NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[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.

This is the post you would not read.

[walrus]

I do wonder if alphito is trolling us. If not, I would like him to teach my children this interesting story

[walrus]

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.

This is the post you would not read.

Of course @bffbeaner would mention Hebrew first

[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.

This is the post you would not read.

Of course @bffbeaner would mention Hebrew first

I was being ALPHA ..betical and then could not deicide which alphabet to use