Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.
I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.
I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.
For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.
I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.
Merry Christmas
Metmom. I have to disagree because of the specificity of "immersion" meaning completely submerged. Weight can only be determined IF the body is floating in the medium... immersion can only measure volume accurately.
Take for example a 1 Meter cube of lead and a 1 Meter cube of styrofoam. Both occupy the same volume... but the cube of lead is really easy to immerse in water while you have to work really hard to immerse the cube of styrofoam.
A cubic centimeter of water is very close to 1 g/cc in weight, so a cubic meter of water would weigh 1000 Kilograms or about 2200 pounds. A cubic centimeter of lead weighs ~11.3 grams so the cubic meter of lead would weigh 11,300 Kilograms, or almost 25,000 pounds ... yet it would displace only 1000 Kilograms (2200 lbs) of water. A cubic meter of average density Styrofoam would weigh about 100 Kilograms (220 lbs) (Styrofoam is sold in densities from 25 to 200 Kilogram per cubic meter). That cube of styrofoam, when floated in water, would only displace 100 Kilograms of water... you would have to apply at least 900 Kilograms of force to submerge it.
Displacement of an object that will float measures weight. The displacement of a submerged object can only provide information about volume.
What specifically is used in the calculation? Walk us through the steps.
Are you still asserting that immersion isn't used to find the body volume?
Looks like you have to scratch Swordmaker from the list. Anyonone else want to play?
Thanks.
You don't need to immerse a human body in water to get weight. There are much simpler ways to measure weight.
The fact that this procedure uses immersion is a pretty good indicator that the needed variable is volume.
I see.
I still challenge you to detect gravity in freefall.
Specifically you are in a space capsule with no windows. You are in freefall toward a large airless planet with the mass of Earth and you will impact on its surface in less than 24 hours. Said impact will be less than pleasant for you and your capsule. You have all kinds of instruments but nothing that will tell you anything about things outside your capsule.
How do you detect the gravity that is most certainly acting on your capsule, everything in it, including yourself? At what acceleration is said gravity acting on your capsule? How fast are you currently going and how fast will you be going when your head suddenly tries to occupy the same space as your feet?
You and I were not discussing evolution, we were discussing this question...
Do you believe eliminating religion should be a main goal of working scientists?
...and your refusal to answer it. Well, that and your paranoid delusions, which had only a very tangential relationship to evolution.
That's a simple yes or no question I asked you. Surely it's not taxing your big ol' brain?
As for "childish taunts," derision is what intellectual cowards deserve. Man up or go join Soliton over at DU.
I have agreed on only one item of the topics under discussion, JS: Using displacement in freefall cannot measure mass/weight without acceleration.
Cool. How about a truthful and accurate answer to this:
Do you believe eliminating religion should be a main goal of working scientists?
Simple yes or no answer.
Or are you still under that desk?
I understand that gravity cannot be distinguished from acceleration. But do a thought experiment. Never mind that it is impractical. Einstein's thought experiments about riding a light beam were impractical.
The fact that "you" are in free fall indicates you are a body of some kind. If you have any mass, you have gravity. If you have gravity, it is possible, in principle to detect and measure it.
The earth, for example, is a body in free fall. It is continually falling around the sun.
Trolling is forbidden by the forum rules. Please stop.
Trolling is forbidden by the forum rules. Please stop.
You agreed that a body totally immersed only measures volume. Makes no difference whether it is in free fall or not.
If you think about the procedure for obtaining fat percentage (measuring body density) I'm sure you will reason out the necessity of obtaining body volume. You may even come to agree that using a tank of water to measure a person's weight is overkill. I'm not involved in that trade, but I will bet you a week of posting privileges that immersion is used to obtain body volume, and that if they didn't need volume, they could simply use a weight scale.
How? Physicists around the world are waiting with bated breath to hear how you are going to do it.
Te earth is a body in free fall. You can measure the gravity of the earth. Which is exactly what I said in my previous post.
I’m not trying to be cute. I agree that in free fall you can’t detect acceleration or the source of acceleration. But you can, in principle, detect your own gravity.
Went back to DC (Darwin Central) with his tail between his legs....
Never said it wasn't. I am not arguing that. I have had my body mass ratio's done. I was put in a tank, they got a displacement reading while I was floating to calculate my mass accurately. They then had me grab a bar and pull myself completely under water and they then got a volumetric measurement. The computer then calculated everything from those measurements using known human body fat to muscle to bone ratios. As I recall, they did not weigh me on a scale because with the computerized equipment being used, it would have been redundant.
Certainly, they could have used either a spring scale (fairly inaccurate) or a balance scale (fairly accurate) but then you might introduce operator error in inputing weights collected from each instruments.
As to bets with posting privilege stakes, you have proposed that to me before I believe. I do not play. I do not believe these micro-issues are important enough to see you gone for an enforced period of time so long as you argue your positions civilly. Soliton (remember him? He's the character that started this thread... ;^)>) got his enforced time-outs because he was never civil for any length of time. When he was refuted with facts and peer-reviewed science he always resorted to ad hominem attacks on either the sources or the person posting.
Frankly, I am as much on your side as on the sides of the others involved in this discussion. My purpose is to critique the science claims either way. I will even correct myself when I make a mistake.
I am not a creationist, nor am I an evolutionist. I see too much evidence for an ancient Earth to accept that it was not in existence 10,000 years ago. However, I see to many statistical accidents that have to work out just right, in contravention of laws of entropy, for evolution to continually go from the simple to the complex, simply by random occurrences. Too many evolutionary, mutational "improvements" are not statistically significant enough to assure the replacement of the previous un-mutated animals and plants simply by survival of the fittest; the "fittest" just aren't that much more fit. I also find far to many assumptions based on assumptions based on even more assumptions in the ancient studies such as archaeology and paleontology. Often, when you track the assumptions back, you find they are baseless, or merely dogma. Too much in science that was considered gospel truth ten years ago, is now known to have been falsified. Go back 20 years and it is even worse.
It wasn't too long ago that catastrophism was considered a crackpot idea... but now most paleontologists accept that catastrophes are major life changers. Evolution science has moved from a "belief" that the mode was a steady progression of mutation and survival of the fittest to concepts of punctuated evolution where some event makes for major mutational alterations and extreme die-offs of animals that were once "the fittest."
Can you? What are you measuring? Gravity? or merely its localized effects?
Can you see the wind? The answer is no. You only see the localized EFFECTS of the wind on things effected by the wind. Wind is far more explicable than is gravity. We don't even know what medium gravity is propagated through, if it is propagated at all... or if there even is a medium.
The original comment from tpanther in post 760 was this...
"Of course, sometimes a person is suspended in a tank of water and the amount of water displaced measures body weight/mass/fat content, muscle content, etc."
Note: he said *suspended*.
Which is what started this all.
In post 763 js replied with....
You are not measuring weight, nor mass, nor fat content.
In post 766 js changes the term from *suspended* to *immersed*, thus changing the direction of the debate.
Humor me. show me a link to a claim that the water displaced by an immersed human body measures weight, mass and body fat.
Post 780-js
You made the rather interesting claim that the displacement of water by a human body measures weight and fat content rather than volume, and you think I'm absurd?
post 789-js:Displacement measures volume, not weight.
post 793-js When you say “immersed” do you mean completely immersed, or floating? I’m assuming you mean completely immersed.
tpanther never said *immersed*. That was js' statement.
In post 795 js:It remains true that measuring the amount of water displaced by a completely immersed object tells you its volume and tells you nothing about its weight.
The whole immersion thing was a construct. It was not brought up by tpanther. Why js is arguing against someone for something they never said is beyond me.
In principle. But gravity is not material, like air.
There are no gravitons that science has been able to detect in any way. They are only theoretical.
It cannot be seen, like light; it cannot be felt, like heat.
It is not directly detectable by the human senses. It can only be detected by it's effect on the objects within its area of influence.
It was its effect on objects that lead Newton to conclude that it must exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.