oh okay - my mistake - the captain would never say they are traveling 67,000mph around the sun -- I don't think so anyways -- unless he wanted to scare the passengers 
!
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
You seem to be having fun with this
just questions is all - sometimes its fun -- if others are engaged civilly/cordially --
those that get uptight claiming I am "rage-baiting" are way off base !
Ehhh, I wouldn't call you a ragebaiter. You don't quite fit the definition
I get all kinds of "slings & arrows" shot at me simply because some deem me to be "heretical" -----------------to "science"----- ----- I must be a masochist 
There is no heresy in science
Optimissed wrote:
playerafar wrote:
@Optimissed
a shorter take:
science skeptics: their posts can be used as 'talking points'.
but other people who are here mainly to troll against nonconformity: their posts can be used as 'placeholders' to post around.
But regarding Elroch - 'E' has a genuine interest in science.
Several people here do.
I'm one of them. I certainly don't want to be lumped in with them.
I'm sure noodles is enjoying what he's doing. It's a game. I confess that it would bore me and hence I only post regarding what I genuinely believe to be the case.
"Scientism" is a good word. It sort of sums up the attitude of some of the people who are the equivalent in the world of science of knowledgeable spectators in the world of chess. There's a word for them, which isn't acolytes. I think it's Kibitzers or something but my first wife was Jewish.
My criticism is a very vague and generalised one. It is that some scientists and theoreticians try to appear as having knowledge they do not have. Obviously the people you keep calling trolls may have that attitude but they are not scientists. They're rather like football fans and their opponents can be like fans of a different team.
The real problem with the Big Bang is that it is obviously a holding theory for a melange of opinions and half-facts which is constantly fluid but which at any time can be rolled out to provide the goggle-eyed masses with the current true facts of the current state of play, represented as "the best it is possible to come up with at the moment". And it's that representation which is false. It's laughable, actually. Why should everything "NOW" be correct and the product of good thinking although different from everything 50 years ago? Yes we have better techniques at getting evidence and data but the problem is those interpreting the data. All a little bit too human, which is a euphemism for something.
when you "smart guys" start talking in all that "mathematical jargon" I typically let you guys go at it for however long it takes in that "boxing ring" -- I have told Elroch numerous times I could never speak in "that language" --- I prefer Elvish
TenGolf-TPOT wrote:
Ehhh, I wouldn't call you a ragebaiter. You don't quite fit the definition
@ TenGolf
Yes - his posts that you've seen here don't quite fit
When somebody's posts have an effect of 'baiting' with it not being clear that's his/her intention - then 'baiter' doesn't quite fit. And 'baiter' is namecalling.
Like the word 'troll' used as noun instead of verb.
'is trolling' refers to behaviour' - less loaded. Including to the website moderators.
---------------
But why now?
Earlier - for several days or weeks he was making unscientific posts that still made 'talking points' something like EE does in the global warming forum.
But there is why he has now chosen the last couple of days to resume his attacks on science denying the earth's various motions and its shape (his attacks on that go back years) - in other words a switch in his strategy and tactics ...
"challenging a theory(s)" -- no matter how many people may believe it/them ---
is Not attacking like someone attacking/denying someone's "religious" viewpoints is it -
It sure appears to be like that - "Heretical" !
Say the earth doesn't move...except in the imagination .. & some people certainly start "moving in one direction or another" very quickly!
Be that as it may, I simply accept my own senses on this one. For it is Mandatory that one deny/ignore their own senses in order to believe the earth moves about myriad incomprehensible/inconceivable speeds/directions simultaneously !
Optimissed wrote:
playerafar wrote:
@Optimissed
a shorter take:
science skeptics: their posts can be used as 'talking points'.
but other people who are here mainly to troll against nonconformity: their posts can be used as 'placeholders' to post around.
But regarding Elroch - 'E' has a genuine interest in science.
Several people here do.
I'm one of them. I certainly don't want to be lumped in with them.
I'm sure noodles is enjoying what he's doing. It's a game. I confess that it would bore me and hence I only post regarding what I genuinely believe to be the case.
"Scientism" is a good word. It sort of sums up the attitude of some of the people who are the equivalent in the world of science of knowledgeable spectators in the world of chess. There's a word for them, which isn't acolytes. I think it's Kibitzers or something but my first wife was Jewish.
My criticism is a very vague and generalised one. It is that some scientists and theoreticians try to appear as having knowledge they do not have. Obviously the people you keep calling trolls may have that attitude but they are not scientists. They're rather like football fans and their opponents can be like fans of a different team.
The real problem with the Big Bang is that it is obviously a holding theory for a melange of opinions and half-facts which is constantly fluid but which at any time can be rolled out to provide the goggle-eyed masses with the current true facts of the current state of play, represented as "the best it is possible to come up with at the moment". And it's that representation which is false. It's laughable, actually. Why should everything "NOW" be correct and the product of good thinking although different from everything 50 years ago? Yes we have better techniques at getting evidence and data but the problem is those interpreting the data. All a little bit too human, which is a euphemism for something.
I don't call anybody a 'troll' because that would be direct namecalling and gets the attention of the website moderators.
'Is trolling' or 'makes trolling posts' are very different because they're on the other side of the demarcation between criticizing behaviour and direct personal attack.
------------
Regarding those people who use real science knowledge to impose on or to troll whoever they see as targets - they might get away with that.
Its a different subject as to the imposition of 'models' as actual entities.
the 'big bang' seems real enough - as a very big process but still a local process.
'big bang is the universe' is a model within many other models of the universe.
Yes - nobody knows whether the universe is finite or infinite or partially infinite and it appears that nobody will ever know.
It lines up with your point regarding 'knowledge they do not have'.
There may be an easy way to prove that that nobody will ever have that particular knowledge.
@ Noodles
you 'let' people do things?
'let' is well past 'get'.
Your plan is to keep invoking 'Socrates'?
Galileo is more to the point.
how can I not - not that smart - to get others to do whatever -
"planting seeds" perhaps - nothing more !
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
that is what I mean - "no worries" -- "its all taken care of" -- on the "chalkboard" !
I don't think you're getting me. It's irrelevant to what the pilot would say on the flight.