Sci-fi plan to hang a wandering skyscraper from asteroid orbiting Earth

[LaBelle]

That's no moon

[FoolofaTook]

I thought the whole universe revolved around a super massive black hole the dark portal to the primal void wherein sits azathoth sovereignly enthroned upon a throne of chaos

No?

[LaBelle]

[MyOneAndOnly]

i'm still waiting for bubble cities on the moon

[FoolofaTook]

Btw Aries is in the sky.

Its fulltoke time! Imma bed all ur moms like absalom did to his dads concubines: in an elevated public place.

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

i'm still waiting for bubble cities on the moon

Is that Taal Volcano? On the moon?

Duuuuuude...

[LaBelle]

We need bubble cities underwater before we go to the moon.

That's my .2

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

I thought the whole universe revolved around a super massive black hole the dark portal to the primal void wherein sits azathoth sovereignly enthroned upon a throne of chaos

No?

no

all fake news

[MyOneAndOnly]

wanna listen to something truely infuriating, here's an hour long interview with Mark Sargent who runs EnclosedWorld.com

he goes on for an hour about how the earth is flat, moon landing hoax, mars is fake, etc etc

http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk...-mark-sergant/

[LaBelle]

I've met people who believed there was a race of flat beings who lived underground, they were the panquecoids.

Also, i've heard theory that someday this massive planet will approach earth and suck up the worthy people leaving the rest behind. The suck-all planet.

These are things I heard people say with a straight face like they are facts.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by LaBelle

I've met people who believed there was a race of flat beings who lived underground, they were the panquecoids.

Also, i've heard theory that someday this massive planet will approach earth and suck up the worthy people leaving the rest behind. The suck-all planet.

These are things I heard people say with a straight face like they are facts.

barely related to your comment... but have you seen the movie "Another Earth." Very good. My favorite type of sci fi. Stars Brit Marlilng

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

no

all fake news

Are you telling me HP Lovecraft told me LIES

why hp why!?

[FoolofaTook]

Lol his name was howard philip

lol no wonder he read edward plunkett

dorks

[LaBelle]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

barely related to your comment... but have you seen the movie "Another Earth." Very good. My favorite type of sci fi. Stars Brit Marlilng

I haven't seen that.. thanks for the rec! downloading it now.

I'm a criminal.

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I wish a mod would just force Omega to post with this Av

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

slept through physics in high school

It's not my concept. At the top of the thread I mention this all must be some type of gullibility test.

That said, most scientist mocked Herman Potocnik crazy concepts of satellites in geostationary orbit as fantasy, but I digress.

[MyOneAndOnly]

one tactic fascist deniars tend to use when advancing their argument is to state a now accepted fact and say that it used to be considered crazy or opposed by other scientists.

but the truth is that EVERY scientific principle is opposed until it is replcated, confirmed and becomes consensus. and every stupid idea is opposed as well, because it isn't confirmed or replicated.

it's rhetoric, but it shows how people like TOC don't really understand how science works.

[buzzard]

You wouldn't think we'd need any more evidence after Eve was used as an example of early human cloning.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

one tactic fascist deniars tend to use when advancing their argument is to state a now accepted fact and say that it used to be considered crazy or opposed by other scientists.

but the truth is that EVERY scientific principle is opposed until it is replcated, confirmed and becomes consensus. and every stupid idea is opposed as well, because it isn't confirmed or replicated.

it's rhetoric, but it shows how people like TOC don't really understand how science works.

stay in your lane. You can get in trouble when you try to think, it makes you assume you know better.



Consensus Is Not Science


The late Michael Crichton, MD, author, film producer, put it this way:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

[redbreegull]

haha

[redbreegull]

let's ask the dead motherfucker who wrote Jurassic Park what his expert opinion is

[FoolofaTook]

He's not dead. He's just sleeping, resting in Christ..

[FoolofaTook]

Waiting for the trumpet to sound on the day of His Second Coming.

[LaBelle]

He just went home... to isla nublar.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

But... science is about reproducible results? That's the entire point, and what scientists strive for. Breaking with consensus is also a good thing and the two things are not mutually exclusive.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

stay in your lane. You can get in trouble when you try to think, it makes you assume you know better.



Consensus Is Not Science


The late Michael Crichton, MD, author, film producer, put it this way:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

LOL

without peer review and scientific consensus you don't have science. Without scientific consensus you have a bunch of lunatics wacking off to conspiracy porn on the internet.

[MyOneAndOnly]

the entire point of science is to put your work out there for others to check. it's what separates truth from error. peer review and consensus is what separates science from nonsense. It's the reason Astrologists never sent anybody to the Moon. And why when you're having a heart attack you go to the ER and not an acupuncturist

[buzzard]

While I'm far from the resident expert on delusional behavior, it is my understanding that there are "common delusions" whereby a significant number of distinct individuals might share a certain overlap in perceiving of, for example, some form of persecution.

Widespread internet access is all it really takes to throw a bunch of them together and let confirmation bias do its thing.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by reprise85

But... science is about reproducible results? That's the entire point, and what scientists strive for. Breaking with consensus is also a good thing and the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, I understand. But don't deny political science is what much of this consensus science is based upon. Sellout hacks milking the .gov grant money cow for an agenda, much of which isn't based on any science other than consensus that is built with perks. That's what Crichton was speaking to. Take the anthropogenic global warming scheme, as one example, that had to be changed to climate change for political purposes because people were catching on.

[ohnoitsbonnie]

False flag attack in Russia today. Putin filmed leaving roses for the victims ��