gnostic
The Lost One
Well, I didn’t think Flat Earth adherents still exist in this day and age.
I supposed that I was wrong.
I think I have learn something new today.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the difference between a Flat Earther and a Creationist?
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
- Status
I supposed that I was wrong.
I think I have learn something new today.
Uncommon Sense
Member
Uncommon Sense
Member
What is the difference between the indoctrinated holier than thou religious with high priests and the indoctrinated that are more intelligent than thou with high priests? NOTHING.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So sad. You still do not understand the concept of gravity.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You do realize that the very blog you used arguments from was using examples of people writing on the subject of the anthropic principle as an argument in favour of a fine-tuned Universe, right?
What do you think the anthropic principle is?
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Did they?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
From your earlier link:
"Lewis and Barnes are hardly alone in observing that the universe appears fine-tuned for life and that this question deserves further analysis, quite in disagreement with Stenger. Here is a partial list of eminent researchers who have written on this topic: John Barrow [Barrow1986], Bernard Carr [Carr1979], Sean Carroll [Carroll2010], Brandon Carter [Carter1974], Paul Davies [Davies2007], David Deutsch [Williams2006; Deutsch1997], George Ellis [Ellis2011; Ellis2014], Brian Greene [Greene2011], Alan Guth [Guth2007; Guth1997], Edward Harrison [Harrison2011], Stephen Hawking [Hawking2010], Andre Linde [Linde2017], Don Page [Page2011], Roger Penrose [Penrose2004; Penrose1989], John Polkinghorne [Polkinghorne2007], Martin Rees [Carr1979; Rees2000], Joseph Silk [Ellis2014], Lee Smolin [Smolin2007; Smolin2015], Leonard Susskind [Susskind2005], Max Tegmark [Tegmark2006; Tegmark2014], Frank Tipler [Barrow1986], Alexander Vilenkin [Vilenkin2006], Steven Weinberg [Weinberg1989; Weinberg1994], John Wheeler [Wheeler1996] and Frank Wilczek [Wilczek2013]. In addition to the above references, many of the above authors, plus twelve others, comment on this topic in detail in the collection [Carr2009]. Some recent semi-popular overviews of this topic include [Wolchover2013] and [Cossins2018].
Needless to say, the list of authors in the previous paragraph includes many of the brightest and most knowledgeable figures in modern physics and cosmology. Luke Barnes, in commenting on a similar list that includes most of the above names, pointed out that even though these researchers practice a number of different technical specialties, come from a wide range of philosophical and religious backgrounds (mostly non-religious), and often differ vociferously in their interpretation of fine-tuning, they are unanimous in agreeing that the universe is indeed anomalously fine-tuned, and that this feature of the universe begs an explanation [Barnes2013]. Stenger, on the other hand, attempts to claim that the universe is not fine-tuned."
Needless to say, the list of authors in the previous paragraph includes many of the brightest and most knowledgeable figures in modern physics and cosmology. Luke Barnes, in commenting on a similar list that includes most of the above names, pointed out that even though these researchers practice a number of different technical specialties, come from a wide range of philosophical and religious backgrounds (mostly non-religious), and often differ vociferously in their interpretation of fine-tuning, they are unanimous in agreeing that the universe is indeed anomalously fine-tuned, and that this feature of the universe begs an explanation [Barnes2013]. Stenger, on the other hand, attempts to claim that the universe is not fine-tuned."
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
'You do realize that the very blog you used arguments from was using examples of people writing on the subject of the anthropic principle as an argument in favourof a fine-tuned Universe, right?'
That's just a list of names, dude,,
I think you're confusing anthropology with the anthropic principle
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Check the papers the article links to attached to those names - they all mention, discuss or address the anthropic principle.
Did you even properly read the blog?
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Obviously,, but do you think it's in the links somewhere is a real answer
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
... What are you talking about?
Do you know what the strong anthropic principle is?
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Obviously
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Right. So do you believe that all physicists and cosmologists believe in the strong anthropic principle, and that all research lends credibility to the strong anthropic principle?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
This article is actually a perfect repudiation of the conclusion of the blog you posted earlier, which equated scientists writing on the subject of the anthropic principle to them necessarily accepting a form of the "fine-tuning" argument.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
You didn't even read it
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Actually, I did. What argument do you believe the author is making?
I haven't seen ISIS, but I have certainly seen numerous satellites. In fact, I think I have seen several every night I have done serious observation. They move fast enough that getting a bead on them with a telescope is almost impossible but sometimes you can catch one in binoculars.
Two questions:
1. How dark is the site where you are observing? You probably won't see many through city lights.
2. Do you actually look at the sky as opposed to just through the telescope?
Actually, the difficulty seems to be the difference between velocity and acceleration. The pictures relate velocity to different degrees of comfort when it should be acceleration.
That's not true at all, though.
Anyone with a stick, a measuring tape, and the means to travel between two places at least 50 miles apart can recreate Eratosthenes's experiment and actually measure the curvature of the Earth for themselves. The validity of the experimental method can be verified by anyone who has a bit of high school geometry. No trust in NASA is needed to confirm that the Earth is not flat.
If someone wanted to see things for themselves and went about it in an honest way, they wouldn't end up as a flat earther.
... even before considering the transparently wacky claims of many flat earth hypotheses. Remember that to become a flat earther, a person has to adpt some sort of model of a flat Earth. I haven't found one yet that doesn't have holes you could drive a truck through.
- Status