paul's got wright Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Chinahand said: Paul, I have provided what you wanted, there are multiple other ones, but let's assume you find some way to reject all of them. What was Einstein doing? You seem to want to claim it wasn't SCIENCE (as you insist it is defined) ... my reply to this is huh ... science is about being able to predict a phenomenon - maybe the result of an experiment, maybe a natural phenomenon - does predicting eclipses fit your definition of science? What use is this definition of science if it tries to create an arbitrary demarcation within successful scientific predictions, some of which fit your over rigid definition, and most which do not. Leaping up and down saying the ones that don't aren't science is to miss what science is used for. A method to enable us to predict events and so skilfully react to them. Einstein's relativity and eclipses do this, no matter your going on about independent variables. Its not my definition china! I will dismantle your nonsense "tomorrow" x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 Please read up about “lies to children” and “Wittgenstein’s ladder” before hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 12 hours ago, paul's got wright said: 13 hours ago, Bobbie Bobster said: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." —Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995), 129. Logical fallacy blobzie. If he doesnt understand it, how could he know? Doesnt sound too sure of himself either! It isn’t a logical fallacy to admit ignorance - it’s an observation. As Wrighty has already raised and as you have evaded answering there are lots of open questions in maths or science where no one knows the answer. Think Fermat’s last theorem before Andrew Wiles. It would have been perfectly fine prior to Wiles proving it for him or anyone else to say no one understands Fermat’s last theorem. You can be the pedant and insist on adding “as far as I know”. And that is the issue Wrighty is asking you about. Everything has to include such a caveat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 11 hours ago, Chinahand said: Please read up about “lies to children” and “Wittgenstein’s ladder” before hand. Will do x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 11 hours ago, Chinahand said: It isn’t a logical fallacy to admit ignorance - it’s an observation. As Wrighty has already raised and as you have evaded answering there are lots of open questions in maths or science where no one knows the answer. Think Fermat’s last theorem before Andrew Wiles. It would have been perfectly fine prior to Wiles proving it for him or anyone else to say no one understands Fermat’s last theorem. You can be the pedant and insist on adding “as far as I know”. And that is the issue Wrighty is asking you about. Everything has to include such a caveat. He said nobody understands it, so that includes him, so he wouldnt know if someone did understand it. Also he hasnt queried and tested everyone to even know who understands it. Even if he did that, he doesn't understand it anyway. Logical fallacy on steroids china. I never evaded anything i requested wrighty grant me the same courtesy, still waiting for an answer. Oh the irony hey china. Ready when wrighty is x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 Dr John D has finally weighed in, done a test, gone flat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Come on china i thought you wpuld be delighted with this! A qualified man, out doing flat earth tests. Did you catch the reults? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Nah, I don't watch your videos. Atmospheric refraction is a big issue at low angles. Not understanding it and going flat earth flat earth isn't my cup of tea thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Nah, I don't watch your videos. Atmospheric refraction is a big issue at low angles. Not understanding it and going flat earth flat earth isn't my cup of tea thank you. It isnt my video china! Nice try. Ok i shall watch it for you and post the relevant info x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 12 hours ago, Chinahand said: Nah, I don't watch your videos. I wonder does anyone watch his FE videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 12 hours ago, Bobbie Bobster said: I wonder does anyone watch his videos? The one he posted of the guy playing Sultans of Swing was excellent. But the FE videos - probably not. I watched 10 minutes of one once, but that’s about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 2 hours ago, wrighty said: The one he posted of the guy playing Sultans of Swing was excellent. Fair comment, I've amended my post - will you adjust your quote of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 There is a very good book called the signal and the noise which has relevance here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 12 hours ago, Bobbie Bobster said: I wonder does anyone watch his FE videos? whose blob? I haven't got any flat earth videos x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 china, you like a man with credentials. the video from Dr John D gives a brilliant introduction, all written, about who he is, what his credentials are and why he has undertaken theses tests. he has, (or one of his team has, but I think its him) a PhD in Spectrophotometry. here are the listed credentials at the start of the video. all the equipment data, tests etc are shown at the very beginning. I am going to watch it this affy. see what the doc's got to say about it all DR John D and team BSc hons. M.Sc. DIC (Diploma of Imperial College, London) PhD (Spectrophotometry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.