/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9972380]

Press F to pay respects to the Opportunity rover, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9972385]

F

[Anonymous No.9972389]

Why don't those morons start a PR campaign to send someone up there to wipe off the dust?

Nationalism motivated us to get to the moon. Maybe saving le epic robot will motivate these basedboys to get to Mars instead of dicking around with trillion dollar telescopes or whatever the fuck.

[Anonymous No.9972483]

>>9972389
They're hoping a martian dust devil will blow it clean. Mars has some pretty big dust devils

Realistically, since this is the 2nd time this has happened they should angle the solar panels so dust rolls of like snow on a steep roof.

[Anonymous No.9972583]

>>9972380
mars rover is another nasa lie.

[Anonymous No.9972585]

>>9972389
>Nationalism motivated us to get to the moon.

noone landed on the moon

[Anonymous No.9972616]

>>9972585
The rat is obviously photo shopped in.
It would take you 10 seconds to google and confirm it.

[Anonymous No.9972630]

>>9972616
also takes me 10 second to find more nasa bullshit

[Anonymous No.9972632]

>>9972616
funny how freely people will rather not think nasa photoshops pics on earth to look like space. but random people photoshop space pictures to look like earth

[Anonymous No.9972897]

>>9972630
Because dust on the moon follows a ballistic trajectory instead of billowing up into a cloud and then settling down. Dust behaves differently with less gravity and no atmosphere, who could have thunk it

[Anonymous No.9972898]

>>9972583
>>9972585
>>9972616
>>9972630
I'm genuinely thinking about finally abandoning this board. The level of /pol/tard noise has gotten above the threshold at which one can ignore it. It really is negligent of the mods here to not do anything about it.

[Anonymous No.9972938]

>>9972380
why didn't NASA sent 3? 2 for the poles, 1 for the rest that's just rust. Curiosity wouldn't have reached a polar cap in time anyway, there isn't much to see in the ''mainland''

[Anonymous No.9972970]

>>9972389
If the rover loses power it dies. The electronics get too cold and the solder joints break. There's no coming back from that

[Anonymous No.9972995]

[Anonymous No.9973013]

Another potentially good thread ruined by /pol/. Delete the board already and execute anyone who posted there.

[Anonymous No.9973020]

>>9972898
you do know other boards got the capacity to be dumb too? I find ''reddit'' posting to be the worst offender shitposting there is. calling something reddit is just as meaningful as ''edgy'' or ''autism''

[Anonymous No.9973023]

>>9973013
It's not /pol/ you lil' bitch, it's called being a skeptic. It's what real scientists do.

[Anonymous No.9973027]

>>9973023
>Real scientists.
>Look at this infographic I found posted (normally on /pol), this must be true!
>Doesn't do any research, or experimentation to either prove or disprove it.
>"Real scientists".
Lmao, shut the fuck up, /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.9973030]

>>9973020
That's true, but more often than not nowadays, it is a /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.9973032]

>>9973030
I am a /pol/tard too, but I respect boundaries. is it scientific but I want to discuss policies around it? pol. isnt politics involved? here. Can I stay?

[Anonymous No.9973037]

>>9973032
So long as you don't start calling everyone a Zionist? Sure.

[Anonymous No.9973040]

>>9973037
I don't subscribe just one group is bad, but trying to force feed /them/ that multiple groups may be at fault is difficult.

[Anonymous No.9973045]

>>9973027
>Believes images are proof of a rover on Mars.

Who's the real 'tard?

[Anonymous No.9973046]

>>9973040
Everyone is at fault in some way. I highly doubt the whole state of the world is the result of one group. But instead, how a bunch of groups have interacted over time. In other words, "intersectionality."
Which I know is a dirty word, but like all academia, applicable somewhere.

[Anonymous No.9973048]

>>9973045
>Strawmanning that it is the only proof of rover on Mars!
Nice try, but you're on /sci/, not /pol/.

[Anonymous No.9973049]

>>9973048
What has convinced your skeptical, scientific mind that there is a rover on Mars?

[Anonymous No.9973050]

>>9973049
I dunno, perhaps all the data it has collected that fits the mathematical models? Maybe that?

[Anonymous No.9973051]

>>9973050
You are convinced the "data" was sent from Mars?

[Anonymous No.9973057]

>>9973051
What convinced you that the data was made up? Fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.9973064]

>>9973057
You need to prove it came from Mars you brainlet, but you can't.

[Anonymous No.9973069]

>>9973064
You need to probably that a massive multi-country conspiracy is more likely cause of the data than landing on Mars, which it isn't.
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9973073]

>>9972380
More like the Opportunity OVER!

[Anonymous No.9973074]

>>9973069
Burden of proof is on you brainlet, stop dodging.

[Anonymous No.9973081]

>>9973074
Fuck.
Off.

[Anonymous No.9973084]

>Build billion dollar robot
>Can't put a fucking brush on it to wipe the panels clean

Embarrassing desu.

[Anonymous No.9973086]

>>9973081
That's what I thought. You don't have any proof the rover is on Mars, you simply believe it is, correct?

[Anonymous No.9973089]

>>9973086
Fuck off and go live your life as a brain in a tube, retard.

[Anonymous No.9973093]

>>9973089
Keep jacking off to pictures of the Mars rover you loser.

[Anonymous No.9973094]

>>9973093
Keep replying to me. Dance puppet.
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9973101]

>>9973094
Go to Greenland or possibly Antarctica, you can meet your crush. You might even be able to stick your pee pee in one of its holes if you're sly enough.

[Anonymous No.9973105]

>>9973101
What evidence do you have of Greenland existing, faggot?

[Anonymous No.9973107]

>>9973105
The public can actually go there, unlike Mars.

[Anonymous No.9973109]

>>9973107
You've hears """stories""" of Greenland but you have no proof, retard.

[Anonymous No.9973115]

>>9973109
Sorry brainlet, you can prove Greenland exists yourself, you don't need to take people's word for it, but you have to take people's word for it that there is a rover on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9973119]

>>9973115
Fuck off retard, you can't """prove""" anything besidds your complete retardation.

[Anonymous No.9973125]

>>9973119
>besidds your complete retardation
Says the brainlet that believes there's a faggy little rover driving around on Mars because he saw some shitty pictures

[Anonymous No.9973207]

>>9973051
Why do you even visit, or post, on a board dedicated to science and MATHEMATICS?

[Anonymous No.9973212]

>>9973051
Why else would it fit our models for Mars, whilst not being so exact as to be suspicious?

[Anonymous No.9973215]

>>9973064
Actually, you're the one who made the claim first. Ergo, the burden of proof that the rover isn't Mars is down to you. But, because apparently no proof is valid to you, any proof you offer is equally invalid. Ergo, this is a pointless argument and conversation, just like arguing about god of the gaps. Now fuck off, you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9973218]

>>9973074
Wrong, you're the one who made the original claim. The burden is on YOU, dumb dumb.

[Anonymous No.9973222]

>>9973086
Well, we have data and pictures. You have what? /pol/ infographics. If the data, and the pictures aren't valid, when they're more valid than your "proof", than, as I've just said. This is a pointless argument, as no evidence is apparently for for you, despite being utterly hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.9973226]

>>9973107
And yet, in all that time, no one has reported seeing a rover, or the obvious exclusionary boundary required to stop planes and shit appearing in its footage. Lmao. You're dumb.

[Anonymous No.9973229]

>>9973207
Because I'm tired of the pseudo-science this board (and world) is flooded with. Tired of faggots falling for NASA and "space" bullshit. Tired of faggots incapable of challenging "established science" and instead deifying it and the "scientists" responsible for it.

[Anonymous No.9973234]

>>9973115
You can prove Greenland exists, you can also prove Mars exists. The problem, as you'll see in: >>9973226. Is there is less proof of the rover being in Greenland, than on Mars, because people CAN GO to Greenland and people CAN fly over it. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.9973236]

>>9973212
If you were tasked with creating the fake data, isn't that exactly how you'd it?

[Anonymous No.9973237]

>>9973125
>he saw some shitty pictures
Literally your only evidence, but you claim that isn't sufficient, when we also have data and CLEAR PICTURES? Lmao, nice hypocrisy, spastic.

[Anonymous No.9973242]

>>9973236
If you created "fake data" someone would notice the numbers didn't add up, because it would have errors when compared to the algorithms we use for things like atmospheric calculation. And this data had been finely combed over by non-NASA, or American affiliated scientists too.

[Anonymous No.9973243]

>>9973215
>>9973218

No brainlets, you don't need to prove a negative, you need to prove the claim the rover is on Mars.

>because apparently no proof is valid to you
What proof do you have?

[Anonymous No.9973246]

>>9973243
Listen, faggot. You made the claim first that:
>Rover isn't on Mars.
Therefore, it IS your burden of proof to prove that. You haven't, you actually have less prove than us, and that lesser proof is partly promised of a similar proof to yours. So by discrediting ours, you discredit your OWN and ONLY proof. Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.9973247]

>>9973222
>we have data and pictures
Has this been independently verified?

[Anonymous No.9973249]

>>9973247
Yes, you idiot, because it is only accessible to the scientific community.
>What is peer review?
Gosh, you are stupid.

[Anonymous No.9973253]

>>9973249
>*openly

[Anonymous No.9973260]

>>9973226
>>9973234
Where is this base located and who owns it?

[Anonymous No.9973264]

>>9973237
>CLEAR PICTURES?
No way!

[Anonymous No.9973265]

>>9973260
Are you retarded? I'm saying the rover IS ON MARS, and that this spastic can't prove that it is in Greenland. And that, there is even less evidence for it being on Greenland, than on Mars, as people can actually go and look for it on Mars and yet, despite all of the planes flying over, has never been and issue. DUUUUUH.

[Anonymous No.9973267]

>>9973264
Clearer than your infographics, hypocrite. Why is it fit as evidence for his disbelief, but not our belief?

[Anonymous No.9973269]

>>9973267
>*your

[Anonymous No.9973272]

>>9973242
>claiming it's impossible to fake the data

[Anonymous No.9973274]

>>9973265
>*it on Greenland

>>9973272
>claiming that it isn't possible to fake the infographics
Oh look, more hypocrisy!

[Anonymous No.9973275]

>>9973246
I can't say there isn't a rover on Mars without there being a claim that there is one. If you cannot prove this claim, then my denial of this claim is valid.

[Anonymous No.9973278]

>>9973275
Wrong, because you asserted your claim first. Therefore, you must prove yours, before the burden of proof falls on me to prove you wrong.
Now, prove me, without using infographics or data, that the rover ISN'T ON MARS, as apparently, per your own assertions, that isn't valid proof... for some reason.

[Anonymous No.9973279]

>>9973249
>thinks peer review is a perfect system rather than an echo chamber and vulnerable to corruption

[Anonymous No.9973283]

>>9973265
>thinks it is easy to spot a little rover when flying in a plane

[Anonymous No.9973284]

>>9973279
Another strawman. I never claimed it was perfect, but it is more fit-for-purpose than no system at all, and certainly more useful. And how exactly is it an echo chamber it is accessible to the public, other academics, other scientists who also from different fields, countries and backgrounds?
Good job.

[Anonymous No.9973286]

>>9973267
I didn't post any infographics. Regardless, what is it about the photos that convinces you they're taken on Mars?

[Anonymous No.9973289]

>>9973283
>Another straw man.
I also included exclusionary zones, which are normally several miles in radius. See Area 51, or similar places. Just to prevent the POSSIBILITY.
Now, try again, without making ANOTHER STRAWMAN. you've already made more than a handful this thread.

[Anonymous No.9973290]

>>9973274
>Oh look, more hypocrisy!
I didn't post any infographics.

[Anonymous No.9973294]

>>9973286
>>9973290
You did earlier in the thread, they were deleted.
Check the archives.
>Regardless, what is it about the photos that convinces you they're taken on Mars?
Regardless, what is it about the photos that convinces you they weren't taken on Mars?
But remember you don't consider pictures valid proof. So you have LESS PROOF, than us, for the same claim.

[Anonymous No.9973297]

>>9973278
No brainlet - in the same way you don't need to prove God doesn't exist, I don't need to prove the Mars rover doesn't exist on Mars. You are the one making the claim, I am the one denying it.

[Anonymous No.9973299]

I clicked on this thread to see how the Opportunity rover is doing, not watch some faggot post his 'space is a lie' folder for the thousandth time this month.

[Anonymous No.9973301]

>>9973284
Who peer reviewed the Mars rover data please?

[Anonymous No.9973302]

>>9973297
If you said that God doesn't exist, you would be required to offer the proof that he doesn't, Just in the same way I would be required to prove that he does. Besides, what kind of arcane rule is that? Where is it from? Can you prove it exists?

[Anonymous No.9973304]

>>9973301
See, I could do that, I could even offer a slightly different by similar argument. But instead, I'll employ exactly the same argumentation method as you.
Who peer reviewed the data that the Mars rover doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.9973305]

>>9973289
Where was this taken?

[Anonymous No.9973309]

>>9973305
That's a fake picture, remember. All pictures are fake, don't you know what? Remember, you said all pictures aren't valid proof? Hypocrisy, again.

[Anonymous No.9973313]

>>9973294
>You did earlier in the thread, they were deleted.
That was someone else.

>Regardless, what is it about the photos that convinces you they weren't taken on Mars?
Nope, that's not how it works. You believe the photos are taken on Mars, so what is it about them that makes you believe this?

[Anonymous No.9973316]

>>9973299
Grow up and become a real scientist.

[Anonymous No.9973318]

>>9973313
>That was someone else.
Sure it was. It doesn't really matter, you've already said they wouldn't be valid anyway.

>Nope, that's not how it works.
Can you prove this rule exists?
>You believe the photos are taken on Mars, so what is it about them that makes you believe this?
You believe the photos aren't taken on Mars, so what is it about them that makes you believe this?

[Anonymous No.9973323]

>>9973316
Lemme just assemble a flat-earth folder so I can be a real scientist like you then, faggot.

[Anonymous No.9973325]

>>9973316
I didn't realize to be a "real scientist" I had to spout a bunch of strawmen?

[Anonymous No.9973333]

>>9973302
If you said our galaxy was orbiting a pink unicorn, then gave me some pictures and data, would that be proof?

[Anonymous No.9973335]

>>9973309
Pictures are not proof, correct. So you then disregard all pictures of the Mars rover, correct?

[Anonymous No.9973337]

>>9973333
No, because the pictures once analyzed would obviously be fake, as would the data. You're seriously, very dumb.
Maybe try making a better analogy?

>>9973335
Sure, because that still means I have more evidence than you. Data. Whilst you don't even have pictures anyway, which was your only "evidence". So now, you claim literally has less evidence than mine, from your own assertions.
Good job, idiot, good job.

[Anonymous No.9973338]

>>9973337
>*your

[Anonymous No.9973339]

>>9973318
What's taking this photo?

[Anonymous No.9973340]

>>9973323
Do experiments faggot

[Anonymous No.9973342]

>>9973339
Sorry, photos aren't proof. As per your own stipulation.

[Anonymous No.9973344]

>>9973325
What makes a real scientist?

[Anonymous No.9973345]

>>9973339
>https://www.quora.com/How-does-Curiosity-Mars-Rover-take-pictures-of-itself
And just for the hell of it, that's why the picture looks so strange, as in a triangular angle.

[Anonymous No.9973346]

>>9973344
Can you prove a real scientist exists? No pictures, or data, or second hand information. All of that is fake.

[Anonymous No.9973347]

>>9973337
>No, because the pictures once analyzed would obviously be fake, as would the data.
But it's peer reviewed?

>Sure, because that still means I have more evidence than you. Data.
Show me your data.

[Anonymous No.9973349]

>>9973342
I'm talking about your stipulation that the photos are proof (or at least evidence), stop dodging.

[Anonymous No.9973350]

>>9973347
>But it's peer reviewed?
And the peer review would spot it, duh?

>Show me your data.
Show me yours?

[Anonymous No.9973353]

>>9973349
Special pleading.

[Anonymous No.9973355]

>>9972995
>see photo of land comparable to mars
>see photo of mars
>assume mars photo is fake

Question: We know a few places on Earth looks similar to Mars, but HOW do we know this if we've never been to Mars? How can we say "it's like Mars" if we don't know what Mars is like at all? why bother saying it looks like anything on Earth if that's just suspicious to the unwashed brainlet masses whom you're trying to trick?

[Anonymous No.9973356]

>>9973345
Jej, that's cute. Is this on Mars?

[Anonymous No.9973359]

>>9972970
I figured by now we would have a way to connect electronics to boards that could handle more extreme temperature ranges.
Sure, solder is cheap, but a rover sure ain't.

[Anonymous No.9973360]

>>9973356
Have you noticed what I'm doing yet, anon? I'm giving you a taste of your own medicine. I'm mimicking the exact argumentative style (*also known as sophistry) you used earlier with the other anon, who gave up, because you're a pedantic idiot. And also attempted to use with me. Annoying, isn't it? Pointless, isn't it? This is exactly how you make other people feel, I hope you're squirming inside your own skin now, you piece of utter shit.

[Anonymous No.9973361]

>>9973350
>And the peer review would spot it, duh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

>Show me yours?
You are the one that claimed to have data, where is it?

[Anonymous No.9973362]

>>9973356
Also:
>I don't know what a testing phase is.
Yeah, I'm sure you spend millions upon millions on developing robotics and then don't even bother to test it.

[Anonymous No.9973363]

>>9973353
Stop dodging.

[Anonymous No.9973367]

>>9973361
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair
Ah yes, things never improve. You do know, the point of that experiment was to improve the system, right?

>You are the one that claimed to have data, where is it?
Wheres yours? You don't even have photos now, they're all fake.

[Anonymous No.9973368]

>this thread
>NUH UH YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
>NUH UH YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
>NUH UH YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
>NUH UH YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
I can feel my brain being replaced by a singularity. Save me, Jesus

[Anonymous No.9973372]

>>9973363 see >>9973360, to understand what I'm doing and why.

[Anonymous No.9973371]

>>9973355
>We know a few places on Earth looks similar to Mars, but HOW do we know this if we've never been to Mars?
Because you don't know how it looks. It's better to choose some barren land on earth and stick a reddish filter over it and call it Mars because the unwashed brainlet masses aren't going to question it.

[Anonymous No.9973373]

>>9973368 >>9973360
You should see it to, just so you understand what I'm doing.

[Anonymous No.9973378]

>>9973371
Where is it? Do you have proof it is there? Non-fake photos? Data? Anything? No? Well, fuck. I'm going to believe a national space agency, and the scientific community over someone who doesn't even have non-faked pictures.

[Anonymous No.9973381]

>>9973360
Why are you getting so emotional? What's actually happened is you are using my superior argument and I'm using your shitty argument that photos are scientific proof.

Without photos, what proof do you have that there is a rover on Mars?

[Anonymous No.9973382]

>>9973371
>choose some barren land on earth and stick a reddish filter over it

Why choose any place on Earth that can be discovered by someone?
Why not just make a huge elaborate set that looks like it's "out of this world." Instead they choose something that's arousing your suspicion because it's too close to Earth.
Surely if "they" are trying to trick "you" they would have predicted your thoughts and chosen something less conspicuous? Something that looks more alien and believable. Like you see in the movies. I bet those movies are real cause they're more alien looking. Claiming they use CGI is just a cover story for what's really happening.

[Anonymous No.9973383]

>>9973381
Because people like you are killing this board, and if this board is going to die, because of moronic sophists like you. Then I'm at least going to make them swallow a keg of their own bile beforehand. Why? Because that's exactly the kind of masochist I am.

[Anonymous No.9973386]

>>9973362
Wouldn't you test it in an environment that tries to mimic Mars?

[Anonymous No.9973387]

>>9973386
No shit, idiot, that's where that photo comes from.

[Anonymous No.9973389]

>>9973367
>Ah yes, things never improve. You do know, the point of that experiment was to improve the system, right?
Glad to hear it. Who peer reviewed the Mars rover data please?

>Wheres yours? You don't even have photos now, they're all fake.
If I don't have any data, and you don't have any data, where is the data?

[Anonymous No.9973390]

>>9973381
As for proof, data.

[Anonymous No.9973392]

>>9973389
>Who peer reviewed the Mars rover data please?
Prove data exists, I don't believe it does, until you prove data, as a concept, exists. I'm sorry, but words aren't scientific proof.

>If I don't have any data, and you don't have any data, where is the data?
What even is data? Like information? What even if information? Is information a conspiracy?!

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9973395]

>>9972389
Only one solution

[Anonymous No.9973396]

>>9973378
>Well, fuck. I'm going to believe a national space agency, and the scientific community
Why?

[Anonymous No.9973397]

>>9973396
Why not?

[Anonymous No.9973404]

>Spend 2.5 billion USD on engineering a rover
>Send it to planet that is covered in sand, constant sandstorms
>Doesn't account for going up dunes of any sufficient degree (almost got stuck for good in 2014)
>Doesn't account for sand accumulating on panels
>Doesn't use fusion welding to connect wires/electrical connections.
>Doesn't include any way to detect life other than biomarkers

You gotta love NASA, how do you spend 2.5 billion and send a glorified RC car into space?

[Anonymous No.9973405]

>>9973382
>Why choose any place on Earth that can be discovered by someone?
Because they get away with it regardless, I think they get some kind of sick pleasure out of faking it so obviously.

Too many people invested in the idea of space being real that no evidence of fakery will convince them they're being had.

[Anonymous No.9973407]

>>9973404
It wont on bonuses, and the Christmas party.

[Anonymous No.9973408]

>>9973405
>Because they get away with it regardless, I think they get some kind of sick pleasure out of faking it so obviously.
Ah yes, this is much more likely than them building a set, or simply a dedicated system for generating the most advanced CGI ever. Makes perfect sense, nice Occam's razor.

[Anonymous No.9973410]

>>9973383
Very edgy. What I'm killing is your faith based beliefs in Scientism. You have no proof, so you must resort to ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.9973411]

>>9973405
Wait, I just noticed something:
>Too many people invested in the idea of space being real...
Oh, that explains why he's a retard. He is a flatearther in disguise, trying to act like a "real scientist".
Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.9973412]

>>9973387
The earth is Mars, exactly.

[Anonymous No.9973414]

>>9973412
Oh look, misrepresenting what other people say!
Yup, sophist confirmed.

[Anonymous No.9973416]

>>9973390
>data
WHERE IS IT!?

[Anonymous No.9973417]

>>9973410
You have no proof either, and I suppose you could call sophistry a form of ad hom, as it is an insult to the person's intelligence.

>>9973416
Can you prove data is real?!

[Anonymous No.9973424]

>>9973340
What experiment do you propose I do in order to get an update on the rover, you insufferable fucking faggot?

[Anonymous No.9973428]

>>9973392
>Prove data exists, I don't believe it does, until you prove data, as a concept, exists. I'm sorry, but words aren't scientific proof.
I'm sorry, but this is a philosophical argument. I know you're trying to be clever, but we're talking about the existence of things that can be proven via the scientific method. If you could tell me who peer reviewed the Mars rover data then you would jump at the chance, so what's taking so long?

>What even is data? Like information? What even if information? Is information a conspiracy?!
How are you using these words correctly if you don't know what they mean?

[Anonymous No.9973433]

>>9973428
>... things that can be proven via the scientific method.
Oh boy, I've been waiting for you to slip up. Okay then, faggot, using the "scientific method", disprove the rover exists. What experiment are you going to do? What is your hypothesis? Your methodology? Good luck, you fucking monumental dullard.

>How are you using these words correctly if you don't know what they mean?
Because a signifier isn't the sign, you moron. Learn what semiotics is.

>Doesn't know what the scientific method is.
>Doesn't believe the rover, Mars or even space is real.
>Doesn't know the difference between a signifier (word) and a sign (concept).
>Real scientist.
You couldn't make this shit up.

[Anonymous No.9973434]

>>9973397
No reason at all.

[Anonymous No.9973435]

>>9973434
Precisely.

[Anonymous No.9973436]

>>9973408
You are proof that they can fake it badly and get away with it.

[Anonymous No.9973438]

>>9973436
Wait, I thought an ad hom automatically invalided your argument? Is that what you said? Lmao, guess I just won.

[Anonymous No.9973439]

>>9973411
>has never challenged the globe theory but thinks he's a real scientist

[Anonymous No.9973440]

>>9973438
>*invalidated

>>9973439
>Actually confirming you are a flattard whilst trying to make yourself sound like the virtuoso in an argument.
Is this the true power of a flatwat?

[Anonymous No.9973444]

>>9973417
>You have no proof either, and I suppose you could call sophistry a form of ad hom, as it is an insult to the person's intelligence.
Do you have anything against skepticism?

>Can you prove data is real?!
If the data is observable, measurable, testable and repeatable.

[Anonymous No.9973446]

>>9973424
Do experiments you can do faggot. Like measuring the curvature of the earth.

[Anonymous No.9973447]

>>9973444
>Do you have anything against skepticism?
Only when it obviously isn't skepticism, but is instead, flattardism. Which you quite literally admitted is your stance. Hilariously.

>If the data is observable, measurable, testable and repeatable.
That isn't what data is, lmao. Nice "real scientist" right here. I'm fairly sure:
>... observable, measurable, testable and repeatable.
Isn't what passes from your system into the Internet and then back into my system. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.9973450]

>>9973446
You can literally do this from a cliff top.

[Anonymous No.9973458]

>>9973382
You talking about same people who belive that NASA is constantly forgeting to add starts in their space pictures.

[Anonymous No.9973461]

>>9973433
>Okay then, faggot, using the "scientific method", disprove the rover exists.
I said things that can be proven by the scientific method, not disproven. If I am unable to disprove the rover existing on Mars, does that mean it does exist on Mars?

>Because a signifier isn't the sign, you moron. Learn what semiotics is.
Is that information?

>You couldn't make this shit up.
What makes you a real scientist?

[Anonymous No.9973466]

>>9973461
>I said things that can be proven by the scientific method, not disproven.
You really don't know how science functions, do you?
>Is that information?
Nah, them's just words. I don't understand their meaning. I'm an AI, programmed by NASA.
>What makes you a real scientist?
Because I apparently know more science, than a "real scientist". Surely that would make me the realest scientist, no?

[Anonymous No.9973468]

>>9973438
It's not ad hominem. The argument is "if they were going to fake it, why wouldn't they do it better?"

The response being, they don't need to do it any better because people like you will defend it regardless as you are emotionally invested.

[Anonymous No.9973472]

>>9973440
Have you challenged the globe theory or not?

[Anonymous No.9973475]

>>9973447
>flattardism
Define this.
>That isn't what data is, lmao. Nice "real scientist" right here. I'm fairly sure:
What is real data?

[Anonymous No.9973476]

>>9973468
It is an ad hom, until you can prove they faked it. That's the problem. Until you prove it, it can't be proof, but only an ad hom. Good luck, atheist.

>>9973472
>Have I ever been to the seaside?
Yes.

Oh, I almost forgot:
>The response being, they don't need to do it any better because people like you will defend it regardless as you are emotionally invested.
Also works for flatwats.

[Anonymous No.9973478]

>>9973450
How's that?

[Anonymous No.9973479]

>>9973475
>Define this.
You, your kin and your ilk.
>What is real data?
Would the real data please transmit? Please transmit? Please transmit? Copy, over.

>>9973478
Stand down. Watch sunset. Stand up. Watch second sunset.

[Anonymous No.9973480]

>>9973468
maybe somebody faked flat earth?
maybe someone faked space being a lie?
maybe someone faked the mars rover being a fake?

or maybe you're faking being a true flat earth believer and are just trying to troll. How do we know you even believe what you say? Can you prove it experimentally? Prove to us you're real.

[Anonymous No.9973483]

>>9973479
>Stand down.
As in: go prone.

[Anonymous No.9973485]

>>9973466
>You really don't know how science functions, do you?
Says the one who thinks it is scientifically proven that there's a rover on Mars.

>Nah, them's just words. I don't understand their meaning. I'm an AI, programmed by NASA.
And you still make typos, embarrassing.
>Because I apparently know more science, than a "real scientist". Surely that would make me the realest scientist, no?
Do you challenge mainstream science or accept it blindly?

[Anonymous No.9973488]

>>9973485
>Says the one who thinks it is scientifically proven that there's a rover on Mars.
I didn't say "scientifically proven", I said there is evidence for it. Different thing. This, again, only proves you don't understand the scientific method.
>And you still make typos, embarrassing.
Memory errors.
>Do you challenge mainstream science or accept it blindly?
I challenge it, then accept it. You challenge it, misunderstand it, then blindly accept some theory you read on:
>darealcopernicus.ru

[Anonymous No.9973490]

>>9973488
>darealcopernicus.ru
I just realized, I could've done something funny then. Like put up a link to a domain with a stager on it, or a clickjacker and inject some nasty shit into your memory. Fugg me, I'm getting too nice.

[Anonymous No.9973493]

>>9973476
Do you allow any possibility that it could have been faked?

How did the seaside challenge the globe model?

>Also works for flatwats.
True, but "flatwats" all once believed in space, etc too. We've admitted to being wrong, but you still can't.

[Anonymous No.9973497]

>>9973479
>You, your kin and your ilk.
Which is?

>Would the real data please transmit? Please transmit? Please transmit? Copy, over.
Indeed.

>Stand down. Watch sunset. Stand up. Watch second sunset.
And you believe this is impossible on a flat plane? I'll give you a clue, the atmosphere gets less dense the higher you go.

[Anonymous No.9973508]

>>9973501
>The dome model is fake.
Then what is the Sun and the Moon?
>Webm related, is that real?
Yes.
>Laser experiment.
I've already replied to this. The distance they are measuring isn't great enough, it wouldn't be possible to perceive the curvature.

[Anonymous No.9973509]

Talk about the fucking rover guys, not a bunch of /x/ stuff. Double-check the name of the board you are on, it is for discussing science, not an inquisition.

[Anonymous No.9973510]

>>9973509
Thank you, merciful mod. Can you just permaban these fucking flatearth retards?

[Anonymous No.9973524]

>>9973488
>I didn't say "scientifically proven", I said there is evidence for it. Different thing. This, again, only proves you don't understand the scientific method.
I'm aware that there's no such thing as "proof" in science, but there are things in physical reality that happen over and over again that they're as close to proof as you're going to get.

This "evidence" you speak of is enough to convince you a rover exists on Mars, correct?

>Memory errors.
NASA don't make errors.

>I challenge it, then accept it. You challenge it, misunderstand it, then blindly accept some theory you read on:
Give me an example of what you've challenged

[Anonymous No.9973530]

>>9973524
You do know the mods just deleted the entire back-and-forth, right? Are you a spastic? Are you ban evading, or something?

[Anonymous No.9973543]

>>9973503
>Yeah, sure. I mean, I usually doubt it has, but I always let logic take its course.
Do you trust NASA?
>See: You challenge it, misunderstand it, then blindly accept some theory you read on:
Is there any mainstream science you do not accept?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
>https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
Nice sources, both bullshit. Funny how Google shows them as the first results. Same with youtube, search any word + flat earth and the same bullshit mocking videos show as the first results.
>Not enough for that sort of optical illusion at that distance above sea level, you moron. All you need is a clear view of the horizon.
I've spend 100s of hours studying this so it will be interesting to see if you're just pulling shit out of your anus. Is there a band of distortion above the surface of the ocean?
>From "Mars rover doesn't exist", which you lost, here: >>9973438
Where?

[Anonymous No.9973545]

>>9973530
If they ban me they'd have to ban you too.

[Anonymous No.9973559]

>>9973509
No one wants to talk about the faggy rover it's a boring piece of useless shit.

[Anonymous No.9973654]

>>9973084
But no one knew back when it was being designed that Mars had dust.

[Anonymous No.9973674]

>>9973395
They'd end up killing off Space Force to spite Trump. Not worth it.

[Anonymous No.9973704]

>>9973674
What space force? it's literally nothing, just a rebranding and reorganisation of existing assets.

[Anonymous No.9973711]

>>9973654
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/300/5628/2056

[Anonymous No.9973748]

>>9973704
They'd have to reallocate most NASA assets to pay for all of our new friends from the border.

[Anonymous No.9974177]

>>9973084
If Elon Muck designed it, he would of made sure there was a brush.

[Anonymous No.9974309]

>>9973704
Yes, for now it's just an awesome name. But I'm assured by critics it'll result in a multibillion dollar self-sustaining bureaucracy that'll fritter away money on totally badass shit like hypersonic missiles and satellite interceptors.

>>9973711
>>9974177
There is a brush lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)#Dust_Removal_Tool_(DRT)