The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Chini on November 11, 2009, 01:32:51 PM
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
-
My guess is that it will be bendy light combined with the NASA conspiracy, but lets watch.
-
You actually witness MECO? Thats the point where the shuttle is in orbit and the only real proof of RET
-
Please provide calculations of the relative differences in altitude between Davie and Cape Canaveral (according to RE).
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
-
Please provide calculations of the relative differences in altitude between Davie and Cape Canaveral (according to RE).
You're the one that thinks it's not real, so you do the calculating, bub.
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
That is what a fair number of flat earthers claim.
-
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
Then planes would run into them.
-
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
Then planes would run into them.
or at least see a difference in size. Since this does not happen we know that they are farther than that.
-
Please provide calculations of the relative differences in altitude between Davie and Cape Canaveral (according to RE).
This is actually what I expected, but there is no actual hypothesis you can derive on the grounds of altitude, as I am currently 7 feet above sea level and Cape Canaveral is 1-3 feet at most, most likely near the one foot zone of that range.
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
Actually, I can clearly see the rocket while it goes into space. I don't know If you have ever seen a shuttle launch, but even at the distance I am from Kennedy Space Center, watching a space shuttle go up is intense on your eyes, as it burns so brightly that it's almost painful to keep your eyes on it for so long. If you can see something like the International Space Station without any sort of fuel exhaust coming out of it, a space shuttle that's burning fuel like no tomorrow is incredibly visible.
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.
If you had the technology at your disposal to scan a close star (possibly in the Alpha Centauri solar system) and measured its mass, not only would you be able to measure the diameter of the planet, but also the distance. Unless FE'ers are implying that stars are about the size of a large city, then you could logically assume that they would look massive at such a short distance.
-
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.
Explain me then why it takes 2.56 seconds to a laser beam to travel from Earth to the Moon, then from the Moon to the Earth ?
-
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.
Explain me then why it takes 2.56 seconds to a laser beam to travel from Earth to the Moon, then from the Moon to the Earth ?
Honestly, at this point it just seems as if the majority of them are trolls, don't even bother. Well, I just stumbled upon this website to see if there was actually some sort of scientific reasoning behind the basis of a Flat Earth, but so far I haven't really been convinced. Oh well :/
-
Please provide calculations of the relative differences in altitude between Davie and Cape Canaveral (according to RE).
This is actually what I expected, but there is no actual hypothesis you can derive on the grounds of altitude, as I am currently 7 feet above sea level and Cape Canaveral is 1-3 feet at most, most likely near the one foot zone of that range.
Ok- so that is negligible. Do the calculations with the assumption of the earth being a sphere - you will be surprised to learn the conspiracy's explanation is bogus.
-
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
never been that high, i don't know their distance. But i guess they are far less then most scientists state.
Explain me then why it takes 2.56 seconds to a laser beam to travel from Earth to the Moon, then from the Moon to the Earth ?
The laser to the moon thing was actually a concept constructed by NASA itself to prove to the world that they really went to the moon.
"Look, we can bounce laser beams off of our mirrors with this special 1 quadrillion watt laser we built! That proves it once and for all!!"
"Here's a picture of a non-discript looking piece of equipment! More proof!!"
-
so the stars are only a few miles up then?
Then planes would run into them.
or at least see a difference in size. Since this does not happen we know that they are farther than that.
The stars are a bit over 3000 miles in altitude above the earth. International flight only travel at an altitude of 5.5 miles miles in altitude above the earth.
If you had the technology at your disposal to scan a close star (possibly in the Alpha Centauri solar system) and measured its mass, not only would you be able to measure the diameter of the planet, but also the distance. Unless FE'ers are implying that stars are about the size of a large city, then you could logically assume that they would look massive at such a short distance.
You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it. ::)
-
Nobody seriously disputes that shuttles land, we just dispute where they go, usually they disappear out of sght then splash down quietly in the ocean or glide into a remote airfield somewhere unhtil it's time for them to 're-enter' Earth's atmosphere.
-
You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it. ::)
Bishop finally proves (again) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is possible to make inferences about a star's mass by observing it.
-
You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it. ::)
Bishop finally proves (again) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is possible to make inferences about a star's mass by observing it.
Such as?
-
You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it. ::)
Bishop finally proves (again) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is possible to make inferences about a star's mass by observing it.
Such as?
Hue and brightness coupled with the stars spectrum can give you the mass of the star. Read a book sometime.
-
You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it. ::)
Bishop finally proves (again) that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is possible to make inferences about a star's mass by observing it.
Such as?
Hue and brightness coupled with the stars spectrum can give you the mass of the star. Read a book sometime.
No it cannot.
Also, how come has no RE'er done the math for the OC? Is it perhaps because the math contradicts what NASA claims???
-
No it cannot.
Yes it can. Just because you say its not true doesnt mean youre right. Eire Engineer is correct.
-
No it cannot.
Yes it can. Just because you say its not true doesnt mean youre right. Eire Engineer is correct.
And just because you say that Eire Engineer is correct, that means he is?
Think about it. How can the brightness and hue of a star possibly tell us its mass?
-
No it cannot.
Yes it can. Just because you say its not true doesnt mean youre right. Eire Engineer is correct.
And just because you say that Eire Engineer is correct, that means he is?
Think about it. How can the brightness and hue of a star possibly tell us its mass?
Go and do some homework, Bishop, we're not going to spoon feed you. Read something other than Earth Not A Globe.
-
No it cannot.
Yes it can. Just because you say its not true doesnt mean youre right. Eire Engineer is correct.
And just because you say that Eire Engineer is correct, that means he is?
Think about it. How can the brightness and hue of a star possibly tell us its mass?
Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.
We also can easily measure the luminocity and temperature of any star. A plot of luminocity versus temperature for a set of stars is called a Hertsprung-Russel (H-R) diagram, and it turns out that most stars lie along a thin band in this diagram known as the main Sequence. Stars arrange themselves by mass on the Main Sequence, with massive stars being hotter and brighter than their small-mass bretheren. If a star falls on the Main Sequence, we therefore immediately know its mass.
In addition to these methods, we also have an excellent understanding of how stars work. Our models of stellar structure are excellent predictors of the properties and evolution of stars. As it turns out, the mass of a star determines its life history from day 1, for all times thereafter, not only when the star is on the Main Sequence. So actually, the position of a star on the H-R diagram is a good indicator of its mass, regardless of whether it's on the Main Sequence or not.
-
Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.
That is an assumption, not a fact. RE theory is 100% based on assumptions and no facts.
We also can easily measure the luminocity and temperature of any star. A plot of luminocity versus temperature for a set of stars is called a Hertsprung-Russel (H-R) diagram, and it turns out that most stars lie along a thin band in this diagram known as the main Sequence. Stars arrange themselves by mass on the Main Sequence, with massive stars being hotter and brighter than their small-mass bretheren. If a star falls on the Main Sequence, we therefore immediately know its mass.
No you don't, you have an irrelevant graph that has nothing to do with the mass of the planet. Your model is nothing more than assumptions, to find the truth you need to make quantitative measurements, not qualitative theories. The temperature of the planets is an assumption.
In addition to these methods, we also have an excellent understanding of how stars work. Our models of stellar structure are excellent predictors of the properties and evolution of stars. As it turns out, the mass of a star determines its life history from day 1, for all times thereafter, not only when the star is on the Main Sequence. So actually, the position of a star on the H-R diagram is a good indicator of its mass, regardless of whether it's on the Main Sequence or not.
Have you ever observed nuclear fusion? Have you ever seen an atom? Ever noticed that Quantum Mechanics is based on probabilities and assumptions to prevent the model from falling apart? We know absolutely nothing about stars. We have never observed a single one beyond wavelength. We know even less about the "atom"... after 100s of years chemists have failed in their original goal: making gold, and they have failed to describe the nature of matter as well!
-
Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.
That is an assumption, not a fact. RE theory is 100% based on assumptions and no facts.
The shape of the earth is a fact that has long since been established. Astronomy is a different matter.
Have you ever observed nuclear fusion? Have you ever seen an atom? Ever noticed that Quantum Mechanics is based on probabilities and assumptions to prevent the model from falling apart? We know absolutely nothing about stars. We have never observed a single one beyond wavelength. We know even less about the "atom"... after 100s of years chemists have failed in their original goal: making gold, and they have failed to describe the nature of matter as well!
*sigh*
Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.
-
Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.
That is an assumption, not a fact. RE theory is 100% based on assumptions and no facts.
The shape of the earth is a fact that has long since been established. Astronomy is a different matter.
The earth is a disk.
-
The earth is a disk.
Give evidence that it's not a hexagonal prism. :P
-
Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.
That is an assumption, not a fact. RE theory is 100% based on assumptions and no facts.
The shape of the earth is a fact that has long since been established. Astronomy is a different matter.
The earth is a disk.
Some say that it's an infinite plane. Are they wrong or are you?
-
Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems.
That is an assumption, not a fact. RE theory is 100% based on assumptions and no facts.
We also can easily measure the luminocity and temperature of any star. A plot of luminocity versus temperature for a set of stars is called a Hertsprung-Russel (H-R) diagram, and it turns out that most stars lie along a thin band in this diagram known as the main Sequence. Stars arrange themselves by mass on the Main Sequence, with massive stars being hotter and brighter than their small-mass bretheren. If a star falls on the Main Sequence, we therefore immediately know its mass.
No you don't, you have an irrelevant graph that has nothing to do with the mass of the planet. Your model is nothing more than assumptions, to find the truth you need to make quantitative measurements, not qualitative theories. The temperature of the planets is an assumption.
In addition to these methods, we also have an excellent understanding of how stars work. Our models of stellar structure are excellent predictors of the properties and evolution of stars. As it turns out, the mass of a star determines its life history from day 1, for all times thereafter, not only when the star is on the Main Sequence. So actually, the position of a star on the H-R diagram is a good indicator of its mass, regardless of whether it's on the Main Sequence or not.
Have you ever observed nuclear fusion? Have you ever seen an atom? Ever noticed that Quantum Mechanics is based on probabilities and assumptions to prevent the model from falling apart? We know absolutely nothing about stars. We have never observed a single one beyond wavelength. We know even less about the "atom"... after 100s of years chemists have failed in their original goal: making gold, and they have failed to describe the nature of matter as well!
Johannes, you are a prime example of why mankind stayed locked in mysticism. Alchemists did indeed begin their search looking for gold, and their failures lead to the modern science of chemistry, which explains precisely why alchemy always failed. and always will.
-
The shape of the earth is a fact that has long since been established. Astronomy is a different matter.
The shape of the earth is an astronomical matter. That's why Robotham calls it Zetetic Astronomy.
-
The shape of the earth is a fact that has long since been established. Astronomy is a different matter.
The shape of the earth is an astronomical matter. That's why Robotham calls it Zetetic Astronomy.
And as an astronomical matter, the shape of the earth has been determined to be round. That's why the earth is sometimes referred to as the "blue marble".
-
The shape of the earth is a fact that has long since been established. Astronomy is a different matter.
The shape of the earth is an astronomical matter. That's why Robotham calls it Zetetic Astronomy.
And as an astronomical matter, the shape of the earth has been determined to be round. That's why the earth is sometimes referred to as the "blue marble".
Who determined the earth to be round?
The guy who also determined frogs and newts to spontaneously generate from mud?
-
The shape of the earth is a fact that has long since been established. Astronomy is a different matter.
The shape of the earth is an astronomical matter. That's why Robotham calls it Zetetic Astronomy.
And as an astronomical matter, the shape of the earth has been determined to be round. That's why the earth is sometimes referred to as the "blue marble".
Who determined the earth to be round?
The guy who also determined frogs and newts to spontaneously generate from mud?
The space man who saw it during his trip to the moon. He even took a picture to prove it:
(http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/images/550px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg)
004:59 Cernan: "I know we're not the first to discover this - but we'd like to confirm, from the crew of America, that the world is round."
CapCom: "Roger. That's a good data point."
-
So your "long since been established" is 40 years?
The earth was discovered to be round 40 years ago?
-
So your "long since been established" is 40 years?
The earth was discovered to be round 40 years ago?
*sigh*
004:59 Cernan: "I know we're not the first to discover this - but we'd like to confirm, from the crew of America, that the world is round."
CapCom: "Roger. That's a good data point."
Oh, and Philolaus figured out that the earth was round about 100 years before Aristotle so you can stop with the Aristotle smear campaign already. ::)
-
Oh, and Philolaus figured out that the earth was round about 100 years before Aristotle so you can stop with the Aristotle smear campaign already. ::)
Where did Philolaus figure anything out? All I've read just says that he merely speculated about it.
Aristotile was the one going around saying that he proved it.
-
Oh, and Philolaus figured out that the earth was round about 100 years before Aristotle so you can stop with the Aristotle smear campaign already. ::)
Where did Philolaus figure anything out? All I've read just says that he merely speculated about it.
Aristotile was the one going around saying that he proved it.
*sigh* He was the first to put all the pieces together.
About 450 B.C., a Greek Scholar named Philolaus (fil-oh-LAY-us), who lived in southern Italy, was finally convinced.
He put all the evidence together. The change in the stars, the way in which ships disappeared as they moved away,
and the shadow of the earth during an eclipse of the moon led him to one conclusion: The earth was a Sphere located
in the center of the much larger sphere of the sky.
So far as we know, Philolaus was the first man ever to say that the earth was a sphere.
-
[/quote]
You can't measure the mass of a star by looking at it. ::)
[/quote]
Actually it is easy. Durp!
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/mass/mass.html
-
*sigh* He was the first to put all the pieces together.
So why is it called Aristotile's Three Proofs and not Philolaus' Three Proofs?
Where did the fiction writer Asimov get that idea from?
What books did Philolaus write again? Oh, that's right, none could be found.
Seems to be one of those cases where we don't have the writings of Philolaus or Socrates, and everything is told as a story through guys like Aristotile.
The same reliable guys who go around telling people that frogs and newts spontaneously generate from mud.
Actually it is easy. Durp!
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/mass/mass.html
The Astronomical Unit is different in FE, which makes those calculations invalid.
-
*sigh* He was the first to put all the pieces together.
So why is it called Aristotile's Three Proofs and not Philolaus' Three Proofs?
What books did Philolaus write again? Oh, that's right, none could be found.
Seems to be one of those cases where we don't have the writings of Philolaus or Socrates, and everything is told as a story through guys like Aristotile.
The same reliable guys who go around telling people that news and frogs spontaneously generate from mud.
Actually it is easy. Durp!
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/mass/mass.html
The Astronomical Unit is different in FE, which makes those calculations invalid.
It is different because FE doesn't jive with reality, mind you. Disprove physics, i I would love to see it.
-
*sigh* He was the first to put all the pieces together.
So why is it called Aristotile's Three Proofs and not Philolaus' Three Proofs?
What books did Philolaus write again? Oh, that's right, none could be found.
Seems to be one of those cases where we don't have the writings of Philolaus or Socrates, and everything is told as a story through guys like Aristotile.
The same reliable guys who go around telling people that news and frogs spontaneously generate from mud.
Actually it is easy. Durp!
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/mass/mass.html
The Astronomical Unit is different in FE, which makes those calculations invalid.
It is different because FE doesn't jive with reality, mind you. Disprove physics, i I would love to see it.
Reported for low content posting.
-
*sigh* He was the first to put all the pieces together.
So why is it called Aristotile's Three Proofs and not Philolaus' Three Proofs?
What books did Philolaus write again? Oh, that's right, none could be found.
Seems to be one of those cases where we don't have the writings of Philolaus or Socrates, and everything is told as a story through guys like Aristotile.
The same reliable guys who go around telling people that news and frogs spontaneously generate from mud.
Actually it is easy. Durp!
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/mass/mass.html
The Astronomical Unit is different in FE, which makes those calculations invalid.
It is different because FE doesn't jive with reality, mind you. Disprove physics, i I would love to see it.
Reported for low content posting.
LOL. Is that all you have? Whining to the Mods? Seriously, why dont you try some experimentation and see if any of your postulates hold water?
-
*sigh* He was the first to put all the pieces together.
So why is it called Aristotile's Three Proofs and not Philolaus' Three Proofs?
What books did Philolaus write again? Oh, that's right, none could be found.
Seems to be one of those cases where we don't have the writings of Philolaus or Socrates, and everything is told as a story through guys like Aristotile.
The same reliable guys who go around telling people that news and frogs spontaneously generate from mud.
Actually it is easy. Durp!
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/mass/mass.html
The Astronomical Unit is different in FE, which makes those calculations invalid.
It is different because FE doesn't jive with reality, mind you. Disprove physics, i I would love to see it.
Reported for low content posting.
How does this help prove your position? I don't think that when Einstein had people challenge General Relativity he went and bitched to forum moderators.
-
*sigh* He was the first to put all the pieces together.
So why is it called Aristotile's Three Proofs and not Philolaus' Three Proofs?
Probably for the same reason that we celebrate Columbus Day instead of Leif Ericson Day.
Where did the fiction writer Asimov get that idea from?
Isaac Asimov also wrote non-fiction and he probably got that idea from doing research.
Philolaus says that there is fire in the middle at the centre ... and again more fire at the highest point and surrounding everything. By nature the middle is first, and around it dance ten divine bodies - the sky, the planets, then the sun, next the moon, next the earth, next the counterearth, and after all of them the fire of the hearth which holds position at the centre. The highest part of the surrounding, where the elements are found in their purity, he calls Olympus; the regions beneath the orbit of Olympus, where are the five planets with the sun and the moon, he calls the world; the part under them, being beneath the moon and around the earth, in which are found generation and change, he calls the sky.
?Stobaeus, i. 22. 1d
What books did Philolaus write again? Oh, that's right, none could be found.
Maybe none that you could find. Remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Seems to be one of those cases where we don't have the writings of Philolaus or Socrates, and everything is told as a story through guys like Aristotle.
The same reliable guys who go around telling people that frogs and newts spontaneously generate from mud.
Tom, these ad hominems against the ancient Greeks are really getting annoying. If you can't refute Philolaus' or Aristotle's work on cosmology directly, then shut your trap. >:(
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
Actually, I can clearly see the rocket while it goes into space. I don't know If you have ever seen a shuttle launch, but even at the distance I am from Kennedy Space Center, watching a space shuttle go up is intense on your eyes, as it burns so brightly that it's almost painful to keep your eyes on it for so long. If you can see something like the International Space Station without any sort of fuel exhaust coming out of it, a space shuttle that's burning fuel like no tomorrow is incredibly visible.
I've noticed that this statement has been almost ignored, probably due to it's flawlessness.
That's right. I'M BACK.
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
Actually, I can clearly see the rocket while it goes into space. I don't know If you have ever seen a shuttle launch, but even at the distance I am from Kennedy Space Center, watching a space shuttle go up is intense on your eyes, as it burns so brightly that it's almost painful to keep your eyes on it for so long. If you can see something like the International Space Station without any sort of fuel exhaust coming out of it, a space shuttle that's burning fuel like no tomorrow is incredibly visible.
I've noticed that this statement has been almost ignored, probably due to it's flawlessness.
That's right. I'M BACK.
Who are you?
-
Hello,
I am asking for clarification on the grounds of space shuttle launches. I am currently living in a city named Davie, in South Florida, very close to Miami. Every time I notice a space shuttle mission is going to happen, I watch the TV for it to go off. As it goes off, I walk outside onto my street, and after about 30 or 45 seconds, I clearly can see the space shuttle clearing the atmosphere.
My first question is, if the Earth is flat, why would it take 30 to 45 seconds for me to notice the space shuttle? The current explanation for the delay is because of the few hundred miles that are gaped between me and Kennedy Space Center are curved at a slight angle, causing the delay.
Secondly, which you guys probably hear a lot, how can you disprove that the Space Shuttle clearly went into space when I am both watching it on TV and seeing it with my own two eyes at the same time. (The Ice Wall theory cannot really be used against this one, because it clearly shoots up far beyond the altitude that they are claimed to be.)
Thanks :)
How can you see into space from earth? we can only see a few miles up. So nonone can observe rockets go so far up.
Actually, I can clearly see the rocket while it goes into space. I don't know If you have ever seen a shuttle launch, but even at the distance I am from Kennedy Space Center, watching a space shuttle go up is intense on your eyes, as it burns so brightly that it's almost painful to keep your eyes on it for so long. If you can see something like the International Space Station without any sort of fuel exhaust coming out of it, a space shuttle that's burning fuel like no tomorrow is incredibly visible.
I've noticed that this statement has been almost ignored, probably due to it's flawlessness.
That's right. I'M BACK.
Who are you?
I come back every now and then. Destroy a few FE arguements, then leave again for a while. It's quite theroputic.
-
*sigh* He was the first to put all the pieces together.
So why is it called Aristotile's Three Proofs and not Philolaus' Three Proofs?
Where did the fiction writer Asimov get that idea from?
What books did Philolaus write again? Oh, that's right, none could be found.
Seems to be one of those cases where we don't have the writings of Philolaus or Socrates, and everything is told as a story through guys like Aristotile.
The same reliable guys who go around telling people that frogs and newts spontaneously generate from mud.
Actually it is easy. Durp!
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/mass/mass.html
The Astronomical Unit is different in FE, which makes those calculations invalid.
Whether you disagree with the measure of the astronomic unit or not is irrelevant.
That's all most FE'rs do, quibble about a minor point and think they've won. 'They believed that newts and frogs simply appeared!' Irrelevant. My goodness. One of the founders of DNA has claimed that Africans are genetically inferior in intellect to all other species with no proof. Does that mean that DNA suddenly doesn't exist?
-
Probably for the same reason that we celebrate Columbus Day instead of Leif Ericson Day.
Because Aristotile was a pirate who committed mass genocide?
Isaac Asimov also wrote non-fiction and he probably got that idea from doing research.
Asimov was primarily a fiction writer. Fiction writers make up bull as second hand nature.
The quote you provided for Philolaus didn't say anything about him coming up with Aristotile's three proofs. I haven't been able to come up with anything that says that.
Maybe none that you could find. Remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In this case it is. For example, it's well known that historians have significant difficulty separating the beliefs of Aristotile from the beliefs of Plato. Aristotile tends to ramble and use Plato's teachings as his own, exchanging his own teachings as Plato's, and talk as a fictional third party.
If we don't have the work of the original person we can't rely on their caveboy students to give an accurate description of their beliefs.
That's all most FE'rs do, quibble about a minor point and think they've won. 'They believed that newts and frogs simply appeared!' Irrelevant. My goodness. One of the founders of DNA has claimed that Africans are genetically inferior in intellect to all other species with no proof. Does that mean that DNA suddenly doesn't exist?
No. It means that he's an idiot and we should take his hypothesis' about what DNA truly is, how it works, its function, and whatever else he imagines about it with a grain of salt.
That DNA exists is simple observation. Just like the existence of frogs and newts is a simple observation.
Interpretation of how they work, what they do, and their function is another matter entirely.
-
Isaac Asimov also wrote non-fiction and he probably got that idea from doing research.
Asimov was primarily a fiction writer.
So what? That does not diminish the validity of his non-fiction work.
The quote you provided for Philolaus didn't say anything abotu him coming up with Aristotile's three proofs. I haven't been able to come up with anything that says that.
I didn't say that he did. Philolaus just took things that people already knew and put them together to conclude the shape of the earth. Aristotle just formalized what people already knew into his three proofs.
-
Probably for the same reason that we celebrate Columbus Day instead of Leif Ericson Day.
Because Aristotile was a pirate who committed mass genocide?
Isaac Asimov also wrote non-fiction and he probably got that idea from doing research.
Asimov was primarily a fiction writer. Fiction writers make up bull as second hand nature.
The quote you provided for Philolaus didn't say anything abotu him coming up with Aristotile's three proofs. I haven't been able to come up with anything that says that.
Maybe none that you could find. Remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In this case it is. For example, it's well known that historians have significant difficulty separating the beliefs of Aristotile from the beliefs of Plato. Aristotile tends to ramble and use Plato's teachings as his own, exchanging his own teachings as Plato's, and talk as a fictional third party.
If we don't have the work of the original person we can't rely on their caveboy students to give an accurate description of their beliefs.
That's all most FE'rs do, quibble about a minor point and think they've won. 'They believed that newts and frogs simply appeared!' Irrelevant. My goodness. One of the founders of DNA has claimed that Africans are genetically inferior in intellect to all other species with no proof. Does that mean that DNA suddenly doesn't exist?
No. It means that he's an idiot and we should take his hypothesis' about what DNA truly is, how it works, its function, and whatever else he imagines about it with a grain of salt.
That DNA exists is simple observation. Just like the existence of frogs and newts is a simple observation.
Interpretation of how they work, what they do, and their function is another matter entirely.
It means we look at his work on DNA and judge it for what it is. Just as when it comes to Aristotle, you look at his individual works individually. I could build a slanderous campaign against Einstein if I wanted to, even though he's my hero. The point of the matter is, you use irrelevant points to dismiss relevant ones. It's bad argumentative style and I am amazed that you think it should work.
-
Because the Earth isn't flat! ;)
-
Tom, these ad hominems against the ancient Greeks are really getting annoying. If you can't refute Philolaus' or Aristotle's work on cosmology directly, then shut your trap. >:(
Uh, markjo, are you familiar with Aristotle's work on cosomology? Take a look and tell us what you think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
-
Tom, these ad hominems against the ancient Greeks are really getting annoying. If you can't refute Philolaus' or Aristotle's work on cosmology directly, then shut your trap. >:(
Uh, markjo, are you familiar with Aristotle's work on cosomology? Take a look and tell us what you think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
That's more like it. I never said or meant to imply that Aristotle's cosmology was 100% accurate. The ancient Greeks wrong about a lot of things. So what? They were right about a lot of things too. I'm just sick of Tom derailing these discussions with his irrelevant rantings about Aristotle's thoughts on frogs and teeth. If Tom wants to refute Aristotle's cosmology, then he should stick to Aristotle's cosmology.
-
Well okay, but to be honest I think Tom's doing the man a favour by bringing those points up instead of Aristotle's cosmological model. In his model, the Earth was surrounded by a russian doll-esque series of spheres. These spheres were made out of 'perfect' substances, unlike the regular, boring kind of substances we have here on Earth. Finally, this whole thing was set in motion by the 'prime mover', which you can essentially read as 'God'; a being who moves but is unmoved. I won't go into the basis of Aristotle's arguments here, but you can read his Metaphysics if you want to learn more.
What's perhaps especially useful about this model is that it demonstrates the limitations of viewing a theory's predictive power as an indication of its truth-value. For all its absurdity, Aristotle's model was capable of predicting the motions of the heavens, despite being so utterly, totally wrong.
-
What's perhaps especially useful about this model is that it demonstrates the limitations of viewing a theory's predictive power as an indication of its truth-value. For all its absurdity, Aristotle's model was capable of predicting the motions of the heavens, despite being so utterly, totally wrong.
Then it's a good thing that RET doesn't use Aristotle's model any more, isn't it? Again, I'm not saying that Aristotle's model was 100% accurate. However, it was more accurate than the previous model. And in turn, later models became more accurate than Aristotle's. That's how science works, take the current model and make it better.
-
What's perhaps especially useful about this model is that it demonstrates the limitations of viewing a theory's predictive power as an indication of its truth-value. For all its absurdity, Aristotle's model was capable of predicting the motions of the heavens, despite being so utterly, totally wrong.
Then it's a good thing that RET doesn't use Aristotle's model any more, isn't it? Again, I'm not saying that Aristotle's model was 100% accurate. However, it was more accurate than the previous model. And in turn, later models became more accurate than Aristotle's. That's how science works, take the current model and make it better.
What holds true for one model may hold true for another. Predictive power != truth.
-
In addition to these methods, we also have an excellent understanding of how stars work. Our models of stellar structure are excellent predictors of the properties and evolution of stars. As it turns out, the mass of a star determines its life history from day 1, for all times thereafter, not only when the star is on the Main Sequence. So actually, the position of a star on the H-R diagram is a good indicator of its mass, regardless of whether it's on the Main Sequence or not.
Have you ever observed nuclear fusion? Have you ever seen an atom? Ever noticed that Quantum Mechanics is based on probabilities and assumptions to prevent the model from falling apart? We know absolutely nothing about stars. We have never observed a single one beyond wavelength. We know even less about the "atom"... after 100s of years chemists have failed in their original goal: making gold, and they have failed to describe the nature of matter as well!
For low cost observations of nuclear fusion (non government), try General Fusion.
http://www.generalfusion.com/files/evidence.pdf
For observations of a star beyond "one wavelength", try here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21793.0
I will also be happy to restart the Solar Neutrino thread, starting with plenty of relevant hardware information.
Next, "We know even less about the "atom"... ", except that we know it doesn't look like proton-neutron pudding. We also know that we can smash atoms together and make pretty pictures like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics
I would say that is something.