Re: 3 Experiments You Can Do At Home that PROVE THE EARTH IS FLAT
Interesting. I believe that is roughly what Einstein said with regard to quantum physics (which I assume you believe in):
The more success the quantum mechanics has, the sillier it looks.
(Albert Einstein to Heinrich Zangger on Quantum Theory, May 20, 1912)
So obviously the perceived "stupidity" or "silliness" of an idea is no indication of its veracity, just an indication of the limits of the mental models of the perceiver.
"scientific blasphemy"... now there's a novel concept! 
I was under the - obviously false - impression that the scientific method used empirical observation to test the prediction of falsifiable theories against the observed outcomes, as explained by Popper, Logik der Forschung, 1934. OK, the English version only came out 25 years later (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959) but that's still plenty of time for the library in a backwater Uni to pick one up. If you can't be bothered with reading anymore (after all, you already know The Truth), here's something a bit easier to digest:
Richard Feynman on the scientific method
But you seem to be accusing us of deviating from scientific dogma? Cute. I'm happy that believers in the True Scientific Dogma like yourself don't have the power to burn blasphemers at the stake... because that's exactly the kind of ignorant, dogmatic position that got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake for suggesting a radically different model of how the world works - one that contradicted the prevalent dogma of the day. Judging from your shout of "scientific blasphemy", you would have been standing in the frenzied crowd, applauding this blasphemer's death.

Please do yourself and the world the favor of stepping back and thinking about it for a second. It's this kind of "absolute, unshakable certainty" that you know The Truth that causes most of the atrocities in the world.
You believe in your "physics" mostly because of stuff you learn in books - only a very tiny fraction of which you have actually observed first-hand in experiments. How is that any more certain than our position of believing in the Bible?
Well... I would have expected a physicist in training to be at least familiar with the sci.physics crackpot index, on which you have just gained 10 crackpot points:
"10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity."
Don't "explain" how they make sense in your mental model, that is of no predictive value whatsoever. If you can, we invite you to go ahead and disprove them with first-hand, observable evidence. Anything that is not first-hand observable, then we just have a discussion on whose book is better. And we know who will win that:
Deut.32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
In any case - you cannot say that this "stuff has been KNOWN", you can only say these things have been BELIEVED at various times for over
200 years.... But hold on..."200 years"? Wow. Don't they teach you anything about the history of your science in your physics program?
Giordano Bruno was burned at the Stake in 1600 for the blasphemous heliocentric world view
Aristarchus of Samos calculated the circumference of the earth ca. 270 BC
Philolaus of Pythagoras rejected the Geocentric world view ca. 390 BC
That's 2400 years, so you were off by a whole order of magnitude... not a problem unless you are building something big which might kill people. And in any case still a trivial error in contrast to you rejecting the word of GOD on these matters!
But I digress. In order to KNOW something you would need to observe it first-hand, and I think I can safely presume you have not been into space to see the beautiful flat earth with your own eyes (likely nobody has, this is another discussion).
I hope they at least taught you that science can never be certain any of its theories are correct. It can only identify those which are wrong through falsification. Go read your Popper (and Ockham, and...).
Look - I don't have a problem with physics, chemistry or engineering. I do have a problem with Physicists-in-Training who lack a basic understanding of their own discipline and spew nonsense like "scientific blasphemy", without any empirical evidence whatsoever. 
Congratulations! 
You have earned another 140 crackpot points according to your own discipline's the sci.physics crackpot index:
"5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards)."
This brings you to a total of 150 points - and into good company with many other pseudo-physicist cranks out there. I would venture that if you were as certain of the correctness of your world view as you claim, you would be shouting much less and instead engage in rational dialogue.
You know - even your scientific colleagues tell us that we are right... you guys tend to be fond of Ockham's Razor, oft stated like this:
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate,
“Plurality must never be posited without necessity"
What you guys typically fail to mention is that for William of Ockham the minimal necessary entity was GOD, everything else was contingent on God.

So we don't need any other certainty - we have the WORD of GOD in the KJV of the Bible. We only need this one, true source - and we will wait patiently until you physicists with your trial-and-error scientific method crawl your way towards the certain knowledge that we already hold.
You do recall that trying to gain too much knowledge was the way we got into this whole mess in the first place?
Gen.2:9,17 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [...] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Amen, brother, I hope you still find the light!
Alvin
PS: You will need to do way better at putting forward your position than shouting "scientific blasphemy" if you wish to convince any rational person.
Originally posted by thelordsdeepinsideme
View Post
The more success the quantum mechanics has, the sillier it looks.
(Albert Einstein to Heinrich Zangger on Quantum Theory, May 20, 1912)
So obviously the perceived "stupidity" or "silliness" of an idea is no indication of its veracity, just an indication of the limits of the mental models of the perceiver.

Originally posted by thelordsdeepinsideme
View Post

I was under the - obviously false - impression that the scientific method used empirical observation to test the prediction of falsifiable theories against the observed outcomes, as explained by Popper, Logik der Forschung, 1934. OK, the English version only came out 25 years later (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959) but that's still plenty of time for the library in a backwater Uni to pick one up. If you can't be bothered with reading anymore (after all, you already know The Truth), here's something a bit easier to digest:
Richard Feynman on the scientific method
But you seem to be accusing us of deviating from scientific dogma? Cute. I'm happy that believers in the True Scientific Dogma like yourself don't have the power to burn blasphemers at the stake... because that's exactly the kind of ignorant, dogmatic position that got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake for suggesting a radically different model of how the world works - one that contradicted the prevalent dogma of the day. Judging from your shout of "scientific blasphemy", you would have been standing in the frenzied crowd, applauding this blasphemer's death.


Please do yourself and the world the favor of stepping back and thinking about it for a second. It's this kind of "absolute, unshakable certainty" that you know The Truth that causes most of the atrocities in the world.

You believe in your "physics" mostly because of stuff you learn in books - only a very tiny fraction of which you have actually observed first-hand in experiments. How is that any more certain than our position of believing in the Bible?
Originally posted by thelordsdeepinsideme
View Post
"10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity."

Originally posted by thelordsdeepinsideme
View Post
Deut.32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
In any case - you cannot say that this "stuff has been KNOWN", you can only say these things have been BELIEVED at various times for over
200 years.... But hold on..."200 years"? Wow. Don't they teach you anything about the history of your science in your physics program?
Giordano Bruno was burned at the Stake in 1600 for the blasphemous heliocentric world view
Aristarchus of Samos calculated the circumference of the earth ca. 270 BC
Philolaus of Pythagoras rejected the Geocentric world view ca. 390 BC
That's 2400 years, so you were off by a whole order of magnitude... not a problem unless you are building something big which might kill people. And in any case still a trivial error in contrast to you rejecting the word of GOD on these matters!

But I digress. In order to KNOW something you would need to observe it first-hand, and I think I can safely presume you have not been into space to see the beautiful flat earth with your own eyes (likely nobody has, this is another discussion).
I hope they at least taught you that science can never be certain any of its theories are correct. It can only identify those which are wrong through falsification. Go read your Popper (and Ockham, and...).
Originally posted by thelordsdeepinsideme
View Post

Originally posted by thelordsdeepinsideme
View Post

You have earned another 140 crackpot points according to your own discipline's the sci.physics crackpot index:
"5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards)."
This brings you to a total of 150 points - and into good company with many other pseudo-physicist cranks out there. I would venture that if you were as certain of the correctness of your world view as you claim, you would be shouting much less and instead engage in rational dialogue.

You know - even your scientific colleagues tell us that we are right... you guys tend to be fond of Ockham's Razor, oft stated like this:
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate,
“Plurality must never be posited without necessity"
What you guys typically fail to mention is that for William of Ockham the minimal necessary entity was GOD, everything else was contingent on God.

So we don't need any other certainty - we have the WORD of GOD in the KJV of the Bible. We only need this one, true source - and we will wait patiently until you physicists with your trial-and-error scientific method crawl your way towards the certain knowledge that we already hold.
You do recall that trying to gain too much knowledge was the way we got into this whole mess in the first place?
Gen.2:9,17 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [...] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Amen, brother, I hope you still find the light!
Alvin
PS: You will need to do way better at putting forward your position than shouting "scientific blasphemy" if you wish to convince any rational person.
Comment