10 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo suppose out of 8 billion people, 99.999999 percent of them think Earth is a globe, the rest think it flat. Out of that 99+% there are an awful lot of scientists who actually study such things and they also say Earth is a globe and spinning. The Faucoult pendulum shows that. It is not a coincidence the cycle time is exactly one day long.
Actually, I just never met anyone who honestly thought that truth was decided by popular vote.
Gotta hand it to you: you're an original.
10 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm only laughing to keep from crying.
So suppose out of 8 billion people, 99.999999 percent of them think Earth is a globe, the rest think it flat. Out of that 99+% there are an awful lot of scientists who actually study such things and they also say Earth is a globe and spinning. The Faucoult pendulum shows that. It is not a coincidence the cycle time is exactly one day long.
You were asked there, so it's not original to ask again, but here is the same question from the other thread:
What is the bob attached to on the pendulum?
10 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is attached to the roof, so frigging what? You think the roof is wobbling around to cause the pendulum to swing off course or some bullshyte like that? The original was on a string 67 METERS long and the building is very secure I can assure you. PLUS that experiment has been reproduced dozens of times. Your question is the height of irrelevant. Several orders of magnitude of irrelevant. You are clearly trying to deflect as usual somehow thinking you have some relevant point to make but that line of questioning leads to nothing.
I'm only laughing to keep from crying.
You were asked there, so it's not original to ask again, but here is the same question from the other thread:
[b]What is the bob attached to on the pendulum?[/b]
Or prove it. Go ahead, make a case with a wobbly roof or whatever.
10 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think it's a viable philosophical position. If one takes some sort of Berkelean position that only minds are real then reality and truth are consensus constructions. I don't think it's a popular position in the West, but I have heard people defend positions like that.
Actually, I just never met anyone who honestly thought that truth was decided by popular vote.
Gotta hand it to you: you're an original.
10 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseWhatever the bob is attached to is moving with the earth.
It is attached to the roof, so frigging what? You think the roof is wobbling around to cause the pendulum to swing off course or some bullshyte like that? The original was on a string 67 METERS long and the building is very secure I can assure you. PLUS that experiment has been reproduced dozens of times. Your question is the height of irrelevant. Several o ...[text shortened]... stioning leads to nothing.
Or prove it. Go ahead, make a case with a wobbly roof or whatever.
10 May 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe swing of the pendulum on a non spinning Earth would maintain the same direction of swing till the cows come home. Get that part? On a NON SPINNING PLANET ONLY will the swing not change. On a spinning planet it is the planet under the pendulum that is changing not the pendulum.
Whatever the bob is attached to is moving with the earth.
10 May 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBy that logic, reality is not its own thing, but rather the sum of all thoughts and that sum necessarily includes ideas which are in opposition to the larger pool.
I think it's a viable philosophical position. If one takes some sort of Berkelean position that only minds are real then reality and truth are consensus constructions. I don't think it's a popular position in the West, but I have heard people defend positions like that.
Too, it lacks a concrete arbiter for determining reality: based on mean, median?
And, it must stand outside of itself while also being part of the equation: cannot make a truth statement without truth being a thing which can be known.
Reality has an inherent objectivity to it (at least historically speaking) which precludes the subjectivity of opinion, popularity or even basic understanding.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think Berkeley had a supermind for the purpose of specifying a canonical reality. The absence of a canonical reality is really only a problem if two minds have contradictory realities and notice the contradiction. One could posit some sort of Nietzschean struggle of wills to determine the shared reality, where the stronger will determines what truth is.
By that logic, reality is not its own thing, but rather the sum of all thoughts and that sum necessarily includes ideas which are in opposition to the larger pool.
Too, it lacks a concrete arbiter for determining reality: based on mean, median?
And, it must stand outside of itself while also being part of the equation: cannot make a truth statement witho ...[text shortened]... y speaking) which precludes the subjectivity of opinion, popularity or even basic understanding.
10 May 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI vaguely recall reading along these lines a few years ago (okay: twenty...), but I will def need to give it a fresher set of eyes.
I think Berkeley had a supermind for the purpose of specifying a canonical reality. The absence of a canonical reality is really only a problem if two minds have contradictory realities and notice the contradiction. One could posit some sort of Nietzschean struggle of wills to determine the shared reality, where the stronger will determines what truth is.