/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4246261

Just plug the monitor in backwards.
But no I got no ideas.

>become a head of the islamic church

>>3537528

The next generation of garden variety Bible thumpers will have completely forgotten the Bible thumpers of today. Why do I say this? Because history proves it. Before the current set of Bible thumpers you had the previous set of Bible thumpers, who were the Bible thumpers of their time. In fact the similarities between these two are striking. But do garden-variety Bible thumpers today remember their former champion of Bible thumping? No. Before the previous set you had even more generations of Bible thumpers. Does anyone remember them? No. Bible thumpers are too stupid to remember these influential Bible thumpers. Maybe it's because they were not so influential after all -- not in the sense of intellectually influential. They were demagogues, and when their time was up, or when the crowd got bored with them, room is made for the next demagogue.

All those guys put forth all much the same arguments and much the same rhetoric. Today it's "HAITI IS A PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR SINS"; back in the day it was "THE BLACK PLAGUE IS A PUNISHMENT FOR OUR SINS". One generation of "influential Bible thumpers" passes away, another comes and takes up the same arguments and the same rhetoric. Modern Bible thumpers say that the Bible guides him down the correct path. Raving madmen said the same thing a century ago. Perhaps re-stating the same things over and over again are major advances in Bible thumping philosophy which require fresh refutation every generation.

>>2535045

Teehee. You called me unusually stupid, yet I was still able to troll you!

Who's stupid now?!

>>2471742
You mad because you know deep down in your heart that you'll never be as good as the original?

>Hurrr help me with my maths homework
Will that cause more interest?

>>2347790
It is an observed fact that all objects with mass exert attractive forces on each other directly proportional to the product of the 2 masses in question and inversely proportional to the distance between them.

However, let's say that there is a property of all objects with mass. Let us call this property X. With a single exception, which we shall call Y, X is always directly proportional to mass.

If a scientist experimenting with Y found strong evidence that the force we call gravity is not directly proportional to the product of the masses involved in Y, but is directly proportional to the product of the Xs and can further prove that in Y there is not a force directly proportional to the product of the Xs that opposes the force of gravity, then he just proved that 'gravity' is directly proportional to the product of the Xs and found hard empirical evidence against the Theory of Gravity.

Admittedly, the new theory would look a lot like the old; there would be some new constant to determine the force of gravity using the Xs instead of the masses. Also, people would probably continue using the old equations outside of Y.

Your ignorance is showing.

>>2292490
Look into your heart, you know it to be true!

why not?