The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Raa on November 19, 2006, 01:05:51 PM
-
How come we can see the Big Dipper on the 21st of March and the 21st of September?
Are the stars going around the sun also?
Ha!
I thought y'all said the stars don't move.
__
___stars................Earth...................sun....................Earth..........stars-Big Dipper
--------------------21st Sept------------------------------21st March
-
wtf????
if u don't understand , don't swear
-
Aren't you going to explain why we shouldn't?
-
Aren't you going to explain why we shouldn't?
if the stars don't move , how come we see the big dipper on march 21st and on sept. 21st. On these 2 dates your round earth is on opposite side of the sun horizontally and at night you are looking away from the sun, so therefore if you see the same stars then that means that the stars are goingaround the sun also.
-
W E L L[/size]
-
The stars which are visible do depend on the time of year. You can check star-maps and similar. (How does the FE model explain that, by the way?)
However, the big dipper, being near the north star, is not directly opposite the sun from the earth, but is rather above it (in your diagram.) But there's no reason you shouldn't be able to see it any time of year.
Night sky from London, England on March 21 at 10 pm (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1058/skychartmarchoo2.gif)
Night sky from London, England on September 21 at 10 pm (http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7558/skychartsepteq4.gif)
(Images for the year 2006. These images are from heavens-above.com (http://www.heavens-above.com/), where you can make your own starcharts for any location at any time - feel free to confirm their accuracy yourself with your own observations.)
Note that the stars near the north star are visible in each, but the views are rotated about the north star, so different stars are visible in the spring and in the fall, but the ones near the north star are visible year-round (as is the north star itself.)[/url]
-
The skies do look different in September than they do in March. :roll:
The closest star to us is several billion light years away from us, so the shift in perspective has almost no effect on how we see the big dipper at all.
-
at night we look away from the sun-in the round earth theory. so therefore the stars are further than pluto horizontally from the sun. why do we get the same effect 1/2 a year later on the opposite side of the sun.
with flat earth, the earth doesn't move, but the stars, do every night, like the moon and sun.
now if the north star is above the north pole , that means that the north star is horiontally further away from the sun than pluto on sept. 21st and on march 21st the north star is over and past the sun. this would be the 1st time that we can see the sun and the north star at the same time. does this happen in the north pole during its' summer period. do people over there see the sun and north star all summa long.
-
The stars which are visible do depend on the time of year. You can check star-maps and similar. (How does the FE model explain that, by the way?)
However, the big dipper, being near the north star, is not directly opposite the sun from the earth, but is rather above it (in your diagram.) I'll post a picture in a sec. But there's no reason you shouldn't be able to see it any time of year.
if the RE north star is directly above the north pole all the time then that means that the stars are following the yearly tilt and rotation of the north pole. the RE has a norht pole that tilts away from the sun on sept 21 and towards ths sun on march 21st
-
Does this happen in the north pole during its' summer period. do people over there see the sun and north star all summa long.
Yes exactlly. If you are in the northern hemisphere, the north star never sets. No matter what time of year, and not even durring the day. Never.
And the big dipper is very close to the north star, so for most people in the northern hemisphere (above about 20 degrees north latitude), it does not set.
And yes, the north pole does experience several months of constant sunlight durring the northern summer, and several months of darkness durring the northern winter.
[EDIT]
Just in case some incredibly picky FE'er feels like pointing this out. I know that technicaly, yes, the north star will eventually set as the celestial north pole changes position on it's 26,000 long year cycle. But polaris will still aproximate the Celestial North pole for at least another few thousand years.
-
Okay, here is a rough diagram meant to show what's going on:
(http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/9887/starexplanationni4.gif)
Note: this image is not at all to scale, but gets the point across: stars in different directions are visible from different times of year. About the north star: yes, it is visible year-round at night in the northern hemisphere, and at the north pole it's always directly overhead. No, this does not mean it's visible year-round, because during the summer, it's always daytime at the north pole.
Raa, do you object to this being a perfectly valid RE explanation for this phenomena? If so, what problems do you have with it?
-
if u can see the north star from the north pole in the winter, what does that mean
-
A more acurate version of your crude drawing would actually look like this:
----------------------------------stars-Big Dipper
_
l
(This distance is much, much larger)
l
_
___stars................Earth...................sun....................Earth..........
--------------------21st Sept------------------------------21st March
-
if u can see the north star from the north pole in the winter, what does that mean
Why should it mean anything? You can see the north star from the north pole in winter. It is directly overhead.
-
A more acurate version of your crude drawing would actually look like this:
stars
(This distance is much, much larger)
Earth
Yes, I understood that, hence the "note: this image is not at all to scale" I put in, but I think it gives a good visual clue as to what is going on.
-
Okay, here is a rough diagram meant to show what's going on:
(http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/9887/starexplanationni4.gif)
Note: this image is not at all to scale, but gets the point across: stars in different directions are visible from different times of year. About the north star: yes, it is visible year-round at night in the northern hemisphere, and at the north pole it's always directly overhead. No, this does not mean it's visible year-round, because during the summer, it's always daytime at the north pole.
Raa, do you object to this being a perfectly valid RE explanation for this phenomena? If so, what problems do you have with it?
so the north star is always directly over the north pole all year round...this proves MY point. ...since the north pole points in different directions with the change of seasons (especially winter and summer) and the north star is still over head, then they both moved together, and that means that the stars moved.
-
The Celestial North pole does not point in different directions with the change of seasons. The Earths axes is, for all intents and puposes, fixed pointing in one direction (at Polaris.)
BTW Skeptical scientist, I was refering to Raa's diagram, not yours.
-
A more acurate version of your crude drawing would actually look like this:
----------------------------------stars-Big Dipper
_
l
(This distance is much, much larger)
l
_
___stars................Earth...................sun....................Earth..........
--------------------21st Sept------------------------------21st March
i understand but the north star is directly over the north pole, and the north pole points in a different direction during summer than in winter
-
the north pole points in a different direction during summer than in winter
It doesn't
The NCP is fixed pointing in one direction. That is why Polaris does not move durring the year. Winter, Summer, Day or Night, it is always in the same place in the sky.
-
the north pole points in a different direction during summer than in winter
It doesn't
The NCP is fixed pointing in one direction. That is why Polaris does not move durring the year. Winter, Summer, Day or Night, it is always in the same place in the sky.
in winter the north pole points away from the sun , that's why there's no light there, in summer it points more towards the sun
______________north star______________
----north pole----------sun----------north pole
_______\___________()___________\_____
........winter................................summer......
this is the picture, but where's the symmetry. if the earth goes half way around the sun (1/2 way around a circle) then there should be symmetry. in this case there is no symmetry because the north star is not moving.
-
Exactly! The NCP always points in the same direction, and the Earth (Tilted slightly from the plane of it's orbit) simply moves around the sun.
So what is it that you are questioning?
-
if the earth tilts on a yearly basis shouldn't it be closer to the sun during its' northern summer months? or further during its' northern winter months? all this because the north star is not moving
-
if the earth tilts on a yearly basis shouldn't it be closer to the sun during its' northern summer months? or further during its' northern winter months? all this because the north star is not moving
No. Not at all.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/North_season.jpg
Actually, the Earth orbit is slightly elliptical which results in it being closer to the sun durring the northern winter months. But the effects of this are insignificant. We can approximate the Earths orbit as being a circle.
-
in winter the north pole points away from the sun , that's why there's no light there, in summer it points more towards the sun
______________north star______________
----north pole----------sun----------north pole
_______\___________()___________\_____
........winter................................summer......
You're right that in the summer the north pole is towards the sun and in winter it's not, but the relative locations have changed. The direction in which the north pole points is fixed.
-
Raa. Go outside. Pick a spot on the ground and label it "S". Now walk around S in a circle. Look up at the sun the whole time. Notice how the sun is always in the same position in the sky? It's not directly overhead, but you always look in the same direction to see it anyway.
The Earth's orientation with respect to the North Star is the same thing. If you were Earth, standing on the solar ecliptic (the plane containing the Earth, the Sun, and the other planets), and walking around the Sun in circles, the North Star would always be in the same part of the "sky"... 23 degrees away from straight up, or whatever it is.
When things are very far away, they don't appear to move when you do. This is true for distant mountains, the moon, the sun, and the North Star.
-
Anyway this question doesn't feel very "ultimate" to me.
-
here, for a final explanation, go to http://www.shatters.net/celestia/ (http://www.shatters.net/celestia/) this should solve your star problem... download, study, enjoy, reprogram your brain to be normal...
-
if the north pole is pointing at the north star at 13 degrees on sept 21st and if the north pole is pointing at the north star at 28.5 degrees on march 21st [ taking into consideration that the north star is not moving] then where is the symmetry; physical or mathematical.
on the flat earth system the sun is symmetrically south of the position it had on the 21st of september, because it is half way across the 365 day year. with the RE system , you position the earth half way around the sun , but you don't give me it's exact position (degree of the north pole and distance from the sun...they should be symmetrically related in some way or other even though the north pole doesn't move, simply because you said it, now prove it!)....because it doesn't correspond with the position you give it presently in astonomical calculations. I am asking you a question which has never been asked before to astrologists yet which cannot be answered by astrologists, therefore your theory is incomplete. Mine is complete because the sun has a position from which it returns at exactly every 182.5 days, those 2 days being march 21st and sept 21st, every year, for ever futuristically and this has been also happening infinetly for ever in the past tense. understand clearly now, i am not saying anything about positions of the sun, i am only talking about movements of the sun, and my propositions are much more powerfull than your propositions that the earth is revolving, yet it is impossible to give me exact positions BECAUSE IT IS MOVING ALL THE TIME --- your contradiction
-
if the north pole is pointing at the north star at 13 degrees on sept 21st and if the north pole is pointing at the north star at 28.5 degrees on march 21st [ taking into consideration that the north star is not moving] then where is the symmetry; physical or mathematical.
What are you talking about? The earth has a constant axial tilt of 23.5 degrees.
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9947/axialtiltsw2.jpg) (http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/1622/axialtiltch4.jpg)
-
I am asking you a question which has never been asked before to astrologists yet which cannot be answered by astrologists, therefore your theory is incomplete....
Most astrologists would indeed have trouble answering this... but by looking at these same stars they could tell you your future, for a small fee.
-
if the north pole is pointing at the north star at 13 degrees on sept 21st and if the north pole is pointing at the north star at 28.5 degrees on march 21st [ taking into consideration that the north star is not moving] then where is the symmetry; physical or mathematical.
What are you talking about? The earth has a constant axial tilt of 23.5 degrees.
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9947/axialtiltsw2.jpg) (http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/1622/axialtiltch4.jpg)
that makes my point supreme.
if the axial tilt of the earth is 23.5 degrees on both sides of the sun then that means that the north star moved also...other wise the angle of the tilt should be a little less or a little more, NO MATTER HOW FAR THE NORTH STAR IS
hey by the way my indian name is RoadRunner, and no matter how many acme products you use, telescopes, calculators, etc, i still don't think you'll ever catch me :P
-
if the axial tilt of the earth is 23.5 degrees on both sides of the sun then that means that the north star moved also...other wise the angle of the tilt should be a little less or a little more, NO MATTER HOW FAR THE NORTH STAR IS
In principle, the North Star isn't exactly directly over the North Pole all the time. Because it's very far away, it is directly over the North Pole to an extremely close degree of precision.
The angle of the Earth's axial tilt remains the same, and the North star remains in the same place. The exact direction to the North Star changes, but not enough for the change to be detectable.
-
if the axial tilt of the earth is 23.5 degrees on both sides of the sun then that means that the north star moved also...other wise the angle of the tilt should be a little less or a little more, NO MATTER HOW FAR THE NORTH STAR IS
In principle, the North Star isn't exactly directly over the North Pole all the time. Because it's very far away, it is directly over the North Pole to an extremely close degree of precision.
The angle of the Earth's axial tilt remains the same, and the North star remains in the same place. The exact direction to the North Star changes, but not enough for the change to be detectable.
you are contradicting yourself mathematically. I know that ANY movement causes a change in degree. you said that the direction changed, therefore you detected the change. better get digitalnomad in here to tell us who's mad
-
ya know, polaris isn't always the north star.
-
Raa, you're retarded. The angle to Polaris changes, but only SLIGHTLY. Polaris is insanely far away. Also, your theory makes MUCH LESS SENSE than RE. Still, RE perfectly explains Polaris. It probably does change like 0.00000000000000001 degrees or something. (Okay, maybe a bit more than that, but you get my point.)
-
Raa, you're retarded. The angle to Polaris changes, but only SLIGHTLY. Polaris is insanely far away. Also, your theory makes MUCH LESS SENSE than RE. Still, RE perfectly explains Polaris. It probably does change like 0.00000000000000001 degrees or something. (Okay, maybe a bit more than that, but you get my point.)
ok. now the axial tilt of the earth is 23.5 degrees on both sides of the sun and still pointing at polaris, and now we are saying that there is an angle difference to polaris from both sides of the sun, even though it is only 0.0000000000000000001 degree.
this is not possible . the north pole is pointing at polaris on both sides of the sun, therefore why the difference of angle from the american flag on the north pole to polaris, in winter then summer.
-
Look at this drawing I made in Paint.
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5253/untitledgl6.png
On the right, you'll see a white and a grey upside-down "V"-shaped thing. It demonstrates how when the distance from two points to another point changes, the angle changes. Now, in real life, Polaris is MUCH further away than the drawing on the left shows, so the angle is very VERY tiny - almost zero.
-
you are contradicting yourself mathematically.
You don't have the first inkling of an understanding of mathematics. There's no contradiction. All I said was, the Earth's North Pole always points in the same direction. Most of the time, the North Star isn't where the North Pole points exactly. I didn't detect this change, I inferred it on the assumptions you gave: that the axial tilt remains the same, that the Earth moves, and that the North Star remains stationary.
-
If the north star moved it is so far away I don't think we would be able to notice.
-
A-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and always pointing at polaris, then that means that polaris is also moving
--
B-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and not always pointing at polaris, then that means that the earth is moving but polaris is not moving
--
can all you round earthers pick one of the above A or B and tell us which one y'all believe in
--
can't have round earthers with 2 different theories
-
B-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and not always pointing at polaris, then that means that the earth is moving but polaris is not moving
It's this one, approximately.
-
A-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and always pointing at polaris, then that means that polaris is also moving
--
B-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and not always pointing at polaris, then that means that the earth is moving but polaris is not moving
--
can all you round earthers pick one of the above A or B and tell us which one y'all believe in
--
can't have round earthers with 2 different theories
There are not two different theories. There is one theory, which people agree on. The thing is, people often state "facts" which are not exactly true, but very close to true, to a very good approximation. In fact, Erasmus is doing the same thing right now. Polaris is moving, as are all of the stars in the milky way galaxy, and the galaxy itself is moving away from all other galaxies. Also, the north pole is not always pointing in the same direction. There is a small wobble in the earth's spin, which causes the axis to move over time. Several thousand years from now, polaris will no longer be the north star, and another star will. Hence Erasmus comment of "this one, approximately."
The problem is that stating precisely what is going on in a given situation with meticulous detail requires, well, meticulous detail, most of which is irrelevent to the explanation of the phenomena in question. So when round-earthers state that the north pole always points at polaris, they aren't lying, and they aren't wrong, they're just not elaborating on all of the irrelevant details, and stating a "fact" which is not precisely true, but true to a very high order of precision.
-
A-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and always pointing at polaris, then that means that polaris is also moving
--
B-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and not always pointing at polaris, then that means that the earth is moving but polaris is not moving
--
can all you round earthers pick one of the above A or B and tell us which one y'all believe in
--
can't have round earthers with 2 different theories
There are not two different theories. There is one theory, which people agree on. The thing is, people often state "facts" which are not exactly true, but very close to true, to a very good approximation. In fact, Erasmus is doing the same thing right now. Polaris is moving, as are all of the stars in the milky way galaxy, and the galaxy itself is moving away from all other galaxies. Also, the north pole is not always pointing in the same direction. There is a small wobble in the earth's spin, which causes the axis to move over time. Several thousand years from now, polaris will no longer be the north star, and another star will. Hence Erasmus comment of "this one, approximately."
The problem is that stating precisely what is going on in a given situation with meticulous detail requires, well, meticulous detail, most of which is irrelevent to the explanation of the phenomena in question. So when round-earthers state that the north pole always points at polaris, they aren't lying, and they aren't wrong, they're just not elaborating on all of the irrelevant details, and stating a "fact" which is not precisely true, but true to a very high order of precision.
DID SOMEBODY CUT HALF OF YOUR RIGHT EYE OUT?
-
DID SOMEBODY CUT HALF OF YOUR RIGHT EYE OUT?[/b]
OK, I'll type slowly, maybe you can understand...
Polaris is 431 light years away.
The earth is about 1/75137 light years from the sun and Polaris is 16,192,054 times further than the diameter of the earth's orbit.
So picture a right triangle with a height 16192054 times the base, dig out your trig book and calculate the angles.
Since it's actual position is about 89 degrees, 16 minutes the difference between polar north and the north star are greater than the variation due to parallax. Since you didn't notice that the north star isn't exactly over the north pole, how would you notice the much slighter variation?
-
ok, I will dig out Platos' Crtiaeus' definition of vision and then come back to this last post. we must consider the fundamental definition of 'parallax' !!
-
ok, I will dig out Platos' Crtiaeus' definition of vision and then come back to this last post. we must consider the fundamental definition of 'parallax' !!
We must confuse simple logic with philosophy? Why?
Below is a good reference explaining stellar Parallax, and gives a calculation for the parallax of Proxima Centauri. The star is 1% the distance of Polaris, and the measured angular difference is as .77233 seconds of arc (±.00242") since a second is 1/3600th of a degree, you would be hard pressed to disern the parallax for Proxima Centauri, let alone the much more distant Polaris. As I wrote before, there is already a 44 minute difference between Polar North and the position of Polaris, that would be about 2700 times the difference for Proxima Centauri, which as I wrote is 1% the distance as Polaris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
-
ok, I will dig out Platos' Crtiaeus' definition of vision and then come back to this last post. we must consider the fundamental definition of 'parallax' !!
We must confuse simple logic with philosophy? Why?SIMPLE LOGIC COMES FROM PHILOSOPHY, NOT CAVEMEN. i don't confuse the 2. simple logic needs mathematics to relate with philosophy
Below is a good reference explaining stellar Parallax, and gives a calculation for the parallax of Proxima Centauri. The star is 1% the distance of Polaris, and the measured angular difference is as .77233 seconds of arc (±.00242") since a second is 1/3600th of a degree, you would be hard pressed to disern the parallax for Proxima Centauri, let alone the much more distant Polaris. As I wrote before, there is already a 44 minute difference between Polar North and the position of Polaris, that would be about 2700 times the difference for Proxima Centauri, which as I wrote is 1% the distance as Polaris.I still haven't dug out Critaeous, but in the mean time, it is an obligation to through out any mirror which has parallaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
-
SIMPLE LOGIC COMES FROM PHILOSOPHY, NOT CAVEMEN. i don't confuse the 2. simple logic needs mathematics to relate with philosophy[/b]
You are confused, Philosophy does not need to be logical, nor does logic have to be able to be expressed in Mathematics. Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way, yet defy logic.
I still haven't dug out Critaeous, but in the mean time, it is an obligation to through out any mirror which has parallaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
I have no understanding of what you are attempting to say. Are you trying to address something about the parallax of an image in a glass mirror?
-
Maybe somene should post the mathematics behind it (if it isn't to much :P), I that way he wont have to think.
-
Maybe somene should post the mathematics behind it (if it isn't to much :P), I that way he wont have to think.
We did. Posting the mathematics isn't a substitute to thinking, because you still have to think to understand what is written, and why it is true (sometimes quite a lot).
-
SIMPLE LOGIC COMES FROM PHILOSOPHY, NOT CAVEMEN. i don't confuse the 2. simple logic needs mathematics to relate with philosophy[/b]
You are confused, Philosophy does not need to be logical, nor does logic have to be able to be expressed in Mathematics.a simple logician needs mathematics to talk to a philosopher Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way,no they can't yet defy logic. emotions are the lack of logic
I still haven't dug out Critaeous, but in the mean time, it is an obligation to through out any mirror which has parallaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
I have no understanding of what you are attempting to say. Are you trying to address something about the parallax of an image in a glass mirror?
I meant "throw out"---when a mirror shows parallax, you have to throw it out, it doesn't give the correct reflection.
-
Maybe somene should post the mathematics behind it (if it isn't to much :P), I that way he wont have to think.
We did. Posting the mathematics isn't a substitute to thinking,its an additive to simple logic because you still have to think to understand what is written,no you don't and why it is true not really (sometimes quite a lot).I don't
-
We did. Posting the mathematics isn't a substitute to thinking,its an additive to simple logic because you still have to think to understand what is written,no you don't and why it is true not really (sometimes quite a lot).I don't
Oh really? So I assume that if I give you a reference to Sylow's Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylow_theorem) and proof, you'll be perfectly comfortable with it, the reasons that it is true, and can use it to prove that if G is a finite simple group with order at most 200, then G is isomorphic to the alternating group on 5 letters, the projective special linear group of dimension 2 over the field with 7 elements, or a cyclic group of prime order?
I'm not saying simple equations need to be verified and checked and studied to be understood. I am saying that mathematics can be very complicated, and simply understanding something written in the language of mathematics can take effort.
-
a simple logician needs mathematics to talk to a philosopher
Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way,no they can't
yet defy logic. emotions are the lack of logic
Let's start with Wiki:
Philosophy is a field of study in which people question, and create theories about, the nature of reality. It includes diverse subfields, such as aesthetics, epistemology, ontology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and law. Philosophers concern themselves with such fundamental and mysterious topics as the existence or absence of a divine being, the nature of being and the universe, the pursuit of truth, the nature of consciousness, and the morality of actions.
So by definition, logic falls within the realm of Philosophy, but other subfields, outside pure logic also do. There is little logical about aesthetics, what is aesthetically pleasing to one, does not always appeal to all. Nor do ethics and law always follow a logical route. They often shift, and just as often disagree with each other. If all philosophy were based on logic, then law and ethics would be one.
Emotions may be the lack of logic, but are tied to ethics and aesthetics, and therefore a part of philosophy.
In fact, while logic itself is philosophical, those devotions that rely on logic, such as mathematics, lay outside of philosophy. They deal in quantifiable, material matters whereas philosophy by definition does not.
-
We did. Posting the mathematics isn't a substitute to thinking,its an additive to simple logic because you still have to think to understand what is written,no you don't and why it is true not really (sometimes quite a lot).I don't
Oh really? So I assume that if I give you a reference to Sylow's Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylow_theorem) and proof,proof has to be PRACTICAL you'll be perfectly comfortable with it, the reasons convincing factors that it is true, and can use it to prove that "if"? G is a finite simple group with order at most 200, then G is isomorphic to the alternating group on 5 letters, the projective special linear group of dimension 2 over the field with 7 elements, or a cyclic group of prime order?
I'm not saying simple equations need to be verified and checked and studied to be understood. I am saying that mathematics can be very complicated,I know and simply understanding something written in the language of mathematics can take effort.that's for the mathematician to do , and if he can do it, then he can talk to a philosopher, other wise he will have to learn philosophy.the students of Socrates were students of philosophy, not mathematics, and they were able to converse about the actual reality of reality. mathematics is only a PRESENTATION of ideas, and therefore you cannot have a CONVERSATION with a mathematician, only a talk, or discussion, debate, or argument.
[/b]
-
a simple logician needs mathematics to talk to a philosopher
Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way,no they can't
yet defy logic. emotions are the lack of logic
Let's start with Wiki:
Philosophy is a field of study in which people question, and create theories about, the nature of reality. It includes diverse subfields, such as aesthetics, epistemology, ontology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and law. Philosophers concern themselves with such fundamental and mysterious topics as the existence or absence of a divine being, the nature of being and the universe, the pursuit of truth, the nature of consciousness, and the morality of actions.
So by definition, logic falls within the realm of Philosophy, but other subfields, outside pure logic also do. There is little logical about aesthetics, what is aesthetically pleasing to one, does not always appeal to all. Nor do ethics and law always follow a logical route. They often shift, and just as often disagree with each other. If all philosophy were based on logic, then law and ethics would be one.
Emotions may be the lack of logic, but are tied to ethics and aesthetics, and therefore a part of philosophy.
In fact, while logic itself is philosophical, those devotions that rely on logic, such as mathematics, lay outside of philosophy. They deal in quantifiable, material matters whereas philosophy by definition does not.
philosophers don't divide philosophy into subfields. why do you think Socrates used [or refered to] the word "chicken" in his last breath???
-
Raa, the jury is in. You lose this "debate". You have gone too far off the deep end if unintelligibility, and you have been disqualified.
-
I believe the term is '0wn3d'.
-
a simple logician needs mathematics to talk to a philosopher
Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way,no they can't
yet defy logic. emotions are the lack of logic
Let's start with Wiki:
Philosophy is a field of study in which people question, and create theories about, the nature of reality. It includes diverse subfields, such as aesthetics, epistemology, ontology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and law. Philosophers concern themselves with such fundamental and mysterious topics as the existence or absence of a divine being, the nature of being and the universe, the pursuit of truth, the nature of consciousness, and the morality of actions.
So by definition, logic falls within the realm of Philosophy, but other subfields, outside pure logic also do. There is little logical about aesthetics, what is aesthetically pleasing to one, does not always appeal to all. Nor do ethics and law always follow a logical route. They often shift, and just as often disagree with each other. If all philosophy were based on logic, then law and ethics would be one.
Emotions may be the lack of logic, but are tied to ethics and aesthetics, and therefore a part of philosophy.
In fact, while logic itself is philosophical, those devotions that rely on logic, such as mathematics, lay outside of philosophy. They deal in quantifiable, material matters whereas philosophy by definition does not.
philosophers don't divide philosophy into subfields.
I don't think that answer would have gotten far with my philosphy professor.
why do you think Socrates used [or refered to] the word "chicken" in his last breath???
Everybody knows Socrates last words, they were "I Drank What!??".
Actually, according to Plato, Socrates was paying off his debt with a chicken:
The alleged last words of Socrates as he died from hemlock poisoning, as recounted by Plato, were "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?", signififying that death was a cure for the illness of life.
-
You'd think, if someone were going to kill themself, that they could settle their own debts first...
-
Raa, the jury is in. You lose this "debate". You have gone too far off the deep end if unintelligibility, and you have been disqualified.
do I get to drink the left-overs from Socrates' last drink :?: maybe with a little bit auh chicken? I'm sure that you europeans still have a little bit of it left somewhere, probably in a museum, for people like me :twisted:
-
do I get to drink the left-overs from Socrates' last drink :?: maybe with a little bit auh chicken? I'm sure that you europeans still have a little bit of it left somewhere, probably in a museum, for people like me :twisted:
Perhaps they do, but I doubt if they'd waste it on you...
-
do I get to drink the left-overs from Socrates' last drink :?: maybe with a little bit auh chicken? I'm sure that you europeans still have a little bit of it left somewhere, probably in a museum, for people like me :twisted:
Perhaps they do, but I doubt if they'd waste it on you...
who else would drink it?
-
do I get to drink the left-overs from Socrates' last drink :?: maybe with a little bit auh chicken? I'm sure that you europeans still have a little bit of it left somewhere, probably in a museum, for people like me :twisted:
Perhaps they do, but I doubt if they'd waste it on you...
who else would drink it?
I'm sure there are many people who would take the chance of drinking the same famous drink that killed Socrates if they had the chance, but I'm sure if it were preserved in a museum, the museum would want to keep it and not let anyone drink it.
-
Umm. Are you guys meaning the actual sample of hemlock that Socrates drank, or hemlock in general? Conium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conium), or Poison Hemlock, is pretty common in Europe... I'm sure it isn't that hard to refine it into an elixer...
-
...
-
Umm. Are you guys meaning the actual sample of hemlock that Socrates drank, or hemlock in general? Conium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conium), or Poison Hemlock, is pretty common in Europe... I'm sure it isn't that hard to refine it into an elixer...
The actual sample. Raa referred to "the left-overs from Socrates' last drink".
-
How come we can see the Big Dipper on the 21st of March and the 21st of September?
Are the stars going around the sun also?
Ha!
I thought y'all said the stars don't move.
__
___stars................Earth...................sun....................Earth..........stars-Big Dipper
--------------------21st Sept------------------------------21st March
you arent looking hard enough, and sometimes clouds are under the stars blocking them. and MAYBE...you just dont get out much.
-
How come we can see the Big Dipper on the 21st of March and the 21st of September?
Are the stars going around the sun also?
Ha!
I thought y'all said the stars don't move.
__
___stars................Earth...................sun....................Earth..........stars-Big Dipper
--------------------21st Sept------------------------------21st March
you arent looking hard enough, and sometimes clouds are under the stars blocking them. and MAYBE...you just dont get out much.
hey FEE FEE, i see you just joined...you have to read every word that flat earthers write,,I said "how come we CAN SEE....." if you want to skip words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books, including volumes, then do that with round earth litter.ature :D
-
do I get to drink the left-overs from Socrates' last drink :?: maybe with a little bit auh chicken? I'm sure that you europeans still have a little bit of it left somewhere, probably in a museum, for people like me :twisted:
Perhaps they do, but I doubt if they'd waste it on you...
who else would drink it?
I'm sure there are many people who would take the chance of drinking the same famous drink that killed Socrates if they had the chance, but I'm sure if it were preserved in a museum, the museum would want to keep it and not let anyone drink it.
you can't just buy it or steal like digit-nomad and skeptical-syingtist would, it has to be OFFERED.