From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

wtf... no point, no funny? and more red links to articles that we don;t need? humanbe in 02:14, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

This is an obvious attempt at humour that some people might find amusing. Maybe move it to fun or expand. (Though I know by now that this isn't an encyclopedia, but perhaps it could focus on the history of life on earth, or do we already have a page on that?) - All Hail Tuna 07:41, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

BoNs dating editings[edit]

Wouldn't BoNs edit about there not being a reliable dating method mean that the Bible is an unreliable dating method also? --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 10:08, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Actually he referred to carbon 14 dating - which rather shows the depth of his knowledge. It would be truly impossible to use carbon 14 to date the Earth. (So nobody does.)--Bobbing up 15:50, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Mostly harmless[edit]

I don't want to get in to silly reverting of reversions, but I think the Mostly harmless addition was funny, and it fits well with this article. It's not as if he wrote a stream of silliness. Besides, a tip of the hat to Adams isn't a bad thing. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Methinks Delta Star isn't a H2G2 fan. SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Is such a thing possible? --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Probability tells me that someone, somewhere, might not be, but I doubt it. 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
I am afraid I have not read hitchhikers', (I assume that's what we're refering to) although I must do sometime. I revert the edit because it didn't fit the grammatical format of the list. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You revert the edit huh? you sure you didn't reverted it? Don't critize my grammer— Unsigned, by: BenB / talk / contribs
I'm going to be go and reverteding you right now boyo. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It was a fair revert, given that he wasn't aware of the book. I think it should remain now that it's back, since rephrasing the term would kind of break the joke. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Aye, fair enough. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Assume good faith, on both edits and reverts. 21:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
I've linked back to the "book" to avoid confusion.--BobIt's windy! 21:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel the "earth is" thing kinda ills the joke, so if no one minds I'm gonna change it back, but if you guys want it the same, what ever, i don't wanna start an edit war. i like the book link though--BenB (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine as "Mostly Harmless". It stands out, but the link makes the reference pretty clear. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree, Ben. 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

What a stupid debate. The article started off just saying mostly harmless back in '07[1] so inmcluding tyhe phrase now isn't cause for edit warring. Sheesh guys do you have to drama about everything? You're worse than bloody LiveJournal sometimes. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Earth facts[edit]

Earth is roundish but not spherical, and is only flat over short distances. Dodecahedron is right out. :) The proper shape of the earth is an oblate sheroid. Thats kinda a flat beach ball thats been kicked. Some believe that the Earth illustrates a tetrahedral geometry at higher dimensions that show as an energy upwelling at 19.5 degrees N or S latitudes. By odd coincidence thats pretty much where Hawaii is . (refer to Hoagland for more stuff) The earth also has two moons , although one is a bit small and may drift away sometime. Its called 3753_Cruithne which is harder to pronounce than "Moon", which may be why its rarely mentioned. The "man in the moon" is clearly an artifact of an older lunar civilization that wanted to assure earth people that they were friendly. The fact that it can be seen from the southern hemisphere and is not upside down , shows the level of technology used to create the image. Hamster (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not even an oblate spheroid because the obateness isn't evenly distributed between hemispheres. It's explained in Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong" essay really well. Scarlet A.pngbomination 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Correct as that may be, it's one hell of a close approximation to a sphere. Let's just say it's surface is a closed curve with minor irregularities, zits and scars, as it were, like the Andes, the Alps, the Rockies, the Marianas Trench, etc. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Guys, the Earth is Earth-shaped. Droxxor (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
While undeniably true, that description doesn't really add much to the totality of human knowledge.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Question to bible literalists[edit]

Explain [|this] away, please--Thedoctor80 (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been moved from its orbit if that's what you're asking. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)