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 - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 254  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: Today at 09:18:59 AM »
for one thing, popper was an absolute giant in the philosophy of science, and he's still taken very seriously.
I didn't say he wasn't. I'm merely pointing out that his proposed methodology is not followed to the letter (not even remotely), and never was. Parts of it were influential, which is a good thing, but to propose that reading Popper will give you an authoritative manual on how2science is to argue in bad faith.

he argued that the only statements with scientific meaning are those that can be falsified with respect to some prior theory or framework
Or, as he more succinctly put it himself, myths. I suspect the issue here is a poor understanding of Zeteticism. This may be something for us to work on - it's clear that the current documentation of Zetetic inquiry inspires misconceptions and misinterpretations. Newcomers to the ideology seem to think that it exclusively comprises observation in some sort of unachievable vacuum, rather than merely emphasising it. I view it as a similar failure as some of our prior work on the Ice Wall leading to people expecting an actual, literal wall of ice surrounding the South. It's not surprising that a lot of work remains to be done, and some of it is clearly just patching up past failures.

Obviously, Popper was a proponent of the Zetetic method.
If you're going to strawman me, please do so in AR so I can express my opinion of you appropriately. Alternatively, please stick to discussing arguments that were actually made, and not ones you've conjured in your head.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 08, 2019, 05:39:20 PM »
Popper's contributions to philosophy were largely hypothetical, and commonly dismissed - he made no claim that anyone actually employs them, and presented them as a recommendation. To suggest that critical rationalism and the scientific method are one and the same is disingenuous to say the least.

In short, you took someone who proposes a method similar to Zeteticism, except you chose to pretend that his proposed methodology is representative of what his contemporaries did, or what's being done now. How foolish.

In your credit, you did bring to attention the fact that Popper agreed with us on this particular issue. It's just a shame that you did that by attempting to sneak through a lie.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the earth the only flat planet?
« on: December 08, 2019, 01:48:18 PM »
Since no flat earthers have answered, I'll try.
The expectation is that newcomers will read the FAQ.

Locked.

4
... yet we've just been talking about SpaceX. Not NASA.
NASA subcontractors may as well be NASA. It really doesn't matter that their money is now operating under a slightly nicer name.

5
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: December 07, 2019, 09:54:07 PM »
As I told Thork, it's about $6000.
So you did. I'm just bad at reading.

6
Flat Earth Projects / Re: "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« on: December 07, 2019, 07:23:41 PM »
I also manually refreshed Google's index for those pages - looks like everything went to plan, the new page is now the prominent result.

7
Flat Earth Projects / Re: "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« on: December 07, 2019, 07:00:42 PM »
No problem. I didn't phrase it very clearly, so my bad.

Phases of the Moon is now the primary page on the subject. We may want to think about whether or not some of the content from the EA page should be moved over, but that can be a more long-term consideration.

8
Flat Earth Projects / Re: "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« on: December 07, 2019, 06:43:00 PM »
Are you sure that will keep Google happy?
Yes. The FAQ was moved that way multiple times, and it never caused an issue. A redirect page, when visited directly, will simply pull the content of the destination page, while also notifying the client that the page has been moved. Google handles these quite well.

Do you think that a page with only the title as its contents, "Phases of the Moon" will outrank a website like that?
I think you're misunderstanding. The only page that Google will keep track of is the final page - while keeping any ranking data it's already collected in the past. Functionally, this is simply a URL change.

which is why I think combining the pages may not be the best idea.
Generally, the opposite is true. Larger informative pages rank better than small pages with plenty of links. Of course, there's is a point where pages become too long and splitting is desirable, but we're nowhere near that point yet. Each time we've merged a bunch of small pages (leaving appropriate redirects behind), the net result was more visits to the combined page, compared to prior traffic to smaller disjointed pages.

I have yet to see a redirect page show up as a high ranking in Google Search
That's because their positioning gets transferred to the destination page. The redirect only serves as a vehicle through which this occurs (and as a means of maintaining compatibility with external sites that may be linking to our articles). This is as intended - Google shouldn't be indexing the redirects, it should simply make sure that the final page is reached correctly.

9
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: December 07, 2019, 06:01:40 PM »
And how much is that in US bucks?

10
Flat Earth Projects / Re: "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« on: December 07, 2019, 05:50:51 PM »
SMF really needs to make it more clear that you are editing another person's post instead of quoting them.
We should be able to add a warning of some sort. I'll look into that.

"The Phases of The Moon" comes up first on Google for the phrase "flat earth moon phases" and similar terms relating to phases. It would be ideal to just leave it, as to keep that. Better would be a dedicated page without the "The" at the top of google.

Perhaps the dedicated page can be improved or expanded on.
How about this?
  • "The[...]" becomes a redirect to a dedicated page without the "The"
    • (This should keep Google happy - it will follow the redirect and should preserve good positioning of the new page)
  • For now, this dedicated page simply inherits the content of the current one, with a prominent link to the EA page
  • All other pages that reference lunar phases link to this dedicated page
  • The page can then be expanded over time

11
Flat Earth Projects / "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« on: December 07, 2019, 05:15:58 PM »
Currently, the Wiki has two pages on lunar phases:

-Phases of the Moon redirects to a section of the Electromagnetic Acceleration page
-The Phases of the Moon appears to be a separate page, which also includes a link to the EA page for more details.

Is the page starting with "The" necessary, or should it be merged?

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 05, 2019, 11:20:25 PM »
My source is thermodynamics.
I'm afraid that's not how citations work.

It is not something I made up.
Unfortunately, I already demonstrated that you're in disagreement with the mainstream on that one. An explanation was given to you. If you have an objection, you need to articulate an argument. If you cannot put together a rebuttal, that's fine, it happens a lot around here. But you won't be allowed to continuously waste people's time by just declaring yourself the victor while contributing nothing of value.

b) The universe, by definition is that which contains everything.  The universe cannot receive energy or matter from outside it, and cannot send energy or matter outside it.
b) is not a logical conclusion, since the "outside of the Universe", something external to the set of everything, is undefined and therefore meaningless. The problem, as always, is that you assert yourself to be correct, and when asked to provide citations, you just assert yourself to be correct some more.

This is not a good look.

And, yeas, in science definitions are critically important.
Indeed. You'd do well to stop botching them. Again, the question here isn't even whether you're right or wrong. It's whether you will eventually put together a coherent sentence.

Score: FE - fail.
It is in particularly poor form to make declarations like these. Trust me, it won't convince the unconvinced, and those who already agree with you will just think you're weakening your argument by acting like a child. I appreciate your effort to join the upper fora, and I'm happy to help you ease into posting here, but you can do so much better than that.

14
Technology & Information / Re: Nephew's Computer
« on: December 05, 2019, 01:25:27 PM »
What better time to gift your nephew a cat?
No! Not even as a joke. So many pets get gifted to/by people who do not understand the level of commitment involved. Animals are friends, not things :(

15
Technology & Information / Re: Nephew's Computer
« on: December 05, 2019, 01:07:45 PM »
You should still gift the cat food to your nephew.

Good luck with the replacement.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 05, 2019, 01:02:19 PM »
Pete, let me apologize.
You do not need to apologise - merely contribute (if you're posting in the upper).

The reason I'm not declaring whether or not the FE universe is isolated is because it is not fully pertinent top the question.
I already explained to you why it is. I guess I'll have to do so again.

However, I did not invent the FE UA system.  I assume you guy's did, so the definitions are up to you.
The Universe is fairly well-defined, independently of FE vs RE.

You can approach the problem either way.  If the description of FE UA in the wiki does encompass an isolated system, then you just show how energy is conserved within that system.  If it does not encompass an isolated system, then just show where the energy is coming from so that an isolated system can be defined (the FE UA system + the Energy system) wherein the energy is conserved.
I don't need to do either of these things, for a plethora of reasons. The fact that calling the Universe an isolated system is meaningless is crucial here. Your objection has no defined meaning, and cannot be answered until you've fixed it. If you truly believe that meaningless statements require answers, or are in any way significant, then let me ask you this: If the Earth is round, then why zibbidy snorty floorp, de rooba shnort?

As to whether or not the universe most RE folk adhere to is and isolated system,  in thermodynamics and isolated system is a system which does not or can not exchange either energy or matter with its surroundings.   By definition, the universe is self contained and therefore cannot exchange energy or matter.
I'm afraid you restating your position doesn't make it any more mainstream or correct. This is why I asked you for a source.

Or you can read this excerpt from Quora:
If Quora, of all places, is good enough for you, then hopefully you'll be generous enough to accept Wikipedia as a counter-example:

Sometimes people speculate about "isolation" for the universe as a whole, but the meaning of such speculation is doubtful.

See, the issue here is that you propose something that makes no sense (the Universe is isolated? From what?), assert that it is the case "by definition", and demand that we address your mess. It's not gonna happen, you're going to have to fix your claims. I'm not even asking that you make sure you're correct, merely that you make sure your statements have a discernible meaning.

Pete, if you don't understand thermodynamics, then why did you involve yourself in this?
This is your final friendly reminder that you are currently not in AR/CN. You can discuss just how stupid, uneducated, and smelly I am in the appropriate boards.

17
You should probably search around the forum and wiki. Both of your questions have been asked and answered before, and duplicate threads don't really help matters.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 04, 2019, 06:11:01 PM »
Okay.
A second friendly reminder that you're not currently in AR for a change. If you do not want to contribute to the discussion, there's no obligation for you to post.

what I want
That's great, but if you're not willing to defend your claims, you probably shouldn't be making them in the first place. You're welcome to retract them.

One of the "flaws" you're claiming relies on assumptions that you're refusing to justify. Naturally, one has to assume that you have a reason to refuse that.

19
Technology & Information / Re: Nephew's Computer
« on: December 04, 2019, 10:50:55 AM »
My brother, 'Uncle Bad Touch', is far more frightening.
At last, a glimpse into Big Mike's origin story!

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 04, 2019, 10:43:24 AM »
Pete, by definition a universe is an isolated system.   Yeah, I'm in agreement with the definition.
I cannot find a source that agrees with you. Perhaps you'd like to provide one instead of just saying you're right repeatedly?

The consensus appears to be that it would be entirely meaningless to call the Universe an isolated system (since anything external to the Universe is undefined), but I'm happy for you to defend your case. Just, you know, actually say something more useful than "I am correct.       Yeah, I am very right, yes."

Now, the only thing we need to decide on it whether or not all the stuff subject to FE UA constitutes an isolated system, or are there things in the FE universe WRT which the earth and all celestial bodies are accelerating at 9.8 m/(s^2).
Right, you're going to have to make up your mind on this one. First you said that you don't know what the system is. When I asked you to clarify, you accused me of strawmanning you and declared that you obviously do know what it is. Now you're back to saying you don't know.

Please pick a line of argumentation and stick with it. It's extremely difficult to have a meaningful conversation when you keep arguing with yourself.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 254  Next >