From your viewpoint, are people like Stephen Hawking in on the conspiracy?

  • 101 Replies
  • 20378 Views
 Considering your entire description of the heavens is catastrophically opposed to the description presented by cosmologists and astrophysicists, they must be in on the conspiracy right?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

?

Thork

Stephen Hawking used to be a vocal and powerful flat earther. NASA put him in that wheel chair and the chair just spouts out whatever they program these days. He would weep if they would fill his water bottle, once in a while >:(

Quote from: Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time (1988)
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
« Last Edit: June 30, 2011, 04:11:42 PM by Thork »

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Stephen Hawking used to be a vocal and powerful flat earther. NASA put him in that wheel chair and the chair just spouts out whatever they program these days. He would weep if they would fill his water bottle, once in a while >:(

Exactly. RE have no evidence that what is coming out of the machine ias actually what he is thinking.

?

Thork

I think it a form of unusual torture, a warning to the rest of us FErs. He now has to listen to all the heretic nonsense coming from his chair, and NASA has left him so disabled after repeated beatings, that he cannot even indicate its not him talking.
I mean the chair has an American accent for Pete's sake!

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Also why does he have a nurse 24/7? Very suspicious. I'm certain they broke his legs first. He was probably very strong willed in the beginning.

?

crackpipe larry

  • 178
  • I poopded.. <%!
Stephen Hawking used to be a vocal and powerful flat earther. NASA put him in that wheel chair and the chair just spouts out whatever they program these days. He would weep if they would fill his water bottle, once in a while >:(

Exactly. RE have no evidence that what is coming out of the machine ias actually what he is thinking.

Good point.. Anyone could be talking for him..
Why are Pandas so rare??   cuz, Panda tastes good.. <is>

*

Anythingispossible

  • 60
  • Honorary member of the turtle club
He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

What basis do you have for this radical claim? He isn't well renowned for his scientific work for nothing.
The entire universe is flat. The three dimensions are simply a perspective effect

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

What basis do you have for this radical claim? He isn't well renowned for his scientific work for nothing.

He's well renowned for his hypothetical mechanisms and theories. He's not well renowned for being right. His ideas like the perpetual expansion of space-time which causes the acceleration of the universe is completely hypothetical and unproven. There is not one shred of evidence that space-time  is expanding.

Astrophysicists use fantasy to explain the cosmos. They construct overly elaborate explanations to explain the observable, the whole of which is unprovable and undemonstratable.  They gain notoriety because their fantasy models seemingly explain the unknown. They fill in the gaps of our knowledge with fantasy. They're story tellers.

There is not one shred of evidence that space-time  is expanding.

Incorrect.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you don't know, whenever you talk about it you're invoking the supernatural
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Unknown != Magic.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
There is not one shred of evidence that space-time  is expanding.

Incorrect.

What evidence is there that space-time is expanding?

He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

What basis do you have for this radical claim? He isn't well renowned for his scientific work for nothing.

He's well renowned for his hypothetical mechanisms and theories. He's not well renowned for being right. His ideas like the perpetual expansion of space-time which causes the acceleration of the universe is completely hypothetical and unproven. There is not one shred of evidence that space-time  is expanding.

Astrophysicists use fantasy to explain the cosmos. They construct overly elaborate explanations to explain the observable, the whole of which is unprovable and undemonstratable.  They gain notoriety because their fantasy models seemingly explain the unknown. They fill in the gaps of our knowledge with fantasy. They're story tellers.

 Tom, I have a question, do you recognize what my forum Avatar is a picture of?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Tom, I have a question, do you recognize what my forum Avatar is a picture of?

Spectrum Analysis. What does that have to do with the topic of space-time expansion?

Tom, I have a question, do you recognize what my forum Avatar is a picture of?

Spectrum Analysis. What does that have to do with the topic of space-time expansion?

  It is not exactly spectrum analysis, it is rather: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy

  It is important because an Astronomy education starts with it, then expands into greater details, that help you understand all the concepts, and how they are not just being misinterpreted, Hawking knows what he is talking about, and has proven it beyond a doubt.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 03:00:17 PM by Sorunx »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Tom, I have a question, do you recognize what my forum Avatar is a picture of?

Spectrum Analysis. What does that have to do with the topic of space-time expansion?

  It is not exactly spectrum analysis, it is rather: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy

  It is important because an Astronomy education starts with it, then expands into greater details, that help you understand all the concepts, and how they are not just being misinterpreted, Hawking knows what he is talking about, and has proven it beyond a doubt.

Where and how has Hawking proven beyond doubt that space-time is expanding?

Observing the stars moving away from each other and saying that "space-time must be expanding" isn't evidence that space-time is expanding.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Tom, I have a question, do you recognize what my forum Avatar is a picture of?

Spectrum Analysis. What does that have to do with the topic of space-time expansion?

  It is not exactly spectrum analysis, it is rather: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy

  It is important because an Astronomy education starts with it, then expands into greater details, that help you understand all the concepts, and how they are not just being misinterpreted, Hawking knows what he is talking about, and has proven it beyond a doubt.

Where and how has Hawking proven beyond doubt that space-time is expanding?

Observing the stars moving away from each other and saying that "space-time must be expanding" isn't evidence that space-time is expanding.
Good to know observation doesn't always conclude. I guess viewing the Earth from from a human's perspective and saying it's flat isn't evidence that the Earth is flat.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Quote
Good to know observation doesn't always conclude. I guess viewing the Earth from from a human's perspective and saying it's flat isn't evidence that the Earth is flat.

Observing the stars move away from each other is observational evidence that the stars are moving away from each other.

It does not suggest that the fabric of space-time is expanding. No one observes the fabric of space-time expanding. Space-time expansion is not an observation. Hawking did not demonstrate that this occurs in any way.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Where and how has Hawking proven beyond doubt that space-time is expanding?

Observing the stars moving away from each other and saying that "space-time must be expanding" isn't evidence that space-time is expanding.

Sorunx didn't say anything about expanding space-time.  You're the one brought it up.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Sorunx didn't say anything about expanding space-time.  You're the one brought it up.

He said that Hawking has proven his work beyond doubt.

If this is true then he should be able to show me where Hawking proved that the fabric of space-time is expanding.

In fact, where has Stephen Hawking managed to prove anything at all?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Sorunx didn't say anything about expanding space-time.  You're the one brought it up.

He said that Hawking has proven his work beyond doubt.

If this is true then he should be able to show me where Hawking proved that the fabric of space-time is expanding.

In fact, where has Stephen Hawking managed to prove anything at all?

It is important because an Astronomy education starts with it, then expands into greater details, that help you understand all the concepts, and how they are not just being misinterpreted, Hawking knows what he is talking about, and has proven it beyond a doubt.

Please either improve your reading comprehension skills or stop deliberately misrepresenting other people's statements.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
He said that Hawking has proven his work beyond doubt.

Hawking knows what he is talking about, and has proven it beyond a doubt.

Hmm, sounds like the two quotes are saying the same thing to me.

Unless the poster is saying that "Hawking has proven beyond doubt that he knows what he's talking about." But that would be stupid.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
He said that Hawking has proven his work beyond doubt.

Hawking knows what he is talking about, and has proven it beyond a doubt.

Hmm, sounds like the two quotes are saying the same thing to me.

Unless the poster is saying that "Hawking has proven beyond doubt that he knows what he's talking about." But that would be stupid.

Are you saying that Hawking doesn't know what he's talking about?  Do you believe that you know more about astrophysics than he does?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Anythingispossible

  • 60
  • Honorary member of the turtle club
He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong.

What basis do you have for this radical claim? He isn't well renowned for his scientific work for nothing.

He's well renowned for his hypothetical mechanisms and theories. He's not well renowned for being right. His ideas like the perpetual expansion of space-time which causes the acceleration of the universe is completely hypothetical and unproven. There is not one shred of evidence that space-time  is expanding.

Astrophysicists use fantasy to explain the cosmos. They construct overly elaborate explanations to explain the observable, the whole of which is unprovable and undemonstratable.  They gain notoriety because their fantasy models seemingly explain the unknown. They fill in the gaps of our knowledge with fantasy. They're story tellers.
A lack of evidence, although not present in this context, does not lead to the conclusion that a theory is wrong. It simply means it does not have the evidence available to prove that it is right or wrong. Your claim that he is wrong ,therefore , has no merit
The entire universe is flat. The three dimensions are simply a perspective effect

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
He said that Hawking has proven his work beyond doubt.

Hawking knows what he is talking about, and has proven it beyond a doubt.

Hmm, sounds like the two quotes are saying the same thing to me.

Unless the poster is saying that "Hawking has proven beyond doubt that he knows what he's talking about." But that would be stupid.

Are you saying that Hawking doesn't know what he's talking about?  Do you believe that you know more about astrophysics than he does?

Hawking wouldn't say that he knows beyond a power of doubt that the fabric of space-time is expanding. He would be the first to admit that his ideas are entirely speculative and that astrophysicists are little more than story tellers.

Half of his "Brief History of Time" and"On the Shoulders of Giants" is about how we know extremely little of anything.

Quote from: Anythingispossible
A lack of evidence, although not present in this context, does not lead to the conclusion that a theory is wrong. It simply means it does not have the evidence available to prove that it is right or wrong. Your claim that he is wrong ,therefore , has no merit

I have not been saying that Hawking was wrong. I've been saying that his work is utterly unproven and completely speculative.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 05:57:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Anythingispossible

  • 60
  • Honorary member of the turtle club
Your earlier reply was; "He's not part of the conspiracy. He's wrong."

And just now you said "I have not been saying that Hawking was wrong."

What exactly are you saying?  ???
The entire universe is flat. The three dimensions are simply a perspective effect

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41855
Hawking wouldn't say that he knows beyond a power of doubt that the fabric of space-time is expanding. He would be the first to admit that his ideas are entirely speculative and that astrophysicists are little more than story tellers.

Half of his "Brief History of Time" and"On the Shoulders of Giants" is about how we know extremely little of anything.

Who said that Hawking claimed that space-time expansion is known beyond doubt?  First you put words in Sorunx's mouth, and now you're putting words in Hawking's mouth.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
They construct overly elaborate explanations to explain the observable, the whole of which is unprovable and undemonstratable.  They gain notoriety because their fantasy models seemingly explain the unknown. They fill in the gaps of our knowledge with fantasy. They're story tellers.

Tom, your criticism of the Wiki is valid, but ease up a bit on the FE Society, please.  >:(
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

 Hi sorry for my late response, but yesterday was consumed by a Dr Who Marathon with friends, part 2 of which is scheduled for today.

 Tom:  Markjo is correct, my comment was referring to how Stephen Hawking has proven beyond a doubt, that he does know what he is talking about, I specifically had Hawking Radiation in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation He is well established in the Scientific Community. 

Quote
Hawking wouldn't say that he knows beyond a power of doubt that the fabric of space-time is expanding. He would be the first to admit that his ideas are entirely speculative and that astrophysicists are little more than story tellers.

  This comment is absolutely insulting, and incorrect to Professor Hawking.  Furthermore, he is not an Astrophysicist, he is a Professor of Theoretical Physics, and Cosmology. 

   On to why this is relevant: 

  In your FAQ I see statements that I should reject even calling a hypothesis, they are more akin to lunatic ramblings similar to time cube, however I will attempt to over time address each and every one.  The reason I reference  Absorption Spectroscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy) is because it is a wonderful way at "looking" towards what is actually found in the cosmos.

  The science confirms the stars (for the most part) are composed entirely of the same matter as the sun, furthermore they are undergoing the same sequences and processes of transforming hydrogen into iron.  This much has been proven beyond a doubt.  If you still insist on doubting, then you are not being very Zetetic as you are to deny the observation of your senses.

 Furthermore in your FAQ I see sentiment that is wholly disregarding your other senses.  Take for example this picture of a fake dinner:

 

 That image, "looks like" food.  It is not, at a first glance were I to present it to you, you might be thankful for a wonderful dinner, but would you put it in your mouth after you smell it, touch it, or try cutting it up with a knife only to find out it is rubber?  Would you insist it is real enough based upon looks alone?

 No you would confirm whether or not it is genuine based upon the collection of other data that confirms its legitimacy as food.

  What you are doing when you say the earth "Looks flat" is to completely disregard your other senses, and in fact to completely disregard your own vision.  This is the equivalent of putting on an eye patch, then shoving a basketball flush against your unobstructed eye, then attempting to discern what a basketball looks like, when you honestly can not do so.  In order to describe the basketball, you must stand back and view it from multiple angles.

 Now since we as humans lack the ability to go into space on a whim, that does not mean we cannot use our other means of perception to discern the shape of the earth.

 From a reasonably low altitude you can stand looking at the shore of a beach.  This is easy for me in California, hold a ruler up level to the horizon directly ahead of you.  Observe that outside the reach of the ruler, the edges of your viewpoint appear to curve downward.  This establishes that the earth does in fact "look" round.

 Next, you don't quite understand relativity.  When "frame of reference" is uttered, it does not require a human observer, rather it requires just another frame of reference.  Since nowhere in your FAQ do I see it mention that the disc earth consists of all of creation, then it does imply one to conclude that other frames of reference exist.  Which means, if a human were to stand on high above the earth, and observe another human getting into an elevator and go upward, from that frame of reference the human in the elevator would appear to be going faster than the speed of light.  Which is impossible, Q.E.D. Universal Acceleration is dis proven.

  I will get to every other component of your FAQ in time, one by one, each is very easy to disprove.


*

Anythingispossible

  • 60
  • Honorary member of the turtle club
Hi sorry for my late response, but yesterday was consumed by a Dr Who Marathon with friends, part 2 of which is scheduled for today.

 Tom:  Markjo is correct, my comment was referring to how Stephen Hawking has proven beyond a doubt, that he does know what he is talking about, I specifically had Hawking Radiation in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation He is well established in the Scientific Community. 

Quote
Hawking wouldn't say that he knows beyond a power of doubt that the fabric of space-time is expanding. He would be the first to admit that his ideas are entirely speculative and that astrophysicists are little more than story tellers.

  This comment is absolutely insulting, and incorrect to Professor Hawking.  Furthermore, he is not an Astrophysicist, he is a Professor of Theoretical Physics, and Cosmology. 

   On to why this is relevant: 

  In your FAQ I see statements that I should reject even calling a hypothesis, they are more akin to lunatic ramblings similar to time cube, however I will attempt to over time address each and every one.  The reason I reference  Absorption Spectroscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy) is because it is a wonderful way at "looking" towards what is actually found in the cosmos.

  The science confirms the stars (for the most part) are composed entirely of the same matter as the sun, furthermore they are undergoing the same sequences and processes of transforming hydrogen into iron.  This much has been proven beyond a doubt.  If you still insist on doubting, then you are not being very Zetetic as you are to deny the observation of your senses.

 Furthermore in your FAQ I see sentiment that is wholly disregarding your other senses.  Take for example this picture of a fake dinner:

 

 That image, "looks like" food.  It is not, at a first glance were I to present it to you, you might be thankful for a wonderful dinner, but would you put it in your mouth after you smell it, touch it, or try cutting it up with a knife only to find out it is rubber?  Would you insist it is real enough based upon looks alone?

 No you would confirm whether or not it is genuine based upon the collection of other data that confirms its legitimacy as food.

  What you are doing when you say the earth "Looks flat" is to completely disregard your other senses, and in fact to completely disregard your own vision.  This is the equivalent of putting on an eye patch, then shoving a basketball flush against your unobstructed eye, then attempting to discern what a basketball looks like, when you honestly can not do so.  In order to describe the basketball, you must stand back and view it from multiple angles.

 Now since we as humans lack the ability to go into space on a whim, that does not mean we cannot use our other means of perception to discern the shape of the earth.

 From a reasonably low altitude you can stand looking at the shore of a beach.  This is easy for me in California, hold a ruler up level to the horizon directly ahead of you.  Observe that outside the reach of the ruler, the edges of your viewpoint appear to curve downward.  This establishes that the earth does in fact "look" round.

 Next, you don't quite understand relativity.  When "frame of reference" is uttered, it does not require a human observer, rather it requires just another frame of reference.  Since nowhere in your FAQ do I see it mention that the disc earth consists of all of creation, then it does imply one to conclude that other frames of reference exist.  Which means, if a human were to stand on high above the earth, and observe another human getting into an elevator and go upward, from that frame of reference the human in the elevator would appear to be going faster than the speed of light.  Which is impossible, Q.E.D. Universal Acceleration is dis proven.

  I will get to every other component of your FAQ in time, one by one, each is very easy to disprove.
Damn dude, that picture made me hungry.
The entire universe is flat. The three dimensions are simply a perspective effect

?

crackpipe larry

  • 178
  • I poopded.. <%!
Humm... Steak..
Why are Pandas so rare??   cuz, Panda tastes good.. <is>