Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/25/2010 2:31:11 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

IF is not a real theory. Intelligent design is a scientific theory.



This is the funniest thing i have read here today.

Thanks Fellow!


He hasn't come back to hear the applause and fetch his prize, poor fuck.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/25/2010 3:32:07 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Intelligent falling is at least as much a valid scientific theory as intelligent design, I'd say more so because the theory of gravity isn't nearly as well proven as evolution.

Gravity is not a theory it being one of the natural forces we depend upon to live and evolution through natural selection has been witnessed in laboratories and is not a theory.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/25/2010 5:30:55 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

From your source: "The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation. The explanation may be mundane, such as measurement error, thrust from gas leakage or uneven radiation of heat. However, it is also possible that current physical theory does not correctly explain the behaviour of the craft relative to the sun."

I.E. it's still in analysis.

And has been for years.

Because they can't find a reason, and it flies in the face of current theories of gravity.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/25/2010 7:23:48 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline 		They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site.

The fact that they need more data, which they don't have at the  moment, doesn't void the general theory.  You saw the comment on how the anomaly doesn't show up with planets?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/25/2010 8:59:17 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site.

The fact that they need more data, which they don't have at the  moment, doesn't void the general theory.  You saw the comment on how the anomaly doesn't show up with planets?


uhhh, Thorn ... it's always the "small anomaly" that leads to a new theory ...

If gravity works in perfect accord with theory - except on Mondays - then there is something wrong with the theory.

If gravity works perfectly within the Solar System, but not outside the Solar System ... then there is something wrong with the theory.

It's always the "small inconsistencies" that lead to new theories. 

That's actually how science works.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/25/2010 9:00:50 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site.

Annually, the difference between where the crafts are suppose to end up, and where they actually do end up, is on the order of 8,000 miles.

Firm

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 7/25/2010 9:10:04 PM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/25/2010 9:05:22 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site.

The fact that they need more data, which they don't have at the  moment, doesn't void the general theory.  You saw the comment on how the anomaly doesn't show up with planets?


uhhh, Thorn ... it's always the "small anomaly" that leads to a new theory ...

If gravity works in perfect accord with theory - except on Mondays - then there is something wrong with the theory.

If gravity works perfectly within the Solar System, but not outside the Solar System ... then there is something wrong with the theory.

It's always the "small inconsistencies" that lead to new theories. 

That's actually how science works.

Firm



And that is a very good thing, doncha think? I know you do. No need to answer. Hiya doin, Firm?

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/25/2010 9:09:25 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Intelligent falling is at least as much a valid scientific theory as intelligent design, I'd say more so because the theory of gravity isn't nearly as well proven as evolution.

Gravity is not a theory it being one of the natural forces we depend upon to live and evolution through natural selection has been witnessed in laboratories and is not a theory.


I differ. Natural Selection is not a theory in the street definition and use of the term. But as a scientific model from which predictions can be made it is very much a Theory. True, it is no longer a hypothesis much in question, but a Theory (Model) it is.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 6:15:06 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
... it's always the "small anomaly" that leads to a new theory ...

If gravity works in perfect accord with theory - except on Mondays - then there is something wrong with the theory.

If gravity works perfectly within the Solar System, but not outside the Solar System ... then there is something wrong with the theory.

It's always the "small inconsistencies" that lead to new theories. 

That's actually how science works.


And that is a very good thing, doncha think? I know you do. No need to answer. Hiya doin, Firm?

Yuppers, it's a good thing.

I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem.

That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 7:00:20 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Yuppers, it's a good thing.

I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem.

That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well.

Firm



So you are saying that science is faith-based?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 9:38:54 AM   
brainiacsub


Posts: 1209
Joined: 11/11/2007
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem.

That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well.

Firm


Firm, you are likely my favorite hillbilly, but I just don't want to get into another equivocation debate with you. The knowledge I gain from scientific study is not the same as your beliefs due to your religious Faith. There are things we can know with great certainty - like gravity - because we can observe, measure, test and verify. That was my point. Your point is that we can never really be certain of anything, therefore everything we think we know is all just based on faith, putting religion on parity with science. This is a theme that runs through all of your posts and you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 9:41:20 AM   
brainiacsub


Posts: 1209
Joined: 11/11/2007
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Yuppers, it's a good thing.

I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem.

That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well.

Firm



So you are saying that science is faith-based?


Yes, he is, and after nearly 60 pages of debate between two recent threads no one was able to make a dent with him. It is what it is.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 11:50:47 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		GODS hand HERE

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 12:11:04 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The theory of intelligent falling is not strictly a parody:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBe8OgZVDg

arrigato.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 12:16:57 PM   
RedStapler


Posts: 62
Joined: 6/15/2010
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

Intelligent design is a scientific theory.


In order for something to be a scientific theory, it has to be disprovable.  If you can't disprove it, its not a scientific theory.  Its not even a scientific hypothesis.  Its pure conjecture.

ID is one possible explanation that is impossible to disprove. Therefore its not scientific.  People are free to accept it on faith if they so choose.

Personally, I support the teaching of ID.  But not in science class (because its not science).  It should get a mention in a history or civics class, as should other controversial politically-charged topics.

EDIT: Almost forgot, I think that "abstinence-only" sex education belongs only in history class too.  If kids don't learn about sex at their public school, they'll learn about it at the School of Hard Knocks (and Knock-ups).


< Message edited by RedStapler -- 7/26/2010 12:34:10 PM >

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 12:17:34 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site.

Annually, the difference between where the crafts are suppose to end up, and where they actually do end up, is on the order of 8,000 miles.

Firm

Actually you greatly exagerate the effect. Annually the pioneer spacecraft travel about 400km less than expected. The unaccounted for acceleration is roughly 8 * 10^-10 m/s^2 towards the sun.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 12:30:51 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

They're looking for an incredibly small anomaly in the theory, and the only way to shake it out is with more test data; preferably a dedicated satellite mission like they talked about on the site.

Annually, the difference between where the crafts are suppose to end up, and where they actually do end up, is on the order of 8,000 miles.

Firm

Actually you greatly exagerate the effect. Annually the pioneer spacecraft travel about 400km less than expected. The unaccounted for acceleration is roughly 8 * 10^-10 m/s^2 towards the sun.


Never heard of lateral distance, huh?

Measure the curved distance from the expected location, calculated using current theory, and then plot the actual location along the curve.  Not just the difference between the end points directly from the straight line distance from the sun.

You need to find more detailed sources.  I'm taking my info from a reference book I have on hand.

Here's a picture.  Maybe that'll help you visualize it.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 12:37:33 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I appreciate Thorn's response, but it was really brainiacsub that I was trying to get a point across to: that when someone claims to "understand it all, and willing to 'splain it to ya country bumpkins", there is likely a problem.

That attitude of absolute surety and understanding in science isn't much different than a religious person having the same attitude about their faith: and just as likely wrong as well.

Firm


Firm, you are likely my favorite hillbilly, but I just don't want to get into another equivocation debate with you. The knowledge I gain from scientific study is not the same as your beliefs due to your religious Faith. There are things we can know with great certainty - like gravity - because we can observe, measure, test and verify. That was my point. Your point is that we can never really be certain of anything, therefore everything we think we know is all just based on faith, putting religion on parity with science. This is a theme that runs through all of your posts and you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.


Expand your thinking a bit and educate yourself a bit more.

It's about epistemology, not religion.

btw ... how's your "great certainty" about gravity holding up?

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to brainiacsub)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 12:43:08 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

GODS hand HERE

Butch


An idiot doing something stupid to get an adrenaline rush is God's hand at work?

Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling - 7/26/2010 12:50:37 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKy

btw ... how's your "great certainty" about gravity holding up?

Firm



She's insane.

Who in their right mind believes in that gravity nonsense?

By the way, did you know that your screen name appears at the top of every post?

So we really don't have to see your name at the bottom to to know it was you who posted it.






< Message edited by rulemylife -- 7/26/2010 12:52:11 PM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094