What's new

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

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.

Richfield, right?

What should I expect by way of conversational skills? Given a foggy night, you could drive south and find something akin to the edge of the earth.

Nobody with an IQ over thirty expects to make a case out of flat-earth believers. They're non-existent except as parlor jokes and other amused imbecilic jousters, none of whom even think anyone ever went over the edge.

IMO, though not really a humble one, I advance the continued appeal of UN world governance as proof there is no adequate edge for imbeciles to get off my planet.
 
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.

I accidentally tapped "thank" as I was scrolling down slowly with my thumb, but I did like the post so it's OK. Why I felt the need to post this? I disagree with the last sentence personally. How weird is it that I felt the need to clarify that I do believe in God, right? I'm sure he is strong enough not to need my verification to exist. Call my weak attempt just a struggle to maintain my comprehension of the existence.


I post, therefore I am.
 
I accidentally tapped "thank" as I was scrolling down slowly with my thumb, but I did like the post so it's OK. Why I felt the need to post this? I disagree with the last sentence personally. How weird is it that I felt the need to clarify that I do believe in God, right? I'm sure he is strong enough not to need my verification to exist. Call my weak attempt just a struggle to maintain my comprehension of the existence.


I post, therefore I am.

If he's strong enough not to need your verification for his existence why is he so insistent that you have faith, that you spread the word?
Neil Gaiman American Gods good book
 
If he's strong enough not to need your verification for his existence why is he so insistent that you have faith, that you spread the word?
Neil Gaiman American Gods good book
Not God's issue. The question would be more like why God would want to invest in teaching humans anything without qualifying us as trustworthy or at least nonhostile
 
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.
our rulers, tools.....our use of our own measures..... who else does such things?
our words, our concepts, our ideas......
Pretty reasonable to believe we are pretty new to the universe, well, newer than some things. . . .

But who knows, maybe we are co-eternal or something.
 
I don't create poop cuz I want to I have to.

you err. Poop is proof of life, the world belongs to the living, to the poopers.

what's the latin for that? cogito, ergo sum.

I poop, therefore I am. Ad, those translations you find in the little students' summaries of philosophy, missed the point.
 
Richfield, right?

What should I expect by way of conversational skills? Given a foggy night, you could drive south and find something akin to the edge of the earth.

Nobody with an IQ over thirty expects to make a case out of flat-earth believers. They're non-existent except as parlor jokes and other amused imbecilic jousters, none of whom even think anyone ever went over the edge.

IMO, though not really a humble one, I advance the continued appeal of UN world governance as proof there is no adequate edge for imbeciles to get off my planet.
Maybe we can revisit this discussion once your high wears off.
 
Maybe we can revisit this discussion once your high wears off.

no high, just high-handed humor. really, talking to you is just depressing if I can't make fun of it. Sadly, you're not seeing any humor, some sort of deadly troll has killed your good sense.


Science is about questions, a model of questioning. With "settled answers" it is not "Science", it is a kind of religion worshipping man-made ideas and logic, and data sets deemed above scrutiny.....

Boris has a point about the higher mathematics having a possibility of twisting the universe into a plane. Mathematicians have formal ways of reducing the variables or dimensions and generating an expression on a lower order of structure. They call it a "projection" of an equation in n dimensions onto a world of (n-1) dimensions. But you've never heard of such ideas, it seems.

The real universe more likely has more dimensions than Cartesian space and time. I definitely favor spheres, and you're obtuse to not see that in every response I've given.

Basketball and baseball, man. That's reality.
 
some sort of deadly troll has killed your good sense.

Well you got that part right.
I should have known better.
 
Damn+my+lack+of+minus8+gifs+_f1e53e507dea8d931869511f2a6b7c4f.gif
 
Is round poop flat?

Can you dribble it and made three point shots with it? Only with knowledge of those questions shall you know the answer.
 
Back
Top