List of pseudoscience topics from Wikipedia

[Kai]

It is a pretty all encompassing big list, I think... For me, this guy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi and his reasons for leaving SCICOP are interesting. Though I know this will might get another "FFS" or at least an "SMH" from Dok Howl, I'll put it out there:

I believe in Ghosts, ESP, and lots of other "Sciences" on that list. What I relate it in my head is often to the Geiger Counter. Before that, there was no accurate way of measuring radioactivity though we sort of knew something was up. The Geiger Counter gave us a way to quantify that energy. Ghosts, dreams that predict the future etc etc, are all parts of the natural world that have yet to be explained. I believe that matter cannot be created or destroyed. From that, I postulate that there are types of energy, methods of releasing that energy, and eventually, ways of measuring and explaining that energy.

On the other hand, things like Phrenology and the Hongcheng Magic Liquid are rather funny

wut

1) That's not a matter of belief, that's the way the universe is. A natural law, even. One does not "believe" natural laws any more than one "believes" in anything that can be clearly tested, observed, and proven. We call that sort of belief "knowledge" (and I will internet-punch anybody who goes all "Reality Tunnels LOLOLOL" on this discussion).

2) How in gibbering splutterfuck does that have anything to do with ghosts, ESP, or any other hoo-hah spunkdiddling nonsense that middle-aged women dressed in gaudy clothing use to weasel money out of your gullible ass (a profession which I have the utmost respect for, btw; milk the suckers dry!)?

Or are you gonna tell me that a person's "soul" is made out of some kind of "energy", and therefore ghosts and spirits must exist becuz science sez so, you guys!

I'm sure when he says "believe" he means belief in belief. Which is not the same thing as belief (=anticipation of reality). He doesn't anticipate seeing ghosts, experiencing ESP, or any of the rest of it. It's more like cheering, really.

When I say, "The sun will rise at 6 am", that is a belief, an anticipation of reality. Which is, to say, most people who say they believe in supernatural/paranormal things don't actually anticipate them.

[Doktor Howl]

Another possibility is that this argument is an elaborate lead up to a joke I thought of, and nobody's biting.

Damn, I'm missing this one.

It's too good to ruin.  If nobody catches it now, I'll find some way to use it later.  On the other hand, if people try to prove that the world is spherical, it will probably come up.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

I believe that matter cannot be created or destroyed. From that, I postulate that there are types of energy, methods of releasing that energy, and eventually, ways of measuring and explaining that energy.

Ok, you realize that this quote basically affirms you believe in all of what both Newtonian and Particle Physics has to say on the matter, right?

Where the hell do you get an affirmation of pseudoscience from?

It reminds me of the logic of alot of David Icke followers(Yes theyre are people stupid/crazy enough to believe his reptile theory and his other theories too)

Like this one video where someone showed a physicist talking about other dimensions and then it cut to David Icke talking about reptiles being from other dimensions. They reasoned that because something David Icke said kind of sort of resembled actual science that it proved he was right about Reptiles ruling the world.

[Adios]

Another possibility is that this argument is an elaborate lead up to a joke I thought of, and nobody's biting.

Damn, I'm missing this one.

It's too good to ruin.  If nobody catches it now, I'll find some way to use it later.  On the other hand, if people try to prove that the world is spherical, it will probably come up.

All I can say is that all the pictures from space show the earth as flat and not spinning.

[Doktor Howl]

Another possibility is that this argument is an elaborate lead up to a joke I thought of, and nobody's biting.

Damn, I'm missing this one.

It's too good to ruin.  If nobody catches it now, I'll find some way to use it later.  On the other hand, if people try to prove that the world is spherical, it will probably come up.

All I can say is that all the pictures from space show the earth as flat and not spinning.

To be fair, those pictures aren't holographic images, and it's damn hard to see 3 dimensions on a large sphere.

So they aren't "proof" for either viewpoint, IMO.  If you could stand on the moon and observe the Earth, and the same point came around, you could reasonably assume the world was both rotating and spherical.  But I've never been to the moon.

[Adios]

Another possibility is that this argument is an elaborate lead up to a joke I thought of, and nobody's biting.

Damn, I'm missing this one.

It's too good to ruin.  If nobody catches it now, I'll find some way to use it later.  On the other hand, if people try to prove that the world is spherical, it will probably come up.

All I can say is that all the pictures from space show the earth as flat and not spinning.

To be fair, those pictures aren't holographic images, and it's damn hard to see 3 dimensions on a large sphere.

So they aren't "proof" for either viewpoint, IMO.  If you could stand on the moon and observe the Earth, and the same point came around, you could reasonably assume the world was both rotating and spherical.  But I've never been to the moon.

I see your point about the sphere. Let's assume the moon rotates around the earth. As the moon circles the earth your view would change. Now let's assume the earth is spinning. If it were spinning the same direction as the moon is rotating then your view may not change. If it is rotating the opposite direction your view may be blurred.

Or my meds are running rampant and I am an idiot.

[Doktor Howl]

Another possibility is that this argument is an elaborate lead up to a joke I thought of, and nobody's biting.

Damn, I'm missing this one.

It's too good to ruin.  If nobody catches it now, I'll find some way to use it later.  On the other hand, if people try to prove that the world is spherical, it will probably come up.

All I can say is that all the pictures from space show the earth as flat and not spinning.

To be fair, those pictures aren't holographic images, and it's damn hard to see 3 dimensions on a large sphere.

So they aren't "proof" for either viewpoint, IMO.  If you could stand on the moon and observe the Earth, and the same point came around, you could reasonably assume the world was both rotating and spherical.  But I've never been to the moon.

I see your point about the sphere. Let's assume the moon rotates around the earth. As the moon circles the earth your view would change. Now let's assume the earth is spinning. If it were spinning the same direction as the moon is rotating then your view may not change. If it is rotating the opposite direction your view may be blurred.

Or my meds are running rampant and I am an idiot.

If the moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth rotates, you'll see a steady rotation of the Earth no matter what, unless the moon is in geosynchronous orbit, which it isn't, as the shadow of the Earth on the moon changes.

[President Television]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

[Adios]

I am going to have to math. The moon circles the earth at 2,290 MPH, or a 28 day orbit. The earth rotates at 100 MPH, or a 24 hour orbit.

I will be back in.....about a year! 

[Doktor Howl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

[Adios]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

wutdiditsay?

lol

[Doktor Howl]

I am going to have to math. The moon circles the earth at 2,290 MPH, or a 28 day orbit. The earth rotates at 100 MPH, or a 24 hour orbit.

I will be back in.....about a year! 

1000 MPH rotation.

[Adios]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

On a serious note, wouldn't it logically follow that gravity would be less at the poles and greater at the equator?

[Adios]

I am going to have to math. The moon circles the earth at 2,290 MPH, or a 28 day orbit. The earth rotates at 100 MPH, or a 24 hour orbit.

I will be back in.....about a year! 

1000 MPH rotation.

Typo, thanks.

[Doktor Howl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

On a serious note, wouldn't it logically follow that gravity would be less at the poles and greater at the equator?

No.  Gravity is independent of rotation, or anything else other than mass.

On the other hand, we kind of have to take that on faith, as we can measure the strength of gravity, but we have no idea how it works, just as we don't know what mass actually is, other than Mach's Principle, which is the second best example of circular reasoning that exists outside of religion.