|
Post by gadreel on Sept 19, 2020 1:43:10 GMT
He also, one assumes, appreciates rudeness given how often he falls back on it. Honestly, I can't figure out why any of you - FilmFlaneur, gadreel or Phludowin - even bother with Arlon. FF, you so patiently and properly address his posts, again and again, while he flies off on some tangential quasi-point. I've read quite a few of your exchanges, and he just seems like such a lost cause. Why ever do you bother with him at all? In my defence, I never bother patiently addressing his posts I just make disparaging remarks around his IQ and trundle off
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Sept 19, 2020 4:58:32 GMT
👋🏻
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 19, 2020 19:49:24 GMT
There are clear pictures of a spherical Pluto. There are no clear pictures of a Pluto that is not spherical. There are no clear pictures of a heart transplant. Try the math again, maybe you'll get next time. www.google.com/search?q=heart+transplant&sxsrf=ALeKk00vkYke99_eN8C-UVETvs7cD7F_lw:1600543896617&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8vp7T-vXrAhWMN8AKHbzyDFkQ_AUoAnoECBkQBA&biw=1600&bih=789 Photographs can be faked. But this would apply to images of Pluto as much as images of surgery. Of course there have probably been more first-hand accounts by the participants in such procedures than by those viewing distant solar objects. But as already mentioned, one is at a loss why you want this discussion at all, especially given your views on the supposed existence of what cannot be seen or evidenced, such as a proposed supernatural Cause. Yes. It is true. *cough* This is another phrase that will haunt you. Don't tell me what I believe. That is not something I would necessarily disagree with, since it is not something I have ever insisted was the case. But what I have asked you before, and which you have never answered directly, is the logical reason why something cannot exist permanently in nature at the most basic level. , Fortunately none of us rely upon you for proof of these things. It would be nice though to just have you prove, or just substantiate, the eccentric things that you yourself claim. It may also be noted that the above sentence constitutes a series of claims - something you 'don't do very much'. Is this an another example, so soon, of when you 'don't claim much'?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 19, 2020 19:52:55 GMT
He also, one assumes, appreciates rudeness given how often he falls back on it. Honestly, I can't figure out why any of you - FilmFlaneur, gadreel or Phludowin - even bother with Arlon. FF, you so patiently and properly address his posts, again and again, while he flies off on some tangential quasi-point. I've read quite a few of your exchanges, and he just seems like such a lost cause. Why ever do you bother with him at all? Everyone needs a hobby.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 19, 2020 20:05:11 GMT
The only thing that kept the old board active was the childish bickering. This board is moderated and the worst "offenders" were banned.There are some nice people on here. Deleted
Deleted Member
Is this irony?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 19, 2020 20:47:05 GMT
The only thing that kept the old board active was the childish bickering. This board is moderated and the worst "offenders" were banned.There are some nice people on here. Deleted
Deleted Member
Is this irony? He severely lacks the ability to read his own writing as if other people were reading it. That one time I had him on the phone about the first words out of his mouth were, "I'm not Bucky." Someone mentions Bucky on this board and he's right there with, "Bucky isn't here anymore." Now he's slipped away again, not unlike Dr. Miguelito Loveless on The Wild Wild West.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 19, 2020 23:36:20 GMT
There are clear pictures of a spherical Pluto. There are no clear pictures of a Pluto that is not spherical. There are no clear pictures of a heart transplant. Try the math again, maybe you'll get next time. www.google.com/search?q=heart+transplant&sxsrf=ALeKk00vkYke99_eN8C-UVETvs7cD7F_lw:1600543896617&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8vp7T-vXrAhWMN8AKHbzyDFkQ_AUoAnoECBkQBA&biw=1600&bih=789 Photographs can be faked. But this would apply to images of Pluto as much as images of surgery. Of course there have probably been more first-hand accounts by the participants in such procedures than by those viewing distant solar objects. But as already mentioned, one is at a loss why you want this discussion at all, especially given your views on the supposed existence of what cannot be seen or evidenced, such as a proposed supernatural Cause. Yes. It is true. *cough* This is another phrase that will haunt you. Don't tell me what I believe. That is not something I would necessarily disagree with, since it is not something I have ever insisted was the case. But what I have asked you before, and which you have never answered directly, is the logical reason why something cannot exist permanently in nature at the most basic level. , Fortunately none of us rely upon you for proof of these things. It would be nice though to just have you prove, or just substantiate, the eccentric things that you yourself claim. It may also be noted that the above sentence constitutes a series of claims - something you 'don't do very much'. Is this an another example, so soon, of when you 'don't claim much'? I get the impression you aren't having any fun. Maybe I should ask you a question that is more fun to answer. Then maybe you'll even try to answer. If there are celestial objects "of similar size in Pluto's orbit" why have they only been recently discovered given Pluto was discovered in 1930?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 8:05:07 GMT
He also, one assumes, appreciates rudeness given how often he falls back on it. Honestly, I can't figure out why any of you - FilmFlaneur, gadreel or Phludowin - even bother with Arlon. FF, you so patiently and properly address his posts, again and again, while he flies off on some tangential quasi-point. I've read quite a few of your exchanges, and he just seems like such a lost cause. Why ever do you bother with him at all? They bother with me here because this is the only place they (you) can call the shots. Before the internet, democracy worked much better because it had professional oversight. Now, especially on a discussion board like this, the children are in charge. They suspected all along that there were lots of people who disagreed with the story told by the professional press, and with the internet they took control of the press. Notice how you have no argument other than the children here outnumber their teachers. The internet made possible a "democracy" like never before in that there can be instantaneous responses to events, and instantaneous polls. Who knew what the lack of professional oversight would do to the picture? They would later make a "god" of science, but science is no democracy, and doesn't respond to one. You often hear lately that "most" scientists hold a specific view or the "scientific community" holds a specific view. You should know right away that such people do not have the first clue what science is. You should know they are probably wrong and trying to use their numbers (democracy) to prove they are right. You just did that. If they were right by science it would be obvious no matter how many their numbers. Notice I do not take any count of how many people agree with me. That's because I know how science actually works, and it is not by democracy. Furthermore much of the so called "science" lately promises to make every dream come true no matter how out of line it is with traditional concepts of morality. That of course is the highly speculative science "fiction" rather than actual science. When I try to point out to you that it is fiction, you just take another vote. Be careful, there are a lot of traps out there waiting for you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 8:18:26 GMT
If there are celestial objects "of similar size in Pluto's orbit" why have they only been recently discovered given Pluto was discovered in 1930?High powered telescopes and other astronomical technology not as sophisticated or even invented in 1930, however Pluto was not discovered by randomly pointing a telescope into outer space, but by observing of odd orbit patterns or Uranus and Neptune. In other words, they were specifically looking for Planet X. As more advanced means became available that include but is not limited to visual observation, then more and more planetoids and such have been discovered. from wikipedia Did you know there are Labrador Retrievers more help than you are? Did you see the TV commercial of the guy who keeps buying dog toy balls. You wonder why. Then you see every time he throws the ball the dog brings back a stick instead. That was no Labrador Retriever though. Did you know that Pluto has only completed a little more than one third of its orbit since it was discovered? Does that mean scientists can't know where the rest of the orbit is? No, of course they can know. There's math for that. While the math is "perfect," measurements are not though. That means they have a very fuzzy idea where the actual orbit is. They also have a very fuzzy idea what else might be in that orbit or why or when.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2020 11:31:02 GMT
I get the impression you aren't having any fun. If it wasn't fun I wouldn't be here. Perhaps because they weren't being looked for or merely that observations before Hubble were not up to it. Unlike yourself of course I have not been made an authority on Planetary Science. However it is a fact that a lot of smaller objects in the solar system have only been discovered in the last few decades or so - one reason for the necessary refinement in the classification of planets. I see you didn't explain why there cannot, logically, be something permanent in nature at the most elementary level. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2020 11:36:16 GMT
They would later make a "god" of science, but science is no democracy, and doesn't respond to one... I know how science actually works, and it is not by democracy. Who was it who said, just recently, "I do not claim much" ? It may be observed that much of traditional religion isn't much of a democracy either, with a supreme leader who is jealous and autocratic, working by group punishment, rarely explains himself, refuses to be judged and has yet to appear and face his critics. It is also a case of No True Scottish Science, it would appear. One suspects the reason why Arlon rails against the lack of democracy in science (as if facts were decided by plebiscite) is that it constantly fails to look to him for a vote to reassure itself.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 13:14:06 GMT
I get the impression you aren't having any fun. If it wasn't fun I wouldn't be here. Perhaps because they weren't being looked for or merely that observations before Hubble were not up to it. Unlike yourself of course I have not been made an authority on Planetary Science. However it is a fact that a lot of smaller objects in the solar system have only been discovered in the last few decades or so - one reason for the necessary refinement in the classification of planets. I see you didn't explain why there cannot, logically, be something permanent in nature at the most elementary level. Evasion noted. The facts remain that there is no theory on the origin of our solar system, planets, moons, and asteroids that isn't more full of holes than Swiss Cheese. I know you'd rather not think about that, since it challenges your delusions of grandeur. Take what solace you can in defending such theories as there are. How does it feel believing that, as little as you know, there is someone whom you believe knows even less? I do admire the attempts to develop theories. I would like to examine the theory that a planet's rings are brought into their order by "shepherd" moons. There might be something to that. I also suspect that is not entirely it. The truth is that no one knows.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 13:27:39 GMT
They would later make a "god" of science, but science is no democracy, and doesn't respond to one... I know how science actually works, and it is not by democracy. Who was it who said, just recently, "I do not claim much" ? It may be observed that much of traditional religion isn't much of a democracy either, with a supreme leader who is jealous and autocratic, working by group punishment, rarely explains himself, refuses to be judged and has yet to appear and face his critics. It is also a case of No True Scottish Science, it would appear. One suspects the reason why Arlon rails against the lack of democracy in science (as if facts were decided by plebiscite) is that it constantly fails to look to him for a vote to reassure itself. Neither science nor religion are supposed to be democracies. Your concept of religion is invalid either way. There is a difference between a claim and an observation. I do make many observations. "People in the South drink more iced tea" is an observation, or it can be, of data at some given time. I do "claim" that science is not a democracy, but that is not in dispute is it? If it is not in dispute then it is an observation. Do you dispute that science is not a democracy? How can it be more clear that I do not care whether anyone agrees with me? I tell the truth. If you can find it without me, then more power and the blessing of God upon you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2020 16:45:57 GMT
The facts remain that there is no theory on the origin of our solar system, planets, moons, and asteroids that isn't more full of holes than Swiss Cheese. I know you'd rather not think about that, since it challenges your delusions of grandeur. Take what solace you can in defending such theories as there are. I haven't considered it here since it is not the subject we have been discussing. So as such, it is a non-sequitur. Of course as our lately-appointed expert on planetary science (to go with your expertise on climate change, relativity and science in general) one can be assured that we can take your opinion here as with other aspects of cosmology on trust without substantiation. A wise man is he who admits how little he knows.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 16:50:51 GMT
The facts remain that there is no theory on the origin of our solar system, planets, moons, and asteroids that isn't more full of holes than Swiss Cheese. I know you'd rather not think about that, since it challenges your delusions of grandeur. Take what solace you can in defending such theories as there are. I haven't considered it here since it is not the subject we have been discussing. So as such, it is a non-sequitur. Of course as our lately-appointed expert on planetary science (to go with your expertise on climate change, relativity and science in general) one can be assured that we can take your opinion here as with other aspects of cosmology on trust without substantiation. A wise man is he who admits how little he knows. Knock me over with a feather.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2020 17:02:16 GMT
Who was it who said, just recently, "I do not claim much" ? It may be observed that much of traditional religion isn't much of a democracy either, with a supreme leader who is jealous and autocratic, working by group punishment, rarely explains himself, refuses to be judged and has yet to appear and face his critics. It is also a case of No True Scottish Science, it would appear. One suspects the reason why Arlon rails against the lack of democracy in science (as if facts were decided by plebiscite) is that it constantly fails to look to him for a vote to reassure itself. Neither science nor religion are supposed to be democracies. Your concept of religion is invalid either way. Just above I suggested why religion is not a democracy, rather than suggesting what it is supposed to be so I am not sure of the relevance of this. However in connection with this I remember you a while ago asserting that the fact that religion is popular with many people is a big indication that it must be true, an Argument from Popularity. Indeed; but you are inordinately fond of claims, especially those made in a sweeping fashion, without substantiation. As a help I will be pleased to flag such moments up. It depends to which aspect of science it is that one refers. As I mentioned above, facts are not voted on to establish truth (Unlike the council called to put the Bible canon into shape back in the day.) But it is true of admissions to some august bodies of science. For instance consideration of a candidate for the National Academy of Sciences begins with his or her nomination, followed by an extensive and careful vetting process that results in a final ballot at the Academy's annual meeting in April each year. Currently, a maximum of 120 members may be elected annually. In the case of the Royal Society, candidates for Fellowship or Foreign Membership must be nominated by two Fellows of the Royal Society, who sign a certificate of proposal. For the 2020 elections, there were just over 700 candidates for election as Fellows and around 70 candidates under consideration for Foreign Membership. I hope that helps. See above. It depends upon context. In one sense science is, yes, not a democracy. It is a dictatorship, one where evidence does the dictating. In other ways it is a meritocracy, one which often employs a process of democratic elections to the elite. But I am sure you realise all this. However your reason for insisting that science is not a democracy is something only you can explain when you so often insist on disagreeing with what it tells you. That is just as well lol. But if this is the case, then er, why are you still here?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 17:32:21 GMT
Neither science nor religion are supposed to be democracies. Your concept of religion is invalid either way. Just above I suggested why religion is not a democracy, rather than suggesting what it is supposed to be so I am not sure of the relevance of this. However in connection with this I remember you a while ago asserting that the fact that religion is popular with many people is a big indication that it must be true, an Argument from Popularity. Indeed; but you are inordinately fond of claims, especially those made in a sweeping fashion, without substantiation. As a help I will be pleased to flag such moments up. It depends to which aspect of science it is that one refers. As I mentioned above, facts are not voted on to establish truth (Unlike the council called to put the Bible canon into shape back in the day.) But it is true of admissions to some august bodies of science. For instance consideration of a candidate for the National Academy of Sciences begins with his or her nomination, followed by an extensive and careful vetting process that results in a final ballot at the Academy's annual meeting in April each year. Currently, a maximum of 120 members may be elected annually. In the case of the Royal Society, candidates for Fellowship or Foreign Membership must be nominated by two Fellows of the Royal Society, who sign a certificate of proposal. For the 2020 elections, there were just over 700 candidates for election as Fellows and around 70 candidates under consideration for Foreign Membership. I hope that helps. See above. It depends upon context. In one sense science is, yes, not a democracy. It is a dictatorship, one where evidence does the dictating. In other ways it is a meritocracy, one which often employs a process of democratic elections to the elite. But I am sure you realise all this. However your reason for insisting that science is not a democracy is something only you can explain when you so often insist on disagreeing with what it tells you. That is just as well lol. But if this is the case, then er, why are you still here? The truth is still the truth whether it has my name on it or not. It is also still the truth whether is has your name on it or not.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2020 17:38:31 GMT
Just above I suggested why religion is not a democracy, rather than suggesting what it is supposed to be so I am not sure of the relevance of this. However in connection with this I remember you a while ago asserting that the fact that religion is popular with many people is a big indication that it must be true, an Argument from Popularity. Indeed; but you are inordinately fond of claims, especially those made in a sweeping fashion, without substantiation. As a help I will be pleased to flag such moments up. It depends to which aspect of science it is that one refers. As I mentioned above, facts are not voted on to establish truth (Unlike the council called to put the Bible canon into shape back in the day.) But it is true of admissions to some august bodies of science. For instance consideration of a candidate for the National Academy of Sciences begins with his or her nomination, followed by an extensive and careful vetting process that results in a final ballot at the Academy's annual meeting in April each year. Currently, a maximum of 120 members may be elected annually. In the case of the Royal Society, candidates for Fellowship or Foreign Membership must be nominated by two Fellows of the Royal Society, who sign a certificate of proposal. For the 2020 elections, there were just over 700 candidates for election as Fellows and around 70 candidates under consideration for Foreign Membership. I hope that helps. See above. It depends upon context. In one sense science is, yes, not a democracy. It is a dictatorship, one where evidence does the dictating. In other ways it is a meritocracy, one which often employs a process of democratic elections to the elite. But I am sure you realise all this. However your reason for insisting that science is not a democracy is something only you can explain when you so often insist on disagreeing with what it tells you. That is just as well lol. But if this is the case, then er, why are you still here? The truth is still the truth whether it has my name on it or not. It is also still the truth whether is has your name on it or not. A point about evidence being a dictator that I made above. The only question remaining is why some, who are anti-science, refuse to accept the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 17:51:13 GMT
The truth is still the truth whether it has my name on it or not. It is also still the truth whether is has your name on it or not. A point about evidence being a dictator that I made above. The only question remaining is why some, who are anti-science, refuse to accept the evidence. You don't fool me. I know how much it scares you that you cannot substantiate anything and do not have the first clue where the Kuiper Belt is exactly or how or when it got there. For a person who has none you cry a lot about evidence.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2020 18:01:30 GMT
A point about evidence being a dictator that I made above. The only question remaining is why some, who are anti-science, refuse to accept the evidence. You don't fool me. I know how much it scares you that you cannot substantiate anything and do not have the first clue where the Kuiper Belt is exactly or how or when it got there. For a person who has none you cry a lot about evidence. Given that I have not mentioned the Kuiper Belt before I am not sure why you should suddenly say this. These are more claims the like of which you say you rarely make. In addition, since you have not seen the Kuiper Belt (a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun. It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is far larger – 20 times as wide and 20–200 times as massive and consists mainly of small bodies or remnants from when the Solar System formed) for yourself one can only assume based on your previous logic re: heart transplants that you doubt it exists.
|
|