Keiran wrote:Jedi Master Spock wrote:Interesting, but side-tracking roundabout through velocity still isn't simple repetition.
True, my example posts probably weren't the best. But tell me this (near the end of the thread) doesn't sound familiar:
AVOGARDO wrote:If there would be another source of gravitation, it would sum up to a lightly changed pull. The pull of a source of gravitation would increase, the more its source get near to you (or you to it.) Thus you can determine the velocity throug the increasing force of the pull, if you assume, that the source doesn't change its own mass.
Sounds a lot like this?
AVOGARDO wrote:If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying.
This is a scenario I had already proven false much earlier: "you don't know if it's a big object moving slowly or a small object moving quickly." You need more information than what he gives in the scenario.
And again, it boils down to the same thing. If you have the mass, you can get the distance and velocity; if you have the distance, you can get the mass and velocity, etc.
There's more to it than just that, given that each gravimeter is going to lump everything within detection range into one vector. You'll have a bunch of possible gravity well combinations that could match your readings, and the problem becomes trying to figure out which range of possibilities is close enough and which ranges to ignore.
I'll address this in a fresh thread, since there's clearly interest in discussing it further.
Hyperbole is not dishonesty, especially when the term "astrophysicist" can be used to describe a "scientist" who is an "accepted expert" on gravitons. (Somehow, I don't think undergrads count as accepted experts.)
Actually, hyperbole
is dishonesty. You're saying something that even you don't think to be true.
It is easy to imagine that the proper undergrad student could be considered someone worth listening to from AVOGARDO's statement. Or the lab assistant, the graduate student, a high school physics teacher, etc. He doesn't set very specific limits in his statement, while your reinterpretation
does.
My issue with what he said was the construct of "I'll also accept speculation from someone knowledgeable, but he must be a scientist and an accepted expert on gravitons, and he must not be an engineer" is nonsense if accepted at face value. The fact that he went into detail on requirements and made an exclusionary clause is very telling.
See... he didn't say that they
must be a scientist. He would definitely accept one from an appropriate scientist, but as he angrily pointed out, "even" is not the same as "only." Even the scientist need not be an astrophysicist - I pointed out that all sorts of other scientists can qualify under the explanation. To judge by what was actually
said is to clearly exonerate him of the charge of lying; the only thing present is a disagreement between you and him on what he "really meant" when he said it.
Actually, he's way off. (As was your estimation. Check your math: intensity is reduced by the square of distance.
Not at all. I pointed out that Mars was apparently an exaggeration, and that the Moon would have been a more appropriate reference (and it is). As I indicated, snowflakes vary quite wildly in size, and the minimum threshold for detection is lower than the typical signal received and resolved from background noise.
He was using it as evidence for his claim. It was fallacious. And considering the differences between a radio telescope and a gravimeter, he's still way off.
So why not point that out instead? Why try to hang your hat on a resolution claim that you're not even sure of yourself?
The burden of proof was not on us to calculate the answer for him.
And this has what? He was challenged to produce evidence from somewhere else to support his assertions of radio telescope resolution, and he linked to a site that gives you fairly precise technical specifications of a modern radio telescope after telling you that his original statement was a bit hyperbolic and overblown (and if you'd actually read through the website he provided, you would have had those technical specifications on hand to talk about the resolution.) What's wrong with that?
