont share my thoughts, then that would be wrong. just in case...... I can not find a logical argument about my time, myself, I am trying to break my own thoughts but am unable too, the logic is solid. Once again, you have your fingers in your ears and are singing to yourself. "there is alternatives that also fit" No, each time you have put one forward, we have shown that it does not fit. "I just think you have some of it wrong," Quite possibly, but you haven't shown anything that even looks a bit like evidence, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Once again, you have your fingers in your ears and are singing to yourself. "there is alternatives that also fit" No, each time you have put one forward, we have shown that it does not fit. "I just think you have some of it wrong," Quite possibly, but you haven't shown anything that even looks a bit like evidence, have you? yes, try time and the second been equal to 0.288 mile. My maths and logic is flawless , and the information that lead me to this was from current science. Science has time wrong, so what else is wrong when most is based on time, the speed of light etc? Your atomic clock second is based has close to a clock second has science could get, a clock second derived from a solar cycle. A solar second that is equal to 0.288 mile, and you can check the maths, history got it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I am not trying to claim any words, I am not trying to win awards or anything like that, I just think you have some of it wrong, or there is alternatives that also fit, so I dont share my thoughts, then that would be wrong. just in case...... I can not find a logical argument about my time, myself, I am trying to break my own thoughts but am unable too, the logic is solid. I will take that response as the archetypical Harvey Smith and turn to more productive activities. Good day to you Sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 yes, try time and the second been equal to 0.288 mile. My maths and logic is flawless , and the information that lead me to this was from current science. Your "maths" is nonsense. It isn't even dimensionally correct. Do you see how posting gibberish isn't the same as providing evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Your "maths" is nonsense. It isn't even dimensionally correct. Do you see how posting gibberish isn't the same as providing evidence? So now the online calculator lies also. How is that remotely gibberish when it is the truth? The dimensions are correct and were corrected on here I believe in previous thread, unless Im mixing my forums up. How can the maths be argued with , like you state to me, it fits does it not, the process fits, 1 second is equal to 0.288 mile, why what do you have it equal too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 My maths and logic is flawless , and the information that lead me to this was from current science. Relative, this may be true (this is certainly NOT an endorsement by me), but IF it is true, then you really, really, really need to work on communication. Because you have not been able to adequately explain this at all. This includes using terms in their well defined and accepted ways. This includes accepting feedback from the users here. We aren't trying to personally attack you when we ask you questions. We are trying to understand what you are saying, because we think we are confused, you are confused, or both. I would suggest taking an example from some of the nice review articles out there. Where a topic is introduced, all the terms are introduced, and then the development of the problem is presented. Wrapping up with a conclusion presented with plenty of supporting evidence. Here is an example of what I am talking about. You start with 1 second... later that becomes 1 solar second. You must, must, must be sure to use the right words. This sloppiness does not help you and just frustrates people. including 1 second is equal to 0.288 mile , A solar second that is equal to 0.288 mile, and you can check the maths, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) I haven't done the conversion, but distance has been measured in degrees, minutes and seconds of arc for centuries by navigators, surveyors and astronomers. Relative, if you are referring to this you should say so. In this scheme there is something known as 'The equation of Time', which can also be considered as an equation of distance. But you should not confuse seconds of time with seconds of arc. Edited July 28, 2014 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Relative, this may be true (this is certainly NOT an endorsement by me), but IF it is true, then you really, really, really need to work on communication. Because you have not been able to adequately explain this at all. This includes using terms in their well defined and accepted ways. This includes accepting feedback from the users here. We aren't trying to personally attack you when we ask you questions. We are trying to understand what you are saying, because we think we are confused, you are confused, or both. I would suggest taking an example from some of the nice review articles out there. Where a topic is introduced, all the terms are introduced, and then the development of the problem is presented. Wrapping up with a conclusion presented with plenty of supporting evidence. Here is an example of what I am talking about. You start with 1 second... later that becomes 1 solar second. You must, must, must be sure to use the right words. This sloppiness does not help you and just frustrates people. Ok I do understand, and I sort of just talk rather than making a presentation. As if I was there in person and just chit chatting. I will try to find the right words, maybe I should take my time between posts and try to convey in your terminology. I haven't done the conversion, but distance has been measured in degrees, minutes and seconds of arc for centuries by navigators, surveyors and astronomers. Relative, if you are referring to this you should say so. In this scheme there is something known as 'The equation of Time', which can also be considered as an equation of distance. But you should not confuse seconds of time with seconds of arc. http://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/time-is-only-accountable-by-decay-part-1/ this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 yes, try time and the second been equal to 0.288 mile. My maths and logic is flawless , and the information that lead me to this was from current science. Science has time wrong, so what else is wrong when most is based on time, the speed of light etc? Your atomic clock second is based has close to a clock second has science could get, a clock second derived from a solar cycle. A solar second that is equal to 0.288 mile, and you can check the maths, history got it wrong. You haven't shown any maths to check. But that's for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 You haven't shown any maths to check. But that's for another thread. Maths is in the above link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Well established, my point, you are taught to believe and not question some areas. You take time measurement for granted to be true for example. You are so far of track with that one My colleagues will be surprised to hear this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Time passes for stationary objects. Stationary objects can still revolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Maths is in the above link.You don't use a sidereal day in you calculations, and to make a time equal to a distance is incorrect. It can be a conversion factor, but not an equality. Your post does nothing to actually question time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) You haven't shown any maths to check. But that's for another thread. It hardly warrants the title of "Maths" but the Earth is about 25000 miles in circumference and rotates once in 24 hrs So the tangential speed is 24859/24 miles per hr that's near enough 0.288 miles per second. so you could use it to define the second. (how long it takes a point on the equator at sea level to move 0.288 miles) But, of course, that only applies at the equator at sea level. And it varies (for any given place on earth) with the tides etc. So it's a strange choice for a definition of the second since it's almost impossible to realise and it changes as the earth speeds up and slows down. It would be absurd to use it for precision measurements (you would need to have a set of conversion tables for how long a second was, for each data and place). It's a bit like the looking glass definition of viscosity: "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.". Edited July 28, 2014 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 It hardly warrants the title of "Maths" but the Earth is about 25000 miles in circumference and rotates once in 24 hrs So the tangential speed is 24859/24 miles per hr that's near enough 0.288 miles per second. so you could use it to define the second. (how long it takes a point on the equator at sea level to move 0.288 miles) But, of course, that only applies at the equator at sea level. And it varies (for any given place on earth) with the tides etc. So it's a strange choice for a definition of the second since it's almost impossible to realise and it changes as the earth speeds up and slows down. It would be absurd to use it for precision measurements (you would need to have a set of conversion tables for how long a second was, for each data and place). It's a bit like the looking glass definition of viscosity: "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.". The point been that history, already defines a second equal to 0.288 mile, because this how time was originally measured, and yes different points on the earth will have a different amount of time in one solar day. I know you now use the atomic clock, but the second on the atomic clock is equal to a second on a clock which is equal to 0.288 mile, history messed up big time and did not consider this. I think sidereal days give you nautical miles if i remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 "The point been that history, already defines a second equal to 0.288 mile, because this how time was originally measured," Nope, it defined it as a sixtieth of a sixtieth of a twenty fourth of a day. Specifically, this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab%C5%AB_Ray%E1%B8%A5%C4%81n_al-B%C4%ABr%C5%ABn%C4%AB defined it. "points on the earth will have a different amount of time in one solar day." Thanks to relativity they will. No change in units or definition will sensibly help with that. "I know you now use the atomic clock, but the second on the atomic clock is equal to a second on a clock which is equal to 0.288 mile," Nope, where I live I only travel about half that far in a second. You really need to stop making stuff up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 I am north "The point been that history, already defines a second equal to 0.288 mile, because this how time was originally measured," Nope, it defined it as a sixtieth of a sixtieth of a twenty fourth of a day. Specifically, this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab%C5%AB_Ray%E1%B8%A5%C4%81n_al-B%C4%ABr%C5%ABn%C4%AB defined it. "points on the earth will have a different amount of time in one solar day." Thanks to relativity they will. No change in units or definition will sensibly help with that. "I know you now use the atomic clock, but the second on the atomic clock is equal to a second on a clock which is equal to 0.288 mile," Nope, where I live I only travel about half that far in a second. You really need to stop making stuff up. I am making nothing up, how many hours in one solar day? One solar day been one revolution, one revolution meaning there has to be a distance covered per hour , per second. Time was made up to fit.......it is not really relative to anything. Do we not count the years in days anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 because this how time was originally measured It would be so easy to attack when such balderdash is presented, but I will simply enjoin you to use your favourite method of 'thinking about this', before you make such unsupported statements. You have to have a concept of 'noon' before you can employ this method, which means that you have to have a concept of 'Time'. Time was originally measured by the burning of lights, or the dripping of water from a vessel. I think sidereal days give you nautical miles if i remember correctly. Cleary (k)not (pun intended). You (and swansont) should also distinguish between solar time and sidereal time. They are different. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/sidereal.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 It would be so easy to attack when such balderdash is presented, but I will simply enjoin you to use your favourite method of 'thinking about this', before you make such unsupported statements. You have to have a concept of 'noon' before you can employ this method, which means that you have to have a concept of 'Time'. Time was originally measured by the burning of lights, or the dripping of water from a vessel. Cleary (k)not (pun intended). You (and swansont) should also distinguish between solar time and sidereal time. They are different. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/siderea Sidereal or solar, it still does not work and even touch on the levels of predicting time and age. For one we also spin backwards. Example,- swing your right hand around forward movement, pull your left hand back wards, this shows you we also go backwards and that should be accounted for even if you use time your way. According to current at night we are moving forward in time, in the day we move backwards in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I am making nothing up, Yes you are. Specifically, you made this up "The point been that history, already defines a second equal to 0.288 mile, because this how time was originally measured,". It was originally measured using a sundial (pace Studiot) and that wasn't going to be big enough to measure seconds. There was no aspect of those sundials that was anything to do with 0.288 miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts