K-9 Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Foxx said: i didn't think it a question, more of a statement really. as for Jesuit Priests, i never gave it much thought of whether or not their poles were flat. Ah, it was a rhetorical jab at Reed83. Got it. I was looking at it from a more expanded definition of the word as I’ve long been struck by the seeming conflict of the pure religious commitment of the Jesuits vs their dedication and numerous contributions to science. Seeming conflict to those who feel science and religion are somehow intertwined, that is. I’ve never felt that way.
sleeby Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 Moon shots is another one - going into orbit around a moon or planet and swinging off to get easy inertia. Unless, they also do not beleive we have been to mars, Pluto and now well beyond. Object in motion stays in motion in space. But you guys are going about it all wrong here. Never gonna work. To work in dark ages argument one must adopt dark ages logical thought. Start with this and adapt as needed: Monty python is it a witch: http://lexx.thebruce.net/poem/monty.html
shrader Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 I do find it interesting to be told to question the truth of all history and science books, all while at the same time treating one specific book as absolute.
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Foxx said: as a practical exercise, it is good to question commonly held beliefs. there is always new information arriving that throws our current understanding off. questioning also serves as a learning tool. don't be so firm in your beliefs that you reject something out of hand. question everything, except the flat earth meme, obviously. It's not a good idea to question objective, provable FACTS, however. I mean, proving the Earth is a sphere is frickin' high school science. It's not that difficult.
Foxx Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, K-9 said: Ah, it was a rhetorical jab at Reed83. Got it. I was looking at it from a more expanded definition of the word as I’ve long been struck by the seeming conflict of the pure religious commitment of the Jesuits vs their dedication and numerous contributions to science. Seeming conflict to those who feel science and religion are somehow intertwined, that is. I’ve never felt that way. i guess by their very definition, they seek to find their diety in all things. that they strive to do this in the field of science is not really surprising. rather, it would seem to be an extension of proselytizing their faith. as we should mostly know, science and faith have long been at odds with one another. using science to prove the existence (or lack of evidence even) of their diety is just a natural inroad to those whom might otherwise be inured to things along those lines. 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: It's not a good idea to question objective, provable FACTS, however. I mean, proving the Earth is a sphere is frickin' high school science. It's not that difficult. i agree. i don't believe i've ever said the Earth isn't a (oblate) spheroid. i am really just arguing semantics here.
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: i guess by their very definition, they seek to find their diety in all things. that they strive to do this in the field of science is not really surprising. rather, it would seem to be an extension of proselytizing their faith. as we should mostly know, science and faith have long been at odds with one another. using science to prove the existence (or lack of evidence even) of their diety is just a natural inroad to those whom might otherwise be inured to things along those lines. i agree. i don't believe i've ever said the Earth isn't a (oblate) spheroid. i am really just arguing semantics here. No, I believe you said it's open to question. Which is fine...but how you question is the essence of science. Saying "I saw youtube videos, so it might be false!" is bull ****. Actually learning some spherical geometry, and going outside and taking some measurements is the proper method of question. Science is not about "truth" or "belief." It is about MEASUREMENT. If you can't measure it, it's not science. If you WON'T measure it, then you're just willfully ignorant. 1
Foxx Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, I believe you said it's open to question. Which is fine...but how you question is the essence of science. Saying "I saw youtube videos, so it might be false!" is bull ****. Actually learning some spherical geometry, and going outside and taking some measurements is the proper method of question. Science is not about "truth" or "belief." It is about MEASUREMENT. If you can't measure it, it's not science. If you WON'T measure it, then you're just willfully ignorant. right. the Earth is most certainly flat, 'in places'. also, the Earth isn't a perfectly round sphere, it is flatter at the poles and bulges at the equator but overall is considered to be spherical. there are other ways to question it other than spherical geometry as well that would be considered, 'good science'.
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 2 hours ago, BillsFan4 said: Dude, you can observe that the moon is spherical, or technically an oblate spheroid, with a telescope. Or even with the naked eye. you can see the different features (sea of tranquility, mountain ranges, craters, rays, rills etc etc) on the surface of the moon as it spins and orbits earth. How would that be possible if it were flat? What's more, even though the moon is tidally locked to the earth, so that one hemisphere is always facing us, because of the parallax effect of being on different sides of the earth, we can actually directly observe slightly more than 50% of the moon's surface from Earth (something like 58%). The only way that's possible is if the moon is spherical. 1
Augie Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: What's more, even though the moon is tidally locked to the earth, so that one hemisphere is always facing us, because of the parallax effect of being on different sides of the earth, we can actually directly observe slightly more than 50% of the moon's surface from Earth (something like 58%). The only way that's possible is if the moon is spherical. Geno disagrees, but then, he has no idea what some of those words mean.
Ayjent Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 3:22 PM, DC Tom said: I don't believe you're an idiot. I hypothesize that you are, and posit a null hypothesis that you're not, then after empirical observation and measurement of this post, I scientifically conclude that you are an idiot (p>0.95), which allows me to not only explain your dumbass post above, but allows me to predict that your next post will be of roughly equal dumbassery. You make some interesting conclusions but you didn't show your work. Could be that you made too many assumptions without knowing anything about the subject.
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 18 minutes ago, Ayjent said: You make some interesting conclusions but you didn't show your work. Could be that you made too many assumptions without knowing anything about the subject. That was just the abstract. The complete paper was submitted for publication in the Journal of American Morons. You can have a reprint for $25. Or an annual subscription is $395...but for card-carrying idiots like yourself, we offer it at a discount price of $425. 2
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, BuffAlone said: In fact, there are still to this day scholars teaching a flat earth. Just show me 2 pictures of earth that are the same, and i'll never question it again What do you say to all the images from the ISS? Fake images? Why do commercial and government agencies continue to send 15 thousands of pounds of equipment to the ISS every 3 months? The Elon Musk images from the Falcon Heavy rocket must be fake too. Edited February 27, 2018 by ShadyBillsFan
TheFunPolice Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) um, every map you roll out is flat. Globes are just a way to make looking at the FLAT MAP of the FLAT EARTH a little more convenient. They were NEVER MEANT to imply that the actual earth was round! Some of you will believe anything the government tells you. today it's that the earth is round, even though you can't stand on a ball without losing your balance! Such good little drones... The earth is a flat slab around which the entire solar system and universe revolve. That's why you can set up your camera at night and see the swirl of the stars in a timed exposure. It all revolves around the earth! Edited February 27, 2018 by TheFunPolice 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 4 hours ago, Foxx said: oh boy, now your getting into the Hollow Earth meme. It's not hollow. It's honeycombed. 3 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said: It's bizarre to me that in 2018, there are flat earthers. It's not that surprising when you trace the origins of the Flat Earth movement.
BuffAlone Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 15 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said: What do you say to all the images from the ISS? Fake images? Why do commercial and government agencies continue to send 15 thousands of pounds of equipment to the ISS every 3 months? The Elon Musk images from the Falcon Heavy rocket must be fake too. Yes, in fact they ARE fake...or maybe altered. True. There are not 2 single "photos" of Earth that look remotely the same...from 1970-current. Why? Don't believe me? Find me 2. I'd be all of interest if somebody could. Period. I never said I was convinced, but damn, there's no more evidence either way to tell me to accept it blindly, and I won't
BuffAlone Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Reed83HOF said: Safe to say evolution is a touchy subject as well? Did you or your family evlove from apes? Just curious. Cuz human dna is only 2 strands different from EVERY OTHER SPECIES ON EARTH. So, you human? If so, explain to me the obtuseness you have to new information please, and why.thanks
Deranged Rhino Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, BuffAlone said: I never said I was convinced, but damn, there's no more evidence either way to tell me to accept it blindly, and I won't If there's evidence for something, that means you don't have to accept it blindly. And there's mountains of evidence that the Earth is not flat. Much more than the other way around.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, BuffAlone said: Yes, in fact they ARE fake...or maybe altered. True. There are not 2 single "photos" of Earth that look remotely the same...from 1970-current. Why? Don't believe me? Find me 2. I'd be all of interest if somebody could. Period. I never said I was convinced, but damn, there's no more evidence either way to tell me to accept it blindly, and I won't Funny but when I walk into work and speak to the former astronauts who spent 6 months on the ISS they tell me differently. You are aware that cameras have improved in the last 40 years right? You are aware that the earth is ever shifting right? You are aware that the ice shelves are shrinking right? Edited February 27, 2018 by ShadyBillsFan
BuffAlone Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 1 hour ago, shrader said: I do find it interesting to be told to question the truth of all history and science books, all while at the same time treating one specific book as absolute. That's my point...NOTHING should be absolute. We have ZERO PROOF either way. And to criticize someone and call them ignorant is the absolute wrong thing to do
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 Just now, BuffAlone said: That's my point...NOTHING should be absolute. We have ZERO PROOF either way. And to criticize someone and call them ignorant is the absolute wrong thing to do We have LOTS of proof. You can go outside and prove it yourself - it's backyard science. Calling you ignorant for it is absolutely appropriate, as if you think we have zero proof, it can only be because you are willfully ignorant.
Recommended Posts