Offline jim22

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Some question that I think could be interesting
« on: April 19, 2020, 09:19:05 PM »
Perhaps this is a trivial question  :o, but today just thinking about the temperature on the surface of the earth and supposedly the temperature of the planet earth is due to the sun that is what we all imagine, now if the sun is reflected in a part of Earth by day, that part of the surface at night that does not reflect the sun should not be much lower temperature. Not only a few degrees but it should decrease much more ... What do you think about that?

From Wikipedia source:
Earth energy budget:
Absorbeb by atmosphere 16%+Abosrbeb by clouds 3%+Conduction and rising air 7%=26% only
supposedly remains on the surface of the earth

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2020, 12:44:59 AM »
The problem with your assumption is most Satanist believe the earth is a planet. If you stick with the majority, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist we all believe the Earth is flat and covered by a Raqia or Dome.

Wikipedia is infiltrated with Trolls, science is similar to fake news, so read manuscripts of at least 1500 years old.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2020, 08:23:28 AM »
If you stick with the majority, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist we all believe the Earth is flat and covered by a Raqia or Dome.

No, we don't.

As for the OP, my understanding of this is a bit hazy but I think it's because we have an atmosphere which traps a lot of heat that it doesn't cool down too much at night. On the moon which has no atmosphere there is a huge temperature difference between day and night sides of the moon.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline jim22

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2020, 09:18:35 AM »
The problem with your assumption is most Satanist believe the earth is a planet. If you stick with the majority, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist we all believe the Earth is flat and covered by a Raqia or Dome.

Wikipedia is infiltrated with Trolls, science is similar to fake news, so read manuscripts of at least 1500 years old.
Hi J-Man  ;D ;D ;) ;) :)
I think you did not understand my question, and you dedicate yourself to making jokes on the flat earth, please do not waste your time, I am an engineer by profession and I like to investigate things, i don't believe in god, buddha, Raqia, Seth or something like that ..perhaps the earth is round and the universe is flat? As Picasso said Art is a lie that makes us realize reality. 8)

Offline jim22

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2020, 09:22:31 AM »
If you stick with the majority, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist we all believe the Earth is flat and covered by a Raqia or Dome.

No, we don't.

As for the OP, my understanding of this is a bit hazy but I think it's because we have an atmosphere which traps a lot of heat that it doesn't cool down too much at night. On the moon which has no atmosphere there is a huge temperature difference between day and night sides of the moon.
Yes but as you can see in the wikipedia chart only approx. 25% remains on earth, and the temperature difference between day and night is minimal. I think there must be some other reason  :P

Groit

Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2020, 05:22:05 PM »
I think cloud cover and water vapour plays a big part in energy exchanges from land to atmosphere. In desert areas where there's very little cloud cover and very little water vapour in the air, temperatures can range from 50 C (daytime) and -3 C (at night).

Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2020, 04:45:50 PM »
I think J-Man is troll. He claimed bible says dome has Lava in itself once...

Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2020, 02:06:40 AM »
The problem with your assumption is most Satanist believe the earth is a planet. If you stick with the majority, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist we all believe the Earth is flat and covered by a Raqia or Dome.

Wikipedia is infiltrated with Trolls, science is similar to fake news, so read manuscripts of at least 1500 years old.

Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources out there.
Nice to meet you!

Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2020, 12:32:49 PM »
Working in a very multi-cultural environment of a large school I know several Christians, a few Jews and Muslims as well as a couple of Buddhists. After a quick survey of the different faiths none of them believe the Earth is flat and when I put that idea to them they just smiled and said how ridiculous.  So that straight away shows J-Man to be wrong.  Of course you can believe in anything. Belief is a personal choice and believing in something doesn't make it true.

Must say that I don't know any Satanists though (and nor would I wish to) so what they think is up to them.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1150
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2020, 06:10:49 PM »
If you stick with the majority, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist we all believe the Earth is flat and covered by a Raqia or Dome.

Wikipedia is infiltrated with Trolls, science is similar to fake news, so read manuscripts of at least 1500 years old.

Your statement is patently false as usual.  As a reformed Christian I spent way too many Sundays in church and get this, never not once did anyone mention flat earth.   But they didn't handle snakes or speak in tongues either.

Ironically if I told you what I really think my buddy Pete would send me to the basement instead of you.   
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2020, 06:30:59 PM »
The problem with your assumption is most Satanist believe the earth is a planet. If you stick with the majority, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist we all believe the Earth is flat and covered by a Raqia or Dome.

Wikipedia is infiltrated with Trolls, science is similar to fake news, so read manuscripts of at least 1500 years old.

I don't know many Jews or Muslims but I can say that almost all Christians believe the earth is a planet (at least here in Europe). So maybe you should doublecheck your data.

By the way, Wikipedia is one of the best free source of (surface) information on the Internet and science isn't fake news, fake news is fake news.
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7363
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2020, 11:00:56 AM »
Quote
science isn't fake news

Medical and psychiatry science that treated homosexuality as an abnormality was praised in the 50's and 60's, and is shunned today. And it's not because today's researchers are any smarter.

You only get funded by supporting the present social norms, FYI. No one is going to fund electroshock therapy research for homosexuality. Society already decided that it's okay.

Those prior researchers are highly demonized, despite that those patients themselves wanted the treatment. When you read about it today, writers demonize it to an extent that they make it sound like the police rounded them up against their will and doctors forced electroshock therapy in mental institutions (without actually saying that), when that implied situation is far from the truth.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 11:47:31 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2252
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2020, 11:11:50 AM »
Quote
science isn't fake news

Medical and psychiatry science that treated homosexuality as an abnormality was praised in the 50's and 60's, and is shunned today. And it's not because today's researchers any smarter.

You only get funded by supporting the present social norms, FYI. No one is going to fund electroshock therapy research for homosexuality. Society already decided that it's okay.

In other news, society has moved on from slavery and from sending children down the coal mines.

Society moves on, Tom. You cannot present something with the benefit of 60-year hindsight as a dismissal of everything that goes on today 

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7363
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2020, 11:42:06 AM »
Quote
science isn't fake news

Medical and psychiatry science that treated homosexuality as an abnormality was praised in the 50's and 60's, and is shunned today. And it's not because today's researchers any smarter.

You only get funded by supporting the present social norms, FYI. No one is going to fund electroshock therapy research for homosexuality. Society already decided that it's okay.

In other news, society has moved on from slavery and from sending children down the coal mines.

Society moves on, Tom. You cannot present something with the benefit of 60-year hindsight as a dismissal of everything that goes on today

Since you admit that it was society who decided that homosexuality was okay, rather than science, you are admitting that science is not truly independent and impartial. If science has to bend itself to what society thinks is good and bad at the present time to get funded, that makes it generally untrustworthy and potentially 'fake news'.

Scientific truths can change because "society moves on"... Funny flip flopping justification of bias in science there.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 06:08:42 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2020, 11:51:27 AM »
Quote
science isn't fake news

Medical and psychiatry science that treated homosexuality as an abnormality was praised in the 50's and 60's, and is shunned today. And it's not because today's researchers any smarter.

You only get funded by supporting the present social norms, FYI. No one is going to fund electroshock therapy research for homosexuality. Society already decided that it's okay.

In other news, society has moved on from slavery and from sending children down the coal mines.

Society moves on, Tom. You cannot present something with the benefit of 60-year hindsight as a dismissal of everything that goes on today

As you admit that it was society who decided that homosexuality was okay, rather than science, you are admitting that science is not truly independent and impartial. If science has to bend itself to what society thinks is good and bad at the present time to get funded, that makes it generally untrustworthy and fake news.

Scientific truths change because "society moved on"... Funny flip flopping justification of bias in science there.
Scientific "truths" change, or scientific practices? Stem cell research is considered ethically bad by society, but the science behind it is pretty sound and would benefit us all. That's not to say I agree'd with trying to torture the homosexuality out of people but if you considered it "research" back then if it yielded results or not, if it was wrong to do or not it doesn't mean it wasn't scientific in some way. In the end that's the point in science isn't it? To find out what works, what doesn't. I'm not sure why you would think that the way society judges what scientists can and can't do would make the science any more or less 'truth' so much as limiting or allowing science to happen.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7363
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2020, 12:16:18 PM »
Quote
science isn't fake news

Medical and psychiatry science that treated homosexuality as an abnormality was praised in the 50's and 60's, and is shunned today. And it's not because today's researchers any smarter.

You only get funded by supporting the present social norms, FYI. No one is going to fund electroshock therapy research for homosexuality. Society already decided that it's okay.

In other news, society has moved on from slavery and from sending children down the coal mines.

Society moves on, Tom. You cannot present something with the benefit of 60-year hindsight as a dismissal of everything that goes on today

As you admit that it was society who decided that homosexuality was okay, rather than science, you are admitting that science is not truly independent and impartial. If science has to bend itself to what society thinks is good and bad at the present time to get funded, that makes it generally untrustworthy and fake news.

Scientific truths change because "society moved on"... Funny flip flopping justification of bias in science there.
Scientific "truths" change, or scientific practices? Stem cell research is considered ethically bad by society, but the science behind it is pretty sound and would benefit us all. That's not to say I agree'd with trying to torture the homosexuality out of people but if you considered it "research" back then if it yielded results or not, if it was wrong to do or not it doesn't mean it wasn't scientific in some way. In the end that's the point in science isn't it? To find out what works, what doesn't. I'm not sure why you would think that the way society judges what scientists can and can't do would make the science any more or less 'truth' so much as limiting or allowing science to happen.

Psychiatrists (and other professions) used to say that homosexuality was an abmormality, and thought of ways to treat the condition, for those who wanted to be treated (and which was never forced in the US - Bill of Rights)

That is pretty taboo to say now, however, and would get you ostricized from those professions. Homosexuality was taken off of medical diagnosis charts as a medical condition.

It's no longer an abnormality because society decided homosexuality was okay. If you don't twist to what society thinks is good and bad at present time, you don't get funded and are scolded and tarnished. Simple to see that this applies to all science.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 12:20:34 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2020, 04:00:20 PM »
Quote
science isn't fake news

Medical and psychiatry science that treated homosexuality as an abnormality was praised in the 50's and 60's, and is shunned today. And it's not because today's researchers are any smarter.

You only get funded by supporting the present social norms, FYI. No one is going to fund electroshock therapy research for homosexuality. Society already decided that it's okay.

Those prior researchers are highly demonized, despite that those patients themselves wanted the treatment. When you read about it today, writers demonize it to an extent that they make it sound like the police rounded them up against their will and doctors forced electroshock therapy in mental institutions (without actually saying that), when that implied situation is far from the truth.

Okay. Some TV channels spread fake news. Does it mean that all TV channels spread fake news? Does it mean that all news are equally fake?

I definitely agree that there was, is and will be (apparently) scientific stuff that is more or less fake. I guess that scientists are just humans! However, that doesn't mean that all of science is fake. In fact, I would say that the majority of science is not fake.

There are, for example, different fields of science. The main two branches are social sciences (archaelogy, psychology, sociology, economics, ...) and natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, ...). They're also called soft and hard sciences. What's the difference? Hard sciences are overall more rigorous, exact, objective, so there's less room for being fake. As an example, you've mentioned psychiatry, which is a hybrid science - it's somewhere between hard and soft science.
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7363
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2020, 05:32:02 PM »
What about conversion therapy that we've been talking about - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

Is this science fake or not? This article explains how it used to be a prevalent treatment and how homosexuality used to be considered an abnormality in medicine, but those practices are now condemed.

The first sentence of this article says "Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological or spiritual interventions."

Is that really because it's pseudoscience or is it because society thinks it's pseudoscience? If you read the article you learn that some psychologists were having success with it:

"Before the American Psychological Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, practitioners of conversion therapy employed aversive conditioning techniques, involving electric shock and nausea-inducing drugs during presentation of same-sex erotic images. Cessation of the aversive stimuli was typically accompanied by the presentation of opposite-sex erotic images, with the objective of strengthening heterosexual feelings. In "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: a critical review", published in 1966, M. P. Feldman claimed a 58% cure rate, but Douglas Haldeman is skeptical that such stressful methods permit feelings of sexual responsiveness, and notes that Feldman defined success as suppression of homosexuality and increased capacity for heterosexual behavior.[77]"

58% is pretty significant, if true.

Here the LA Times is actually defending conversion therapy and criticizing a California bill banning it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-friedersdorf-gay-conversion-20180427-story.html%3f_amp=true

Conversion therapy for gays is awful, but so is California’s bill to ban it

"Indeed, it would seem to encompass a gay man who goes to a therapist and says, “Look, I understand that you can’t make me straight, but I’m married to a woman, we have children, and I want to try to be faithful to her and focus on our family at least until the kids are out of the house — can you help me to change my behavior, or at least reduce how often I think about sex with men?”

So what's the answer here, is this science being influenced by social stigmas and social norms or is it really fake and undeserving of investigation and the light of day?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 06:32:54 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Online GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 238
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2020, 09:13:36 PM »
Psychiatrists (and other professions) used to say that homosexuality was an abmormality, and thought of ways to treat the condition, for those who wanted to be treated (and which was never forced in the US - Bill of Rights)

That is pretty taboo to say now, however, and would get you ostricized from those professions. Homosexuality was taken off of medical diagnosis charts as a medical condition.

It's no longer an abnormality because society decided homosexuality was okay. If you don't twist to what society thinks is good and bad at present time, you don't get funded and are scolded and tarnished. Simple to see that this applies to all science.

All science? Society doesn't care about most science. Medicine and especially psychiatry are obvious exceptions: they deal with what define us as human beings, and with definitions of what is a normal behavior. I guess it would also globally apply to social sciences. But in most other fields, society just doesn't have an opinion on what is good or bad. Is matter made of atoms? Are these atoms made of things that are not waves nor particles but have the properties of both? Do we live in a galaxy, are there other galaxies, are there millions or billions or more of them? As science answered these questions, our everyday lives went on unchanged and society didn't really have anything to say. In the times of Galileo and Copernicus, when the church was much more powerful, saying the Earth is not the center of the Universe could get you scolded, but that ended long ago. Even Darwin didn't run into too many problems. And no one is going to get scolded by society for proving a mathematical theorem or for a new finding in physics, however revolutionary. If tomorrow, say, string theory is proven or disproven, it would be very big news for the scientific community, but apart from that it would barely make the headlines.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

Re: Some question that I think could be interesting
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2020, 09:43:47 PM »
As flat earthers know well, it's not easy to convince a society of what is Truth. People won't accept a scientifically accepted fact that they hate, unless your proofs are Nuclear Weapons or GMOs. Indeed the rest of lesser, difficult to reproduce, results,  aren't universally accepted, like for evolution or particle theories. At that point not-so-good scientists may come up and grab the funding for pleasant truths. Shall we call it "life"?
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".