The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: MROC on December 19, 2006, 11:49:28 AM
-
Has anyone discussed Einstein's theories as they may pertain to a Flat Earth theory? Einstein believed that objects actually warp the space around them. The greater the mass the greater the pull on space. He explains that the moon is trying to move in a straight line, but because the space in which it travels is warped around the earth, it "orbits" around us.
I'm not saying that I believe the earth is flat. I am however willing to question most of what we take for granted. When I was in grade school I was taught that our solar system had 9 planets. This wasn't questionable. It was fact. Now schools are saying they were wong. You cannot know what you read in a text book. You can choose to beleive it if you'd like, but don't claim to know. You could read a book about sky diving, but you wouldn't know what it was like unless you did it yourself.
-
I reference Einstein daily.
This is in the wrong place, so it's getting moved.
-
I reference Einstein daily.
This is in the wrong place, so it's getting moved.
Ok, I understand moving it if it was in the wrong place. My mistake. Sorry about that. Won't happen again.
but "I reference Einstein daily"? I don't get it. Do you want me to read through your posts? HAHA! GFY buddy.
-
but "I reference Einstein daily"? I don't get it. Do you want me to read through your posts? HAHA! GFY buddy.
What's not to get? You asked if anyone talks about his theories.
I said I do, daily here on the site.
Is there something in particular you would like to know about those references?
-
but "I reference Einstein daily"? I don't get it. Do you want me to read through your posts? HAHA! GFY buddy.
What's not to get? You asked if anyone talks about his theories.
I said I do, daily here on the site.
-
And?
-
And?
And his theories are discussed. From Lord Byron's essay, the following is particularly relevant for other reasons than just the fact that something like relativity was needed by heliocentrists to whitewash the Michelson-Morley results:
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
As most of the founders and leaders of modern disciplines are Jewish, this state of affairs is neither natural nor a conincidence. This phenomenon has been artificially and successfully brought about by millenia of focused effort. Jewish men like Einstein and Freud among others do not hold the positions or status they have because the things that they assert are true (their doctrines are in fact false). That is not how the modern World functions.
Jewish men like Einstein, Freud, and Churchill owe their fame to a secret order which they serve and which granted them their status because of their service and loyalty. This order has a vast network of tentacles and levels (including demons, or fallen angels in its upper echelons) which comprise the modern World. The Devil is served by hordes of demons arranged in a remarkeble order and which have various accomplices in the realm of men. Politically speaking, that society which is at the head of all such bodies of men is a small and necessarily most secretive order of Hebrew leaders - the Kahal, or Sanhedrin which is in these latter days the most politically powerful organization in the World. The reason that men of Jewish extraction dominate all disciplines is that the Sanhedrin has contrived this state of affairs over many centuries. All these men like Albert Einstein indirectly serve the Sanhedrin whether they realize it or not. The 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' is one of the most significant and revealing examples of the literature of this order to ever be published:
www.radioislam.org/protocols/index.htm
www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm
www.aztlan.net/protocolos.htm
http://ddickerson.igc.org/The_Protocols_of_the_Learned_Elders_of_Zion.pdf
When the Kahal decided that political conditions were conducive to Jewish mgration to Palestine, Theodore Herzl convened convened the first World Zionist Congress in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, a country from which much activity by this Order has been directed. The implementation of the Protocols referenced above was the actual agenda of the conference. According to a Russian policeman, a copy of this document was used considerably among those at the speakers' podium. This history is contained in the informative introduction that the Russian Orthodox Madame Paquita de Shishmareff wrote to her translation of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion':
www.fromthehousetops.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=166
There have been attempts by Jewish organizations since the Protocols of Zion were first published to disown them by asserting that they are a racist forgery:
http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html
The phenomenon that the press (the Jewish Kahal controlled media) assigned as the definitive proof that the Protocols were a forgery in the early 1920's was the fact that much of the text of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is identical to many chapters of a book by a revolutionary (Maurice Joly who protested Napoleon III) published in French in 1864 entitled 'Dialogue Aux Enfers Entre Machiavel et Montesquieu':
www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=87686&pageno=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Joly
However, 'Secret Societies and Subversive Movements' by Nesta Webster (1924) which contains lengthy side by side comparions of text from each book states that Joly's book was also published in Geneva (where the Protocols are accused of having been first published as their original edition is also in French and the city of Geneva was the nerve centre of revolutionary activity during the nineteenth century as well as where the zionist movement was launched; and Voltaire's and the United Nations and World Bank's headquarters for that matter). Websta does not deny that the Protocols copies Joly's book, but she presents the credible argument that the same Order produced both. Masterpeices of any art form including great speeches, dissertations, or plans are seldom contrived in a single day. The 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is the culmination of years of work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7_qGS7PpG0gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=nesta+webster,+secret+societies+and+subversive+movements&psp=1
http://hiddenmysteries.com/xcart/product.php?productid=16186
http://ellhn.e-e-e.gr/books/assets/secret_societies.pdf
It is due to publication by Russian Orthodox faithful that the modern World has this valuable document. Sergei Nilus is the pious savant who published this document in Russian translation in 1901 as part of a little book entitled 'The Great Within the Small: The Coming of AntiChrist and the Rule of Satan on Earth':
www.biblebelievers.org.au/truth.htm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sergei_nilus.jpg
Beginning particularly with Peter the "Great," Russian civilization apostatized in the direction of western apostasy during the eighteenth century. During the course of the nineteenth century, many Russians sought to regain the Christian piety which was common in Russia prior to Peter. The centre of this Russian Orthodox revival was Optina Monastery. Both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky visited and wrote about Optina. Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov' is based on Optina. Father Barsanuphios was the Abbot of Optina at the emd of the nineteenth century. Father Barsanuphios was Sergei Nilus's spiritual father:
www.sainthermanpress.com/catalog/chapter_six/barsanuphius_book.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n254.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Einstein and Modern Physics by Nathan Martin Gwynne
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf
ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY. The jewish relativity farce has maintained its popularity because it has been supported by universitites and other institutions and influential persons which are controlled by masonic fraternities. Einstein's fame was not due to any scientific investigations or conclusions that he made which were all disproven by his contemporaries. Einstein's theories only became widely accepted through american propaganda and dominance of scientific institutions, and america is dominated by masonry more than any country in the World. The widespread acceptance of relativity has had nothing to do with truth or genuine science.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8165.html
www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip063/2005032681.html
Albert Einstein performed the work of creating confusion and disinformation that was assigned to him by the Kahal. Einstein's complicity with the Elders of Zion is evidenced among other things by the facts that he co-wrote a book with fellow jewish zionist Sigmund Freud entitled 'Why War?: A Correspondence Between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud':
www.wordit.com/why/why_war.html
Einstein was publicly offered the presidency of the terrorist state of Israel when Chaim Weizmann died in 1952. Einstein was very politically active all his life. He essentially performed the Marxist role of ensuring that the worldwide political left (including revolutionaries who legitimately wanted freedom for their peoples from colonialism) remained faithful to the oppressive World system of the zionists. Einstein helped ensure that only those revolutionaries first indoctrinated in american and western universities would rise to power as native representatives (i.e. dictators) of the colonial powers which had officially withdrawn. An example of this was Einstein's close relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru of India. Nehru's hypocritical and oppressive policies against native and traditional peoples throughout "greater India" like the Nagas and many other peoples as well as the anti-traditional and unnatural secularization of India are effectively extensions of the worst of British rule (under brutal colonialist prime ministers like the jew Disraeli) and the furthering of demonic conquest of the soul of India due to the influence of close "friends" of Nehru's like Albert Einstein in particular. Recognizing his malevolent infuence, Einstein was deported by the Nazis in 1934 due to his Stalinist agitation within Germany. Giving the lie to his peace rhetoric by his actions, Einstein imported German technology to the United States and played a crucial role in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by way of assistance rendered to J. Robert Oppenheimer and Vannevar Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer
www.doug-long.com/bush.htm
http://ohst.berkeley.edu/oppenheimer/exhibit/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lane Poor (1866-1951)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
Astronomer Charles Poor wrote the earliest refutations of Einstein's relativity theory. Professor Poor wrote books refuting the relativity theory both before and after it was well publicized.
Pope Pius XII and Traditional Papism Conflicts With Relativity
'The Derailment of Einstein' by Fritz Albers
http://members.iinet.net.au/~raphael/sc_1_2.html
THE CASE AGAINST EINSTEIN
'The Case Against Einstein' by Sir Artrhur Lynch (1932) is the definitive refutation of the relativity theory. A sharp contrast to the vagueness of its pro-Einstein detractors, the book is very clear and makes perfect sense.
'Euclid Versus Einstein' by J. J. Johnson illustrates how relativity theory flies in the face of common sense and the 'Elements' of Euclid, the Alexandrian mathematician whose laws have served as the basis of math from the fourth centruy before Christ throughout the Middle Ages and until the twentieth century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Euclid.html
www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-01/3-01.htm
Euclid's 'Elements'
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/toc.html
Herbert Dingle (1890-1978)
Herbert Dingle was Albert Einstein's colleague and enthusiastic early promoter who authored early books which explained and promoted the relativity theories. Dingle was more familiar with the details of the relativity theories than Einstein himself. During the late 1950's an inconsistency in the relativity theory became apparent to Dingle which he wrote about in a scientific journal entitled 'Nature' throughout the 1960's. Dingle ended by writing a book published in 1971 which completely refutes the relativity theory entitled 'Science at the Crossroads.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle
'Herbert Dingle Was Correct' by Harry H. Ricker III:
www.wbabin.net/science/ricker23.pdf
www.holoscience.com/news/slow_light.html
'Reflections on Relativity'
www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm
-
What a load of crap. I am unable to support anything that has such a misguided racist view.
Of course it is well documented that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a completely fraudulant document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion
If I see another racist post from one of the "core" flat Earthers, I will change sides for good.
-
If I see another racist post from one of the "core" flat Earthers, I will change sides for good.
Hope you enjoyed your time as a "flat Earther" as there is more "racist" material from Lord Byron's pen (according to your understanding of the word and your view of the authenticity of the Protocols of Zion and therefore so much of history and the modern World) than you would care to know.
Incidentally, attitudes such as the one above were anticipated as an even more well informed (that is to say more insidious than the naive remarks which beast made) attack on the authenticity of the Protocols by a Jewish writer than the wikipedia article which was posted by "beast" in the article above:
http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html
That is not to say that the beast's focus is on his accusation of racism rather than the biographical history and science which dominate the latter part of Lord Byron's article such as the following statement:
ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.
-
Hope you enjoyed your time as a "flat Earther" as there is more "racist" material from Lord Byron's pen
It's creepy when you talk about yourself in the 3rd person.
-
Hope you enjoyed your time as a "flat Earther" as there is more "racist" material from Lord Byron's pen
It's creepy when you talk.
-
Hope you enjoyed your time as a "flat Earther" as there is more "racist" material from Lord Byron's pen
It's creepy when you talk about yourself in the 3rd person.
infidel guy, please note the "joined" date for the previous poster. He by no mean represents the FE believers or their views.
It's creepy when moderators do not concur about these things.
-
You are not fooling anybody. All us mods know.
-
In other words, we are still awaiting your comment on the topic at hand:
Has anyone discussed Einstein's theories as they may pertain to a Flat Earth theory?
Is there something in particular you would like to know about those references?
ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.
-
ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE
Actually, for a while I didn't really think Einstein was so smart. Then I read some of his stuff -- turns out he was a pretty brilliant guy.
... TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.
Actually, nobody respectable thought for a second that heliocentric astronomy had become threatened as a result of the null result. They were more concerned at the time with explaining how light worked.
-
In other words, we are still awaiting your comment on the topic at hand:
Has anyone discussed Einstein's theories as they may pertain to a Flat Earth theory?
Is there something in particular you would like to know about those references?
ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.
Actually...you would like to talk about conspiracy behind Einstein and how he came to be known. That isn't what I was talking about. Maybe you should read the first post. I was asking if anyone has discussed or thought about the theory that a mass can have it's own gravitational force which bends the fabric of space. If that was true it could reinforce a belief that the earth isn't necessarily spherical just because it looks that way.
but no need to keep this discussion going. You've already bored me.
-
Actually, nobody respectable thought for a second that heliocentric astronomy had become threatened as a result of the null result. They were more concerned at the time with explaining how light worked.
Wrong.
Where did you read that "nobody respectable thought for a second that heliocentric astronomy had become threatened as a result of the null result"? I have read papers by scientists of that time that indicate the opposite. I have in my posession an essay by Michelson from 1925 asserting that geocentrism is true, and Einstein himself admits that Michelson's 1887 experiment was the basis of his relativity theory.
There were geocentric and flat Earth movements then with a lot more followers than nowadays. And respectable people both then and now know that heliocentrism was threatened. The truth is that nobody respectable denies that heliocentric astronomy was threatened.
Obsession with the way light works is precisely the intended distraction from the heliocentrist's weak spot - Michelson's discovery that the Earth travels at a speed of zero. Relativity was an unnecessarily complicated answer conducive to heliocentric theory advanced as an explanation of Michelson's experiment. Relativity disregards the absolute and simple laws of Euclid and even William of Occam by disregarding the simplest and most obvious explanation of Michelson's experiment.
The simple fact is that Michelson disproved heliocentrism, and Einstein's theory of relativity is based on Michelson's experiment. Without Michelson's experiment, relativity theory would not have been necessary.
-
I have in my posession an essay by Michelson from 1925 asserting that geocentrism is true,
Can you provide this document electronically? I haven't seen it. I'm assuming, of course, that you're not referring to the one in which Michelson says, "Therefore the speed of the Earth relative to the æther is less than such-and-such," since that obviously does not demonstrate the truth of geocentrism.
Also, I would be very happy to see any papers you have from reputable scientists showing concern for the validity of heliocentrism as a result of the null result.
Michelson's discovery that the Earth travels at a speed of zero.
...relative to a substance that has not been proven to exist.
Relativity was an unnecessarily complicated answer conducive to heliocentric theory advanced as an explanation of Michelson's experiment.
False. Firstly, (special) relativity is shockingly simple -- if you want to see unnecessary complication, look no further than the system of epicycles devised to save geocentrism.
Secondly, heliocentrism was by that time well-established. Newtonian gravity and Keplerian orbits explained the motion of the planets against the background of the fixed stars better and more parsimoniously than any geocentric theory.
Relativity disregards the absolute and simple laws of Euclid
... whose non-self-evident fifth postulate mathematicians, for two thousand years, failed to prove. Relativity was not the first theory to depart from euclidean geometry; theoreticians in the 19th century had already been discussing such things.
The simple fact is that Michelson disproved heliocentrism, and Einstein's theory of relativity is based on Michelson's experiment. Without Michelson's experiment, relativity theory would not have been necessary.
It is true that relativity is an answer to Michelson-Morley; however, it cannot be logically shown that Michelson-Morley and heliocentrism are inconsistent. I invite you to try -- but if you are to rely on the æther, you must demonstrate that it exists.
-
I have in my posession an essay by Michelson from 1925 asserting that geocentrism is true
Can you provide this document electronically? I haven't seen it.
Michelson's discovery that the Earth travels at a speed of zero.
...relative to a substance that has not been proven to exist.
Aether was generally accepted as reality before the Michelson-Morley-Einstein era and has become something widely viewed as archaic during the twentieth century because of spurious interpretations of Michelson's experiment such as Einstein's relativity. I also posess an essay arguing the reality of aether. I would like to post both of these on-line when I get the chance, but most people are probably more interested in a Flat Earth map of the World which I obtained from Charles Johnson back in 1996 which I intend to get a copy of to Daniel as soon as I get the chance as I hear he is interested in providing copies to new members of the Flat Earth Society.
At any rate, if anyone is interested in obtaining either Michelson's 1925 essay with his repeat experiment or the essay on aether they are both available from the Cercle Scientifique et Historique which has offices in France, Belgium, and Italy:
www.chez.com/ceshe/
False. Firstly, (special) relativity is shockingly simple -- if you want to see unnecessary complication, look no further than the system of epicycles devised to save geocentrism.
False. Epicycles were not invented to save geocentrism. Heliocentrism versus geocentrism never became much of a controversy in Europe until the sixteenth century Anno Domini. Throughout the era when epicycles were being advanced, the principle cosmographical debate was between globularists and traditional flat Earth cosmographers. Both of these schools of thought believed that the Sun orbits the Earth - they were both geocentric. In other words, geocentrism was not under attack as you say.
And whether you view relativity as simple or not, it has often been presented as something sophisticated and very difficult to understand owing in no small part to complicated mathematics.
heliocentrism was by that time well-established.
False. If heliocentrism was well established then popular geocentric movements would not have existed at the time like those documented in Martin Gardners book such as the geocentrism of the Anglican and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synods during the nineteenth centruy, not to mention the efforts of people like Einstein trying to kill it.
Newtonian gravity and Keplerian orbits explained the motion of the planets against the background of the fixed stars better and more parsimoniously than any geocentric theory.
False. It is unnecessarily complicated. The heliocentrism adds no advantage whatsoever as geocentrists have for millenia been able to predict things like eclipses centuries in advance with no trouble, but heliocentrism places such things farther from the grasp of people not specially trained than the more natural and realistic geocentrism does. Heliocentrism only adds obstacles and difficulty in explaining the universe such as how the Earth allegedly moves between the Sun and Moon during those documented Lunar Eclipses when the Sun and Moon were both visible in the Sky at the same time.
Relativity disregards the absolute and simple laws of Euclid
... whose non-self-evident fifth postulate mathematicians, for two thousand years, failed to prove.
"If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."
This truth is self evident as so many (Ptolemy, Proclus, Arqab mathematicians, et cetera) have acknowledged for over 2300 years.
I didn't really think Einstein was so smart. Then I read some of his stuff -- turns out he was a pretty brilliant guy.
Relativity was not the first theory to depart from euclidean geometry; theoreticians in the 19th century had already been discussing such things.
So EINSTEIN DID NOT ORIGINATE these (albeit false) ideas after all.
It is true that relativity is an answer to Michelson-Morley
If not the implication of geocentrism, then exactly what aspect of Michelson and Morley's 1887 experiment do you believe relativity theory answers? What about Michelson's experiment necessitated some kind of answer which relativity supplied (in your view)?
-
At any rate, if anyone is interested in obtaining either Michelson's 1925 essay with his repeat experiment or the essay on aether they are both available from the Cercle Scientifique et Historique which has offices in France, Belgium, and Italy:
www.chez.com/ceshe/
Thanks; I will have a look at these.
False. Epicycles were not invented to save geocentrism.
But they are required in a geocentric cosmology, but not in a heliocentric one. What were they devised to explain?
And whether you view relativity as simple or not, it has often been presented as something sophisticated and very difficult to understand owing in no small part to complicated mathematics.
It is true that special relativity is often presented in a complicated way -- I think this is very unfortunate. However, the mathematics underlying it are much simpler than most people realize; the primary hurdle in understanding it is an intuitive one.
If heliocentrism was well established then popular geocentric movements would not have existed at the time like those documented in Martin Gardners book such as the geocentrism of the Anglican and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synods during the nineteenth centruy,
The support of some antiquated theories by some groups does not imply that those theories' replacements are not well-established. You must admit that evolution is well-established (I am not asking you to believe the theory; merely that "the establishment" supports it) despite its numerous detractors.
[Newtonian/Keplerian mechanics] is unnecessarily complicated. The heliocentrism adds no advantage whatsoever as geocentrists have for millenia been able to predict things like eclipses centuries in advance with no trouble,
In what way is Newtonian theory unnecessarily complicated?
For the purpose of predicting eclipses, geocentrism naturally suffices. However, try predicting eclipses of the Sun from Mars by its moons while that planet is undergoing retrograde motion... it is quite clear that treating Mars or the Sun as the centre of the system is more appropriate in this case. Do you have any examples besides eclipses?
Heliocentrism does provide advantages. For example, according to Genesis, God only put two major lights in the heavens -- the Sun and the Moon. This implies, for example, that Venus is not a source of light. Venus does glow, so the light must be coming from either the Sun or the Moon. However, in the geocentric model, this means that the phases of Venus can be either crescent/full (if Venus is farther from the Earth than the Sun) or gibbous/new (if Venus is closer), but not both. In 1610, however, Galileo observed Venus to have all four phases. In general, the phases of the Moon and of the planets are far more easily explained in the heliocentric model than in the geocentric.
but heliocentrism places such things farther from the grasp of people not specially trained than the more natural and realistic geocentrism does. Heliocentrism only adds obstacles and difficulty in explaining the universe such as how the Earth allegedly moves between the Sun and Moon during those documented Lunar Eclipses when the Sun and Moon were both visible in the Sky at the same time.
I have never heard of anybody finding heliocentrism difficult to grasp. As for the supposed difficulty that you mention -- if Bob shines a flashlight on Alice, I can certainly interpose my body between them so as to cast a shadow on Alice and yet still be able to see both of them. This is because Alice and I have spatial extent (we are not mere points).
So far I feel that these two examples that you have brought up illustrate more your unwillingness to consider heliocentrism; I know you are intelligent enough to understand this lunar-eclipse example without any scientific training.
"If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."
This truth is self evident as so many (Ptolemy, Proclus, Arqab mathematicians, et cetera) have acknowledged for over 2300 years.
Not at all. You are ignoring the level on which the other posulates are self-evident: the notion that any two points can be joined by a straight line (the first postulate) is far more obvious that than the fifth postulate.
But it is a moot point, since the fifth postulate is not in fact true; there are geometries in which it is false.
So EINSTEIN DID NOT ORIGINATE these (albeit false) ideas after all.
Not in every detail; have you read his work? He credits others who have contributed (Lorenz, for example).
If not the implication of geocentrism, then exactly what aspect of Michelson and Morley's 1887 experiment do you believe relativity theory answers? What about Michelson's experiment necessitated some kind of answer which relativity supplied (in your view)?
Well, it hinges on whether you accept that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed there to be no either, which hinges on your belief in geocentrism. Relativity asserts that light is not a disturbance in any medium and that its speed is the same in all reference frames.
p.s. By the way, suppose you are right and that the MM experiment proves that the Earth is stationary relative to the æther. What do you conclude would happen if the experiment were performed in a moving vehicle?
-
You must admit that evolution is well-established (I am not asking you to believe the theory; merely that "the establishment" supports it) DESPITE ITS NUMEROUS DETRACTORS.
Nonsense. Today, a well established establishment (your "numerous detractors") laughs at evolution.
You assume that Venus reflects the light of the Sun. This is false. Venus certainly does glow. It emits its own light just as the Moon does. I follow more ancient authorities than the ones you are taken up with such as Galileo. How exactly does this guy observe phases of Venus?
So far I feel that these two examples that you have brought up illustrate more your unwillingness to consider heliocentrism.
You don't even need the two examples. I will tell you straightforward:
I AM UNWILLING TO CONSIDRE HELIOCENTRISM AS LEGITIMATE.
I suppose that makes one a heretic according to your science. If so, then I take it as a compliment, but I can say the same thing with more strength concerning your examples as the nature of your examples is exceedingly esoteric. You talk of arcane and esoteric things as if they are common knowledge (and derive false conclusions using unfounded logic). Your examples are often more difficult to ascertain the truth of than mine; so it is difficult for people to investigate and determine that what you are saying is false. Why do speak of eclipses of Mars with an associated pseudo-math and fail to considre what people see everyday in the World of reality as the SUN MOVES ACROSS THE SKY? As far as that goes, what makes you assume that Mars is big enough to make any significant eclpise? Mars is exceedingly small as is Venus and all the other Stars (which all emit their own light which reaches us on Earth instantaneously).
the fifth postulate is not in fact true; there are geometries in which it is false.
False. It is in fact true. What geometry are you speaking of? Something connected with Descartes by any chance?
At least you put more thought in your previous reply that anyone else with a reasonable point such as the relevance of aether, but your arguments are now slipping and you are resorting to crazy tangents (i.e. eclipses of the Moons of Mars, et cetera) or daring falsehoods (God only put two major lights in the heavens -- the Sun and the Moon. This implies, for example, that Venus is not a source of light). Your prejudice
is transparent.
-
You assume that Venus reflects the light of the Sun. This is false. Venus certainly does glow. It emits its own light just as the Moon does. I follow more ancient authorities than the ones you are taken up with such as Galileo. How exactly does this guy observe phases of Venus?
Galileo, any many since him, observe the phases of Venus with a telescope, a device which operates according to startlingly simple principles. What authorities do you follow? What makes you think that Venus (or the Moon for that matter) indeed emits its own light? By what mechanism do you propose that this effect occurs?
You don't even need the two examples. I will tell you straightforward:
I AM UNWILLING TO CONSIDRE HELIOCENTRISM AS LEGITIMATE.
Why? Don't you find that being unwilling to consider alternatives restricts your ability to find the truth? What if, unbeknownst to you, the truth can only be found amongst the possibilities you refuse to consider? Wouldn't the ancients have found this to be an exceedingly narrow point of view?
You talk of arcane and esoteric things as if they are common knowledge (and derive false conclusions using unfounded logic). Your examples are often more difficult to ascertain the truth of than mine; so it is difficult for people to investigate and determine that what you are saying is false.
This is just your opinion. If not, I invite you to explain to the "common people" whose intelligence you implicitly impugn exactly why what I am saying is false. I further invite you to do it yourself, without quoting verbose texts whose irrelevance can only be determined after great length.
As for my logic -- I assure you, sir, it is well-founded. I continue to offer the challenge to find specific faults in it.
Why do speak of eclipses of Mars etc.
A telescope, my friend; pray avail yourself of a telescope.
False. It [Euclid's fifth postulate] is in fact true. What geometry are you speaking of? Something connected with Descartes by any chance?
Not at all. I refer to all non-Euclidean geometries, of which the simplest example is the geometry of the surface of a sphere.
your arguments are now slipping and you are resorting to crazy tangents
At no point have you expressed anything but your own opinion. For the third time I offer you the opportunity to find specific faults with my arguments (more specific than merely, "The moons of Mars etc."... what about those moons?)
daring falsehoods (God only put two major lights in the heavens -- the Sun and the Moon. This implies, for example, that Venus is not a source of light).
I claim that Venus emits no light of its own... as for the two major lights -- I am merely regurgitating Genesis. Are you calling the veracity of that book of orthodox wisdom into question?
-
What a load of crap. I am unable to support anything that has such a misguided racist view.
Of course it is well documented that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a completely fraudulant document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion
If I see another racist post from one of the "core" flat Earthers, I will change sides for good.
I assume you're jewish?
-
KOFKA
-
I'd like to point out I'm not jewish and I'd rather not believe racist crap as well even if its just about the jews...
-
You assume that Venus reflects the light of the Sun. This is false. Venus certainly does glow. It emits its own light just as the Moon does. I follow more ancient authorities than the ones you are taken up with such as Galileo. How exactly does this guy observe phases of Venus?
Galileo, any many since him, observe the phases of Venus with a telescope, a device which operates according to startlingly simple principles. What authorities do you follow? What makes you think that Venus (or the Moon for that matter) indeed emits its own light? By what mechanism do you propose that this effect occurs?
You don't even need the two examples. I will tell you straightforward:
I AM UNWILLING TO CONSIDRE HELIOCENTRISM AS LEGITIMATE.
Why? Don't you find that being unwilling to consider alternatives restricts your ability to find the truth? What if, unbeknownst to you, the truth can only be found amongst the possibilities you refuse to consider? Wouldn't the ancients have found this to be an exceedingly narrow point of view?
You talk of arcane and esoteric things as if they are common knowledge (and derive false conclusions using unfounded logic). Your examples are often more difficult to ascertain the truth of than mine; so it is difficult for people to investigate and determine that what you are saying is false.
This is just your opinion. If not, I invite you to explain to the "common people" whose intelligence you implicitly impugn exactly why what I am saying is false. I further invite you to do it yourself, without quoting verbose texts whose irrelevance can only be determined after great length.
As for my logic -- I assure you, sir, it is well-founded. I continue to offer the challenge to find specific faults in it.
Why do speak of eclipses of Mars etc.
A telescope, my friend; pray avail yourself of a telescope.
False. It [Euclid's fifth postulate] is in fact true. What geometry are you speaking of? Something connected with Descartes by any chance?
Not at all. I refer to all non-Euclidean geometries, of which the simplest example is the geometry of the surface of a sphere.
your arguments are now slipping and you are resorting to crazy tangents
At no point have you expressed anything but your own opinion. For the third time I offer you the opportunity to find specific faults with my arguments (more specific than merely, "The moons of Mars etc."... what about those moons?)
daring falsehoods (God only put two major lights in the heavens -- the Sun and the Moon. This implies, for example, that Venus is not a source of light).
I claim that Venus emits no light of its own... as for the two major lights -- I am merely regurgitating Genesis. Are you calling the veracity of that book of orthodox wisdom into question?
I'd also like to agree.. that when you refuse to even consider the believe opposed to your own you are being so narrow minded your judgment will be completly clouded... be open...I believe in a spherical earth... but I'm in these forums looking at the flat earth ideas to consider their plausibility... further more I will tell you I believe that the pictures of the universe and of the supposed space probe are to amazing for any human to have created...but that to me is only emotional prove that the universe is bigger
than just a flat earth and stars 4000miles away...
-
"If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."
Not at all. You are ignoring the level on which the other posulates are self-evident: the notion that any two points can be joined by a straight line (the first postulate) is far more obvious that than the fifth postulate.
But it is a moot point, since the fifth postulate is not in fact true; there are geometries in which it is false.
It [Euclid's fifth postulate] is in fact true. What geometry are you speaking of?
I refer to all non-Euclidean geometries, of which the simplest example is the geometry of the surface of a sphere.
The surface of a sphere is outside the strict definition of Euclid's fifth postulate as stated above which clearly refers to STRAIGHT lines.
-
The surface of a sphere is outside the strict definition of Euclid's fifth postulate as stated above which clearly refers to STRAIGHT lines.
Before I point out that I originally said that spherical geometry is non-Euclidean because it does not obey the fifth posulate, I'd like to inquire as to how you define a straight line.
-
I kind of had somewhat of a small revelation here.
If you were to apply the Theory of Relativity here, then may I suggest stemming away from it's mathematical backing and modification to the laws of physics?
If you break down the Theory of Relativity into it's most basic principle, you will notice that it is simple a matter of perception, which obviously falls into two categories: Round Earth and Flat Earth.
Each group perceives the earth in a different fashion, which to them makes sense. And as we well know, any thing that makes sense to somebody is generally, for the most part, taken as truth. I see the Earth as being round, and I have the evidence which supports that claim very validly from my point of view. This however is not a shared perception to some, who, with the evidence they claim, believe the Earth to be flat, from their point of view.
What it boils down to now is that no matter what anyone says, there are people who will refute the other's "facts" or "fictions". Some people cannot be convinced, and nothing anyone can say or do can change that.
But as a last effort, I'm going to ask a simple series of questions.
=======
The Tennis Ball Model
1) You say that the planets and the earth look like plain circles from space (even with the evidence that shows that the visible surface area is not sufficient enough to hold all the water and land). When you look at a tennis ball, it too looks like a plain circle. Yet when you hold it, it feels like a sphere, correct?
2) When you toss it, it spins, and the axis it spins on can be different, depending on how you throw it, no?
3) If yes, then that would indicate that it is indeed spherical, correct?
4) If I can push it along one axis from side to side in the space that I can see, and also move it away and towards me, even though it looks flat, that would indicate a sphere, no?
Why can't some of that be applied to the earth? Surely it is viable, possible, and even likely based on the evidence that ToothPaste and myself have disputed that it just might be true that the Earth is spherical.
But that's for you guys to decide. I stated my relative views, I believe the earth is spherical, and have provided strong evidence (as well has ToothPaste) to prove that. And I have seen no evidence that makes any sense (all the theories are backed by nothing conclusive) as to make me reconsider the possibility of a flat Earth.
-
I kind of had somewhat of a small revelation here.
Please do not pollute threads with off-topic posts demanding evidence.
-
Our Textbook talks of the Pepper moth theory, which was fraudulent.
(Just adding this as another example for textbook mistakes.)
-
The peppered Moth theory hasn't been disproved at all actually. Unless there has been some very recent evidence found which I am unaware of.
-
The Pepper Moth Theory states that during the industrial revolution, smoke and junk and pollutants killed the light lichens growing on the beach trees of England and soot accumulated on the bark. The trees darkened. At the time right before it, there were more light moths than dark because the dark moths stood out against the light bark and were more easily spotted to be eaten. As the bark grew darker, the light moths stood out against the bark, and the dark camoflauged better. Thus, there were more dark than light. As environmental efforts cleaned up the earth (I'm being vague here), the beach trees became light again, and the light:dark ratio again shifted. There were more lights than darks.
Correct?
....
This would all be well and good. It would show natural selection wonderfully.
EXCEPT we missed something ---
Pepper moths rest on the backs of tree leaves. Not bark. the color of the bark makes no difference to the moths, who rest on tree leaves.
The pictures of the Pepper moths on bark were taken by pinning/gluing the Dead moths to the bark. They did not rest there. They rest on leaves.
The video came from using Laboratory moths who were so sluggish that they had to be warmed up on a car radiator. ( I read this somewhere.)
The birds learned of the free meal and came to chow.
Actually, this leaves another small hole. How do birds find their prey? They sure don't do it on eyesite alone. Don't they use UV light or something? I don't quite remember... I could look it up if you wish.
The pepper moth theory is a fraud.
This does not mean that there is no natural selection-- It simply means that the pepper moth theory is inaccurate.
Perhaps if they had done this with a bark-dwelling animal....
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth#Evolution
There are a number of criticisms of the Kettlewell study, most are simply restatements from Jonathan Well's book Icons of Evolution. As a consequence, very few of these criticisms show any merit and are easily refuted[3].
Kettlewell's study in the 1950s, which is the basis of the textbook account, was based on three experiments in which he released similar numbers of light and dark-coloured moths in Dorset (rural) and Birmingham (industrial, heavily polluted at that time) and then estimated how many of each type were taken by predators (birds). The three experiments used different methods of estimating how many moths fell victim to predators.
Later studies which sampled the percentages of light- and dark-coloured peppered moths living in unpolluted rural areas and in polluted industrial areas showed several measurements that seem to argue against the conventional story, for example:
* In rural Wales, there was an unexpectedly high proportion of dark-coloured moths.
o However, the amount of moths is irrelevant, rather the predation and change in the population.
* In polluted south Wales, dark-coloured forms were only 20% of the total population of peppered moths.
o However, the amount of moths is irrelevant, rather the predation and change in the population.
* In rural East Anglia, dark-coloured forms were 80% of the total population of peppered moths.
o However, the amount of moths is irrelevant, rather the predation and change in the population.
* A study of 165 separate sites in Britain found that there was a correlation between melanism and the concentration of sulfur dioxide north of latitude 52°N, but the correlation south of that latitude was less clear.
o The Steward (1977) study found a strong correlation with melanism throughout Britain. However, south of the 52°N, it was found to be only the second most correlated factor after the east-west location. It was still a significant factor[4].
After pollution control legislation was implemented in the UK:
* The proportion of dark forms decreased north of London (as expected), but surprisingly increased to the south.
* Kettlewell and others found that light-coloured forms became more common before lichens re-appeared on trees in previously polluted areas. This undermines the idea that the lichens were the sole factor in causing light colored moths to be more common.
o The idea that visual predation is the only correlated factor Kettlewell introduced is a lie. The Kettlewell study accounted for the reasons the relative proportions of light and dark moths in East Anglia and northern Wales[5].
There have also been criticisms of the procedure Kettlewell used in his experiments. In particular:
* In normal circumstances, peppered moths rest much more often on the undersides of small, more or less horizontal branches than tree trunks.
o The moths resting on branches are also subject to predation.
* Kettlewell released his moths in the morning to avoid distorting their behaviour by using artificial light. But releasing the moths in the morning confused the moths so that they landed on the first moderately suitable objects they saw, which were tree-trunks. The moths would therefore have been much more exposed to predation than usual, irrespective of their coloration.
o This would have been true for both groups of moths, as this procedure was used in both. Since the Kettlewell's study there have been a number of studies on peppered moths, many of these didn't rely on released moths.
Most criticisms are based on Kettlewell's study. Many additional studies have been performed on the subject and the they all support the traditional story. Where the trees are darkened the dark colored moths tend to increase in frequency, where the trees are lighter the light colored moths increase in frequency.
-
Pepper moths rest on the backs of tree leaves.
-Of course they do. Some of the time. However, peppered moths rest most often on tree trunks and branches. As shown in this graph
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/images/majerus_table6_1.gif)
The pictures of the Pepper moths on bark were taken by pinning/gluing the Dead moths to the bark. They did not rest there. They rest on leaves.
-You're right, many textbook photographs of peppered moths were staged, as most textbook photos of insects are. the fact is entirely irrelevant, however, as "the point of such photos is not to prove the truth of the peppered moth story, it is to illustrate the relative crypsis of moth morphs on different backgrounds"
Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths) is the talk origins article explaining the problems with Well's theory.
-
...Wow...
Perhaps I am wrong.
... It is at this point that I feel brainwashed. :S I don't know what to believe anymore...
-
Religious people have a lot of lies they like to spread trying to discredit particular parts scientific theories that discredit religion.
Another great one is this one:
"If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?"
And then you answer "yes" and it turns out you aborted Beethoven. What a great way of demonstrating the evil of abortion. Except, unsurprisingly, like the peppered moth story - it's actually another lie from religion.
Beethoven was actually the oldest of the children that survived infancy, and had 3 siblings - none of which were blind, deaf or mentally retarded and there no evidence that Beethoven's Mum had syphilis.
-
Religious people have a lot of lies they like to spread trying to discredit particular parts scientific theories that discredit religion.
Another great one is this one:
"If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?"
And then you answer "yes" and it turns out you aborted Beethoven. What a great way of demonstrating the evil of abortion. Except, unsurprisingly, like the peppered moth story - it's actually another lie from religion.
Beethoven was actually the oldest of the children that survived infancy, and had 3 siblings - none of which were blind, deaf or mentally retarded and there no evidence that Beethoven's Mum had syphilis.
Actually, as a catholic we're supposed to say "no." :S Where did you get the "yes" from???
We are not the author of life. God is.
Gosh, I talk about religion alot, don't I?
Actually, I believe in evolution. There is nothing in doctrine that says we can't. Though there is a difference between the Theory and evolution itself.
Evolution, in my own terms, is something evolving from a simpler form to something more complex. Correct?
Evolutionism states that we all came from Primordial soup. While I do not say that this is not possible, we could have.... A "higher being" could have influenced it. And I believe God did.
In six days? No. This is just myth--Not to be taken literally, but a story going into the depths of marriage.
We could have evolved, but I believe GOd guided it.
Evolution does NOT discredit any catholic doctrine. Please tell, what is going through your mind when you say it is? Your assumption has me quite mystified.
-
Catholic belief certainly has been modified to accept the overwhelming evidence of science in some parts.
Evolution does not discredit Catholicism and I'd like you to show me where I said that. Obviously when I talk about religion - I am generalising. Not all religions are the same and I'm sure there are exceptions. The anti-abortion story was just an example of a lie that religious people like to spread - just as the pepper moth story is another such lie. Not all religious people tell lies and many don't know that what they're saying is lies.
-
Religious people have a lot of lies they like to spread trying to discredit particular parts scientific theories that discredit religion.
....
[another post]Obviously when I talk about religion - I am generalising.
Your generalization led me to believe you felt this way about Catholicism. I guess I jumped to conclusions. Religions are "generally" different, hence they're "different Religions."
Catholic belief certainly has been modified to accept the overwhelming evidence of science in some parts.
Really? Well... That's probably a good thing, then. :)
-
Catholic belief certainly has been modified to accept the overwhelming evidence of science in some parts
I don't think so.
I think rather the interpretation has been modified, but the beleif itself remained unchanged.
You talk of arcane and esoteric things as if they are common knowledge
Not that I often agree with Erasmus, but there was nothing arcane or esoteric in his statments.
You'll have to point them out.
-
I'd like to inquire as to how you define a straight line.
Black is the night in the mountains.
-
That is a bad example. The being a planet or not a planet agument is about the definition of what it means to be a planet. This is not an argument about what it means for the earth to be flat or round. It is one way or the other.
When I was in grade school I was taught that our solar system had 9 planets. This wasn't questionable. It was fact. Now schools are saying they were wong. You cannot know what you read in a text book. You can choose to beleive it if you'd like, but don't claim to know. You could read a book about sky diving, but you wouldn't know what it was like unless you did it yourself.
-
That quote from MROC is excellent, and so true too. I don't know what context is was said in, but that's the value I see in this forum.
-
It was a fact. Pluto, until VERY RECENTLY, was considered the 9th planet. Recent changes to the specifications which define "planet" have caused cosmologists to reduce Pluto's planetary status. That is also a fact. Neither was wrong at any point.
Everything else in that quote does hold true. And it applies to both FE and RE models.
-
It was a fact. Pluto, until VERY RECENTLY, was considered the 9th planet. Recent changes to the specifications which define "planet" have caused cosmologists to reduce Pluto's planetary status. That is also a fact. Neither was wrong at any point.
Everything else in that quote does hold true. And it applies to both FE and RE models.
Is this proof that something can have property X, and yet not have property X?
-
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
-
Do words have intrinsic meaning? Is it the definition of "planet" that has changed, or our interpretation of what the word means?
-
It was never really defined, according to the Wiki.
On August 24, 2006 the IAU defined the term "planet" for the first time. This definition excluded Pluto, which was then reclassified under the new category of dwarf planet along with Eris and Ceres.[1] Pluto is also classified as the prototype of a family of trans-Neptunian objects.[2][3] After the reclassification, Pluto was added to the list of minor planets and given the number 134340.[4][5]
Up until then, it seemed that the general "standard" would have been anything larger than Pluto. But now that there is a real, standard definition, it has affected Pluto's status as a planet, and reduced it to dwarf-planet, and it's official "name" changed to 134340.
So now we officially only have 8 planets.
Also note that school textbooks will most likely not reflect this within this year, possibly even a few years.
-
What do you call the statement next to "Planet" in my dictionary if you don't call it a definition?
Clearly the wikipedia article is talking about the fact that IAU have never defined the term "planet," not that the term has never been defined at all.
Idiot.
-
The Pepper Moth Theory states that during the industrial revolution, smoke and junk and pollutants killed the light lichens growing on the beach trees of England and soot accumulated on the bark. The trees darkened. At the time right before it, there were more light moths than dark because the dark moths stood out against the light bark and were more easily spotted to be eaten. As the bark grew darker, the light moths stood out against the bark, and the dark camoflauged better. Thus, there were more dark than light. As environmental efforts cleaned up the earth (I'm being vague here), the beach trees became light again, and the light:dark ratio again shifted. There were more lights than darks.
Correct?
....
This would all be well and good. It would show natural selection wonderfully.
EXCEPT we missed something ---
Pepper moths rest on the backs of tree leaves. Not bark. the color of the bark makes no difference to the moths, who rest on tree leaves.
The pictures of the Pepper moths on bark were taken by pinning/gluing the Dead moths to the bark. They did not rest there. They rest on leaves.
The video came from using Laboratory moths who were so sluggish that they had to be warmed up on a car radiator. ( I read this somewhere.)
The birds learned of the free meal and came to chow.
Actually, this leaves another small hole. How do birds find their prey? They sure don't do it on eyesite alone. Don't they use UV light or something? I don't quite remember... I could look it up if you wish.
The pepper moth theory is a fraud.
This does not mean that there is no natural selection-- It simply means that the pepper moth theory is inaccurate.
Perhaps if they had done this with a bark-dwelling animal....
i take it you have never seen a peppered moth? i live in england and i see them regularly they do sit on bark . do birds use uv light i assume you are actully stupid. birds find thier prey with exceptionally good eysight and superb hearing and a quite developed sense of smell .
natural selction is obvious it can be seen all over especially in animals when a feamle animal is trying to find a mate the males fight to show who is the strongest and who posesses the best genes yo pass on to the future generation
-
What do you call the statement next to "Planet" in my dictionary if you don't call it a definition?
Clearly the wikipedia article is talking about the fact that IAU have never defined the term "planet," not that the term has never been defined at all.
Idiot.
Why do you have to be a prick about every little thing?
You always make a goddam argument out of everything. Just shut up, take the information I gave you. I'm not the one writing it. You want to play semantics, go to Wiki.
-
Wiki isn't the person that claimed that "planet" has never really be defined.
It was you. I call you on the mistakes you make, because you make so many and yet are so arrogant and always act like you know what you're talking about and that your view is right and all the opposing views are wrong. Perhaps you should look at the way you post and think about how people will react to the way you say things if you don't like people attacking you.
-
Wiki isn't the person that claimed that "planet" has never really be defined.
It was you. I call you on the mistakes you make, because you make so many and yet are so arrogant and always act like you know what you're talking about and that your view is right and all the opposing views are wrong. Perhaps you should look at the way you post and think about how people will react to the way you say things if you don't like people attacking you.
Wikipedia can't really be trusted:
(http://photos-636.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v55/50/31/820251/n820251_33359636_6110.jpg)
-
There's a whole thread about this somewhere......
-
Actually I tend to think it largely can be trusted, especially since it sources all its facts and because people usually correct vandalism quickly. I wonder how long it takes for that comment you added to be corrected...
-
[Earth] is the largest planet in the world.
Well, it's actually kind of right; I mean, if we're restricting the choice of planets to "the world", then Earth is the largest planet. Granted, it's also the smallest. And the bluest. And the yellowest. And the most kitten-filled...
-
And the most kitten-filled...
We're so lucky.
-
Yes..
*Nibbles on kitten*
-
Actually I tend to think it largely can be trusted, especially since it sources all its facts and because people usually correct vandalism quickly. I wonder how long it takes for that comment you added to be corrected...
Hey, I didn't do that. I found that photo on Facebook.
-
I do not have to prove aether exists because it is irrelevant to Michelson and Morley's experiment which was to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.
Perhaps, then, you can explain how Michelson and Morley's experiment proved the Earth to be stationary. My understanding of this experiment is that it relies on the notion of the aether, and Earth's movement with respect to that substance.
-
I do not have to prove aether exists because it is irrelevant to Michelson and Morley's experiment which was to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.
Perhaps, then, you can explain how Michelson and Morley's experiment proved the Earth to be stationary. My understanding of this experiment is that it relies on the notion of the aether, and Earth's movement with respect to that substance.
Actually the Bible proved the Earth does not move long before he did.
-
Actually the Bible proved the Earth does not move long before he did.
Proved is the wrong word.
-
If I see another racist post from one of the "core" flat Earthers, I will change sides for good.
Hope you enjoyed your time as a "flat Earther" as there is more "racist" material from Lord Byron's pen (according to your understanding of the word and your view of the authenticity of the Protocols of Zion and therefore so much of history and the modern World) than you would care to know.
Incidentally, attitudes such as the one above were anticipated as an even more well informed (that is to say more insidious than the naive remarks which beast made) attack on the authenticity of the Protocols by a Jewish writer than the wikipedia article which was posted by "beast" in the article above:
http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html
That is not to say that the beast's focus is on his accusation of racism rather than the biographical history and science which dominate the latter part of Lord Byron's article such as the following statement:
ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.
The michelson-morley disporved aether, which has no connection with heliocentrism.
-
If I see another racist post from one of the "core" flat Earthers, I will change sides for good.
Hope you enjoyed your time as a "flat Earther" as there is more "racist" material from Lord Byron's pen (according to your understanding of the word and your view of the authenticity of the Protocols of Zion and therefore so much of history and the modern World) than you would care to know.
Incidentally, attitudes such as the one above were anticipated as an even more well informed (that is to say more insidious than the naive remarks which beast made) attack on the authenticity of the Protocols by a Jewish writer than the wikipedia article which was posted by "beast" in the article above:
http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html
That is not to say that the beast's focus is on his accusation of racism rather than the biographical history and science which dominate the latter part of Lord Byron's article such as the following statement:
ALBERT EINSTEIN, A LOYAL ZIONIST JEW OF MODERATE INTELLIGENCE WAS CHOSEN BY THE JEWISH KAHAL CHIEFLY TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITMIACY OF HELIOCENTRIC ASTRONOMY IN THE MINDS OF MEN AS IT HAD BECOME ENDANGERED WHEN THE WELL KNOWN MICHELSON / MORLEY EXPERIMENT OF 1887 BACKFIRED BY BLATANTLY AND IRREFUTABLY PROVING THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.
The michelson-morley disporved aether, which has no connection with heliocentrism.
Didn't they perform their experiment under the assumption that the Earth was moving? I could be thinking of a different experiment, but I thought the tested the speed of light going in the same direction as the Earth's movement and away from it to observe the Aether? The speed was the same so they said the Aether didn't exist. However, what if the Earth wasn't moving, but was stationary in the center? If that were the case, this experiment didn't prove or disprove anything.
-
Doesn't matter. Both FET and RET has evidence proving the earth is moving.
-
what if the Earth wasn't moving, but was stationary in the center?
Indeed, the conclusion reached by the experimenters is that, "If the aether exists, then the Earth is stationary to it within one part in such-and-such." Galilean relativity had been accepted long ago, so no physicist worth his salt would say "stationary [in the absolute sense]," but only, "[relative to such-and-such other object]". The "[]" mean: maybe it's implicit what it's relative to.
However, geocentrism was disproved by Galileo when he observed that Venus had a full complement of phases and is sometimes closer than, and sometimes farther than, the sun. This is not possible if Venus revolves around the Earth, rather than the sun, but is perfectly predicted by the heliocentric model. Therefore we are left to conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Given this, and since the Michelson-Morley experiment equivalently requires that the sun is stationary with respect to the aether, we are forced to conclude that there is no aether.
-
what if the Earth wasn't moving, but was stationary in the center?
Indeed, the conclusion reached by the experimenters is that, "If the aether exists, then the Earth is stationary to it within one part in such-and-such." Galilean relativity had been accepted long ago, so no physicist worth his salt would say "stationary [in the absolute sense]," but only, "[relative to such-and-such other object]". The "[]" mean: maybe it's implicit what it's relative to.
However, geocentrism was disproved by Galileo when he observed that Venus had a full complement of phases and is sometimes closer than, and sometimes farther than, the sun. This is not possible if Venus revolves around the Earth, rather than the sun, but is perfectly predicted by the heliocentric model. Therefore we are left to conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Given this, and since the Michelson-Morley experiment equivalently requires that the sun is stationary with respect to the aether, we are forced to conclude that there is no aether.
Ah, good explanation!
-
/signed