Albert Tatlock Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said: I don't think you could paul. It's sausage shaped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said: It's sausage shaped. Chipolata, Lorne or Cumberland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: Chipolata, Lorne or Cumberland? Apple and pork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Chinahand said: PGW - in science you have observations of the world and you try to understand them. You draw conclusions based on those observations. Once you have drawn your conclusions you can then use that to make predictions. We have lots of observations from around the world throughout history - you can use shadows, surveying, horizon dip - people have been making observations like this for thousands of years - you aren't the first person to think about these issues and neither am I. People started thinking about these real observations and started creating mathematical models to see if they could understand them. That is the essence of science. Take observations see if you can generate a model to explain them. In this thread I've explained multiple times how models that assume a flat earth do not work, while those that assume a spherical one do. You seem to have a beef about using models and the assumptions they involve. But the issue is you ensure those assumptions are vaild, by examining how well the results fit with reality. If the assumptions were wrong then the predictions of the model wouldn't match the results. This stuff was all worked out 100s of years ago - go and look at the prediction Halley did for the eclipse of 1715. "We" know that the predictions of a spherical model are accurate - Captain Cook used them when he sailed to Tahiti, Jeremiah Horrocks used them to be the first person to predict a transit of Venus. Now maybe you aren't a part of "we", and you refuse to accept that a spherical model does accurately predict shadow lengths, the angle of the sun above the horizon on particular days etc etc - these things are vital for navigation with a sextant etc so any sailor from the 15th century onwards would know his tables and almanacs produced by the Royal Observatory had skill - accurately produced predictions which matched later observations. So, how do I know the world is spherical - because when you take measurements it shows it is spherical, and when I use the equations and mathematics which assume the world is spherical they produce predictions which match those measurements, and they do so all over the world - as Captain Cook and any navigator since his time knows. PGW do you really think all of this is false? Do you think a flat earth model can be used for accurate navigation, or to predict the length of a shadow or the height of the sun at noon or any other time of the day? Do you understand that Captain Cook was able to use his sextant and chronometer to work out he was at Tahiti, or Port Stanley, or Vancouver, because he was using tables generated by the Royal Observatory and which extrapolate these readings from Greenwich to anywhere else on the world using the assumption of a spherical earth? Please give a straight answer to these three questions, if you dare. china i know what science is and i know the difference between natural science and formal science. many others do not. you i am sure, do. so it has to be tangible, measureable and repeatable as you know. so if you presume the earth to be a sphere without knowing then it doesnt matter what the results are you will be working from an unknown starting point. you can presume anything you like about the sun and its position but you cannot truly verify these things nor can i. thats all im saying. i know why you and all the others believe you live on a ball, i told you i have forgotten more than most people know about this subject. they just believe it from a basic undrstanding and never investigate further. you clearly have a far greater knowledge of the whole subject than me, yet i have no need to agree with you or share your belirfs. i can make my own way through and come to my own conclusions. you should respect that, given i have no bias. you are quite sure i shall arrive at the same conclusions as you. so what is the hurry? sure i'll get there in the end and what's the matter with looking into things further? its the essence of science to question the currently held conventions laws and such. thats whats happening to the heliocentric model over the last few years. again if its so solid it will be fine then, and people will be far more educated about the subject. another win for science. i have no beef china, im a vegetarian for my sins. merely a genuine interest in the subject and a valid cause to see it through to the end in spite of the early doubters in this thread who pretended or falsely assumed that gerry was on the wind up. he clearly wasnt an the subject grows as we speak. so its only reasonable to show the progress for those who might like to have a look and think back to when "its so stupid no one would even mention it" paraphrasing . i can link you 10 mainstream articles in the last week world wide dealing with various aspects of the subject. they certainly have no problem talking about it, yet neil wants the thread shutdown! should we shut the press down then? its just odd behaviour like that which gives the topic teeth. so maybe the doubters should look into it instead of asking newbie questions or even taking your word for it. surely a challenge to me is a challenge to anyone who thinks they already know? so are we all to do the experiments you have suggested? or is it just me? even though im the one who wouldnt class those experiments as absolute irrefutable proof of the puzzle? i always give a straight answer china, just have my own way of wording it x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said: PGW. Can you prove 2+2 =4? Or can you prove you loved your mum? what do you mean loved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, quilp said: @chinahand, Can I ask you again why you are going to such lengths to explain the science to an immutable personality? I'm impressed with all your clever-cloggery, though I doubt whether it's going to make any difference to pgw other than perpetuating his utter bollocks... Giving you a chance to shine, is it..? my bollocks are not utter they are very very modest if you dont mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 45 minutes ago, Uhtred said: The mods have been militant of late (no complaints here) in shutting down past-their-debate-by-date threads. I’m astonished this one survived. It’s a toilet for PGW. End it now. given the brand new nature of such a topic and the naive assumptions of the early posters, that the topic would not be taking off as such, and what with the media reports fresh in after the first annual conference and freddie flintoff discussing it saying he'd bet a grand on it being flat, i'd fully disagree with your post and the sentiment. yet again a desperate attempt to evade a discussion on your long held faith based beliefs. and i think that is the very worst way to participate in an open discussion. why anyone who dislikes the subject matter, comes in here and reads it is absolutley beyond rational and my comprehension or experience in real life situations. it seems as though you have an irrational fear of discussing your beliefs in case they are not correct. i dont know but why else would a scientific discussion disturb you to such an end? genuinley interested, for my research. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 30 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: Come on Paul, I'm being reasonable with and no one is asking you to gamble. The Earth has to be a shape, from the evidence you've undoubtedly reviewed what shape do you think it is? This isn't a malicious or trick question. i know mate i genuinely have no idea. its so big! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 32 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said: I don't think you could paul. like two peas in a pod in this case then arent we sausages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 PGW - you didn't answer the three questions. I'll give you them again: PGW do you really think all of this [the historic discovery of the shape of the Earth] is false? Do you think a flat earth model can be used for accurate navigation, or to predict the length of a shadow or the height of the sun at noon or any other time of the day? Do you understand that Captain Cook was able to use his sextant and chronometer to work out he was at Tahiti, or Port Stanley, or Vancouver, because he was using tables generated by the Royal Observatory and which extrapolate these readings from Greenwich to anywhere else on the world using the assumption of a spherical earth? Also could I ask: do you really think that there is anywhere on the map below where you couldn't predict say the sunrise time, or height of the sun at midday by extrapolating the data collected at say Greenwich to the location via a spherical earth model. Do you doubt that the predictions of a spherical earth model are accurate? How can a yachtsman sail across thousands of miles of empty ocean only plotting his course via the sun and tables based on a spherical model, but still arrive at the right location. Do you acknowledge these models have skill? that they usefully describe the world? If not why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 I'll give PGW this, he's got the 'say nothing in as many words as possible' sthick down pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 4 hours ago, paul's got wright said: why neil because you don't agree with free speech? what are you so scared of? and why are you always in here? You do understand how a forum works don’t you? I’m just surprised why anybody contributes on this as you obviously have all the answers ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 17 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: i know what science is and i know the difference between natural science and formal science. many others do not. you i am sure, do. so it has to be tangible, measureable and repeatable as you know. I have to admit I've no idea what you are talking about. It sounds like some very poor ideas which creationists try to use to demark science so it can't criticise their claims of biblical infallibility. A lot of theoretical physics isn't tangible or measurable when it is undertaken - it took 50 years for the Higgs boson to be tangible and measureable, but that doesn't mean Peter Higgs wasn't doing science when he came up with a theory which at the time he was thinking about it was totally beyond the ability of science to bring evidence to bear on whether it was correct or not. And science examines unrepeatable, unique events all the time - an earthquake, a volcano erupting, a comet slamming into Jupiter, blackholes colliding. These unique events can be scientifically examined by bringing to bear our understanding of similar events - this ability to extrapolate is important. Hence we can predict the sunrise in Port Stanley, New York and Sydney without ever visiting these unique places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 15 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: like two peas in a pod in this case then arent we sausages So... you going to spend all your life proving 1+1 is 2, that arteries bleed when you stab them and reconstructing all those log tables long hand? Good luck with that Cave Boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 19 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said: So... you going to spend all your life proving 1+1 is 2, that arteries bleed when you stab them and reconstructing all those log tables long hand? Good luck with that Cave Boy. not quite albert, aka "Be Attack Troll". funny how some people use anagrams in their user name isnt it albert, more peas an pods hey x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.