/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9751016
>Relativity teaches you to know things you don't actually know.
Please don't get the concept of relative motion confused with general (or special) relativity, you moron.
And please, enough with the technobabble.

>And what scientific proof do you have for these axioms being true?
What, axioms like "all right angles are congruent"? get a load of this guy dot bee em pee
Remember, geometric figures exist only in the language of mathematics. Saying "a line and a point not on that line determine a plane" is no different from saying "a circle has no corners".

>Photography is not scientific, empirical evidence.
It literally is.
And if it isn't, why are you posting photos and videos and claiming that they're evidence for your side?

>>9751027
>How do globalists explain the glare getting smaller if it's not moving further away?
by most of the sun being blocked out by the curvature of the earth, causing less light to reach the camera, you imbecile.

>How does that not apply to the globe model?
With the globe model, we make predictions of what we see, and the observations match the predictions.
With the flat model, you make predictions of what we see, and the observations contradict the predictions, so you come up with excuses why that is.
That's your difference for you.

>>8927397
holy shit she's absolute gold for /sci/-trolling copypasta
enjoy your (You)

>>8927405
>a phenomena
a phenomenon. multiple phenomena
this has been your daily grammar nitpick. continue about your business.

>>8686070
word salad unrelated to the claim previously made

>>8686085
>2017 C.E.
>still not knowing the difference between a mean name and argumentum ad hominem
nobody can actually be this stupid, you must be trolling. take your (You) and get out of here

>>8634977
>YOU NEVER SEE THE MONEY
>implying that researchers don't derive tangible benefits from their employers due to bringing in grant money

>You have to produce. Or there's a good chance you'll lose the grant.
You have to actually produce publishable work based on the research being funded. That's different from producing a paper in direct exchange for money.
see, the direct quid pro quo is the problem. consider the difference between "I give you this campaign donation in exchange for you representing my interests" and "I give you this campaign donation in exchange for you voting a certain way on this particular bill".

>I never said it hadn't warmed.
You literally did, you retard:
>>8630210
>I'd gladly round it [total warming since ~1900] to zero though because we both know that's what it is
Do you realize we can all just scroll up and read what you posted?

>All those graphs are from different, peer-reviewed papers.
Almost none of those graphs are actually sourced, and none whatsoever have any statistical support for the MWP. Just drawing on a graph isn't sufficient; you need to actually show that the apparent peak is statistically significant.