Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
gerrydandridge

Flat Earth?

Recommended Posts

Of course lisa but correlation is not proof of causation. See the scientific method.

Why were you laughing at me, but using a straw man, to attempt to represent me, or my reasoning?

You gave the list, the map represents the world, the map is flat, the world is flat. Who are you attributing that logic to?

Why are you laughing in your post, but using this straw man on me? X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm laughing because you amuse me. No harm in spreading a little joy Porl.

Maths causes enhanced survival chances and improved Efficiencies xx

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PottyLisa said:

I'm laughing because you amuse me. No harm in spreading a little joy Porl.

Maths causes enhanced survival chances and improved Efficiencies xx

 

4 minutes ago, PottyLisa said:

I'm laughing because you amuse me. No harm in spreading a little joy Porl.

Maths causes enhanced survival chances and improved Efficiencies xx

By what mechanism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PottyLisa said:

A map of the world is a representation of the planet.

Maps are flat.

The planet must be flat.

This reasononing is about on par as the hilarious 'When you pour water on a ball why doesn't it stick to it and form tides and whatever!!!!'

I suppose some early pioneers in their various area were laughed at.  Well, this one for you Porl:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *draws breath* ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha etc etc

Why have you brought this reasoning up, then laughed at me? The map represents the earth, the map is flat, the earth is flat. Are you attempting to attribute this reasoning to me?

"When you pour water on a ball,why doesnt it stick to it and form tides" again, are you trying to attribute that to me?

How can you be laughing at me, if you presented two strawmen, which are not representative of my thoughts?

Thanks lisa x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so maths causes maths! Belter lisa.

So, why did you try to attribute those methods of reasoning to me, then laugh at me based on the straman argument? x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

Why have you brought this reasoning up, then laughed at me? The map represents the earth, the map is flat, the earth is flat. Are you attempting to attribute this reasoning to me?

"When you pour water on a ball,why doesnt it stick to it and form tides" again, are you trying to attribute that to me?

How can you be laughing at me, if you presented two strawmen, which are not representative of my thoughts?

Thanks lisa x

I believe it to be representative of your reasoning, or may as well be.

I note you're being much more civilised today, I appreciate it.  You're alot nicer to deal with when your civil.  I mean it's still a nightmare but it's a nicer experience all the same.

I know Manxy raised the issue of water sticking to a ball, I thought you'd condoned this notion.  Apologies if I'm mistaken. xx

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, wrighty said:

That wasn't my question Paul.  Let me re-phrase.  Do you accept as true certain mathematical statements that have been proved, even if those proofs are far too complex for you to understand, but have been accepted by the mathematical establishment?  

I’m going to have to go all Paxman here. @paul's got wright - can you answer the question? If you don’t understand it please say and I’ll try to simplify the phrasing. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PottyLisa said:

I believe it to be representative of your reasoning, or may as well be.

I note you're being much more civilised today, I appreciate it.  You're alot nicer to deal with when your civil.  I mean it's still a nightmare but it's a nicer experience all the same.

I know Manxy raised the issue of water sticking to a ball, I thought you'd condoned this notion.  Apologies if I'm mistaken. xx

So you laugh at people, based on you own false assumptions of them, caused by your irrational beliefs.

Not exactly solid ground there lisa, dont laugh too hard now!

You reap what you sow lisa, if you cant take it, dont give it. I am always civilised with you.

Thanks for the apology, thats the 2nd ive had in the last few days on this forum x

 

Edited by paul's got wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I’m going to have to go all Paxman here. @paul's got wright - can you answer the question? If you don’t understand it please say and I’ll try to simplify the phrasing. 

Yes jeremy, i can and do, and now have x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

So you laugh at people, based on you own false assumptions of them, caused by your irrational beliefs.

I don't believe my beliefs are irrational just as I don't believe my assumptions are false (most of the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it has been demonstrated that the beliefs about me were, and we have both moved past that now, cordially.

So, by what mechanism, does maths cause things in nature?

Edited by paul's got wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

Yes jeremy, i can and do, and now have x

Clarity of writing not your strong point is it. From the bit in bold, I take it therefore that you’re happy to accept mathematical proofs as true even though you don’t understand them. So you accept, for example, the statement of Fermat’s last theorem as being true, even though it means accepting the word of others, given that you can’t understand the proof yourself. 

By extension, do you accept the work of the scientists such as Einstein and Bohr as being valid (given the technology, that works, that is a direct result of their theories) even though you can’t personally understand it, and that by the definition of science you repeatedly make reference to, isn’t in your view ‘science’, as they didn’t demonstrate, by experiment, cause and effect? (Einstein’s model of the universe has mass/energy as a cause of spacetime curvature, but he could only model this and carry out indirect experiments, analogous to Eratosthenes, rather than set an experimental mass as the independent variable and measure its effect on spacetime curvature)

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...