Don't forget boys and girls: if you too choose to remain totally ignorant about science this is the sort of post you could come up with [1].
1 Therapy not included in the sign-up fee.
A ? of force.
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
1 Therapy not included in the sign-up fee.
Gravity is not just gravity with no definition, stop talking garbage, there is no such thing has gravitons, if we had a court of law with 12 none science minded jurors, science would lose to me in court, so either learn science, or keep stump if you do not know all the content to the words, such has gravity.
As I quoted earlier, Newton coined the term in his description of gravity. So in terms of Newton's view it would seem that Gravity is a centripetal/center seeking force. That is not how gravity is conceptually modeled in all modern interpretations, but apart from the Newtonian context, I see no other force that fits the description, as well.
The thread is now here in Pseudoscience, so you can continue to ramble on and on.., any which way you wish.
The thread is now here in Pseudoscience, so you can continue to ramble on and on.., any which way you wish.
You really want to be judged by 12 idiots? And you'd be happy with "winning" in the judgement of those idiots? Wow.
So now you decide to call the entire world who do not know science idiots, so you indeed are deeming science to be of god like nature and everyone in science to be smart, really?
12 idiots, your assumptions are not of this planet.
Of course he would.
Because only idiots would agree with him.
You are wrong, I have had some clever people agree with me, you can not agree because your nature is to be on the offensive of science, rightfully so you have learnt what you have learnt. My nature is to question what I am learning, if I see fault or not 100% facts I want to know why, you are not going to get me to accept it if not 100% logical in the rational thinking.
Look up learning styles if you do not know them, it is not me who does not get you.
They're obviously not that clever.
Nope.
I can't agree due to one simple fact: you are wrong.
Nope.
Your "nature" is to not learn and invent bullshit to "justify" not learning.
And now we get another call to bullshit to "justify" your position. Try the facts: http://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-myth-of-learning-styles/
The problem with science is that they could never perceive anything different, because your stereotypical learning styles prevent you from proper science and advancing on the present science information handed down over generations by various people, such has Faraday, Tesla, Einstein, Maxwell and others.
The very definition of science is discovery , and science is complacent in the knowledge they already have.
What I am saying is no more than the truth of reality, because I have advanced on the ideas that were left for me to read.
None of my ideas actually do effect any of present science procedure, it only adds to it and is not against it.
I tread very carefully which parts of the giants toes that proceeded me, I stand on.
So science never came up with Kepler's Laws, Maxwell's Equations, and Special and General Relativity?
Uh, the opposite is true. If science were complacent in the knowledge we already had, we'd still think the Sun revolved around the Earth.
It does neither. Your ideas are simply nonsense.
Oh no it is not. You are wrong.
Out of context to the thread , I am going to prove a small point to you now, that a creationist who has also learnt what they are opposing, is a dangerous mind to challenge.
It is about learning styles and thinking on your feet, something I am quite sure you are unable to do.
Below is a beautiful work of art, now I am not artist, neither do I claim to be able to draw, but I will claim that the picture below, I could come and paint it on your bedroom wall, to a very good likeness to the art.
What? you may ask, that is impossible if you are not artist or can not draw.
My logic tells it is possible, because I have done it with other pieces of art .
How?
Very simple logic, using an HD projector in a set position I can project the image onto the wall, and simply use the colour matched colours to colour in the wall to the image projected.
This is what I define has smart.......I can be an artist by simply colouring in, something an able 8 year old could do.
This is creativeness, first and foremost sign of intelligence.
Attachments
Creationists don't learn what they're challenging.
All they do is look for things they can twist.
Creationists have a fixed unalterable agenda and will do whatever they can to further that agenda.
They're not interested in learning they're ONLY interested in promoting an unsupported (and insupportable) belief.
You've already been given a link that shows "learning styles" are bollocks.
As usual you're sure but you're wrong.
My entire career depended on me being able to "think on my feet".
You wouldn't be creating anything. You'd be copying someone else's work.
And, like you yourself said, it's something any 8 year old could do.
How does that "prove your point"?
I am not looking for things that I can twist, I am adding axiom thought , not lies or trollish behaviour. Unlike trolls I have learnt what i am speaking about, it is you who is not realising what I am saying is adding onto what You already know.
I think you miss the point , it is not the copying of someone else's work, it is the ability to think on my feet and by method and science work out how I can transmit the drawing from A to B, and maintain the aspect of the art.
The science involved in this alone is of great quality.
The Imagine on the wall is equally proportional to the imagine being projected, in colour and shape, therefore the spacial dimension between the emitting projector and the wall , contains a mirrored image of the art in all the empty space in like layers towards the wall.
Literally an invisible block of the image.
Now can you see my science capability of thinking?
Pray tell, however did this "complacent" science that you speak of ever come to invent an HD projector? Hmmm? Or was it creationists that contributed the optics and electronics?
Now you're claiming superiority in yet another field and insulting artists at the same time. Your arrogance knows no bounds.
In the subject of science, a person who doesn't know anything about it is at least, ignorant.
What science is is the only proven method for understanding how the universe works. That you want your ideas judeged by people who don't know how the universe works shows that you don't want to have to prove your ideas work, you just want recognition from anyone who will give it to you -- even people as equally ignorant as yourself.
That's a self-contradiction and obviously wrong. There is a ton of research going on right now. The problem here is just that you have shown yourself unable to learn 100+ year old science, so you haven't progressed beyond that.
Hahahahahahahahah!!!!!! You really think that??!?!?!! OMG, that's so absurd -- you're not really that stupid, are you? No one who has ever seen a painting in person would mistake coloring-in as real painting. Maybe the funniest part is that you recognize you'd be doing something any 8 year old could do, yet you still think it should be of value!
....and that's even setting aside the fact that you wouldn't be able to color-in without actual painting skills, since you wouldn't even be able to mix the colors properly, let alone apply them without making too many bad mistakes.
Lol, no, it isn't creativeness to try to copy someone else's work. That's the exact opposite of creativeness.
Last edited:
You did notice that I was talking about creationists, didn't you?
However, you DO twist things and what you put forward is far from being axiomatic.
No you haven't.
No it's not.
Considering that the majority of this is meaningless word salad then it's apparent that there is no "science capability of thinking" here.
Which is, sadly, par for the course with you.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
speaking of ignorance
If our smattering of scientific knowledge doesn't seem to adequately explain our observations:
Let's imagine dark matter and dark energy to camouflage our ignorance.
Then, we could spend trillions of dollars looking for weak interactive massive particles.
Perhaps, 't'would have been better to name them santa claus matter and rudolph energy?
If our smattering of scientific knowledge doesn't seem to adequately explain our observations:
Let's imagine dark matter and dark energy to camouflage our ignorance.
Then, we could spend trillions of dollars looking for weak interactive massive particles.
Perhaps, 't'would have been better to name them santa claus matter and rudolph energy?
- Status