Rejection of science

  • 135 Replies
  • 2518 Views
*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 17699
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #120 on: December 30, 2019, 09:39:24 AM »
Phenomena exist independent of how one assigns causality.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

sokarul

  • 16421
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #121 on: December 30, 2019, 09:40:45 AM »
But some people want to know the causality while others want to make stuff up so they can live in their happy place.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 17699
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #122 on: December 30, 2019, 09:43:04 AM »
But some people want to know the causality while others want to make stuff up so they can live in their happy place.

Some people are better than other people?
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

sokarul

  • 16421
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #123 on: December 30, 2019, 09:46:07 AM »
But some people want to know the causality while others want to make stuff up so they can live in their happy place.

Some people are better than other people?
Some people use experimentation. Others research. Some ad hoc.
Is ad hoc equal to actual research?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sokarul

  • 16421
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #124 on: December 30, 2019, 09:58:18 AM »
In my opinion ad hoc is not equal to research.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #125 on: December 30, 2019, 12:53:37 PM »
What is being rejected is what is told to us as being science which is unprovable yet sold and told as fact and hiding behind a contingency plan of the words "scientific theories."
No, what is being rejected is what has been backed up by loads of evidence and observations, but shows that Earth isn't flat, so you need to reject it to cling to your FE fantasy.
And what do you replace it with? Pure fantasy, wild speculation which contradicts other parts of your wild speculation with absolutely nothing to justify it and plenty of evidence to contradict it.

Just because you don't like it because it shows you are wrong and you reject the evidence doesn't mean it is not backed up by mountains of evidence.

P.S. science doesn't deal with proof.

*

Macarios

  • 1875
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #126 on: December 31, 2019, 07:40:21 AM »
But some people want to know the causality while others want to make stuff up so they can live in their happy place.

Some people are better than other people?

Better at what? Not all have the same abilities in the same fields.

For example, you are better at snooker, I'm better at ping-pong.
You have better fighting chances with your cue than me with my racket. :)
(Unless scietific experiments disprove the hypothesis.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To believe in Flate Earth one has to reject:

Geometry
It includes geography, geodesy, navigation and more disciplines based on it.
Geodesy measures the Earth directly, mostly based on triangulation (math aided).
Math also proves that the Earth's surface is non-Euclidean which shows that it is
not flat. So one has to reject the math.

Geology
Propagation, reflection and difraction of quake waves and tsunamis show the composition
and the shape of the Earth. It certainly is not flat. Behavior of tectonic plates helps too.

Meteorology
The accuracy of weather prediction is not perfect, but excluding the dynamics of
the rotating globe and coriolis effects makes it completely chaotic / unexplainable.

Astronomy
Observations and measurements of celestial objects and their behavior require
different FE models for each subset of data, no matter how small.
Only heliocentric model can unite all into one system.
Also the space exploration. For example, the trajectories of the deep space probes
often include "space slingshots", for which you have to know precisely the mass,
position and movement of each object in the way.

Physics
So many things to deny here.
Gravity, fields, wave propagation, optics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics,
quantum physics, even frames of reference and their relations and conversions.

Biology
Migrations of birds, sea creatures, land herds, ..., their routes and timings.

...

This was just a tip of an iceberg.

To maintain their belief in the FE, one even has to reject
the southern hemisphere flight routes and timings.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #127 on: January 22, 2020, 11:14:31 AM »
There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on the 'three body problem'.   PBS Spacetime recently posted a video regarding this very thing



Basic summary, the problem has been solved for specific cases, but there is no general solution.




*

rabinoz

  • 23799
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #128 on: January 22, 2020, 03:06:33 PM »
There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on the 'three body problem'.   PBS Spacetime recently posted a video regarding this very thing



Basic summary, the problem has been solved for specific cases, but there is no general solution.
That is why there is so much work done on numerical simulation.
There are ones that aim at very high precision out to 100,000 years or so and less detailed ones to millions and billions of years.

And then, of course, there are the short term ones dating back centuries for calculation ephemeris data and more recently for planetary orbital prediction for interplanetary space mission planning.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 17699
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #129 on: January 22, 2020, 08:43:32 PM »
There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on the 'three body problem'.   PBS Spacetime recently posted a video regarding this very thing



Basic summary, the problem has been solved for specific cases, but there is no general solution.
That is why there is so much work done on numerical simulation.
There are ones that aim at very high precision out to 100,000 years or so and less detailed ones to millions and billions of years.

And then, of course, there are the short term ones dating back centuries for calculation ephemeris data and more recently for planetary orbital prediction for interplanetary space mission planning.

And nobody knows if it will rain next week.   ::)
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

rabinoz

  • 23799
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #130 on: January 22, 2020, 08:52:04 PM »
There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on the 'three body problem'.   PBS Spacetime recently posted a video regarding this very thing



Basic summary, the problem has been solved for specific cases, but there is no general solution.
That is why there is so much work done on numerical simulation.
There are ones that aim at very high precision out to 100,000 years or so and less detailed ones to millions and billions of years.

And then, of course, there are the short term ones dating back centuries for calculation ephemeris data and more recently for planetary orbital prediction for interplanetary space mission planning.

And nobody knows if it will rain next week.   ::)
But we do know where Venus will be next year unless some idiot doesn't blow it up ???.

PS: Not Venus de Milo - someone might raid the Louvre and "borrow it".

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 17699
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #131 on: January 22, 2020, 08:56:01 PM »

PS: Not Venus de Milo - someone might raid the Louvre and "borrow it".

We need to protect Venus de Milo, she is unarmed.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

rabinoz

  • 23799
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #132 on: January 23, 2020, 03:32:19 AM »

PS: Not Venus de Milo - someone might raid the Louvre and "borrow it".
We need to protect Venus de Milo, she is unarmed ;D.
But here's a little paradox. Why is she even called Venus de Milo?
It was a Greek sculpture of about 100 BC but Venus was the Roman ??? goddess of love, sex, beauty, and fertility. The Greek goddess of love was Aphrodite - a little mystery ;).

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 17699
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #133 on: January 23, 2020, 03:38:25 AM »
cool
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

Macarios

  • 1875
Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #134 on: January 23, 2020, 10:00:52 PM »

PS: Not Venus de Milo - someone might raid the Louvre and "borrow it".
We need to protect Venus de Milo, she is unarmed ;D.
But here's a little paradox. Why is she even called Venus de Milo?
It was a Greek sculpture of about 100 BC but Venus was the Roman ??? goddess of love, sex, beauty, and fertility. The Greek goddess of love was Aphrodite - a little mystery ;).

We don't know.
Greece was under Romans and Greek sculptors could sculpt Roman gods... :)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Rejection of science
« Reply #135 on: January 24, 2020, 09:13:47 AM »
It might not even by Venus/Aphrodite - it's just what it was named in the 19th century.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.