Here's a puzzle for you...

Separate forum to permit easy exclusion when searching for serious information !
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby beardy » 24 Jun 2015, 7:33pm

MickF was standing up at the time, if he had gone on his tip toes? :lol:

Manc33
Posts: 1388
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby Manc33 » 24 Jun 2015, 8:19pm

I wonder if you can see any of Blackpool tower stood at sea level on the isle of man along its North East coast.

Looking on Google Earth it looks like cliffs all the way down it, typical, I mean you could just ring someone up that is there (Maughold for example, close to 60 miles from beach to tower) and say "Hey sorry to bother you, I know you don't know me but have you ever seen Blackpool tower from the beach?"

Then he would say "Yeah but it's a mirage if I do". :lol:
Only weird bikes are interesting anymore.

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 8933
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby 661-Pete » 24 Jun 2015, 9:00pm

What fun we're all having here! :lol:

I have to confess I'm rather lost in all this debate as to whether Blackpool Rock is visible from Mars, or whatever the above very convoluted argument may be about. And I don't think it's really Manc33's line of reasoning to try and convince us that the Earth is flat. In fact, if that were the case, I reiterate my earlier suggestion that we decamp to the Flat Earth forum where the debate could continue unabated in more suitable surroundings. (Actually, I recently discovered that there were two rival Flat Earth forums, when I mistakenly tried to log into the wrong one - perhaps one could be played against the other....)

Enough of that. :)

No - I think Manc33's argument is to try to demolish the belief that (a) all scientists know exactly what they're talking about, and (b) all scientists believe they know exactly what they're talking about. As a sometime 'scientist', may I put in my 2p's worth?

I must confess my days as a physics undergraduate are long past, but I seem to recall we spent little or no time on any study as to whether the Earth is flat. Indeed, this field of research was, unaccountably, not touched upon even in the Astronomy option which I took in my first year. Sorry about that! What we did spend a lot of time on, was rather more erudite topics in 20th century physics - in particular Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity.

Now it may well be, that Manc33 will come up and assert that there is no proof that Quantum Mechanics truly describes the behaviour of atomic and subatomic particles. Nor that Relativity is an exact statement of the laws of motion of bodies at very high velocities, or of certain electromagnetic phenomena. Let him*. I do not intend to say that they are. What I will say, is that QM is a very useful model which helps to predict the behaviour of these small particles, far closer to experimental observation than preceding classical mechanics could. And we can and have been using that model to help design items of modern technology. Does Manc33 use a computer (or smartphone maybe) to type in his posts on this forum? Computers depend on semiconductors for their working, and modern scientists would not have got very far in their understanding of how semiconductors work, or how to design using them, without a basis in QM. Maybe Manc33 can point us to another theory which, with equal confidence, describes the properties of semiconductors sufficiently to enable someone to design a computer. Good luck!

As to Relativity (strictly speaking, I'm referring to Special Relativity), most lay people will suppose that it was devised to (a) help design the atom bomb (E=mc² and all that), and (b) flummox people with weird stories of an interstellar traveller returning from a voyage only weeks older, whilst everyone back on Earth has aged 80 years. Nothing of the sort. The main reason for Relativity coming into being, was to provide a consistent basis for the laws of electromagnetism, in particular as (accurately) described by James Clerk Maxwell in 1873, in relation to a moving observer. Without Maxwell's Equations, and in particular its extension into Relativity, we would not have properly understood electromagnetism. There would probably be no radio, no TV, no satellite communication, no mobile phones, etc. etc. Once again, Manc33 could turn round and say there may be a completely different theory to account for all this. The point is, we use electromagnetism to help us design the modern technology that makes things work. Why not stick with it, until someone can prove it fundamentally wrong?

So what I'm trying to say is, the physicist is not an arrogant know-it-all asserting "I am right". He or she is saying: "this is a good model, it seems to explain things, let's use it unless something better comes up. And let's try and gain a better understanding at the same time". Otherwise there would be no intake of new physicists to replace those who have died. But there are!

For those who stopped reading this about half way down ... sorry about all the boring science... :oops:

*I'm assuming that Manc33 is a 'he'. Have we any proof of that?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby beardy » 24 Jun 2015, 9:08pm

So what I'm trying to say is, the physicist is not an arrogant know-it-all asserting "I am right". He or she is saying: "this is a good model, it seems to explain things, let's use it unless something better comes up. And let's try and gain a better understanding at the same time". Otherwise there would be no intake of new physicists to replace those who have died. But there are!


You may be describing an ideal physicist there. And no physician that I have met.

Manc33
Posts: 1388
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby Manc33 » 24 Jun 2015, 9:47pm

Some people in the flat Earth camp reckon nuclear weapons don't even exist.

"Albert Lyingstein" :lol:

Then others say in the early days of NASA, that's what they were firing at the unbreakable "firmament".

Once NASA realized they are not able to penetrate the dome roof (and that the Earth is flat) they decided to just carry on with the ball thesis regardless, since it was what people thought already and "pretending" to go into space could justify asking for a lot of cash.

Then you get people that say "It would cost more to fake all of that than to actually do it". Yes but that is assuming they could do it if they spent the funds on it... but if Earth is flat, they literally can't do it and that would be the reason, so its like double fakery or something.
Only weird bikes are interesting anymore.

orraloon
Posts: 7
Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 10:45am

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby orraloon » 24 Jun 2015, 9:52pm

661-Pete wrote:What fun we're all having here! :lol:

...

*I'm assuming that Manc33 is a 'he'. Have we any proof of that?


Do a google search on Manc33 and draw your own conclusions.

He has succeeded in drawing y'all into his strange world. Over on BR when these baits were dangled eventually discussion turned to frustration and then to mocking before he got shown the door. You seem to be more tolerant here. Mind you, there were 60+ pages of it there on the notorious Conspiracy Theory thread as well as multiple derailings of other threads.

Manc-watch over and out.

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby beardy » 24 Jun 2015, 10:28pm

He has succeeded in drawing y'all into his strange world


I think that you will find that he has succeeded into drawing y'all into our strange world and welcome you are to the forum. :lol:

He doesnt know it but he is being put through the paces for admission into the helmets subforum.
His argument technique is a match even for the Maestro Angela Lee, in fact I am wondering if that is who Manc is as I havent heard of Angela for a long time.

As for this place being more tolerant, just try swearing or rather dont try swearing. :shock:

jochta
Posts: 406
Joined: 13 Mar 2009, 11:54am

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby jochta » 24 Jun 2015, 10:28pm

orraloon wrote:
661-Pete wrote:What fun we're all having here! :lol:

...

*I'm assuming that Manc33 is a 'he'. Have we any proof of that?


Do a google search on Manc33 and draw your own conclusions.

He has succeeded in drawing y'all into his strange world. Over on BR when these baits were dangled eventually discussion turned to frustration and then to mocking before he got shown the door. You seem to be more tolerant here. Mind you, there were 60+ pages of it there on the notorious Conspiracy Theory thread as well as multiple derailings of other threads.

Manc-watch over and out.


I'm finding it quite amusing how Manc33 leaps from one hypothesis to the next and back again as they get proved to be incorrect. Not heard much about the transparent Moon recently...

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby TonyR » 24 Jun 2015, 10:37pm

jochta wrote:Not heard much about the transparent Moon recently...


Yes, we all saw through that one :wink:

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 8933
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby 661-Pete » 24 Jun 2015, 10:47pm

jochta wrote:Not heard much about the transparent Moon recently...
I do hope the Moon doesn't turn out to be too transparent! I'm planning to go and see an eclipse next year (in Indonesia :) ).
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

sjs
Posts: 725
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby sjs » 24 Jun 2015, 11:22pm

jochta wrote:
Ah but put your two black dots on a horizontal line and see the curvature the light needs to refract around, over a hump of water about 500 feet tall. This curve is incredibly shallow as the Earth is a really big thing. Someone who can be bothered to do the maths will work out angle A for you for an object 58 miles away (it'll be very small). Note that this is assuming your eyeball is resting on the Earth's surface.

Image


I can be bothered to do the maths, though I could easily be wrong as I'm losing interest and there's been beer involved. It's about 0.4 degrees. But I don't suppose Manc believes in trigonometry or Pythagoras's efforts.

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 8933
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby 661-Pete » 25 Jun 2015, 9:20am

beardy wrote:You may be describing an ideal physicist there.
Ideal physicist? If only there were such a creature! We'd now have perfect explanations of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc. etc., not to mention String theory and/or a TOE....

... And no physician that I have met.

'Physician'? Yep I've come across the odd quack doctor, but we're off-topic. Or are we?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby beardy » 25 Jun 2015, 9:32am

In my experience you can normally pick out doctors (and teachers) because they are so sure about being right, on every subject. I think the profession demands such surety as they are the source of knowledge and people are reassured if they have confidence in that source.

Some take it to the extreme of preferring to make up an answer than say those dreaded words "I dont know". There is training for teachers on how to tackle a question that they can not answer but many prefer to bluff it out than use the "I dont know but I will try and find out for you".

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 46082
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby Mick F » 25 Jun 2015, 10:31am

beardy wrote:In my experience you can normally pick out doctors (and teachers)
Yes, because of the way they dress, their attitude, and the way they walk and talk. Nothing you can put your finger on precisely, but a "certain something" is evident.

It is the same with the forces. You could tell which one was a sailor, a marine, or an airman or a soldier. Something about how they "look" and act.
Same with a policeman/woman too.

I used to take pride in not looking or acting like a sailor and it was surprising to the people we knew locally who had no idea I was in the RN .............. until I told them.

Mrs Mick F is a teaching assistant at the local primary school, and I often tell her she's dressing like a teacher. :lol:
Mick F. Cornwall

Manc33
Posts: 1388
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: Here's a puzzle for you...

Postby Manc33 » 26 Jun 2015, 4:09am

In school I respected a lot more of my teachers than I didn't respect.

The only ones I didn't respect were ones that demanded utter perfection with a Hitlerian ruthlessness, but those tended to be older ones and few and far between.

Some were flat out unrealistic like the one that doubled your detention time if you didn't show up. I had a detention on my birthday and didn't go, it was overlooked. I worked out by the end of school a few years later I owed them billions of hours in detention time.

Reminds me of Al Bundy taking his book back to the library as an adult after decades and it is the same librarian from when he was a kid asking him to pay an insane sum in back fees. :lol:
Only weird bikes are interesting anymore.