ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) (01/26/88)
In article <10731@shemp.UCLA.EDU> troly@MATH.UCLA.EDU (Bret Jolly) drivels: > > I'm somewhat loathe to enter this discussion since I do not have much >time on my hands and since my scientific postings will probably not be >appreciated in this rather unscientific newsgroup (talk.origins) Also I >have already addressed most of the issues being raised in this group. >But some postings misrepresent the platygaean programme and I wish to set >the record straight. > For example... [ mindless gobbledegook deleted for the sake of brevity. The point which was feebly attempted to be made was that since there are gaps in mankind's knowledge of physics, that therfore the earth must be flat. ] >... Perhaps the problem is that most round-earthers don't know >what the current round-earth theories are? > ? >Bret Jolly (Bo'-ret Tro Ly) Mathemagus LA Platygaean Society > troly@MATH.UCLA.EDU Well, I am glad to hear that Mr. Jolly has recovered from his Cerebrumectomy. His postings are even more amusing than ever. The essential flaw in his arguments is this: There are no round earth theories, because the earth being round is _FACT_ . Do you hear that Mr. "Mathemagus". Not theory. Fact. Period. Platygaenism is an amusing little bit of antique musing that has no relevance in the light of the pre-ponderance of evidence that the earth is roughly spherical. Anybody who takes this platygaenism sh*t seriously is a candidate for a fully padded suite in Bellevue. But please, don't let this stop you Mr. Jolly. I will continue to get a good laugh out of your theories. No, theories is not the right word. Demented ravings comes much closer. You are almost as much fun as Firesign Theatre !! By the way, Mr. Flavolitiak thought he would send you some poems to make you feel better. :-) :-) -- } identity } Randy Martens { rochester!kodak!elmgate!ram } } quote } "Reality - What a Concept!" - R.Williams } disclaimer } The preceeding represents only my random babbling, } } and certainly reflects no one else's opinions. Fnord.
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/27/88)
In article <862@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: }His postings are even more amusing than ever. The essential flaw in his }arguments is this: There are no round earth theories, because the earth }being round is _FACT_ . Do you hear that Mr. "Mathemagus". Not theory. }Fact. Period. Randy, Calm down. Please explain to us hall how you have managed to bypass scientific method, and now come to certain knowledge of the natural worldby define revelation. There are no facts, only theories. The round-earthers have their theories which they believe explain the facts comprehensively and consisely. So do the flat-earthers. By jumping up and down and screaming "FACT! FACT!" you merely reveal yourself as an ignorant child who is unfit to discuss matters of science. If you are as certain as you claim to be, why don't you reveal the grounds for your certainty, instead of mindlessly chanting about how the earth is round, without providing your proofs? Science isn't a beauty contest. Different theories can be accomodated, and may the simplest and most comprehensive theory win.(Sometimes simplicity and comprehensivenss come into conflict; this is where the fun begins -- and where my recent work lies.) I suggest you also attempt to be less rude to Mr. Joly. -- ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) (01/28/88)
Setting Mertilizer Beam on "deep fry - extra crispy" ... In article <1551@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) writes: }In article <862@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: }}His postings are even more amusing than ever. The essential flaw in his }}arguments is this: There are no round earth theories, because the earth }}being round is _FACT_ . Do you hear that Mr. "Mathemagus". Not theory. }}Fact. Period. }Randy, }Calm down. Please explain to us hall how you have managed to bypass }scientific method, and now come to certain knowledge of the natural }worldby define revelation. There are no facts, only theories. The }round-earthers have their theories which they believe explain the }facts comprehensively and consisely. So do the flat-earthers. By }jumping up and down and screaming "FACT! FACT!" you merely reveal }yourself as an ignorant child who is unfit to discuss matters of }science. If you are as certain as you claim to be, why don't you }reveal the grounds for your certainty, instead of mindlessly chanting }about how the earth is round, without providing your proofs? Science }isn't a beauty contest. Different theories can be accomodated, and may }the simplest and most comprehensive theory win.(Sometimes simplicity }and comprehensivenss come into conflict; this is where the fun begins }-- and where my recent work lies.) I suggest you also attempt to be }less rude to Mr. Joly. } Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540 Hi Greg. *sigh* I am surpised at your siding with this bunch of pinheads. But I think you have some valid points, so I will respond to them. I stand by my statement. The Earth is roughly Spherical. In fact, it is quite close to a true sphere, it's oblateness being only on the order of 130 km and it's roughness only 20 km. So the total roundness is .98. Not too bad. The difficulty I have with Mr. Jolly and his position, and the reason I find it so laughable, is that the _FACT_ of the shape of the Earth has been established by hundreds of scientists, explorers, and lately by quite a few astronauts. The point has been proved beyond any shadow of any doubt. Therfore, I do not _need_ to prove my point. Facts are already well established, and need no further proof. Now if you wish to debate platygaenism as an intellectual exercise, all well and good. But apparently, Mr. Jolly takes this stuff seriously. Unless he is putting us all on, this brings his sanity into question. I am by the way quite calm. I _DO_NOT_ want to stop Mr. Jolly from continuing his postings on the topic of platygaenism. Please post, Mr. Jolly. I need things to laugh at. By the way Gweggy, you owe me an apology for that remark about "ignorant child". I can be quite an apt and persausive debater if I need to, and if you wish to question my aptitude for the discussion of scientific topics, I will gladly engage in a discussion of the currently technologies in optics, Astrophysics, particle physics, atsronomy, computing technology, robotics, process control, or the history of the Holy Roman Empire. There are probably a few other topics I could feel relatively competant in if you wish to discuss them. Since you have not ever had such a discussion with me, I would ask that you refrain from insulting me on this matter. And if you don't apologize, you wont get any more Shark Cheese ! :-) ;-) -- * Randy Martens @ rochester!kodak!elmgate!ram * "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike." * disclaimer : The preceeding represents only my random babbling, * and certainly reflects no one else's opinions. Fnord.
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (01/29/88)
In article <864@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: }In article <1551@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Gregory Nowak(me) writes: }}In article <862@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: }}}His postings are even more amusing than ever. The essential flaw in his }}}arguments is this: There are no round earth theories, because the earth }}}being round is _FACT_ . Do you hear that Mr. "Mathemagus". Not theory. }}}Fact. Period. }}Calm down. Please explain to us hall how you have managed to bypass }}scientific method, and now come to certain knowledge of the natural }}world by divine revelation. There are no facts, only theories. The }}round-earthers have their theories which they believe explain the }}facts comprehensively and consisely. So do the flat-earthers. By }}jumping up and down and screaming "FACT! FACT!" you merely reveal }}yourself as an ignorant child who is unfit to discuss matters of }}science. If you are as certain as you claim to be, why don't you }}reveal the grounds for your certainty, instead of mindlessly chanting }}about how the earth is round, without providing your proofs? Science }}isn't a beauty contest. Different theories can be accomodated, and may }}the simplest and most comprehensive theory win.(Sometimes simplicity }}and comprehensivenss come into conflict; this is where the fun begins }}-- and where my recent work lies.) I suggest you also attempt to be }}less rude to Mr. Joly. }Hi Greg. *sigh* I am surpised at your siding with this bunch of pinheads. }But I think you have some valid points, so I will respond to them. (Randy begins politely, but does not respond to my points ...) }I stand by my statement. The Earth is roughly Spherical. In fact, it is }quite close to a true sphere, it's oblateness being only on the order of }130 km and it's roughness only 20 km. So the total roundness is .98. Yes, I can look things up in round-earther almanacs too. What dies this prove? "They wouldn't print it if it wasn't so?" Come on, Randy, you're not that naive. }Not too bad. The difficulty I have with Mr. Jolly and his position, and }the reason I find it so laughable, is that the _FACT_ of the shape of the }Earth has been established by hundreds of scientists, explorers, and }lately by quite a few astronauts. The point has been proved beyond any }shadow of any doubt. Therfore,[sic] I do not _need_ to prove my point. }Facts are already well established, and need no further proof. Randy, you are arguing with the eloquence of a drunken football fan. "Facts is facts. I don't _need_ to prove my point." Yes, you do. If you wish to debate the issue, you must prove your points. Don't expect us to roll over merely because you assert that your position is a "fact". That's rather poor debating style. You also display an appalling ignorance of the nature of science -- how it works and progresses. Now, since my field is History of Science, I admit that I am prone to exaggerate the need for such knowldege. But if you plan to participate in this discussion, I suggest you get better informed. The cemeteries are full of men who thought that merely saying "FACT!" proved their point, and they were wrong. Look at your much-vaunted Newton. He was true beyond need of proof according to your round-earther physics.... for a while. You know very little about science if you think we will be convinced by empty claims. }But apparently, Mr. Jolly takes this stuff seriously. Unless he is }putting us all on, this brings his sanity into question. That's it, trot out the ad hominem attacks. Why not argue politely and stick to the subject? By the way, "Joly" is spelled with one "l". Try to get it right. Childish tactics are rather boring. }I am by the way quite calm. I _DO_NOT_ want to stop Mr. Jolly from }continuing his postings on the topic of platygaenism. Please post, Mr. }Jolly. I need things to laugh at. Randy, I ask you once again -- if you do not intend to participate seriously, I suggest you exempt yourself from the discussion. Abuse does none of us any good. }By the way Gweggy, you owe me an apology for that remark about "ignorant }child". Childish name-calling is in no way justified by an appropriate simile. If you persist on standing in the middle of the playground screaming, "There is TOO a Santa Claus!" I feel quite justified in calling you an ignorant child. }I can be quite an apt and persausive debater if I need to, and if you You need to. Now. Or get out if the discussion. }wish to question my aptitude for the discussion of scientific topics, I will }gladly engage in a discussion of the currently [sic] technologies in optics, }Astrophysics, particle physics, atsronomy,[sic]computing technology, robotics, }process control, or the history of the Holy Roman Empire. There are probably }a few other topics I could feel relatively competant in if you wish to discuss }them. Since you have not ever had such a discussion with me, I would ask that }you refrain from insulting me on this matter. We are discussing physics. Not Astro- or particle, but mechanics and its bastard children. We are trying to have a discussion of science, but your idea of discussing science seems to be "I'm right. Story's over." I would be glad to discuss science with you -- begin whenever you wish. }* Randy Martens @ rochester!kodak!elmgate!ram I suppose next you're going to try to convince me that Kodak only makes spherical film .... -- ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (01/29/88)
I can't believe anyone is trying to make 'flat earth' a scientific issue. It is far too earlier for April Fool's jokes. - John. -- John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 "Don't Have an Oil Well? ... Dallas, TX. 75243 ... Then Buy One!" (214) 231-0993 Ext 260
learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) (01/30/88)
In article <1570@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) writes: > In article <864@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: > }In article <1551@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Gregory Nowak(me) writes: > }}In article <862@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: > }}}His postings are even more amusing than ever. The essential flaw in his > }}}arguments is this: There are no round earth theories, because the earth > }}}being round is _FACT_ . Do you hear that Mr. "Mathemagus". Not theory. > }}}Fact. Period. > > }}Calm down. Please explain to us hall how you have managed to bypass > }}scientific method, and now come to certain knowledge of the natural > }}world by divine revelation. There are no facts, only theories. The > }}less rude to Mr. Joly. > > We are discussing physics. Not Astro- or particle, but mechanics and > its bastard children. We are trying to have a discussion of science, > but your idea of discussing science seems to be "I'm right. Story's > over." I would be glad to discuss science with you -- begin whenever > you wish. > > I suppose next you're going to try to convince me that Kodak only makes > spherical film .... This round vs. flat earth discussion is absurd. One of the things taught early to schoolchildren is the shape of things. A ball, a building block, a sheet of paper, a cone, and such. These things are defined. When one sees a ball, it is always a sphere. And as we progress through life, until some idiot attempts to recreate the definition, or play games of (dis)logic, a ball is a sphere, large or small. A framework of absolutes is created, and these absolutes are used by all salient creatures. These absolutes, if not accepted, destroy the basis for all science, proofs, and logic. Such discussions have little merit, short of humor. The flat earth discussions here in alt.flame (you people have been cross for quite some time) lack even the humor aspect. I love the concept of whining about ad hominem attacks in articles that reach alt.flame. It is so cute, just like the total innocence whining portrays. Learn to edit the distribution. You really *don't* want to talk to me about flat vs. round earth. Spherical film is easy. What I'm waiting for is the camera... Bill Vajk learn@igloo
COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (The Pentagonal Potentate and the Kzinti Ambassador) (02/11/88)
In article <304@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, mike@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Michael Lodman) says: > >In article <22891@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>Well, you could try laying out some large triangles in several sufficiently >>smooth regions and measuring the angles to see whether or not they add up to >>180 degrees, and if not, whether the discrepency is consistent over the >>Earth's surface. > >Not bad, except I would guess that the triangles would have to be large enough >that I couldn't see that other two vertices from one. And who knows what errors >from local distortions would enter due to this. > >>Or take a trip to New Zealand and look at all the pretty new >>constellations. > >I've been there. All this shows is that the stars are a good deal closer >to the earth than the "scientists" have led us to believe. Hey, fuckhead, ever heard of a little thing called "parallax?" [A short explanation of parallax follows for the braindead: parallax is the apparent motion of nearby stars. The closer the star, the more the parallax motion. The information gained from parallax is totally in agreement with the information gained from red-shift studies as to how far away a star is. Explanation for the even more braindamaged: Open one eye. Look at the scene before you. Now close that eye and open the other. The scene shifts by several degrees for nearby objects and hardly at all for far away ones. This is a form of parallax. (Explanation provided by The Kzinti Ambassador, an Astro major who just happens to hate Platypus Boys)] > >> Or observe a few lunar eclipses, and note the curved edge of >>the Earth's shadow, which retains roughly the same curvature in any direction. > >What has a lunar eclipse got to do with the Earth? You prove it's the Earth >causing the shadow, I can't do it objectively. When did they start giving USENET access to kindergarteners? Have you ever wondered why the moon has phases? Have you ever wondered what tides are? Have you ever fucking SEEN a lunar eclipse? No, probably not. It seems more likely you'd be out fucking sheep, or other platygeans. > >>But I have a better idea...how about if some platygean tells us how to >>falsify the hypothesis that the earth is flat? That should seperate the >>theorists from the dogmatists... > >Geez, I don't know. It's kind of obvious from where I'm standing that the >Earth is flat! It's kind of obvious from where I'm standing that you are one of the single most brain-damaged idiots on the net. Get a life. > >-- >Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 >Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego >mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM >{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ivory!mike > >When you die, if you've been very, very good, you'll go to ... Montana. I hope you go to Montana soon. Very soon. Right now. ------- cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu "I'd love to, m'lad, but this fine Havana UUCP:. . .rutgers!psuvax1! magic wand is a bit too short to grant psuvma.BITNET!cok wishes with." Jackeen J. O'Malley
mario@wjvax.UUCP (Mario Dona) (02/16/88)
In article <32726COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (The Pentagonal Potentate and the Kzinti Ambassador) writes: [many nasty things ...] While it's expected that emotional exchange of words take place in this newsgroup, must vulgar language and personal insults be tolerated? The primary purpose on the newsnet is to exchange information, not insults. Not only is it rude, but it wastes everyones time having to wade through all the garbage.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/17/88)
In article <1220@wjvax.UUCP> mario@wjvax.UUCP (Mario Dona) writes: > >>While it's expected that emotional exchange of words take place in this >newsfroup, must vulgar language and personal insults be tolerated? This is alt.flame. Vulger language is mandatory in alt.flame, and personal insults are not only tolerated, but encouraged. It keeps the juices flowing. >The primary purpose on the newsnet is to exchange information, not >insults. Exchange information ? Excuse me ? Talk.origins ? Uhh, check your map, you may be on the wrong planet. >Not only is it rude, but it wastes everyones time having to wade >through all the garbage. You snoid. It's all garbage. -- "My life is changing in so many ways, I don't know who to trust any more" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, rutgers!marque, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
UE4@PSUVMA.BITNET (Dan Schultz) (02/20/88)
In article <2589@gryphon.CTS.COM>, richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) says: > >In article <1220@wjvax.UUCP> mario@wjvax.UUCP (Mario Dona) writes: >> >>The primary purpose on the newsnet is to exchange information, not >>insults. > >Exchange information ? Excuse me ? Talk.origins ? Uhh, check your >map, you may be on the wrong planet. > Actually, several users think that they are on a different planet. A flat one. ------- Daniel B. Schultz "A _better_, more _compact_ form of humanity" J. C. Kilgannon.
steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) (02/22/88)
I came into this discussion late, but have the flat-earthers said anything in support of their cause yet that is at all reasonable? So far, I've seen large amounts of evidence pro-round earth, that is admittedly not absolutely conclusive if you are incredibly paranoid, cynical and suspicious. This has been replied to by flat-earthers poking very small holes in their logic and large amounts of sophistry. Has there been any posting from a flat earther saying why they think the earth is flat? I would be interested in seeing an arguement that even remotely approximates the consistancy of conventional theories. I can't blame people for getting upset from what I've seen here so far. It looks like a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals baiting everybody who will fall for it (like me :-). Stevie.