[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.10470699 [View]
File: 960 KB, 1600x929, 1550858626975.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10470699

>>10470692
Perspective + curve VS. Perspective alone. Please stay retarded.

>> No.10423624 [View]
File: 960 KB, 1600x929, 1550858626975.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10423624

Is it scientifically ethical to castrate or euthanize flat earthers?

>> No.10423012 [View]
File: 960 KB, 1600x929, 1550858626975.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10423012

>> No.10408493 [View]
File: 960 KB, 1600x929, thumbshowmecurve.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10408493

>>10408441
Water curves, you lose.

>> No.9993198 [View]
File: 960 KB, 1600x929, thumbshowmecurve.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9993198

>>9993183
>perspective
you have no idea what that word means.

>> No.9904734 [View]
File: 960 KB, 1600x929, done.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9904734

>>9904680

it doesn't fucking matter. you realize at this point that you are basically denying 100% of the physics that is used to design the world around you.

two things matter in science:

1. the predictive power of a theory.

2. the reducability of a theory.

all of the theories you posit are either irreducible, meaning that there is no more basic explanation other than "well, it just works that way", or they have zero predictive power. additionally, you seem to be immune to any sort of argument. no matter what is presented to you you find some minuscule flaw (really, a misunderstanding on your part) to latch on to and disregard the entire thing. realize that you have essentially made it such that it is impossible to show you that you are incorrect because your standards for what constitutes as evidence are so high that even in the presence of perfect evidence that irrefutably shows your position to be false, you somehow manage to misunderstand it, and cite your own inability to understand the evidence as proof that it is false.


watch. pic related is a picture of the curve of the earth. yet, you will find some way to weakly refute the validity of the picture by finding a part of it that you don't understand and claiming that because you don't understand it, the proof is not valid.

>> No.9594477 [View]
File: 960 KB, 1600x929, done.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9594477

>>9593584
the debate is over.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]