Total posts: 4,140
I don't know whether Shila is a bot or not. Either way, it's incredibly low effort trolling. Shila's attempts to get under my skin in the Random Thoughts thread were so bad they were funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
No. It was a bad attempt at a joke. I described myself as pedantic immediately after engaging in pedantry (thus the self-parody). It wasn't clear enough to work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I bet the word is somewhere in this link. (Definitely not a rickroll.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
No. Non-self-instantiable, if was a real word, would mean that I can't instantiate myself, i.e., I can't be the cause of my own existence. Of course, nothing can cause its own existence, so that word would describe everything. That's another was of saying that it would be a useless word, which is why it doesn't exist.
How about a different word to describe myself: pedantic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
True, but that isn't nearly as fun as using a ridiculously long word to describe my political stance.
Created:
Posted in:
Since I don't support the pre-2016 Republican establishment, but I oppose Trump's attempt to supplant it, does that make me an antidisestablishmentarian?
On the other hand, Trump and his supporters seem to have succeeded in supplanting the old establishment and in becoming the new establishment. So does that make me a disestablishmentarian?
Created:
This probably happened a while ago, but I just saw that both Novice and Intelligence have passed 1800 debate rating. Congratulations!
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If this does work for a flat earth, that means this is not valid disproof. I am not a flat earther, I just am a skeptic.
This post doesn't disprove the flat earth. It disproves a common objection to the round earth.
If a flat yet circular(cylindrical?) earth rotates along the circular axis while performing circular motion according to the sun(like if you strap a merry-go-round to a rollercoaster loop), why wouldn't that work?
Depends what you mean. If you mean the the inhabited side of the flat earth was always facing toward the sun, then I'm not sure that would be a substantial change to the most common flat earth model. It would just mean that the earth was moving rather than the sun. It would still have all the drawbacks of the standard flat earth model. I'd have to think some more about what changes that would make. If you mean that the flat earth rotated so its face was sometimes pointed toward the sun and sometimes pointed away from the sun, then that would add an additional problem to the model. While the face of the flat earth was pointed away from the sun, the entire inhabited side of the earth would experience night at the same time, which is a bridge too far for most flat earthers.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Mathematics equations can be internally consistent and externally irrelevant. Cheers.
Agreed, but that's not the point I was making. I was making the point that, because of the nature of the equation, it is entirely consistent for us to notice earth's gravity but for a fly to not notice a mountain's gravity.
Wrong numbers right ok.The numbers are from NASA. The wrong flat earth numbers are from NASA. I am a flat earther, I know where we get the numbers from
That's not what I meant by "wrong numbers". I should have explained that more clearly. I did not mean that the numbers themselves are wrong. The numbers are correct. What I meant was that they are the wrong numbers for determining whether or not we would fly off the earth. Linear speed does not determine centripetal acceleration.* Angular speed does. Although the linear speed of the earth is high, the angular speed is low, so the centripetal acceleration is also low.
*You may notice that the equation I'm using does use linear speed, as well as the radius. The angular speed is hidden in this equation because it is the relationship between the radius and the linear speed.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@FLRW
That's a cool website, FLRW! Thanks. Yes, use that. Much faster than a calculator.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So why doesn't a tiny fish next to a blue whale get tugged into its gravitational field? Why does a mosquito next to a skyscraper or mountain not either?
That's because gravitational force is determined by the absolute masses of objects, not their masses relative to each other. The equation for gravitational force is F=g*m1*m2/r^2, where g is the gravitational constant of 6.673*10^-11, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between the two objects. I would encourage to take some different numbers and plug them into the equation to see what happens. I will also point out that because this is a mathematical equation, it is incapable of being logically inconsistent.
Nothing you wrote explained why we do not feel it especially if we are hurtling around the Sun and through outer space inside of a moving Milky Way that itself is hurtling.
Actually, those cases are even easier. The earth takes 365 days to go around the sun. That's less than one degree a day. More specifically, it's 0.000011 degrees a second. The Milky Way is worse still. The solar system takes 230 million years to orbit the center of the Milky Way [1]. That is 0.0000000000000496 degrees a second (13 zeroes if you don't feel like counting). Yes, we're moving very quickly, but let me tell you something that the flat earth promoters don't.
It doesn't matter.
It really doesn't. Speed doesn't generate force. Acceleration - that is, change in speed and direction - does. The earth's direction as it moves around the sun and the solar system's direction as it moves around the center of the galaxy are changing at an imperceptible rate, and their speeds are constant. Look back at the equation for centripetal acceleration to see why. a = v^2/r. It doesn't matter in the slightest how big v is in absolute terms. What matters is how it compares to r. However, these numbers aren't independent of each other. They connected by angular speed, which is the degrees per second value I keep mentioning. The lower that number is, the lower the centripetal acceleration will be. So even we were moving at 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 lightyears per nanosecond (ignoring that you can't go faster than the speed of light), if the angular speed is low, the centripetal acceleration will be as well. Those enormous, scary numbers flat earth promoters show you are meaningless. They're the wrong numbers. What matters is our angular speed, and that number is ridiculously low.
Created:
The title of this post is a question often posed by flat earthers to challenge the idea of a round earth. Because of its association with flat earthers, this question is often laughed at. I find this to be a shame, because its a quite interesting question. It also gives me the chance to do math and show off how smart I am!
I am going to start by answering a similar but related question. The earth is orbiting the sun at 66,660 mph [1]. Why doesn't the sheer speed of that orbit leave us all behind in the vacuum of space? The answer is inertia. Inertia is described in Newton's First Law of Motion: "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force." How does that answer the question? Well, think about an airplane. Commercial airliners fly at about 600 mph. Do the passengers spend the entire flight pressed back into their seats at 600 mph? If one of them stepped out into the aisle, would he be propelled to the back of the airplane at 600 mph? No. Why? Because while the plane is moving at 600 mph, so are the passengers, the air in the cabin, and everything else in the plane. No additional force is required to keep them moving at that speed because of inertia. They will continue moving at 600 mph until acted upon by an outside force, i.e., the plane slowing down. In fact, if the plane were to vanish, they would continue moving at 600 mph until coming to an unpleasant stop due to the outside force of the ground. Military bombers have to account for this when they drop bombs. The bombs will keep moving at the speed of the airplane, so they have to calculate how far ahead of the target they need to be for their bombs to hit the target.
However, returning to the airliner, the passengers will be pressed back into their seats when the plane initially accelerates to 600 mph. This is because of Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states that Force = Mass * Acceleration. This tells us that force is only present when there is acceleration, and vice versa. So while the plane is accelerating, force is exerted on the passengers. While the plane is at a constant speed, no force is exerted on the passengers, and they are free to move about the cabin and eat disgusting airline food. Importantly, these effects are the same no matter what the speed is. A train traveling at 40 mph or a car traveling at 70 mph will have the same effects. This continues to be true no matter how large the number is. Inertia holds true whether you are traveling at one millimeter per millenia or 100,000 miles per second.
Returning to the question (finally!), we don't fly off the earth even though it is orbiting at 66,660 mph because it is traveling at a constant speed. If it were accelerating in some direction, we would feel a force. However, it is traveling at a constant speed, so we don't notice it.
Now, five paragraphs in, to the main topic. (Internet knights just love the sound of their own voice, don't they?) If the earth is spinning, that introduces a new consideration: rotation. Due to inertia, an object traveling in a straight line will continue traveling in a straight line, not a circle. So if the earth is spinning at 1000 mph, it should have left us behind long ago, right? Wrong. The big number of 1000 mph (1037.5646 if you want to be pedantic) looks impressive and scary. But when you do the math, it's anything but. Yes, the earth is spinning, but only once a day. That's 360 degrees per day, or 15 degrees per hour, or 0.25 degrees per minute, or 0.00417 degrees per second. So if we take your current velocity to be moving at an angle of 0 degrees, you are currently moving at 1037 mph at 0 degrees. Next second, you will be moving at 1037 mph at 0.00417 degrees, then at 0.00834 degrees, then at 0.01251 degrees, and so on. Notice what's happening? You're traveling at a constant speed, and your direction is barely changing. Going back to the plane example, if the pilot turned the plane 0.25 degrees every minute, would you notice? Not in the least.*
*Technically, you could if you put a level on the floor. Since planes bank in order to turn, you would notice the floor was slightly off level. However, my point is that you wouldn't feel your direction changing.
Intuitively, it's already clear why we don't fly off the earth. It's spinning so slowly that we can't even feel our direction changing, although we can measure it. But, for completeness sake, let's calculate how much acceleration we're all undergoing due to the earth's rotation. Let's also do the calculation in metric, because it's easier. The equation for centripetal force if acceleration = velocity squared / radius [2]. The earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters, and it is rotating at 1,669.8 km/h or 463.83 meters / second. This gives us a centripetal acceleration of 0.0337 meters per second squared. That giant 1000 mph figure turned into a fraction of a fraction.
For the fun of it, let's find out how much force it would take to hold your average overweight American to the earth if gravity didn't exist. Suppose the overweight American weighs 100 kg. We can use Newton's Second Law of F=ma to find the answer of 3.37 Newtons, or 0.758 pounds. A quarter inch polyester ropecan hold 400 pounds, which is over 400 times stronger than needed [3]. So our conclusion is this: if gravity didn't exist, you could counter the acceleration of earth's rotation indefinitely using nothing more than string.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
Good luck.
-random stranger who can't remember if he's ever said a word to you before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
No, everything is Biden's fault now. It's a great American tradition to blame the current president for everything, including things that could not possibly be the president's fault.*
*Which isn't to say that nothing is the president's fault. Far from it.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm kind of curious about how you know that.
Did one of my Illuminati brethren accidentally leak our plan?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have more time now. /in
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Not every human being has the same legal rights, that's correct. Just ask any immigrant, mentally impaired, minor or felon.
And yet, if someone kills an immigrant, mentally impaired person, minor, or felon, they will be charged with murder.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
So a car needs a cup holder. Understood. All F1 cars except maybe Kimi's are not cars.
You clearly fail to understand that cup holders are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There is actually no mainstream established religion that isn't terribly right wing in practise.
What about Buddhism?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm all for ending abortion, but I'm just about 99% certain that starting a civil war is a bad way to solve problems.
Created:
The title of this topic is a bit strange. In order for the Supreme Court to revisit Lawrence v. Texas, there would have to be a case about the topic. In order for there to be a case, there would probably have to be a law. In other words, some state would have to revisit it before the Supreme Court does. So if Texas will revisit it if the Supreme Court does, then they are putting the cart before the horse. They are saying that they will pull the trigger after the bullet fires.
Created:
Posted in:
America has now been a country for 246 years. I'm looking forward to the next 246!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@jaishawnemmette5
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with heavenly snowflakes. Please enlighten us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@jaishawnemmette5
I can't quite make out what my crimes are from your post, but they sound really evil! Muahahahaha!
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
It's quite unpopular in large parts of the American left. Many American politicians talk and act as though everyone agreed that it is inherently bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Of course, it could also be that I switch to whichever one I think will be funnier in the given context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I am a medieval knight. I am a shapeshifting reptilian Illuminati agent. They are completely contradictory and simultaneously true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@jaishawnemmette5
To post 18: "I am not a vampire". We know: .. you vampires can't see yourself mirrored. But we can with sunshine glasses . Aaaa ha ha ha ha ..
You can use sunshine glasses over the internet? That's impressive! How do you do it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You thought I was a knight? Ha! That's just what they want you to believe!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@jaishawnemmette5
I'm not a vampire; I'm a shapeshifting reptilian Illuminati agent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If that's a real person, he needs some help, unless he's deliberately writing nonsense. I would expect a person to at least pass the Turing Test.
Created:
Posted in:
A nonsense-generating bot. It was an interesting read, I suppose.
Created:
Wealth inequality is not inherently bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You would most likely destroy me. There is a reason I didn't put myself on the list. The reason you are not on it isn't because you aren't good enough. At your best, you are probably better than Chris. The reason I didn't put you in the top 4 is because you aren't consistent. You sometimes put in only the bare minimum effort. While that's quite understandable, given how many debates you take, it does mean that your average debate isn't as high quality as one of Chris's average debates. That's not in any way an attack on you or your debating skills, but it does affect my rather subjective and inexpertly judged list.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem with a top 4 is not who to include, but who to exclude. I would say:
1. Whiteflame
2. Blamonkey
3. Barney (formerly Ragnar)
4. MisterChris
I haven't read any of Bones's debates, so he might qualify. I am only counting users who have logged on somewhat recently, which is why Ramshutu and semperfortis have been excluded.
Created:
While democracy is the least bad form of government, undemocratic is not synonymous with bad, and democratic is not synonymous with good.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
I'd like to, but I just don't have the time right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ah, you're right. Typo. Thanks.
Created:
Political hate is more dangerous than political extremism, and the former is one of the chief causes of the latter.
Created:
Orange man orange.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
No, I wasn't informed. Of course, that's probably because I waived, so you roleblocked nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
/out, sorry. I don't think I'll have the time. Should've thought about it more before I said in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
"If I were to say this sentence all in one go, how unpleasant and unnatural would it sound and where would most people who speak fluent English prefer the pause to be?"
This sentence is actually a really interesting example. One could put another comma in it:
"If I were to say this sentence all in one go, how unpleasant and unnatural would it sound, and where would most people who speak fluent English prefer the pause to be?"
However, it doesn't require a comma. I think it's correct either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I can't give you a hard and fast rule to follow, but I'm 95% sure you and RM are correct that there should be a comma there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think your rule is pretty good, but I don't think it's better. I think that if we compare how good your reads are to how bad mine are, mine are more extremely bad than yours are extremely good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Probably so, but I've always been a slow learner about reading people.
Created: