WSA Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Well, no, actually that was not my point at all.
WSA Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) I was also informed today that the scent of your earwax will predict your ethnicity. Of course, to test that with any validity, you'd have to sniff a lots of ears. No thanks. Isn't it wonderful that I don't have to do that, and I can add this little tidbit of information to my compendium of general knowledge? Nice. Edited February 18, 2014 by WSA
dmaker Posted February 18, 2014 Author Posted February 18, 2014 ^^ Sure, why not. You do seem to enjoy adding unproven knowledge to your compendium.
Guest Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Edited Edited February 18, 2014 by ItsAsquatch
hiflier Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Hello WSA. So, I see a black hole is predicted to swallow Sagittarius A in about a month....an event that will happen at a remove of about 2,600 light years. Says so right here. And, umm, you don't see anything the least bit provisional about such predictions? That is:Twenty-six-HUNDRED. Not that I don't believe it. I do. But, it is anecdotal, even if we see it happen hundreds of times.[/size] Really, truly, as a species we are way too stupid to survive much longer (in a geologic time reference sense, you understand).[/size] Everything you said is soooo NOT correct. This the way things get skewed when passing the information on to others. 1) Sagittarius A IS the black hole. It is the supermassive black hole theorized to exist at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. 2)There is a gas cloud (G2) thats heading toward the galactic center in a month or two. If there is a star embedded it is thought that ome of the cloud will fall into Sagitarius A but the embedded star, if there is one will continue past. If G2 is all cloud it will mostly fall into the center. 3)The center of our Galaxy is 26 THOUSAND light years away not 26 hundred. A good thing to remember, a lot about survival is being correct Edited February 19, 2014 by hiflier 1
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) ^^^Which doesn't alter WSA's point, which is that none of that is fact. It's all speculation. Everything building up to that "fact" is an assumed proxy. That's the point, that we only *think* we're "correct" about that, and will never, ever, in any conceivable way unless That Guy/Gal We Can't Discuss Here tells us, know. Edited February 19, 2014 by DWA
hiflier Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Hello DWA, ^^^Which doesn't alter WSA's point, which is that none of that is fact. It's all speculation. Everything building up to that "fact" is an assumed proxy. I don't think I've ever heard such flawed thinking since I've been here. It's ALL fact, DWA. WSA's facts were incorrect. He said the information is anecdotal. It is not I assure you. The rigorous, repeatable testing over the last century allows for astromers to predict this event. The various spectrographic instruments back it up. The event has in fact already happened- 26,000 years ago. But the distance places the event in our future. Science, my man, SCIENCE! We wouldn't know any of this without it.
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 ^^^If your first sentence refers to the post that follows it, you're right. NOTHING IN THAT STATEMENT IS FACT! Show me anyone who's been there; show me any specimen of the matter of any of the bodies/items/speculated hobgoblins therein that has been analyzed by a human; show me any photos from anyone who has been there. There is an almost interstellar gulf between intelligent speculation and fact. You accept that. Can you independently verify it for me, other than referring to someone else who assumes all those speculated proxies? Really? NOT FACT! This is really to the logical mind very simple. All those calculations are based on calculations based on calculations based on assumptions. It doesn't make them facts. I can go to a zoo and see a tarsier. I could find a specimen of an onager if I really wanted to. I can't go to an Astrorarium and see a "black hole." There is, in fact, much more tangible, testable evidence for sasquatch than there is for most astronomical "facts." But you aren't used to thinking about this. Most of what we know is what we think we know because someone else fed it to us. Show me an astronomer's slide show of his visit to that black hole and I'll shut up. I mean, please. Patterson and Gimlin took a movie of a sasquatch for pete's sake! Thorough analysis of that film virtually proves it authentic. And we think that light smudges taken by an astrotelescope are somehow more authentic? Did they leave tracks no human could have left? WSA and I are not saying that astronomical events don't happen or aren't real. We are saying that if biology allowed itself the reasonable leeway that other sciences do, we'd have had sasquatch in the guidebooks for over a quarter of a century. The evidence is that much better and more concrete than we have for any astronomical event, at least any further away than the sun and moon.
dmaker Posted February 19, 2014 Author Posted February 19, 2014 I can go to a zoo and see a tarsier. I could find a specimen of an onager if I really wanted to. I can't go to an Astrorarium and see a "black hole." Can I go to a zoo to see a bigfoot?
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Footprints aren't facts? Thousands of people seeing it, and describing it consistently, aren't facts? HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE SEEN A BLACK HOLE!?!??!?!?!? This is honestly so waaaaaaaaaay beyond goofy that it seems silly to talk about it!!!!!! Since when does one science translate basics - extreme basics about basic things - into intricate calculations that predict celestial events... ...and another science that has, by comparison, and by the exact precise same standard, utter concrete proof that something is real sits there and picks its teeth and denies it?
dmaker Posted February 19, 2014 Author Posted February 19, 2014 If by pick their teeth you mean test samples and provide the results.... Stop creating this scientific apathy to explain away a stunningly complete absence of any physical evidence for this claim that you say has utter concrete proof. Where is this tangible proof then? Oh yeah, stories and foot prints...yawn.
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 I have not read dmaker's last two posts. But I will use a time-tested astronomical technique - calculations based on extensive past experience, repeatedly tested - to respond to them: [utter complete total FACEPALM] See? I didn't say it wasn't valid science. Again, folks, really simple. Hey scientist, bring me a tarsier! Whoa. FACT. Hey scientist, bring me a piece of Jupiter. Whoa. Not saying you are wrong. But if you can't ....do I know something, other than what you are feeding me...? In terms of the way astronomers accept things, bigfoot's real, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Given the evidence, how could it be any other way?
hiflier Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA,You're right, astronomical events DO happen and they ARE real. AND they can be PREDICTED! Why? Because of the repeatable and rigorous TESTING! The Sagittarius A/G2 event WILL HAPPEN! HAS happened. And What you're trying to "feed" everyone is flawed. What you're saying is that the Hubble sees things that aren't there? Check the second link: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC http://www.mpe.mpg.de/410882/flare1movie_gif.gif Now you see it too. Edited February 19, 2014 by hiflier 1
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 I see the Patterson film too. And less evidence has been presented that that is anything other than what it looks like than that anything shot by Hubble is authentic (unless one just accepts scientists at their word). WSA and I are patient, so no problem. ONE MORE TIME! Why doesn't biology do just what astronomy has done, in innumerable similar circumstances, and declare sasquatch, yeti and orang pendek real, on the sheer irresistible weight of evidence? Answer? As WSA says: biology is in denial about some stuff, and relies on absolute utter hold-in-hands proof, to an unhealthy, and scientifically untenable, degree.
Recommended Posts