The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

lets talk about sextants and polaris

You don't need my permission to talk....

a reply to: turbonium1

no i dont - but i do need an audience that listens

you just stick your fingers in your ears and babble

so instead - lets get you to explain polaris with regard to a flat plane

ETA - i have explained the issue to you and others - repeatedly - so you can back track to any of those posts - all the ones you ran away from first time

a reply to: turbonium1

You remind me of my sister, who thinks all governments and scientists are in cahoots together.

Yet refuses to study and replicate or reject said studies.

Then seed their children with fallacies. Growing a new generation of stupidity!!! Shame.

Be real and honest. Reject ignorance.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

no i dont - but i do need an audience that listens

you just stick your fingers in your ears and babble

so instead - lets get you to explain polaris with regard to a flat plane

ETA - i have explained the issue to you and others - repeatedly - so you can back track to any of those posts - all the ones you ran away from first time

I'm not the one who brought it up, you did, buddy. Do your own work, don't tell me what I should do, you arrogant ass.

If you have a point to make, then make it, or don't. Your choice. Period.

originally posted by: Skyfox81
a reply to: turbonium1

You remind me of my sister, who thinks all governments and scientists are in cahoots together.

Yet refuses to study and replicate or reject said studies.

Then seed their children with fallacies. Growing a new generation of stupidity!!! Shame.

Be real and honest. Reject ignorance.

Ignorance is knowing we've never seen a rocket fly towards orbit, yet still believing it is true, for that is how ignorance flourishes. Ignorance is knowing planes measure the Earth as flat, with instruments, yet believing a magical non-existent force within Earth forces instruments to read 'level' as not level at all, because it wants level to mean 'level to the curved surface of an entire planet'.

Seed your children with all those fallacies, and stupidity will flourish forever and ever.

Shame, indeed.

I can prove I'm driving from LA to NYC, by showing you my car leaving LA. No need to show the rest of my trip, or tell you where you can see my car after leaving LA - you'll still believe it was true!

originally posted by: Grenade
The Manhattan Project was not about Uranium Enrichment.

Dude, just stop.

The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (about $23 billion in 2018 dollars). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and to produce fissile material…Source

originally posted by: Grenade
I said governments keep secrets. It's really that simple.

And it's really simple to see that they cannot, the larger the secret the more it gets out. You know why? Because government isn't a person, it many persons.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your position is that the government doesn't and can't keep secrets.

Ok, good luck with that, will have to agree to disagree.

The general public were aware that uranium was being enriched to build atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan. That totally makes sense.

originally posted by: Grenade
Geocentrism was a generally accepted scientific Theory.

Geocentrism wasn't a scientific theory. You are talking about "science" before it was science. Geocentrism was influenced by religion and based on no experiments or tests, just a flawed mathematical model that didn't explain anything. They couldn't explain why the planets had retrogrades in their orbits, so they basically said God did it. It wasn't actually scientific.

It was basically a position of the church eventually refuted by Galileo. It was later re-hashed by Christian fundamentalists in the 1800s to support their faith, but nobody credible took it seriously.

a reply to: turbonium1

The southern hemisphere stars prove definitively that the earth is not flat. It would be impossible to look south from 2 different locations (Argentina and south africa) and see the same stars if the earth was flat. There would be no parallax and there wouldn't be the same type of star rotation at the south pole that is observed at the north going the exact opposite rotation.

Explain the southern hemisphere stars on a flat model. Its impossible without inventing all kinds of made up bs. You can't look in opposite directions and see the same stars if the earth is flat.





Let me guess, mirrors and trickery? Sorry the south stars ONLY make sense on a globe.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

But it's all just made up right?

originally posted by: Grenade
The general public were aware that uranium was being enriched to build atomic bombs...

Yup. It was published in newspapers, as you saw and oddly choose to ignore so you can think you're correct.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

An obscure article which loosely references the project in a local newspaper hardly constitutes public awareness.

Hardly the NY times.

Very selective over which parts of my argument you cherry pick out of context.

Again, you’re right the government doesn’t keep secrets, no such thing as top secret security clearance, everything that’s ever happened in military circles is public knowledge...... how ridiculous.

a reply to: Barcs

"Science before it was science" - That's a new one i have to say.

If you mean before science as a word was part of our language then from the modern scientific age you would have to discount Copernicus, Galileo, Newton.

If you mean natural philosophy as it was called previously then you're discounting many great minds in the disciplines of mathematics and physics such as Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoras. How could they have been influenced by a Religion which didn't even exist yet?

To describe Ptolemy as anything other than a scientist would be disingenuous.

Science wasn't somehow invented with Tycho, Kepler or Copernicus. Just their scientific method and progress led us to a Heliocentric model. The foundations of "science" were indeed laid long before the Heliocentric model.

a reply to: Barcs

The observed expansion of the universe also destroyed our understanding of gravity and galaxy formation.

Instead of throwing it out we invoked dark matter and energy, you know those magical, undetectable properties of our equations to explain our observations.

Science, being progressive in nature has been around long before Copernicus and Galileo. Geocentrism, admittedly not perfect was the best explanation for the movement of our planets and stars we had at the time. It was based on physics, math and observation.

I know it's hard to admit Science has been completely wrong in the past, but the facts speak for themselves.

Also, i'd say you're wasting your breath with Turbo. You're scientific method is sound but short of firing him on a rocket into outer space there's no way you will convince him otherwise.

originally posted by: Grenade
An obscure article which loosely references the project in a local newspaper hardly constitutes public awareness.

Hardly the NY times.

Another superfluous qualifier. You're now up to 'the New York Times needs to specifically mention that Manhattan Project by name'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, i've always used the "general public" qualifier. Since my first post on the subject. Something you have chosen to overlook repeatedly.

originally posted by: Grenade
No, i've always used the "general public" qualifier. Since my first post on the subject. Something you have chosen to overlook repeatedly.

A public news paper is public. The secret was not kept.

Now you can add some additional qualifiers prior to your loudly-proclaimed departure which oddly hasn't manifested.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You really believe that the government doesn't have any secrets.

I'll certainly be leaving any further conversation or debate with you as that's the most ignorant assertion i've ever read on these boards.

Someone joins a conspiracy forum but doesn't believe in government secrets.

Bwahahahaha.

And a freemason to boot.

Thanks for the laughs.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

From everyone, no, certainly not, there were leaks, i totally agree.

Was the information suppressed sufficiently to remain a secret from the general public. Most definitely.

Again your argument is over semantics. Blinded by your dislike for me.