Why the Tomato Was Feared in Europe for More Than 200 Years

[Hardline]

How the fruit got a bad rap from the beginning

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...-more-than-200-years?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

[CyberB0b]

Yeah, the pinnacle of information and we still have flat earthers.

 

[dsturgeon]

Yeah, the pinnacle of information and we still have flat earthers.

So called information.

If I asked you what is at the center of the globe earth, the answer is we have a molten core. Everyone saw the diagrams in their science books and learned it.

5.6 miles is the deepest anyone has ever drilled down. They drilled down 5.6 miles in Russia.

So, how do we know what is at the center of the "globe" earth. We got a theory not science. And then people look in telescopes, see distant "planets" and theorize what is at their core

Science is something that is provable by the scientific method, and is repeatable. A large majority of what "so called science" says now are theories, a new religion

 

[Runwildboys]

So called information.

If I asked you what is at the center of the globe earth, the answer is we have a molten core. Everyone saw the diagrams in their science books and learned it.

5.6 miles is the deepest anyone has ever drilled down. They drilled down 5.6 miles in Russia.

So, how do we know what is at the center of the "globe" earth. We got a theory not science. And then people look in telescopes, see distant "planets" and theorize what is at their core

We have seismometers accurate enough to paint a picture of the inside of the Earth, and without a molten core, spinning inside the planet, there'd be no magnetic field protecting us from the sun's full strength.

 

[dsturgeon]

We have seismometers accurate enough to paint a picture of the inside of the Earth, and without a molten core, spinning inside the planet, there'd be no magnetic field protecting us from the sun's full strength.

Theory upon theory

 

[dsturgeon]

A lot of the prominent "theoretical" physicists are backing away from the big bang evolution model, and shifting to the earth being "seeded". The seed didn't come from God, but aliens or a higher civilization.

So, what does that do to all the science based on evolution and so on

If it is science, wasn't is all proved by the scientific method. Why is there always a theoretical word used and attached with science

 

[Runwildboys]

Theory upon theory

When theories can be proven by accurate predictions and empirical evidence, there comes a point where it's just silly to ignore them or say they're incorrect, without any type of equal proof of another explanation.

 

[Runwildboys]

A lot of the prominent "theoretical" physicists are backing away from the big bang evolution model, and shifting to the earth being "seeded". The seed didn't come from God, but aliens or a higher civilization.

So, what does that do to all the science based on evolution and so on

What qualifies as "a lot" and "prominent"? I watch and read a good deal of astrophysical material, and I haven't seen any of that.

 

[dsturgeon]

When theories can be proven by accurate predictions and empirical evidence, there comes a point where it's just silly to ignore them or say they're incorrect, without any type of equal proof of another explanation.

Have you actually looked at the seismometers and the information they provide. Have you looked at the rate of error, guessing, and predictions used? Have you looked at the different types, and how they read information at the depth the core of the earth is?

Or did you just take the word of someone who came up with it. I havent looked at it, i am just saying. Have you heard scientist say what other planets are made of? No seismometers there

I don't trust much since I learned nasa cgi's and uses compilations and artist renditions on their photos, and very little i have seen from them is real

What qualifies as "a lot" and "prominent"? I watch and read a good deal of astrophysical material, and I haven't seen any of that.

panspermia, the seeded theory and so on, and different variations. Its like if you look at the complexity of the systems in your body, there is no way it could actually evolve and be functional. The odds are to astronomical, so it had to be changed to humans being seeded

 

[Runwildboys]

Have you actually looked at the seismometers and the information they provide. Have you looked at the rate of error, guessing, and predictions used? Have you looked at the different types, and how they read information at the depth the core of the earth is?

Or did you just take the word of someone who came up with it. I havent looked at it, i am just saying. Have you heard scientist say what other planets are made of? No seismometers there

I don't trust much since I learned nasa cgi's and uses compilations and artist renditions on their photos, and very little i have seen from them is real



panspermia, the seeded theory and so on, and different variations. Its like if you look at the complexity of the systems in your body, there is no way it could actually evolve and be functional. The odds are to astronomical, so it had to be changed to humans being seeded

When the overwhelming majority of scientists (who have no reason to lie) agree with the findings and conclusions, I'm much more likely to believe them than I am to believe any conspiracy theorist or pseudoscientist.

I've never heard any astrophysicist say they know what a planet is made of, only what they think is likely. They can tell with a high amount of certainty what a planet's atmosphere is made of, by the way different light wavelengths react to it.

NASA only uses CGI to combine a lot of smaller photos into one large photo, or to eliminate superfluous information, in an effort to clarify pictures. They don't create or manufacture evidence, or try to pass off artist's renderings as unretouched photos.

 

[dsturgeon]

When the overwhelming majority of scientists (who have no reason to lie) agree with the findings and conclusions, I'm much more likely to believe them than I am to believe any conspiracy theorist or pseudoscientist.

I've never heard any astrophysicist say they know what a planet is made of, only what they think is likely. They can tell with a high amount of certainty what a planet's atmosphere is made of, by the way different light wavelengths react to it.

NASA only uses CGI to combine a lot of smaller photos into one large photo, or to eliminate superfluous information, in an effort to clarify pictures. They don't create or manufacture evidence, or try to pass off artist's renderings as unretouched photos.

Ok, but you have to agree there is a difference between science and "so called science". And that line has been blurred a whole bunch. I am not trying to ruffle your feathers or anything, I am just saying that the window for what i believe has been shrunk.

We dont know what is at the bottom of the oceans, and 5.6 miles down is the furthest we have drilled, and that hole was small. The earth is a big place that we dont have figured out

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Yeah, the pinnacle of information and we still have flat earthers.

The Earth is flat. Amelia Earhart found that out the hard way.
lol--JK

 

[Runwildboys]

Ok, but you have to agree there is a difference between science and "so called science". And that line has been blurred a whole bunch. I am not trying to ruffle your feathers or anything, I am just saying that the window for what i believe has been shrunk.

We dont know what is at the bottom of the oceans, and 5.6 miles down is the furthest we have drilled, and that hole was small. The earth is a big place that we dont have figured out

That's true, and that's why one of my nieces is fascinated with the oceans. In her words: "We know more about space than we know about our own oceans."
I keep telling her that's because space is more interesting. Lol
But it's not really true. We know a lot about the physics of space, and we think we know a lot about the origins of space, but we know much more about our planet and oceans than we do about the details of any other planet.

 

[dsturgeon]

That's true, and that's why one of my nieces is fascinated with the oceans. In her words: "We know more about space than we know about our own oceans."
I keep telling her that's because space is more interesting. Lol
But it's not really true. We know a lot about the physics of space, and we think we know a lot about the origins of space, but we know much more about our planet and oceans than we do about the details of any other planet.

last year when california had all the wild fires, I was in montana. The smoke covered the sky in a way that you could look directly at the sun and see its shape and size without it hurting my eyes. It was a brownish color.

It was such an unusual thing, that I almost didnt believe it was the sun. It was a weird feeling at first. It was the same size as a full moon. I had never been able to sit and stare at the sun.

It is strange that the sun so far away and moon so close appear the same size.

If using the part of your finger as an inch method, i saw half a moon and the sun in the sky the other day, and the earth was not in between. They were about 6 of my finger inches apart to my eye. Why only half a moon? It wasn't half a moon like this I, it was half a moon like --, with the top half showing. With the positions of the 2, i couldnt figure out why the bottom half wasn't reflecting light, there was nothing in between

 

[Runwildboys]

last year when california had all the wild fires, I was in montana. The smoke covered the sky in a way that you could look directly at the sun and see its shape and size without it hurting my eyes. It was a brownish color.

It was such an unusual thing, that I almost didnt believe it was the sun. It was a weird feeling at first. It was the same size as a full moon. I had never been able to sit and stare at the sun

It is strange that the sun so far away and moon so close appear the same size.

If using the part of your finger as an inch method, i saw half a moon and the sun in the sky the other day, and the earth was not in between. They were about 6 of my finger inches apart. Why only half a moon?

The more you think about the distances involved, the easier it is to picture how the moon can appear to be illuminated. A lot of people (not saying you're one of them) look at the models of the solar system, etc. and don't realize the models aren't even close to being to scale. If they made an accurate model, it would have to be enormous, just to make it possible to perceive the different bodies. I can't really speak for what you witnessed, without seeing it myself. I see almost every sunrise M-F, and I can see by the moon exactly where the sun is going to come up. (Except when it's full)

 

[dsturgeon]

The more you think about the distances involved, the easier it is to picture how the moon can appear to be illuminated. A lot of people (not saying you're one of them) look at the models of the solar system, etc. and don't realize the models aren't even close to being to scale. If they made an accurate model, it would have to be enormous, just to make it possible to perceive the different bodies. I can't really speak for what you witnessed, without seeing it myself. I see almost every sunrise M-F, and I can see by the moon exactly where the sun is going to come up. (Except when it's full)

The moon is visible during the day all the time. It was strange because it was a different pattern as a half moon -- full on the top half, than what you see from the new moon crescent to full and back cycle at night. I can see both in the sky right now, but they are further away than the other day

Human eye perspective is interesteing in the ^ shape where stuff disappears the further away. like how ships disappear to the eye, but if you have a camera with zoom, they are still there.

As to me being one of the people, I think the earth is the center of the universe, haha

 

[Runwildboys]

The moon is visible during the day all the time. It was strange because it was a different pattern as a half moon -- full on the top half, than what you see from the new moon crescent to full and back cycle at night.

Human eye perspective is interesteing in the ^ shape where stuff disappears the further away. like how ships disappear to the eye, but if you have a camera with zoom, they are still there.

As to me being one of the people, I think the earth is the center of the universe, haha

You can only pull a ship back into view for a limited distance. Once it goes over the horizon, it's gone. Otherwise, you'd be able to see all the ships at sea at the same time...like you would on a flat Earth.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Trees make oxygen?


There is a water related goldie locks zone for land based vegetation. Too much water trees and plants die. Too little water trees and plants die. So, in order for land based vegetation to spring into existence it had to be raining first. The chemical composition of water is H2O. What does the 'O' stand for in H2O? Trees emit oxygen when water evaporates from within its borders. But trees don't make oxygen.
Evaporating water makes oxygen.


See! I came up with a theory, I'm a scientist.

 

[dsturgeon]

You can only pull a ship back into view for a limited distance. Once it goes over the horizon, it's gone. Otherwise, you'd be able to see all the ships at sea at the same time...like you would on a flat Earth.

yea, the distance the camera can zoom, then its perspective becomes like the eye

 

[dsturgeon]

Trees make oxygen?


There is a water related goldie locks zone for land based vegetation. Too much water trees and plants die. Too little water trees and plants die. So, in order for land based vegetation to spring into existence it had to be raining first. The chemical composition of water is H2O. What does the 'O' stand for in H2O? Trees emit oxygen when water evaporates from within its borders. But trees don't make oxygen.
Evaporating water makes oxygen.


See! I came up with a theory, I'm a scientist.

trees can not make oxygen. They are cutting down the amazon, so the jet stream that took all the carbon dioxide down to the amazon forest to be converted to oxygen cant be functional

which is why the sun is getting hotter and we need to spray bariom and aluminum in the skys to block it, and now bill gates microsoft chalk theory