.....

  • 916 Replies
  • 269710 Views
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2012, 11:50:13 AM »
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????

How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.

It does if you understand what friction is.
I will tell you about an experiment you can make, I just hope I don't need 5 more posts to explain the relationship between in and the earth.
If you fill a glass with water and start swirling it, at first only the glass will spin (because you move it) but eventually the water inside it will start swirling, slowly at first and getting faster to catch up with the glass speed (you can put pieces of paper or something on the water to easily see water movement) that is because of friction between the glass and the water.
If you think it maters the water being inside the glass while the atmosphere is outside the earth, you can do it in a larger water recipient and put a glass inside (surrounded by water) and spin it, you will see how the water around it will start moving with it (because of friction), the water closer to the larger recipient will not move as fast (or not at all, depending on how fast you swirl the glass) because of the friction of it (water) with the larger recipient. But there is no friction between the atmosphere and vacuum, only between the atmosphere and the earth, so it moves with it.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2012, 11:51:15 AM »
I'm with septictank on this one. If the earth were spinning at 1,000 mph at the equator, I would think the wind should at least be a couple of hundred mph there. The earth is not moving, and flat.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2012, 11:54:20 AM »
But anyway.
What pressure do you really think would be needed for an atmosphere to hold on to the Earth like you say .
It would have to be some unbelievable pressure, which would make the Earth uninhabitable.

You have been lied to in my opinion but that doesn't mean to say you can't go with it, just don;t try and play the clever clogs when other people don't accept it and question it.

we have said it hundreds of times, GRAVITY, the same pressure that you experience from the time you wake up until the time you go to sleep, it is called GRAVITY it pulls you to the ground, it pulls animals to the ground, it pulls earth down, it maked the planes habitable, it pulls the atmosphere around earth with it.

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2012, 11:57:26 AM »
Also, if you want, you can put a basket ball in a tub of water, then put some different color food coloring in the water (this will just be so you can see what is happening. Spin the basketball. That's what's happening to the atmosphere, except it's hugging tighter against the surface of the planet than the water is to the basketball. You can test this with water because both air and water are fluids in physics, they operate under the same mechanics, i.e. they form to the shape of their container, the flow downhill with gravity, the less dense parts of the solution tend towards the top, and solids can move through them. Water just happens to be a hell of a lot more dense. But you may as well be asking why the oceans move with the earth's spin.
Well now you come to mention it, you have both liquid and solid ground and both supposedly follow the very same trend with an atmosphere creating friction on both.

The Earth does not spin and all it needs to prove this is your own body and eyes.

It is a proven fact that it does spin, how could i prove it otherwise with my body and eyes, if as i explained you, not only is the floor moving, we also are. Why we dont see it? the sky is moving too. Why? friction, i explained. why we dont feel it? because we are surrounded by the same air that is moving with the earth. why? because of friction. How? experiment explained.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2012, 12:04:22 PM »
It doesn't matter how many layers it has.
We are led to believe that the atmosphere grips the Earth from the ground, up to the very edge of space and spins in unison with the Earth.

As thinkingman explained, friction of the air against the earth moving in circles also causes that air to move in circles in the same direction. As I explained already, gravity is what makes the atmosphere stay with the earth. All of the atmosphere and the earth don't necessarily spin (on earth axis) in "unison" with the earth, but it does move with the earth (again, because of gravity) around the sun.

Also wind (air) and clouds are part of the atmosphere.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
How scientists managed to make people believe this, astounds me.

You just don't get it, is not about believe, it is about understanding, it makes logic sense, what is the part you don't understand?
Im not going to say mathematics is about believe because I don't understand them.
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????

How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.

Let me explain this in illiterate terms.

Gravity make pull.
Pull make squish (pressure).
Squish make rub.
Spinning make rub move with push.
Typical.

Your frustration has caused you to start little put down shenanigans, when in truth, you have no clue about what you have just said, it's simply what you have studied and accepted from official sources.

But anyway.
What pressure do you really think would be needed for an atmosphere to hold on to the Earth like you say .
It would have to be some unbelievable pressure, which would make the Earth uninhabitable.

You have been lied to in my opinion but that doesn't mean to say you can't go with it, just don;t try and play the clever clogs when other people don't accept it and question it.

The gravity doesn't cause the pressure. The gasses sitting on top of the gasses sitting on top of the gasses sitting on top of the surface of the earth causes the pressure. The gravity just pulled it all together. Even the moon has water vapor floating around it. Not enough to really call an atmosphere, and it's mostly at the poles, but it's there. There's nothing in space to cause opposing friction the the earth's friction, there's no force working to stop the atmosphere from rotating the earth, so it keeps going. I said it the way I did because I'm not sure what you're not understanding, so I broke it down real, real simple for you. You took it as an attack, that's your opinion.

It's not the pressure that holds the atmosphere to earth. It's the gravity. Without the gravity, there would be no pressure because nothing would have pulled together, ever. The mere fact that gravity exists lets all of the other physics that we understand exist. But I'm letting myself get side tracked. The gravity pulls down on the air, and the air on top of the air on top of the ground cause the pressure, which in turn causes the source of the friction so that when the planet spins, the air goes with it. I have explained this so many times, that if I was speaking, I'd be out of breath.

It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????

How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.

It does if you understand what friction is.
I will tell you about an experiment you can make, I just hope I don't need 5 more posts to explain the relationship between in and the earth.
If you fill a glass with water and start swirling it, at first only the glass will spin (because you move it) but eventually the water inside it will start swirling, slowly at first and getting faster to catch up with the glass speed (you can put pieces of paper or something on the water to easily see water movement) that is because of friction between the glass and the water.
If you think it maters the water being inside the glass while the atmosphere is outside the earth, you can do it in a larger water recipient and put a glass inside (surrounded by water) and spin it, you will see how the water around it will start moving with it (because of friction), the water closer to the larger recipient will not move as fast (or not at all, depending on how fast you swirl the glass) because of the friction of it (water) with the larger recipient. But there is no friction between the atmosphere and vacuum, only between the atmosphere and the earth, so it moves with it.
And presumably if you did it in a larger tank and swirled the water, then put a person in the water, that person would swirl with the water. Ok fair enough.

What happens when that person decides to swim against it?

They get pushed against by the water. Now, keep in mind, water is very dense when compared with the atmosphere. Also, this tank is concave, and the water is sitting inside of it, being pulled down by the earth's gravity. So when you put a person in this tank, which is very tiny in comparison to the earth, and moving at a proportionally much faster rate (rpm), then they are going to be pushed by the water. Now the earth is huge. It's spinning at ~.00007 rpm. There is gravity pulling everything to the ground. The spinning isn't the only action working to make the air follow the earth, there is the gravity that keeps it on the surface. So when you walk the opposite way the earth spins (aka, walk west), you're not really working against anything, because, for everything is practically moving in unison already. The tank in your example does not have the massive gravity that earth does, and it's sitting on the earth. So you have to work against earth's gravity, the density of the water, and the motion of the water.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2012, 12:09:44 PM »
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????

How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.

It does if you understand what friction is.
I will tell you about an experiment you can make, I just hope I don't need 5 more posts to explain the relationship between in and the earth.
If you fill a glass with water and start swirling it, at first only the glass will spin (because you move it) but eventually the water inside it will start swirling, slowly at first and getting faster to catch up with the glass speed (you can put pieces of paper or something on the water to easily see water movement) that is because of friction between the glass and the water.
If you think it maters the water being inside the glass while the atmosphere is outside the earth, you can do it in a larger water recipient and put a glass inside (surrounded by water) and spin it, you will see how the water around it will start moving with it (because of friction), the water closer to the larger recipient will not move as fast (or not at all, depending on how fast you swirl the glass) because of the friction of it (water) with the larger recipient. But there is no friction between the atmosphere and vacuum, only between the atmosphere and the earth, so it moves with it.
And presumably if you did it in a larger tank and swirled the water, then put a person in the water, that person would swirl with the water. Ok fair enough.

What happens when that person decides to swim against it?

(Assuming it was a very large body inside water to make a person also move with it) if he started swimming against it he would encounter water resistance, just as we encounter air resistance in any movement we make, but air is not as dense as water and our bodys are used to it.

"It is not a proven fact at all.
What fact proves this?"

It is right, im not trying to explain to you how we know earth spins, im just trying to make you understand why your arguments against it are invalid, and how we can prove that with common experiments and logic. And it is being hard enough, so I wont bother explain how we know the earth is spinning (not trying to be offensive), but here are some links you could read.

http://howdoweknow.org/index/rotatingearth.hdwk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Early_evidence
(read early evidence)

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2012, 01:01:15 PM »
Ok Thinkingman, if I'm correct in grasping what you mean let's use this scenario.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


So imagine this drawing as two glass balls.

The small ball (E) is the Earth.
The lager ball is (A), the atmosphere.

V= the vacuum of space.

S= welded supports connecting both balls together.
And of course  (P) for person or the little man I've drew perfect in full detail. (Well for a stick man anyway)

Ok, so no matter which way this ball spins, everything goes with it as it's all joined. Now as the man is mildly glued to the floor , he also goes round with both balls, yet doesn't fall off as the mild glue is holding him.

Should that matchstick man want to walk whilst this is happening, he can because the mild glue allows him to do so. We shall call this mild glue, gravity glue.

If this is how it's been told, then fair enough, I understand what you are saying.

In truth though, it's sounds like a big old lie and I don;t believe it for one second.

You're close to understanding it, except gravity isn't a glue, and there's no structural supports holding up a giant ball to keep the atmosphere in.

Gravity is an attraction between masses. You have mass? You are attracted to other masses. The earth is a very large mass, so it has a more powerful attraction than, say, a boulder. Your mass is attracted to it. Your glue example is more akin to friction. Adhesive is simply a substance with a LOT of friction. The friction between you and the earth is what keeps you in place. If something were sitting still near the earth somehow, and not moving with it's rotation, and you hit it (well, in your eyes, it would have hit you), you would stop moving with the rotation of the earth because the friction of that opposing object stopped you (we'll totally pretend that you didn't slam into this thing going 1040mph and get splattered all to hell and back). This is the same for the air. If there were something that was not moving with earth's rotation in the air (it would have to be very large), then it would stop the air. Now, there is nothing that does this, so the air keeps going. Newton's Laws of physics. An object in motion keeps going until a force acts on it. Also see, the laws of conservation of momentum (essentially the same thing).

Now, choosing not to "believe" science is a strange thing to me. It's like choosing not to believe that you can see. Or choosing not to believe that you're hungry. Science isn't a belief system. It's a set of rules that nature operates on that have been studied and broken down so that people can understand them. If we can understand things, we can advance our society and technology. We can live longer, better lives. We can grow beyond what we are physically and technologically currently capable of doing. If people discount these facts, they simply get left behind. Honestly, I don't care if you believe it or not, because it's still true. But I just don't like when people think things aren't true simply because they don't understand them. You have to keep an open mind and look at the whole picture. Learn before you refute.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2012, 01:03:34 PM »
It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Atmosphere gripping a solid planet with friction??????

How about, the planet is stationary and the atmosphere is how we feel it. This makes a whole lot of sense.
The spinning planet malarkey is to shoehorn the theory of a centralised sun.

It does if you understand what friction is.
I will tell you about an experiment you can make, I just hope I don't need 5 more posts to explain the relationship between in and the earth.
If you fill a glass with water and start swirling it, at first only the glass will spin (because you move it) but eventually the water inside it will start swirling, slowly at first and getting faster to catch up with the glass speed (you can put pieces of paper or something on the water to easily see water movement) that is because of friction between the glass and the water.
If you think it maters the water being inside the glass while the atmosphere is outside the earth, you can do it in a larger water recipient and put a glass inside (surrounded by water) and spin it, you will see how the water around it will start moving with it (because of friction), the water closer to the larger recipient will not move as fast (or not at all, depending on how fast you swirl the glass) because of the friction of it (water) with the larger recipient. But there is no friction between the atmosphere and vacuum, only between the atmosphere and the earth, so it moves with it.
And presumably if you did it in a larger tank and swirled the water, then put a person in the water, that person would swirl with the water. Ok fair enough.

What happens when that person decides to swim against it?

(Assuming it was a very large body inside water to make a person also move with it) if he started swimming against it he would encounter water resistance, just as we encounter air resistance in any movement we make, but air is not as dense as water and our bodys are used to it.

"It is not a proven fact at all.
What fact proves this?"

It is right, im not trying to explain to you how we know earth spins, im just trying to make you understand why your arguments against it are invalid, and how we can prove that with common experiments and logic. And it is being hard enough, so I wont bother explain how we know the earth is spinning (not trying to be offensive), but here are some links you could read.

http://howdoweknow.org/index/rotatingearth.hdwk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Early_evidence
(read early evidence)
Foucault's pendulum proves nothing, infact it actually kills off the very theory people have of a spinning Earth.

If everything is supposed to run as one unit on Earth, as in us, the solid Earth, plus atmosphere , then it also applies to a pendulum which , placed in an windless environment should be perfectly still , yet if it moves, it means it's moving by a force other than a spinning Earth, which to me would mean the forces directed from other planets/sun/stars all circling a centralised Earth.

That's the theory I go with.

Actually, this physics is a little bit more complicated, but it backs the point of a spinning earth up. The pendulum is a large mass on the end of a rope/tether of sorts. So since the earth is always spinning at ~1040mph, you are constantly changing direction, because you're on a spinning sphere. Since the laws of physics say that once an object is in motion, it stays in motion until another force acts on it, the object will always try to go straight. Unfortunately, there is 9.8m/s2 of gravity working on the end of that pendulum. So as it tries to continue on it's straight course, it keeps getting pulled back toward earth by gravity.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

randomism

  • 271
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2012, 01:04:42 PM »
Foucault's pendulum keeps changing direction because it, unlike us or the particles in the atmosphere, is a heavy ball suspended by a thin wire, meaning that it has a lot of inertial momentum while swinging and isn't as easily moved by friction.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2012, 07:15:57 PM »
That and the magnets. ::)
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • +0/-0
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2012, 09:23:50 PM »
That and the magnets. ::)

should of moved this thread, instead of making such a great contribution.



@ the op - i dont understand how my computer works, yet it works and im typing. i leave computer technology in the hands of the experts. you should do the same.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2012, 04:44:45 AM »
And just who are the experts?

Are the experts the ones that wear a white coat with PHD, N.A.S.A etc on it?
Are the experts, people who read books with shoehorned equations to fit a theory that's forced upon them as fact?
Are the experts, those that have sat in university listening to a professor, whilst copying chalk board scribblings.

Who exactly are the experts on space and the Earth's movement because as far as I can tell, nobody has conclusive proof of anything as to what the Earth does.

Oh and about your computer. You could learn about what the components do and study them and even build one yourself with the knowledge.

You could know exactly what the Earth does if you could observe it from space. Unfortunately nobody will be going into space any time soon, if ever, so it's all left to theory, best guessing.

You can best guess, using all the mathematical difficulties you want and you could baffle as many people as you want with Parallax and quantum this and that, yet it's no more credible than someone using a simple explanation for their own theories/ best guessing.
And finally, after all that anger against those who tried to explain this to you, the real reason for all this thread comes to the light.

To you, "the experts" are those vile people who are dumb as doormats but accept the "religion of science" and repeat dogma just as any catholic repeats the Creed and get to impose their dogma on you.

But experts and scientists really are the real skeptics, who start at Grade School questioning everything and checking whether the scientific information they receive is correct. It is the people like that who used mathematics to make predictions and then checked their predictions with experiments of their own who became scientists and engineers, and use their skeptical minds to verify what everybody else tells them.

On the other hand, some people like you call yourselves skeptic because you have a grudge against the School, the College or in most cases the lack of higher education. The fact that you were spoon fed lots of information that you did not start to question for years is not the fault of the students with real scientific talent who understood science since Primary School and never were spoon fed anything because they would not accept it.

So, you still have an opportunity to become a real skeptic, you can start with any of your claims and design a model that predicts concrete, measurable things, and demonstrate like a scientist what until now you have only had a gut feeling about.

Every time you make a rant about something with the only argument that it does not make sense you are showing that you changed from being spoon fed one thing at School to being spoon fed another after School.

?

mexicanwave

  • 290
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2012, 06:04:03 AM »
And just who are the experts?

Are the experts the ones that wear a white coat with PHD, N.A.S.A etc on it?
Are the experts, people who read books with shoehorned equations to fit a theory that's forced upon them as fact?
Are the experts, those that have sat in university listening to a professor, whilst copying chalk board scribblings.

Who exactly are the experts on space and the Earth's movement because as far as I can tell, nobody has conclusive proof of anything as to what the Earth does.

Oh and about your computer. You could learn about what the components do and study them and even build one yourself with the knowledge.

You could know exactly what the Earth does if you could observe it from space. Unfortunately nobody will be going into space any time soon, if ever, so it's all left to theory, best guessing.

You can best guess, using all the mathematical difficulties you want and you could baffle as many people as you want with Parallax and quantum this and that, yet it's no more credible than someone using a simple explanation for their own theories/ best guessing.
And finally, after all that anger against those who tried to explain this to you, the real reason for all this thread comes to the light.

To you, "the experts" are those vile people who are dumb as doormats but accept the "religion of science" and repeat dogma just as any catholic repeats the Creed and get to impose their dogma on you.

But experts and scientists really are the real skeptics, who start at Grade School questioning everything and checking whether the scientific information they receive is correct. It is the people like that who used mathematics to make predictions and then checked their predictions with experiments of their own who became scientists and engineers, and use their skeptical minds to verify what everybody else tells them.

On the other hand, some people like you call yourselves skeptic because you have a grudge against the School, the College or in most cases the lack of higher education. The fact that you were spoon fed lots of information that you did not start to question for years is not the fault of the students with real scientific talent who understood science since Primary School and never were spoon fed anything because they would not accept it.

So, you still have an opportunity to become a real skeptic, you can start with any of your claims and design a model that predicts concrete, measurable things, and demonstrate like a scientist what until now you have only had a gut feeling about.

Every time you make a rant about something with the only argument that it does not make sense you are showing that you changed from being spoon fed one thing at School to being spoon fed another after School.

Then you must be one them there fancy bookreading experts that likes to keep us simplefolks down??

/ sarcasm

Actually this is one of the best responses I have read on here to the attitude of all FE'ers.

I don't like it. I don't understand it. I don't want it. Therefore I am right and you are wrong.
Now I know some FE will come back and say that this is what I am also doing in 'believing' in science and or RE. Actually it is not. I do not believe anything that I just imagine or make up. I look at the work of others, the centuries worth of experiments and knowledge and consider the vast, overwhelming amount of evidence that says 'this is how it is'. Or 'this is how it probably is, but we are still working on it.' And I trust in it, accept it until proven otherwise.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #43 on: November 16, 2012, 06:54:11 AM »
Realscientist:

All scientists who go with a spinning Earth are accepting the religion of science and they do repeat it. In fact that's what people are taught in everyday life.

A good scientist is a sceptic. That's what makes them good and it's what helps them make the greatest discoveries.

I certainly don't think the experts are vile. There are many scientists who are experts in their field of science and a lot of the science is factual in what they study.

The problem with your argument is all fields of science rely on one, basically. It's called physics. If you're calling one theory completely wrong, you kind of expect the root of that theory to be wrong. What I mean by that is the underlying fundamentals that make that theory work and make sense. Physics is the one that makes everything make sense. It's not completely understood, but for 90% of practical purposes, it is.

Of course scientists have to be sceptical of theories just as many are today about the universe and Earth being flat or round or spinning or stationary.

You're right, and as I've said, the good ones are. They try to break new ground. That's where we get stuff like string theory and theoretical physics.

The problem I have is the scientists spinning Earth theory that we have to accept as fact and no debating for fear of ridicule.

It's not out of fear of ridicule. As was explained before, they are scientists because they're curious. Curiosity makes you want to investigate things. These people more than likely already checked out that fact and determined for themselves that it was, in face, true.
 
We have all been spoon fed since birth and have gobbled everything up what has been fed to us, until we start to be bothered to think for ourselves, which in most cases starts after leaving school as everything before that is laid on for most people.

Thinking isn't everything. You need to investigate to learn, and that goes beyond thinking about it.

The lies start with the tooth fairy and Santa claus, yet because these are good lies and we benefit from them, we can put them to bed and dismiss them with a smile, whilst following on the same tradition with our own kids.

Every kid is taught religion and most schools are getting turned into church of England schools. Brainwashing at it's finest, yet even though many kids grow up and dismiss it , they don't actually fully dismiss all of it as they go about their life using it in some shape or form, as in , " oh God, help me", things like that.

I was not taught religion growing up. I do not teach my children religion. So that is completely false.

I'm a sceptic like everyone on here is, but I can't prove anything that I say is fact just as you can't prove anything outside of Earth as fact.

People that have gone up in to space can prove these things are facts.

A man or woman that can talk big scientific words do not impress me nor do they intimidate me. I prefer to use simplified language when I talk about things, which to a person who believes they are a higher being, it would come across as Neanderthal, yet that does not mean the other person is any the less a thinker.

No one here is trying to intimidate you. We're trying to explain things to you, and we're all getting frustrated because you don't fully understand it, so you completely dismiss it, and in doing so, refuse to accept any understanding that may come to your mind as false. Some people just talk using "big scientific words" as part of their every day speech.

Many people live their lives in Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why?

Because they're highly intelligent individuals. But a critical thinker does not take what they say as the "word of god."

Because the media and scientific world made them their mascots to sell us whatever they had in store for us.
Stephen Hawking is supposedly one of the smartest men on the planet and  many intelligent people
hang onto every word his robotic computer comes out with. Yet he has been incapacitated since his early 20''s and manages to write books about the universe, then comes out with " the universe was created from nothing"   

First of all, Stephen Hawking's status as the "smartest man on the planet," is simply just he's the smartest one that's in the spotlight. Also, I believe the term "the universe was created from nothing" is an attempt to break it down into layman's terms. It seems far more likely to me that it was some sort of singularity that created the universe, but I have no way of testing this hypothesis.

Now why do people hang on to every word he says?
The answer is: Because most are trained (brainwashed) into accepting it as fact because his computer voice says it's fact.

I actually don't give two shits what Stephen Hawking says. He's a sensationalist.

I'm a simple thinker and I'm not correct with any of my simple thinking but neither am I a simple person who just swallows up anything given to me to accept without question.

I'm qualified in my own observation and I don't need a chalk board to figure out lies about space and what humans are capable of doing in space.

So you yourself have observed that it is impossible for humans to go into space and do research activities outside of earth's atmosphere? That's what you're essentially saying here. So do tell, how did you observe this?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

mexicanwave

  • 290
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2012, 07:44:20 AM »

One of the main reasons for it is ,as I said earlier, rockets will not work in the vacuum of space.
Another is, no rocket can escape this atmosphere without being burned up.

Where do you get these 'facts' from?

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2012, 08:22:10 AM »
One of the main reasons for it is ,as I said earlier, rockets will not work in the vacuum of space.
Another is, no rocket can escape this atmosphere without being burned up.

What is your evidence for this? What exactly would do the "burning up" of the rocket?

NASA has a piece of their website that tells you when the ISS will pass overhead, and in what part of the sky to look for it for your area. I suggest that you find this, find a telescope, and go out and try to see the ISS when it's supposed to pass over. Prove it wrong if you're so determined. I have personally viewed this piece of human ingenuity. It is clearly there, clearly doing what they say it's doing. So please, prove it wrong. Tell me that the light reflected off of it lied.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • +0/-0
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2012, 09:03:10 AM »
so your whole rant is based on a conspiracy? do you really think you need to go into space to work out how it works? how deos the math work so well for our galaxies orbits on a model where the earth rotates and orbits the sun. please dont worry about answering because i wont be replying.

why are you guys even entertaining this idiot?

 >o< NASA is a lie! therefore all science is a lie! >o<

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2012, 09:10:40 AM »

One of the main reasons for it is ,as I said earlier, rockets will not work in the vacuum of space.
Another is, no rocket can escape this atmosphere without being burned up.

Where do you get these 'facts' from?
The speed of the craft to escape the atmosphere would burn up with friction. Not to mention it would be pulled apart long before those speeds.

Go and take a look at how the shuttle is anchored to the main tank.

Your arguments are poor. I've lost my energy to debate you. Go research some facts and them come back with real arguments and maybe I'll go for round 2.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #48 on: November 16, 2012, 11:27:29 AM »

I will answer and I'm not bothered whether you answer back.
You are getting irate because you think you are correct based on what you have been told.
You resort to name calling because you can't stand people being opinionated and sticking to their own theories when you want them to embrace yours.

In answer to your question about the Earth.
Yes you would need to go into space to prove a spinning Earth.

You have me down as saying all science is a lie, yet I have never said this.

You are just wrong in your way of seeing things, as someone told you already, science is not about believing what we are told, religion is, I was raised in a religious family but I became an atheist because nothing of that makes sense to me, im not a scientist, but the logic behind simple things like gravity, movement, resistance etc that ive been trying to explain here and on other topic, I can understand. Things that are harder for me to understand, I just dont comment about. You can test this things is simple experiments like we have been telling you this hole time, I thought you were starting to understand because you were running out of questions, but apparently I was wrong.
You are not trying to understand, you've got your mind made up about this already, you only thought we wouldn't be able to explain it with logic arguments and demonstrations, but you were wrong. because you final argument after this being proved was "I still don't believe it sounds like a lie" when believing is not necessary at all, just understanding.
Questions like this you should have asked to you physics professor in school, instead of accepting it, even though you didn't understand what you were writing on your notebook. And now you think your story is the same story of everyone else, instead of thinking that maybe some people did those question and some people got to understand the logic behind it, instead of just "believing" as you apparently did back then.

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2012, 12:10:53 PM »

I will answer and I'm not bothered whether you answer back.
You are getting irate because you think you are correct based on what you have been told.
You resort to name calling because you can't stand people being opinionated and sticking to their own theories when you want them to embrace yours.

In answer to your question about the Earth.
Yes you would need to go into space to prove a spinning Earth.

You have me down as saying all science is a lie, yet I have never said this.

You are just wrong in your way of seeing things, as someone told you already, science is not about believing what we are told, religion is, I was raised in a religious family but I became an atheist because nothing of that makes sense to me, im not a scientist, but the logic behind simple things like gravity, movement, resistance etc that ive been trying to explain here and on other topic, I can understand. Things that are harder for me to understand, I just dont comment about. You can test this things is simple experiments like we have been telling you this hole time, I thought you were starting to understand because you were running out of questions, but apparently I was wrong.
You are not trying to understand, you've got your mind made up about this already, you only thought we wouldn't be able to explain it with logic arguments and demonstrations, but you were wrong. because you final argument after this being proved was "I still don't believe it sounds like a lie" when believing is not necessary at all, just understanding.
Questions like this you should have asked to you physics professor in school, instead of accepting it, even though you didn't understand what you were writing on your notebook. And now you think your story is the same story of everyone else, instead of thinking that maybe some people did those question and some people got to understand the logic behind it, instead of just "believing" as you apparently did back then.
Not at all Roberto.

The things I don't accept, I have good reason not to accept as I have already explained.
You trying to prove to me that I'm wrong does not actually prove I'm wrong, yet what I say doesn't prove me correct either.

I don't buy into a spinning Earth for reasons I stated.
I don't believe men landed on the moon for a 100 or more reasons but the main was rockets and vacuum.

Seeing is believing most of the time and what I see from pictures of stars and planets plus video footage of the ISS with no stars  in the background tells me most if not all of it is BS.

I believe the star distances are BS and the 93 million mile sun as BS.
I believe all this is BS because I've been told the Earth spins and the sun is the centralised as we go round it.

You say it all makes sense to you and of course I accept it will to you because it appears that you do not question anything at all you have been led to believe.

I'm a sceptic of the official line and you are a sceptic of alternative views to the official line.
You can cite that there's hard evidence of this and that, yet there isn't and equations and maths can and have been shoe horned to fit the theories given out as far as I'm concerned.

That is because the light of the sun obscures the stars, just as it does on earth, im skeptic about illogical things, you are skeptic about hings you can not understand.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #50 on: November 16, 2012, 12:15:21 PM »

I will answer and I'm not bothered whether you answer back.
You are getting irate because you think you are correct based on what you have been told.
You resort to name calling because you can't stand people being opinionated and sticking to their own theories when you want them to embrace yours.

In answer to your question about the Earth.
Yes you would need to go into space to prove a spinning Earth.

You have me down as saying all science is a lie, yet I have never said this.

You are just wrong in your way of seeing things, as someone told you already, science is not about believing what we are told, religion is, I was raised in a religious family but I became an atheist because nothing of that makes sense to me, im not a scientist, but the logic behind simple things like gravity, movement, resistance etc that ive been trying to explain here and on other topic, I can understand. Things that are harder for me to understand, I just dont comment about. You can test this things is simple experiments like we have been telling you this hole time, I thought you were starting to understand because you were running out of questions, but apparently I was wrong.
You are not trying to understand, you've got your mind made up about this already, you only thought we wouldn't be able to explain it with logic arguments and demonstrations, but you were wrong. because you final argument after this being proved was "I still don't believe it sounds like a lie" when believing is not necessary at all, just understanding.
Questions like this you should have asked to you physics professor in school, instead of accepting it, even though you didn't understand what you were writing on your notebook. And now you think your story is the same story of everyone else, instead of thinking that maybe some people did those question and some people got to understand the logic behind it, instead of just "believing" as you apparently did back then.
Not at all Roberto.

The things I don't accept, I have good reason not to accept as I have already explained.
You trying to prove to me that I'm wrong does not actually prove I'm wrong, yet what I say doesn't prove me correct either.

I don't buy into a spinning Earth for reasons I stated.
I don't believe men landed on the moon for a 100 or more reasons but the main was rockets and vacuum.

Seeing is believing most of the time and what I see from pictures of stars and planets plus video footage of the ISS with no stars  in the background tells me most if not all of it is BS.

I believe the star distances are BS and the 93 million mile sun as BS.
I believe all this is BS because I've been told the Earth spins and the sun is the centralised as we go round it.

You say it all makes sense to you and of course I accept it will to you because it appears that you do not question anything at all you have been led to believe.

I'm a sceptic of the official line and you are a sceptic of alternative views to the official line.
You can cite that there's hard evidence of this and that, yet there isn't and equations and maths can and have been shoe horned to fit the theories given out as far as I'm concerned.

That is because the light of the sun obscures the stars, just as it does on earth, im skeptic about illogical things, you are skeptic about hings you can not understand.

I know it's very tempting, but this one won't listen. Just stop while you're still not a raving lunatic roberto. This one won't listen, won't bother to attempt to understand it, and no matter what you or I or anyone else says, he's going to think we've been "spoon fed," without realizing that we make an attempt to understand other points of view, and when we come to understand it and it doesn't make sense and doesn't fit with observations and empirical data, we throw it away. So, while you're still not foaming at the mouth, quit.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #51 on: November 16, 2012, 01:16:42 PM »
Roberto:
I don't fully understand a lot of things and where space is concerned, I'm not alone, because nobody fully understands it.

Who says you have to fully understand something to believe it?  Do you fully understand how an internal combustion engine works?  Does that stop you from believing that cars are real?
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #52 on: November 16, 2012, 04:16:29 PM »
A s it happens, I do know how a internal combustion engine works and it works fine because it's been tested.

Then that means that rockets work fine because they have been well tested too.

Quote
Any person can go and view "physically " how  internal combustion engine works and see it with their own eyes, plus evaluate how and why it works as it does.

Have you ever looked inside an internal combustion engine while it's working?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 08:03:43 AM by markjo »
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.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #53 on: November 17, 2012, 06:08:39 AM »
You believe you understand it because you have studied what you have been taught and all the shoehorned physics to go with it.

Are these shoehorned physics the friction and inertia of gases, the third law of Newton and the optics of cameras, to name a few?

Physics are not designed to be simple so that an Average Joe from the country with the worst school system in the industrialized world can say "WOW, this sounds true to me!"

If Physics can be shoehorned to support one wrong theory it can be shoehorned to support many other theories. If you want to show that your ideas hold any water then shoehorn Physics in an acceptably convincing way to fit your ideas, and then we can talk. Just ranting about how people who have actually studied are the bad ones in this story is really getting old, fast.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2012, 06:57:40 AM »

You say that physics isn't "designed" to be simple but why?
Why can't things be simplified.

The universe does not stop to wail and moan and reinvent itself because sceptimatic is too dumb to understand Physics.

Physics are the inner workings of this universe, and they are as complicated or simple as reality is, not as simple as you want them to be.

The day you happen to need a tumor extracted from your brain, will you want a surgeon who rises to the occasion and studies the brain just as the brain is, with some simple and many complicated structures, or will you want a surgeon who sat on his butt and cried about how the brain should be simpler, so anyone should be able to understand it?

You have trouble understanding even the simplest of all Physics. There are many books that explain the simple Physics you do not understand with such simple language and easy examples that not knowing is negligence on your part. But being negligent in your learning and making claims like the ones you do, as if you had learned at least good High School physics, is downright reckless.

?

cartwheelnurd

  • 517
  • +0/-0
  • Iname as One
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2012, 07:09:20 AM »
You believe you understand it because you have studied what you have been taught and all the shoehorned physics to go with it.

Are these shoehorned physics the friction and inertia of gases, the third law of Newton and the optics of cameras, to name a few?

Physics are not designed to be simple so that an Average Joe from the country with the worst school system in the industrialized world can say "WOW, this sounds true to me!"

If Physics can be shoehorned to support one wrong theory it can be shoehorned to support many other theories. If you want to show that your ideas hold any water then shoehorn Physics in an acceptably convincing way to fit your ideas, and then we can talk. Just ranting about how people who have actually studied are the bad ones in this story is really getting old, fast.
Who is saying people are bad for studying physics?

Why some of you just jump in and say that I'm saying all physics and science is wrong or all shoehorned equations, I don't know.

You say that physics isn't "designed" to be simple but why?
Why can't things be simplified.

Obviously the reason for that is simple, it's because it apparently weeds out the smarter people from the dense or the wheat from the chaff.

Let's see you use simplistic terms to explain how scientists calculated the distance of the moon, before the fake reflectors were supposedly put on it.

All I'd like to know is what tools they used to calculate the moons distance from Earth and how they set this up to achieve their 240,000 miles distance.

If you can't or won't then can anyone tell me.

First of all, here: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
This is the simple english wikipedia. Hopefully you can understand it.

And we don't design physics. We design methods to make physics make sense. And if you think that it will work so well, make up some laws and give us a GUT, and then we'll see if your methods flawlessly hold true.
Ravioli is how the universe fills a small part of itself with cheese.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2012, 08:09:37 AM »
Let's see you use simplistic terms to explain how scientists calculated the distance of the moon, before the fake reflectors were supposedly put on it.

All I'd like to know is what tools they used to calculate the moons distance from Earth and how they set this up to achieve their 240,000 miles distance.

If you can't or won't then can anyone tell me.

Here's how the Ancient Greeks did it: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html
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.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2012, 09:34:52 AM »
Let's see you use simplistic terms to explain how scientists calculated the distance of the moon, before the fake reflectors were supposedly put on it.

All I'd like to know is what tools they used to calculate the moons distance from Earth and how they set this up to achieve their 240,000 miles distance.

If you can't or won't then can anyone tell me.
Who cares about giving a simplistic explanation of how they calculated the distance to the moon? I can give you the real explanation, and you can turn on the neurons that I am sure you have somewhere and rise to the occasion, understanding something that just cannot be explained to a four year old.

Since Kepler we have a pretty good idea of the shape of the Solar System, including the proportions between each orbit. We know the shape and relative position of each orbit of the planets to an impressive precision, but we did not know the size of the orbits of the planets in the Solar System. In fact, we did not know with much precision the size or composition of the planets.

What we needed was a few measurements that could show a difference between, say, a Solar System with 50 million kilometers between the Sun and Earth and a Solar System with a distance of 150 million kilometers between the Sun and Earth.

The measurement that gave us this vital piece of information was the transit of Venus between the Sun and us. We could see two things: the proportional size of Venus compared with the Sun, and the time Venus took to move from one side of the Sun to the other, as seen from Earth. Those are two measurements that change with the cube of the mass of Venus, while the size of the orbit of Venus is proportional to the square of its mass. Once we had a good estimation of the size of the orbit of Venus we could know the size of all the orbits of the Solar System. (There may be a few errors in my explanation due to the fact that I will not give much of my time to researching for this forum).

Once we know the size of one of the orbits we can apply this information to all the other orbits, including the Moon.

Also, the Moon is so close we can measure its distance with parallax. In fact, with current technology we can measure the distance to the closest stars by parallax. Even though a mirror on the Moon helps, it is not necessary to use parallax.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2012, 12:05:02 PM »
In simplistic terms, explain to me how they calculated the moons size and distance to be so exact as to be landed on by Apollo 11 astronauts.

All I want is a very simple method of what they did to measure the distance and size, that's all.
If you cannot answer this then just say so.

You can measure the distance to the moon with RADAR.  Once you get the distance, you can calculate the size from observations.  Is that simple enough for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2012, 12:19:34 PM »
In simplistic terms, explain to me how they calculated the moons size and distance to be so exact as to be landed on by Apollo 11 astronauts.

All I want is a very simple method of what they did to measure the distance and size, that's all.
If you cannot answer this then just say so.

You can measure the distance to the moon with RADAR.  Once you get the distance, you can calculate the size from observations.  Is that simple enough for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana
I don't want wiki or any internet site put up to explain it to me.

Bounce a RADAR beam off the moon and measure how long it takes to get back.  How much more simple do you want it?

Quote
I would however like someone to explain in the most simplistic way how they manage to measure the moons distance and size to allow the 1969 Apollo craft to land on it.

First of all, what makes you think that measuring the moon's size and distance is a simple thing?  Secondly, the Apollo craft were not the first man made objects to land on the moon.  The Russians sent their first probe to the moon in 1959.

Quote
All I'm asking is what did they do or point at the moon to receive the data back that confirmed the size and distance and be sure that it was accurate to allow the moon mission to go ahead.

And we're trying to tell you that there are lots of ways of measuring the distance to the moon that have been used for over 2000 years.  Not all of them are simple.

Quote
That's all I'm asking. I do  not want a roundabout way as to how they measured the cosmos, stars, the sun, or anything else...just the moon.

But that's the thing, they're all related.  Once you get one measurement, you can use that to figure out all the rest.
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.