paul's got wright Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=flat+earth 3.5 million now on yt. "flat earth" in quotations up 60,000 also x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 trouncing brian cox on the yt results. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22flat+earth%22 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22brian+cox%22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 yes i love rap battles. hope pj an duncan get involved, they're sick mate! seems gerry was on the money long before the mainstream x http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/26/464474518/neil-degrasse-tyson-gets-into-a-rap-battle-with-b-o-b-over-flat-earth-theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 the comments section on these articles are loaded. it's brilliant. http://www.salon.com/2016/01/26/save_us_neil_degrasse_tyson_the_flat_earth_movement_is_back_with_a_vengeance/#comments "The roundness of the Earth is nothing more than a mathematical convention; whether it is round or flat depends on our choice of geometrical axioms. If the Earth were definitively not flat, it couldn't be mapped onto a "flat" sheet of paper. I don't know whether this is the argument B.o.B. is making, but perhaps he has an intuitive sense that there's nothingintrinsically round about the Earth. I know a lot of people (read:liberals) these days take the word of scientists as the gospel truth, but everyone should be aware that NdGT, Lawrence Krauss, and many other "scientists" these days are really metaphysicians who are promoting their own personal materialist cosmology as "reality." It's evident most of these metaphysicians don't even understand their own fields of study, and we would all do well I think to take their pronouncements with a grain of salt. NdGT, for example, doesn't even seem to be aware that cosmology is a branch of metaphysics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 the comments section on these articles are loaded. it's brilliant. http://www.salon.com/2016/01/26/save_us_neil_degrasse_tyson_the_flat_earth_movement_is_back_with_a_vengeance/#comments "The roundness of the Earth is nothing more than a mathematical convention; whether it is round or flat depends on our choice of geometrical axioms. If the Earth were definitively not flat, it couldn't be mapped onto a "flat" sheet of paper. I don't know whether this is the argument B.o.B. is making, but perhaps he has an intuitive sense that there's nothingintrinsically round about the Earth. I know a lot of people (read:liberals) these days take the word of scientists as the gospel truth, but everyone should be aware that NdGT, Lawrence Krauss, and many other "scientists" these days are really metaphysicians who are promoting their own personal materialist cosmology as "reality." It's evident most of these metaphysicians don't even understand their own fields of study, and we would all do well I think to take their pronouncements with a grain of salt. NdGT, for example, doesn't even seem to be aware that cosmology is a branch of metaphysics." "The surface of the Earth - insofar as we approximate it as a simple geometrical object - is two-dimensional. What you're trying to say is that the surface of the Earth is intrinsically non-Euclidean, but Poincare' showed that geometrical objects are not intrinsically Euclidean or non-Euclidean. Whether a given surface is Euclidean or non-Euclidean is therefore dependent on our choice of geometrical axioms. Likewise, the Earth goes around the Sun or vice-versa depending on the equations of motion we use to describe the motion. While it's true that the convention of the Earth going around the Sun leads to simpler equations of motion, we cannot say that simple equations are any more correct or any more descriptive of "reality" than complicated equations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 thats not a real picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Yeah, where's their reading lights!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 the comments section on these articles are loaded. it's brilliant. http://www.salon.com/2016/01/26/save_us_neil_degrasse_tyson_the_flat_earth_movement_is_back_with_a_vengeance/#comments "The roundness of the Earth is nothing more than a mathematical convention; whether it is round or flat depends on our choice of geometrical axioms. If the Earth were definitively not flat, it couldn't be mapped onto a "flat" sheet of paper. I don't know whether this is the argument B.o.B. is making, but perhaps he has an intuitive sense that there's nothingintrinsically round about the Earth. I know a lot of people (read:liberals) these days take the word of scientists as the gospel truth, but everyone should be aware that NdGT, Lawrence Krauss, and many other "scientists" these days are really metaphysicians who are promoting their own personal materialist cosmology as "reality." It's evident most of these metaphysicians don't even understand their own fields of study, and we would all do well I think to take their pronouncements with a grain of salt. NdGT, for example, doesn't even seem to be aware that cosmology is a branch of metaphysics." "The surface of the Earth - insofar as we approximate it as a simple geometrical object - is two-dimensional. What you're trying to say is that the surface of the Earth is intrinsically non-Euclidean, but Poincare' showed that geometrical objects are not intrinsically Euclidean or non-Euclidean. Whether a given surface is Euclidean or non-Euclidean is therefore dependent on our choice of geometrical axioms. Likewise, the Earth goes around the Sun or vice-versa depending on the equations of motion we use to describe the motion. While it's true that the convention of the Earth going around the Sun leads to simpler equations of motion, we cannot say that simple equations are any more correct or any more descriptive of "reality" than complicated equations." You need to read up about the Mach Principle It's already come up in this thread ... here. Physical things are affected by your inertial frame of reference - if you are going to insist they are equally valid, you've got to explain things like Coriolis forces. These have to be arbitrarily introduced to account for your inertial frame being out of kilter with the "true" inertial frame. Randomly creating forces to justify your frame of reference is more than just using more complex equations; it is distorting reality. An analogy might be claiming the force of gravity is really pushing you across to the right as well as down (meaning overall it pushes you at a 45 degree angle), why don't we notice this, because another force magically appears pushing you to the left cancelling out the force to the right and leaving you with just a feeling of being pushed down. There is no justification for adding such spandrels to a theory and you can never scientifically examine them - you could make the force arbitrarily large but always cancel it out with a magically introduced counter push. Science relies on both evidence and an attempt to understand why something is the way it is - claiming all frames of reference are equally valid makes you add things you have no evidence for and in such a way they can never be understood, they just have to cancel out the additions you have forced into the equations yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 thats not a real picture Am I imagining that it's there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 i cant possibly answer that with any certainty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 i deal with facts and facts alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 it's rampant at the minute in the media. all hands to the press x http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/12123223/Faked-Moon-landing-would-have-been-exposed-within-four-years-scientist-concludes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Paul, do you want to try and summarize what all the press reports are saying at the moment? Here's another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I really wish I'd been the singer in a rock band called Coriolis Forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.