« Last post by Lord Dave on March 29, 2017, 07:23:22 AM »
I recently watched "San Junipero" because I heard everyone talking about it and I absolutely loved it, although it seemed a bit out of character for Black Mirror.
This is completely incorrect. I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature. There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.
Do you mean like the part where he said that he isn't serious 80% of the time? Or the part where he said:i don't see what evidence there is that anything negative happened to shaq as a result of him saying he thinks the earth is flat.So, why did you decide to ignore Shaq's own words? Why is only part of his "haha I was joking" statement valuable, and why is the remainder of it non-existent?
This world we live in, people take things too seriously, but I’m going to give the people answers to my test. Knowing that I’m a funny guy, if something seems controversial or boom, boom, boom, you’ve got to have my funny points on, right? So now, once you have my funny points on, that should eradicate and get rid of all your negative thoughts, right? That’s what you should do when you hear a Shaquille O’Neal statement, OK? You should know that he has funny points right over here, and what did he say? Boom, boom, boom, add the funny points. You either laugh or you don’t laugh, but don’t take me seriously. When I want you to take me seriously, you will know by the tone of my voice that I’m being serious.
Here is one example. There is a link to the results in the video.Tom, you seem to make these definitive claims about what astronomers do without knowing what astronomers do. There are significant discussions across the Internet by amateur astronomers about the free ORSA software. Amateurs are using it to accurately create back yard predictions of planets and newly found comets. It's not being done with historical period data. Rather, by creating orbital models. Look up ORSA for yourself. It's free software. Many are making incredibly accurate predictions with it that include comets, satellites, and planets. Secondly, through observation and modeling astronomers have found new planets that were never acknowledge by those 1000s of years ago.
Please show us where some of these predictions have met reality.