paul's got wright Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 Dr zeus is more scientific than the actor, neil de grasse tyson! Maths is proof!!! If that was true id hit 9 dart finishes in every match china you complete buffoon. Imagine football if all they did was send tactics into a machine to see who wins. You are so detached from reality its unbelievable. Not my probl3m if the video shows matching shadows on both models! He says it proves the ball, but he doesnt demonstrate it, he is a clown. Nearly as bad an actor as v sauce. The only science v sauce knows is eye brow language and you probably think hes hip! Go on flat earth debate china its an open panel. You will be laughed off with eratosthenes as scientific evidence of a spherical earth. I will give you a shoutout again in the side chat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 16 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Y4ou can mis-represent the video as much as you like, but it clearly showed that what Eratosthenes did doesn't work on a flat earth, it shows you how to do the analysis and you can say things look the same til you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact they aren't. How do you think Eratosthenes came up with a circumference of the earth of 252,000 stadia? Did he pray? Did he dream it up from no where? Did he make a guess. Or did he via a series of simplifications and assumptions of a proposed model of the earth make a prediction of the size of the earth if those assumptions were reasonable? Paul, are you really going to say that isn't a scientific process? I am really uncomfortable with anyone trying to denigrate the absolutely amazing achievement of Eratosthenes. It's circa 200 BC and he figures out that not only is the earth a sphere but he then goes on to measure it. With, to be fair, astonishing accuracy. His only tools were an interest in a casual observation taken some 600 miles south, a stick, a paceman and what must have been, for the time, some pretty astounding "outside the box" (or in this case outside the flat earth) thinking. One of my personal heroes. Which is a very short list.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 You're probably top of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 8 hours ago, quilp said: You're probably top of it... No chance. My standards are far too high for that. ETA Woof woof! Hey, looks like you've signed up another recruit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 You did that all by your self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 21 hours ago, paul's got wright said: He likes the topic clearly, that's why we are discussing its poularity. What game are you on about? Winning yt vid? The videos are current updates on the subject you absolute wally! This is a forum and you are not obliged to read threads you have no interest in, or post in them. Some of us enjoy this thread, do one if ye dont like it ye big girl Did you make the religious freaks quote up or can you cite it for us? Among other definitions, the word “winning” also means “attractive” so you no doubt consider those videos attractive to your line of thinking, otherwise you wouldn’t post them. Equally, you could have considered them as winning the debate. My use of the term “winning” is therefore correct context. Perhaps you haven’t used the phrase “religious freaks” previously but as, almost without fail, you sneeringly dismiss those who disagree with you as bound up in religious belief, it was reasonable licence to use the phrase “religious freaks”. Chinahand graciously, though fruitlessly, attempts to educate you about science. I do not have any interest in further educating you about uses of the English language. Rather than post your usual ordure (look it up) on here, do yourself a favour and use the time to improve your English. Why not ask one of those teachers who so admire your talents to assist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 1 hour ago, quilp said: You did that all by your self. Nah. Paswt caught himself in a trap of his own making. As a brexiteef of course he's a natural for the Andrex puppydogs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 51 minutes ago, P.K. said: Nah. Paswt caught himself in a trap of his own making. As a brexiteef of course he's a natural for the Andrex puppydogs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 11 hours ago, P.K. said: I am really uncomfortable with anyone trying to denigrate the absolutely amazing achievement of Eratosthenes. It's circa 200 BC and he figures out that not only is the earth a sphere but he then goes on to measure it. With, to be fair, astonishing accuracy. His only tools were an interest in a casual observation taken some 600 miles south, a stick, a paceman and what must have been, for the time, some pretty astounding "outside the box" (or in this case outside the flat earth) thinking. One of my personal heroes. Which is a very short list.... Oh your religious belief is being challenged by thousands of people on the internet, so you are upset? De dums you poor soldier! You dont understand what measure means. You think imagination is science. And we are expected to believe that you have a hero from 2 hundred bc? You got pictures of him on your wall? Do you often tell others of his heroics? Mines gazza an i talk about him often. I also think about him when i watch football. I also watch his highlights quite often. Neither of them are heroes. Your pathetic attempt to personify and glorify a story, from a figure claimed to be from 200 bc, and the claim he is your hero, is nothing short of astounding. The flat earth debate would chew your story up and spit it out, as it doesn't have a shred of scientific validation. If it doesnt agree with experiment then its wrong and no amount of emotional fantasy or faux hero will change that fact. I genuinely pitty the fool on the hill. Denigrate you say! How can one denigrate a story? This is a science question not philosophy. No experiment, no science. Maths is a language, its not a method of scientific validation of a prediction via experiment. Its part of the formal sciences, not natural which is what we are discussing. Can you just give us the scientific experiment that validates the hypothesis that the earth is spinning? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Uhtred said: Among other definitions, the word “winning” also means “attractive” so you no doubt consider those videos attractive to your line of thinking, otherwise you wouldn’t post them. Equally, you could have considered them as winning the debate. My use of the term “winning” is therefore correct context. Perhaps you haven’t used the phrase “religious freaks” previously but as, almost without fail, you sneeringly dismiss those who disagree with you as bound up in religious belief, it was reasonable licence to use the phrase “religious freaks”. Chinahand graciously, though fruitlessly, attempts to educate you about science. I do not have any interest in further educating you about uses of the English language. Rather than post your usual ordure (look it up) on here, do yourself a favour and use the time to improve your English. Why not ask one of those teachers who so admire your talents to assist? Then there is no doubt you will be able to provide evidence for your claim then is there? What debate? Im not in a debate im having a discussion. Religious is an adjective not a sneer. Dont put words in my mouth. You used religious freaks as an emotional plea to the audience. I am well educated on the meaning and study of science, you and china are superfluous to my requirements in that subject, clearly. Its an appeal to someone you consider your intellectual superior. Again pathetic. Individuals and emotions have nothing to do with science, but we can see quite simply its your religion that brings you here. Finally as i have stated many times on here, the english languish is a tool at my disposal and i shall use it anyway i see fit. Or are you the arbiter of languish, and must i bow to your orders? Is languish another of your heros? What about the one who uttered the first grunt? Big hero of yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 9 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: Then there is no doubt you will be able to provide evidence for your claim then is there? What debate? Im not in a debate im having a discussion. Religious is an adjective not a sneer. Dont put words in my mouth. You used religious freaks as an emotional plea to the audience. I am well educated on the meaning and study of science, you and china are superfluous to my requirements in that subject, clearly. Its an appeal to someone you consider your intellectual superior. Again pathetic. Individuals and emotions have nothing to do with science, but we can see quite simply its your religion that brings you here. Finally as i have stated many times on here, the english languish is a tool at my disposal and i shall use it anyway i see fit. Or are you the arbiter of languish, and must i bow to your orders? Is languish another of your heros? What about the one who uttered the first grunt? Big hero of yours? Thank you for (unconsciously) illustrating my point so vividly. However, I may indeed rethink one thing... with statements like “I am well educated on the meaning and study of science...” there could be a future for you in comedy scriptwriting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 More fantasy ad hom, no response, no science, nothing of substance, your worse religious fear. Please could you provide the scientific experiments which support your religious beliefs. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 here's neil and sagan contradicting each other "Eratosthenes only had 2 wells" NDT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 2 hours ago, P.K. said: Nah. Paswt caught himself in a trap of his own making. As a brexiteef of course he's a natural for the Andrex puppydogs.... Not sure what a "brexiteef" is but I would have thought that the "acid test" for being called a "brexiteer" would have been to vote to exit the EU , I abstained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 3 hours ago, Uhtred said: Thank you for (unconsciously) illustrating my point so vividly. I love it when that happens! I bet the High Priest Paul is bristling at falling into the trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.