How does the Earth move in space in 3 seperate trajectories?

@fresco,

"The sooner you learn that this forum was originally. established to exchange 'expertise' and not pass the time with idle chatter, or promoting crackpot ideas by the 'educationally challenged', the sooner your posts will not be thrown out by long established members whose 'credentials' have been forged over many years of debate.

There are plenty of other forums (and barbers shops) to pass time of day if you simply need somebody to talk to."

I reported this post and asked is this the official position of the able2know website.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I don't believe you speak for this forum's owner.

1 Reply

@jespah,

I never claimed to speak for an individual. I claim to re-iterate the original mission statement. Although this is irrelevant on 'chatty ' threads, it can and should imo be applied on scientific and technical threads thereby attracting contributors whose expertise has made this forum a cut above the rest. Sadly, this advantage appears to have declined over the years as forums have generally tended towards a cacaphonic free for all , where every dog wants to have its day in print irrespective of the quality of its content.

BTW if the original mission statement has been abandoned, I suggest that the forum name should be changed from the misleading 'Able2Know'.

0 Replies

@mystikmind,

As already pointed out to you (by Farmerman I think), you don't like being told you are wrong. Here, presumamly for the sake of 'getting an oar in', you came up with a phrase like '...space moves, I think....' , on a physics thread where even high school students understand that 'space' is not a reference frame with respect to motion ! This vacuous contribution was then merely treated as 'an invitation to talk more' by the OP who was probably attracted by your handle 'mystikmind' as a fellow traveller in pseudoscience, because by now, the experts ( here and no doubt elsewhere) had kicked him into touch.

Wake up and stop winging !

2 Replies

@fresco,

Correction.....you did not directly say 'space moves'....you said 'space is a location'..... which is worse with repect to frames of reference !

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

As already pointed out to you (by Farmerman I think), you don't like being told you are wrong. Here, presumamly for the sake of 'getting an oar in', you came up with a phrase like '...space moves, I think....' , on a physics thread where even high school students understand that 'space' is not a reference frame with respect to motion !

Why are you using aggressive rhetorical framing of this issue as common sense, when in reality it is a very nuanced issue? Many people think of 'space' as nothing more than a reference frame with respect to motion and not as something that is physically staked out by magnetic fields and gravitational geodesics, which can therefore move.

If you want to have rigorous discussion, then you have to clarify these various ideas and not just aggressively attack people in order to try to intimidate them into a submissive orientation toward science they may not yet understand.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

I see. So you propose a 'rigorous' discussion' with a 'flat earthist' who seeks attention for his nonsense by deliberately disagreeing with the high school physics explained to him in the first few posts. Is this a 'windup' or are you merely indicative of the 'scientific ignorance' that some (not me) have claimed is rife in the US population ?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You wont get through,
I consider this issue closed at Jespah's post.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I see. So you propose a 'rigorous' discussion' with a 'flat earthist' who seeks attention for his nonsense by deliberately disagreeing with the high school physics explained to him in the first few posts. Is this a 'windup' or are you merely indicative of the 'scientific ignorance' that some (not me) have claimed is rife in the US population ?

If someone is intentionally subverting reason, then you're right there is no way to force them to have rigorous, constructive discussion.

But if they are able to explain their POV in a logical way, and you can give them evidence that they are capable of acknowledging and then take a fresh look at their ideas in that new light, then progress is possible.

The problem is when people get into debate mode and just try to block the other person's points in order to trump them with their own. When that happens, there's nothing constructive going on. It's just a battle for who can assert their POV the loudest.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Of course he is deliberately 'subverting reason'. No doubt he is quite happy to use devices based on a global earth, such as communication satellites. He is the sort of nuisance who we might imagine stepping off a plane in Australia (having flown a great circle globally) and to point out that 'the earth must be flat because Australians are not upside down1@

Your call for 'nuances' are entirely inappropriate on this thread. If not, which of the following do you propose ?
Einstein's dismissal of Newton's universal reference frame
Competing theories of 'truth'
The ontological and epistemological status of mathematical models in science
Nietzsche's dismissal of the reality/description distinction.

1 Reply

@Grazing Dogs,

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Of course he is deliberately 'subverting reason'. No doubt he is quite happy to use devices based on a global earth, such as communication satellites. He is the sort of nuisance who we might imagine stepping off a plane in Australia (having flown a great circle globally) and to point out that 'the earth must be flat because Australians are not upside down1@

Your call for 'nuances' are entirely inappropriate on this thread. If not, which of the following do you propose ?
Einstein's dismissal of Newton's universal reference frame
Competing theories of 'truth'
The ontological and epistemological status of mathematical models in science
Nietzsche's dismissal of the reality/description distinction.

What I propose is that you turn your aggression knob down to a level one or zero from up near 10 where you seem to have it.

This is online discussion, not cage fighting. Don't make online discussion into a form of cage fighting.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

So its as I thought...you want no 'expert opinion'...no 'nuances' ... just a bit of 'social dancing' (or as Wittgenstein called it, 'Geschwätz') ! Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

So its as I thought...you want no 'expert opinion'...no 'nuances' ... just a bit of 'social dancing' (or as Wittgenstein called it, 'Geschwätz') !

If you want to discuss science, do so. What you are discussing is meta/social issues surrounding the discussion of science, which avert actual science discussion.

I said stop with the aggression, which also means stop arguing with and about other posters and just address the scientific issues you want to address.

1 Reply

This thread is an interesting example of what happens when Philosophers discuss science. It inevitably turns into a mud-throwing contest with nothing being learned.

In science there are right answers. But if you want them, you will have to talk to someone who has actually studied science. In philosophy, apparently, you can just make up whatever you want. There is almost nothing that anyone is saying here that is scientifically valid.

It is still amusing.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

No. Its an example which demonstrates that laymen even some scientists fail to understand the difference between 'right' as ' truth', or 'right' as 'functionally elegant coherence within a greater successful paradigm'. Such paradigms can evolve, but do not step backwards towards a former state of ignorance on the basis of selective evidence presented by minority misfits with a personal agenda.
But I'm happy that you might be amused by such observations which you like to label 'philosophy'. However, note that some of us wearing a 'philosopher's hat' have another hat in the closet which they wore when publishing and teaching science.

1 Reply

@fresco,

You and LivingLava are throwing mud at each other. Each of you is calling the other person ignorant.

From the perspective of anyone who has actually studied science, you are both spouting nonsense. Neither of you is going to teach the other anything valid about science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No. I've called Grazing Dogs 'an ignoramus' (in the sense of [ i]ignoring[/i] how scientific paradigms evolve). Your accusation of more general 'mud slinging' is not very 'scientific' ! Laughing

It's a pity that philosophy of science is outside your comfort zone. IMO It cuts you off from a great source of intellectual stimulation (an example being the Bohr-Einstein debate about the 'reality of sub atomic particles'). Feynman, of course, appeared to have endorsed your position, but he also emphasized the requirement of 'mathematical understanding' as a prequisite for scientific understanding. I suggest that that emphasis itself is worthy of philosophical investigation, the history of which goes all the way back to 'Platonic forms' or even before.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This thread is an interesting example of what happens when Philosophers discuss science. It inevitably turns into a mud-throwing contest with nothing being learned.

In science there are right answers. But if you want them, you will have to talk to someone who has actually studied science. In philosophy, apparently, you can just make up whatever you want. There is almost nothing that anyone is saying here that is scientifically valid.

It is still amusing.

Philosophy and science and every other form of knowledge are ultimately all branches of the same tree.

Humans have evolved the ability to distinguish validity from invalidity, and that is the basis for the critical thinking that is required to distinguish good science from BS.

Now, humans have also evolved the ability to bait and switch BS for valid knowledge in order to undermine the critical thinking that could lead in the direction of true/valid knowledge. They do this for various reasons; usually when whatever they have to lose or gain from BS is worth more to them than the truth.

So there is nothing stopping the BS'ers from claiming the status of 'true science' and then accusing anyone else of pedaling pseudoscience or whatever. If the Earth truly was flat and there were BS'ers interested in covering it up for some reason, then all the discourse that supports the Earth being round today could simply be a conspiracy to avert the consequences of widespread awareness of the Earth being flat.

If you truly want to have an unbiased mind when it comes to science, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that received knowledge, including science itself, is not immune from the possibility of being hijacked as a fake discourse in the interest of averting true knowledge becoming public.

Once you overcome bias toward believing whatever the "science herd" prescribes you believe, that is the moment you have entered into the space of truly unbiased science. Only at that point, you lose the ability to gain any kind of credit or status for whatever knowledge you can establish as true, i.e. because there will always be a herd of people who establish 'science' as an authoritarian structure and exclude from it anyone who rejects its legitimacy as a filter. This is the same for religions or any other type of knowledge. It is the catch-22 of truth and the structured establishment of authority over truth.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Your attempt to divorce 'actual science' from 'social considerations' is at best utopian, at at worst meaningless, with respect to the view of science as 'a paradigmatic progression' (Thomas Khun 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'), in which the members of the social consensus of the prevailing paradigm tend to have authority over what constitutes 'legitimate subject matter'. You should consider that point with reference to Grazing Dogs attempt to bring in the work of Rupert Sheldrake (as a fellow non-conformist but not a flat earthist) whose views put him out on a limb. The fact that Sheldrake is now promoting religious views of 'cosmic consciousness' has even further detracted from his credibility, lost after his original successes in biological science.

1 Reply

How does the Earth move in space in 3 seperate trajectories?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know