Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rama Set

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 200  Next >
1
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: June 15, 2019, 03:14:16 AM »
Worked better than Steph Curry’s jump shot.

And KD's achilles. And Klay's ACL.
ThE RAptoRs HaVe aN AstERIx1!!!!!

2
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: June 15, 2019, 01:33:55 AM »
Worked better than Steph Curry’s jump shot.

3
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: June 14, 2019, 12:30:31 PM »
This is Rama’s wife. He died with a smile on his face last night knowing the Raptors are the greatest sports franchise in history.

He also wanted to pass along this message: Thork is larping donkey.

Details of a memorial to follow.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 14, 2019, 02:22:24 AM »
Jesus fucking Christ.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 13, 2019, 11:31:54 AM »
Or writing a book on how he’d do it...

6
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: June 11, 2019, 11:01:33 AM »
Dammit, we played too tight. Even with all the shots we missed and threes that the warriors made it was still a one point game. Guess we have to celebrate in the Oracle.

7


All satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect to orbit above the surface of the Earth.



Pure bunk.   Please provide proof.

The thread asked for possibilities, not proof.

The thread asked for possibilities, Sandokhan made a definitive statement. Not that it was posssible, but that they do use the Biefield Brown effect. Don't be scared to let Sandokhan speak for himself.

8
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: June 05, 2019, 11:23:08 AM »
Why would you think you know anything about film, Guest?

9
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: May 31, 2019, 03:45:01 AM »
Oh boy the Raptor’s looked good tonight.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a pseudoscience?
« on: May 31, 2019, 12:30:14 AM »
So sticking a few flags in a river is a carefully controlled laboratory level scientific experiment to you is it Tom?

What sources of possible systematic and experimental errors can you think of associated with such a method?

Since he saw the top of the flags to be perfectly aligned, there would need to be a systematic refraction effect which caused the flags to be projected into the air at the exact height in accord with the height of the observer and the distance looked across to simulate a Flat Earth.

The top of the first flat would have been projected 8 inches into the air, the second flag 2.67 ft, the third flag 6 feet, the fourth flag 10.6 feet, the fifth flag 14.29 feet, and the sixth flag, which should have been below the horizon, 24.01 feet in the air.

An amazing coincidence, really.
 
Illustrating the issue perfectly: you agree with the conclusion so you don't apply the same level of critical analysis to how the observation was made.  Ignore the result, and explain how the Bedford Level Experiment as performed by SBR, is in any way a controlled experiment.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a pseudoscience?
« on: May 31, 2019, 12:23:11 AM »
Several experiments use multiple control points. See Experiment 2 in Earth Not a Globe.

Whenever your opponent needs to try and change the subject rather than defend the matter directly, it is an implicit admission that he has no defense, and a sign that he has accepted your position and argument.

What could I possibly have to defend? There is direct observation of the Earth being a spheroid. This is all philosophical fun and games.  It's interesting to me that you have no problem holding contradictory viewpoints about what is admissible evidence.  That's all this is.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a pseudoscience?
« on: May 30, 2019, 11:48:12 PM »
You will notice the unreconcilable contradiction between the criteria with which the wiki disqualifies astronomy as science and the criteria it uses to include the Bedford Canal experiment, among others.  It is horribly inconsistent and not really worth much consideration as a topic of serious discussion.  It should be noted that the section on astronomy as pseudoscience is pulled from the thoughts of none other than the master contrarian himself, Tom Bishop, who is more than happy to cite YouTube videos of people making half-assed observations as experimental evidence, but dismissed the extremely precise measurements of astronomers because... well I am not sure why.  All I know is that it is inconsistent.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: May 29, 2019, 02:00:48 AM »
Well as we read Tom's tap dancing to avoid a simple question, let's all remember that the wiki entry for the Bishop "Experiment" meets neither the scientific nor Tom's definition of what an experiment ought to be.  Perhaps one day, Tom will attempt to recreate it instead of relying on YouTubers, but that would be a level of Zeteticism that no one expects to witness.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: May 28, 2019, 10:32:13 PM »
Good thing we have direct observations from orbit! 

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: May 28, 2019, 10:21:29 PM »
Tom, seeing further than predicted by geodesy, provided you have eliminated all possible sources of error, is not evidence for a FE.  That’s just wishful thinking by you.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: May 28, 2019, 09:47:38 PM »
Why do you keep referring to other experiments when we are talking about the Bishop “Experiment”.

Because if you don't believe that Newton did an experiment then that assertion is easily countered with reference to others who also claimed to see similar things.

Fortunately we have a mountain of experiments done in controlled circumstances and the results pour in every time a grade 9 student takes a science class.

Quote
As a side note, how many of those YouTube videos represent work done in a laboratory under controlled conditions? If they aren’t then they do not meet your standard for an experiment. If you allow them, then you will have to start allowing astronomical evidence.

No one said that they were controlled. We can often see further than we should, which is contrary to the 2000 year old sinking ship proof that we live on a ball.
[/quote]

Not controlled and not in a laboratory, good. Do we ignore them or allow them? If we allow them, then you have negated your own objection against astronomy.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: May 28, 2019, 09:31:14 PM »
Why do you keep referring to other experiments when we are talking about the Bishop “Experiment”.

As a side note, how many of those YouTube videos represent work done in a laboratory under controlled conditions? If they aren’t then they do not meet your standard for an experiment. If you allow them, then you will have to start allowing astronomical evidence.

18
Don’t get me wrong, I think he will allow it because he isn’t competent enough to guide this on his own and will listen to a General because someone will tell him it’s good for his popularity.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: May 28, 2019, 08:23:11 PM »
Claims absolutely do not count as evidence. Evidence is what you need to support a claim. Accounts are evidence as long as they are verifiable and not pleasant anecdotes. You know, like the Bishop “Experiment”.

20
Yes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 200  Next >