RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling

RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

RedStapler -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 12:58:50 PM)
quote: It's about epistemology, not religion. The scientific method requires that all theories are subject to being called into question. That doesn't make these theories any less useful. In fact, much of the strength of science comes from this process of constantly questioning and testing existing theory, in order to either solidify or expand scientific knowledge. I suppose that the same could be said of faith. After questioning and testing faith, if that faith survives, then it will be stronger than ever. However, some people are VERY afraid that this will result in faith not surviving. Fundamentalists tend to completely forbid any questioning of faith for this reason. Science is excited by the prospect of failure, because that is causes science to grow. With gravity, this is how we got from Newton to Einstein, and I believe Einstein will eventually be replaced by someone who can get gravity right at the quantum scale. Religion tends to be terrified because the fundamentals are supposed to be eternal and unchanging. Hence skepticism is the essence of scientific epistemology, while it is usually discouraged in religion.

brainiacsub -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 1:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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 You have never made a sound epistemological argument for your Faith. You have only engaged in equivocation and other logical fallacies. It is your thinking and education that is lacking, not mine. As for my "certainty" in gravity, I sure hope that I am wrong. In ten years I'd prefer that my tits not sag. Maybe I should pray for a miracle?

vincentML -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 1:06:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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 You have never made a sound epistemological argument for your Faith. You have only engaged in equivocation and other logical fallacies. It is your thinking and education that is lacking, not mine. As for my "certainty" in gravity, I sure hope that I am wrong. In ten years I'd prefer that my tits not sag. Maybe I should pray for a miracle? OMFG!!! Group prayer everyone! [:D]

rulemylife -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 1:09:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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 You have never made a sound epistemological argument for your Faith. You have only engaged in equivocation and other logical fallacies. It is your thinking and education that is lacking, not mine. As for my "certainty" in gravity, I sure hope that I am wrong. In ten years I'd prefer that my tits not sag. Maybe I should pray for a miracle? I would prefer your tits not to sag too, but just in case can we get a picture of them now in their non-sagging state?

brainiacsub -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 1:15:51 PM)
No.

DomKen -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 1:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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 Source for the acceleration http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3686 I'm sure you can do the math (distance traveled under constant acceleration is 1/2(accel * (time)^2) ) which comes out to right around 400km year.

Jeffff -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 2:10:50 PM)
10 years? I admire your optomism!..:)

thishereboi -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 2:13:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff 10 years? I admire your optomism!..:) And you could have admired a lot more if she hadn't answered no to the pics question.

brainiacsub -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 2:24:09 PM)
LOL...you to kill me...the ansur is stil NO <misspelling intentional so Jeff could read it>

Jeffff -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 2:26:32 PM)
Has anyone ever pondered injecting breasts with helium?

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 6:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKy btw ... how's your "great certainty" about gravity holding up? 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. She's insane. I don't think she is insane, just overly confident that she knows more than she actually does. Who in their right mind believes in that gravity nonsense? I believe in gravity. Don't you? She claims to understand it. I was just pointing out that perhaps her "belief" and "understanding" of "the facts" about gravity aren't quite as solid and unassailable as she thinks. I don't think she's stupid. I actually think she's quite bright, and when she realizes how little certainty there is in the universe, she'll be much wiser. On the other hand, you haven't often displayed enough creditability to rate an invite to the discussion. By the way, did you know that your screen name appears at the top of every post? Yes, I am aware of that. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 6:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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. Source for the acceleration http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3686 I'm sure you can do the math (distance traveled under constant acceleration is 1/2(accel * (time)^2) ) which comes out to right around 400km year. You didn't look at the pretty picture, nor actually read what I wrote (other than looking for a supposed "gotcha"), didja, DK? Are you arguing that there is no anomaly? No, that can't be it, because you source a page that acknowledges it. So, I can only assume, you wish to derail, and practice your tired old attempts at besmirchment without actually addressing the issue. The truth is, it's immaterial if it's 400 km, 8,000 miles, a quarter of an inch or a light year. You are just arguing at the edges, trying to demonstrate your "superior intellect", while actually just exposing your emotional weakness and intellectual inferiority. Go fish. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 6:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKy btw ... how's your "great certainty" about gravity holding up? 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. She's insane. I don't think she is insane, just overly confident that she knows more than she actually does. Who in their right mind believes in that gravity nonsense? I believe in gravity. Don't you? She claims to understand it. I was just pointing out that perhaps her "belief" and "understanding" of "the facts" about gravity aren't quite as solid and unassailable as she thinks. I don't think she's stupid. I actually think she's quite bright, and when she realizes how little certainty there is in the universe, she'll be much wiser. On the other hand, you haven't often displayed enough creditability to rate an invite to the discussion. By the way, did you know that your screen name appears at the top of every post? Yes, I am aware of that. Firm Is your sarcasm meter broken?

rulemylife -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 6:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub No. Okay, how about in a bikini?

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 6:53:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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? You have never made a sound epistemological argument for your Faith. You have only engaged in equivocation and other logical fallacies. It is your thinking and education that is lacking, not mine. As for my "certainty" in gravity, I sure hope that I am wrong. In ten years I'd prefer that my tits not sag. Maybe I should pray for a miracle? You have never made a sound epistemological argument for your Faith. And I likely never will on these forums. That doesn't mean that I don't have one. You have only engaged in equivocation and other logical fallacies. Quite the contrary. I simply point out that the smug sense of righteousness and certainty that some anti-religious people have, is functionally the same as that of the smug attitude of righteousness and certainty that some faith-based people have. "Equivocation" and "logical fallacies" that you suppose I perform are actually an adherence to a stricter thinking process, not allowing such people and posters to twist the very scientific method they claim to use, in order to serve their own biases and desires, rather than "reality". As for my "certainty" in gravity, I sure hope that I am wrong. This post of yours ... quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Julia, this is a ridiculous post. Physicists know EXACTLY how gravity works. I can explain it to you if you like, and I'm not talking any of this Newtonian "gravitational pull is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them" crap. I mean I will tell you exactly why the apple falls from the tree and you are welcome to fact check it till your heart's content. ... started my comments. Is this now your admission that perhaps the statement:"physicists know EXACTLY how gravity works"? might not be completely accurate? If so, then I think you owe Julia an apology. Let your conscience be your guide. In ten years I'd prefer that my tits not sag. Maybe I should pray for a miracle? Dunno. That's between you and your plastic surgeon. Or your lay scientist of choice. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 6:58:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Is your sarcasm meter broken? No. Is yours? Firm

thornhappy -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 8:00:16 PM)
What, in your book, makes someone "anti religion"? Opposing the teaching of creationism (ID's just creationism dressed up a little bit) in a science class in the secondary schools?

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 8:34:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy What, in your book, makes someone "anti religion"? Opposing the teaching of creationism (ID's just creationism dressed up a little bit) in a science class in the secondary schools? I can give you names. I'm not supporting Intelligent Design. I think it's a bad choice for religious based people to do so as well. Firm

kdsub -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 8:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife 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? Rule Rule lighten up... I was going along with the fun on Intelligent falling... The video was for your enjoyment. I enjoyed it hope you did too. I was not trying to say anything. Butch

DomKen -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/26/2010 8:46:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY 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. Source for the acceleration http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3686 I'm sure you can do the math (distance traveled under constant acceleration is 1/2(accel * (time)^2) ) which comes out to right around 400km year. You didn't look at the pretty picture, nor actually read what I wrote (other than looking for a supposed "gotcha"), didja, DK? Are you arguing that there is no anomaly? No, that can't be it, because you source a page that acknowledges it. So, I can only assume, you wish to derail, and practice your tired old attempts at besmirchment without actually addressing the issue. The truth is, it's immaterial if it's 400 km, 8,000 miles, a quarter of an inch or a light year. You are just arguing at the edges, trying to demonstrate your "superior intellect", while actually just exposing your emotional weakness and intellectual inferiority. Go fish. Firm You're the pedant. You get all twisted out of shape over sloppy use of language. I'm simply pointing out that you exagerated the effect by 32 fold. You also make an unwarranted leap that we don't understand some aspect of gravity based on the pioneer effect. Since the anomoly does not seem to occur to any of the outer planets or moons it is far more parsimonious to search for a cause of the acceleration on the pioneer spacecraft than it is to assume it is some exterior force we have never seen before.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875