Off Topic Posts Moved Here

[RoamerRV428]

hey moved is if I chat a spark plug when all are taking air filter HAHA ugh

 

[RoamerRV428]

It's all good all of us I would think we are having fun chatting nonsense cause I think alot of us are bored maybe? HAHA Sometimes everyone needs a little nonsense crazy thread to chat a bit for whatever reason but in the end, all good for me over it all

 

[Morgana]

we are having fun chatting nonsense cause I think alot of us are bored maybe?

Speak for yourself maybe.

 

[RoamerRV428]

I think I did and never said it was all.............you got some burr thinking I talked for you.........yes guess ya did LOL
ugh

I said: cause I think alot of us are bored maybe?

alot of us means not you clearly so you just had to spout that out.
again fair fun games in a post to chat it up. You just amused me
one so quick to ***!

 

[CosmickGold]

. . . . we are having fun chatting nonsense . . . .

That's called "chit-chat", officially defined as "trivial and/or non-consequential conversation". There is a forum specifically for creating and participating in such threads. It's called Off-Topic and Chit-Chat.

As pointed out by WanderingRose in comment #67 above, people come here seeking information they need to improve their lives, and having to wade through "nonsense" and topics unrelated to a given thread, can seriously slow, hamper, or even prevent them from finding their needed answers.

Seriously, that's why comments that are off-topic or chit-chat anywhere need to be either deleted or moved to their proper area to be enjoyed.

And now that I've re-explained this, I'm going to ask a moderator to remove this and the related posts, because I'm clearly "off-topic" as well. Check out Rewandering's comment #71 above, where she clearly explains the topic for this thread.

 

[CosmickGold]

Well, I’m right because of this particular ‘fact’ is supported by testable, repeatable, peer reviewed investigations and you’re wrong because (whatever reason there is), generally that there is no supporting evidence or it flies in the face of fact.

. . . . several hours of "wasted" time on the internet ensued. Lots of videos and articles . . . . but I couldn't find any evidence . . . . Then I ran across this survey conducted in 2021, . . . [that said] . . . ."18% of the Millenials (20-40 year olds) agreed with the statement "the earth is flat, not round". I was blown away.
((The above words are from rruff's comment #1 on The Earth is Flatt!!!))

. . . . they want to believe in something that does not have good evidence . . . . their indoctrinated viewpoint without sufficient evidence.
((The above words are from paulrh's comment #21 on The Earth is Flatt!!!))

Anything from the smu webpage is an opinion. They are non-peer-reviewed papers on random subjects. Not a hard fact to provide back up light.
((The above words are from GotSmart's comment #35 on The Earth is Flatt!!!))

OK guys. I fully agree that when making a claim, one should give the verifiable original source of that information, lest it seem only fiction. So I'm now making an effort to find those original sources for each claim I previously mentioned.

My first find has been the source of the statement about Quazars being arranged in concentric circles around the Earth -- one above the other - thus indicating our planet Earth is not moving and is located at the center of the universe. What I found is this short paper in the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System. In it, the researcher names the Quazars involved in his study, names their red-shift values, and explains how their red-shifts show them to be in groups where each member of a group is the same specific distance from the earth. He gives the statistics for how this happening by coincidence is almost immeasurably small. So he titled the paper, "The red shift hypothesis for quasars - Is the earth the center of the Universe"

So I ask you, is this a good example of the kind of supporting evidence you were meaning we need, to prove someone didn't just make it all up from a vivid imagination? I ask you because if the answer is "yes", I'll keep looking for more such evidence in support of the other claims.

 

[user 22017]

So I ask you, is this a good example of the kind of supporting evidence you were meaning we need, to prove someone didn't just make it all up from a vivid imagination? I ask you because if the answer is "yes", I'll keep looking for more such evidence in support of the other claims.

It's a paper discussing a hypothesis made by Burbridge in 1968.

 

[Morgana]

I doubt the following resources will help settle this particular question, but I wanted to put them out here since they're all about fact-checking and one or more might come in handy sometime.

I wouldn't recommend trying to read ALL of these, but you might grab something that catches your eye. The first one is the shortest and maybe the best too.

International Federation of Library Associations: How to Spot Fake News
a one-pager -- short and to the point

The Poynter Institute, a well-respected journalism training organization, has a long list of media-literacy resources, including
a YouTube series called Navigating Digital Information, which looked kind of fun,
and a free class called How to Spot Misinformation Online.
The full list is here: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-education-resources/
and includes both paid and free resources.

This book looks like fun but I haven't read it yet: True or False: A CIA Analyst's Guide to Spotting Fake News.

And here's a short article from the University of North Carolina on "How to improve your media literacy skills."

And of course there are your basic fact-checkers like https://www.politifact.com/, https://www.factcheck.org/, and https://www.snopes.com/.

FWIW!
I'm sure there are other good resources too.

 

[CosmickGold]

It's a paper discussing a hypothesis made by Burbridge in 1968.

Yes. I just looked the word up and found, "A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested by further investigation." The key here is that he provided enough info (such as the names of specifc quazars that it CAN be further investigated. He didn't just make it up out of thin air.

 

[CosmickGold]

I doubt the following resources will help settle this particular question, but . . . .

Thank you Morgana. For starters, that first one gives hints I'll follow through with, like the need to learn more about the author, and also the website.

 

[Dingfelder]

And so it goes ...

 

[Dingfelder]

Isn't there an alternative to suddenly running into a total roadblock halfway way down the street? Isn't there a way we can fix it so we can continue to enjoy sharing and learning the views of others?

Unfortunately, no. This is no longer the world we live in.

And we're all the better for it.

Trust us.

 

[RoamerRV428]

some gotta control the world don't they......geesh LOL too funny and I am chit chatting about that too HAHA

 

[GotSmart]

Yes. I just looked the word up and found, "A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested by further investigation." The key here is that he provided enough info (such as the names of specifc quazars that it CAN be further investigated. He didn't just make it up out of thin air.

Still an opinion

Last night I saw the moon was only a tiny sliver. I have seen Cookie Monster on TV, therefore the giant Cookie Monster in the sky ate the moon.

Prove me wrong with documenting proof that I am wrong.

An opinion with a fact is still an opinion.

A hypothesis with several facts is still not a proven fact.

I have seen interviews and footage from the space station. I am convinced that the earth is not flat.

 

[CosmickGold]

. . . . Last night I saw the moon was only a tiny sliver. I have seen Cookie Monster on TV, therefore the giant Cookie Monster in the sky ate the moon.
Prove me wrong with documenting proof that I am wrong. . . . I am convinced that the earth is not flat.

Well, I'm not trying to say the Earth is either flat or round, only that there is evidence in both directions.

I learned as a child not to assume anything is impossible, no matter how absurd it may seem. That lesson came to me when someone claimed my grandmother's fish tank was always 10 degrees cooler than the room around it. I was convinced they were wrong, knowing that NOTHING just sits on a table week after week and stays colder than its surroundings. That's ridiculous. Every sensible person knows heat radiates out from everything until the temperature everywhere is equalized. NO WAY that aquarium would just sit there and stay 10 degrees cooler.

A few years later, I learned that the pump bubbling air bubbles through her tank were evaporating water into those bubbles, cooling the water around each bubble as it evaporated and thus taking some of the water's heat out with it. I HAD BEEN WRONG! THE IMPOSSIBLE WAS REAL! Since then, I've never assumed anything is impossible. I always look for a way it could be true.

So let's consider your moon proposition.

Rather than say there is no gigantic Cookie Monster in the sky, better to consider what such a Cookie Monster could actually consist of. However, that's not the main question here. The best way to clarify that it didn't happen would be to carefully observe what's left of the moon.



Since so many people assume the moon goes through repeating phases, that would be a great starting point. Phases would mean the moon will grow back. But even if observed getting larger each night, it might be the "cookie dough" the moon was made from is simply still expanding as it bakes in the sun. So next, I'd take pictures of the moon as it grew back, and compare those pictures with old pictures of the moon, for the chances of craters and seas appearing in exactly the same places and shades that had been there before it was eaten, would be far less than one in billions, making the likelihood that it really was just going through phases at least several billion times more likely.

As for the cookie monster: Surely there would be many many people who happened to be looking up at that moment and saw the eating event. Did they see a Cookie Monster? What exactly did it look like, and what else could fit that description?

Anyway, those would be my starting points. I would not just assume the Cookie Monster chomp-down didn't happen. ALL things are possible. In fact, I'm feeling tempted to go outside to examine the moon right now, just in case you are telling the truth!

 

[BelgianPup]

Still an opinion

Last night I saw the moon was only a tiny sliver. I have seen Cookie Monster on TV, therefore the giant Cookie Monster in the sky ate the moon.

Prove me wrong with documenting proof that I am wrong.

An opinion with a fact is still an opinion.

A hypothesis with several facts is still not a proven fact.

I have seen interviews and footage from the space station. I am convinced that the earth is not flat.

 

[CosmickGold]

Well, BelgianPup, I often delete parts of a quote to make it easy for anyone to focus on the part I'm responding to. But when I do omit words, I always replace them with four dots ". . . .".
I do that so anyone can see something is left out and go to the original comment to see the rest if they want to. You can see I used four dots in two places in my quote above.
I also use square brackets [like this] if I need to insert words to clarify a partially-quoted sentence.

 

[tx2sturgis]

The earth is egg-shaped with a flat spot where I live.

 

[NctryBen]

The earth is egg-shaped with a flat spot where I live.

I can always tell when I’m in tx’s neck of the woods! ... I can see for miles and miles!

 

[CosmickGold]

It's a paper discussing a hypothesis made by Burbridge in 1968.

Yes, Burbridge did the pioneering work in 1968, but the paper I'm referencing is from 1976 and states, "As of June 1975 there were 384 quazars in the category we are considering." Thus making the value "about 50 times as large as the one calculated by Burbridge in (1968)".

But the above dates don't matter as long as the experimental results are valid and unchanging; the same today as they were years ago. So on page 8 of his paper, he concludes "We are essentially left with only one possibility - No. 3 in the cosmological red-shift interpretation." [which is] "The earth is indeed the center of the Universe."