18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhyou now talk, like you often do, complete irrelevant gibberish.
And, true to the cognitive bias which underscores your lack of an open mind, you're missing the key factor here.
If even your source openly acknowledges that 8"×d² is accurate up to 100 miles and there exists a plethora of examples less than 100 miles, well, you're kinda having a bad day, don't you think?
Or do are you persuaded that since this blogge ...[text shortened]... beyond 100 miles, it is possible to apply the same retroactively to distances below 100 miles?
Originally posted by @freakykbhSo now you are saying if the human eye doesn't notice the curvature of the Earth from 35,000 up then there is no curvature of the Earth?
"...
If they can see the curvature of the earth from 35,000'?
...
No curvature.
.
So the curvature of something couldn't possibly be so small from the current view point that the human eye cannot notice it?
Obviously false.
By your same 'logic', if you zoom in on a tiny part of the circumference of a circle until your eye no longer notices the curvature but sees an apparent straight line then that proves all circles are straight lines.
Astronauts see the curvature when they are sufficiently high up. That proves there exists curvature.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humyYou are exceedingly predictable.
you now talk, like you often do, complete irrelevant gibberish.
When you cannot refute the logic of another's argument, you claim they are speaking gibberish.
An eight year old can understand every word of that post, as readily as they can grasp the concepts therein.
If you truly cannot, I suggest you ask an eight year old to offer you some assistance.
Please obtain parental permission first.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humyNo one has been to space, so let's not bring those acting as astronauts into the picture.
So now you are saying if the human eye doesn't notice the curvature of the Earth from 35,000 up then there is no curvature of the Earth?
So the curvature of something couldn't possibly be so small from the current view point that the human eye cannot notice it?
Obviously false.
By your same 'logic', if you zoom in on a tiny part of the circumference of a ...[text shortened]... onauts see the curvature when they are sufficiently high up. That proves there exists curvature.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humyLovely.
I now checked to see if it is possible for the untrained human eye to see the curvature of the Earth from a commercial airline and I have found this passenger video footage that clearly proves it is possible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlBGTSG230Q
You make claims prior to verifying, then go find "evidence" to support the claims.
Science much?
That's not how it works.
You observe, measure, predict, experiment, repeat.
That's how science works.
The science fiction you employ is for children with nothing else in their heads.
In that video, is there anything between the recording camera and the observed subject/object which might alter the perception?
Anything at all?
I'd say there is.
Even if the camera itself can be verified for faithful accuracy, there is a pane of material which could be altering the image.
Moreover, I'm not sure what type of plane the video is shot from, as I've never seen passenger planes with wings which can curve and straighten as they're being panned.
Try again!
Originally posted by @humyHow about the free thinker who suggested the theory of plate tectonics?
what planet are you on?
Science is known for free thinkers contributing to it.
But "tar and feathering free thinkers"? What does that mean? Example?
And have you got something against thinking freely? Are you expressing a fear here that people thinking freely will disbelieve your religion because that is what thinking does?
How about the fate of the man who suggested ulcers were a result of bacterial invasion?
How about how any scientist is treated for deviating from the status quo?
Assuming that such theories can be proved, they are eventually absolved and revered, but the initial insult can be career threatening.
Even Einstein adjusted his theory of relativity so as to not offend the status quo. He later said it was one of his biggest blunders.
What I find interesting are the scientists who cling to such theories as abiogenesis. They have no way of proving it but are welcomed by the establishment with open arms, all because they wish not to upset the political powers that be.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @whodeyAnd now maybe not so fast, his cos constant might be true. Not sure where you are going with this, another oblique anti science post? If so, why don't you just come out and say it?
How about the free thinker who suggested the theory of plate tectonics?
How about the fate of the man who suggested ulcers were a result of bacterial invasion?
How about how any scientist is treated for deviating from the status quo?
Assuming that such theories can be proved, they are eventually absolved and revered, but the initial insult can be ...[text shortened]... elativity so as to not offend the status quo. He later said it was one of his biggest blunders.
18 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhNope. The fact the Earth is round was already verified before that video.
You make claims prior to verifying, then go find "evidence" to support the claims.
Try again.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhMaybe he should talk to Yuri Gagarin. Not Nasa, or ESA. Funny how that ISS got built all by itself isn't it? As big as a football pitch now and a quarter million watts of solar energy being used for SOMETHING. God I despise this creep,
No one has been to space, so let's not bring those acting as astronauts into the picture.
18 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @whodeywhat about it?
How about the free thinker who suggested the theory of plate tectonics?
How about the fate of the man who suggested ulcers were a result of bacterial invasion?
The same kind of free thinking resulted in the discovery of evolution and also, separately, the discovery of how the basic chemical building blocks of life must have formed on early-Earth.
Before that the status status quo was just the ignorance of stupid religion.
18 Sep 17
You know we are feeding the troll, don't you?
He thrives in our attention, and he gets what he wants.
We all know that he is dead wrong, that he is delusional.
We cannot change his opinion, he cannot be taught of the real facts.
But we can make himself thrive in our attention, he just lives it!
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasHe thrives on pulling people's chains. That is the definition of troll, He will never stop no matter how much science you throw at him. Facts matter nothing to him. This is poster boy for troll,
You know we are feeding the troll, don't you?
He thrives in our attention, and he gets what he wants.
We all know that he is dead wrong, that he is delusional.
We cannot change his opinion, he cannot be taught of the real facts.
But we can make himself thrive in our attention, he just lives it!
Originally posted by @sonhouseHe is laughing his butt off everytime he sees us fall in the trap, time after time.
He thrives on pulling people's chains. That is the definition of troll, He will never stop no matter how much science you throw at him. Facts matter nothing to him. This is poster boy for troll,
If he just would use his energy to something useful, then he could achieve marvelous results.
Why not let Trump use him to convince Kim Jong Un to quit his nukes? He is the one that could succeed! 😉