What's new
By:

Scientists were wrong all along...just ask Kyrie Irving

babe said:
When ever anyone claims "science" proves this or that, they are perpetuating the common fallacy that Science is fact and that some consensus among followers establishes the fact as beyond question.

Science. . .is. . . a method for questioning everything, in an attempt to advance knowledge beyond what is presently believed or held on any basis, whether that basis is commonly held as fact, or far beyond the comprehension of anyone but a few eclectic specialists in some obscure branch of thinking.
Click to expand...
So........ do you think the earth is flat then?
 
As for the Circle being a way of seeing order in Chaos. . . .

did you never notice, while learning plane geometry, that there are no such things as "circles" in one dimension? It takes two dimensional thinking to conceive of circles, and so without human thinking, there are no circles at all.

In a similar vein, a sphere, or a basketball for instance, requires three dimensional math and even further human magical invocations (prayers of logic???)for us to "see" the unverse accordingly.

Mathematics is a pure human logical construct. The universe existed as it is long before we invented math or logic.

"flat" is also a word humans invented. So, of course, everything invented by humans is cosmic nonsense. The cosmos is what it is, and does not depend on us or our political establishment for validation.

As a formal mathematical exercise, "flat" is a special case of curvature as the limit where the degree of curvature is zero. A "point" is the other extreme, where the degree of curvature is infinite. The greater the curvature, the smaller the point.

In the special case of my logic, the greater the degree of truth, the smaller the point it defines.
 
babe said:
The more relevant question is, does the earth bounce, and can we score three points.
Click to expand...
No.

So..... do you think the earth is flat?
 
Philosophical debates are generally as useful as the idle clowns who indulge in them. "Useful" is a fairly vague term, depending on the user and what is wanted. A lady may even see a man as "useful" sometimes, though not for longer than the flow of money or good times.

Contributors in JFC may or may not be useful, depending on whether or not they agree with the mods, on the same level of sophistication, and pretending to be a conservative logically equates with being an idiot willing to pluck the whiskers off of Lions.

A resident of , say, Richfield, Utah..... asking whether I believe the earth is flat, or not. . . . hmmm..... that is a spectacle to conjure with alright.

especially when I've just advanced the notion that "flat" is defined as a sphere of zero curvature.

nah, I've been on the cog train up Pikes Peak, on a clear day. I was told we could see Missouri and Arkansas and the Gulf of Mexico, even North Dakota. Well, maybe with a telescope or something, but what I saw was a blue hazy distance with a noticeable curve to it.

But arguing semantics with idiots is beyond the pale, really.
 
Siro said:
It's possible. But like NAOS says, we have an epistemology problem. Most people don't know how to evaluate information.
Click to expand...

I blame the notion that everybody has a right to their opinion. Yeah we shouldn't persecute someone for their opinion but we flipped it on its head. Many people seem to think that their opinions have rights and that their opinions should be protected from persecution. An attack on an opinion is treated as though it were an attack on a person. We've elevated thoughts at the expense of thought.
 
♪alt13 said:
I blame the notion that everybody has a right to their opinion. Yeah we shouldn't persecute someone for their opinion but we flipped it on its head. Many people seem to think that their opinions have rights and that their opinions should be protected from persecution. An attack on an opinion is treated as though it were an attack on a person. We've elevated thoughts at the expense of thought.
Click to expand...
A recent study on brain activity during political discussions showed that one of the centers that gets very active is generally our personal identity/emotional center.

It takes a pretty high level of brain function to over rule that and be consistently even-handed or considerate or respectful of others.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Any chance he is, as NAOS calls it, performance-arting the **** out of the media and simply screwing with them?
Click to expand...

"It would be scientifically impossible, which I'm totally aware of that," Irving said after the East's All-Star practice on Saturday. "I just feel like the fact that it's even a conversation is hilarious," he said. "That that could actually be news. It's hilarious."

https://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2017/02/kyrie_irving_admits_science_su.html#incart_river_index
 
babe said:
Philosophical debates are generally as useful as the idle clowns who indulge in them. "Useful" is a fairly vague term, depending on the user and what is wanted. A lady may even see a man as "useful" sometimes, though not for longer than the flow of money or good times.

Contributors in JFC may or may not be useful, depending on whether or not they agree with the mods, on the same level of sophistication, and pretending to be a conservative logically equates with being an idiot willing to pluck the whiskers off of Lions.

A resident of , say, Richfield, Utah..... asking whether I believe the earth is flat, or not. . . . hmmm..... that is a spectacle to conjure with alright.

especially when I've just advanced the notion that "flat" is defined as a sphere of zero curvature.

nah, I've been on the cog train up Pikes Peak, on a clear day. I was told we could see Missouri and Arkansas and the Gulf of Mexico, even North Dakota. Well, maybe with a telescope or something, but what I saw was a blue hazy distance with a noticeable curve to it.

But arguing semantics with idiots is beyond the pale, really.
Click to expand...
So..... do you think the earth is flat?
Try really hard to answer with a yes or a no.
 
babe said:
When ever anyone claims "science" proves this or that, they are perpetuating the common fallacy that Science is fact and that some consensus among followers establishes the fact as beyond question.

Science. . .is. . . a method for questioning everything, in an attempt to advance knowledge beyond what is presently believed or held on any basis, whether that basis is commonly held as fact, or far beyond the comprehension of anyone but a few eclectic specialists in some obscure branch of thinking.
Click to expand...


dont argue with settled science!!!
 
Boris said:
Do you think worm holes are possible?
Try really hard to answer yes or no.
Click to expand...

1appleworm.jpg



SCIENCE SETTLED!!!!!!
 
babe said:
Welcome back to the unreal land of JFC, with your yellow star for being a conservative and all. Of course who could be sure whether you are a conservative or a prankster yanking on the dimwit libs in here just because it is so fun, or what.

And here you are yanking on my chain.

OK, this one is fun.

The Laws of Thermodynamics have some logical failings. Assuming that some line of organization or another is more "ordered" somehow is a pretty big claim. It actually takes a human mind to conceive of a such a state, and I'm sure the Cosmos has no definition of "order" at all.

Let's see, if you're a gambler doing slots, is there some kind of difference in energy of a line of like symbols or a combination deemed to be a payout result, as opposed to a combination that has no payout?

So we make up ideas in our heads and try to find out whether the energy increases or decreases when things line up as we wish.

Oh my God, how can this be Science?

My wife, of course, who keeps a clean house, considers her way of arranging things "order" and vociferously objects to the order I prefer.

"Order", in my cosmos, is an idle fantasy. A vanity of the human soul.....
Click to expand...

I fail to see how mathematical measurements are a human construct. Your obvious logical fallacy here is claiming the human mind creates physical constants an at the same time claiming the cosmos that have no human brain are acting against what we can be physically measure them doing. In addition to failing to account for energy depreciation, which was obviously included as a flaw, an thanks for that fun.

I will refer to Steven Hawking here for the flat earth skeptics. STEVEN HAWKINGS.

https://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html


It is clear that time-space continuum creates vacuums in are human constructs, as you may put it. Did we create that definition of entropy or is it a construct of the natural law we are attempting to DISCOVER. That is the question.


You or anyone else cannot tell me the earth is not flat. The physics prove this is possible between changing between multiple dimensions inside of time an space.
 
Boris said:
Do you think worm holes are possible?
Try really hard to answer yes or no.
Click to expand...
I know for a fact they are. Sometimes I will water my lawn the night before I go fishing and then go out and catch worms and pull them out of their holes.
 
fishonjazz said:
So..... do you think the earth is flat?
Try really hard to answer with a yes or a no.
Click to expand...

Are you a moron{a}, or are you high tonight?{b} Fair choice, answer either a or b. No wiggling, giggling OK but no wiggling.

OK folks, anybody here a math student? Mathematically, the entire universe can be considered on a spherical equation, which generally works out a lot simpler than Cartesian coordinates in x, y and z dimensions. In spherical coordinates you only have a scalar value and an angle in two dimensions.

"flat" would be described as zero curvature, or no angular function in one dimension. "Point" would be described as infinite curvature....the bigger the curvature the smaller the "ball" or "Point", or zero scalar value making the angle moot.

The point remains that in a certain order of observations, mathematically, some observers would see "flat", just like you would see a TV screen logically while not invoking particularly imaginative brain functions.

And who knows what we look like in a black hole or whatever other construct of things we might be in. The definition "round" "flat" or "point" are not values the Cosmos understands, it's just us and the math we've contrived to give us some practical tools for interpreting everything on our own terms.

We imagine the Universe. Our terms are our own, our ideas are our own, our language is our own. We are proud to boast comprehension, but we are fools to believe our dreams, or love our dreams. But without our dreams, what would we be? Does the Cosmos love it's dreams, or it's creations? No, that would be God, the greatest of our dreams.
 
babe said:
Are you a moron{a}, or are you high tonight?{b} Fair choice, answer either a or b. No wiggling, giggling OK but no wiggling.

OK folks, anybody here a math student? Mathematically, the entire universe can be considered on a spherical equation, which generally works out a lot simpler than Cartesian coordinates in x, y and z dimensions. In spherical coordinates you only have a scalar value and an angle in two dimensions.

"flat" would be described as zero curvature, or no angular function in one dimension. "Point" would be described as infinite curvature....the bigger the curvature the smaller the "ball" or "Point", or zero scalar value making the angle moot.

The point remains that in a certain order of observations, mathematically, some observers would see "flat", just like you would see a TV screen logically while not invoking particularly imaginative brain functions.

And who knows what we look like in a black hole or whatever other construct of things we might be in. The definition "round" "flat" or "point" are not values the Cosmos understands, it's just us and the math we've contrived to give us some practical tools for interpreting everything on our own terms.

We imagine the Universe. Our terms are our own, our ideas are our own, our language is our own. We are proud to boast comprehension, but we are fools to believe our dreams, or love our dreams. But without our dreams, what would we be? Does the Cosmos love it's dreams, or it's creations? No, that would be God, the greatest of our dreams.
Click to expand...
Since you are too dumb or too high to answer my previous easy question I will ask you another one. If you travel in one direction by car (or by boat if you get to water) do you think you eventually just fall of the earth into nothingness?
Simple yes or no will suffice if you are able.
 
fishonjazz said:
Since you are too dumb or too high to answer my previous easy question I will ask you another one. If you travel in one direction by car (or by boat if you get to water) do you think you eventually just fall of the earth into nothingness?
Simple yes or no will suffice if you are able.
Click to expand...

why do you ask idiot questions, and why can't you understand anything?

or better yet, why don't you take that trip and find out.

we'll all be here ROFLing when you come back to tell me I was wrong. If you head east, make it one of those angles that will bring you back home. If you head north or south, take a good pair of thermals.
 
babe said:
why do you ask idiot questions, and why can't you understand anything?

or better yet, why don't you take that trip and find out.

we'll all be here ROFLing when you come back to tell me I was wrong. If you head east, make it one of those angles that will bring you back home. If you head north or south, take a good pair of thermals.
Click to expand...
I ask simple questions and you prove that you are too dumb or high to be able to answer them. It's ok though.
How could I tell you you are wrong? You have not given a coherent answer to anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top