Recent Posts

91
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« Last post by Baby Thork on December 07, 2019, 10:20:26 PM »
being a broke student. My intention is to buy the Orion and Hull E eventually as well, all depending on my future financial situation.

If you are a broke student ... why have you spent $6000 on a computer game?

I'll rephrase. How exactly did you get the head injury and why haven't your parents stepped in to obtain power of attorney over you?
92
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« Last post by Pete Svarrior 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.
93
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« Last post by Rushy on December 07, 2019, 09:37:22 PM »
And how much is that in US bucks?

As I told Thork, it's about $6000. This was money spent years ago and "recycled" into new ships via the store credit system. I haven't spent anything on Star Citizen since January 2016.

Someone is going to have to pony up for a Pioneer eventually.

I probably will end up buying one when I acquire an actual job and stop being a broke student. My intention is to buy the Orion and Hull E eventually as well, all depending on my future financial situation.
94
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« Last post by Fortuna on December 07, 2019, 09:27:45 PM »
Now that the Anniversary sale is over, my scam fleet composition is now:



Someone is going to have to pony up for a Pioneer eventually.
95
Further to earlier posts, here's the most recent SpaceX first stage coming back in to port;



As I said earlier, if they're not actually doing what they claim to be doing, why bother building all this stuff?
96
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on December 07, 2019, 08:23:01 PM »
The tests are thought to confirm the hypothesis, which is treated as proven true.
No, it isn't. Were that true we wouldn't have relativity, if Newton's ideas were thought to be "Proven True" then why would anyone ever have challenged them?
The reason it took so long for Newton to be shown to be wrong is because in most circumstances his theory does work fine, it's only in certain circumstances that his theories break down and it took a long time for us to have instruments sensitive enough to notice.
Science is always open to the possibility that it might not be correct and the models might need to be modified or discarded entirely and replaced.

Quote
Do you think that when people believed that spontaneous generation was true, that they thought it wasn't proven?

Did they believe it because of rigorous scientific, peer reviewed experiments? Remember you're talking about theories which have been disproved for hundreds of years ago. But how was it disproved? With a controlled scientific experiment

https://www.microbiologytext.com/5th_ed/book/displayarticle/aid/27

Quote
That would just lead to the same flawed conclusion of spontaneous generation.
If the conclusion was based on controlled but flawed scientific experiments then maybe. Was it?
Ultimately, when a controlled scientific experiment was done to test the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, it was shown to be false.

Quote
That's beyond what the Scientific Method says. The Scientific Method just says to perform a test to confirm that your hypothesis is true. That's it. There is no further investigation on your subject matter.

Well, it's up to you whether you do further investigation but the end of the method is "Report results". This is the key part which allows others to review and attempt to repeat your result either using your method or different method which may test things you missed. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say this is not allowed, it's how progress has been made down the years.

As for the Wright brothers, they certainly did work in a scientific way:

Quote
The Wright brothers were much more scientific and methodical inventors. They believed in testing their ideas in smaller or safer versions before building an actual plane. Scientists today, like the Wright brothers, don't just build things and see what happens; they make observations, then form a hypothesis or guess, and then do more tests to see if their hypothesis is correct. This is known as the "scientific method." For example, the Wright brothers built a wind tunnel to compare wing shape ideas By attaching an old shop fan to a 6-foot-long wooden box, they could blow "wind" on hundreds of different miniature wings and measure with a scale exactly how much lift each wing produced. The Wright brothers also flew countless kites as well as motor-less gliders to test their designs. They studied the way birds move through the air and tried to duplicate it with their models. Throughout all their experiments, Orville and Wilbur took careful notes and measurements so they could analyze what worked and what didn't.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/flight/wright/invent.htm
97
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« Last post by Tom Bishop on December 07, 2019, 07:40:20 PM »
The scientific method is about coming up with a hypothesis and then doing an experiment to test that hypothesis. No single test is said to prove anything.

The tests are thought to confirm the hypothesis, which is treated as proven true. Do you think that when people believed that spontaneous generation was true, that they thought it wasn't proven?

Standards of "proof" have always been very low in science.

Quote
If the test results are consistent with the hypothesis then no, you don’t declare yourself to be correct, you publish your method and your results so that other people can check your work. If other people manage to reproduce your results then it builds confidence in your hypothesis.

That would just lead to the same flawed conclusion of spontaneous generation.

Quote
People may devise different ways of testing your hypothesis.

That's beyond what the Scientific Method says. The Scientific Method just says to perform a test to confirm that your hypothesis is true. That's it. There is no further investigation on your subject matter.

I would recommend reading the steps of the Scientific Method. They do not involve multiple tests in different fundamental ways of a hypothesis. It just says to perform a test to confirm whether it is true or false. It is your understanding of what the scientific method says which is flawed. The scientific method says none of that.

If people "may" test the hypothesis in different ways, that's beyond what the scope of the scientific method says to do, and is closer to the Zetetic method.
98
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on December 07, 2019, 07:32:26 PM »
When the Wright Brothers wrote that they had discarded scientific theories and began from experiment to experience, and that only then could they invent the airplane
You like that quote a lot, I’ve seen you use it on here before. I’ve yet to see a credible source for it.
99
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on December 07, 2019, 07:30:19 PM »
The Scientific Method has us coming up with a hypothesis and then performing an experiment around that hypothesis to prove it to be true or false. If it is true, and the experiment comes out in your favor, the next step is to declare yourself to be correct, communicate your results, and it ends there.
This is absolutely not what the scientific method does.

The scientific method is about coming up with a hypothesis and then doing an experiment to test that hypothesis. No single test is said to prove anything.

If the results of the test are inconsistent with the hypothesis then it is discarded - unless there was some flaw with the test.
If the test results are consistent with the hypothesis then no, you don’t declare yourself to be correct, you publish your method and your results so that other people can check your work. If other people manage to reproduce your results then it builds confidence in your hypothesis. People may devise different ways of testing your hypothesis. All this serves to check your work. A theory is never said to be proven and the process never “ends”. But the more tests that are done and the more different ways of testing the hypothesis which gives results consistent with it, the more confidence there is in the theory which is built on the hypothesis.

Let’s take an example. Galileo had a hypothesis that objects fall at the same rate no matter what their mass is. To test that he (allegedly) dropped two cannonballs from the Leaning Tower of Pisa at the same time and observed that they hit the ground at the same time. Does that prove the hypothesis? Absolutely not. It builds confidence in it but it’s only one test. But the more tests people do with different pairs of objects the more confidence is built in the hypothesis. You could also vary the test - drop more than 2 objects, drop them from various heights. Drop them in different times of day or in different temperatures. And so on.

Now, let’s say one day someone drops a cannonball and a feather. Hang on a minute, what’s going on here? The cannonball falls a lot faster than the feather. Galileo was wrong!
So what happens then in science is we look at the original hypothesis - is it completely wrong or does it just need modification? In this case, modification. Earth has an atmosphere which means there is air resistance which needs to be taken into account. For cannonballs the effect is negligible, for feathers it is not. So now we have to say that objects in a gravitational field fall at the same rate if no other forces are acting on them. In effect this means that on earth objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum. You can find a video of a Brian Cox show in which they drop a bowling ball and a feather in a large vacuum chamber and show they fall at the same rate.

This is how science works. Hypotheses are tested, methods and results are published. Other people peer review what you did, repeat your tests or devise their own and the results can either see theories modified or even abandoned if they are shown conclusively to be wrong.

The issue with the method articulated on here - proceeding by personal enquiry alone - is that you miss the vital step of publishing your method and results. You miss the important feedback of peer review. You are not checking each other’s work. So you believe in a FE because of The Bishop Experiment. But you have provided no evidence for having even done it, you haven’t published details about your method or your results. Yes, I could do my own tests but I can’t exactly repeat what you did or know if my results are consistent with yours. And what if I did my own test which I declare similar enough to yours based on what I know of your test. What if I get different results? What happens then? How do we know who is wrong?
The principle of checking things out for yourself is sound up to a point but we have to consider our own limitations in understanding or ability to do tests.
I’d say the heart of the scientific method is peer review and this is a step you miss and it leads you to wrong conclusions.
Your shows a massive misunderstanding of what the scientific method is.

100
Flat Earth Projects / Re: "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« Last post by Pete Svarrior 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.