Star trek or star wars?

[Paul Bradford]

Space is supposed to be a vacuum. No air, no water - no density at all. Nothing to push off. Space travel is a fiction.

propulsion in spaces works for the same reason that it works on earth, as I said earlier, it obeys the laws of motion. every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
I'm guessing that you think a jet engine works by pushing against the air? IT doesn't. A jet engine needs air to work, but only because the air is an element of the combustion process, it is the force of the gasses leaving the engine that cause the engine (and anything attached to it) to move in the opposite direction.
a Rocket engine carries its own fuel, and can operate in vacuum conditions, the force generated by the combustion process still moves the engine in the opposite direction to the exhaust gasses.
the vacuum in space does mean that there is no resistance to movement, so once an object is moving it will continue on its path at a constant velocity until another force acts upon it. that force might be an artificial force, for instance firing a rocket for a short time, or it might encounter the gravitational force of a large body.

 

[Paul Bradford]

Gravity is a very convenient and flexible force that can be immensely strong when it suits, but also infinitesimally weak when it suits, right?

it is a calculable force, and calculations can predict its effect and those predictions can then be tested. If the predictions are found to be accurate then there is reason to believe that the theory is correct. that is what science is all about.

 

[Nekodaiden]

starting today, Feb 19th 2019, until Feb 18th 2020 there are full moons on; 19th Feb, 21 Mar, 19 April, 18 May, 17 Jun, 16 Jul, 15 Aug, 14 Sep, 13 Oct, 12, Nov, 12, Dec, 10, Jan , 9 Feb. Total 13 full Moons.

From Feb 19th 2020 until Feb 18th 2021, 9th Mar, 8th Apr, 7th May, 5th Jun, 5th Jul, 3rd Aug, 2, Sep, 1st Oct, 31st Oct, 30th Nov, 30th Dec, 28th Jan , Total 12 full Moons

from Feb 19th 2021 until Feb 18th 2022, 27th Feb, 28th Mar, 27th, April, 26th, May, 24th Jun, 24th Jul, 22nd Aug, 21st Sept, 20th Oct, 19th Nov, 19th Dec, 17th Jan, 16th Feb, Total 13 Full Moons

from Feb 19th 2022 until Feb 18th 2023: 18th Mar, 16th Apr, 16th May, 14th Jun, 13th Jul, 12th Aug, 10th Sept, 9th Oct, 8th Nov, 8th Dec, 6th Jan , 5th Feb. Total 12 Full Moons

From Feb 19th 2023 until feb 18th 2024: 7th Mar, 6th Apr, 5th May, 4th Jun, 3rd jul, 1st Aug, 29th Sep, 28th Oct, 27th Nov, 27th Dec, 25th Jan Total of 11 full Moons

so that's 4 sets of consecutive 365 day periods, 2 have 13 full moons, 1 has 12 full moons, and 1 has 11 full moons.
check the Data and let me know which you disagree with. ( full moons are based on London Date line)

Technically, you are correct. I forget sometimes I am using a different measuring system that reckons certain days differently than what is commonly followed.

In the calendar I currently use, the year is split into 13 periods of 28 days, with a remainder of 1.24219001 days as the remainder over the course of the solar or tropical year. These 28 day periods are marked by full moons, and those full moons are a seperate type of day, not counted in the 28 day periods they mark.

The actual length of a solar or tropical year is : 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 45 seconds long. As a floating point number this is: 365.24219 days. Because it is not a whole number, this accounts for the addition of a day on leap years.

If the floating point is truncated to a whole number (ie: 365) then the following apply:

365 / 13 = 28.076923077

28 X 13 = 364
0.076923077 X 13 = 1

365 days, marked by 13 moons of a 28 day cycle.


However, a moon cycle is not strictly 28 days. The difference in how it is counted is that the signal day (full moon) is sometimes at nearly the exact same luminance over 2 days. These 1 or 2 days of full moons are not reckoned into the 28 day cycle, rather, the cycle begins at even when the full moon rises after the sun has set and the following day is day 1. The full moon marks the cycle but not the count, and the 28 days form the count but not the evening of the full moon or moons.

Counting strictly by the Western Calendar, this would make it seem as if the 13 moon calendar is too long. But only in the short term. Remember the Western calendar must add a day on leap years by a selective formula that Pope Gregory came up with (is evenly dividable by 4 AND is evenly dividable by 400).

Alternatively, the 1 or 2 day full moon as a marker for a 28 day period is a perpetual calendar that needs no adjustment with the addition of days. As there are always 13 periods in a single year, the only adjustments needed are taken care of by the astronomical cycles. Some full moons span 2 days, others, 1 day. They keep the 28 day cycle relative to a solar year over multiple years in check, with no needed adjustments from man, and consistently mark out 365 year periods with inter year adjustments for the remainder, year after year.

Without truncating floating point:

365.24219 /13 = 28.095553077

28 X 13 = 364

.095553077 X 13 = 1.242190001



or 365.24219 days in a solar year.

 

[Nekodaiden]

propulsion in spaces works for the same reason that it works on earth, as I said earlier, it obeys the laws of motion. every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
I'm guessing that you think a jet engine works by pushing against the air? IT doesn't. A jet engine needs air to work, but only because the air is an element of the combustion process, it is the force of the gasses leaving the engine that cause the engine (and anything attached to it) to move in the opposite direction.

I am merely replying to your snipped quote here because I think doing so beyond that is of no great value. I'm not going to convince you but it's worth typing it out for someone else who may be interested. The only reason the engine can move is because the force you refer to is being applied to a medium - the air - which surrounds the whole engine and plane attached to it. If there was no medium ( a vacuum ) then the force is being applied to nothing. It is akin to the simple mathematics equation. 500(units) of force X 1 (unit of medium) = force applied of 500 X 1 = (units of distance). If the medium is 2 units, then the force results in a propulsion of force X 2, or 1000 (units of distance). Since space is supposed to be a vacuum - there IS no unit of medium, and therefore the amount of force will always result in 500(units of force) X 0(units of medium) which will always = 0(units of distance).

 

[Nekodaiden]

it is a calculable force, and calculations can predict its effect and those predictions can then be tested. If the predictions are found to be accurate then there is reason to believe that the theory is correct. that is what science is all about.

Please tell me the gravitational force that is able to hold trillions of gallons of water to a spinning planet but cannot hold down a helium or hydrogen balloon at the same time. Surely you do not think the calculation (or measurement of gravity's force )is the same for both - which is exemplified in my previous statement that gravity is a very convenient and flexible force - capable of being extremely strong or extremely weak when it suits either argument.

 

[Paul Bradford]

Technically, you are correct. I forget sometimes I am using a different measuring system that reckons certain days differently than what is commonly followed.

Not only is it technically correct, but it also answered your previous request of finding a 365 day period that had less than 13 full moons. It doesn't matter how you split the year up, whether it is weeks or months or hours, even accounting for the awkward quarter of a day, it doesn't matter, more consecutive 365 day periods have 12 moons than 13.
Jet engines don't push against the air to get propulsion, do a bit of independent research to discover the principles.
What stops the helium from floating ever on upwards?

 

[Forest Nymph]

it is a calculable force, and calculations can predict its effect and those predictions can then be tested. If the predictions are found to be accurate then there is reason to believe that the theory is correct. that is what science is all about.

A theory in science isn't what the average layperson thinks of as a "theory." What they think of as theory, is just a hypothesis. I think it's helpful to tell people that the language is different, a lot of the scandalous confusion comes from people in their tiny houses thinking one person's "theory" is as good as the next. A theory is repeatedly tested and peer reviewed, so is therefore much closer to "fact" than some assume. When people say things like "evolution/gravity is just a theory" I am like omg why did our school system fail you so terribly.

One of the classes I had to take, even already having an Associates in General Natural Sciences, was a class called Scientific Methods, where they explicitly spelled out all the language, processes, biases, and money in science outside of doing the calculations in Excel ourselves during lab hours. That was the class. That class should be taught to exceptional high school students and all college students. Not just science majors.

My concentration in environmental science is education/interpretation which deals largely with the social aspect of translating science to people in the general public either through public school, the NPS/FS/BLM/state agency, or creative forms like graphic design or presentations. My senior project is writing science curriculum for middle school aged children, but this kind of scaffolding has to be done for every age group, from pre-K to advanced adulthood.

 

[Nekodaiden]

When people say things like "evolution/gravity is just a theory" I am like omg why did our school system fail you so terribly.

It didn’t. I swallowed most of the Kool-Aid like most people do. That changed when I was introduced to concepts that challenged it. Although you cannot either answer the question I posed to Bradford on the subject of gravity. If the idea was rock solid, then the discrepancy should be easily explained. This also goes for other theories.

Instead of making appeals to authority or group think

ahem: “Milk, it does a body good” has also been taught for generations in media, government, western schools…


Show us you earned all those brains by doing something other than referring to how much of them you have. “I am smart” because “I took these classes” or “have these letters after my name” only impresses the already biased.

Answer the discrepancy instead.

 

[Paul Bradford]

I feel we have hijacked this thread quite enough, if you would like to continue I wonder if @admin could move our debate to a new thread, perhaps titled debating science?

Edit, sorry , I'm a newbie here, I'm not sure who is the admin.

 

[Nekodaiden]

I feel we have hijacked this thread quite enough, if you would like to continue I wonder if @admin could move our debate to a new thread, perhaps titled debating science?

Edit, sorry , I'm a newbie here, I'm not sure who is the admin.

I actually agree - although I don't see it as a hijack. I was quite terse in my original reply and only expounded when I was asked to. Subsequent replies have followed as a matter of course for being challenged. However opening up a new thread with the relevant replies might please the OP, instead of continuing here.

 

[Paul Bradford]

I actually agree - although I don't see it as a hijack. I was quite terse in my original reply and only expounded when I was asked to. Subsequent replies have followed as a matter of course for being challenged. However opening up a new thread with the relevant replies might please the OP, instead of continuing here.

Sorry, I wasnt blaming anyone, it's just the way the thread went, no ones fault.

 

[Forest Nymph]

It didn’t. I swallowed most of the Kool-Aid like most people do. That changed when I was introduced to concepts that challenged it. Although you cannot either answer the question I posed to Bradford on the subject of gravity. If the idea was rock solid, then the discrepancy should be easily explained. This also goes for other theories.

Instead of making appeals to authority or group think

ahem: “Milk, it does a body good” has also been taught for generations in media, government, western schools…


Show us you earned all those brains by doing something other than referring to how much of them you have. “I am smart” because “I took these classes” or “have these letters after my name” only impresses the already biased.

Answer the discrepancy instead.

Throw an apple out of the window. Go on. Tell me what happens.

In the meantime I'll look for other gravity activities for children.

 

[Forest Nymph]

I think what's really happening here is a flat Earther. Anyone who doesn't understand why we are shorter when we stand up after sleeping all night or why body parts sag, or fruit falls won't understand a more complex explanation, because they're actually arguing that Earth is flat and that's why things fall or sag, while helium or jet propulsion flies.

Nothing you say will convince a flat earther. It's simpler just to post videos and or diagrams of GIS data, air travel routes, etc because talking about things like the Coriolis effect just confuses them further. Obviously they could get this information in a community class or Amazon ordered text book but they are actively choosing not to.

So it's better to show than tell. Sciences are largely observations anyway.

 

[Forest Nymph]

 

[Nekodaiden]

Throw an apple out of the window. Go on. Tell me what happens.

In the meantime I'll look for other gravity activities for children.

You didn’t answer the discrepancy I referred to. No big surprise because you didn’t consider any of my previous posts on the subject.

But I’ll answer your re-direct. The apple will fall if no other force is applied to it because it has a density that is much greater than the air that it falls in. If there’s a swimming pool out that window the apple will not sink in it. It may sink at first if thrown from a really tall window, or with enough applied mechanical energy propelling it towards the pool, but the magical gravity that supposedly propels it down and into the water will suddenly disappear ( and reverse!)
and the apple will float to the top.


Archimedes principle dates back to 250 BC and explains why both an object will rise or fall in a given medium (given no external consistently applied influence or force). One can choose to learn from people like him or just trust the government indoctrination received. The latter is more entertaining, I’ll admit, as it allows for countless exceptions based on ignorance in the fantasy world. Yoda couldn’t teach Luke to believe and use “the force” to overcome “the force” of gravity without it. Midi-Chlorians and gravity, or real science, take your pick.

I think what's really happening here is a flat Earther. Anyone who doesn't understand why we are shorter when we stand up after sleeping all night or why body parts sag, or fruit falls won't understand a more complex explanation, because they're actually arguing that Earth is flat and that's why things fall or sag, while helium or jet propulsion flies.

Nothing you say will convince a flat earther. It's simpler just to post videos and or diagrams of GIS data, air travel routes, etc because talking about things like the Coriolis effect just confuses them further. Obviously they could get this information in a community class or Amazon ordered text book but they are actively choosing not to.

So it's better to show than tell. Sciences are largely observations anyway.

If Michael Stevens (aka Vsauce aka pooplicker888) and pop science is your trusted go go for in-fo I shudder to imagine where you get the rest of your ideas. Thankfully, the age old adage still applies today, no video required:

As for the Flat earth package (the one being argued against in some of the videos you linked), it isn’t one I accept because I know the AE (Azimuthal Equidistant) map is incorrect on various levels. That said, NASA images are garbage, fish eye lens and doctored images provide the curvature most people believe, and

The earth has been proven to be stationary by various scientific proofs over 100, and in some cases substantially more, years ago:

Alternatively, you can subscribe to little green men science. It’s FAR more popular and easier to learn:

 

[Forest Nymph]

You didn’t answer the discrepancy I referred to. No big surprise because you didn’t consider any of my previous posts on the subject.

But I’ll answer your re-direct. The apple will fall if no other force is applied to it because it has a density that is much greater than the air that it falls in. If there’s a swimming pool out that window the apple will not sink in it. It may sink at first if thrown from a really tall window, or with enough applied mechanical energy propelling it towards the pool, but the magical gravity that supposedly propels it down and into the water will suddenly disappear ( and reverse!)
and the apple will float to the top.


Archimedes principle dates back to 250 BC and explains why both an object will rise or fall in a given medium (given no external consistently applied influence or force). One can choose to learn from people like him or just trust the government indoctrination received. The latter is more entertaining, I’ll admit, as it allows for countless exceptions based on ignorance in the fantasy world. Yoda couldn’t teach Luke to believe and use “the force” to overcome “the force” of gravity without it. Midi-Chlorians and gravity, or real science, take your pick.



If Michael Stevens (aka Vsauce aka pooplicker888) and pop science is your trusted go go for in-fo I shudder to imagine where you get the rest of your ideas. Thankfully, the age old adage still applies today, no video required:

As for the Flat earth package (the one being argued against in some of the videos you linked), it isn’t one I accept because I know the AE (Azimuthal Equidistant) map is incorrect on various levels. That said, NASA images are garbage, fish eye lens and doctored images provide the curvature most people believe, and

The earth has been proven to be stationary by various scientific proofs over 100, and in some cases substantially more, years ago:

Alternatively, you can subscribe to little green men science. It’s FAR more popular and easier to learn:

That's all very entertaining, but how do you reconcile a gravity-free world with a spherical world? There's no rational explanation for "no gravity" besides "flat earth."

I'm not any more impressed with your post than I am with a junior high student attempting to offend me.

 

[Forest Nymph]

How do you explain density of different substances such as water and helium to a person who never took a college chemistry class? The silliness of expecting all things to react similarly in different environments or substances is willfully ignorant, it's a trait of someone frightened or embarrassed to take a science class.

 

[Nekodaiden]

That's all very entertaining, but how do you reconcile a gravity-free world with a spherical world? There's no rational explanation for "no gravity" besides "flat earth."

I'm not any more impressed with your post than I am with a junior high student attempting to offend me.

1) I wasn't trying to impress you. I don't look up to you or admire you at all.

2) I said I reject the flat earth package (the one that contains the AE map that I know is flawed.) I didn't say I reject the flat earth.

 

[Nekodaiden]

How do you explain density of different substances such as water and helium to a person who never took a college chemistry class? The silliness of expecting all things to react similarly in different environments or substances is willfully ignorant, it's a trait of someone frightened or embarrassed to take a science class.

And yet, you assumed that exact same thing with your apple example when futilely trying to make a point about gravity. Sorry, not letting you get away with it, lol.

 

[Forest Nymph]

And yet, you assumed that exact same thing with your apple example when futilely trying to make a point about gravity. Sorry, not letting you get away with it, lol.

Okay Nickelodean. I'm very impressed with your act of defiance. You're a very creative student who thinks outside of the box. Perhaps we can assign you to a project where you get to work with the community outside of the school, with your hands! In the meantime, I'm going to insist that you actually read Chapters 12 and 16, and conduct the exercise we discussed in lab on Tuesday. I think it will help you to better understand gravity. Please watch the videos I've assigned because it will assist you in grasping the spherical rotating Earth.