|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On 26/05/2018 09:29, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 19:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel There was no evidence for the Higgs particle before it was found.* There was only a theory that said it ought to exist. Nonsense. There was a great deal of evidence, which is why so much was invested in the search. Again, you demonstrate profound ignorance of science. No, sir!* There was NO evidence until it was actually detected.* You are making a really bad show here, old boy. There was a theory that made specific predictions about the mass range and properties of the Higg's boson in theoretical papers written back in 1964 long before it was discovered experimentally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_P...reaking_papers https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_pri...ggs-facts.html That most fundamental particles have a non-zero rest mass is circumstantial evidence for the Higg's field. There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs boson ought to exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your phrase "NO evidence" implies also the lack of these theoretical implications. More fundamentally that most particles have mass requires the Higgs boson or some other similar mechanism with an equivalent result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Sat, 26 May 2018 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:11:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2018 05:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: I see our civilization progressing to the point where goods are virtually free because automatic machines will make them, and machines will service the machines, People have expected that for some 150 years now but it still hasn't happened... 150 years is an instant in the life of a civilization. No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150 years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant. Or are you claiming that no human civilization has endured more than some 30 instants? freeing people to do "something else." But what should that "something else" be? Jesus and the Apostles had "something else": preaching the gospel. Should I preach the gospel at you? :-) You already do, Actually, I don't. Reminding you of an alternative life style is NOT preaching. Reminding once is not preaching. But repeatedly reminding is preaching, in particular if you claim it is a superior lifestyle... however you don't live as you preach. I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin. Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach... And when this hypocrisy is pointed out at you, you just shrug and say "I'm not perfect"... Is that an excuse for you to ignore His teachings? There is no shame in being imperfect. The REAL shame is in not trying to improve oneself. Christianity is not required to improve yourself. Christianity may even turn you into a much worse person. Remember the crusades? Or the colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or partial extinction of the original population of the Americas? All done with the purpose of converting "pagan" people to Christianity, and all in the name of Christ. Those who did this were convinced they were dooäing Good Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward. Wow! And all that just because I have asked for a little less over- confidence, a little more caution about unintended consequences and a little more evidence for GW, particularly AGW. What's next? Will you ask for more evidence that the Earth is not flat? Straw-man argument. "straw man caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack" https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...n-kit-carl-sag an/ This, of course, indicates REAL hypocrisy. Scientifically the question about AGW is settled. Science is NEVER "settled." Science is about building models of the world around us and testing them against experimental evidence. NO model is perfect, and when a model fails to predict what actually happens, one should try to find out why. Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat or not has not been settled yet? "2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponent= s of all points of view. "3. Arguments from authority carry little weight authori= ties have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a bette= r way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. "4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If theres something to be expla= ined, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained." Read the scientific literature if you want to educate yourself. I have probably read more about GW than you have. In your fantasy perhaps. I've known about GW and AGW since 1970 - yes, to atmospheric scientists it was a concern already back then. I have been a colleague to the late Bert Bolin who was among those who founded the IPCC. Now, what are your credentials? What remains is ideology, politics - and, unfortunately, denial and fake news. I see a LOT of that from the AGW advocates. There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs boson ought to exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your phrase "NO evidence" implies also the lack of these theoretical implications. Your definition of "evidence" is different from mine. To me, "evidence" is actual measurement. You limit your evidence to experimental evidence. But at some point the very first experiment must be made. How do you decide on which experiment to perform? Pure guesswork is of course one way, but that's no good when the experiment costs very much, as it did in the case of detecting the Higgs boson. Then it is much better to base your decision on predictions by theories based on other experiments. Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind guessworks. You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not? There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I have cited such. Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth getting warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus? But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means that the science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously claim. According to you, science is never settled - not even the question of whether the Earth is flat or not... Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion cannot be modified even in small details - we're not dealing with Holy Scriptures which should be followed to the letter as in Christianity. It doesn't even mean that the major parts cannot be changed, only that it is very or extremely unlikely that this would happen - like e.g. the settled question that the Earth is not flat. And such a major change should be made only if and when convincing evidence appears, but not before that. Such evidence should also include a feasible explanation why the earlier evidence should not be trusted. Merely presenting a study which contradicts established conclusions is not enough - that study might be erroneous. Such things has happened many times in the history of science. Remember cold fusion? Or the claim that vaccines cause autism? If you want to be a good Christian trying to improve yourself, please also try to learn to be more scientifically literate. Scientific illiteracy is no virtue. Yes, now I am preaching too. But, as opposed to you, I try to live as I preach, instead of just saying "I am not perfect". Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc., accomplishes little besides polarization. I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog with no new information. Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides polarization.... Your turn... |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:48:20 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2018 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:11:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2018 05:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: I see our civilization progressing to the point where goods are virtually free because automatic machines will make them, and machines will service the machines, People have expected that for some 150 years now but it still hasn't happened... 150 years is an instant in the life of a civilization. No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150 years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant. Or are you claiming that no human civilization has endured more than some 30 instants? Claiming that my vision hasn't happened because it hasn't happened in the last 150 years is surely short-sighted and ignores the rate of advancement of technology. All you have to do to expose this fallacious assertion is to consider what a Tesla factory looks like today with robotic assembly and compare that to what a carriage "factory" looked like 150 years ago. But I was thinking ahead dozens of "instants" not backward. freeing people to do "something else." But what should that "something else" be? Jesus and the Apostles had "something else": preaching the gospel. Should I preach the gospel at you? :-) You already do, Actually, I don't. Reminding you of an alternative life style is NOT preaching. Reminding once is not preaching. But repeatedly reminding is preaching, in particular if you claim it is a superior lifestyle... Responding to questions (and yes, verbal attacks) is not preaching. You do indeed have a thin skin and, perhaps a guilty conscience? :-) however you don't live as you preach. I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin. Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach... We all have excuses: And when this hypocrisy is pointed out at you, you just shrug and say "I'm not perfect"... Is that an excuse for you to ignore His teachings? There is no shame in being imperfect. The REAL shame is in not trying to improve oneself. Christianity is not required to improve yourself. That is patently false: " 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity." -- Peter II Christianity may even turn you into a much worse person. Remember the crusades? Or the colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or partial extinction of the original population of the Americas? All done with the purpose of converting "pagan" people to Christianity, and all in the name of Christ. Those who did this were convinced they were dooäing Good Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward. All of that was done with corrupted Christianity. True Christianity disappeared by the fourth century AD except in the lives of a few humble people. Wow! And all that just because I have asked for a little less over-confidence, a little more caution about unintended consequences and a little more evidence for GW, particularly AGW. What's next? Will you ask for more evidence that the Earth is not flat? Straw-man argument. "straw man caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack" https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...it-carl-sagan/ This, of course, indicates REAL hypocrisy. Scientifically the question about AGW is settled. Science is NEVER "settled." Science is about building models of the world around us and testing them against experimental evidence. NO model is perfect, and when a model fails to predict what actually happens, one should try to find out why. Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat or not has not been settled yet? More straw-man deceitfulness. "2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. "3. Arguments from authority carry little weight, authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. "4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained." Read the scientific literature if you want to educate yourself. I have probably read more about GW than you have. In your fantasy perhaps. I've known about GW and AGW since 1970 - yes, to atmospheric scientists it was a concern already back then. I have been a colleague to the late Bert Bolin who was among those who founded the IPCC. Now, what are your credentials? But you still haven't looked carefully at the climate models? What remains is ideology, politics - and, unfortunately, denial and fake news. I see a LOT of that from the AGW advocates. There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs boson ought to exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your phrase "NO evidence" implies also the lack of these theoretical implications.. Your definition of "evidence" is different from mine. To me, "evidence" is actual measurement. You limit your evidence to experimental evidence. But at some point the very first experiment must be made. How do you decide on which experiment to perform? Pure guesswork is of course one way, but that's no good when the experiment costs very much, as it did in the case of detecting the Higgs boson. Then it is much better to base your decision on predictions by theories based on other experiments. Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind guessworks. You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not? Predictions are fine, but actual experimental evidence is the sine qua non of science. There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I have cited such. Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth getting warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus? Venus is NOT in the habitable zone. Didn't you get the memo? And could you please explain why climate models treat the most important greenhouse gas improperly? But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means that the science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously claim. According to you, science is never settled - not even the question of whether the Earth is flat or not... And regurgitated straw-man. When are you going to ascend to a higher level? Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion cannot be modified even in small details http://www.dictionary.com/browse/settled "to appoint, fix, or resolve definitely and conclusively" THIS is the implied definition when you and other AGW advocates use it. - we're not dealing with Holy Scriptures which should be followed to the letter as in Christianity. Even if the translators made a mistake? :-) It doesn't even mean that the major parts cannot be changed, only that it is very or extremely unlikely that this would happen - like e.g. the settled question that the Earth is not flat. And such a major change should be made only if and when convincing evidence appears, but not before that. Such evidence should also include a feasible explanation why the earlier evidence should not be trusted. Merely presenting a study which contradicts established conclusions is not enough - that study might be erroneous. Such things has happened many times in the history of science. Remember cold fusion? Or the claim that vaccines cause autism? If you want to be a good Christian trying to improve yourself, please also try to learn to be more scientifically literate. Scientific illiteracy is no virtue. Yes, now I am preaching too. But, as opposed to you, I try to live as I preach, instead of just saying "I am not perfect". Even when you preach falsehoods :-) And you imply that I don't try, so you make another false assertion. Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc., accomplishes little besides polarization. I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog with no new information. Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides polarization.... Your turn... You have exhibited real zeal here, so that's just another straw man. And as for zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals." And that is definitely you :-) |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:48:15 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote: No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150 years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant. That's more like civilization itself. Most major civilizations only existed a few hundred years. Plenty of important ones were only dominant for something on the order of 150 years. (Taking "civilization" to mean any single cohesive culture.) What about the U.S.? Well, it began to be powerful on the world scene around the mid 1800s. It's currently in decline, unlikely to survive in its current form. It could easily be a fairly typical 200 to 250 year civilization when viewed by future historians. |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
The empirical cult is still dominant since 1689 so the voodoo and bluffing that its followers never understood still imposes a blackness on astronomy and surrounding research subjects through the classrooms of schools and universities.
"I see the Four-fold Man, The Humanity in deadly sleep And its fallen Emanation, the Spectre and its cruel Shadow. I see the Past, Present and Future existing all at once Before me. O Divine Spirit, sustain me on thy wings, That I may awake Albion from his long and cold repose; For Bacon and Newton, sheath'd in dismal steel, their terrors hang Like iron scourges over Albion: reasonings like vast serpents Infold around my limbs, bruising my minute articulations. I turn my eyes to the schools and universities of Europe And there behold the Loom of Locke, whose Woof rages dire, Wash'd by the Water-wheels of Newton: black the cloth In heavy wreaths folds over every nation: cruel works Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic Moving by compulsion each other, not as those in Eden, which, Wheel within wheel, in freedom revolve in harmony and peace." William Blake |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:25:47 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote: On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:48:15 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote: No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150 years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant. That's more like civilization itself. Most major civilizations only existed a few hundred years. Plenty of important ones were only dominant for something on the order of 150 years. (Taking "civilization" to mean any single cohesive culture.) What about the U.S.? Well, it began to be powerful on the world scene around the mid 1800s. It's currently in decline, unlikely to survive in its current form. It could easily be a fairly typical 200 to 250 year civilization when viewed by future historians. Very true. Europe is a bit older but may meet the same fate - after all, most Americans are descendants from emigrated Europeans. Europe is really several mutually competing civilisations which of course adds to the instability of Europe. |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:48:20 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Sat, 26 May 2018 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:11:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2018 05:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: I see our civilization progressing to the point where goods are virtually free because automatic machines will make them, and machines will service the machines, People have expected that for some 150 years now but it still hasn't happened... 150 years is an instant in the life of a civilization. No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150 years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant. Or are you claiming that no human civilization has endured more than some 30 instants? Claiming that my vision hasn't happened because it hasn't happened in the last 150 years is surely short-sighted and ignores the rate of advancement of technology. Are you claiming that your vision already has happened? If so, where and when do you think it happen? All you have to do to expose this fallacious assertion is to consider what a Tesla factory looks like today with robotic assembly and compare that to what a carriage "factory" looked like 150 years ago. But I was thinking ahead dozens of "instants" not backward. freeing people to do "something else." But what should that "something else" be? Jesus and the Apostles had "something else": preaching the gospel. Should I preach the gospel at you? :-) You already do, Actually, I don't. Reminding you of an alternative life style is NOT preaching. Reminding once is not preaching. But repeatedly reminding is preaching, in particular if you claim it is a superior lifestyle... Responding to questions (and yes, verbal attacks) is not preaching. You do indeed have a thin skin and, perhaps a guilty conscience? :-) Only in your fantasy... however you don't live as you preach. I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin. Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach... We all have excuses: However, some excuses are more valid than others. And one should not demand more from others than what one demands from oneself. And when this hypocrisy is pointed out at you, you just shrug and say "I'm not perfect"... Is that an excuse for you to ignore His teachings? There is no shame in being imperfect. The REAL shame is in not trying to improve oneself. Christianity is not required to improve yourself. That is patently false: That's disproved by history. The truly remarkable progress of science which has happened during the last few centuries would not have been possible if people had not gotten rid of the tyranny of religion. " 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity." -- Peter II Christianity may even turn you into a much worse person. Remember the crusades? Or the colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or partial extinction of the original population of the Americas? All done with the purpose of converting "pagan" people to Christianity, and all in the name= of Christ. Those who did this were convinced they were dooäing Good Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward. All of that was done with corrupted Christianity. True Christianity disappeared by the fourth century AD except in the lives of a few humble people. Another "nice" excuse - anything evil performed by a discipline was performed by a corrupted version of that discipline, not by its pure version. Well, similar excuses could be used about anything evil. Btw, why did the Christians of the 4'th century CE let themselves be corrupted? And what would have happened if the early Christians had refused to let themselves be currupted, I.e. had refused to let the Roman emperor Constantine make Christianity the state religion? I'll give you the answer to my second question above: then Christianity would today be an extinct religion, much like what happened to Gnostiscism. Perhaps then Islam would instead have become the world's most dominant religion? Wow! And all that just because I have asked for a little less over-confidence, a little more caution about unintended consequence= s and a little more evidence for GW, particularly AGW. What's next? Will you ask for more evidence that the Earth is not flat? Straw-man argument. "straw man caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack" https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...n-kit-carl-sag an/ This, of course, indicates REAL hypocrisy. Scientifically the question about AGW is settled. Science is NEVER "settled." Science is about building models of the world around us and testing them against experimental evidence. NO model is perfect, and when a model fails to predict what actually happens, one should try to find out why. Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat or not has not been settled yet? More straw-man deceitfulness. You refuse to draw the conclusion from your own claims? But then you admit that there are at least SOME scientific questions that have been settled. OK? "2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. "3. Arguments from authority carry little weight, authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. "4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there s something to be explained= , think of all the different ways in which it could be explained." Read the scientific literature if you want to educate yourself. I have probably read more about GW than you have. In your fantasy perhaps. I've known about GW and AGW since 1970 - yes, to atmospheric scientists it was a concern already back then. I have been a colleague to the late Bert Bolin who was among those who founded the IPCC. Now, what are your credentials? But you still haven't looked carefully at the climate models? What remains is ideology, politics - and, unfortunately, denial and fake news. I see a LOT of that from the AGW advocates. There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs boson ought to exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your phrase "NO evidence" implies also the lack of these theoretical implications= . Your definition of "evidence" is different from mine. To me, "evidence" is actual measurement. You limit your evidence to experimental evidence. But at some point the very first experiment must be made. How do you decide on which experiment to perform? Pure guesswork is of course one way, but that's no good when the experiment costs very much, as it did in the case of detecting the Higgs boson. Then it is much better to base your decision on predictions by theories based on other experiments. Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind guessworks. You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not? Predictions are fine, but actual experimental evidence is the sine qua non of science. Of course. Nevertheless, predictions are better evidence than the absence of predictions, even if experimental results are still better evidence. But before you can get experimental results you must decide on which experiments to make, in particular if the experiments are complex and expensive. On which evidence should you base such a decision? There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I have cited such. Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth getting warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus? Venus is NOT in the habitable zone. Didn't you get the memo? Why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus closer to the Sun than Mercury? BTW CO2 can, and does, work as a greenhouse gas also outside the habitable zone. And could you please explain why climate models treat the most important greenhouse gas improperly? Which climate models do you refer to here? And which greenhouse gas do you think is treated improperly and in what way? And how would you want to change these climate models so that they would treat this greenhouse gas in a way you think is more proper? Please be specific in your answer. Yes, this requires you to understand how these climate models work. You cannot critizise something you don't understand. But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means that the science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously claim. According to you, science is never settled - not even the question of whether the Earth is flat or not... And regurgitated straw-man. When are you going to ascend to a higher level? When you admit that there are SOME scientific questions which have been settled. And when you stop making these sweeping generalizations. They are so easy to shoot down - one single counterexample is enough... Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion cannot be modified even in small details http://www.dictionary.com/browse/settled "to appoint, fix, or resolve definitely and conclusively" THIS is the implied definition when you and other AGW advocates use it. And when you use it, which definition do you use? If you use the same definition, do you really believe that the question about whether the Earth is flat or not has not yet been settled? - we're not dealing with Holy Scriptures which should be followed to the letter as in Christianity. Even if the translators made a mistake? :-) Depends on which religious zealot you're talking to... It doesn't even mean that the major parts cannot be changed, only that it is very or extremely unlikely that this would happen - like e.g. the settled question that the Earth is not flat. And such a major change should be made only if and when convincing evidence appears, but not before that. Such evidence should also include a feasible explanation why the earlier evidence should not be trusted. Merely presenting a study which contradicts established conclusions is not enough - that study might be erroneous. Such things has happened many times in the history of science. Remember cold fusion? Or the claim that vaccines cause autism? If you want to be a good Christian trying to improve yourself, please also try to learn to be more scientifically literate. Scientific illiteracy is no virtue. Yes, now I am preaching too. But, as opposed to you, I try to live as I preach, instead of just saying "I am not perfect". Even when you preach falsehoods :-). Do you have proofs that GW is not AGW? If so, please present it. If your arguments still hold after the usual scientific scruitinity, you will very likely get a Nobel Prize for your findings. Good luck! And you imply that I don't try, so you make another false assertion. Well you did say "I am not perfect" instead of e.g. "I am trying.very very hard"... Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc., accomplishes little besides polarization. I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog with no new information. Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides polarization.... Your turn... You have exhibited real zeal here, so that's just another straw man. And as for zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals." And that is definitely you :-) I noticed your final smiley. But it is obvious that you think all others must be like yourself. Surprise - they aren't! Well, some are of course, but not all. |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:40:32 PM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:
And when you use it, which definition do you use? If you use the same definition, do you really believe that the question about whether the Earth is flat or not has not yet been settled? You are hapless individuals who hung your notions on the wrong star - in this case Polaris instead of the defining star for timekeeping which happens to be Sirius and not only its first annual appearance at dawn but that it skips an appearance by one day/rotation after 4 years. The RA/Dec framework on which Sir Isaac hung his empirical agenda would get you lot out of the woods when it comes to predictions as it is based on the calendar framework but that is at odds with the 24 hour system and Lat/Long system which contains the facts of a round and rotating Earth -at the Equator for a 24,901 mile circumference that translates into 1037.5 mph. It is not a question of being wrong, that in itself is fine, it is that none of you are the least bit interested in the old scheme which set in motion a type of pseudo-intellectual tyranny that has lasted longer than most political structures. You are, as it were, a curios bunch that have long since lost the ability to impress society in any meaningful way. |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
The global education market is a 6 Trillion dollar market, that is 6,000 Billion dollar which equates to the total GDP of Britain,France and Italy combined.
https://d99ngkg9mjpdb.cloudfront.net...ustry-2017.png Any English speaking person doing a Google search on 'How long does it take the Earth to turn once ?' and they get the wrong answer - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+long+does+i...to+rotate+once If that isn't dismaying and the reason the answer is incorrect is so obvious, so straightforward that it even surpasses the 'flat Earth' notion in terms of vapidity. Don't know why people lack the pride and integrity to just deal with a scar on human astronomical history and terrestrial sciences known as astrophysics. |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
however you don't live as you preach. I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin. Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach... We all have excuses: However, some excuses are more valid than others. And one should not demand more from others than what one demands from oneself. I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm merely pointing out that there are higher mountains to climb. Any "demands" you believe might be a result of your guilty conscience? But as for "not living up to my ideals": "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." --Michelangelo Christianity is not required to improve yourself. That is patently false: That's disproved by history. The truly remarkable progress of science which has happened during the last few centuries would not have been possible if people had not gotten rid of the tyranny of religion. True Christianity has not been practiced on a large scale since the time of the Apostles (and not a very large scale then). What you describe is the tyranny of fallen Man. The periods you describe are this: "And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it." -- Amos 8:12 THIS is what true Christianity is about: " 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity." -- Peter II Christianity may even turn you into a much worse person. Remember the crusades? Or the colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or partial extinction of the original population of the Americas? All done with the purpose of converting "pagan" people to Christianity, and all in the name of Christ. Those who did this were convinced they were dooäing Good Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward. All of that was done with corrupted Christianity. True Christianity disappeared by the fourth century AD except in the lives of a few humble people. Another "nice" excuse - anything evil performed by a discipline was performed by a corrupted version of that discipline, not by its pure version. Well, similar excuses could be used about anything evil. All you have to do is look at what the Apostles wrote and did and then compare that with how people lived "Christianity" in the subsequent centuries. Btw, why did the Christians of the 4'th century CE let themselves be corrupted? It's what people do. True religion isn't "fancy" enough for them, so they invent trappings and pomp. This was predicted: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" -- II Thessalonians 2:3 And what would have happened if the early Christians had refused to let themselves be currupted, I.e. had refused to let the Roman emperor Constantine make Christianity the state religion? I'll give you the answer to my second question above: then Christianity would today be an extinct religion, much like what happened to Gnostiscism. Since Christianity had fallen anyway, there's not much difference, is there.. Except, of course, that the way it DID happen allows us to have the Bible today. In either case, God would have to restore the true Gospel once again. Perhaps then Islam would instead have become the world's most dominant religion? But it didn't happen. I believe God's hand has been at work for many centuries preparing people for the Second Coming. Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat or not has not been settled yet? More straw-man deceitfulness. You refuse to draw the conclusion from your own claims? But then you admit that there are at least SOME scientific questions that have been settled. OK? Sure, to my satisfaction. Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind guessworks. You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not? Predictions are fine, but actual experimental evidence is the sine qua non of science. Of course. Nevertheless, predictions are better evidence than the absence of predictions, even if experimental results are still better evidence. But before you can get experimental results you must decide on which experiments to make, in particular if the experiments are complex and expensive. On which evidence should you base such a decision? Science is multi-pronged and scientists disagree on what should be experimentally investigated. This is the way it should be. The problem with "climate science" is that it has become way too monolithic. There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I have cited such. Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth getting warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus? Venus is NOT in the habitable zone. Didn't you get the memo? Why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus closer to the Sun than Mercury? Come now, the pressure on Venus is 92 earth atmospheres and is 96% CO2. BTW CO2 can, and does, work as a greenhouse gas also outside the habitable zone. I'm not denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And could you please explain why climate models treat the most important greenhouse gas improperly? Which climate models do you refer to here? And which greenhouse gas do you think is treated improperly and in what way? https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html "Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change." And how would you want to change these climate models so that they would treat this greenhouse gas in a way you think is more proper? That's not my job. I'm just pointing out that YOUR beliefs are suspect. Please be specific in your answer. Yes, this requires you to understand how these climate models work. You cannot critizise something you don't understand. So why do you accept its results when YOU don't understand them. The fact is that each of us chooses our own "experts" -- probably based on our own biases. To me, you seem to be VERY biased on the subject. But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means that the science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously claim. According to you, science is never settled - not even the question of whether the Earth is flat or not... And regurgitated straw-man. When are you going to ascend to a higher level? When you admit that there are SOME scientific questions which have been settled. And when you stop making these sweeping generalizations. They are so easy to shoot down - one single counterexample is enough... I don't recall making "sweeping generalizations" so you seem to be over- reacting. Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion cannot be modified even in small details http://www.dictionary.com/browse/settled "to appoint, fix, or resolve definitely and conclusively" THIS is the implied definition when you and other AGW advocates use it. And when you use it, which definition do you use? If you use the same definition, do you really believe that the question about whether the Earth is flat or not has not yet been settled? It is to my satisfaction. OTOH, AGW is not. Do you have proofs that GW is not AGW? I have suspicions based upon experimental evidence. If so, please present it. I have. If your arguments still hold after the usual scientific scruitinity, you will very likely get a Nobel Prize for your findings. Good luck! I don't give a hoot about that. I'm just a guy who believes that AGW effects are overstated by the advocates. OTOH, YOU and your ilk seem to have a BIG problem with anyone disagreeing with the party line. That's VERY disturbing. And you imply that I don't try, so you make another false assertion. Well you did say "I am not perfect" instead of e.g. "I am trying.very very hard"... You seem to always pick the less complimentary interpretation :-) Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc., accomplishes little besides polarization. I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog with no new information. Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides polarization.... Your turn... You have exhibited real zeal here, so that's just another straw man. And as for zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals." And that is definitely you :-) I noticed your final smiley. But it is obvious that you think all others must be like yourself. Surprise - they aren't! Well, some are of course, but not all. And you think everyone must believe as you believe or you zealously attack them. Pot, kettle, black. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity or Just Dead Science? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | November 27th 17 11:41 AM |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | October 1st 17 06:05 PM |
Clifford Truesdell: Thermodynamics Is a Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 2nd 17 05:12 PM |
REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 15 | May 29th 07 05:25 AM |
STERN REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 11 | March 4th 07 12:42 AM |