Yo Von…

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackBootedThug
  • Start date Start date
Aynirar27 said:
Still struggling with that word I see lol
Click to expand...
Placed my Warmoth order this morning.

Your hero is still hovering at $25K

giphy.gif
 
Aynirar27 said:
You in turn chose an isolated incident as a hairbrained “evidence” against it.
Click to expand...
Actually, you chose it as “Proof” that your preferred model was correct, and I simply showed how predicting eclipses was irrelevant to the veracity of the model. But you won’t cede the point. Why not? Are you insecure?
 
Aynirar27 said:
It’s just one of many logical fallacies that you get off on. Like ive told you before, save that shit for Reddit. Next time kindly put on your big boy pants before you engage with me.
Click to expand...
See what I’m saying? This is really personal to you it seems. :dunno:
 
acceptance said:
Actually, you chose it as “Proof” that your preferred model was correct, and I simply showed how predicting eclipses was irrelevant to the veracity of the model. But you won’t cede the point. Why not? Are you insecure?
Click to expand...

not really man. I can only repeat things to you so many times though.

I said that things that are consistently repeatable can be considered proven.
The “method” used to predict eclipses is universal. It can predict them on other planets. Predict the course of asteroids, It can be used to calculate the mass of stars and exoplanets. It can be used to help locate celestial bodies. The list goes on. It’s not a model, it’s physics.

You decided to respond with isolated incidents. There is a reason that the “ancients” paved the way for modern science. They were on to some stuff for sure, and it has since been refined. It doesn’t disprove shit. Again, familiarize yourself with logical fallacies if you are going to attempt to seriously discuss things with people.

We aren’t even on the same page dude. I don’t take your bullshit personal, but I do personally think you are a tool. Or a shitty troll. Take your pick, I don’t really care.
 
Aynirar27 said:
The math and the story are not two separate things. Thats why it’s a proven science
Click to expand...
Here's what you said. And I showed that you were wrong, as the ancients used mathematics to accurately predict eclipses even though they had different models of the solar system. You're not very precise with your language, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you. What about my response is "isolated" or a "logical fallacy"?
 
Aynirar27 said:
We aren’t even on the same page dude. I don’t take your bullshit personal, but I do personally think you are a tool. Or a shitty troll. Take your pick, I don’t really care.
Click to expand...
I mentioned that you don't use very precise language, and you often resort to insults and other smokescreens when you're cornered. I think this is what Arch is talking about when he says you gaslight. I believe what he means, and what I sense, is that you don't really know what you're talking about, but you lie by putting up facades of scientific knowledge, allege logical fallacies even though you can't articulate them, play victim, and finally run off "exasperated" when you've run out of tactics to divert, confuse, attack, etc. In other words, you're insincere and not engaging in good faith.
 
acceptance said:
the ancients used mathematics to accurately predict eclipses even though they had different models of the solar system.
Click to expand...
I believe Tyco Brahe. Plus he has a cool name and had a golden nose. He beat Humpty by thousands of years....
 
acceptance said:
As for the "Whole scientific community" that really depends on the topic, as most dissident voices — especially those with impeccable credentials — are marginalized and suppressed...
Even if all the experts did agree, that doesn't mean that they are right. History has show the incredible stupidity of those who live in insular academic echo chambers, where groupthink and conformity are more important than truth.
Click to expand...
Well-said.
 
acceptance said:
I mentioned that you don't use very precise language, and you often resort to insults and other smokescreens when you're cornered. I think this is what Arch is talking about when he says you gaslight. I believe what he means, and what I sense, is that you don't really know what you're talking about, but you lie by putting up facades of scientific knowledge, allege logical fallacies even though you can't articulate them, play victim, and finally run off "exasperated" when you've run out of tactics to divert, confuse, attack, etc. In other words, you're insincere and not engaging in good faith.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what your obsession is with me, but you are thinking about it all way too hard man. Your drivel about the ancients has very little to do with what I’m talking about. It’s just one instance. They observed the movement of the sun and moon and made accurate predictions of when they would line up. It’s still the same math. Just because they didn’t see the big picture doesn’t mean their math was incorrect.

but now we can see the big picture. we can see our solar system lol. It’s not a model. Probes have traveled it. Documented it. Photographed it. It’s similar math but put into a bigger perspective. And when the same math can be used to accurately predict things on earth and outside of it, it is when it becomes proven. Ya gotta get over it.

I don’t run away and play victim, you are just exhausting to talk to and I get tired of it. You get something in your head and keep posting about it whether it is relevant to the discussion at hand or not. It’s exhausting lol.
 
Monkey Man said:
Well-said.
Click to expand...
But also another example of one of his fallacies. We are talking about the scientific method of predicting an eclipse. “Science” has that down pat. We know where the sun, moon and earth are going to be in relation to eachother at pretty much any given time, past present and future.

The fallacy comes when he lumps in something simple like that, into this massive “science” umbrella that also has unproven and highly debated topics.
But eclipses aren’t one of them.
 
Aynirar27 said:
I’m not sure what your obsession is with me
Click to expand...
You're the only one here he has to debate with since a lot of us don't necessarily subscribe to space related stuff and those who might aren't interested in or have the time for going on a deep dive. I wouldn't take it personally even if it is coming across that way. Without you OT is a lot more dull.
 
VonBonfire said:
You're the only one here he has to debate with since a lot of us don't necessarily subscribe to space related stuff and those who might aren't interested in or have the time for going on a deep dive. I wouldn't take it personally even if it is coming across that way. Without you OT is a lot more dull.
Click to expand...

I would love an actual debate, and actual back and forth discussion, but it’s very tiring when someone wants to debate oranges to my apples. I know that you understand this, but the "science" that I find most interesting is the stuff that is not completely understood. The stuff that is still changing and growing and open to discussion. I've stated that, in this thread and others. And for someone to come back with "yea but like not all science is proven man" is just fucking garbage. It's trash, and clearly indicative of someone that as his own agenda and no intention of discussing the topic at hand. The fact that other cultures used different means to track solar and lunar paths is very interesting. That in itself is a great discussion. Using it to "prove me wrong" is lame and quite frankly fruitless as well.

It's like asking someone their favorite strat pickup to use with a Fender Twin and they say "pickups don't matter. play whatever you want because they all sound the same. shit, i don't even use pickups"... you'd have no interest in following up with "A2 or A5 magnets?" Sure, you might want to go on the tangent of "what makes you feel that way about pickups?", but in doing that it changes the topic of discussion. That is what he does in every "debate", he forces tangents that are largely inconsequential to the topic at hand. I'm not playing a victim for not going down that road, I'm just not interested in talking about it the same as I was the original topic I brought up, and was needlessly challenged on.
 
Aynirar27 said:
They observed the movement of the sun and moon and made accurate predictions of when they would line up. It’s still the same math. Just because they didn’t see the big picture doesn’t mean their math was incorrect.
Click to expand...
That's what I said: that the "Story" for why they can predict the eclipses is irrelevant and doesn't prove that the solar system is what you claim it is.
Aynirar27 said:
I don’t run away and play victim, you are just exhausting to talk to and I get tired of it. You get something in your head and keep posting about it whether it is relevant to the discussion at hand or not. It’s exhausting lol.
Click to expand...
I think you might be exhausting yourself. Here's what you said: "The math and the story are not two separate things. Thats why it’s a proven science." ...You have since acknowledged that those who believed in a different model of the solar system could also predict eclipses, but maintain that being able to predict eclipses "proves" that the conventional solar model is correct. Maybe I am just misunderstanding you. Can you clarify why you still stand by your claim?

...I have to admit I am somewhat fascinated by you — but I can promise, not obsessed :ROFLMAO:
 
FFS I even told you "if you know that the math is only possible with the current model I'd be interested in testing that assertion."
 
acceptance said:
That's what I said: that the "Story" for why they can predict the eclipses is irrelevant and doesn't prove that the solar system is what you claim it is.

I think you might be exhausting yourself. Here's what you said: "The math and the story are not two separate things. Thats why it’s a proven science." ...You have since acknowledged that those who believed in a different model of the solar system could also predict eclipses, but maintain that being able to predict eclipses "proves" that the conventional solar model is correct. Maybe I am just misunderstanding you. Can you clarify why you still stand by your claim?

...I have to admit I am somewhat fascinated by you — but I can promise, not obsessed :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

i've corrected you already about this. I even said eclipses are one of many, I may have even said "thousands" of things that we can predict using the same math. Thousands of "stories", same math. the story doesn't matter. feel free to ignore all this again though, as you do
 
Aynirar27 said:
i've corrected you already about this. I even said eclipses are one of many, I may have even said "thousands" of things that we can predict using the same math. Thousands of "stories", same math. the story doesn't matter. feel free to ignore all this again though, as you do
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring you, I've heard you repeat this over and over. But you're still just making an assertion without backing it up. Whenever I assert something, I am able to explain it and provide evidence. So tell me specifically what the "Math" is and how it proves that the solar system exists as we currently understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top