Jump to content

How To REALLY Get Angry At Space Science Deniers


NeoMorph

Recommended Posts

1.78267702 × 109 smoots per hour per day?

How about 462.48532 attoParsecs per microfortnight^2 ?

 

Metric is standard for scientific usage.  What we are discussing is, by it's very nature, completely unscience, therefore metric is unwarranted.

Edited by razark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

 

Your use of imperial units unsettles me.

pls fix

Don't worry, it was just a joke. I use metric whenever I can IRL. I'm even trying to convert to Celsius, but it's hard to do so when everything tries to tell you the temperature in Fahrenheit...

1 hour ago, razark said:

What we are discussing is, by it's very nature, completely unscience, therefore metric is unwarranted.

^seconded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the earth was flat, then shouldn't I be able to see the whole world from a point, or at least some mountains?

If the earth was flat, you could probably see japan from coastal California, and get all the leaks on the new pokemon trailers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 2:24 AM, stibbons said:

"What is the mechanism to straighten it out?" he asks, while the grid fins are clearly visible and moving to adjust attitude. Gosh.

Well, to the conspiracy theorist, those fins are nothing but metallic waffle bars.

Not to mention that the rocket is also being straightened out by RCS propellant off camera.

And the elements DID get to about 5 other rockets before a successful landing.

Also, the conspiracy theorist knows less about aerodynamics than a 5th grader.

A pencil or dart shape will travel so that the long side is in line with the direction it is falling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dobelong said:

But if the earth was flat, then shouldn't I be able to see the whole world from a point, or at least some mountains?

If the earth was flat, you could probably see japan from coastal California, and get all the leaks on the new pokemon trailers.

I think atmospheric scattering would make it harder to see things at such distance. But if the Earth was flat, we'd still be able to see a lot further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dobelong said:

Not to mention that the rocket is also being straightened out by RCS propellant off camera.

Actually, the RCS jets are often quite visible.

7 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

I think atmospheric scattering would make it harder to see things at such distance. But if the Earth was flat, we'd still be able to see a lot further.

Still, you could shine a light signal from one end of the ocean and receive it on the other end in a straight line, using a wavelength that isn't affected too much by scattering. But people have actually done this, sort of. Here's a picture of Chicago taken from across Lake Michigan:

3417439088_9d281b4b44_b.jpg

Clearly only the tips of the highest buildings are visible. This is what it looks like from closer up:

305341_orig.jpg

What could possibly cause that effect? The surface of the water is curved, by gravity, towards Earth's center of mass. It's because Earth is a spheroid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

I think atmospheric scattering would make it harder to see things at such distance. But if the Earth was flat, we'd still be able to see a lot further.

I know a place you can regularly see 250 kilometres far, though it is much more common to see much less. The atmosphere is rarely that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

The Golden Gate Bridge was so long, that they had to account for the curvature of the Earth when they built the anchors.

But I thought the Earth was penguin-shaped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But beliefs of a religion stretch farrther back than the round earth theory, so really the flat earth theory is actually older, and even if presented with evidence that has been around for hundreds of years, the thought of change is simply difficult, and it would ruin the religion. It's really a new belief that the universe,  it just the earth, was formed in an explosion and came to existence from long gone stellar dust balls.

No longer are we supreme and special above all else, but just on a tiny rock whizzing through space. The earth has to be special, and at the center of everything, not just a tiny part.

But, that is the rules for religion. We can believe the earth is round, they can believe the earth is flat. There's no stopping them really.

on another note, if you want to see some flat earthers get REKT, I recommend Scott Manley.:cool:

Edited by Dobelong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Dobelong said:

But beliefs of a religion stretch farrther back than the round earth theory, so really the flat earth theory is actually older, and even if presented with evidence that has been around for hundreds of years, the thought of change is simply difficult, and it would ruin the religion. It's really a new belief that the universe,  it just the earth, was formed in an explosion and came to existence from long gone stellar dust balls.

No longer are we supreme and special above all else, but just on a tiny rock whizzing through space. The earth has to be special, and at the center of everything, not just a tiny part.

But, that is the rules for religion. We can believe the earth is round, they can believe the earth is flat. There's no stopping them really.

You mention "beliefs of a religion" in connection with acceptance of a belief that the earth is flat.  This was the case with a certain religion (the same one that was earth-centric and held that somehow the earth was the center of the universe), however that same religion today accepts the Big Bang theory and is a huge backer of large telescopes.

You also claim "... that is the rules for religion."  That's a rather broad statement.  I have studied several religions and two significant points are clear to me.  First, most people I know who abide by these religions (be they churches, synagogs or just simply world views) do not accept the notion of a flat earth.  Rather they embrace the idea that the earth is a "sphere" and that there are other planets and stars.  Also that the universe is vast and that the earth is not necessarily at the center of the universe.  Second, some religions (both ancient and modern) teach as part of their doctrines that the earth is extremely ancient (rather than limiting its creation to only six consecutive creative periods understood as current earth days, for example) and also teach that there are many planets and that stars are suns.

It is my belief (based on what I've seen in life) that most people will accept true principles if they are taught such; but also simply by being exposed to life's experiences (such as standing on the top of a high mountain or flying by aircraft and thus seeing the grand curvature of the earth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dispatcher said:
1 hour ago, Dispatcher said:

You mention "beliefs of a religion" in connection with acceptance of a belief that the earth is flat.  This was the case with a certain religion (the same one that was earth-centric and held that somehow the earth was the center of the universe), however that same religion today accepts the Big Bang theory and is a huge backer of large telescopes.

You also claim "... that is the rules for religion."  That's a rather broad statement.  I have studied several religions and two significant points are clear to me.  First, most people I know who abide by these religions (be they churches, synagogs or just simply world views) do not accept the notion of a flat earth.  Rather they embrace the idea that the earth is a "sphere" and that there are other planets and stars.  Also that the universe is vast and that the earth is not necessarily at the center of the universe.  Second, some religions (both ancient and modern) teach as part of their doctrines that the earth is extremely ancient (rather than limiting its creation to only six consecutive creative periods understood as current earth days, for example) and also teach that there are many planets and that stars are suns.

It is my belief (based on what I've seen in life) that most people will accept true principles if they are taught such; but also simply by being exposed to life's experiences (such as standing on the top of a high mountain or flying by aircraft and thus seeing the grand curvature of the earth).

You mention "beliefs of a religion" in connection with acceptance of a belief that the earth is flat.  This was the case with a certain religion (the same one that was earth-centric and held that somehow the earth was the center of the universe), however that same religion today accepts the Big Bang theory and is a huge backer of large telescopes.

You also claim "... that is the rules for religion."  That's a rather broad statement.  I have studied several religions and two significant points are clear to me.  First, most people I know who abide by these religions (be they churches, synagogs or just simply world views) do not accept the notion of a flat earth.  Rather they embrace the idea that the earth is a "sphere" and that there are other planets and stars.  Also that the universe is vast and that the earth is not necessarily at the center of the universe.  Second, some religions (both ancient and modern) teach as part of their doctrines that the earth is extremely ancient (rather than limiting its creation to only six consecutive creative periods understood as current earth days, for example) and also teach that there are many planets and that stars are suns.

It is my belief (based on what I've seen in life) that most people will accept true principles if they are taught such; but also simply by being exposed to life's experiences (such as standing on the top of a high mountain or flying by aircraft and thus seeing the grand curvature of the earth).

Whoops, it appears that I have made a mistake.
However, a select few DO refuse to give up their initial beliefs. For instance, Thomas Edison realized that alternating currents were not dangerous, but tried to make himself superior by trying to falsely prove otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dobelong said:

Whoops, it appears that I have made a mistake.
However, a select few DO refuse to give up their initial beliefs. For instance, Thomas Edison realized that alternating currents were not dangerous, but tried to make himself superior by trying to falsely prove otherwise.

I agree with this, as the trait of being stubborn has less to do with world views and more to do with being human.  Thus I think that trait is expressed by everyone to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2016 at 2:19 AM, Aperture Science said:

I think atmospheric scattering would make it harder to see things at such distance. But if the Earth was flat, we'd still be able to see a lot further.

I have to disagree with this. If there was really an atmosphere, why can I move my arms so easily? Rain is clearly photoshopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Arieoreos said:

I have to disagree with this. If there was really an atmosphere, why can I move my arms so easily? Rain is clearly photoshopped.

photoshops.png


Quote

When I look into your eyes, I see JPEG artifacts. I can tell by the pixels that we're wrong for each other.

14 hours ago, Dispatcher said:

It is my belief (based on what I've seen in life) that most people will accept true principles if they are taught such; but also simply by being exposed to life's experiences (such as standing on the top of a high mountain or flying by aircraft and thus seeing the grand curvature of the earth).

Thing is,  these are easily bent to whatever truth you choose. Remember the geocentric model? I was pretty obviously true. Our Sun dutifully rotated around our planet. The Moon did the same. Only when  you accept that those are heavenly bodies, just like the wandering start, and spend a fair amount of time figuring things out, you see that the model needs to be overly complex to work. You could quite easily explain that away by pretending planets are actually stars that can somehow move. Then you just have to explain the peculiar motion of the Sun, which should be doable.

You need to be careful with thinking people will see the evident truths, because those will line up with what they are taught or believe. People that make the same observations can end up with wildly different interpretations, due to what they know, think and believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are too dumb! What is this computer with a touch screen doing in my pocket! Witchery!

What even is this guy's channel? Looks like a 100% troll to me.

Edited by Veeltch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Camacha said:

You need to be careful with thinking people will see the evident truths, because those will line up with what they are taught or believe. People that make the same observations can end up with wildly different interpretations, due to what they know, think and believe.

My point is, I think most people will accept true principles if they are exposed to them regularly and clearly.  For the purposes of this thread, "the Earth is not flat" or "the Earth is a spheroid".

I also indicated that if such principles are supplemented with actual experience (for our purposes here, climbing to the top of a ranger tower on a mountaintop, or flying in a commercial jet; both of which I have experienced on multiple occasions), such notions as "the Earth has curvature because it is a spheroid" are verified by such experiences.

Remember, I wrote that I am speaking from my own experiences with others and my own surroundings.  However, I have confidence that ultimately most people who are so educated and experienced will accept what is correct (in this case, "the Earth is not flat").  Clearly if people are not taught and do not experience enough to understand "the reality", they will be less likely to understand and accept it.  Some may even avoid the understanding of it.  The proof of that is that even you will agree that most forum members here believe that the Earth is not flat.  Oh there I go again, we can be reasonably certain that most forum members here are biased in that regard.  :D  I have no problem with the idea that "your mileage may vary".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dispatcher said:

I also indicated that if such principles are supplemented with actual experience (for our purposes here, climbing to the top of a ranger tower on a mountaintop, or flying in a commercial jet; both of which I have experienced on multiple occasions), such notions as "the Earth has curvature because it is a spheroid" are verified by such experiences.

If the world is flat but circular like a pancake, looking at it from above will yield a shape will round curves on all sides. I mean, you cannot deny that it obviously is a flat shape with rounded edges.

See how easy it is to line observations up with what you believe? :wink: If you take something for truth, anything that fits will be seen as confirmation, while for divergent observations an alternative explanation will be sought. Even in conventional science, observations are regularly made that do not intuitively line up with what you know to be true, warranting further explanation. It is so very easy to confuse less intuitive components of conventional wisdom with errant explanations.

Edited by Camacha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dispatcher said:

My point is, I think most people will accept true principles if they are exposed to them regularly and clearly.  For the purposes of this thread, "the Earth is not flat" or "the Earth is a spheroid".

 

Most, yes. But some, a minority, think different. They form groups and cut themselves off from the mass.
I'm no psychologist.

Like sects they define clear limits between "themselves" and "the world around". The pattern of such a sect is similar in many cases: the world around is vaguely/diffusely described as wrong or mislead, their ways must be declined or even opposed. The members are not perceptive to logic or to observe and draw their own independent conclusions like the educated majority does(*). Maybe these people draw some sort of strength out of the fact that they feel like "insiders", somewhat superior to the rest of the world.

The message of the video goes a bit in that direction, doesn't it ?

Such groups form every now and then and may last for a long time, even generations. They can be as harmless as the flat earthers or as manipulative and subversive as the creationists. Sometimes a charismatic leader rises and spreads a mission, something like "we must make the rest of the world see !". In some cases the story then ends in a catastrophe.

 

(*) "Bad things" might happan if they did, like in the magic thinking of 5 or 6 year old children ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Camacha said:

If the world is flat but circular like a pancake, looking at it from above will yield a shape will round curves on all sides. I mean, you cannot deny that it obviously is a flat shape with rounded edges.

See how easy it is to line observations up with what you believe? :wink: If you take something for truth, anything that fits will be seen as confirmation, while for divergent observations an alternative explanation will be sought. Even in conventional science, observations are regularly made that do not intuitively line up with what you know to be true, warranting further explanation. It is so very easy to confuse less intuitive components of conventional wisdom with errant explanations.

Negative, Camacha.  Because I have stereo vision and a resultant depth perception, it is clear to me from those experiences that I am looking down at a 3 dimensional object, not something flat like a pancake.  Furthermore, I see water in lakes and on the sea coasts, and that water isn't rushing off the Earth's curvature.  But wait  ... there's more.  What is at least as interesting as the Earth's curvature is the fact that I have moved so that places and landmarks which I am familiar with are now not visible because they are rotated beyond the horizon.

Of course, some people will always play "devil's advocate" no matter what anyone else's opinion is and no matter how well researched and observed and corroborated an idea may be.  They just must disagree with what someone else expresses, because it must cause such deep compulsion to do so.  :o Everyone has a neighbor, friend, coworker or relative that fits that description.  Who knows, I might even be one.

Edited by Dispatcher
I left out the word in italics and added the last 2 sentences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...