(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

I sincerely *hope* this is a joke. But I fear it is not.

This issue was resolved about 400 years ago.

Yeah, I just figured this was just poking fun at flat earthers or something, but if not...yeeeesh.

(July 18, 2018 at 9:17 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 4:09 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Ask and ye shall receive, oh Asshat:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science...ngle-atom/


Theology isn't a science.

Boru

That  picture of the atoms is amazing

Innit, though?  Especially for something that doesn't exist...

Boru

(July 18, 2018 at 9:24 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

I sincerely *hope* this is a joke. But I fear it is not.

This issue was resolved about 400 years ago.

Haipule is too a joke.

(July 18, 2018 at 9:17 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 4:09 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Ask and ye shall receive, oh Asshat:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science...ngle-atom/


Theology isn't a science.

Boru

That  picture of the atoms is amazing

IBM Research even made an animation using individual atoms for shiggles.

1.5 minutes, enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0

(July 18, 2018 at 8:52 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 9:17 am)Tizheruk Wrote: That  picture of the atoms is amazing

IBM Research even made an animation using individual atoms for shiggles.

1.5 minutes, enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0

That was awesome 

(July 18, 2018 at 4:09 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:"Particle theory": atoms, electrons, neutrons, photons, phonons, etc, etc, etc? Show me a photograph! Oh, that's right, you can't!

Ask and ye shall receive, oh Asshat:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science...ngle-atom/

Quote:I have studied countless sciences from my own vantage point beyond anything taught in school. And that includes theology!

Theology isn't a science.

Boru

I'm still not buying. And light luminates; it does not "emit", unless you believe in photons.

Theo = God, -ology = science. It's right there in the word! However, theology is no longer the 'science of God' but has become the showcase of man's goofy ideas.

---

(July 16, 2018 at 3:33 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(July 15, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The Earth certainly can be a center of the universe.  “Center” is after all a elastic concept.  You can certainly name the earth the center by definition.   You can construct coordinate systems where the earth is always at the origin.   But if we are to use descernible attribute as oppose to arbitrary definition as basis for calling the earth the center, then we run into the problem of being unable to identify any meaningful actual attribute of the earth or of the universe that clearly makes the earth distinctly and uniquely the center  of the universe.  In other words earth is unable to fit any meaningful attribute based definition of the center better than an infinite array of other candidates.

---

1. Yes.

2. That’s not the only possible way to interpret the phrase “geocentric earth”.  It could also mean “earth in a geocentric frame of reference”, or “earth in a geocentric universe”.

3. It does not require that.  The observable universe can be exactly what it is, and yet the earth is at it’s exact geometric center.  Observations do not preclude it, but they offer no evidence whatsoever for it.   The system of understanding the universe that does not give the earth a uniquely central position explains everything we’ve observed more cleanly and less contrivedly.

1. great.
2. If you think that "geocentric" means anything other than "earth centred" feel free to rewrite the OED. While you are at it, go ahead and redefine "atheist" to mean "unicorn".
3. You cannot define Earth as the centre of the universe without stars being impossibly close or travelling in excess of c. There is no middle ground on that. Unless you wish to appeal to magic, in which case all bets are off.

Technically there is no "c" because light has no "speed". Einstein? Please! Really?

How many legs are you planning to pull completely off?

(July 19, 2018 at 6:05 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: How many legs are you planning to pull completely off?

Never attribute to ordinary malice what can be explained by extraordinary ignorance and confusion.

(July 18, 2018 at 9:24 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

I sincerely *hope* this is a joke. But I fear it is not.

This issue was resolved about 400 years ago.

Math cannot explain the field modality of nature. Actually, it explains nothing because you being math minded, cannot observe nature beyond some quantified particle equation theories while ignoring the quality of a wave through a medium. 


I had to reject theology in order to understand my own observations. But, that was easy for me cause I can read the autographed language of the bible in all it's inflections that have been ignored by the clergy. They; preferring rather to be "Spirit filled", would rather continue that nonsense rather then use their brain.


Well guess what? I'm having the same problem with science and nature. Nature I am coming to understand. Just like I came to understand the bible without theological nonsense but science I must understand without quantified Einsteinisms! Because your math is useless to me! I can't read calculus!


However, what I have learned from a squirrel: your math could never explain! 


Energy moves through water(medium) known as a wave. The water does NOT move. It is a field interaction causing the water to go up and down like a piston in an engine. The energy moves through the medium of water. The water does not go forward until the energy is dissipated(breaking wave) on the reef. There are no watermatrons! 

I am a surfer and know dis da kine!


What does that have to do with squirrel tech--everything!