It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 48
14
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Look at your bird quote well the bird has a tiny MASS compared to the EARTH so guess what the force generated on the bird is small the thrust and uplift created by the birds wings is greater so it can LIFT itself against Gravity.



The problem is, a force has to offer resistance against another, opposite force.

The bird flies without resistance.

No force, therefore.



I strongly suggest that you research air. And birds. And 'lift'. In fact just research and deny ignorance.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


You don't actually think he believes any of this, do you?



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


You don't actually think he believes any of this, do you?


No, I'm convinced that he's been trolling us all for reactions. The level of idiocy, should he really believe what he's typing, would be epic.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


Agreed - same with his Moon Landings Faked nonsense.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
You're both right, obviously.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

How does Earth's gravity manage to hold the moon in place, if astronauts in 'Earth orbit', all float around in 0 g?


Astronauts in orbit, such as on the space station (ISS), are not just floating -- they are falling. At least 99% of Earth's gravity is still acting on the ISS and the astronauts, always pulling those astronauts and the ISS itself back down to Earth. However, since the astronauts and the ISS around them are falling together and at the same speed/direction, the net effect is zero G (similar to how the "Vomit Comet" aircraft works).

In addition, while the ISS and its crew are falling back to Earth due to gravity, the ISS also has a sideways momentum ("sideways" as in parallel to the curved surface of the Earth that prevents them from falling to the surface. That's because the surface curves away from them before they could hit.



A good way to illustrate how the surface curves away from an orbiting spacecraft before the spacecraft can hit that surface is a thought experiment Isaac Newton proposed back in 1687 that has become known as "Newton's Cannonball".

In this graphic representation of the thought experiment, cannonball A with the least velocity quickly falls back to earth due to gravity. Cannonball B has a bit more velocity that allows it to go almost to the edge of the curve, but not quite. Both A and B hit the ground because the ground "gets in their way" (so-to-speak).

Cannonball C, which has a greater velocity than both A and B, also gets pulled back down, but because of that greater velocity it can goes further out over the curved surface.

In fact, cannonball C so far out over the curved surface of the Earth that as gravity pulls it back down the surface curves away allowing cannon ball C to miss the ground.


Now, instead of cannonballs, imagine these are rockets pushing satellites or the ISS "sideways" to the ground at orbital speeds.



Leaving aside orbiting objects (which I'd argue do not exist, but that's another issue)....

I'm referring to this....

It’s the fate every astronaut dreads: To quote Col. Chris Hadfield, author of the new memoir “An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth” (Little, Brown), “My number one concern . . . is to avoid floating off into space.

nypost.com...


In 1973, the value of those tether were proven when Pete Conrad and Joe Kerwin were doing an EVA on Skylab. They were trying to repair a solar array when it suddenly deployed, throwing them off of the space station. Their tethers were the only thing that stopped them from floating away to their deaths.

www.quora.com...

You wanna talk about fear? This view would likely be many people’s worst nightmare — being in a spacesuit, untethered, floating away from the International Space Station and its relative safety. NASA has astronauts covered for this Gravity-type scenario, however, with a sort of jet backpack that can send astronauts back to safety.

A new video featuring European Space Agency astronaut Alexander Gerst (also embedded below) explains the steps an astronaut would take to swing back to safety. “We actually train how to use that in the virtual reality lab,” he said shortly after the video showed an astronaut floating away.


www.universetoday.com...


I've emphasized where it mentions 'floating away' into space - even when the astronaut is in orbit, near the ISS.

Either gravity must exist beyond Earth orbit, and would pull astronauts towards Earth's surface...or gravity does not exist beyond Earth orbit, and does not pull astronauts towards Earth's surface. Actual forces work consistently. That's one of the ways to prove the force exists, because it applies consistently, in all conditions, as it must.

Your 'force' doesn't work that way. It pulls objects to Earth, if they are below Earth orbit. It doesn't pull astronauts to Earth, beyond Earth orbit, at all. The objects beyond Earth orbit simply 'float away' into space...

But, nothing stops Earth's gravity, because it leaps 250,000 miles out, past all the objects, astronauts, which are drifting aimlessly in space, where gravity doesn't work....

At 250,000 miles out, it works again. A moon was chugging along, in space, when it's grasped by Earth's gravity. Even better, gravity is able to stop pulling an object towards Earth's surface. It 'holds' them in orbit, around Earth, forever and ever after!!


When you make up a force, that doesn't exist, that cannot be proven to exist, it becomes the 'universal excuse of all nonsense'

A force that is pure fantasy.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Look at your bird quote well the bird has a tiny MASS compared to the EARTH so guess what the force generated on the bird is small the thrust and uplift created by the birds wings is greater so it can LIFT itself against Gravity.



The problem is, a force has to offer resistance against another, opposite force.

The bird flies without resistance.

No force, therefore.



I strongly suggest that you research air. And birds. And 'lift'. In fact just research and deny ignorance.


Ignoring a force that doesn't exist, I'm fine with that.

I'm not being pulled to Earth, sorry to say.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Look at your bird quote well the bird has a tiny MASS compared to the EARTH so guess what the force generated on the bird is small the thrust and uplift created by the birds wings is greater so it can LIFT itself against Gravity.



The problem is, a force has to offer resistance against another, opposite force.

The bird flies without resistance.

No force, therefore.



I strongly suggest that you research air. And birds. And 'lift'. In fact just research and deny ignorance.


Ignoring a force that doesn't exist, I'm fine with that.

I'm not being pulled to Earth, sorry to say.


Really? Then jump up and see if you can reach the Moon. If you don't understand something just say so. Otherwise you are just trolling us with yet more nonsense.

EDIT: Actually something just occurred to me to disprove this nonsense about a flat earth right here and now. Yesterday I was walking the dog at dusk. It was a clear, virtually cloudless day. The Sun had set, it was just below the horizon. And yet when I looked up there were two planes in the air over my head. The lower one was also experiencing dusk - it was not in the sunshine. But the one that was higher and almost directly above it was. It was fully lit by the Sun. And that, in a nutshell, proves that the Earth is a sphere.
edit on 29-9-2018 by AngryCymraeg because: Anecdote instantly disproving nonsense added.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Pretty much does, yes.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

How does Earth's gravity manage to hold the moon in place, if astronauts in 'Earth orbit', all float around in 0 g?


Astronauts in orbit, such as on the space station (ISS), are not just floating -- they are falling. At least 99% of Earth's gravity is still acting on the ISS and the astronauts, always pulling those astronauts and the ISS itself back down to Earth. However, since the astronauts and the ISS around them are falling together and at the same speed/direction, the net effect is zero G (similar to how the "Vomit Comet" aircraft works).

In addition, while the ISS and its crew are falling back to Earth due to gravity, the ISS also has a sideways momentum ("sideways" as in parallel to the curved surface of the Earth that prevents them from falling to the surface. That's because the surface curves away from them before they could hit.



A good way to illustrate how the surface curves away from an orbiting spacecraft before the spacecraft can hit that surface is a thought experiment Isaac Newton proposed back in 1687 that has become known as "Newton's Cannonball".

In this graphic representation of the thought experiment, cannonball A with the least velocity quickly falls back to earth due to gravity. Cannonball B has a bit more velocity that allows it to go almost to the edge of the curve, but not quite. Both A and B hit the ground because the ground "gets in their way" (so-to-speak).

Cannonball C, which has a greater velocity than both A and B, also gets pulled back down, but because of that greater velocity it can goes further out over the curved surface.

In fact, cannonball C so far out over the curved surface of the Earth that as gravity pulls it back down the surface curves away allowing cannon ball C to miss the ground.


Now, instead of cannonballs, imagine these are rockets pushing satellites or the ISS "sideways" to the ground at orbital speeds.



Leaving aside orbiting objects (which I'd argue do not exist, but that's another issue)....

I'm referring to this....

It’s the fate every astronaut dreads: To quote Col. Chris Hadfield, author of the new memoir “An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth” (Little, Brown), “My number one concern . . . is to avoid floating off into space.

nypost.com...


In 1973, the value of those tether were proven when Pete Conrad and Joe Kerwin were doing an EVA on Skylab. They were trying to repair a solar array when it suddenly deployed, throwing them off of the space station. Their tethers were the only thing that stopped them from floating away to their deaths.

www.quora.com...

You wanna talk about fear? This view would likely be many people’s worst nightmare — being in a spacesuit, untethered, floating away from the International Space Station and its relative safety. NASA has astronauts covered for this Gravity-type scenario, however, with a sort of jet backpack that can send astronauts back to safety.

A new video featuring European Space Agency astronaut Alexander Gerst (also embedded below) explains the steps an astronaut would take to swing back to safety. “We actually train how to use that in the virtual reality lab,” he said shortly after the video showed an astronaut floating away.


www.universetoday.com...


I've emphasized where it mentions 'floating away' into space - even when the astronaut is in orbit, near the ISS.

Either gravity must exist beyond Earth orbit, and would pull astronauts towards Earth's surface...or gravity does not exist beyond Earth orbit, and does not pull astronauts towards Earth's surface. Actual forces work consistently. That's one of the ways to prove the force exists, because it applies consistently, in all conditions, as it must.

Your 'force' doesn't work that way. It pulls objects to Earth, if they are below Earth orbit. It doesn't pull astronauts to Earth, beyond Earth orbit, at all. The objects beyond Earth orbit simply 'float away' into space...

But, nothing stops Earth's gravity, because it leaps 250,000 miles out, past all the objects, astronauts, which are drifting aimlessly in space, where gravity doesn't work....

At 250,000 miles out, it works again. A moon was chugging along, in space, when it's grasped by Earth's gravity. Even better, gravity is able to stop pulling an object towards Earth's surface. It 'holds' them in orbit, around Earth, forever and ever after!!


When you make up a force, that doesn't exist, that cannot be proven to exist, it becomes the 'universal excuse of all nonsense'

A force that is pure fantasy.


I will let the person you replied to have the pleasure of responding.. though I am dying to...

One question

IF nothing pulls you towards the earth why do you accelerate when you fall?

Notice the difference between jumping from 2 feet up, and 4 to 6 feet at all?

Ever been on a roller coaster?


edit on 29-9-2018 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


An astronaut can "float" away from the spacecraft because they and the spacecraft craft are already moving at 17,000 mph relative to the Earth's surface. If a spacewalking astronaut decides to push off of his spacecraft, he or she would then have a delta-v, or change in velocity, relative to that spacecraft. The astronaut would still be moving at around 17,000 mph, but it would be along a slightly different orbit at maybe a slightly different speed than their spacecraft.

If they are not tethered or have any means of changing their momentum then there would be no way for them to get back to the craft, and they would float away from the spacecraft along a different orbit.

I suppose eventually that orbit would decay due to atmospheric drag (if in LEO, where that very-slight-but-still-present drag can occur), and the astronaut's orbit would eventually cause he or she to re-enter, but that may take a long time (months?, years?) -- much longer than the space suit's life support could handle, so they'd already be dead.

edit on 29/9/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I wish we could sort within a thread by the posts that make the most sense and actually teach anyone willing to read, your posts would always be near the top, factual and sensible with enough information for the layman to understand, alongside new information that can then be researched.



I guess that what eating people can do for you



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Really? Then jump up and see if you can reach the Moon. If you don't understand something just say so. Otherwise you are just trolling us with yet more nonsense.


Nonsense is assuming that there must be a force 'pulling' almost every single object downward, to the surface of Earth. While NOT pulling in objects if they're in Earth orbit. Then, it becomes a force that 'grasps' hold of one object, 250,000 miles away from Earth, and keeps it in place forever after.

There is absolutely no valid evidence for such a 'force' even existing, let alone on Earth.

When fish are caught in lakes, for example, they are pulled in, pulled up, to boats - a physical force applied by the rod, reel, and line, pulling on the fish.

Powerful magnetic force pulls in metallic objects.

When we are pulling in/on something, or if something is being pulled, have you ever called it, or ever heard someone call it... a 'fall'? Or a 'push'? A fish isn't pushed to a boat, for example. A metallic object isn't pushed towards the magnet, either.

Do you say objects fall to Earth?

What about a 'free fall'?

If an object falls towards Earth, without any air resistance, it is considered to be a 'free fall'...

They have indicated, once more, that objects DO fall, towards Earth. They describe a specific type of fall, which is a fall with no air resistance. A free fall. A fall that is free...

If someone claims that objects 'fall' to Earth, and that we 'fall' from a building, while claiming objects do not fall to Earth, they have two opposing, contradictory arguments.

What if I said objects were pulled down to Earth, while arguing that objects are not pulled down to Earth - that they fall to Earth....because gravity doesn't exist....

You'd all jump on it, scorn and insult endlessly, how dumb, and conflicting, my whole argument is...right?

So what should I think about your argument, conflicting with what you're always claiming?



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: turbonium1


An astronaut can "float" away from the spacecraft because they and the spacecraft craft are already moving at 17,000 mph relative to the Earth's surface. If a spacewalking astronaut decides to push off of his spacecraft, he or she would then have a delta-v, or change in velocity, relative to that spacecraft. The astronaut would still be moving at around 17,000 mph, but it would be along a slightly different orbit at maybe a slightly different speed than their spacecraft.

If they are not tethered or have any means of changing their momentum then there would be no way for them to get back to the craft, and they would float away from the spacecraft along a different orbit.

I suppose eventually that orbit would decay due to atmospheric drag (if in LEO, where that very-slight-but-still-present drag can occur), and the astronaut's orbit would eventually cause he or she to re-enter, but that may take a long time (months?, years?) -- much longer than the space suit's life support could handle, so they'd already be dead.


The astronauts don't say anything about zipping through space at 17,000 mph, they only say they'd 'float away' into space.

To quote Col. Chris Hadfield, author of the new memoir “An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth” (Little, Brown), “My number one concern . . . is to avoid floating off into space.”

I'm using their own quotes on this, and it doesn't support your claim. We use the sources, quoted, and move along...

Since the astronauts would 'float away', or 'float off' into space, that means there is no gravity 'pulling' them to Earth.

Gravity cannot 'jump' over space, to a far away point, and grasp a hold of the moon. It's utterly ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Promoting such things as evolution is, indeed, shameful, in many ways...

As a 'science', it ignores every single piece of valid evidence AGAINST evolution. It goes against the scientific method, in every way. It tries to connect extinct species as 'ancestors' of living species, based on similar DNA, and proteins, and physical structures - which are features present within all of the co-existing life forms!! Co-existing life forms cannot 'evolve' from one another, which is the entire case for 'ancestor' species, which 'evolve' into other species. Science is not supposed to ignore what the evidence shows, which they DO ignore. That is shameful, beyond a doubt.


Accounting for all the available evidence is what science is supposed to be about. That's what I'm looking at - the actual evidence available to us.

One more thing -

Anyone who has experienced what I have, in some way, will tell everyone of you we exist beyond our life on Earth. If you haven't experienced it, you may not understand this.

If you ever do experience this, you will immediately, and forever, understand that 'evolution' is a part of their shameful, despicable lie.


edit on 30-9-2018 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: turbonium1


An astronaut can "float" away from the spacecraft because they and the spacecraft craft are already moving at 17,000 mph relative to the Earth's surface. If a spacewalking astronaut decides to push off of his spacecraft, he or she would then have a delta-v, or change in velocity, relative to that spacecraft. The astronaut would still be moving at around 17,000 mph, but it would be along a slightly different orbit at maybe a slightly different speed than their spacecraft.

If they are not tethered or have any means of changing their momentum then there would be no way for them to get back to the craft, and they would float away from the spacecraft along a different orbit.

I suppose eventually that orbit would decay due to atmospheric drag (if in LEO, where that very-slight-but-still-present drag can occur), and the astronaut's orbit would eventually cause he or she to re-enter, but that may take a long time (months?, years?) -- much longer than the space suit's life support could handle, so they'd already be dead.


The astronauts don't say anything about zipping through space at 17,000 mph, they only say they'd 'float away' into space.

They'd be zipping through space at 17,000 mph relative to the surface of Earth even if they were floating away.

Astronauts spacewalking around the ISS are already moving at about 17,000 mph, along with the ISS. If they float away at (say) 5 mph relative to the space station, then they are still generally moving at about 17,000 mph relative to the surface of the Earth (plus or minus that 5 mph).



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
The questions referred-to, for 3 posts now. Are you trying to confuse things so that they go-away?

Don't recall posting here those opposing views about trusting our senses. Please post the proof here, or retract your accusation.

1. Perhaps math may not deceive you, but might not your observation and faith in it not?
2. Great! You have acknowledged that science is not 100% correct: is it not our best guess, or such?

3.Great! So some third-party data, may be more likely closer to being right, than others, and we recognize the always
present uncertainty.
4. Do we not use some sort of reasoning to interpret math/science, and data?
Does not this reasoning, give meaning/sense to it? Maybe sometimes not though?

5. It's not about lying, which is purposeful deception. It's about saying things that are untrue, in a statement that implies
truth. Perhaps inadvertently, or unconsciously? Occasional errors abound, no?
6. Good that you have retracted your previous affirmation of authority. You have stepped-out of a delusional belief. Good!
Which opinion? What proof?

7. The data is what it is: a data set. Its it not our interpretations that may vary?
What about when observational data is shared, or transferred? Is there not a chance for corruption of the data-set?
8. It was a reference to this site's motto, those that wave it about, and the possibility that they don't recognize their own
ignorance.

Which questions are not being answered by me?
What if it's not deflection?


So, first of all, sorry for not getting back earlier but I was on holidays for a week.

Second, I'm not trying to confuse anything, I sincerely don't see what questions I didn't address. Care to quote them as I asked before?

Third:

1. I don't have faith in maths. Maths work, they allowed us to build these wonderful machines you use to write everything you say. They allow us to travel oceans using flight. They rule the world and the universe. I don't need to have faith in Math, it just works.

2. I did not acknowledge that science is not 100% correct, please don't put words in my keyboard. What I said is that a behavior can be predicted, but we can never be 100% sure of the outcome. Why? Because we cannot replicate something ad eternum as it would require an infinite amount of time. In that particular case, even if something happens 1 million times out of 1 million tries we cannot say that it will happen 100% of the times forever (even if the likely outcome is that it will, and we do round to that).

3. I take being 90% close to the truth (or 99.99%) to 0% (no proof).

4. I don't understand what you mean. I don't care about metaphysical concepts, I care about data that is replicable and falsifiable. The rest doesn't matter, no matter how you sugar coat it.

5. Things are true until they are not, so you missed the point again. Today every onset of proof we have points to the big bang. if we find conclusive proof tomorrow that the big bang didn't happen it doesn't mean that we're lying. It means that our data was wrong. This is the beauty of science, it's not afraid to be wrong. Still, and getting back on topic, we can observe the earth to be round (observational data), we can calculate that the earth is round and we can predict why the earth is round. There is little to nothing left to doubt of the roundness of the earth, even if the mechanisms that explain such roundness may be subject to change (I doubt that, we have a very accurate understanding of Gravity).

6. I didn't retract anything, so please don't put words in my keyboard (see number 2). I base my statements on actual data, you base yours in belief. You're actually the one in a delusional belief and the one refusing to accept actual data (we've posted several times on this thread).

7. Our interpretations may vary in a lot of things, but a ball is always a ball, 2+2 is always 4, and the world keeps on spinning. You also added yet another straw man to avoid what I said when you're the one basing your theories in beliefs not supported by any data whatsoever. There is not 1 shred of proof for the flat earth.

8. Well, you should apply it to yourself since you're the one that is purposely changing the arguments and using logical fallacies to deflect what is being said. I'm denying ignorance: The earth is not flat.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Hi

So just some ones I found at the weekend !

Newton:

Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my greatest friend is truth.



All knowledge and understanding of the Universe was no more than playing with stones and shells on the seashore of the vast imponderable ocean of truth.



It seems to me farther, that these Particles have not only a Vis inertiae, accompanied with such passive Laws of Motion as naturally result from that Force, but also that they are moved by certain active Principles, such as that of Gravity, and that which causes Fermentation, and the Cohesion of Bodies. These Principles I consider, not as occult Qualities, supposed to result from the specifick Forms of Things, but as general Laws of Nature, by which the Things themselves are form'd; their Truth appearing to us by Phaenomena, though their Causes be not yet discover'd. For these are manifest Qualities, and their Causes only are occult.



Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.


Of course you will sit there and read them and outright say , he didnt specifically say " science is the search for truth"
But that is exactly what he is saying

Albert Einstein


However, all scientific statements and laws have one characteristic in common: they are “true or false” (adequate or inadequate). Roughly speaking, our reaction to them is “yes” or “no.” The scientific way of thinking has a further characteristic. The concepts which it uses to build up its coherent systems are not expressing emotions. For the scientist, there is only “being,” but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil; no goal. As long as we remain within the realm of science proper, we can never meet with a sentence of the type: “Thou shalt not lie.” There is something like a Puritan's restraint in the scientist who seeks truth: he keeps away from everything voluntaristic or emotional.



Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions. He may also believe in the existence of the ideal limit of knowledge and that it is approached by the human mind. He may call this ideal limit the objective truth.


Charles Darwin

.I believe there exists, & I feel within me, an instinct for the truth, or knowledge or discovery, of something of the same nature as the instinct of virtue, & that our having such an instinct is reason enough for scientific researches without any practical results ever ensuing from them.



False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often long endure; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, as every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.


Marie Curie


There are sadistic scientists who hurry to hunt down errors instead of establishing the truth.


Aristotle

Philosophy is the science which considers truth.



To be acceptable as scientific knowledge a truth must be a deduction from other truths.



Louis Pasteur

As in the experimental sciences, truth cannot be distinguished from error as long as firm principles have not been established through the rigorous observation of facts.



Anyway just a few I found!

and just to keep you happy

Brian Cox

“In science, there are no universal truths, just views of the world that have yet to be shown to be false.” ― Brian Cox, Why Does E=mc²?


accept when we discover a scientific law , in which it has yet to prove a falsehood based against its repeated observation and verification.
We can say that its true as observed against the natural world!

TO me it seems abundantly clear that scientists have always been in pursuit of truth by eliminating falsehood !

and one mor from Aristotle since you like the philosophy of science


The investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but every one says something true about the nature of things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed. Therefore, since the truth seems to be like the proverbial door, which no one can fail to hit, in this way it is easy, but the fact that we can have a whole truth and not the particular part we aim at shows the difficulty of it. Perhaps, as difficulties are of two kinds, the cause of the present difficulty is not in the facts but in us.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




I strongly suggest that you research air.




To me it seems as though just getting some and breathing some will allow for the brain to operate better.



the only thing to explain this legendary trolling is a lack of oxygen to the brain.




No, I'm convinced that he's been trolling us all for reactions. The level of idiocy, should he really believe what he's typing, would be epic.



I said early in this thread or an earlier flat earth one a few months back before this one to check the 9/11 posts they do and see what type of poster you are dealing with.

Its either a Pro. ...... or a lack of oxygen to the brain.
edit on 1-10-2018 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

I think a caveat/clarification to that would be that science is a tool we use in an attempt to help us find the truth, but science itself is not the truth, nor are scientific theories (even ones with good evidence) necessarily the truth.

Any proper scientist would tell you that theories are not the same as "the truth"; at the core of the scientific process is a mechanism for finding out that theories are actually wrong. The very fabric of the scientific method is that it provides a constant self-check and self-correction, always looking to knock a current theory off of its pedestal, in whole or in parts.

With this means of self-correction, the scientific process is a much more powerful tool in helping to find the truth.

Science is a process that is constantly doubting itself, and has the means to react to those doubts. That's what makes it so valuable.

However, there are some principles that you mentioned that, for all intents and purposes, are the truth, such as Newton's Laws -- at least in the macro level. Sure, relativity and quantum mechanics have shown us that Newton's principles may not be perfect and not the end-all-be-all, but for everyday (and beyond) purposes, they are true enough to work with. We've successfully sent spacecraft to other worlds using Newtonian Physics to calculate the orbital mechanics.



edit on 1/10/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join