The Conspiracy Theory

orraloon

"It used to be so simple, once upon a time. Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.

Occasionally he would straighten up and say things like "Hurrah I've discovered Boyle's Third Law". And everyone knew where they stood. But the trouble was that ignorance became more interesting, especially big fascinating ignorance about huge and important things like matter and creation, and people stopped building their little houses of rational sticks in the chaos of the universe...

And instead of getting on with proper science scientists suddenly went around saying how impossible it was to know anything, and that there wasn't really anything you could call reality to know anything about, and how all this was tremendously exciting, and incidentally did you know there were possibly all these little universes all over the place but no-one can see them because they are all curved in on themselves?...

Compared to all this a large turtle with a world on its back is practically mundane. At least it doesn't pretend it doesn't exist, and no-one on the Discworld ever tried to prove it didn't exist in case they turned out to be a right and found themselves suddenly floating in empty space."

Terry Pratchett, 'WItches Abroad', Discworld series.

capt_slog

Ai_1 wrote:

Manc,

You said you were going. You have not gone. Why?

Please make this the one question you actually answer in 53 pages of garbage.

Still no answer to the important question.

ai_1

Capt Slog wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Manc,

You said you were going. You have not gone. Why?

Please make this the one question you actually answer in 53 pages of garbage.

Still no answer to the important question.

He only answers questions if he can come up with a suitable misinterpretation and use his response to perpetuate the nonsense. Otherwise he just ignores them.

capt_slog

Ai_1 wrote:

He only answers questions if he can come up with a suitable misinterpretation and use his response to perpetuate the nonsense. Otherwise he just ignores them.

Quite


Or as in this one,

Manc33 wrote:

"the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work"

"Michell died in 1793 without completing the work"

Why are you showing it me then?

Here we go again, you're accepting any answer you can find and if it sounds 1% right you'll go with it.

.

Completely misses the point, jumps on the one bit he thinks proves it wrong and then has the temerity to accuse the reply of "finding the 1% that sounds right".

andcp

Manc33 wrote:

"Refraction" (the excuse often bounded around for why we can see things way further out at sea than we should be able to) only covers 12% of the distance from you (the observer) to the object you're observing. Light coming off the object refracts 12% of the distance, not 100%. It would need to be refracting fully (100%) for you to see the base of a ship that is miles out to sea.

I still need help here - where does 12% come from? What's the maths behind it?

briantrumpet

Ai_1 wrote:

He only answers questions if he can come up with a suitable misinterpretation and use his response to perpetuate the nonsense. Otherwise he just ignores them.

That pretty much is classic behaviour of a troll. And the way so many people can't resist nibbling at the bait thinking that they will be able to use logic to persuade someone who has no intention of finding agreement or enlightenment has demonstrated very well how a troll will drag people in to the fray.

Incidentally, I never realised that 'trolling' came from the fishing term - I'd always assumed it came from the 'supernatural being from Norse mythology'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_%28fishing%29

ai_1

briantrumpet wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

....Incidentally, I never realised that 'trolling' came from the fishing term - I'd always assumed it came from the 'supernatural being from Norse mythology'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_%28fishing%29

Same here. This makes a lot more sense.
I wasn't aware of the word "trolling" with respect to fishing. Trawling, yes, trolling no.
Thanks for that

ai_1

Do you reckon we could get this thread deleted if we asked nicely? It's a bit of an embarrassment to have contributed to this shambles, let's destroy the evidence ......or do some of you actually want to perpetuate it further? :shock:

ddraver

merge it with the Top Gear one and send them both to forum hell...

briantrumpet

Ai_1 wrote:

Do you reckon we could get this thread deleted if we asked nicely? It's a bit of an embarrassment to have contributed to this shambles, let's destroy the evidence ......or do some of you actually want to perpetuate it further? :shock:

Maybe the embarrassment factor for those who got sucked in should remain there for all time as a reminder of how one person can derail what could have been an interesting discussion.

ai_1

briantrumpet wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Do you reckon we could get this thread deleted if we asked nicely? It's a bit of an embarrassment to have contributed to this shambles, let's destroy the evidence ......or do some of you actually want to perpetuate it further? :shock:

Maybe the embarrassment factor for those who got sucked in should remain there for all time as a reminder of how one person can derail what could have been an interesting discussion.

Hey wait a minute!
Are you Manc's alter -account?

pblakeney

briantrumpet wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Do you reckon we could get this thread deleted if we asked nicely? It's a bit of an embarrassment to have contributed to this shambles, let's destroy the evidence ......or do some of you actually want to perpetuate it further? :shock:

Maybe the embarrassment factor for those who got sucked in should remain there for all time as a reminder of how one person can derail what could have been an interesting discussion.

I think it should highlighted to those sucked in as to how foolish they have been.
Played to the max. Over and over, and over.

ben@31

Has anyone ever played chess with a pigeon, am I missing out? How did I end up here talking about this?

briantrumpet

Seriously, I suspect that the dynamics of trolling have not been subject to as much academic study as might have been. One reference from last year is very hard on the trolls (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/yo ... nd-sadists), but I'm not sure that covers much of the subject, or sure of its accuracy. And of course it doesn't address the fact that all of you who get sucked in are part of the dynamic of how trolls operate: you're part of the phenomenon, and all you have to do to stop it is to stop. [/miserablefart]

Having said that, the subject of conspiracy theories is always going to be like leaving a fireworks factory unlocked at night, with a pile of matches and some petrol by the door.

pinno

Pigeon knocks his own pawn over. What next?

Manc33

This is what you guys have posted since I last posted asking why no one has mentioned the statues and lighthouses...

- Pigeons
- Chess
- Terry Pratchett quotes
- Asking about 12% refraction when I explained it three times
- Trolling
- Asking to have the thread deleted
- Alternate accounts

I'm not trolling, I am speculating and looking at evidence on both sides of something. If you're going to twist that into "he is trolling" then maybe you just can't look at these things from other angles?

I asked for real images of Earth from space, got shown paintings and other mock ups, then I get told it is good enough proof the Earth is round and I am trolling. Erm, I am trying to get to the bottom of something.

Is a forensic scientist just "trolling" because he found a fiber of wool? Imagine it "Oh he has a fiber big deal, take your claims elsewhere". I mean its sheer ignorance, most of the criticism you level at me is down to you not even grasping what I am talking about, like with the images, it is a perfect axample of you accepting the unacceptable, where's the real images, there are none, we have to pretend mock ups and paintings are real just because we can't bear to think they might not be. Sod that for a game of soldiers, life is too short to BS myself.

I never said anyone has to think the Earth is flat, there's arguments on both sides.

Not one single mention of statues and lighthouses since I last posted.

There I was starting to think people had answers.

Come on you debunk everything else (to your own satisfaction) so why not this?

If it isn't debunked in 24hrs I will have to consider the Earth to be flat, I already was almost doing anyway since the evidence is mounting up to support it at the same time as not being able to find anything to prove a sphere.

briantrumpet

Mods, please can you just put us out of Mancs' misery and lock this?

Velonutter

Manc33 wrote:

This is what you guys have posted since I last posted asking why no one has mentioned the statues and lighthouses...

- Pigeons
- Chess
- Terry Pratchett quotes
- Asking about 12% refraction when I explained it three times
- Trolling
- Asking to have the thread deleted
- Alternate accounts

I'm not trolling, I am speculating and looking at evidence on both sides of something. If you're going to twist that into "he is trolling" then maybe you just can't look at these things form other angles?

I asked for real images of Earth from space, got shown paintings and other mock ups, then I get told it is good enough proof the Earth is round and I am trolling. Erm, I am trying to get to the bottom of something.

Is a forensic scientist just "trolling" because he found a fiber of wool? Imagine it "Oh he has a fiber big deal, take your claims elsewhere". I mean its sheer ignorance, most of the criticism you level at me is down to you not even grasping what I am talking about, like with the images, it is a perfect axample of you accepting the unacceptable, where's the real images, there are none, we have to pretend mock ups and paintings are real just because we can't bear to think they might not be. Sod that for a game of soldiers, life is too short to BS myself.

I never said anyone has to think the Earth is flat, there's arguments on both sides.

Not one single mention of statues and lighthouses since I last posted.

There I was starting to think people had answers.

Come on you debunk everything else (to your own satisfaction) so why not this?

If it isn't debunked in 24hrs I will have to consider the Earth to be flat, I already was almost doing anyway since the evidence is mounting up to support it at the same time as not being able to find anything to prove a sphere.

Manc33 this is exactly what I have been referring to, this is trolling clearly and I have had enough now, so please go and plagued some other forum but not here, good bye

ai_1

briantrumpet wrote:

Mods, please can you just put us out of Mancs' misery and lock this?

Aha! Consider yourself trolled.

However I second your motion.

briantrumpet

Ai_1 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Mods, please can you just put us out of Mancs' misery and lock this?

Aha! Consider yourself trolled.

However I second your motion.

I do actually find watching trolling in action quite interesting, but this one had run its course. Without some face-to-face deep psychological profiling, I think we'd got to know as much as we were going to know about our departed friend.

orraloon

orraloon wrote:

I give it a week tops before 'holiday time' is here again...

I overestimated rather.

ddraver

So......this is really annoying me but why can you see lighthouses from from further away that you should be able to given the earth's curvature - I'm actually wondering :oops:

briantrumpet

ddraver wrote:

So......this is really annoying me but why can you see lighthouses from from further away that you should be able to given the earth's curvature - I'm actually wondering :oops:

Did you see that QI bit about the sunset? https://youtu.be/NZfr2nZmoJc

ddraver

Thanks Brian, I had not

I also found this - http://mathscinotes.com/2015/04/lightho ... al-ranges/ - the answer is that it's actually quite complicated. Trying to follow it on a Friday night after a hard day working has made my head hurt

pinno

Yay!

orraloon

ddraver wrote:

Thanks Brian, I had not

I also found this - http://mathscinotes.com/2015/04/lightho ... al-ranges/ - the answer is that it's actually quite complicated. Trying to follow it on a Friday night after a hard day working has made my head hurt

That QI clip is rather good.

Was pondering this flat earther nonsense. Suspending reality for a moment and entering the fantasy world, I wondered why those [pejorative] numbnuts [/pejorative] could not prove their case by light projection, say a low divergence laser.

Lunar laser ranging according to wiki has a beam diameter of 6.5km after a distance of 384,467km, so scaling that down to the open ocean distance of 4,884km between New York and Dingle peninsula Ireland with the same divergence would produce a beam diameter of 82.5m. Detectable by naked eye given sufficient power output? And ignoring atmospheric effects.

Wonder why hasn't been tried?

Ok, I need to get outside. The sun is shining and why am I writing this babble...? Real world calling.

ddraver

Because it doesnt stand up. For all Mancs belly aching about open minds, the flat earth, geocentric model is mostly pushed by people that are religious. It's the astronomical/geological equivalent to what Creationism is to Evolution.

briantrumpet

ddraver wrote:

It's the astronomical/geological equivalent to what Creationism is to Evolution.

I'm rather grateful that the subject of Evolution didn't come up while our departed friend was still around. Did you know that Darwin was being paid by the FBI?

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

ddraver wrote:

It's the astronomical/geological equivalent to what Creationism is to Evolution.

I'm rather grateful that the subject of Evolution didn't come up while our departed friend was still around. Did you know that Darwin was being paid by the FBI?

And therefore the FBI must have existed before we ever knew about it. I bet Manc33 would love to comment on that little cover up.

The Flat Earth forum is quite interesting if only to see the skewed logic, selective use of facts and the conspiracy mindset exhibited by the Flat Earthers - which is what our manc probably used as a source of info. Especially their theory about what causes gravity, which to their credit the Flat Earthers at least acknowledge exists

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Flat Earth forum is quite interesting if only to see the skewed logic, selective use of facts and the conspiracy mindset exhibited by the Flat Earthers - which is what our manc probably used as a source of info. Especially their theory about what causes gravity, which to their credit the Flat Earthers at least acknowledge exists

I'm rather wishing I hadn't had a peek at that forum. I can almost see the point of going on there to try to argue logically just for the sake of it (like barristers having to do a good job for a defendant who has all the evidence stacked against him), but the thought of the Flat Earthers actually being serious about it really makes one rather boggled.