A question for the FE'rs

  • 45 Replies
  • 12134 Views
*

naysayer

  • 76
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2012, 01:09:14 PM »
Now if tomorrow they discover earth to be flat, they'll just change the story and you'll have to like it like that. You are talking hogwash.

They already discovered that the earth was flat back in the 1300s. Christopher Columbus tried to disprove this fact in the 1400s by sailing around the world, but he failed. Even though only .00000006% of the world's population currently believe that the earth is flat, I know this to be the truth.

?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2012, 01:11:15 PM »
ok then, what does??? how do we even know there are electrons or protons or even neutrons??

how do we know??
By Zetetic observation. We can observe the effects such as magnetism, electricity, chemical reactions and build a picture from what we have tested.

Quote from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Zetetic+method
The method used for finding the value of unknown quantities by direct search, in investigation, or in the solution of problems.


Yes. Modern science isn't as monolithic as you pretend it is. It isn't a dogma; its constantly changing and evolving. It tends to accept a new theory when its surpasses the previous one.
It changes its story when the previous one is shown to make no sense. Ok, good to know.

No it doesn't.
A better theory replaces an incomplete one, roughly. That's why FET will never replace RET.
??? In the 18th century scientists thought the earth was 6000 years old. In 1892, Lord Kelvin re-calculated the age of Earth by using thermal gradients, and arrived at an estimate of 100 million years old. That was scientific fact. Later moar scientists realised he hadn't factored in radioactivity in the earth's core. The figure was then just changed overnight to 4.5 billion years. If they find they ballsed something else up, they'll just change the figure again. Science told people earth was 6000 years old. Science was wrong. Now if tomorrow they discover earth to be flat, they'll just change the story and you'll have to like it like that. You are talking hogwash.


And again, you're over simplifying.

http://www.rif.org/

Then come back with something more substantial. A FET and not a collection on one-line statements.

“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Thork

Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2012, 01:17:08 PM »
They already discovered that the earth was flat back in the 1300s. Christopher Columbus tried to disprove this fact in the 1400s by sailing around the world, but he failed. Even though only .00000006% of the world's population currently believe that the earth is flat, I know this to be the truth.
You need to brush up on your history.

Zhark needs to learn when he's beaten.

?

ThePenguin

  • 24
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2012, 02:04:34 PM »
ok then, what does??? how do we even know there are electrons or protons or even neutrons??

how do we know??
By Zetetic observation. We can observe the effects such as magnetism, electricity, chemical reactions and build a picture from what we have tested.

Quote from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Zetetic+method
The method used for finding the value of unknown quantities by direct search, in investigation, or in the solution of problems.

how is this not part of the scientific method again??  To me it looks just like the experiment and observe results part.

?

Thork

Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2012, 02:09:18 PM »
Because as my link to a dictionary definition says, its Zetetic method.

?

ThePenguin

  • 24
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2012, 02:11:12 PM »
ok here
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+method

Quote
a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it

?

Thork

Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2012, 02:13:27 PM »
Yes, its clear where scientific method can be erroneous and why we adhere to the Zetetic method.

?

Kendrick

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2012, 02:14:52 PM »
To be fair - Zeteticm is not immune to mistake.

If there were no errors in the Zetetic method there would not be multiple maps.

?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2012, 02:16:49 PM »
Zhark needs to learn when he's beaten.

Continue dreaming, it's only what you've got left.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

ThePenguin

  • 24
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2012, 02:22:06 PM »
what is so erroneous? I have to know

?

ThePenguin

  • 24
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #40 on: June 04, 2012, 02:27:38 PM »
http://misterguch.brinkster.net/scientificmethod.html
Quote
An example of the scientific method:
Let's say I have a problem: My car won't start. How would I use the scientific method to solve this problem?
 

Purpose: I want my car to start
Hypothesis: If I put gas in my car, it will start.
Materials: 5 gallon gas can, 5 gallons gasoline, money to buy gasoline, a ride to the gas station
Procedure: First, I will call my friend Bill and ask for a ride to the gas station. I will take the five gallon gas can and fill it with five gallons of gasoline at the pump. After paying the gas station owner for the gasoline, I will get a ride back to my car and put the gasoline in the tank. Once the gasoline is in the tank, I will attempt to restart the car.
Results: The car started on the first try.
Conclusion: When I put gas in my car, it started.

It's as simple as that!

?

Thork

Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2012, 02:33:20 PM »
http://misterguch.brinkster.net/scientificmethod.html
Quote
An example of the scientific method:
Let's say I have a problem: My car won't start. How would I use the scientific method to solve this problem?
 

Purpose: I want my car to start
Hypothesis: If I put gas in my car, it will start.
Materials: 5 gallon gas can, 5 gallons gasoline, money to buy gasoline, a ride to the gas station
Procedure: First, I will call my friend Bill and ask for a ride to the gas station. I will take the five gallon gas can and fill it with five gallons of gasoline at the pump. After paying the gas station owner for the gasoline, I will get a ride back to my car and put the gasoline in the tank. Once the gasoline is in the tank, I will attempt to restart the car.
Results: The car started on the first try.
Conclusion: When I put gas in my car, it started.

It's as simple as that!
And that's how Scientific method is flawed. The car may well have had enough petrol in its gas lines. However the engine was cold this morning. By the time you called your friend, and you and your friend got back with petrol and messed about the sun had warmed the air and car and now your car started.

Conclusion. Cars don't start well in the cold.

But you think its down to petrol. Next time its cold you are going to get more fuel again.

You see how scientific method could easily give you the wrong impression of earth's shape?

?

Kendrick

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #42 on: June 04, 2012, 02:41:08 PM »
Also - upon a successful start with petrol a true zeteticist would have moved from petrol to other substances to rule them out -

How can you know for certain the successful start was a result of Petrol when you didnt try seawater or Gin?

?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #43 on: June 04, 2012, 02:41:44 PM »
http://misterguch.brinkster.net/scientificmethod.html
Quote
An example of the scientific method:
Let's say I have a problem: My car won't start. How would I use the scientific method to solve this problem?
 

Purpose: I want my car to start
Hypothesis: If I put gas in my car, it will start.
Materials: 5 gallon gas can, 5 gallons gasoline, money to buy gasoline, a ride to the gas station
Procedure: First, I will call my friend Bill and ask for a ride to the gas station. I will take the five gallon gas can and fill it with five gallons of gasoline at the pump. After paying the gas station owner for the gasoline, I will get a ride back to my car and put the gasoline in the tank. Once the gasoline is in the tank, I will attempt to restart the car.
Results: The car started on the first try.
Conclusion: When I put gas in my car, it started.

It's as simple as that!
And that's how Scientific method is flawed. The car may well have had enough petrol in its gas lines. However the engine was cold this morning. By the time you called your friend, and you and your friend got back with petrol and messed about the sun had warmed the air and car and now your car started.

Conclusion. Cars don't start well in the cold.

But you think its down to petrol. Next time its cold you are going to get more fuel again.

You see how scientific method could easily give you the wrong impression of earth's shape?

Is is zetetism which makes you jump from a flawed example to your laughable conclusion?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

ThePenguin

  • 24
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #44 on: June 04, 2012, 02:42:42 PM »
that is also why in true scientific methodology many many experiments are performed to validate a claim.

Quote
And that's how Scientific method is flawed. The car may well have had enough petrol in its gas lines. However the engine was cold this morning. By the time you called your friend, and you and your friend got back with petrol and messed about the sun had warmed the air and car and now your car started.

Conclusion. Cars don't start well in the cold.

it's cold out and the car wont start, wait for sun to warm up. 
car still wont start.
add fuel, car started.

conclusion. cars might not start in the cold, but cars wont start without fuel

?

MrT

  • 211
  • +0/-0
Re: A question for the FE'rs
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2012, 03:42:36 PM »
On the original topic, this is a very cool link.
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion2/animations/ce_hc.html

Thork, the picture you posted is perfectly explained by a spinning round earth.  The center of the rotation axis is just off camera to the left.  The closer you get to the right edge, the more the stars seem to simply rotate around a small point (the rotation axis).  The further left they seem to curve a bit the other direction, but it's simply based on the perspective of the view due to the very wide field of view.

Rather than one long exposure from a fixed mount, many cameras actually track the stars during the exposure, so that the ground is blurry and the stars are clear, rather than the stars showing trails and the ground staying sharp.  In those cases the stars are shown to stay in the same positions relative to each other, and do not move in opposite directions, or at different angles.  The time lapse videos posted by The Penguin demonstrate this.

The above is not meant to be an attack or inflammatory, it's just what I think.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I don't understand