Satanic Rants Against Science

[Klaplunk]

1) Mass of the Sun and Earth: If you wanted to contend these values are not accurate, it would mean that Newton's laws are not accurate. These laws are used with formulas that tell us everything from the time it takes the Earth and all the other planets to orbit the sun at their relative distances, to what altitude geosynchronous satellites need to be in order to operate.

 

F = G(m1m2/r^2)

 

So if you wanted to contend these values are guesses, you'd have to explain why they appear to be right to the extent that we have been able to use them so effectively.

 

Let's annotate this:

 

1) How do you know that the Sun and Earth don't rotate around each other simultaniously? We've never been close to the sun and from what I know we've never been passed it.

 

2) How do you know that the Sun isn't freezing cold? Have you even touched the Sun? Why can't there be an invisible ring of pixies circulating the Sun producing a wall of heat so to speak.

 

3) How do you know that the Sun is not just an illusion? It could just be a still picture in the sky, and the heat we recieve is just conjoured from thin air, or the invisible pixies in space.

 

4) Who's to tell you that the Earth has any mass at all? When you look out of your view, how do you know this isn't a figment of your imagination? From your senses you see existence, which no-one else sees, just you. You could never move an inch through your whole life, and you just think you are.

 

 

Just some questions about your questions.

 

Also, who's to say that the top of the Earth isn't in the core? You been there and checked I imagine?

[insane_alien]

1) How do you know that the Sun and Earth don't rotate around each other simultaniously? We've never been close to the sun and from what I know we've never been passed it.

 

never been close to it due to thermal considerations.

 

we have been to the 'other side' many many times.

 

as it stands the earth nad sun orbit a common bary-center.

 

2) How do you know that the Sun isn't freezing cold? Have you even touched the Sun? Why can't there be an invisible ring of pixies circulating the Sun producing a wall of heat so to speak.

 

because the heat would also go inside the sun and heat it up.

 

also, neutrino emmissions from the core are an extremely strong indicator of nuclear fusion. nuclear fusion means it's as hot as hell in there.

 

3) How do you know that the Sun is not just an illusion? It could just be a still picture in the sky, and the heat we recieve is just conjoured from thin air, or the invisible pixies in space.

 

because of occams razor. if the two scenarios are identical to the point that no test could determine the difference then you might as well just assume it exists as it'll work the same anyway.

 

4) Who's to tell you that the Earth has any mass at all? When you look out of your view, how do you know this isn't a figment of your imagination? From your senses you see existence, which no-one else sees, just you. You could never move an inch through your whole life, and you just think you are.

 

if its all an illusion then who gives a damn, as long as its a consistant illusion then our science is useful. all testing shows that its consistent.

 

Also, who's to say that the top of the Earth isn't in the core? You been there and checked I imagine?

 

you don't need to. you can just look up the definition of top and down and figure it out from there.

 

not everything requires local measurement.

[Sisyphus]

So to summarize your questions, you're asking how you know you aren't just dreaming reality? You don't. You could be dreaming, or be a brain in a jar hooked up to a computer, or be subject to the whim of some Deceiver God and his army of pixies. But we study the reality we live in and observe, which is all anyone can do. Raising objections on the grounds of possible invisible pixies gets you nowhere.

[Klaplunk]

I'm just arguing with science basically. I don't know what I'm talking about half of the time. I guess some of us just try to make life seem a bit more than a chemical bottle, or a dead end.

 

Do you believe in after life? Does science believe there is no life after death? And if so, how is it possible for science to explain death, without explaining life?

 

Last question

[padren]

Let's annotate this:

 

1) How do you know that the Sun and Earth don't rotate around each other simultaniously? We've never been close to the sun and from what I know we've never been passed it.

The movement of the other planets are not consistent with a binary Earth/Sun orbital relationship. The math is pretty complicated but it is quite reproducible.

2) How do you know that the Sun isn't freezing cold? Have you even touched the Sun? Why can't there be an invisible ring of pixies circulating the Sun producing a wall of heat so to speak.

I am not saying the sun is hot, I am saying the "hot sun theory" is inextricably interwoven with a number of other theories that, if are so flawed as to misinterpret the sun as being hot when it's cold - none of the inextricably interwoven theories would be worth anything.

 

By not worth anything - I mean they would not have produced the modern quality of life we get to enjoy.

3) How do you know that the Sun is not just an illusion? It could just be a still picture in the sky, and the heat we recieve is just conjoured from thin air, or the invisible pixies in space.

I don't. However, "sun illusion theory" doesn't tell us anything useful, where as "giant ball of hydrogen undergoing fusion" does. Our theories about the sun's processes ties into a huge range of applications, and is again inextricably interwoven with our technological society.

4) Who's to tell you that the Earth has any mass at all? When you look out of your view, how do you know this isn't a figment of your imagination? From your senses you see existence, which no-one else sees, just you. You could never move an inch through your whole life, and you just think you are.

I actually made caveats for this sort of thinking several posts ago, where I said:

The closest thing we have to proof of anything is "I think, therefore I am" and even that is an assumption, albeit a pretty decent one.

 

Illusion or not, if I drink bleach, I get sick and die.

 

Illusion or not, if I step off the roof, I fall and die.

 

Illusion or not, if I douse myself in gasoline and light a match, I burn and die.

 

 

Now... I haven't tested those theories, but they are based on scientific principles involving biology, chemistry, and physics. I also suspect they are the sort of theories that may be just a little preferable to test by inference, than direct experience.

 

 

Since I answered your questions, would you answer mine please?

Just some questions about your questions.

 

Also, who's to say that the top of the Earth isn't in the core? You been there and checked I imagine?

 

The top of the Earth isn't the core? I don't follow.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm just arguing with science basically. I don't know what I'm talking about half of the time. I guess some of us just try to make life seem a bit more than a chemical bottle, or a dead end.

 

Do you believe in after life? Does science believe there is no life after death? And if so, how is it possible for science to explain death, without explaining life?

 

Last question

 

Personally, I don't see any evidence of an after life, not that I'd expect that I would even if there is one. As far as science is concerned, it's not a question that is really scientifically testable unless someone creates a way to experiment and test the topic.

In short:

Does science believe there is no life after death? - no

Does science believe there is life after death? - no

[Klaplunk]

Well as I've been told, science bases there view from a human veiwpoint. Where the top of the earth or 'outside' would be the mantle or crust we live on. Where our houses are built etc. Who's to say, that inside the core, is space, much like the outside, but contained within whatever the core is made from. No-ones ever been inside the core; so we make a logical guess that it isn't like that; however, without evidence to say what the inside of the core looks like, we cannot make a safe judgement.

 

IF insdie the core was space, then who really is to say which side is top. We could all be living upside down, and we have no clue about it. So all of our theories and answers could only be relivant to us, rather than the universe. The universe could be a living organism; you can't proove it isn't(and never will), and you'll ALWAYS get people like me. If there wasn't people like me, you people wouldn't exist.

 

I'm well aware of "cogito ergo sum", and I know if I drink bleach I die. I also know that my body has two halves. I know the earth, if it was hit by a meteor, it would explode or just die somehow.. So does that mean the Earth has two halves too? As it dies by 'real' things the same way I do?

[padren]

Well as I've been told, science bases there view from a human veiwpoint. Where the top of the earth or 'outside' would be the mantle or crust we live on. Where our houses are built etc. Who's to say, that inside the core, is space, much like the outside, but contained within whatever the core is made from. No-ones ever been inside the core; so we make a logical guess that it isn't like that; however, without evidence to say what the inside of the core looks like, we cannot make a safe judgement.

For our calculations about the Earth's core to be that far off as to allow for it to be hollow - you must consider:

 

1) We have tracked compression waves as they have traveled through the Earth, and they are deflected by the core itself. The fluid dynamics get a little complex, but the predictions that allow plumbing to work, also say the independent calculations for the Earth's core's size are accurate.

 

2) The laws of motion do tell us the Mass of the Earth. Granted the Earth could be without mass and it's all an illusion - but if it is an illusion, it has illusionary mass, which serves the exact same purpose as mass.

 

If the Earth was hollow, the moon would be getting farther away at a faster rate, and gravity would be less than 1g applying F = 9.8m/s^2 on it's surface.

 

More importantly, if it was hollow and it still applied 1g applying F = 9.8m/s^2 on it's surface.... we'd be completely screwed as every satellite we've ever launched would have worked out due to sheer luck alone, due to some incredible statistical anomaly and 99.999% of future launches would likely fail.

 

IF insdie the core was space, then who really is to say which side is top. We could all be living upside down, and we have no clue about it. So all of our theories and answers could only be relivant to us, rather than the universe. The universe could be a living organism; you can't proove it isn't(and never will), and you'll ALWAYS get people like me. If there wasn't people like me, you people wouldn't exist.

If it wasn't for people like us, people like you would have died of cholera a very long time ago.

 

I did wonder not long ago about, if I wear my pants inside out, if that means "I have the entire rest of the universe in my pants" or not. Of course, that's just a human construction of what "inside" and "outside" mean.

 

Anyway, for your concept of inside/out world to work, you pretty much need 99% of physics to work exactly like it does, but to not work in special cases that somehow don't impact the rest of the cases.

 

We have not seen any indications of special case scenarios - in fact, physics is incredibly simple, and creates complexity because of just how widely it effects everything over time, iteratively.

 

Btw: I didn't say the Universe isn't an organism - I said there is no evidence that it is an organism. There is a pretty big difference, nor am I concerned with the question of whether it is an organism.

I'm well aware of "cogito ergo sum", and I know if I drink bleach I die. I also know that my body has two halves. I know the earth, if it was hit by a meteor, it would explode or just die somehow.. So does that mean the Earth has two halves too? As it dies by 'real' things the same way I do?

 

How do you know if you drink bleach that you'll die? Have you tested it? (I do not recommend testing it of course)

Have you witnessed anyone dying from the consumption of bleach? What if I were to tell you that the effects of bleach are based on astrological signs, and that in your case it would make you super strong? If that's just my opinion my "guess" is as good as your "guess" by your own logic.

 

Why would you want to be enslaved by your narrow "humanity's rules" concerning bleach? Why would you be so close minded? Why the linear thinking?

[ydoaPs]

I have never understood the phenomenon of wearing one's ignorance as a badge of honor.

 

swansont, how do you come up with all these awesome quotes?

[Phi for All]

I also know that my body has two halves.

Upper and lower? Right and left? Inner and outer?! How can you call them "halves" when they aren't equal? Please explain what you mean by, "my body has two halves".

 

I know the earth, if it was hit by a meteor, it would explode or just die somehow..

Earth has been hit many times by meteors. It would have to be a meteor much larger than anything that has hit us in the last 4.5 billion years to destroy the earth.

 

So does that mean the Earth has two halves too? As it dies by 'real' things the same way I do?

This sounds like an association fallacy.

[Klaplunk]

I don't think I'm above any of you, I'm just sitting here as an equal. I think it's you who considered honor. I'm not the one caring about forum +reps or member of the month award. I'm far gone from the attention seeking stages.

 

Why do we strive to find new technology or travel space? Shouldn't we care more for the people on Earth, and Earth itself. We treat life as a budding flower, or a complete flower, that is growing every second; rather than a flower that is dying.

 

Shouldn't it be the opposite? Where we would just take care of our planet, and live how nature intended? Who knows what nature intended? Do you think it meant for us to steal Oil and other precious resources from other countries? And use gold and currency/power - instead of the hearts and minds of human beings being the main factor of power and respect? It seems that we are doing the opposite of what nature intended, so wouldn't we be getting the opposite answers of what we're looking for? We're not in control of the universe, we're in control of ourselves.

 

And again, no-ones ever been inside the core. It could contain space, you're opinion is just as valid as mine. The same where I believe God is real and you don't (I think?). I think the universe Grew, and we skip that part, by immediately creating an imaginary 'Big Bang'. So we see creation in a adult view, rather than the child that proceeded it.

 

I disagree totally with the way life is at the moment; I think there will be wars in the immediate future; a civil war in America - heck, I even believe Obama is the antichrist. I would much prefer to be living in the world we were promised, rather than the scientifically edited version -with global warming, biological warfare, cloning, synthetic life, technology, etc. Don't get me wrong, I do love the internet; and I enjoy using the technology given - that's because it's here and if I didn't accept it then life would be pretty dull. I am also given rules to live by - I can't just go outside and kill someone for food, or proove that I am the alpha male by being intelligent/strong willed; for that I would have to live by these rules and cheat my way to the top, by using money. If the world ended in 2012... Personally, I would be happy.

[ydoaPs]

And again, no-ones ever been inside the core. It could contain space, you're opinion is just as valid as mine.

 

Not at all; Evidence trumps opinion.

[Klaplunk]

Upper and lower? Right and left? How can you call them "halves" when they aren't equal? Please explain what you mean by, "my body has two halves".

 

Earth has been hit many times by meteors. It would have to be a meteor much larger than anything that has hit us in the last 4.5 billion years to destroy the earth.

 

This sounds like an association fallacy.

 

We have 2 opposite halves... A front/back, and top/bottom.

 

2 hands, 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 feet, 2 hands, 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 ears, 2 nipples, a mouth that connects at 2 halves, a penis that connects at 2 halves.

 

Is it just a coincedence that my mouth is at the bottom of my face, it connects at two halves (not a duality like my eyes, nostrils, etc) and I use it to eat, survive. I can live without sight, hearing, smell - but I can't live without eating.

 

Then the penis, at the bottom of my body, and it connects at 2 halves (not duality like my arms, nipples/chest, legs) and is required for my genes to survive, I can't breed without my penis.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not at all; Evidence trumps opinion.

 

Your evidence is opinion. You've made a judgement, that's not evidence, that's creating evidence from previous evidence, and 90% of that previous evidence is from previous evidence you created, from judging. Until you've been inside the core, you cannot tell me that your opinion is any better than mine.

[ydoaPs]

Your evidence is opinion. You've made a judgement, that's not evidence, that's creating evidence from previous evidence, and 90% of that previous evidence is from previous evidence you created, from judging. Until you've been inside the core, you cannot tell me that your opinion is any better than mine.

 

You should go study. There's no way you're passing your Philosophy of Science course.

[swansont]

swansont, how do you come up with all these awesome quotes?

 

It's one of the side-effects of being awesome.

[Klaplunk]

That's not an answer, nor proof, as to why you're correct and I am not. That's a witty/self-absorbed insult. It's pretty obvious that you believe yourself to be a good debater, that's fine - I benefit from this information, as I now know what type of person you are, using this evidence I can safely say you are a narcissist, maybe even suffering from NPD; so I'm at the stage where I'm truly wondering whether there's any point arguing with you, as you will always clarify that your opinion is solid evidence, and mine is rubbish.

 

You cannot concieve the core of the earth to be something, if you have not tested it. Philiosophy of the Mind by the way, and I'm predicted distinction - however they could be wrong, I may just pass with a merit, that's how life goes. Us philosiphers consdier both sides of the argument, we never just assume something as fact without 100% proof.

[padren]

Can you please tell me why you are not open minded with regards to the theory that drinking bleach makes you stronger? I mean, we've all been told not to drink it for so long I don't think I've ever known anyone who has, nor do I know anyone who knows anyone who has.

 

You said you "know it will kill you" but I don't understand what you are basing that knowledge on. I am genuinely curious.

[Klaplunk]

Can you please tell me why you are not open minded with regards to the theory that drinking bleach makes you stronger? I mean, we've all been told not to drink it for so long I don't think I've ever known anyone who has, nor do I know anyone who knows anyone who has.

 

You said you "know it will kill you" but I don't understand what you are basing that knowledge on. I am genuinely curious.

 

Other people have done it; and failed obviously.

Have other people been to the core?

[Phi for All]

We have 2 opposite halves... A front/back, and top/bottom.

 

2 hands, 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 feet, 2 hands, 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 ears, 2 nipples, a mouth that connects at 2 halves, a penis that connects at 2 halves.

 

Is it just a coincedence that my mouth is at the bottom of my face, it connects at two halves (not a duality like my eyes, nostrils, etc) and I use it to eat, survive. I can live without sight, hearing, smell - but I can't live without eating.

 

Then the penis, at the bottom of my body, and it connects at 2 halves (not duality like my arms, nipples/chest, legs) and is required for my genes to survive, I can't breed without my penis.

What about people born without a hand or a foot? What about the heart, the liver, the spleen and other organs you have only one of, that are located on a specific side of the body?

 

You say you can't live without eating but you also can't live without a heart, so your observation is flawed.

[Moontanman]

I've drank bleach before and I'm not only here but too cool for school as well....

[Sisyphus]

 

You cannot concieve the core of the earth to be something, if you have not tested it.

 

We have tested it. We've also tested gravity, which makes a hollow Earth impossible.

 

Us philosiphers consdier both sides of the argument, we never just assume something as fact without 100% proof.

 

1) You are not a philosopher.

2) 100% proof of anything is impossible.

3) The lack of 100% proof does not mean that all options are equally likely or all arguments equally valid (else there would be no point in "considering" anything).

4) Your opinion is demonstrably false, insofar as anything is demonstrably anything.

[ydoaPs]

That's a witty/self-absorbed insult.

No it's not, and my opinion is just as valid as yours.

[Klaplunk]

What about people born without a hand or a foot? What about the heart, the liver, the spleen and other organs you have only one of, that are located on a specific side of the body?

 

You say you can't live without eating but you also can't live without a heart, so your observation is flawed.

 

That supports my observation, because the heart is in the center of our body, and the brain is in the center of our head.

 

Also, people born with one foot, still have the exact same structure; it's not like they were meant to have 1 foot; that's why they are considered 'deformed'. Can a person born with 1 lung have a lung transplant?

 

You must have NPD if you cannot see this obvious factor of life. Go look in the mirror, you psycho.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No it's not, and my opinion is just as valid as yours.

 

I never said it wasn't.

[padren]

Other people have done it; and failed obviously.

Have other people been to the core?

 

Who has? I can't think of a single person who has. You say they've tried and failed, obviously, but have you ever witnessed anyone?

 

What observations did you make that brought you to that conclusion?

 

 

 

Btw, I'm not trying to hound you or being facetious, I am genuinely interested in your answers.

[ydoaPs]

I never said it wasn't.

 

Yes you did, and my opinion is just as valid as yours.

[Klaplunk]

We have tested it. We've also tested gravity, which makes a hollow Earth impossible.

 

 

 

1) You are not a philosopher.

2) 100% proof of anything is impossible.

3) The lack of 100% proof does not mean that all options are equally likely or all arguments equally valid (else there would be no point in "considering" anything).

4) Your opinion is demonstrably false, insofar as anything is demonstrably anything.

 

I have 100% proof that every human is meant to be born with 2 opposites halves. I also have 100% proof that every human has a tailbone/naval, unless deformed, which is through reproduction and DNA editing along the way.

 

That's 100% proof.

 

Again, no, you haven't tested the core. You just lied in front of everyone, how do you feel? Since when were we touching the core; as far as I know it's miles underneath solid rock; we have not got the technology to reach it. Also, we haven't examined other cores, so we have nothing to compare it to. You've tested it's actions, what the core is producing, nothing else.

 

"1) You are not a philosopher."

I will be.

 

1) You are not correct

You will never be.