NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[Freedom]

China Moon mission lands Chang'e-4 spacecraft on far side

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46724727

[Freedom]

NASA's New Horizons: 'Snowman' shape of distant Ultima Thule revealed

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46742298

[TitoFan]

Alpha, you're not alone.








Wow... conventions and everything.

[Alpha]

Nah Sargent is a shill along with the whole 'flat earth society' site.

Dubay is one of the genuine ones.

[Spicoli]

I want my 7 minutes back. 'The first rule about flat club is you don't talk about flat club' . So basically we're one giant pool surrounded by the Artic ice glaciers holding everything in?

[Alpha]

I want my 7 minutes back. 'The first rule about flat club is you don't talk about flat club' . So basically we're one giant pool surrounded by the Artic ice glaciers holding everything in?

Didn't watch the vid, so don't know what was said.

I don't associate myself with any flat earth models/ maps. Some flat earthers speculate that an ice wall surrounds the earth/ disc.

But the reality is, we know how water works in this reality. We all know water will fill it's container and the surface will be flat (level if you want). I can show you water doing this, every time. It's something that is observable and demonstrable, you can do it yourself. You know the actual scientific method.

I'd like a ball earther to present me with a scale model of their ball earth, using the same substances, showing water conforming to the exterior of a shape.

In our reality we can do a scale model of anything tangible, that is real science.

If you can't scale it, and it's not observable, repeatable and demonstrable then it's just pseudoscience.

I'll wait

[Spicoli]

Ball Earthers . Ok sorry. But how can some claim we're surrounded by glaciers to 'keep everything in ' and some do not. Not exactly a unified fact based belief it would seem. But not to dumb it down too much..where does it drain. I mean water may be level on surface but ocean floors etc can vary by miles. What of waves. Why do we not eventually over saturate and simply fill up and spill over.

[Alpha]

Ball Earthers . Ok sorry. But how can some claim we're surrounded by glaciers to 'keep everything in ' and some do not. Not exactly a unified fact based belief it would seem. But not to dumb it down too much..where does it drain. I mean water may be level on surface but ocean floors etc can vary by miles. What of waves. Why do we not eventually over saturate and simply fill up and spill over.

Like I said, there are some that are shills and provide mis information. Like the flat earth society, that thinks the earth is constantly moving upwards.

Some speculate that an ice wall surrounds us, but the reality is we don't know the true dimensions of what we are on. So I prefer to say I don't know, but I know it has to be some sort of container to keep the water in. There is no way it can be a sphere. Because we know how the natural physics of water work in this reality.

Waves are motion. If I make waves in a pool are you going to tell me it isn't level? I'm not sure what you mean by filling up, the earth is apparently 70% water, so that water moves around with tides, evaporation etc. It's not like there is more magic water filling up the earth from somewhere else.

Still waiting on the scale model with water conforming to the exterior of a shape. Not to dumb it down too much, but if you can't recreate a scale model in this reality then it really is a belief.

[Beanz]

It's healthy to be skeptical that is the basis of science itself the willingness to question anything. Denial is another thing entirely. That is why I think you won't start a thread Alpha to discuss any of these questions. They would not stand up to scrutiny.

[Alpha]

It's healthy to be skeptical that is the basis of science itself the willingness to question anything. Denial is another thing entirely. That is why I think you won't start a thread Alpha to discuss any of these questions. They would not stand up to scrutiny.

Anytime you can create a scale model for me, using the same substances, with water conforming to the exterior of a shape, I'll be interested.

And can I ask what type of science you are referring to?

Still waiting.

[Beanz]

It's healthy to be skeptical that is the basis of science itself the willingness to question anything. Denial is another thing entirely. That is why I think you won't start a thread Alpha to discuss any of these questions. They would not stand up to scrutiny.

Anytime you can create a scale model for me, using the same substances, with water conforming to the exterior of a shape, I'll be interested.

And can I ask what type of science you are referring to?

Still waiting.

Like I said.. denial.

Because we are not living in a vacuum in both a physical and philosophical sense.

You can't build a scale model even dismissing the problems with mass because you would be building that model on a spherical planet subject to friction and air resistance etc.

And we are not living in a scientific vacuum in which we need to dismiss everything you have not reproduced in a physical scaleable model and witnessed with your eyes. That requires a bigger leap of faith than that used by the religious.

We build on the knowledge of others not start from zero with every new human.

[Alpha]

So no scale model? You want me to just believe you then? Doesn't stand up to the scientific method then does it?

So I can tell and show you what water will do in this reality, and you can't provide a scale model of a ball earth but I'm in denial?

And what vacuum are you talking about? We can only produce a near vacuum.

Oh and you never said what type of science you were talking about.

Remember if it can't stand up to the scientific method then it isn't a fact.

[Beanz]

So no scale model? No for the reasons already stated


You want me to just believe you then? No that is you just inventing stuff. What you are actually insisting on is that nobody believes anything because there is in your mind no difference between healthy skepticism and not believing anything unless you witness it first hand and conduct every experiment needed to prove an hypothesis.

Doesn't stand up to the scientific method then does it? Actually it meets all the criteria for what is commonly accepted as 'The Scientific Method'. While there is not universal agreement on the definition of what the Scientific method consists of, your suggestion that one needs to be able to witness it with your own eyes and build scale-able models is just invention. You are pretending that even very early on in the formulation of a question that Science does not build on previous evidence. Conjecture and prediction are crucial to the method, and yet you are simply playing pretend with your insistence that testing and analysis, in a very crude and primitive sense, are acceptable as 'The Scientific Method'.

So I can tell and show you what water will do in this reality, and you can't provide a scale model of a ball earth but I'm in denial? No you cannot and that is not the only way in which you are pretending, your insistence on isolationism is just a part of your allegiance to denial.

And what vacuum are you talking about? We can only produce a near vacuum. A scale-able model on earth is still subject to the conditions on earth. Gravity itself is up for question with a flat earth theory but the reality is according all the best and readily available science and documentation that we are living on a sphere. Time zones, sunsets and sunrises at different times, the nature of eclipses, seasons, phases of the moon, all these observable things confirm this to be the most likely scenario also.

Oh and you never said what type of science you were talking about. Empirical Science - Physical, Biological and Psychological. The first two are quite obvious with lunar and solar cycles etc clearly demonstrated in their impact upon biological mechanisms and behaviours, but there is also psychological and certainly anthropological evidence for how living on a globe has affected us.

Remember if it can't stand up to the scientific method then it isn't a fact. But the criteria you are asking us to base our acceptance of what are facts seems to be conveniently ignored when presenting your own hypotheses, does it not? You can not seemingly even accept the entire commonly accepted 'Scientific Method' only the testing stage/phase.

It needs it's own thread. Freedom's Mars Ax thread is about Mars not a flat earth and that is certainly a subject radical enough to warrant it's own examination if you really believe it. Or do you just believe 'in it'?

[Alpha]

I don't believe it, I know it to be the truth.

Ok so what part of water conforming to the exterior of a shape do you have for me to observe? That's part of the scientific method right? You should be able to demonstrate it right? Then I should be able to repeat it right?

We're talking about earth, and what is reality on this earth. If you claim water can conform around the exterior of a shape on earth, then show me, on earth with an observable recreation to back up your claims. I have no hypothesis, only my own observations and experiences. Which are demostrable and repeatable.

So what empirical evidence (observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) do you have of a ball earth?

And the sciences are Natural, Formal and Social. And as I have already mentioned many times here, formal sciences are artificial man made languages.

Start a thread if you want, but we would need to agree on some first principles first, if we are going to continue to discuss it.

[Beanz]

I don't believe it, I know it to be the truth.

Ok so what part of water conforming to the exterior of a shape do you have for me to observe? That's part of the scientific method right? You should be able to demonstrate it right? Then I should be able to repeat it right?

We're talking about earth, and what is reality on this earth. If you claim water can conform around the exterior of a shape on earth, then show me, on earth with an observable recreation to back up your claims. I have no hypothesis, only my own observations and experiences. Which are demostrable and repeatable.

So what empirical evidence (observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) do you have of a ball earth?

And the sciences are Natural, Formal and Social. And as I have already mentioned many times here, formal sciences are artificial man made languages.

Start a thread if you want, but we would need to agree on some first principles first, if we are going to continue to discuss it.

Like I said you are confirming an almost religious zeal in your believing 'in it' rather than the believing the facts themselves. You are pretending to be interested in empirical evidence but then dismissing all empirical evidence unless YOU witness it directly with your eyes. How unreliable would that be? You do things everyday that rely upon your ability to trust science built upon the foundation of others and yet want to play a game in which you pretend that is not true and that you are really a pioneer unlocking mysteries nobody else would dare contemplate. You are literally wishing for the impossible to justify the implausible. Scale itself, area, force, pressure, density are all inherent reasons why water stays on and around the earth and yet you want me to recreate this on a small scale as though i subscribe to the same nonsense and these factors are irrelevant. It is not scale-able.

And so what if formal science is a man made language? What would you prefer we converse in ..Hebrew? Sumarian? Tamil? Sanskrit? Despite what Chomsky says Language is actually a tool by which we can make a more complex reality, understand and describe the world and science is no different. You can start the thread and state the principles you think need to be agreed in your opening post.