Discussion in 'Community' started by Rogue_Ten, Apr 9, 2014.
I made a defecating forum once.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I saw it, it was ****.
Mars is bright tonight.
best tragedy thread ever.
So God hates the fatties? Yikes!
God hates Frakes. Star Trek: Insurrection was a terrible movie.
TAKE IT BACK!!!!!
Speaking of which, ASR, have you complained to Paramount Pictures yet about the inaccuracy on show given that when you see the Sun in a Star Trek picture, it generally isn't orbiting around the Earth?
Nope. Sorry. Try again, this time with emphasis on better funny.
They also say that Warp 10 causes "hyper-evolution", even though that's not scientifically based. Even if I did bother to complain, what are the odds they'd do anything anyway?
I'm not letting this go, ASR. I want that model.
I can't find the two videos my dad had shown me that further reaffirmed my belief in the model, if YouTube hasn't taken them down then I'm sure my dad has the links. However, I did find the video of Airy's Failure:
In a way, geocentrism does make sense for hardcore religious folk. 'Cause why would God spend so much time and effort on us only to stick us on some random rock orbiting some random star orbiting the center of some random galaxy out of 100,000,000,000 galaxies? Why would we be such an utterly insignificant part of an unfathomably vast universe that does not at all-- literally or otherwise-- revolve around us? It was more-or-less the logic of the geocentrists when it was much more accepted by society.
You've got to be pretty thick to argue that Airy's Failure demonstrated a stationary earth, or that anyone would be surprised by the test results. His approximations were first order, and required a modified stationary aether hypothesis to explain - because the original, non-stationary aether hypothesis didn't pan out at all. This new stationary aether hypothesis then required testing, and didn't pan out in Michelson and Morley's famous experiment. The video is disingenuous to the nth degree in its assertion that "no one" is taught about Airy's Failure, I learned about it in my freshman optics course. The video is also disingenuous in its attempt to explain Airy's results in the context of a stationary earth. Airy would never have considered a stationary earth model, 1. because such a theory had not been seriously considered for centuries, and 2. because of this rather inconvenient experiment you've shoved under the rug:
Please explain this, per your theory, impossible pendulum. I want to see the math.
So when you take a telescope and observe a distant star and see a planet orbiting around that star, doesn't that make you realize that Earth must similarly rotate around its own star?
Um, I'm not sure that's the approach you want to take...
Oh, I forgot. Facts and objective data are meaningless to someone like ASR.
When my dog is on a moving surface, such as a the floor of a moving van or a treadmill, he moves around to compensate.
My dog does not do this self-correcting behaviour when simply standing on the ground.
Ergo, the earth isn't moving.
Also, it's flat. Otherwise everything would fall off. Morans.
I'm not too familiar with The Thick of It, so I'll just agree with you for now that Ender Sai is the Steve Fleming of the JCC.
im malcolm tucker
The results of the Michelson/Morley experiment took the wrong conclusion out of it, since there was a null factor, they did the even more baseless idea of removing the idea of the ether, instead of following the evidence and saying "Maybe the earth isn't moving after all." I'm going to talk to my university friend about helping me develop a model that fits the evidence (she's actually told me previously that in her own experiments, Einstein's dimensional diagrams didn't always work and she pretty much had to start from scratch, take that as you will.)
We already have a model that fits the evidence.
It's the heliocentric solar system.