Jump to content

Flat Earth?


gerrydandridge
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, paul's got wright said:

DO you disagree with the university citations i gave you for the scientific method china?

Please tell me where im wrong 

Thanks

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1303704

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1303722

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1303947

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1303972

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1304227

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1304366

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1304606

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1304629

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1304645

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1304735

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1305138

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1305152

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1305239

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1305331

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1305382

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1305593

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1306049

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1306397

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1306511

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1306683

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1307284

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58796-flat-earth/&do=findComment&comment=1307800

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Paul. Hold your thumb out at arms length at eye level. Close your left eye. Look at the position of your thumb compared to the background. Now close your right eye open your left eye. Notice a change in the position of your thumb relative to the background?

Now in your universe is this a natural phenomenon? what is causing it? Can you scientifically examine it?

 

4 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

What is the naturally observed phenomena in the cavendish dilemma you believe to be a scientific experiment?

I dont remember making a claim in relation to your question and do not see its relevence?

I am going to have a go at explaining the Cavendish experiment for you, be patient.

But firstly maybe answering my questions about your thumb and the changing view will help clarify things.  

Do you acknowledge your thumb does change position relative to the background when you open and close your left and right eyes?

What causes this? In your understanding of science can this phenomenon be scientifically examined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@paul's got wrightJust read this critique and analysis of Eratosthenes.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006JAHH....9...57P

It covers his experiment. The errors, the variables he couldn’t take into account because they weren’t known to him ( including the oblate nature of the earths spherical shape ) and shows how, through continued testing and retesting of his theory it has been modified and refined, with better equipment and knowledge, but not disproved.

And that’s it with science. It’s where you, and for that matter, @manxy in the 5g thread go wrong. You want absolute proofs. They don’t exist. There are theories, which have been tested, repeated and reproduced to the extent they are accepted ( but only until they are proved wrong - and in some cases that’s is so unlikely as to be discountable ) or those theories which have no scientific basis, or a basis in bad science - they prove nothing.

Here’s a  fun, modern, Canadian, repeat. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chinahand said:

 

I am going to have a go at explaining the Cavendish experiment for you, be patient.

But firstly maybe answering my questions about your thumb and the changing view will help clarify things.  

Do you acknowledge your thumb does change position relative to the background when you open and close your left and right eyes?

What causes this? In your understanding of science can this phenomenon be scientifically examined.

I know the cav ex inside out china! No need to explain it to me, just provide the naturally occuring phenomena please, for the readers x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you know it inside out why don’t you peer review it for us. That is how science advances by the errors of previous work being pointed out and better methods for collecting and interpreting observations being suggested. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, John Wright said:

@paul's got wrightJust read this critique and analysis of Eratosthenes.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006JAHH....9...57P

It covers his experiment. The errors, the variables he couldn’t take into account because they weren’t known to him ( including the oblate nature of the earths spherical shape ) and shows how, through continued testing and retesting of his theory it has been modified and refined, with better equipment and knowledge, but not disproved.

And that’s it with science. It’s where you, and for that matter, @manxy in the 5g thread go wrong. You want absolute proofs. They don’t exist. There are theories, which have been tested, repeated and reproduced to the extent they are accepted ( but only until they are proved wrong - and in some cases that’s is so unlikely as to be discountable ) or those theories which have no scientific basis, or a basis in bad science - they prove nothing.

Here’s a  fun, modern, Canadian, repeat. 

 

Is that the response to me oblitrating the article you recommended? 

And you claim that i "go wrong" somehow, yet you dont specify or explain. I easily explained everything that was wrong with the article, even china couldnt stand by it!

If im wrong or factually incorrect about something then just simply quote me john and point out exactly what you disagree with. show me where i am wrong and how you are correct and i will happily admit to it if valid

Thanks

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Well if you know it inside out why don’t you peer review it for us. That is how science advances by the errors of previous work being pointed out and better methods for collecting and interpreting observations being suggested. 

 

Because its not a SCIENTIFIC experiment, but of course!

Proven by the fact that, every time i ask you for the naturally observed phenomenon, you wont provide it!

Feel free china i love debunking nonsense x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

Is that the response to me oblitrating the article you recommended? 

And you claim that i "go wrong" somehow, yet you dont specify or explain. I easily explained everything that was wrong with the article, even china couldnt stand by it!

If im wrong or factually incorrect about something then just simply quote me john and point out exactly what you disagree with. show me where i am wrong and how you are correct and i will happily admit to it if valid

Thanks

It’s impossible because you duck, dive, don’t actually set out what you believe, or postulate as true/factual/proved so that we can show where and why you’re wrong.

You reject or avoid any request to nail your colours. You just raise questions, but without explaining what it is that’s wrong with the evidence or argument put forward by anyone else.

No, this isn’t to obliterate. You keep on asking for proof, a theory, with  a repeatable, experiment, with a single variable. Naturally observed phenomena, to use your words.  I’ve given one that I think fulfils those conditions. If it doesn’t, then explain why not, and how it’s wrong.

Got to laugh at this bit:

If im wrong or factually incorrect about something then just simply quote me john and point out exactly what you disagree with. show me where i am wrong and how you are correct and i will happily admit to it if valid

Who is going to determine validity? What do you want me to comment upon? It’s like dealing with Chris Thomas, lots of convolution, lots of circumlocution, many, long, words, but signifying not very much in the end.

That Harvard article sets out why, in spite of all the errors, the original experiment was right. It sets out the maths, explains errors and how they’ve been resolved.

The NYT article was a journalist, not a scientist, using lay language. You don’t, and haven’t obliterated anything with your attempts at clever, sophistry, semantics, word play. You get hung up on “round” because it should be sphere. It’s loose, I accept. But look at a football. What shape is it? 99% will say round. It proves nothing in support of whatever it is that you espouse or oppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Well if you know it inside out why don’t you peer review it for us. That is how science advances by the errors of previous work being pointed out and better methods for collecting and interpreting observations being suggested. 

 

You're not tellin me anything i dont already know china, passed my dual science 22 years ago fella, been learning more ever since, took science at university along with anthropology and english lit.

Remember china youre conversing with arguably one of the most talented students in my school year. Trolls are expected to infer callous notions. You are not a troll and you are better than that. Stick to the facts and lets debunk things by scientitic definitions please

Its about time you man up to the scientific reality of your claims

Edited by paul's got wright
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chinahand said:

 

But firstly maybe answering my questions about your thumb and the changing view will help clarify things.  

Do you acknowledge your thumb does change position relative to the background when you open and close your left and right eyes?

What causes this? In your understanding of science can this phenomenon be scientifically examined.

Paul can you answer the questions I’ve asked here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s impossible because you duck, dive, don’t actually set out what you believe, or postulate as true/factual/proved so that we can show where and why you’re wrong.

You reject or avoid any request to nail your colours. You just raise questions, but without explaining what it is that’s wrong with the evidence or argument put forward by anyone else.

No, this isn’t to obliterate. You keep on asking for proof, a theory, with  a repeatable, experiment, with a single variable. Naturally observed phenomena, to use your words.  I’ve given one that I think fulfils those conditions. If it doesn’t, then explain why not, and how it’s wrong.

Got to laugh at this bit:

If im wrong or factually incorrect about something then just simply quote me john and point out exactly what you disagree with. show me where i am wrong and how you are correct and i will happily admit to it if valid

Who is going to determine validity? What do you want me to comment upon? It’s like dealing with Chris Thomas, lots of convolution, lots of circumlocution, many, long, words, but signifying not very much in the end.

That Harvard article sets out why, in spite of all the errors, the original experiment was right. It sets out the maths, explains errors and how they’ve been resolved.

The NYT article was a journalist, not a scientist, using lay language. You don’t, and haven’t obliterated anything with your attempts at clever, sophistry, semantics, word play. You get hung up on “round” because it should be sphere. It’s loose, I accept. But look at a football. What shape is it? 99% will say round. It proves nothing in support of whatever it is that you espouse or oppose.

Ok no problem john, i can show you how its done again, with a thorough analysis of how and why you are wrong and or factually incorrect, by quoting you directly. See you tea time and hopefully this time, you wll simply quote my post and respond.

Thanks

 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...