Doesn't sound like the tradition flat-earth theory. But I'm not suggesting that no scientist ever thought the earth might be flat. We are going back to a time in history when science was poorly structured. What was the point of this argument?
It was during the "modern times" that the spheres of science, morals and art become fully differentiated and when each sphere began to rapidly develop.
It was the discovery of America that apparently kicked off the era of discovery. Prior to that, these spheres were generally melded.
It was during the "modern times" that the spheres of science, morals and art become fully differentiated and when each sphere began to rapidly develop.
It was the discovery of America that apparently kicked off the era of discovery. Prior to that, these spheres were generally melded.
Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus. Many theologians and biblical researchers maintain that writers of the Bible had a Babylonian world view according to which Earth is flat and stands on some sort of pillars. According to Dictionary of the Bible written by W. Browning "Hebrew cosmology pictured a flat earth, over which was a dome-shaped firmament, supported above the earth by mountains, and surrounded by waters. Holes or sluices (windows, Gen 7.11) allowed the water to fall as rain. The firmament was the heaven in which God set the sun (Ps 19.4) and the stars (Gen 1.14)"[4] Other theologians counter that the book of Isaiah alludes to the earth being circular or spherical (Isa 40.22).
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Doesn't sound like the tradition flat-earth theory. But I'm not suggesting that no scientist ever thought the earth might be flat. We are going back to a time in history when science was poorly structured. What was the point of this argument?
Well, you were chastizing someone for believing the insights of a non-scientist on a scientific topic. That's when I mentioned Al Gore. I was really hoping you would be the type that didn't need analytical dissections of rather simple, indicative statements in order to follow along. I'll admit, I was wrong. I hate lecturers and I hate to lecture. That's why me and you will probably never get along.
That's why I like angelica. She's what we call "normies".
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
So you think that art, science, emotion, physical reality, the habitat of the mind, and the habitat of spirits are all spherical in shape?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, you were chastizing someone for believing the insights of a non-scientist on a scientific topic. That's when I mentioned Al Gore. I was really hoping you would be the type that didn't need analytical dissections of rather simple, indicative statements in order to follow along. I'll admit, I was wrong. I hate lecturers and I hate to lecture. That's why me and you will probably never get along.
That's why I like angelica. She's what we call "normies".
Big difference, Al Gore isn't conducting experiments. He's getting the facts from scientists and sharing them with people.
Masaru Emoto is conducting uncontrolled experiments and pretending it proves something.
How you can say those are the same makes no sense.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Of course they're the same. Never has proven anything.
How are they the same? I just stated how they are absolutely different.
Are you seriously or are you just trying to antagonize me? I'd really like to know your intentions.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are a little bit on the literal side, aren't you? "Sphere" does have different definitions as well.
I just think it's overused and abused.
I am typing a sphere of text in a sphere of discussion with a sphere of people existing within the sphere of reality within the biosphere and the sphere of mind. I am also a sphere.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I am typing a sphere of text in a sphere of discussion with a sphere of people existing within the sphere of reality within the biosphere and the sphere of mind. I am also a sphere.
Whatever gets you through, dude.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
now that you mention it. yeah, i do. for the most part anyway.
So, the universe is a sphere, not a fractal or a holograph?
I actually see the mind as sort of semi-spherical, it's not a complete sphere.
Science doesn't have a shape.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, for staters, they're both non-scientist. I'm so serial.
Ok, but their intentions and methods are completely different.
Al Gore is not pretending to be a scientist, nor is he performing any work that would be considered the work of a scientist.
On the other hand Dr. Emoto is pretending to do all of that.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I can comprehend mind and brain. I don't need to think about it terms of shape or domain.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So what's the problem when other people see things differently?
Well, just adding words to try to give more substance to something than actually exists.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I actually see the mind as sort of semi-spherical, it's not a complete sphere.
Science doesn't have a shape.
well, nature certainly has a shape. it's built upon them.
and science is a human construct devised to make sense of the incomprehensible. it has a shape. one determined by Man. whether it is a sphere or not is open to conjecture.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Ok, but their intentions and methods are completely different.
Al Gore is not pretending to be a scientist, nor is he performing any work that would be considered the work of a scientist.
On the other hand Dr. Emoto is pretending to do all of that.
I consider An Inconvenient Truth to be a compilation of mostly scientific theory (Yes, the Earth is a degree warmer since 1980. We get it.), presented as fact, to be interpreted in a manner as to push the agenda that he presented on January 27th, 2006. That agenda including the world ending in approximately 10 years. Of course, this isn't the first time he's set a timetable for this. We all know how problematic timetables can be anyway.
So yes, both are actually using the same methods with the same type of intentions. And for the record (I'm almost certain of this) somewhere inside Al Gore's rather intelligent mind he believes he's a scientist. He may even think he's the first scientist. He has shown signs of this before.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
I consider An Inconvenient Truth to be a compilation of mostly scientific theory (Yes, the Earth is a degree warmer since 1980. We get it.), presented as fact, to be interpreted in a manner as to push the agenda that he presented on January 27th, 2006. That agenda including the world ending in approximately 10 years. Of course, this isn't the first time he's set a timetable for this. We all know how problematic timetables can be anyway.
So yes, both are actually using the same methods with the same type of intentions. And for the record (I'm almost certain of this) somewhere inside Al Gore's rather intelligent mind he believes he's a scientist. He may even think he's the first scientist. He has shown signs of this before.
Good word: agenda.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I consider An Inconvenient Truth to be a compilation of mostly scientific theory (Yes, the Earth is a degree warmer since 1980. We get it.), presented as fact, to be interpreted in a manner as to push the agenda that he presented on January 27th, 2006. That agenda including the world ending in approximately 10 years. Of course, this isn't the first time he's set a timetable for this. We all know how problematic timetables can be anyway.
So yes, both are actually using the same methods with the same type of intentions. And for the record (I'm almost certain of this) somewhere inside Al Gore's rather intelligent mind he believes he's a scientist. He may even think he's the first scientist. He has shown signs of this before.
Except that, the earth is warming due to human activity. So he's not lying about anything and I've seen An Inconenient Truth, I don't remember him presenting himself as a scientist. If you had said a prophet, well that may be more accurate, but certainly not a scientist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Except that, the earth is warming due to human activity. So he's not lying about anything and I've seen An Inconenient Truth, I don't remember him presenting himself as a scientist. If you had said a prophet, well that may be more accurate, but certainly not a scientist.
lol Prophet. You've got jokes...
The ice caps on Mars have been reducing at the same rate that those here on Earth have been over the same period of time. This may come as a shock to you and many others, but I'm almost certain the Mars Rover had nothing to do with this. It's time to look a little further for information on global warming isn't it? You haven't read the article I posted have you? Actually, not according to the media, there are plenty of scientist, even the all important climatologist, that disagree with Al Gore.
You see, it's not global warming that most people disagree with. Sure, the Earth is a degree hotter than it was 30 years ago. Yes, greenhouse gases do act as a sort of trapping utility for heat. But carbon dioxide only consist of roughly 2% of greenhouse gases. A large majority of which are water vapors. And Al Gore is trying to tell me that human actions (CO2 emissions) are going to cause the Earth to end rather abruptly? Please. It's the agenda that I disassociate myself with. Not the theory. This also does not mean that I walk around in my spare time pouring out bottles of motor oil into my local streams. This discussion relates to your thoughts about those of the conservative persuasion as a matter of fact. Besides, just search me out about global warming. I'm not writing that book again.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
The ice caps on Mars have been reducing at the same rate that those here on Earth have been over the same period of time. This may come as a shock to you and many others, but I'm almost certain the Mars Rover had nothing to do with this. It's time to look a little further for information on global warming isn't it? You haven't read the article I posted have you? Actually, not according to the media, there are plenty of scientist, even the all important climatologist, that disagree with Al Gore.
You see, it's not global warming that most people disagree with. Sure, the Earth is a degree hotter than it was 30 years ago. Yes, greenhouse gases do act as a sort of trapping utility for heat. But carbon dioxide only consist of roughly 2% of greenhouse gases. A large majority of which are water vapors. And Al Gore is trying to tell me that human actions (CO2 emissions) are going to cause the Earth to end rather abruptly? Please. It's the agenda that I disassociate myself with. Not the theory. This also does not mean that I walk around in my spare time pouring out bottles of motor oil into my local streams. This discussion relates to your thoughts about those of the conservative persuasion as a matter of fact. Besides, just search me out about global warming. I'm not writing that book again.
The scientists in that article you posted states that humans contribute to CO2. The concordance between mars and earth does not explain all of the warming on earth and that scientists acknowledged it in the article. You seem to have ignored it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The scientists in that article you posted states that humans contribute to CO2. The concordance between mars and earth does not explain all of the warming on earth and that scientists acknowledged it in the article. You seem to have ignored it.
Yes, humans produce CO2. Just ask all plant life on Earth. They love it.
The warming isn't explained by anyone, in any way, other than that it is generally accepted as a natural process that has been happening for the last 6 billion years. From 1940 until the late 70's the Earth was cooling. The prevelant theory then was global cooling. It was even discussed on the floors of congress. The Industrial Revolution did not begin with the Reagan Administration, though some liberal pundits may believe that to be the case. It's the simple fact of the matter that you refuse to acknowledge what anyone else says on the topic unless it comes from the lips of Al Gore; a non-scientist. You just implied that you accept that the very same thing is happening on Mars, "but what's that matter?" Actually, I'm hardly ignoring anything here. I'm pushing the argument, again. Not very troll-like. Again, this isn't a dispute of wether the Earth is warming or not. It's a dispute of agendas. And sadly, most who buy into the global warming argument, buy into it using the agenda driven methods of Al Gore.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
The scientists in that article you posted states that humans contribute to CO2. The concordance between mars and earth does not explain all of the warming on earth and that scientists acknowledged it in the article. You seem to have ignored it.
I'll back that up...I posted that National Geographic article..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
It was the discovery of America that apparently kicked off the era of discovery. Prior to that, these spheres were generally melded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_world
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You love calling everything spheres don't you?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, you were chastizing someone for believing the insights of a non-scientist on a scientific topic. That's when I mentioned Al Gore. I was really hoping you would be the type that didn't need analytical dissections of rather simple, indicative statements in order to follow along. I'll admit, I was wrong. I hate lecturers and I hate to lecture. That's why me and you will probably never get along.
That's why I like angelica. She's what we call "normies".
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
So you think that art, science, emotion, physical reality, the habitat of the mind, and the habitat of spirits are all spherical in shape?
Big difference, Al Gore isn't conducting experiments. He's getting the facts from scientists and sharing them with people.
Masaru Emoto is conducting uncontrolled experiments and pretending it proves something.
How you can say those are the same makes no sense.
Spheres of thought.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Of course they're the same. Never has proven anything.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
How are they the same? I just stated how they are absolutely different.
Are you seriously or are you just trying to antagonize me? I'd really like to know your intentions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I just think it's overused and abused.
I am typing a sphere of text in a sphere of discussion with a sphere of people existing within the sphere of reality within the biosphere and the sphere of mind. I am also a sphere.
now that you mention it. yeah, i do. for the most part anyway.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, for staters, they're both non-scientist. I'm so serial.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
So, the universe is a sphere, not a fractal or a holograph?
I actually see the mind as sort of semi-spherical, it's not a complete sphere.
Science doesn't have a shape.
Ok, but their intentions and methods are completely different.
Al Gore is not pretending to be a scientist, nor is he performing any work that would be considered the work of a scientist.
On the other hand Dr. Emoto is pretending to do all of that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I can comprehend mind and brain. I don't need to think about it terms of shape or domain.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, just adding words to try to give more substance to something than actually exists.
yes.
well, nature certainly has a shape. it's built upon them.
and science is a human construct devised to make sense of the incomprehensible. it has a shape. one determined by Man. whether it is a sphere or not is open to conjecture.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I consider An Inconvenient Truth to be a compilation of mostly scientific theory (Yes, the Earth is a degree warmer since 1980. We get it.), presented as fact, to be interpreted in a manner as to push the agenda that he presented on January 27th, 2006. That agenda including the world ending in approximately 10 years. Of course, this isn't the first time he's set a timetable for this. We all know how problematic timetables can be anyway.
So yes, both are actually using the same methods with the same type of intentions. And for the record (I'm almost certain of this) somewhere inside Al Gore's rather intelligent mind he believes he's a scientist. He may even think he's the first scientist. He has shown signs of this before.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Except that, the earth is warming due to human activity. So he's not lying about anything and I've seen An Inconenient Truth, I don't remember him presenting himself as a scientist. If you had said a prophet, well that may be more accurate, but certainly not a scientist.
lol Prophet. You've got jokes...
The ice caps on Mars have been reducing at the same rate that those here on Earth have been over the same period of time. This may come as a shock to you and many others, but I'm almost certain the Mars Rover had nothing to do with this. It's time to look a little further for information on global warming isn't it? You haven't read the article I posted have you? Actually, not according to the media, there are plenty of scientist, even the all important climatologist, that disagree with Al Gore.
You see, it's not global warming that most people disagree with. Sure, the Earth is a degree hotter than it was 30 years ago. Yes, greenhouse gases do act as a sort of trapping utility for heat. But carbon dioxide only consist of roughly 2% of greenhouse gases. A large majority of which are water vapors. And Al Gore is trying to tell me that human actions (CO2 emissions) are going to cause the Earth to end rather abruptly? Please. It's the agenda that I disassociate myself with. Not the theory. This also does not mean that I walk around in my spare time pouring out bottles of motor oil into my local streams. This discussion relates to your thoughts about those of the conservative persuasion as a matter of fact. Besides, just search me out about global warming. I'm not writing that book again.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
The scientists in that article you posted states that humans contribute to CO2. The concordance between mars and earth does not explain all of the warming on earth and that scientists acknowledged it in the article. You seem to have ignored it.
Yes, humans produce CO2. Just ask all plant life on Earth. They love it.
The warming isn't explained by anyone, in any way, other than that it is generally accepted as a natural process that has been happening for the last 6 billion years. From 1940 until the late 70's the Earth was cooling. The prevelant theory then was global cooling. It was even discussed on the floors of congress. The Industrial Revolution did not begin with the Reagan Administration, though some liberal pundits may believe that to be the case. It's the simple fact of the matter that you refuse to acknowledge what anyone else says on the topic unless it comes from the lips of Al Gore; a non-scientist. You just implied that you accept that the very same thing is happening on Mars, "but what's that matter?" Actually, I'm hardly ignoring anything here. I'm pushing the argument, again. Not very troll-like. Again, this isn't a dispute of wether the Earth is warming or not. It's a dispute of agendas. And sadly, most who buy into the global warming argument, buy into it using the agenda driven methods of Al Gore.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I'll back that up...I posted that National Geographic article..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ex=1331438400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08