|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I don't think they even really believe the stuff they spew (probably 'cause they don't even understand it either). Its just the same old anti-science debate game. Prove the science to me and disprove the alternate theory. The game is in challenging the challenges. And the ones that cannot be challenged are ignored as they Gish gallop to the next challenge. They can be decent exercise, though, if you want to practice debating styles or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
He's posted heliocentric nonsense on a white supremacist website. links or it didn't happen nevermind, I found it Attention Required! | Cloudflare Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
So, I did a little elementary math, forgive me if I go a little too quickly. 237 is the predicted number, right? It has an error of plus (addition) or minus (subtraction) 5, right? So, if we take 237 and ADD 5, what do we get? That's right class, 242. Now, and this is a little trickier, if we take 237 and SUBTRACT 5, we get? Right again, very good class. We get 232. So, if we see 230, does that fall within the predicted range of 232-242? Wow, class, you're batting 1000. You're right, it doesn't! So, does this mean the prediction was a good one or a bad one?Bad!! Very good class. Time for cookies and a nap. Your mom goes to college. ABE in case you don't know the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcC3cEuXIVI Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
quote:Nope, it's science. O RLY? In Message 44 you wrote:
quote:Yahoo uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/TorahCreation at the bottom of that page:
quote: Of course you advocate this stuff because of your religious belief. We see it a lot here. What's odd is that you accept some science and use science as a requirement for explanations when it already fits you preconcieved view but also reject all science that goes against your preconieved view. Its hypocritical. All you do is jump from one factual point to the other by saying "prove it"... How do we know this? Because of that. well, prove that. Oh, that is proven by this thing. Oh yeah, well prove this thing. Sure, that is proven by those. Prove those! And on and on. Its a common creationist tactic. You're also guilty of the Gish gallop, another common creationist tactic. So we know you're a creationist. And you're just playing the same old stupid "prove it" game. We know that you will only accept science that supports your religious belief and will reject all science that goes against your religous belief. You're just Special Pleading. You realize that nobody takes you seriously, yeah? You're just target practice
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I'm not even going to respond to all of this. No shit. You don't respong to the refutations of your position either. All you do is say: "Nuh-uh" and then jump to the next point You're playing the "prove it to me" game. When someone offers proof that isn't 100% you jump all over it but when they do offer 100% proof, you just ignore it or hand wave it away, ahem...the LHC and Coriolis Effect. Anyone else in this thread could just as easily play your game with you in arguing that were actually in The Matrix and not sitting at computers at all. Its really fucking ghey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The seasons are explained by Sun's orbit. In winter it is far from us, in summer it is closer to us.
Do you realize that this means that, to believe this, you must concede that the earth moves after all? If the sun's orbit around the earth explains the seasons, it means it orbits the earth in one year. Yet we see the sun rise and set every day. The only explanation for that must be that the earth rotates on it's own axis every 24 hours.
Holy shit! You're right. I didn't even think of that. How could the sun going around the Earth and being closer or further throughout the year explain the seasons if the sun is going around the Earth every day! That's awesome. I bet it never crossed SO's mind before. It just goes to show that instead of actually thinking his position through, he's just parroting anti-science websites and playing the "prove it" game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I didn't think of the tilt thing..
but after I wrote that I though that you could image the sun's orbit gradually increasing, spiraling out, and then it somehow reverts and starts gradually decreasing, spiraling back towards us...then I thought: but that goes against the laws of physics.... But you're right, if we're gonna throw out some science we could just as easily through out the physics that it goes against too. But that brings up my other point that I had earlier in the hypocrisy of him using the "science" that he does reference, or saying that his position is not based on religion but is based on science. He picks and chooses the science that fits his position and discards that science that disproves it. You could take any position with that stance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
how do you explain parallax? After the geocentirism came up I've been thinking of this little animation I saw (i thought on wiki) of a simulation of a time lapse of the orbit of a panet (mars or venud, iirc). But there was a little loopty-loop in the orbit that was impossible to have if the Earth was stationary. I couldn't even remember the name of the type of orbit or whatever, but I think this parallax is close. Anyone out there know what I'm referring to?
This image is what I'm talking about, but the animation was so much more effective in demonstrating it. It pretty much proves without a doubt that Earth is moving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The planets seeming to reverse course during their orbits is called retrograde motion That's it!!! Thank you. Okay, here's the gif I was thinking of:
Impossible if the Earth is stationary, not based on an assumption, and yet directly observable. It should fit SO's criteria and prove the Earth is in motion. I'm curious how he'll weasel his way out of this one. Probably by not responding at all :-\ ABE: Here's the wiki page I got the image from: Retrograde and prograde motion - Wikipedia Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I guess SO will have to argue that the stars aren't really big fireballs really far away in space and are just these little lights in the firmament that move around.
SO: Is the aether inside or outside of the firmament?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Well, that is how they look. And as anyone over the age of 2 knows, everything is exactly how it appears at first glance. In Message 62, SO write:
quote: What a moron!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You're just making shit up to fit your preconceived notion of a geocentricity rather than doing science and following the evidence where it leads. All you've got is apologetics... and that is for religiously based arguments (like yours). Note: it is based on religion, as in religious belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:None exist. Hubble Deep Field - Wikipedia This very small section of the sky:
Contains all of these galaxies: Wikimedia Error ABE: I just changed that from a thumbnail because its too huge to link too like that. which all contain solar systems. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Look into the Hubble Deep Field <--- stars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:In short, you just refuse to accept my model. No. In short, your model fails to reflect reality and and is internally inconsistant. And FYI, that mass center of the solar system is at a point within the diameter of the sun so tot say the sun is at the center is technically not wrong. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024