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 - kevinagain

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
61
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: March 04, 2013, 11:25:22 AM »
not on your life, my friend.

marsupials or their fossils are found in the neotropics, australasia, and antarctica. one has invaded north america within the last 100 years or so. the fact that they don't occur in norway is probably a historical accident, and likely doesn't have anything to do with their evolutionary fitness to live there.

and the fact that freshwater fish rarely breed in salt water may be no more an adaptive response to physiology than the green sea turtles breeding on the mauritius beaches.

hence my question for the physicist. i'm curious about eels, and i have never heard an answer to the question.

62
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: March 04, 2013, 09:50:36 AM »
But if these migrations wouldn't be good for anything, evolution had long stopped them. Selection would have favoured non migrating mutations and the species would have become stationary millions of years ago. If you believe in evolution. Nothing is certain on this site.


so everything that exists has to be adaptive, because if it wasn't adaptive, it wouldn't exist, and everything that exists has to be adaptive?

there's a circle in here, martian.

there's lots of biogeography that's based on simple chance.

why aren't there marsupials in norway?

63
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: your own wisdom thread
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:49:44 AM »

64
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:41:14 AM »
perhaps the behavior offers no biological advantage, and is simply a historical novelty that reflects a quirk of geography in their evolutionary past.

i recall a particular sea turtle (green, i think) that tends to live in a certain part of the atlantic but travels a great distance to mauritius to breed, in spite of the fact that there are closer and more suitable islands. it's been speculated that the choice of breeding site pre-dates the opening of the midatlantic ridge, and that originally the journey wasn't so long. can't remember the details, though, so i can't vouch for the accuracy.

65
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: March 03, 2013, 12:33:03 PM »
well, then that brings up the eels, doesn't it?

then why do eels spawn in salt water, and migrate into fresh water for the duration of their life cycle?

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Go tell Felix Baumgartner the earth is flat!
« on: March 03, 2013, 12:20:11 PM »
To organize what I'm saying into easy-to-respond-to points...

-Guess what? You can read the journals and check their data yourself.

done that, have you?

-I would like to note that if you think a peer-reviewed article is "just an appeal to an authority", then you do not understand what one is.
actually, i do. without re-analysis, citing a peer-review is probably the clearest example of an appeal to authority that exists.i believe i specified earlier that sometimes such an appeal is justified, but if it is invoked without analysis, it's not the data that make the case, it's the authority.

-I'm very curious about how you "lived" at the scientific method. I wasn't aware that it was a place. Do you mean you lived within the scientific community?

my educational background includes two thesis-based masters degrees, one in theoretical ecology involving parametric and nonparametric analysis of a mark/recapture study quantifying microhabitat selection versus interspecific competition within a multispecies community of montane rodents in an arizona sky island. another using multivariate biometric analysis of metacopine ostracodes from the silurian system of england, gotland, estonia, latvia, lithiuania,and podolia, and so on, allowing stratigraphic correlations within the silurian system using members of a single genus. you can't do that sort of thing without understanding someting of the scientific method and utilizing it within hypothesis testing. i spent ten years within the academic scientific community. i'm out out of it now, thank god.

This appears to be a double standard. A method as powerful at determining the truth as the scientific method has not been established as of yet, and (ironically) the scientific method would be used in order to determine whether the alternative method is more powerful. (by the way, a paradigm isn't something used to establish truth ;) )

yes. i hold round earthers to a higher standard of proof, because they tend to assert positivism more often than flat earthers do.

. . . because nothing beyond that is understandable except in terms of our known-to-be-somewhat-faulty senses - the idea of nihilism, that nothing exists beyond our mind, is completely logically consistent internally. If you reject it, then you're having a similarly fallacious argument.

i'm saying that scepticism is healthier than credulity.

You initially stated that it is a faith-based viewpoint. Later you said that it is what you accept on trust. Faith and trust are two completely different things[/i. . .

i use the concepts in a different way, sytruan. faith is belief in things not seen, which is trust, according to the definition i use. it's less of an important distinction than you might think.

67
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ratzinger resigns
« on: March 02, 2013, 04:56:25 PM »
you'll have to explain that to me in more words, john.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Go tell Felix Baumgartner the earth is flat!
« on: March 02, 2013, 04:54:03 PM »

There is indeed proof - and I can trust in this without using faith because I understand the scientific method. That was part of why I asked you to look up peer-reviewed journals and repeatable experiments - because they are part of the scientific method. Science itself IS the scientific method, in a way - it's the way people search for the truth while eliminating as much bias and human error as possible. Because of this, science is trustworthy.

i understand the scientific method, sytruan. i lived there for many years. but a peer-reviewed article is just an appeal to authority. it may be justified, but the proof is in the pudding, not in the cook. you still have to look at the data, alone.

I acknowledge your suggestion - I have done so as much as I am able. However, if you're going to say that to me - why not to many others on this forum, including the FE-ers? Many zetetic experiments are filled with possible sources of error, and very little is done to eliminate that. Furthermore, many theories are not tested and are simply assumed to be true... based on the assumption of the earth being flat.

i do, when the occasion warrants it. you'll notice, though, that experimentation is uncommon among the hard-core flat earth supporters, with some notable exceptions. they're operating under a different paradigm of establishing truth, one inwhich experimentation is not necessarilly as valued as it is among round earth supporters.

an odd situation. i tend to listen more to them than i talk, because i'm still trying to understand the mindset. but the scientific method people should know better.

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Go tell Felix Baumgartner the earth is flat!
« on: March 02, 2013, 04:48:52 PM »
what i am saying is a little different from that, martian.

i accept what other people tell me every day in the course of my life, in order to accomplish tasks that i cannot accomplish alone. i use road maps to get to places i've never been. i read about things in the newspapers and treat them as if they were true. i believe the ingredients labels on food items without t=independent testing.

however, i recognize a distinction in terms of what i accept on trust, and what i accept because of knowledge derived from my own experience. where this is important is evaluating new, untested information.

there are lots of people here arguing round versus flat earth theory. by its very nature, this discussion requires a reassessment of fundamental assumptions about what we believe to be true about the world. about gravity, about light, about various constants that are incorporated into physical desriptions of the world.

over and over, i see people citing their assumptions about the world as if they constituted evidence. that isn't the case. gravity is a reasonable example. as near as i can tell, universal acceleration is a fine and workable substitute for the theory of gravity, mostly. it doesn't answer all the questions, but it answers all the ones that i know how to ask. is it wrong?

i don't know, but just saying "everybody tells me that gravity is a good theory" doesn't falsify a null hypothesis that the theory of gravity makes incorrect predictions. for that you need a fresh look, a fresh way of looking at your assumptions about the world.

so i'm skeptical about appeals to authority, especially when those appeals aren't backed up.

70
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Go tell Felix Baumgartner the earth is flat!
« on: March 01, 2013, 10:54:55 AM »
thank you for your clear answer.

you still have failed to grasp my point, but i won't pursue the matter further.

ciao.
Well, I did my best. If you're willing to try to rephrase your point, I'm willing to try to understand what you mean. It would be nice if you stated your point as plainly and clearly as you could (though you may have already done that and I simply did not see it).

i can try again, if you like.

unless you have seen the ocean yourself, your knowledge of the ocean is based upon what people have told you is true.

unless you have encountered god yourself, your knowledge of god is based on what people have told you is true.

unless you have performed an experiment yourself, your knowledge of the experimental results is based on what people have told you is true.

there is nothing wrong with taking what other other people tell you as true. that's how we apprehend reality in areas that we have not personally experienced nor verified. but sometimes what people tell you is NOT true, and your trust in them is misplaced.

just saying something is true because a researcher/lab tech/government statistician/priest/prophet tells you that it is, results in a world view built onfaith, and not on knowledge, no matter what it is.

i've asked you several times how you know that something is true, and you have told me that you have faith in someone else's statements. that's a risky technique to build a world view on, and you haven't qualified with a judgement that there's anything that you don't take on trust.

my suggestion to you is to believe things that you personally know, and verify as much as you can elsewhere. if you cannot verify, don't be quick to assert that things are true. stick with what you actually know, and assert instead that you believe them to be true.

71
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Japanese Whaling
« on: March 01, 2013, 10:41:31 AM »
There's a HUGE difference between hunting whales and selling them on the black market and hunting whales to feed a village.  Tribes in Russian and Alaska hunt whales because it's the only food they have access to.  It's what they've always survived off of. The land is too barren to grow food, no roads to their town.  It's their way of life.


they hunt out of tradition, not sustenance.

there's no village in alaska that isn't on satellite TV and doesn't have a convenience store that sells potato chips and budweiser.

here's how they hunt in alaska, these days:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/us/in-sacred-whale-hunt-eskimos-use-modern-tools.html?_r=0

72
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Japanese Whaling
« on: February 28, 2013, 06:57:41 PM »
I still think that the best solution would be to not allow whales to be sold as food after they are hunted.  Sure its wasteful, but I would bet that the number of whales killed would drop dramatically.  If they are truly just doing this for science and not because their is a huge market for whale meat, then making it illegal to sell as food makes sense.

that's the idea behind destroying caches of poached ivory, rather than selling it somewhere.


73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Go tell Felix Baumgartner the earth is flat!
« on: February 28, 2013, 06:54:21 PM »
lern to spel "ad hominem" before you apply it to someone, bud.
Learn to spell "learn" and "spell" before using them in a sentence. Besides which, this isn't even a point of contention or useful contribution. You understood what I was saying, and that is the entire point of language and words. Precise spelling beyond that is nitpicking and fairly useless unless you really really want to be technically correct and professional-looking. I don't particularly care about that. I just care about having what I say be understood.

Oh yes, also: I am not your "bud". Kindly do not sarcastically insult me for making a statement about what I was guessing your motives were. Considering your lack of answering the guess aside from this though, it looks as if I was spot-on in my guess.

Quote
I take the basic assumptions of science because they are (a) generally verifiable and (b) because it would take an inordinate amount of time to prove or observe them all in order to progress in science.

are they 'generally verifiable?"

how do you know?
Gravity's rate can be calculated, the fact that light is a wave can be observed through a fairly simple experiment (though it is not often done) - just a few examples.

Going into the root of the issue, by "generally verifiable" I mean that they are testable (and have been tested) and they have the capability of being false if contrary data existed. As for how I know - it's because many people have done experiments regarding them in order for them to have been established in the first place. If you don't know about why this would give me reason to believe it, look up "peer-reviewed journal", "repeatable experiments", and "burden of proof". If you still disagree after learning what they are, then it seems we are at an impasse due to lack of understanding and/or communication.

thank you for your clear answer.

you still have failed to grasp my point, but i won't pursue the matter further.

ciao.

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Go tell Felix Baumgartner the earth is flat!
« on: February 28, 2013, 05:41:58 PM »
lern to spel "ad hominem" before you apply it to someone, bud.

Quote
I take the basic assumptions of science because they are (a) generally verifiable and (b) because it would take an inordinate amount of time to prove or observe them all in order to progress in science.

are they 'generally verifiable?"

how do you know?

75
Flat Earth General / Re: Facts you may have forgotten
« on: February 28, 2013, 03:49:35 PM »

The reason for this North-South movement of the celestials is unknown. However, the seasons would not exist without it, and by extension, a diverse evolution of life driven by climate-induced adaption would probably have never occurred in history. We likely owe our existence to this phenomenon.


if the sun orbited a flat earth at a fixed radius, seasonality would not occur, but there would still be a suite of fixed climates from the pole to the rim. a similar situation would occur with a round earth if the angle of the rotational axis were at 90 degrees to the ecliptic, instead of 66.

equatorial climates on the round earth model are quite stable, and accompany very high species diversities in tropical regions of south america, africa, and southern asia.

76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Go tell Felix Baumgartner the earth is flat!
« on: February 28, 2013, 03:34:56 PM »
i haven't missed your point, my friend, though you've never figured out mine.

knowledge can be divided into two categories:

-- things you know to be true because you've seen them or done them, yourself.

-- things you believe to be true because other people say so.

so far all that you've mentioned about the flat/round earth conroversy falls into the second category.

is it knowledge? you're on the right track when you start observing, as you've begun to do.

but is it different from believing the moon is made of tinfoil, because you've been told that it is?

77
Flat Earth General / Re: Truth
« on: February 28, 2013, 03:25:56 PM »
i'll be sure to let you know when i finish thinking about all your stuff, burt.


Thanks for the condescension.

When you elect to reply to somebody on the basis of a subject they know about, and they interact with you on the basis that you might act like a decent human being, that person might be a little peeved off when they go to a lot of effort to introduce you to their point of view and give you relevant sources for it, only for you you return with a  less than direct comment that in fact says "I don't care".

hmmm yes

well, burt, life is full of disappointments.

i'm sure you'll get over this one.

78
Flat Earth General / Re: Truth
« on: February 27, 2013, 04:27:48 PM »
i'll be sure to let you know when i finish thinking about all your stuff, burt.

79
it's their hobby, faking things.

everybody spends too much time at their hobby.

i spend too much time drinking.

80
Flat Earth General / Re: Truth
« on: February 26, 2013, 05:09:40 PM »
No because induction is a logical function, what you are talking about is suprise suprise "repeatability." Induction must be part of some logical formula for it truly to be called induction. otherwise you are using the word metaphorically.

The probability rules that inductivists use actually undermine their attempts to justify induction.

i wouldn't classify induction as logic at all, personally. my point was that if the experimental method used popperian falsification, then a single contrary result falsifies the hypothesis. but nobody accepts a single contrary result as sufficient evidence.

the experiment must be repeated before anybody believes it. the more times, the better.

therefore a deductive hypothesis test is abandoned in favor of a probability statement that only approximates truth.

which is induction.

This is naive falsification and one that dogged represenations of Popper's to the present day. It would take me a whole essay to explain to you why it is wrong to assume this.

go for it.

81
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: February 26, 2013, 04:54:15 PM »
i refuse to take the bait

i don't need help looking like an idiot. i do that fine already

82
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: February 25, 2013, 08:16:06 PM »


83
Flat Earth General / Re: Facts you may have forgotten
« on: February 25, 2013, 06:52:16 PM »
you're making this up as you go along, aren't you?

i'm on to you now.

84
Flat Earth General / Re: Give me your opinions please.
« on: February 25, 2013, 06:43:28 PM »
There you go Thork, I've deleted the post, I'll leave the thread up to you.

quit that!

85
Flat Earth General / Re: Facts you may have forgotten
« on: February 25, 2013, 06:32:32 PM »
how can the sun travel at almost the same speed on an equinox and on the winter solstice?

its apparent motion against the horizon is the same on both equinoxes (fast) and also the same on both solstices (slow).

86
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: February 25, 2013, 06:21:28 PM »
Those plus the animals that have been mutated:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Chernobyl Mutations


markjo, this video is a hoax.

the very first two headed turtle seems to be a baby african spurred tortoise, found in subsaharan africa.



other pictures show indian zebus, baby alligators, a picture of an apparently ordinary parrot, and so on.

reptiles and amphibians do this all the time, even without radiation. i've seen adult two headed snakes and turtles before in the US

87
Flat Earth General / Re: Truth
« on: February 24, 2013, 06:11:06 PM »
No because induction is a logical function, what you are talking about is suprise suprise "repeatability." Induction must be part of some logical formula for it truly to be called induction. otherwise you are using the word metaphorically.

The probability rules that inductivists use actually undermine their attempts to justify induction.

i wouldn't classify induction as logic at all, personally. my point was that if the experimental method used popperian falsification, then a single contrary result falsifies the hypothesis. but nobody accepts a single contrary result as sufficient evidence.

the experiment must be repeated before anybody believes it. the more times, the better.

therefore a deductive hypothesis test is abandoned in favor of a probability statement that only approximates truth.

which is induction.

88
Flat Earth General / Re: Give me your opinions please.
« on: February 24, 2013, 06:01:49 PM »
i'm satisfied that i was confused about this.

i was expecting the upper atmosphere to experience a frictional drag that would inevitably slow it unless additional energy was input from friction with the rotatating earth's surface. that's wrong, as the outer layer of the atmosphere is both highly diffuse and if it turns at all, turns against a vacuum, which would be a frictionless interface. and i was neglecting viscosity.

so now i've learned something again.

89
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:32:33 PM »
A typical house in the Uk used to have one ring main, they dont now ;)

i use different codes where i live.

what's your amperage for a standard residence?

what's a "ring?"

90
Flat Earth General / Re: Give me your opinions please.
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:20:59 PM »
Why should it lag?

 if the upper surface is frictionless against a vacuum, and the lower surface is in contact with a high-friction ground surface, then there should be no gradient, and the velocities up and down the column should be equal.

Are you saying that the air at the top should also be moving at 1,000 mph?

nope, i'm saying that's what other people are saying.

but i'm beginning to see how there's no frictional effects up there either, at least none that would translate to a change in velocity.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14