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.


Topics - burt

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth General / More NASA propaganda
« on: September 05, 2012, 07:14:39 AM »


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120817-sun-shape-round-science-space-nasa/

The sun is the roundest natural object known to man, according to nasa.

The deviation in its roundness is equivalent to about 17 microns of deviation on a beach ball (less than a hairs breadth).

I don't know if this has circulated previously, If it has, I apologise (peck out my eyes).

I would assume that to measure something so preciely, you have to be prettey certain about how far away it, how big it is etc?

Any thoughts?



2
Flat Earth Debate / weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« on: August 31, 2012, 09:57:17 AM »
Levee claims in one of his posts that because the atmosphere is so heavy: "4 million billion tons" it would hinder the movement of anything on the planet "We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."
Furthermore, he postulates "Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas?"

this is the arguement he uses againt the possible rotation of the earth.

this is clearly unmitigated poppycock or mendacious codswallop, which assumes its own conclusion. the fact is that per cubic meter the weight of the atmosphere turns out ot be about 1.2g. and because it is air, and not solid, the heft behind atmospheric pressure gets distributed and so is easy to walk through. moreover, point out one animal on this planet who weighs less than 1.2 grams per cubic meter?

Even more if what levee was saying was true, then it should be impossible for fish to get trhough water, which is  1027 kg/m3 at the surface. though I admit the physics of swimming through water is a little more complicated, and relies a lot on push and pull.


 

3

Thanks burt for covering my ass after I thought I had sufficiently covered my ass (lol). But yes, from my view, Zeteticism seems to be phenomenology. The results of it seem to be made up explanations for why and how things happen, and in modern times, using a lot of ideas from modern science (bendy light) and skewing them to fit the observations.

You are welcome.

your statements, as all statements are, are true in some sense and false in some sense. the kinds of zeteticism available on this website are almost equal to the amount of adherents of the flat earth. but there is a kind of zetecism that does not involve making any definite statements about anything, in fact zetecism (from the magazine the zetetic inquirer) involves making people aware of all the different competing theories and getting the most lucid adehrents of each and giving them somewhere to publish.

this magazine split from the sceptical inquirer some time in the mid 20th century, because they did not like some of the acrobatics that sceptical inquirer went through to hide research they did not want published, because it went against their theories. The best minds  with zetetic leanings, I can think of, are Buckminster Fuller, Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson, though they did not class themselves as this; Buckminster was a self-described "Generalist" Korzybski was a General Semanticist, and Wilson described himself as a "Damned Old Crank".

[edit] sorry a bit of a name mix up: the sceptical inquirer was once called the zetetic inquirer. the split off magazine was called the zetetic scholar, sorry.

I've heard of Mr. Fuller, the other two don't ring a bell. I can't tell you where I heard of Fuller, just that I have. But anyway, those are just the impressions I get of Zeteticism from what I've seen here on this website, as this was (oddly enough) the first place I heard of the practice.


Buckminster Fuller was once times man of the year, he discovered a sub branch of geometry, the prinicples of which led him to invent the geodesic dome.

Korzybski is an obscure scientist whose majore scientific theorys have been either refuted or subsumed under better theories.

Robert Anton Wilson is too hard to explain, he is a trickster and a mischievous writer. His stance is the more hilaritas the better. He was part of the counter-culture that involved leary, kesey, mckenna and thornley.

Wilson was involved with Leary, as in Timothy Leary? That should explain itself right there.

What is it that it explains and why does it explain it? The implications in your sentence already seem like you have made a judgment on Leary's character and then, by association, extended it to Wilson's; have you ever read either of their works? If you have I would like to know what you think.




4
Arts & Entertainment / Anticipated Films
« on: July 08, 2012, 10:20:12 AM »
What films are you looking forward to and why?

I am looking forward to The Master by P.T Anderson.

I have been a huge fan of Anderson since I saw Magnolia, a very intricate film reminiscent of Short Cuts, that actually convinced me american films could be good, this was back in my rebellious teens. When There Will Be Blood was released I was apprehensive to go and watch it, because it was hyped so much; I didn't want to be let down. I went and saw it anyway and was mightily pleased that I did.

The Master Covers territory already covered by soderbergh etc, but P.T Anderson can always be truested to make good goddamn storyline that is both inventive and traditional. Very Much looking forward to it.

P.S There are rumours abound that he might do a film adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's Inherent Vice. I hope so.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Burden of Proof
« on: July 01, 2012, 02:20:20 PM »
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

=Burt’s Answer: Red-herring, the thing that is being claimed is that the earth is flat. And anyway science proceeds by falsification.=

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, government contractors can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.
 
=Burt’s Answer.  These things are plausible under the spherical earth theory (oh, dear “claims” really?) which has stood the test of scientists for well over a hundred years.=

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
 
=Burt’s Answer: Red-herring, see above. Plus that nasa “can’t do all of that stuff” is not actually as simple claim as it seems (because you have to bring in the help of an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, occams razor, my friend; NASA can do that stuff.)=

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

=Burt’s Answer: Actually FET is not that simple, it actually has many counter-intuitive notions, like: the earth is uniquely flat, compared to all over celestial objects, this one glaring anomaly needs to be explained. Where are the anomalies in the Spherical Earth Theory?=

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

=Burt’s Answer: like you say “the burden of proof is on the claimant” and the thing being claimed is that the earth is flat=

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.

=Burt’s answer: The fact is, if you are just a s(c)eptic, why does it matter that the earth is flat? Even if the spherical earth theory is wrong , that does not make the flat earth theory correct.

In this case I would be the s(c)eptic.=

“The burden of proof is on you.”

=Burt’s Answer: Exactly wrong – The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Not on “you”=

6
Flat Earth Debate / The Spherical Earth Model
« on: June 30, 2012, 08:59:46 PM »
I want to know what is wrong with The Spherical Earth Model. What I don't want is a discussion of the conspiracy that supresses The Flat Earth Model (because this all based on assuming that it is flat in the first place, in which case nasa would by lying, a neat logical inference). Although this could be seen as bad move, it is more about taking the politics and putting it to the side, and concentrainting completely on the model itself: what discrepencies does it have? and why do you think it is empirically incorrect?

I am going to anticipate a move, which is "look around" ok, I agree, it seems flat (albiet uneven). though, I am not convinced yet:  are there any more discrepencies in the model?

7
Flat Earth Debate / erm
« on: August 28, 2007, 06:11:46 AM »
maybe I came in here too rash, who in here, other than Harold...I mean Tom bishop, supports the flat earth theory?.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / shape
« on: August 25, 2007, 11:32:32 AM »
what shape do you think the earth might be, for example, is it like a coin; not shapley just an infinite surface or pretty jaggerd; a desk; a bowl-  convex or concave.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / movement over = distance from
« on: August 24, 2007, 09:59:53 PM »
It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

this statement is clearly ridiculous, how come the sun starts at one end (i'm not trying disprove or prove the flat-earth theory, i don't care) and then travels over, you see this happening throughout the day, finally it sinks down. it doesn't get smaller. it clearly starts being covered by the earth, i have photos taken by me, that show the sun half blocked by the earth, and not
"smaller"

"it looks like it disappears" this is a major assumption, it never looked to me like it just disappeard, it looked to me like it was slowly being obscured by the earth.

Pages: [1]