Science

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I've noticed that many here espouce science when it suits their argument, but reject it when it goes against their politics, religion, or world view in general. Things like climate change and the shape of earth, among other things. So my question is this. How do you choose when you believe in common scientific theory, and when you don't?

[Dr_Phibes]

Poptart's confusion about formal sciences aside, isn't Karl Poppers concept of scientific falsifiability a debated matter? It is just too strict - a methodological claim that everything that doesn't adhere to the rules of Poppers demand of falsifiability isn't science at all.

I was under impression that non-falsifiability of theories say nothing about their validity - and that falsification tests should be used as a tool, not as a shackle.

[Softball Bat]

Poptart's confusion about formal sciences aside...

This is the dumbest thing I have read today.

[LTS TRN 2]

Hi, I'm mister Grey..maybe you know some of my music..

[Left Seater]

I've noticed that many here espouce science when it suits their argument, but reject it when it goes against their politics, religion, or world view in general. Things like climate change and the shape of earth, among other things. So my question is this. How do you choose when you believe in common scientific theory, and when you don't?

What is “common scientific theory”? Theory isn’t science. A hypothesis is part of the process but it isn’t science just as a statement. It is also interesting in that you chose the shape of the earth and global warming as your two examples. Is altering temperature data part of “common scientific theory” or is using future temperature modeling software that can’t accurately model past events? Are millions of observed sunsets part of “common scientific theory”?

I do know that far to much funding of science has become issue and outcome driven. By that I mean many scientists have sold themselves out to the highest bidders. They get their funding from a source or “side” and amazingly their research supports the beliefs or politics of the source of the funding.

As for arguements in here it is human nature to use things that support your argument and leave out things that don’t. Good luck with changing that.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Poptart's confusion about formal sciences aside...

This is the dumbest thing I have read today.

Well of course it would be, in your warped view. You ignore science and fact at every turn, in favor of conspiracy bullshit, religious fanaticism and fairy tales.

Don't you have some sticks to toss around?

Ooh, here's a question. When you throw those sticks and they fall to the ground, what causes that? Why don't they just float away into the air? Indulge us, science guy.

[Softball Bat]

Nice melt, Jay.

To be expected, as I've turned you into a kickball so many times.


Is this the proof for your IDIOTIC globe?


rotf...

[Wolfman]

I worked at Cornell for about 4 years doing some real scientific research. We developed protocols for rearing Asian Long Horn Beetles so that others could find methods of biological control. No need nor desire to "fudge" results. One thing did happen. We passed our methodology to the US Forest Service and they did not have the success we had. I came to find out that they made some changes. DOH !

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Science is about proving hypotheses with reproducible test results.

That's not quite how the scientific method works. We can't really "prove" a hypothesis to be unquestionably correct. We can only support a hypothesis by not rejecting it. The very essence of science isn't in trying to "prove" what we think we know, it's to discover something new and unknown. Scientists never really accept a hypothesis as proven because alternative hypotheses might provide a better answer to the research question. Now in a practical sense, sure, we consider certain things to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but only because they have not been disproven through repeated testing, and all reasonable alternatives have been eliminated.

[Rooster]

My attitude about science is that it is at best neutral, at worst a blank slate. Nothing is ever final, nothing is ever settled. The very nature of science really leaves it useless for proving anything since there is always something that modifies or changes what was considered written in stone just a short time before.

• Humans have been giving birth since the beginning of time and medical science still hasn’t determined the “best” method of delivering a baby

• Science said saturated fats like butter were a disaster for us. Then it wasn’t. Then it was. Then it wasn’t...

• People need X amount of exercise to be healthy. What was that? Oh, now they just need Y amount of exercise. Sorry, we meant Z amount

So on and so forth. The latest scientific news is that genetics and DNA are likely to upend everything that has become sacred writ when it comes to race. Due to computing power and the ability to sequence our genetic code, it sounds like the notion of the human race originating out of Africa is being “proven” to be false— until something else comes out and changes the narrative. In the meantime, a lot of people are probably going to get their panties in a twist because IQ, physical prowess, and all those attributes which have been determined to be equal between the races by the PC police are going to have to explain how they are correct in the face of advancing science.

It’s less that science is constantly changing, which, after all, is the very nature of science, but that we set policy on something that is bound to be shown to be wrong— things like climate change. And to retool our entire economy based on faulty conjecture is the very essence of stupidity, not to mention that even if it all were magically shown to be true, human ingenuity would create a way to counter it, if for no other purpose than to make a profit from the solution.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

What is “common scientific theory”? Theory isn’t science. A hypothesis is part of the process but it isn’t science just as a statement. It is also interesting in that you chose the shape of the earth and global warming as your two examples. Is altering temperature data part of “common scientific theory” or is using future temperature modeling software that can’t accurately model past events? Are millions of observed sunsets part of “common scientific theory”?

Uhh, yes, theory is exactly what science is about. You have to understand that a "theory" as it pertains to science means something different than how it's used in every day language. Most people would say that a theory is nothing more than a hunch or a guess, but that's not what it means in the scientific community. A scientific theory is an explanation for a set of observations based on well-supported hypotheses from many independent lines of research.

Anyway, I shouldn't have used the shape of earth as one of my examples (I blame the six Two-Hearteds I drank last night). The shape of earth being spherical isn't a theory, as it's something we can directly observe by going into space. There is no need for the door to remain open for alternative hypotheses. I'm referring more to things like evolution and climate change. These are things that are not 100% "proven," but the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes both of these ideas to be true. So my question is, when do you choose when you believe in what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community says, and when don't you?

There's no reason to get defensive over this. I'm not looking to debate any particular issue. I think it's healthy to be a skeptic of science. I'm just curious how others think and arrive at their conclusions.

[Rooster]

I'm just curious how others think and arrive at their conclusions.

When it comes to my diet and exercise, I pick and choose what science best suits me. Case in point: Red meat grilled on the BBQ. I refuse to let some lab coated pencil necked geek tell me (through my wife, lol) what I can and cannot eat. If I happen to like the results of whatever study came out on chocolate covered almonds, I’ll tout it as evidence for me to eat as much as I want. Brussels sprouts? Not so much.

What I find hilarious is the various political sides proclaiming that they have science on their side. The Left claims global warming is the next (really slow moving) catastrophe based on science, but ignores the science on when life begins in the womb. The Right makes its own claims to scientific legitimacy (see, Dins? This old dog can learn new grammatical tricks!), but has plenty of blind spots of their own.

[Wolfman]

^^^^^^^^^^^
That's not SCIENCE, it's what I call "pop science" and the so-called research is quite questionable when it come to humans. I really don't see how you can do a true scientific research on humans as it isn't easy to do a "blind" study unless you're Dr. Mengle or someone like that. The closest we probably came was the testing of the Salk polio vaccine on US school children.
I ignore all those (thing of the week) is bad for you pronunciations on TV. They are really BS.

[Softball Bat]

Anyway, I shouldn't have used the shape of earth as one of my examples (I blame the six Two-Hearteds I drank last night). The shape of earth being spherical isn't a theory, as it's something we can directly observe by going into space.

A whole lot of people have become aware that despite rockets supposedly going up into space for 60 years, there is no video showing a rocket going from land to space.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

A whole lot of people have become aware that despite rockets supposedly going up into space for 60 years, there is no video showing a rocket going from land to space.

[Left Seater]

You either run the dumbest troll on the planet, or you are the dumbest person on the planet.

Go to Cape Canveral and watch one with your own eyes, as I and many others have done.

I don’t think he is the dumbest troll since he has had us on the hook for years. Now if he believes what he actually spews then the second sentence could be spot on.

[Softball Bat]

Anyway, I shouldn't have used the shape of earth as one of my examples (I blame the six Two-Hearteds I drank last night). The shape of earth being spherical isn't a theory, as it's something we can directly observe by going into space.

A whole lot of people have become aware that despite rockets supposedly going up into space for 60 years, there is no video showing a rocket going from land to space.

You either run the dumbest troll on the planet, or you are the dumbest person on the planet.

Go to Cape Canveral and watch one with your own eyes, as I and many others have done.

You stood on the ground and watched a rocket go up into space?

Really now?

And I'm the dumb guy?

lol


Why did your video cut off before the rocket reached space?
Did you not know that, or did you just not care?

The very lowest altitude which could be considered space is 62 miles.

This video does not show the rocket going there.

At 2:40 of your video (about 2:25 after launch) you can hear him say that the rocket is 40 miles up.
The video cuts off 25 seconds later.


It is a Delta 2 Rocket.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/14/d ... th-jpss-1/

https://mk0spaceflightnoa02a.kinstacdn. ... rofile.png

Separation of the launcher’s composite nose fairing is scheduled for T+plus 4 minutes, 41 seconds, once
the Delta 2 is out of the lower atmosphere, exposing the JPSS 1 satellite to space for the first time.





#fail




No surprise.

[Dinsdale]

Serious question, Popetard -- have you ever read the Theory of Relativity? There's "dumbed down" versions out there.

It explains why you're a fucking idiot.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...the Theory of Relativity?

Is that the pamphlet Shoalzie wrote?

:?

[Dinsdale]

My bad.

Shouldn't have been capitalized. I was citing the theory, not the book.


Fuckface.

[Softball Bat]

Dinsdale and Jay should get a room.

Take off all their clothes, sit down, and compare their bruises.

[Left Seater]

Questions for ya Softball Bat.

In 88’s video near the end the sky turns black. Does this mean the rocket went thru the firmament? If so how can that be? If not, why is the color of the sky changing? If the rocket is still inside the “dome” why did the color change?

[Softball Bat]

Questions for ya Softball Bat.

In 88’s video near the end the sky turns black. Does this mean the rocket went thru the firmament? If so how can that be? If not, why is the color of the sky changing? If the rocket is still inside the “dome” why did the color change?

Why wouldn't it change if we are in a dome?


I won't post the pic because it is too big, but click to see here -----> http://www.redway3d.com/downloads/publi ... sphere.jpg

And here -----> http://www.redway3d.com/downloads/publi ... model.html

I don't know how accurate it is, but prior to reaching space (62 miles -- the very beginning of what is considered space), the sky is black.


At any rate, 88's rocket video proved exactly -----> nothing.

Other than that he is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard, of course.

He rolls in, calls me names, posts a "proof* video of a rocket going from land to space which doesn't show a rocket going from land to space. lol
And the cherry on top is that he claims he stood on the ground and watched a rocket go from land to space -- with his very own eyes.

LMAO!

Great
freaking
job,
wingnut!


Despite this humiliation, he will undoubtedly roll back and in and tell me that I am the stupid one.

It's how the globetards (like he, Jay, and Dinsdale) generally roll.





#education

[Jay in Phoenix]

Nice melt, Jay.

To be expected, as I've turned you into a kickball so many times.


Is this the proof for your IDIOTIC globe?

Nice continuing use of pointless double and triple spacing.

So that is your idea of a melt, eh? You are a very sad, myopic and horribly brain damaged old turd. Your little one-man army has been beaten like a punching clown so horribly and yet, you keep bouncing back for more. I just gave you another example of gravity in action, by putting in context of your stupid stick game.

And where exactly did I mention that was proof of a globe? It was proof of gravity...again.

It's you against the entire board...hell, the world, and you still can't see the truth? Pathetic.

[Left Seater]

What are you trying to show us or prove with your two links? One shows a globe earth and the other talks about particles in the air and air molecules. But note if also says all the particles are lower in elevation closer to the esrth’s surface. So why would those influence color at the higher elevations?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...whizzes...

[Softball Bat]

What does the video show, genius?

It shows a rocket going up 40+ miles -- and then the feed is cut off.

It does not show a rocket going to space.

Is it brain damage, or what seems to be your problem?

You have provided no alternative explanation for the video mounted to the rocket, aside that it did not last long enough for your liking.

I provided no alternative?

What world do you live in?

I pointed out THE OBVIOUS.

The video does not show a rocket going to space, which you claimed it does.


Now either...

1) stfu (preferable, and most assuredly the best option for you)

2. find a video that shows a rocket going from land to space (good luck with that)


Nobody in their right mind is interested in hearing you claim that you saw a rocket go all the way from land to space.

Did you see Yeti, too?
lol

The moon is in space

No.
It isn't.

The ISS

It could never have been assembled.
Nobody could live on it.
It could not possibly be maintained.
They have no machine shop -- or certainly nothing even remotely close to one being adequate.
It would be a death trap in very short time.

It is a total fantasy.
It is asinine in the extreme.


Total Idiots believe the stupid shit you believe.

[Softball Bat]

And where exactly did I mention that was proof of a globe? It was proof of gravity...again.

What if there is gravity?

What does it prove?

[Softball Bat]

So what's outside the sphere, 'tardt?

I assume that the Bible is correct, and that waters are above the firmament.

Genesis 1:6-8

Genesis 1:14-18

Psalms 148:1-6

Read them.


I don't claim it to be FACT, but it is my assumption.

[Softball Bat]

What are you trying to show us or prove with your two links?

That was to emphasize to 88's dead brain that even though the sky is black in his video, it does not mean that the rocket was in space.

It WASN'T.

It was only 40+ miles up, and as you can see in that graphic, the sky is black at that elevation in his globe model.

[Rooster]

Kind of curious, what makes you think there is something that is commonly called “space” out there? Who’s to say that whatever is beyond the clouds isn’t peanut butter? I’m not clowning you, ‘tart, but if you don’t accept that the world is a sphere, then why accept anything that has been ostensibly discovered about the universe?

[Softball Bat]

I believe the Bible is accurate, and the moon is in the firmament.

[Jay in Phoenix]

So...you can look up in the sky and see the moon. Clearly.

Yet where exactly is the firmament that supports it? Where is all that water that it's filled with? Why is it not visible?

The obvious answer is that it doesn't exist and you cannot prove it does. But the ISS is up there. In space. With living people on board. As is the moon, the Earth, the planets, the stars and all the rest of the universe.

These can all be seen and proven to exist. A telescope would be your friend.

The Bible is just confusing you.

[Softball Bat]

So...you can look up in the sky and see the moon. Clearly.

Yet where exactly is the firmament that supports it? Where is all that water that it's filled with? Why is it not visible?

The obvious answer is that it doesn't exist and you cannot prove it does. But the ISS is up there. In space. With living people on board. As is the moon, the Earth, the planets, the stars and all the rest of the universe.

These can all be seen and proven to exist. A telescope would be your friend.

The Bible is just confusing you.

The moon, "planets," stars, and all "the rest of the universe" are up there.
Yep.

I don't doubt that there is an "ISS" of some sort circuiting around up in the sky,
No people are on it.
They could never survive on it.
You clearly have never given much thought to it at all.

It isn't in space.
Where is the video of it going up there?

Does not exist.


The Bible does not say that waters are in the firmament.
It says waters are above the firmament.

What is the moon, exactly?
I don't know.

What is the firmament made of (if there is a firmament)?
I don't claim to know.

[Dinsdale]

It just gets better.

There's no way that water can adhere to a spinning ball, but air can support water suspended above the Firmament.

You truly don't have the ability to grasp just how stupid you sound.

[Jay in Phoenix]

pops, why could people NOT survive on the ISS? They have oxygen, food, medical supplies that are good for months and months, which get renewed by other missions going up to the ISS. What is so impossible here?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

pops, why could people NOT survive on the ISS? They have oxygen, food, medical supplies that are good for months and months, which get renewed by other missions going up to the ISS. What is so impossible here?

Radiation* on prolonged deployments, for one thing.
I'm not making 'tart's case...just saying.


*Radiation. The majority of which is deflected away by Earth's magnetic field (see: Van Allen Belt)

[Softball Bat]

There's no way that water can adhere to a spinning ball, but air can support water suspended above the Firmament.

Who said it is air that is supporting the water?

Oh, you.




Btw, stupid...

I see you're still struggling with junior high math. And no, it's the opposite of "fact."

It's been explained to you over and over again. Your math teachers obviously knew you were an idiot, so didn't bother to teach you the basics. And everyone here knows you're an idiot, too.


Go back and read Goob's link again.

http://embracetheball.blogspot.com/2016 ... uared.html

He does a great job explain why you're a fucking idiot, with no math knowledge whatsoever, you flaming fucking tard.

This is one of the greatest self-ass-kickings of all time.

This link that you've now posted two times (and used to call me an idiot) pimps this link ---> https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial <--- for calculating the earth curvature correctly.

Yes, the very link that I have posted and referenced dozens of times, and which Dinsdale has repeatedly insisted is incorrect.

LMAO x a million!






OMG...

Too damn funny!

And if you want to post space pics, then I'll ask you to show me a video of a rocket going from land to space.

After your self-plungering was exposed for all to see, you're still in here running your mouth at me?





Did you not watch your rocket video, or what?

The feed cuts at 1:29.
The cut is there for everyone to see.

At 1:37 they start another video.


#fail





No surprise, of course.

BEATINGS!
OUCH!

Despite this humiliation, he will undoubtedly roll back and in and tell me that I am the stupid one.

It's how the globetards (like he, Jay, and Dinsdale) generally roll.

Yep.

[Softball Bat]

pops, why could people NOT survive on the ISS? They have oxygen, food, medical supplies that are good for months and months, which get renewed by other missions going up to the ISS. What is so impossible here?

1. There is no video of a rocket ever going up to the ISS. Hence, nobody is up there.


2. The could not assemble the thing up there in space so that it is air-tight and able to function. In space suits, on cords, with bulky gloves on, they got everything sealed up just perfectly? Do you know anything about construction?

LMAO!


Not.
Absolutely not.

I have this thing called a brain.


3. Dude, they need a machine shop. There are a multitude of things that quite easily would be needing PRECISE repair -- or people DIE, which they obviously would.

Not only do they not have a machine shop, they never even need to bring the entire craft down to the ground for maintenance.
lol

The entire thing is far beyond ridiculous.

Turn on your damn brain, boy.



Children believe such nonsense as the ISS.




#wow

[Softball Bat]

pops, why could people NOT survive on the ISS? They have oxygen, food, medical supplies that are good for months and months, which get renewed by other missions going up to the ISS. What is so impossible here?

Radiation* on prolonged deployments, for one thing.
I'm not making 'tart's case...just saying.


*Radiation. The majority of which is deflected away by Earth's magnetic field (see: Van Allen Belt)

You should make my case.

Or at least realistically begin thinking about this.


Be smarter.