The Flat Earth Society

wps-hbt
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
NWernBrewer said:
Hey, hey, hey - this is reaching into religion and that is strictly verboten in my understanding.;)
Click to expand...

Politics used to be verboten too, until certain members refused to back off posting political rants and trying to incite debates.

Give it time and I'll bet religion will be acceptable as well.
 
cubbies said:
Oh my god. Seriously, this is hilarious. I dont know what else to say. Funniest thing I have seen in a while. Elephants and a turtle hahahahahaha.
Click to expand...

To be completely clear-- I don't know tha the flat earth society is in any way relted to this but all references to the 4 elephants standing on a turtle supporting a flat earth are taken directly from Terry Pratchett's
Disc World series of novels.



Map.jpg


http://concepttshirts.co.uk/tshirts/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/discworld.gif
 
Flyin' Lion said:
Give it time and I'll bet religion will be acceptable as well.
Click to expand...

Or one day a huge flame war will erupt and the Moderators will once again bring the ban hammer down on this sort of thing.


If everyone acts like adults and the bouncer will fall asleep on his stool no matter what the topics of discussion are. Act like a bunch of petulant children and start pulling hair and screaming and I'm sure there will be some head knocking and ass tossing.
 
I doubt that they really believe that stuff. They are just having fun arguing the outher side and coming up with pseudo science that supports their idea of a flat earth. I think it would be hilarious to come up with something, just to drive the other side nuts b/c they think that you are really serious about it. I certainly would have fun.

Everyone who has flown in an airplane knows that the earth is not a disk.

Kai
 
Kaiser said:
I doubt that they really believe that stuff. They are just having fun arguing the outher side and coming up with pseudo science that supports their idea of a flat earth. I think it would be hilarious to come up with something, just to drive the other side nuts b/c they think that you are really serious about it. I certainly would have fun.

Everyone who has flown in an airplane knows that the earth is not a disk.

Kai
Click to expand...

Only if you trust that..

a) what you see out the windows is really what is there
b) that any 'curvature' you see is not an optical illusion.
 
kornkob said:
Or one day a huge flame war will erupt and the Moderators will once again bring the ban hammer down on this sort of thing.


If everyone acts like adults and the bouncer will fall asleep on his stool no matter what the topics of discussion are. Act like a bunch of petulant children and start pulling hair and screaming and I'm sure there will be some head knocking and ass tossing.
Click to expand...


+1

As far as I have gathered from the mods, we can debate whatever we want as long as 1) we act like adults 2) no personal attacks 3) offense is not meant or taken by opposing sides 4)you are willing to to hear the not so good about your personal point of view, and 5)you understand that you ARE NOT going to change ANYONES point of view on the subject. If you will not/can not abide by these rules, STAY AWAY FROM THE CONVERSATION!!!!

Because most individuals get personally offended about topics such as religion, politics, child care, the best brand of cereal, etc. these topics have been historically viewed as taboo. But if people are willing to follow the rules and not behave like babies, we could, in all seriousness, have a perfectly legit conversation on the pros and cons of re-institution a nazi regime! Unfortunately, someone out there will not stay away, take personal offense, and the name calling will begin. It is in this stage that the moderators almighty +5 "Ban-hammer" will come falling down (or the earth will rise up to meet their ban-hammer, whatever you believe):D
 
Soooo... everyone who's ever navigated the earth... meaning most commercial pilots, most navy officers... quartermasters... navigators and navigation electronics techs, all commercial shipping captains and navigators, and probably a few more professions I've failed to mention... is in on the conspiracy???


totally believable.
 
Don't worry, just like the FES, HBT is more fun when you discount/ignore the obvious and debate only the points that you think you can make some sort of witty comment that you think might peeve someone off.....:D
 
Kaiser said:
I doubt that they really believe that stuff. They are just having fun arguing the outher side and coming up with pseudo science that supports their idea of a flat earth. I think it would be hilarious to come up with something, just to drive the other side nuts b/c they think that you are really serious about it. I certainly would have fun.

Everyone who has flown in an airplane knows that the earth is not a disk.

Kai
Click to expand...

+1, I can see this even being used as a tool to promote debate in a classroom. Make one side have to prove that the earth is flat and they can come up with some evidence.
 
knarfks said:
I find this funny as well. But one problem, the flying spagetti monster was meant to make fun of a stupid school board...notice where I'm from...not too proud myself. But at the same time it isn't making fun of the religion itself, just idiot followers. I have been to many places, met many muslims, mormons and other religions followers. Most of the time I didn't think they were idiots, there are of course idiots everywhere, including athiests and agnostics, and they are typically the most outspoken and least informed unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I do believe you have a punctuation error which cause some people to take it the bad way (I've bolded the correction). Do you mean to say the "idiots" are the most outspoken (not necessarily the atheist and agnostic idiots...)?

As to the OP, I could go along for a bit, but the explanation as to why the Earth wouldn't crumble under it's own weight in the FES doesn't satisfy me. (As to the one about the Earth going the speed of light and objects lifting from it not going faster...)
 
Klainmeister said:
i see that everyone still ignores my previous posts...
Click to expand...

No one has ignored your post, even from the beginning. You just made such a good point that no one could say anything more about it. :D
 
In mathematics, a paraboloid is a quadric surface of special kind. There are two kinds of paraboloids: elliptic and hyperbolic. The elliptic paraboloid is shaped like an oval cup and can have a maximum or minimum point. In a suitable coordinate system, it can be represented by the equation


This is an elliptical paraboloid which opens upward.

The hyperbolic paraboloid is a doubly ruled surface shaped like a saddle. In a suitable coordinate system, it can be represented by the equation


This is a hyperbolic paraboloid that opens up along the x-axis and down along the y-axis


um what?
 
MikeFlynn74 said:
In mathematics, a paraboloid is a quadric surface of special kind. There are two kinds of paraboloids: elliptic and hyperbolic. The elliptic paraboloid is shaped like an oval cup and can have a maximum or minimum point. In a suitable coordinate system, it can be represented by the equation


This is an elliptical paraboloid which opens upward.

The hyperbolic paraboloid is a doubly ruled surface shaped like a saddle. In a suitable coordinate system, it can be represented by the equation


This is a hyperbolic paraboloid that opens up along the x-axis and down along the y-axis


um what?
Click to expand...

Ick...reminds me of multivariable calc. Are they saying that the earth is actually an elliptic parabloid?
 
Evan! said:
Yeah, well, there's about as much evidence for a flat earth as there is for jebus or mu-hammad or moroni or body thetans or the flying spaghetti monster. Doesn't stop plenty of mo-rons from believing in them. *dodges flaming like Neo*

I've always loved how a cult is differentiated from a religion solely by how many believers there are. Quantity, not quality, eh?:p
Click to expand...

So by this do you infer that all religion is "mo-ron"-ic?

I have yet to meet anyone that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt with scientific certainty that GOD exists. But that does not stop many of us from believing it anyway.
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
I have yet to meet anyone that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt with scientific certainty that GOD exists. But that does not stop many of us from believing it anyway.
Click to expand...


Because you cannot DISprove the existence of God either. :D Science is not based on proving things, its based on trying to disprove your observations.

i.e. If I were to observe a ball, I could say, "A ball exists!" and have all sorts of arguments thrown against me (you are seeing things, it is a mirage, it is not a ball but a circle seen head on.....). But if I were to do various experiments trying to disprove that the ball exists, I could say that, "I cannot show that this ball does not exist, therefore there is a high possibility that balls do exist." With this statement, anyone can come over and take a shot at trying to disprove the existence of the ball.

my $0.02
 
deathweed said:
Because you cannot DISprove the existence of God either. :D Science is not based on proving things, its based on trying to disprove your observations.
Click to expand...

Er-- that's not a valid assessment. A negative proof is a logical fallacy. Scientific theory is not based on generating negative proofs. It is based on presenting a theory and then providing experiemental evidence that supports that theory.

And when you are done untangling THAT little statement, try this one on for size: 'God' and all forms of similar deities, is the impact of the 10th dimensional point on a 3rd dimensional sentient construct. Our sentience is unconsciously aware of the 10th dimension and, given that the concepts that comprise it are so immense as to baffle us, we have developed theologies to explain them.

For help in working that out watch this: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
 
kornkob said:
And when you are done untangling THAT little statement, try this one on for size: 'God' and all forms of similar deities, is the impact of the 10th dimensional point on a 3rd dimensional sentient construct. Our sentience is unconsciously aware of the 10th dimension and, given that the concepts that comprise it are so immense as to baffle us, we have developed theologies to explain them.

For help in working that out watch this: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
Click to expand...

:fro:

Where can I sign up for your newsletter?
 
kornkob said:
Er-- that's not a valid assessment. A negative proof is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


We must be talking about two different things here, forgive me if terms have been mixed up. "Proving" a point by refuting the oppisite is used quite often in logical thinking (look up "Reductio ad absurdum"). Say I want to prove that the ball exists, I can assume the oppisite, and by showing that the oppisite is not valid, I can then infer that my orriginal assumption (the ball does not exist) is false, therefore the ball exists.
 
kornkob said:
And when you are done untangling THAT little statement, try this one on for size: 'God' and all forms of similar deities, is the impact of the 10th dimensional point on a 3rd dimensional sentient construct. Our sentience is unconsciously aware of the 10th dimension and, given that the concepts that comprise it are so immense as to baffle us, we have developed theologies to explain them.
Click to expand...


Just another way of saying, "theres somthing bigger than us out there that we dont understand so we will make up some fancy stuff to try to explain it..."

Not that hard to untangle, even with all the big fancy words:D
 
deathweed said:
We must be talking about two different things here, forgive me if terms have been mixed up. "Proving" a point by refuting the oppisite is used quite often in logical thinking (look up "Reductio ad absurdum"). Say I want to prove that the ball exists, I can assume the oppisite, and by showing that the oppisite is not valid, I can then infer that my orriginal assumption (the ball does not exist) is false, therefore the ball exists.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum is not a scientific method nor is it the same thing at all as negative proof.

Again: scientific method is a process by which a theory is posited and experiemental results are produced to support the theory.
 
kornkob said:
Reductio ad absurdum is not a scientific method nor is it the same thing at all as negative proof.

Again: scientific method is a process by which a theory is posited and experiemental results are produced to support the theory.
Click to expand...


Reductio may not be a "scientific method" but it is a staple in logical thinking/reasoning. IMHO isn't logical thinking a staple in the scientific method? And as I said before, I apologize if my terminology is isn't entirely correct, it has been a long time since I have dealt with the philosophy of science rather than the science itself.

But if you are hung on terminology, the scientific method is a way of testing an observation by experimentation, not a theory. A theory has been tested and retested and has been found to hold true under many circumstances, but still requires further experimentation before it can become law (such as the theories of gravity, evolution, a heliocentric universe, etc...)

And from what I was saying before, you cannot prove that something exists without being able to prove that it does not exist. Reductio holds very true in the scientific method, one way to test an observation/hypothesis is to try and show the opposite and not be able to. This is one reason that both positive and negative controls are vital to any well rounded study.
 

Similar threads

R
AHA Forum
Replies
25
Views
726
Steveruch
Steveruch
hilljack13
Peanut Butter
Replies
11
Views
715
JJ900
J
lightweight52
failed secondary fermentation
Replies
12
Views
352
Ingo
I
R
3 vessel system
Replies
35
Views
1K
redrocker652002
R
U
Slugs on grapes
Replies
1
Views
424
SoCalPlumber
SoCalPlumber

Latest posts

Back
Top