Jump to content

Enoch2021

Royal Member
  • Content Count

    3,396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Enoch2021 last won the day on September 19 2017

Enoch2021 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,123 Excellent

About Enoch2021

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 12/26/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Missouri
  • Interests
    The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

Recent Profile Visitors

3,348 profile views
  1. Yes let's Ignore him, Mainly Due To: Sojourner 414 Pummeling Factually Incorrect: According to 'The Narrative', "Light Years" is not a measure of "Time"...it's one of "Distance". For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the..."One-Way" Speed of Light. Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy... In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. Watch... How do we determine the "SPEED" or "RATE" of something?? Distance = Rate x Time, right?? So... R = D/T It's the "T" that's in focus here. You need 2 Clocks, right? Clock A (Terminus a quo) and Clock B (Terminus ad quem). According to Einstein's 'Relativity', the moment you move Clock B... That Clock is DE-SYNCHRONIZED !!!! What do you Need to KNOW to reconcile and SYNCHRONIZE Clock B to Clock A ?? That's Right Folks... The "One-Way" Speed of Light !!! So the ENTIRE Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy. Einstein made the very same conclusions... “It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.” A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23. Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23. Ergo...the Speed of Light (average "Two-Way" Speed) is merely a *'CONVENTION'* that we've agreed upon. More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of Knowledge/Existence of 'which-path' Information, " LIGHT " (Photons) -- have no defined properties or location. Photons exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.” Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68. Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide.... *The Speed of a Wave of Potentialities !!* Go ahead...I'll get the Popcorn !!! 1. Factually Incorrect: Begging The Question Fallacy (SEE: "Speed of Light" above). 2. Even granting... for the sake of argument, your Erroneous Speed of Light, you MUST VALIDATE the Distance to the Sun. Go ahead...? (Please Rigorously Define ALL Terms) Hogwash!! Falsified Above. Hogwash!! Falsified Above. Who Cares, astronomy isn't "Science" !! ... The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. "The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Uh Ohh... "Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work." http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. Simply put: FAIRYTALE. (SEE: Falsification Above) Simply put: FAIRYTALE. Black Holes don't EXIST!! 1. Scientifically Validate Black Holes... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? 2. Black Holes were conjured from the "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagics of Einstein's Field Equations... 'Black Holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein's field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of general Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time." Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, pg 55 "It contains no matter" oh my, come again? "and exists forever"... in the Imagination. Translation: Fairytale Can you show us one? If you can't show one, can you please at least show ONE Solution to ANY of Einstein's "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagical Field Equations for 2 or more masses? I'll save you some time... It Doesn't Exist ! Yes and Orangutans are Facultative Anaerobe Woodpeckers. Listen to this Contradictory Nonsense folks... LOL. So the Black Hole () takes in gas and releases the energy as EMR (Light); BUT... Light cannot escape Black Holes !!! But Alas, Just when we thought the astrophysicists couldn't be any Dumber, they go ahead and do something like this and TOTALLY REDEEM THEMSELVES... So the escaping energy (From INSIDE the Black Hole) is generated OUTSIDE the Black Hole, eh? Makes Perfect Sense! Stay Tuned Next Week, The World Premier: Reconciling Married Bachelors. ps. gravitational stresses ?? Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ?? a. Is gravity a Force? b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory? c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...? d. Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...? i.e., ... 1. What Phenomenon was Observed...? 2. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? 3. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? 4. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? ps2: (Minor Detail) Black Hole Universes and Big Bang Universes (4 Different Types LOL) are Mutually Exclusive: Black Holes: No k-curvature. Big Bangs: k-curvature. Black Holes: Spatially Infinite. Big Bangs: Spatially Finite (k=1), or Infinite (k=-1, or k=0). Black Holes: Eternal (No Age). Big Bangs: 13.8 Billion Years Old (this week ). Black Holes: Not Expanding. Big Bangs: Expanding. Black Holes: Asymptotically Flat. Big Bangs: Not Asymptotically Anything. Black Holes: Contains Only 1 Mass. Big Bangs: Contains Many Masses. Please Explain Star Formation in the Context of: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass...? pssst ... STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt: "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." Sun And Stars, p.111 It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" --because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and Bludgeons Them Senseless!! Scientifically, for the postulate to be true: is logically tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent athlete's foot. "The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse [ ERRR...The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) !!! ] before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation [ Which 'gravity' einSHtienian or newtonian, love??] to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism [ That DIRECTLY VIOLATES 2LOT and Boyle's Gas Law!!! ] must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation [ that doesn't exist ] may become effective, and... the angular momentum must in some way be removed." Novotny, E: Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), Oxford University Press, pp. 279-280. "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect." Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory. Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 "There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense." Hoyle, F., Wickramasinghe, C: "Where Microbes Boldly Went," in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413. Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says: “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998. Yea, THE TRUTH is Abraham --- WILLFUL IGNORANCE (!!), you don't understand it ...because it's Directly Violates The Laws of Quantum Mechanics, Boyle's Gas Law, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics !!!! So you've chosen to 'Whistle past the Graveyard' and float a feigned Argument to Ignorance (Fallacy) --- with an 'Implied' Argument to the Future (Fallacy), wrapped around its incoherent ankles to keep your Mind Numbing "Just So" Story Fairytales ALIVE !!! And the 64,000 Dollar Question: Are Stars, SUNS ?? If so, Book/Chapter/Verse Please...? We won't know HOW it was made... in this life, but we know WHO made it. regards
  2. What on Earth?? For the life of me, I can't understand why you're still posting. You think you can recover and/or 'Whistle Past the Graveyard' by your Six Million Dollar Man Style Crash & Burn in your last post? If anyone (that can 'fog a mirror') takes just a cursory look at your Trainwreck, they'll need to be Resuscitated from Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher Syndrome. I mean, this is tantamount to the Chairman of PETA showing up for work the next day after he was Video-Taped LIVE Clubbing Baby Seals with a Nail-Spiked 44" Louisville Slugger !!! This is tantamount to General Custer exclaiming to Sitting Bull: "Do you accept my challenge?" on Jun 27, 1876. Read this Carefully: IT'S O V E R !! mmm K? My Word
  3. Define "arbitrary"...? What was my "arbitrary" definition, SPECIFICALLY...? 1. You post a 'wiki' definition?? Are you a 'wiki'/google scientist?? 2. Why is Citing 'wiki' tantamount to Citing from Public Blogs? 1. So you admit to posting an "Arbitrary" definition. smh 2. Moreover, do arbitrary definitions of "Science" exist?? And if they did, wouldn't that make "Science"... arbitrary, professor?? Well "Entities" have dimensions (Length/Width/Height) and in today's society have: Addresses, Email's, and Ph #'s. So, Please post the (Length/Width/Height) and Address, Email, and Ph# of your "Enterprise" (SCIENCE)...? (You'd have better chances Resurrecting Alexander the Great's Horse!!) 1. "Coasting" doesn't quite capture what you're attempting here. 2. Well since they SAY it (Ipse Dixit Fallacy); Therefore: it must be TRUE. Right? 3. astronomy isn't Science: The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. "The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Uh Ohh... "Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work." http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania. 1. Clearly you don't know what a Straw Man is... Straw Man (Fallacy)- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Not noting the "alleged" rationale behind your "Whirling Spinning Ball"... isn't a Straw Man Fallacy. 2. Show how the "Laws of Motion" Validate your "Whirling Spinning Ball" Religion...? a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? 3. "forces of gravitation"?? Which 'gravity'... Einsteinian or Newtonian ?? a. Is gravity a Force? b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory? c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...? d. Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...? (i.e., Format it with a.b.c.d. above. Thanks!) 1. You have NO CLUE what a Scientific Theory is. Watch, Define a Scientific Theory...? 2. I merely need to state your "POSITION" (Whirling 'Spinning Ball' Religion) it is "YOUR" job to provide SUPPORTING Evidence for "YOUR" Position, not me. smh SO... 3. Post EACH Scientific Theory SUPPORTING "your" Whirling Spinning-Ball Religion...? For EACH Scientific Theory... a. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? b. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? c. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 4. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science... Please show "models" in The Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...? "A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066 Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being *'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!* REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments -- ( Hypothesis TESTS ). A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UNTESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! Yes, because you'd get your Hat Handed to You. Flat Earth isn't a "Model" (aka: Pseudo-Science). Oh I can't wait. It's not "MY" Assertion , Science is it's Method... "Science is nothing more than a METHOD OF INQUIRY." Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005) The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables". The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT !! Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5. "The only way things change in Physics is EXPERIMENTS. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind." Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark) "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. “EXPERIMENT is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.” Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983 "The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html "The Scientific Method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Scientific Evidence: The TESTING of a hypothesis or theory that is objective and in a controlled environment. http://thelawdictionary.org/scientific-evidence/ Get the Picture?? LOL, Thanks Again!!! ... The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables". EXPERIMENT: from Penn State University: "There should be three categories of variables in EVERY EXPERIMENT: Dependent, Independent, and Controlled." http://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/var.htm Well then, what are: "Independent Variables" ... "In an EXPERIMENT, the "INDEPENDENT VARIABLE" is the variable that is VARIED OR MANIPULATED by the researcher, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured. An "INDEPENDENT VARIABLE" variable is the presumed CAUSE, whereas the dependent variable is the presumed EFFECT. The IV is the antecedent, whereas the DV is the consequent." http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm Independent Variable -- is what is VARIED during the Experiment; it is what the investigator thinks will affect the dependent variable." https://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/var.htm Independent (MANIPULATED) Variable - variable CHANGED BY THE SCIENTIST; what the investigator is TESTING. http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf "The two main variables in an EXPERIMENT are the "INDEPENDENT" and dependent variable. An INDEPENDENT is the variable that is CHANGED or controlled in a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT to test the effects on the DEPENDENT VARIABLE. https://www.thoughtco.com/i-ndpendent-and-dependent-variables-differences-606115 An INDEPENDENT VARIABLE is the variable that is VARIED or MANIPULATED during an EXPERIMENT to affect change in the dependent variable. National Science Teachers Association https://www.ecybermission.com/files/helpdocs/Constructing a Hypothesis.pdf In Summary... You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science. It'd be easier demonstrating an Orangutan as a Facultative Anaerobe Woodpecker. Thanks for the Laughs
  4. Have you read the critique on "Acceptance"? (Obviously Rhetorical) Yes, much like the 'Plausibility' of Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes. That's why we can't wait to read your posts...your meticulous attention to excruciating detail of Empirical Evidence, OCD Like. Apparently you also skipped the PUMMELING of 'models' in a Scientific Context or just decided to roll with the same Trainwreck Narrative and hope for the best. "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method. "Science doesn't: "THRIVE", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey. To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE. Science isn't ALIVE; Ergo...Reification Fallacy. Yes, you said that before. Here's my same response: "Wise Move". regards
  5. False Equivalence Fallacy. The only way to make it "Equivalent" to the astroNOTS Trainwreck is to have some people describe Galveston Bay WITH WATER and others saying NO WATER for goodness sakes. smh
  6. What's a "Garden Variety" Young Earth Creationist, pray tell...? regards
  7. Feeble attempt at Poisoning The Well (Fallacy). What's truly shocking and bizarre is your 'belief' in a Whirling Spinning-Ball hurling through a Fairytale Vacuum of Space at 1,907,600 mph in several different directions simultaneously without a Planck Length Sliver of Proof. regards
  8. Really? Well go back to the beginning and refute my arguments. Ahh, that's not a "Scientific Prediction". Ya see, "Scientific Predictions" are the result of Independent Variables affecting Dependent Variables in Scientific Hypotheses. Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of PREDICTION that forecasts how the "Independent Variable" will affect the Dependent Variable. http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf Before you have Scientific Hypotheses (Step 3 of The Scientific Method), you kinda gotta have OBSERVING Phenomena (Step 1 of The Scientific Method). What you're talking about are: Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Jimmy The Greek, Nostradamus, and Carnival Tent "Predictions". ps. Nobody has Observed 'black holes'..."Still". So it's reasonable to assume a Fairytale even though the Fairytale may turn out to be a Fairytale? Correct, it's a Fairytale. The Same "Method" was used to Conjure "black holes"...Imagination. Observing Phenomena is merely the First Step in The Scientific Method; So your appeal needs some work. Yes and dark matter is created from nothing by luminescent gerbils. Astronomy isn't Science: The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. "The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Uh Ohh... "Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work." http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. 1. Begging The Question (Fallacy). Scientifically Validate... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? 2. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science... Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...? "A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066 Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !! REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments (Hypothesis TESTS). A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! We don't "ACCEPT" claims in Science, we Hypothesis TEST. "Accepting" is for: Propaganda States, Political science, 2nd Grade Story Time, and Religions. Scientifically Validate that the Earth revolves around the Sun... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? Wise Move; However, it's a 'little late' for that buddy. regards
  9. Oh I surely know how they put them together...they conjure them then add a healthy dash of PhotoShop. At least the astroNOTS "Eyewitness Testimonies" are CONSISTENT... Question: What does the sky look like from Space?? Neil Armstrong: "The sky is DEEP BLACK as viewed from the moon as it is from cis-lunar space--the space between the Earth and the Moon." Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14): "You have to realize that in Space without the intervening atmosphere, the heavens are 10 TIMES AS BRIGHT, Stars 10 TIMES LUMINOUS." No problems here Chris Hadfield ISS Commander (Interview from the ISS): "The sky is ALMOST WHITE with the light of the universe with the uncountable number of stars. You CAN'T SEE THE CONSTELLATIONS because the sky is just SO ALIVE WITH STARS." Chris Hadfield (Post ISS Mission): "What you see is an immensely DEEP BLACKNESS it's like a BLACK with texture. It's a PALPABLE BLACKNESS. Not just a BLACKNESS but a POWERFUL BLACKNESS with BLACK VELVET-NESS but textured but without any shininess, forever." Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is Blushing. James Reilly (Astronaut): "Billions and Billions of Stars and YOU CAN SEE THEM ; in fact, they're so numerous it's VERY DIFFICULT TO PICK OUT THE CONSTELLATIONS that you and I see here on the ground. Some of the stars have color we don't see on the ground. You see these Pastel Colors: light yellows, light pinks, light oranges, even light red ones and light blue, There's ALL KINDS OF COLORS. I live in Colorado and when you get up in Colorado on a clear night up in the mountains where there's no light you can see all these Stars, well MULTIPLY THAT BY 1000 that's what it's like in Space." Tim Peake (Interview from the ISS): "The most unexpected thing was uhmm, the BLACKNESS of Space." Mike Massimino and Don Pettit (NASA Astronauts, Dual Interview): Mike: "You can see the stars." Don: "Oh Yea". Mike: "Pretty much all the time you can see the stars." Don: Yea, Yea. It's NOT A BLACK VOID. There's more than stars you can see planets, you can see moons. You can see zodiacal lights. Mike: Wo. The lights of the zodiac. In summary, this fiasco rivals Laurel and Hardy. oy vey
  10. Well, where's the Source File...? More importantly, isn't there something (in the BILLIONS) Conspicuously ABSENT in the Photo? These... regards
  11. Flat Earth "Knowers". We'll just until we get the Source File. Till then (before it goes Viral)... Isle of Man Photo: YouTube: Flat Earth QED - Obviously & Observably Flat. Isle of Man Photo from Saint Bees UK (Time: 38:00 - 39:20) 'another' Spinning-Ball "KILL SHOT". Any land that appears in the Southernmost Frame (Left) MUST BE Ireland (hills, south of Dublin). The hills south of Dublin are... 145 Miles Away. So based on LIDAR (Laser Imaging, Detection, and Ranging) Mapping: Observer Height, Saint Bees: 52 Feet. Target Distance: 145 Miles. Target Hidden: 2.36 MILES !!! Based on Ordnance Survey Mapping: Observer Height, Saint Bees: 131 Feet (40 Meters). Target Distance: 145 Miles. Target Hidden: 2.16 MILES !!! Take your pick. The End. (Special Thanks to Chris Monk who 'modelled' the the pic and overlays in Blender.) regards
  12. Can you please post the Source File. The one without the TEXT. regards
  13. Hence the word "Tantamount". It's called an "Analogy", and it's "Right On Point". Really?? Now, you have to SUPPORT your charge... So post the Syllogism then INVALIDATE it...? If not, then your charge has as much veracity as your 'black hole' appeal. I did, multiple times. There's only so many ways I can Illustrate that 'black holes' are Fairytales. Your appeal here is tantamount to a Defense Attorney appealing to the Jury by saying, "The Prosecutor just keeps on repeating the same things over and over again: Fingerprints on The Murder Weapon, DNA of the perpetrator (my client) underneath the victims fingernails, CCT capturing my client in the very act of murder...but, since the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything NEW; Therefore, my client is INNOCENT !!!" Try posting different arguments and you'll get different answers. regards
  14. Your appeal here is tantamount to a Defense Attorney appealing to the Jury by saying, "The Prosecutor just keeps on repeating the same things over and over again: Finger Prints on The Murder Weapon, DNA of the perpetrator (my client) underneath the victims fingernails, CCT capturing my client in the very act of murder...but, since the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything NEW; Therefore, my client is INNOCENT !!!" regards and Thanks Again
  15. Nope, That's The "POINT". It matches the veracity of this claim... "the fact remains that when people answer his "numbered questions", he refuses the answers unless they agree with his own!" Does he have any PROOF of this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?? Understand? regards
×
×
  • Create New...