Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Logick

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
It only takes one penguin to knock you on your arse....




The winner emerges victorious


Penguin 1, Man 0
LOL

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: October 01, 2017, 07:43:20 PM »
So, you're calling yourself out as a troll? This is a funny confession.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: October 01, 2017, 07:35:05 PM »
What?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 07:31:54 PM »
But, what connection has "metaphysics" to do with the topic.
So you think scientific theories can lack metaphysical underpinnings?

That's just your attempt to obfuscate the issue and divert us from your own total lack of knowledge of the real world.
No, it's my attempt to remind everyone that the belief of "curvable space" is untestable and therefore unscientific.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 06:47:38 PM »
The notion of curved spacetime per se is metaphysical. I'm not saying there haven't been observations or calculations fitted to this belief. But the belief itself is observationally unfalsifiable, meaning it's unscientific.
I couldn't care less about your metaphysical garbage.
Yet you want me to care about yours? That's unfair, rabbi.

So, I couldn't care less about your "Logick" and "Meta MessedUp Physics" until you can come up with some
flat earth hypothesis that can be verified by experiment and/or measurement to anything like the repeatability of experiment and measurement on the Heliocentric Globe.
So you don't know what metaphysics is, either? This is comical.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: October 01, 2017, 06:26:20 PM »
No. I suspect a consistent approach is good for the economy. As opposed to radically changing interest rates every time D's and R's change places.
What do you mean by "consistent approach?" I would think that a change of strategies is called for in response to dynamic economic conditions.

Look at how many long-term projects NASA has had to scrub because their budget and priorities change every 4 to 8 years.
I would not trust anything that NASA has published.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 05:59:52 PM »
I'm not saying there haven't been observations or calculations fitted to this belief. But the belief itself is observationally unfalsifiable, meaning it's unscientific.
So you are saying you can make calculations based upon this "belief" or model, test them and see if it works, which would make it scientific, yet it is magically unscientific.
I'm saying metaphysical beliefs are unfalsifiable. Or do you think it's possible to experimentally prove God's existence? Sheesh.

So some retards believe science has no historical roots or underpinnings in philosophy? By some, are you referring to just yourself?
No some rational people realise that things can separate from their historical roots/underpinnings.
But this is certainly not the case as regards science. I think you need to do lots of reading into the history and philosophy of science. You don't appear to know what it is.

But, you have not shown that space can be directly "measured," only that particular observations suggest it can bend.
Nothing can be directly measured, you can only have particular observations that suggest something.
Measuring the curvature of space is no different.
What? I can directly measure the color of my bike, and conclude that it is white and at a particular wavelength. I can also directly measure my own mass, and conclude I'm 156 pounds. Nothing can be directly measured? You are stupid.

We have those. They are all flat.
Yes, we have several contradicting ones when taken to be a flat map of a flat Earth.
They only agree if you take them to be projections of a globe, showing that Earth is in fact round.
All maps are flat, dude.

The supposed curvature of space is not something that can, or will ever be directly observationally measured or confirmed. It's complete bullshit speculation, based on complicated mathematics inaccessible to the common person. If you sit back and reflect on the notion, you will realize how dumb it is.

moot
How about you don't try bitching about spelling or definitions, especially of words like this which can have regional variations, and instead try and address the argument.
Until you do, your argument remains as a pile of garbage of no worth at all.
Attacking your credibility is a non-fallacious ad hominem. If you are unable to spell, then your credibility is suspect, meaning your claims are untrustworthy. Like most REers, you have a lot to learn.

9
Evidence is only ever presented as a permise.
*premise

Did I claim otherwise? All portions of logical arguments, aside from the conclusion, consist of premises.

For example, in the general argument:
If P then Q
P
Therefore Q

Both, "If P then Q" and "P" are premises.
You can have evidence to show that P is true, but it is still presented as a premise, not evidence.
P is the evidence. LOL

Now then, why don't you provide a source showing an argument has 3 parts:
Premise, Evidence, Conclusion?
I don't get where you're going with this. Are you saying arguments consist of singular premises followed by conclusions? You are a very confusing person.

If it does not support the conclusion it is not evidence. If it contradicts the conclusion, it is definitely not evidence.
Well, whether something does or does not support the conclusion is the entire point of debate. Evidence need not be inductively strong or deductively sound. "Evidence" is simply that which is used to support a conclusion. Its strength is another matter entirely.

If an argument is invalid, it is illogical.
That's not true. False arguments expressed in logical format are not "illogical." "Logical" is not a synonym for "true."

If an argument is unsound, then it is invalid (illogical) or not supported by evidence.
"Invalid" does not mean "illogical" either. You seem really uneducated.

"Potato" is not a statement with a truth value, so it cannot be used as supporting evidence.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Your claim that if you weren't providing evidence all you had was a premise and conclusion.
That would mean "Potato" has to be evidence.
So you have now admitted that you can present an argument which is of the form:
Premise
BS
Conclusion.
Hmm? In this case, my evidence was pictorial. And it was implicitly followed by the statement, "These images depict a flat Earth." This is a statement with truth value.

Yes, the dense for shows what happens when visibility is limited by the atmosphere. You don't get a sharp horizon, you get a blur.
If the horizon was caused by limited visibility through the atmosphere, that is what you would expect, ALWAYS!
You would never get a sharp horizon.
The fact the horizon is sharp shows it is not due to limited visibility through the atmosphere.
The horizon is sometimes sharp, sometimes blurred. This is true regardless of the Earth's shape. Why do you keep summoning this as evidence? I don't think anyone is seeing the connection.

I don't see any reason why the border between the Earth and the atmosphere should necessarily be blurred
Yet I have explained why, and you have even given examples of why.
If you are limited by visibility through the atmosphere, it is blurred.
The only time the FE would produce a sharp horizon is if you were viewing the edge.
Again, Goebbels, merely repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. I personally believe the Earth to be an infinite plane. You're still unclear as to what you'd expect to see given the Earth is flat as regards the horizon.

So you have observed a flat Earth?
No, so I have observed something which directly contradicts predictions made based upon a FE. As such, I have observed that the FE is false.
I'm not sure you know what "directly" means. Do you have any sort of background in science?

The explanation is simple. It's called perspective. It doesn't invoke complicated science and mathematics like RET does.
Perspective does involve math...
But it doesn't necessitate math. Are you saying small children, who understand perspective, are all mathematicians?

Yet none of this matches observed reality. Instead, the sun and moon and other celestial objects appear the same size, regardless of distance, they appear to travel at the same speed, regardless of distance, and they appear to set.
Well, no. They do not all appear to travel at the same speed. The sun, moon, and planets travel at distinctive speeds with respect to the stars.

So no, perspective is not the explanation for FE, perspective shows FE to be wrong.
This means FE needs complicated crap to reverse perspective and make it look like Earth is round in its place.

As such, FE is much more complex.
The problem with your argument is you haven't compared the incredibly complex mathematics bolstering RET to FET's evidential underpinnings. RET's underpinnings are infinitely more complex than those of FET.

No. RET's explanation is quite simple.
You're saying relativity is simple, or that FET has a comparably mathematically intricate underpinning? You're really making yourself look silly.

Meanwhile, FE has no explanation and any explanation they provide needs to explain why the planets act like they are orbiting the sun, including Earth, making it much more complex.
We don't believe the Earth is a planet. Look into the term "planet"'s etymology. It originally meant "wandering star." The notion of Earth as a planet is historically novel.

RET's explanation of planetary "orbits" is incredibly complex. It is not something that is directly observable. Like virtually all of RET, it is derived from complicated mathematics inaccessible to the common person. I'm still unconvinced you know what parsimony is.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump
« on: October 01, 2017, 05:07:12 PM »
I suspect that changing our monetary policy every 4 years would not be good for the economy.
You suspect that the economy is non-dynamic?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.
« on: October 01, 2017, 05:01:25 PM »
why is he one time right and one time not.
Because saints are human.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 04:49:06 PM »
If you want to expand its meaning to include scientific things, that is things which you can make predictions from and then test those predictions, which would include things like curved space and time, then it can be part of metaphysics, but still be scientific.
The notion of curved spacetime per se is metaphysical. I'm not saying there haven't been observations or calculations fitted to this belief. But the belief itself is observationally unfalsifiable, meaning it's unscientific.

And you don't know what philosophy or science are, either? Got it.
Again, it all comes down to definitions. With some, science is a branch of philosophy, with others it is not.
So some retards believe science has no historical roots or underpinnings in philosophy? By some, are you referring to just yourself?

How about you stop bitching about words and instead start focusing on the arguments that have been made, such as ways to measure the curvature of space/space time which means it is falsifiable.
Well, my position is that space is propertyless and as such cannot be measured. Of course, this is a metaphysical belief just as much as the notion of bendable space is. But, you have not shown that space can be directly "measured," only that particular observations suggest it can bend. This is unsatisfactory.

So you have no idea what is involved at all and instead are just making a bunch of assumptions.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. Are you saying cartography doesn't involve specialized training and lots of work?

I am suggesting a much rougher map which shows the locations of cities.
We have those. They are all flat.

So go and see what I have suggested doing and see if you can point out what is wrong with it. If you can't then your objections are mute.
*moot

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.
« on: October 01, 2017, 04:27:44 PM »
than you believe the same as he does?
Just because he's a saint doesn't mean he's always right.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 04:25:12 PM »
How many maps have you created? I don't think you've considered the logistics of such an effort.
I have considered the logistics, it is not hard at all.
I have explained how to do it.
You take a few simple measurements, do some simple math and you get an x and y position (or a latitude and longitude).
So you don't know what "logistics" means, either?? If you don't know anything, then why do you even post here?

If not, how do you know the logistics of such an effort, or what the variety of efforts could be?
Because I'm realistic and have an imagination. Creating accurate maps requires specialized training and lots of work. To create a world map would require access to ships and planes. Look into cartography.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 04:21:48 PM »
Curved spacetime is a metaphysical, not scientific belief. I get the feeling that no one here has studied philosophy.
No, it is quite scientific and has real, physical effects, such as gravitational lensing.
So you don't know what metaphysics is? Got it.

Perhaps you should ditch the philosophy and try real science.
And you don't know what philosophy or science are, either? Got it.

All ideologies (even mathematics) have philosophical underpinnings. Look into the philosophy of science.

16
In logic, an argument consists of 2 parts:
  • Premise
  • Conclusion.
Source? I've actually studied logic and was taught that arguments are supported with evidence. I think you are making more stuff up.

Even with your definition this is implied by saying they must be in support of a premise.
Well, I explained how something used as evidence in support of a premise need not be conclusive or convincing in order to be evidence. Not all logical arguments are valid or sound.

For example, is this an argument which consists of just a premise and conclusion:
If Earth is flat you shouldn't have a sharp horizon except as the edge.
Potato.
Thus Earth is round.
"Potato" is not a statement with a truth value, so it cannot be used as supporting evidence.

It shouldn't be visible on a FE, as the atmosphere would obstruct vision to it.
Please provide supporting evidence for this claim. Also, the atmosphere does at times obstruct its view. Have you ever been in dense fog?

I'm still unsure as to why you believe a "sharp horizon" even suggests a round Earth.
Because you continually ignore my explanations of why.
If you are unsure perhaps you can try providing an explanation of why you should observe a sharp horizon a few km away on a FE?
I don't see any reason why the border between the Earth and the atmosphere should necessarily be blurred. Do you believe that, in FET, the Earth would curve upwards and envelop the sky or something? That's retarded.

It is FE BS that is not observable at all.
Didn't you just say you've looked out your window?
Yes...
So you have observed a flat Earth? lol

How much more BS beyond looking out your window does FET require? Do you have any idea how complex RET is??
Yes, RET is quite simple, at least in comparison to FE BS.
FE BS requires an explanation for why the horizon appears sharp rather than a bur due to the atmosphere limiting visibility. It needs an explanation for why the horizon is further away the higher you are.
The explanation is simple. It's called perspective. It doesn't invoke complicated science and mathematics like RET does.

It requires an explanation for why the sun appears to rise and set (as do other celestial objects, and even objects on Earth where the only obstruction is water). It also requires an explanation for why these celestial objects appear to remain the same size. And with all these the explanation needs to match what is observed in reality which is consistent with RET.
The explanation is refraction. Even small children are aware of refraction. This isn't complex.

It also needs to explain the shape of Earth, why things fall, why all the planets appear to orbit the sun and so on.
So does RET. RET's explanation is so complex as to be inaccessible to the common person. This is why FET is more parsimonious.

17
>I have not seen any such evidence.
>I did [see such evidence].
No. Your confusion is coming from what you think is evidence vs what actually is evidence.
Anyway, yeah, I know what evidence is...
Well, you don't. Allow me to explain what evidence is. In logic, an argument consists of three parts:
  • Premise
  • Supporting evidence
  • Conclusion
Anything can be used as evidence in support of a premise. Whether evidence is conclusive, or even convincing, is another matter entirely. Saying that I have not provided evidence is akin to saying I merely provided a premise and conclusion. If that's what you think, then you are a blind 'tard. ;D

Yes I have, and I saw a nice clear sharp horizon which wasn't the edge of the FE, directly confirming RET.
Well, it doesn't directly confirm RET, lmao. The only way to directly confirm it is to observe the Earth from many miles above the surface to be a ball. I'm still unsure as to why you believe a "sharp horizon" even suggests a round Earth.

The predictions of RET are directly observable.
So are those of FET.

It is FE BS that is not observable at all.
Didn't you just say you've looked out your window?

Well, no. It merely suggests it. You don't know what "proof" is, dumbass.
For once you are almost right. It is not "proof" as science deals with evidence, not proof.
But you don't know what evidence is.

It is very strong evidence in favour of a RE and very strong evidence against a FE, especially when considered with Occam's razor as the FE explanation requires so much extra BS to try and explain it..
How much more BS beyond looking out your window does FET require? Do you have any idea how complex RET is??

18
What shape do you believe the earth to be and what . . . observations prove it?
Have you looked out your window? RET is pure theorization. It's not directly observable.
The path of the sun from different places at different times proves a round earth..
Well, no. It merely suggests it. You don't know what "proof" is, dumbass.

The maths prove it.
Mathematics is not empirical evidence. You asked about observations.

19
The Lounge / Re: Absurdity on the Internet forums
« on: October 01, 2017, 03:14:11 PM »
Seriously, who do you think laid all those cables and installed all those routers?  Santa clause?
*Claus

I used to think you were smart, until now.

20
What shape do you believe the earth to be and what . . . observations prove it?
Have you looked out your window? RET is pure theorization. It's not directly observable.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.
« on: October 01, 2017, 02:57:21 PM »
Also, as you like bitching about renewable power and how it should be free...
You are mistaking me for someone else. I never once bitched about renewable power, or even mentioned it, in this forum.
No. I'm not mistaking you for anyone.
It was for Scepti, the main retard in this thread.
sceptimatic is a saint. Check yo'self.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 02:56:30 PM »
And no, "the notion of 'bent and bendable' space" in not "popular in academia". That would by curved spacetime, a bit different.
rabbi, I'm trying to give you a chance here, but you're just not cutting it. If you wanna talk to me, speak English. That is the language I speak.

Yes, Einstein''s General Relativity does have spacetime curvature,
but that is quite different from the massive curvature of space demanded by John Davis's non-Euclidean Earth Theory.
Curved spacetime is a metaphysical, not scientific belief. I get the feeling that no one here has studied philosophy.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 02:43:44 PM »
It would be accurate enough if it matched known distances between continents.
Um, isn't the entire point of creating a map to determine distances??

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 02:42:39 PM »
Meanwhile, I'm saying it wouldn't be difficult to create a fairly accurate map.
How many maps have you created? I don't think you've considered the logistics of such an effort.

25
I've not seen any such evidence. You're welcome to show some.
Refer to the OP, for once.

I did. Here, with reference to the video:
That's almost certainly a wide-angle lens. Since the horizon is off-centre and below, it looks slightly concave.
So you're just contradicting yourself?

What have I written that you deem contradictory?
>I have not seen any such evidence.
>I did [see such evidence].

I think we have probably come full circle on this discussion, since the above comprise my first reply to your OP.
What?! Is English your native language, sir?

It is. Is my use of it beyond your level of comprehension? Which part do you not understand?
It's not that I don't understand your feeble attempts at communication. It's just that they're strange.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.
« on: October 01, 2017, 02:25:15 PM »
Also, as you like bitching about renewable power and how it should be free...
You are mistaking me for someone else. I never once bitched about renewable power, or even mentioned it, in this forum.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: October 01, 2017, 02:20:18 PM »
I'm pretty sure Jane explained it best when she said the "flat Earth map" discussion is ridiculous. It is not reasonable to ask FEers to develop a map, because doing so is impractical.
Actually I don't think it would be that difficult to make a rough map that would be good enough for demonstration purposes.
So you're saying it wouldn't be difficult to create an inaccurate map? One that REers would have a field day attacking, perhaps?

28
Refer to my thread.
Again, it looks exactly as I would expect a round Earth to be, with a fairly sharp horizon, and not seeing all the way to the edge of Earth.
Hmm? Why would a "sharp horizon" be indicative of a round Earth? I don't understand why you'd expect the border between the atmosphere and the Earth to be blurred if it were flat.

You also indirectly answered it yourself.
It is a fish eye lens.
When all of Earth is to one side of the centre of the FOV it will result in the horizon curving upwards.
Please provide a formula for determining the degree of apparent curvature in relation to altitude.

Can you see more than half the surface of Earth?
What relevance is that?
With a flat surface, when you are above it, you can see all of it.
This is just untrue. Light doesn't penetrate infinitely through the atmosphere; this is why the sky is blue. I'm not sure what you'd envisage a flat earth to look like. Do you think it would just curve upwards and envelop the sky or something?

As such, if Earth was flat, these high altitude photos would show all of Earth (or at least all in the direction the camera was facing).
In the video, only the lit portion of the Earth is shown. I agree it would be better if it also showed the darkened portion. I'm not sure how this bolsters RET, though.

You're asking me if footage depicting a flat Earth is consistent with a round Earth? Wow.  ::)
No, I am asking you if the footage you have is consistent with both a round and a flat Earth and you just choose to ignore it being consistent with a RE.
And guess what? I was mostly right. It is entirely consistent with a RE. It is inconsistent with a FE.
How is footage depicting a flat Earth inconsistent with FET? Do you know how much more difficult it is to distort an image such that it depicts a round object as flat than it is to do the converse, especially as regards video footage?

No it doesn't. It means your superficial analysis is useless.
Do you know what parsimony is? FET is simpler than RET. In accordance with Occam's razor, this means it's more likely to be true. It also means it's more scientific. Or do you think all complex superstitions are scientific?

Perhaps you should look into refraction. In general, refraction results in light bending downwards, making objects look higher.
Exceptions to this are just that, exceptions, which are fairly infrequent when you consider the entire planet, and are transient.
Well, refraction is simply the apparent "bending" of light when traveling through media of different densities. There is no general rule as to the direction of this bending. You are just making that up.

What does the moon illusion have to do with the Earth's shape?
It shows that the moon is quite far away and circling around a point close to you.
People have been musing over the cause of the moon illusion for millennia. Even the ancient Greek philosophers tackled this problem. I'm not sure why you think providing this simple view, without supporting evidence, makes you think you're right.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: This is all a bit absurd.
« on: October 01, 2017, 02:00:50 PM »
France produces 75% of its electricity from nuclear power.
Source?

30
Didn't think the OP would even consider to come back to this board after the rough bitchslapping he received from Mikey in the antarctica thread...
*Antarctica

Just because Mikey bitchslapped me doesn't mean he was right. He kept talking about raping me. Would you continue discussing things with people who talk about inserting foreign objects into your anus?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9