Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is a more suitable answer to my question. So sustained space flight is not impossible?
- I said that the sun did not disappear to perspective in the text your quoted.
The sun doesn't disappear to perspective like the sinking ship. Please consult Earth Not a Globe on the matter.
The evidence is my first hand testimony. You may peer review my claims if you wish.
Then organize a flight across Antarctica. This is probably one of the biggest longshots of FE - that Antarctica doesn't even exist. There are, literally, flights over Antarctica every day, to get from Argentina to New Zealand, or from South Africa to Australia.
So what's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
In biological terms, perfection is having a sufficient level of fitness.
So, according to your definition, a camera is perfect.
A camera for the most part is inorganic, thus the concept of fitness doesn't really apply.
In biological terms, perfection is having a sufficient level of fitness.
Reevaluate your definition of perfection.
It is extremely well documented that mans judgment is less than perfect. Thus most designs stemming from man will also inherit this imperfection. In contrast, devices designed by god, e.g., life, are perfect. If we were to accept this, then we would inevitably conclude that the cameras perception was more likely to be flawed than my eyes.
No I never said 2012. People played pranks and misquoted my statements. So even if you do find a quote, chances are I didn't write it.
OK well this is whats going to happen; in 2012 our reality will split into two. One version will face doom and destruction, the other timeline will enjoy peace and prosperity.
When I jump up, I see the ground move away from my feet. Am I doing something wrong?
Probably.
So we're supposed to believe that some society that won't even try to prove their own beliefs is going to hand over $10000 to someone who "proves" it.
Yeah.
Right.
You should lurk moar in your own forums.
Yeah, being in orbit around a RE wouldn't prove anything.
Ha ha ha.
Can someone book me a ticket in the next space mission?
Once you have the proof, you could sue him into the floor for not paying up.Religious fanatics still have money that is as fun to spend as anyone elses.
I agree... they just don't have the open mind to accept another point of view.
Why are you all scared? You argue with us for free, but you don't want to argue the exact same thing for $10k? Set this old guy straight. All these unclaimed FET wagers make RET look awful.
Religious fanatics still have money that is as fun to spend as anyone elses.
Can someone (perhaps Tom) explain to me how the rising sun can cast a shadow of a mountain on the bottom of clouds if Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is correct?
See:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/26/the-long-shadow-of-mt-rainier/
Light is reflected from the earth back towards the clouds. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to consider.
FEīers are like a bunch of little boys trying to convince each other they have superpowers. They try to explain why they can see through walls, saying they have X-ray vision. When somebody ask why they donīt kill people by the radiation, they say "thatīs because itīs very little powered!" which contradcts the first affirmation. Also, they donīt need to have common theories, as they are not scientists
Quote[Thread]
Answer: Bendy Light.
Thatīs all folks
Just to try to stay on topic, this isn't about bendy light. It's about perspective.Can someone (perhaps Tom) explain to me how the rising sun can cast a shadow of a mountain on the bottom of clouds if Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is correct?
See:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/26/the-long-shadow-of-mt-rainier/
Perspective makes sun to appear for an eye at the eye level and even at below eye level. It is just a visual effects. So, the very peak of a mountain obstructs the light (the effect of light) and makes a shadow on bottom of clouds. What discrepancy you see here?
Can someone (perhaps Tom) explain to me how the rising sun can cast a shadow of a mountain on the bottom of clouds if Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is correct?
See:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/26/the-long-shadow-of-mt-rainier/
Thanks, I've been here before and that's not very helpful.
And what is wrong with that picture? Shows flatness.