Friday, June 7, 2019

On Good and Bad Arguments for Good and Bad Ideas (or admitting an argument wrong, even if popular and in support of one's idea

Flat Earther AGREES With SciManDan!!
SciManDan | 7.VI.2019

4:20 There are Evolution believers who can't do the maths too.

(Btw, I am not a Flat Earther, but I am a Geocentric, so this argument concerns me, I gave it up after a mathematical analysis by Robert Carter).

For instance, if I state that carbon date 40 000 years ago really was date of Deluge, 2957 BC, they will go, "oh, he must be wrong on the maths, there is no way a measurement could be wrong by a factor of 8".

Well, carbon dates don't directly measure time, but directly measure remaining C14:C12 ratio. And I consider them wrong about not one percent of that measure, I only consider them wrong by a factor of about 60 about how much C14:C12 there was when last Neanderthal died.

Which is not a thing they measure.

So, the alternative science side is not alone in lots of supporters handicapped in maths. It's fairly common across the field.

In my case, the argument I withdrew support from was how it would feel to be on a spinning earth (merry go round parallel, also the one adressed by Robert Carter).

Oh, feel in our stomachs is basically what I was supporting up to Carter (not FE, but Geocentric, but this is not about globe as globe, but globe as spinning).

[S]-Riley Dunn
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh? How would it feel on an Earth spinning at 0.0007 RPM? How would it feel to travel 0.25 degrees per minute?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, point already granted on my part.

[S]-Riley Dunn
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I asked you a question and you answered with “yes”. Try again. Also, remember that humans feel acceleration, not velocity. But anyway, show us your math.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I gave a yes to your point : it is already granted.

4:59 By his words "gravity doesn't exist" I suppose he means Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity doesn't exist.

Either of them, or Aristotelic gravity (heavy bodies tend to the centre of the Universe, which is the centre of the Earth) or sth else could account for the observed acceleration.

People who differentiate between observations and deductions are fairly rare on your side too (outside the science geeks, who you seem to be one of).

He might also mean gravity if his model (not Aristotelic if he is Flat Earth) is not universal.

By the way, thanks for the trampoline clip, exactly what would happen to someone jumping off a train, he would be dragged on ground with train speed and probably die or get very unhealthy if at all surviving, and probably be maimed for life if any survival.

Also, a miss on usually well documented Hergé in The Temple of the Sun : he jumps off a train into a narrow river gorge and into the water, arguably he would be crashing into the gorge walls if it wasn't a comic book.

8:34 And how rare is it Evolution believers and Heliocentric / Acentrics admit there are flawed arguments for their view.

"Armstrong saw Earth spinning from the Moon"

Yeah - if Moon is turning around Earth at 24 h 55 minutes per turn, what would Earth look like from Moon? Turning around itself of course.

Or this one:

"We managed to orient ourselves in space, which we would not have been able to if we had the wrong idea of it"

Depends on what type of wrong idea, if you wear glasses that turn all upside down, your brain gets used and you start to orient normally, even if light hits your eye the "wrong way round". Geocentrism doesn't state Heliocentrics get the facts wrong within the wrong framework, just that they get them in the wrong framework.


The moon takes roughly 30 days to go around the earth, not 24hours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is according to Heliocentrism, in which the 24 h 55 min between twice you see the moon in same place is supposed to be a compound of Moon's monthly movement and Earth's spin.

Gratulations to showing up to illustrate my point that being knowledgeable on the opponents' pov is rare all over the field, not just among the "marginal" community.


[S]-Riley Dunn
Where are your quotes from? What is the second one even talking about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My "quotes" are summing up arguments given by Heliocentrics.

And the last one, successful space travel, has been featured as a recent new proof we got cosmology right.

[S]-Riley Dunn
Hans-Georg Lundahl
So what is the source of your quoting?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Arguments I met in real life and on the internet, and not actual quoting.

If you insist on a real actual quote with a real actual source:

"Ok, I get it. You think this is silly because there is no way to get a lander on Mars without a heliocentric solar system model. Yes, that's an excellent point. But still, this IS evidence of a heliocentric model that you can figure out for yourself."

Wired : How Do We Know the Earth Orbits the Sun?
Author: Rhett Allain dot-physics 04.14.14 08:26 am

No comments: