Governance of Earth's Rotation--A Strict Measurement

[B. John Jones]

It really isn't. Free-form, that is. Looking at Saturn through a telescope is a neat experience IMO, and a doorway to science, but it isn't science all by itself.

 

 

Because this is a science site, and preaching is against the rules you agreed to follow when you joined.

 

Do you have I url for that rule? I wasn't able to locate it and I need your definition of preaching. My own definition of preaching is proclaiming something to masses of people, as did Jesus, or Stephen. From my perspective I'm discussing nature, in material terms, which include spiritual, with reference to scientific terms.

[Strange]

From my perspective I'm discussing nature, in material terms, which include spiritual, with reference to scientific terms.

 

You are not discussing in scientific terms when you admit that the thing you are discussing cannot be proved or disproved.

[B. John Jones]

 

That is rather obvious.

 

 

That is quite plainly wrong. All modern technology, from the computer you are using, to cures for cancer, to your favourite display technology, arise from rigorous application of the scientific process, not from intuition.

 

People have been using intuition for millennia to treat disease, for example. And they were largely unsuccessful. It is only with the advent of the scientific method that great leaps were made in healthcare, agriculture and every other aspect of life.

 

You are right. Plumbing, for example, a very modern technology, arose from a rigorous application of the scientific process (the margin of your error being in your exclusion of intuition from that process).

 

The quack doctors weren't using intuition. That was sheer animal instinct. Intuition tempers fact with insight and spontaneous judgment. It's not guesswork. Herbal remedies and nutritional expertise are quite scientific and intuitive at once--largely established on objective long-term studies and observation, seldom endorsed by science, except usually with extreme, cost-ineffective monetary commitments.

[Strange]

You are right. Plumbing, for example, a very modern technology, arose from a rigorous application of the scientific process (the margin of your error being in your exclusion of intuition from that process).

 

Plumbing is a very ancient technology, so it doesn't seem relevant as a counter example.

 

 

 

The quack doctors weren't using intuition. That was sheer animal instinct. Intuition tempers fact with insight and spontaneous judgment.

 

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Well done.

 

And, as I never mentioned "quack doctors" you get a free Strawman fallacy. Congratulations.

 

 

It's not guesswork. Herbal remedies and nutritional expertise are quite scientific and intuitive at once--largely established on objective long-term studies and observation, seldom endorsed by science, except usually with extreme, cost-ineffective monetary commitments.

 

Some herbal remedies work (to some extent) and most don't. Some are positively dangerous. The way we know which ones work and which don't is, as you say through "objective long-term studies and observation", in other words: science.

 

As someone said, "you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine".

Edited June 15, 2016 by Strange

[B. John Jones]

 

You are not discussing in scientific terms when you admit that the thing you are discussing cannot be proved or disproved.

 

Okay, prove to me, within the hour, that the sun will shine approximately where it is now shining 24-hours from now, and that the universe will not be closed up by that time. Or else prove to me that the sun has tended to shine approximately where it has from day to day, without the universe closing up. You could do the latter, or attempt to do the former, both in scientific terms, and still admit that the former cannot be proven.

[Strange]

 

Okay, prove to me, within the hour, that the sun will shine approximately where it is now shining 24-hours from now, and that the universe will not be closed up by that time. Or else prove to me that the sun has tended to shine approximately where it has from day to day, without the universe closing up. You could do the latter, or attempt to do the former, both in scientific terms, and still admit that the former cannot be proven.

 

 

This is not very meaningful. (Putting it very politely.)

 

We can (and do) predict the motions of the planets and so we know where the sun will be in 24 hours.

 

As there is no evidence that the universe will end in the next 24 hours, that suggestion has nothing to do with science.

[B. John Jones]

 

Plumbing is a very ancient technology, so it doesn't seem relevant as a counter example.

 

Some herbal remedies work (to some extent) and most don't. Some are positively dangerous. The way we know which ones work and which don't is, as you say through "objective long-term studies and observation", in other words: science.

 

As someone said, "you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine".

 

"Ancient," by modern scientific standards is at least millions of years though. I doubt that plumbing is "ancient."

 

I'll at least credit your fallacy charges as being somewhat eloquent and entertaining.

 

Herbal remedies rarely work independently of a generally good approach to foods in general, including herbs (seasonings, teas, etc.).

 

Medicine works as effectively as casts and crutches--as supports while nature performs her superior works. "Medicine" never cures disease. Medicine is very good for treating disease and injury. Only extra-human intelligence cures disease.

[DrP]

The sun rising? - It has done so up to now, so why would we think any different?

 

Also, just because an old book says something and people, out of fear or whatever other spurious reason, believe it, what makes you believe it when there is so much evidence to show that the book is clearly wrong in so many places? It is clearly a work of fiction or just a plain and simple lie.

 

Also, I have an 'ancient' coin, from an ancient civilization - it is nearly 2.5k years old. Were do you get your definitions from? Try a dictionary maybe?

[B. John Jones]

 

 

This is not very meaningful. (Putting it very politely.)

 

We can (and do) predict the motions of the planets and so we know where the sun will be in 24 hours.

 

As there is no evidence that the universe will end in the next 24 hours, that suggestion has nothing to do with science.

 

Your address of everything I've mentioned except the universe closing up is very artful, or perhaps tactful, or at least smart.

The sun rising? - It has done so up to now, so why would we think any different?

 

Also, just because an old book says something and people, out of fear or whatever other spurious reason, believe it, what makes you believe it when there is so much evidence to show that the book is clearly wrong in so many places? It is clearly a work of fiction or just a plain and simple lie.

 

Also, I have an 'ancient' coin, from an ancient civilization - it is nearly 2.5k years old. Were do you get your definitions from? Try a dictionary maybe?

 

Your ancient coin and ancient civilization are in terms of history. We're discussing science, which excludes history (in my experience in these forums). Since science doesn't define "ancient," it would have to be in terms of the age of human beings, at the least. So if human beings have been around millions of years then my point is clearly correct--Plumbing is very modern.

This is not very meaningful. (Putting it very politely.)

 

By the way, thank you. You are always very polite.

Edited June 15, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Prometheus]

Medicine works as effectively as casts and crutches--as supports while nature performs her superior works. "Medicine" never cures disease. Medicine is very good for treating disease and injury. Only extra-human intelligence cures disease.

 

So... aliens can cure disease but humans can't?

[Strange]

 

"Ancient," by modern scientific standards is at least millions of years though.

 

Citation needed.

 

Modern, in this context, means technology developed in the last few centuries.

 

 

I doubt that plumbing is "ancient."

 

In the context of scientific developments, it is.

 

 

Herbal remedies rarely work independently of a generally good approach to foods in general, including herbs (seasonings, teas, etc.).

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

 

 

"Medicine" never cures disease.

 

Tell that to all the people who have been cured by modern antibiotics, modern surgical techniques, cures for cancer, etc.

 

If you are going to carry on making up lies to defend your position, then it is not very surprising if your threads keep getting closed.

Your address of everything I've mentioned except the universe closing up is very artful, or perhaps tactful, or at least smart.

 

I dismissed it, as I said, because it is not science.

 

Your ancient coin and ancient civilization are in terms of history. We're discussing science, which excludes history (in my experience in these forums).

 

I never mentioned ancient coins or civilization. And science does not exclude history.

 

That is another two Strawman arguments.

[swansont]

 

Do you have I url for that rule? I wasn't able to locate it and I need your definition of preaching. My own definition of preaching is proclaiming something to masses of people, as did Jesus, or Stephen. From my perspective I'm discussing nature, in material terms, which include spiritual, with reference to scientific terms.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules (rule 2.8)

 

Preaching, from the standard definition of most dictionaries, is any religiously-themed broadcast to a group of people. A forum is where a group of people gather, so that's covered. Once you bring "a Creator of the natural world" into the discussion about science, you are probably in that territory. But you've been told this before, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

[Strange]

I would be willing to bet, that the rotation of the earth is governed strictly by the positions of the moon and the sun, relative to the earth, which could be effectively measured and determined by 2 factors: 1) the distance between the earth and the moon; and 2) the correlation of the points of the cones of darkness, above the domes of darkness, of the earth and the moon.

 

So, as the data shows this is not the case, are you now willing to admit that you have lost that bet?

 

Or are you going to carry on with the dishonest tactic of throwing more random claims around in the hope people will forget what the original point was?

[Raider5678]

BJones, the only correlation between the rotation of earth and the moon and sun, are the tides. When the gravitational pull of the moon pulls on the water on one side of the earth, that side gets high tide. That means more water goes over there, and that more mass is over there. More mass on one side affects the rotation, and the rotation is gradually slowed. That's the ONLY science that could possibly come close to proving what you claim. And about as close as the Andromeda galaxy is to the milkyway.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Again - thread locked

 

B John Jones - this mixture of guesswork, preaching, and wild assertion is UNACCEPTABLE. Read the Guidelines to the Speculations Forum and the Rules of the Forum.