.....

  • 916 Replies
  • 269757 Views
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #120 on: November 20, 2012, 10:53:05 AM »
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
And who, exactly said the moon was of a cement like compound?

You are blabbering out every idiotic thing that has been posted in conspiracy theorist web pages without checking the sources at all.

There are real, hard worked speculations about the composition of the Moon's surface, done before the first lunar landings by real scientists, and they were, as expected, only partly successful. This is also an emotional argument, not a real argument against anything. Even if somebody thought that, or it happened to be true or it happened to be false, so what?
Buzz Aldrin did.

Here's the question and his answer.

What did it feel like to walk on the moon? Is its surface different from that of Earth?

The surface of the moon is like nothing here on Earth! It's totally lacking any evidence of life. It has lots of fine, talcum-powderlike dust mixed with a complete variety of pebbles, rocks, and boulders. Many pebbles, fewer rocks, and even fewer boulders naturally make up its surface. The dust is a very fine, overall dark gray. And with no air molecules to separate the dust, it clings together like cement. If you examine it under a microscope, you can see it's made up of tiny, solidified droplets of vaporized rock resulting from extreme velocity impacts, like an asteroid from outer space hitting the surface over millions of years.


From this.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm


Ha ha
If you are going to quote buzz aldrin on how he found the moon when he landed, you need to accept that he landed there!!
The only way I can go against the landings is to go on what those who were supposedly behind it happening, which includes Aldrin.

It's the same as the BS spinning Earth, I can only go on what those who push it and what they say to make my mind up as to why they spin this BS.

Actually, if you look at it, he didn't say the compound was like cement. He said it stuck together like cement. Semantics, I know, but important ones.
Talc/cement, whatever. It is still a fine powder whichever way you look at it and if we go by what N.A.S.A say, then a rocket would have made a crater , even if it was a small one.

They worried that the moon's composition would have very deep dust on the surface. This was not the case, but in fact it was a fine layer.

Nothing at all is disturbed under those landers...nothing.

Fantastic claims require fantastic proof. So prove it. Show me that nothing was disturbed. From what I've seen, the was a blast of dust when the exhuast hit the surface... and then the dust was gone so the solid rock didn't get disturbed. So please show me that nothing was disturbed.
Go and take a look under the lander.

Get yourself a picture up, there's plenty about.

You made the claim. Support it. I have more important things to do with my life than play games with your conspiracy theory.
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.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #121 on: November 20, 2012, 11:25:57 AM »
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?

You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.

That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #122 on: November 20, 2012, 11:27:28 AM »
The moon was said to be a cement like compound.
And who, exactly said the moon was of a cement like compound?

You are blabbering out every idiotic thing that has been posted in conspiracy theorist web pages without checking the sources at all.

There are real, hard worked speculations about the composition of the Moon's surface, done before the first lunar landings by real scientists, and they were, as expected, only partly successful. This is also an emotional argument, not a real argument against anything. Even if somebody thought that, or it happened to be true or it happened to be false, so what?
Buzz Aldrin did.

Here's the question and his answer.

What did it feel like to walk on the moon? Is its surface different from that of Earth?

The surface of the moon is like nothing here on Earth! It's totally lacking any evidence of life. It has lots of fine, talcum-powderlike dust mixed with a complete variety of pebbles, rocks, and boulders. Many pebbles, fewer rocks, and even fewer boulders naturally make up its surface. The dust is a very fine, overall dark gray. And with no air molecules to separate the dust, it clings together like cement. If you examine it under a microscope, you can see it's made up of tiny, solidified droplets of vaporized rock resulting from extreme velocity impacts, like an asteroid from outer space hitting the surface over millions of years.


From this.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/space/apollo11/interview.htm


Ha ha
If you are going to quote buzz aldrin on how he found the moon when he landed, you need to accept that he landed there!!
The only way I can go against the landings is to go on what those who were supposedly behind it happening, which includes Aldrin.

It's the same as the BS spinning Earth, I can only go on what those who push it and what they say to make my mind up as to why they spin this BS.

Actually, if you look at it, he didn't say the compound was like cement. He said it stuck together like cement. Semantics, I know, but important ones.
Talc/cement, whatever. It is still a fine powder whichever way you look at it and if we go by what N.A.S.A say, then a rocket would have made a crater , even if it was a small one.

They worried that the moon's composition would have very deep dust on the surface. This was not the case, but in fact it was a fine layer.

Nothing at all is disturbed under those landers...nothing.

Fantastic claims require fantastic proof. So prove it. Show me that nothing was disturbed. From what I've seen, the was a blast of dust when the exhuast hit the surface... and then the dust was gone so the solid rock didn't get disturbed. So please show me that nothing was disturbed.
Go and take a look under the lander.

Get yourself a picture up, there's plenty about.

You made the claim. Support it. I have more important things to do with my life than play games with your conspiracy theory.
Yes, so you told me before and before that and before that.
You aren't forced into answering to me, that's your choice. You can either do it or not, it makes no difference to me.

I don;t need to support the no blast crater claim or undisturbed soil under the lander, I'm certain you have see it for yourself and so has most on this forum I would guess.

I've seen the "no blast crater," that you speak of. Because a tiny rocket won't put a blast crater in a rock. My model rocket couldn't even put a blast crater in soft soil. However, I did see what appeared to be trails where dust was blasted away from the landing zone. Now, you made the claim, if you can't support it, it's invalid.
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 #123 on: November 20, 2012, 12:06:03 PM »
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?

You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.

That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
I never said the atmosphere was fixed to the vacuum of space.

I'm arguing about the claims about the atmosphere gripping Earth's surface and rotating with it at the same speed.

So you're arguing against the physics of friction and conservation of momentum?
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 #124 on: November 20, 2012, 12:21:18 PM »
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?

You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.

That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
I never said the atmosphere was fixed to the vacuum of space.

I'm arguing about the claims about the atmosphere gripping Earth's surface and rotating with it at the same speed.

So you're arguing against the physics of friction and conservation of momentum?
Yes, when it's applied to the silly idea that the Atmosphere from ground to the edge of space, spins exactly with the Earth's rotation as we are told  it does.

Good old Einstein added a special relativity for the Earth model though didn't he.
Shoe horned physics you see.

So conservation doesn't apply to the atmosphere because it's a part of earth? But you were saying earlier in this thread that the laws of physics have been tested and verified on Earth. Why don't the laws of physics work the same for the atmosphere as they do for anything else?
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 #125 on: November 20, 2012, 12:39:34 PM »
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?

You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.

That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
I never said the atmosphere was fixed to the vacuum of space.

I'm arguing about the claims about the atmosphere gripping Earth's surface and rotating with it at the same speed.

So you're arguing against the physics of friction and conservation of momentum?
Yes, when it's applied to the silly idea that the Atmosphere from ground to the edge of space, spins exactly with the Earth's rotation as we are told  it does.

Good old Einstein added a special relativity for the Earth model though didn't he.
Shoe horned physics you see.

So conservation doesn't apply to the atmosphere because it's a part of earth? But you were saying earlier in this thread that the laws of physics have been tested and verified on Earth. Why don't the laws of physics work the same for the atmosphere as they do for anything else?
For the rotating Earth BS, we have to believe in having two atmospheres.
The one that supposedly grips the Earth and rotates exactly with it and us and also another atmosphere within that, that we feel the wind from.

I thought we explained this once. How could there possibly be two atmospheres? There's one earth.
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 #126 on: November 20, 2012, 12:41:51 PM »
Did Airey get a prize for proving the Earth doesn't spin?
Did Airey have more evidence than your "spinning? Yuck!!!" speech?

You have not given one single idea of why the atmosphere should stay fixed to the vacuum of space, against which there is no friction, and not stay fixed to the surface of the Earth, against which there is friction.

That is what science is all about. You can say "Yuck!!!" all you want, but you have to have evidence.
I never said the atmosphere was fixed to the vacuum of space.

I'm arguing about the claims about the atmosphere gripping Earth's surface and rotating with it at the same speed.

So you're arguing against the physics of friction and conservation of momentum?
Yes, when it's applied to the silly idea that the Atmosphere from ground to the edge of space, spins exactly with the Earth's rotation as we are told  it does.

Good old Einstein added a special relativity for the Earth model though didn't he.
Shoe horned physics you see.

So conservation doesn't apply to the atmosphere because it's a part of earth? But you were saying earlier in this thread that the laws of physics have been tested and verified on Earth. Why don't the laws of physics work the same for the atmosphere as they do for anything else?
For the rotating Earth BS, we have to believe in having two atmospheres.
The one that supposedly grips the Earth and rotates exactly with it and us and also another atmosphere within that, that we feel the wind from.

None said the atmosphere moves exactly as the earth, in general it moves in the same direction because of friction, but other factors can also affect the air cause the wind.
You can't have it both ways to suit your thinking.

None said the atmosphere moves exactly as the earth, in general it moves in the same direction because of friction, but other factors can also affect the air cause the wind. Just as we all move with the earth, but we can also walk in any direction we want, we don't need two persons of each to explain that...

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #127 on: November 20, 2012, 01:02:12 PM »
For your magic Earth to work, you have to have the magic atmosphere in exact unison with the Earth to give you the same thing as you have been trying to tell me about, which is being inside a plane at 500mph and you can jump up and down inside it.

As I said, the atmosphere should move in general with the earth because of the friction (there is no magic there), but as everybody knows, there is also wind, so is not like it moves exactly at the same speed at the same direction in every single point, because other factors also have influence over it, not as much as the earth gravity and friction itself, usually the wind is not enough to make you jump in one place and land in another.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #128 on: November 20, 2012, 01:19:44 PM »
For your magic Earth to work, you have to have the magic atmosphere in exact unison with the Earth to give you the same thing as you have been trying to tell me about, which is being inside a plane at 500mph and you can jump up and down inside it.

As I said, the atmosphere should move in general with the earth because of the friction (there is no magic there), but as everybody knows, there is also wind, so is not like it moves exactly at the same speed at the same direction in every single point, because other factors also have influence over it, not as much as the earth gravity and friction itself, usually the wind is not enough to make you jump in one place and land in another.
The rotating Earth method relies on the atmosphere to be rotating exactly with the Earth.
You can't now say, it doesn't move exactly with Earth then try and explain wind, because the rotation is only one way , so therefore going by that, we would only feel wind in one direction and clouds would only move in one direction.

The theory relies of magic but in truth, the theory is derived from BS.

Actually, if you took away convection currents and irregularities in atmospheric density, you wouldn't feel any wind at all. But, alas, the sun heats the atmosphere, causing convection currents and non-uniform density, so we have weather.
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 #129 on: November 20, 2012, 01:32:19 PM »
The rotating Earth method relies on the atmosphere to be rotating exactly with the Earth.
Howcome? is there no wind in the rotating earth method? because I live on a rotating earth, and there is wind.

You can't now say, it doesn't move exactly with Earth then try and explain wind, because the rotation is only one way , so therefore going by that, we would only feel wind in one direction and clouds would only move in one direction.

The theory relies of magic but in truth, the theory is derived from BS.
I have not explained wind, I said there are other factors, not the earth rotation, that cause it.
The earth gravity and friction cause the atmosphere to move with the earth, things like the temperature cause different portions of air move in different directions within that large scale movement. If you are on a plane does it mean you cant walk? if you walk while on a plane does it mean the airplane speed does not affect you?
That theory, as you call it, relies on observations and physics that can be verified. You not understanding it, has more to do with your intelligence than with its logic.

?

mexicanwave

  • 290
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #130 on: November 20, 2012, 02:18:43 PM »
The rotating Earth method relies on the atmosphere to be rotating exactly with the Earth.
Howcome? is there no wind in the rotating earth method? because I live on a rotating earth, and there is wind.

You can't now say, it doesn't move exactly with Earth then try and explain wind, because the rotation is only one way , so therefore going by that, we would only feel wind in one direction and clouds would only move in one direction.

The theory relies of magic but in truth, the theory is derived from BS.
I have not explained wind, I said there are other factors, not the earth rotation, that cause it.
The earth gravity and friction cause the atmosphere to move with the earth, things like the temperature cause different portions of air move in different directions within that large scale movement. If you are on a plane does it mean you cant walk? if you walk while on a plane does it mean the airplane speed does not affect you?
That theory, as you call it, relies on observations and physics that can be verified. You not understanding it, has more to do with your intelligence than with its logic.

As others have explained the wind is affected by countless other factors. Temperature, topography, sea currents and much more I am sure.

Other atmospheres are even stranger. Look up Venus superrotation. A complete rotation of the planet takes 243 earth days but the atmosphere whips around the planet in just 4 earth days.

The planet spins, it has an atmosphere, but it is not locked in position by your sceptimagic.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #131 on: November 20, 2012, 02:36:05 PM »
Good job sceptamatic. Going against these moonlanding trolls is tough and you don't have support. I agree that man has never been to the moon. They will just wear you out and never look closely at the evidence. Good job on standing your ground though. :)
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 #132 on: November 20, 2012, 04:58:15 PM »
Clap trap:

You are using the plane as an excuse as to why the Earth spins yet it's a lame excuse for one reason.
The plane is a sealed unit. Basically you are inside a tin can , flying in an atmosphere ...of course you won't feel the outside atmosphere.

The way your Earth works is like me being on that plane travelling at 500 or so MPH, sipping tea , whilst somehow it starts pissing down inside it and then blowing a gale, within the plane whilst it is still sealed from the outside atmosphere.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You didn't even understand my point. I am talking about the wind and your claim of the need of "two atmospheres one inside another" because "one should move exactly with the earth and the other one is the wind" or some crap like that, which is completely stupid. And i tried to explain the small movements of air inside the bigger movement of the  whole atmosphere comparing it with people inside a plane, everybody moves with the plane, but also everybody can move in different directions, just as the air can move inside the earth movement. But you just don't seem to understand anything, besides having to explain how and why things work, with you I also need to explain what do I mean with lots of things that I say, no wonder why physics and other sciences sound like magic and fairy tales to you.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #133 on: November 20, 2012, 04:58:43 PM »
Yes you did explain it before and badly.
Yes, he did explain it before, and did a nice job about it. It is enormously complicated to understand how you even came to the idea of two atmospheres because everyone understands that no two atmospheres are or would be needed.

And yet, for reasons I cannot understand, ThinkingMan is still being nice with you and trying again to explain what you should have gotten the first time. Stop playing word games and open your mind to science.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #134 on: November 20, 2012, 09:39:20 PM »
I honestly cannot get my head around it...
And
It's so pathetic I honestly don't understand...
Yes, that about sums it up.

You didn't even understand my point.
He does not want to understand your point, or Thinkingman's, Mexicanwave's, RealScientist's, or Robertotrevor's.

How hard can it be to comprehend lightyears, or how an atmosphere behaves, or an object matching speeds with a larger object and landing straight down on it?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 09:41:34 PM by 29silhouette »

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #135 on: November 21, 2012, 03:43:18 AM »
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives.  You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night.  Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason. 

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • +0/-0
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #136 on: November 21, 2012, 05:15:51 AM »
Newtons law gets used as though it would work better in a vacuum as a rocket pushes against "itself" and the exhaust gases are merely just the end product of that and serve no purpose in propulsion.
If you are going to tell us what the Laws of Newton are, you better read them and understand them first. A rocket cannot push against itself. In fact, nothing can push against itself and accelerate as a consequence of pushing against itself. This is the very first conclusion you can get from Newton's third Law of Motion. In fact, your comment about the exhaust gases serving no purpose would be enough in my country to fail Physics and have to go to remedial courses during the vacations. Under some circumstances, you could end having to repeat the whole academic year.

Your attempt to reduce Physics to a word game has reached the point where you are contradicting yourself and you are not even aware of it.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #137 on: November 21, 2012, 05:43:48 AM »
Yes you did explain it before and badly.
Yes, he did explain it before, and did a nice job about it. It is enormously complicated to understand how you even came to the idea of two atmospheres because everyone understands that no two atmospheres are or would be needed.

And yet, for reasons I cannot understand, ThinkingMan is still being nice with you and trying again to explain what you should have gotten the first time. Stop playing word games and open your mind to science.

If you think I'm being nice to him, you should take a look at my angry ranting thread.

Oh I understand what you are implying and to be fair, it's all based on deception.

Do explain the reality of the situation then. Please include how physics actually works so we wont be confused.

Basically, you are telling me that there's just the one atmosphere and it is rotating with The speed of the Earth which is why we don't know we are rotating.
In between this 1040mph atmosphere, we have differing air currents, in all directions that can somehow miraculously slow do to a hurricane or a mild breeze, down to a still night/day.

Let's break it down to the atomic level then. The earth is made of atoms, as is everything. So on the surface of the spinning earth, there are atoms. The air's atoms is snug as a bug against the ground, so when the atoms of earth "bump into" the atmos of the atmosphere at ground level, it pushes them. Then those atoms push more atoms, and so on and so on all the way up. Now, as you can probably imagine, that motion won't be completely uniform, as these aren't all going to be perfect, straight on, 8 ball in the corner pocket pool table shots. This can explain a very small amount of atmospheric disturbances. The others come from the sun's rays, which are comprised of photons, which we'll refer to as a particle. These particles come into the atmosphere at an insane velocity and insane density, causing more friction, causing the atmosphere to heat up. Now, since some parts of the atmosphere were already more dense from the irregular motion, the heating is not uniform. This is why we get seemingly sporadic cloud formations, cold fronts, and warm fronts (which both are felt as wind).

These hurricanes/breezes etc can go against a 1040mph atmosphere or with it supposedly.
Absolute none-sense.

See above, they're not going against anything, as they are already moving that direction thanks to inertia.

I'm serious here: The physics behind a rotating Earth requires a person to actually believe that magic is real.
It is the same with rockets working in a vacuum....Newtons law gets used as though it would work better in a vacuum as a rocket pushes against "itself" and the exhaust gases are merely just the end product of that and serve no purpose in propulsion.

No, no. The exhaust gasses are the reason that a rocket moves forward, whether inside the atmosphere or in the vacuum of space. It just works better in space because there's less pushing back. Less gravity, no atmospheric drag. The thrust of the rocket, which is created by high velocity exhaust gases being forced out the nozzle of the rocket.

Don't get me wrong here. The science behind it all has been made deliberately mind boggling so that most people will never question it.

If it's so mind boggling, why do so many people understand it? Don't tell me they've been brainwashed, because if they didn't understand it, they would never be able to apply to to the airplanes you fly in, the car you drive with, the boat you move across the oceans/lakes/rivers of the world, or the computer you are using to post these responses about how you distrust the physics model that made this conversation possible.

Official science: Amaze the hell out of you with theories and pictures, then screw your head up with ridiculous complicated physics equations that are made to fit their theory.

See above.

Human beings are by nature, curious, yet we are also by nature, "gullible", yet often, what you see is actually what you get and what you're told "isn't" actually what is.

Again... see above.

Take a walk outside on a clear night and just sit and stare at the night sky with all the stars and the first thing you will notice, is that the Earth is stationary...It gives you no other reason to think otherwise and neither does your own body's in built balancing system.

Really? So when I go outside at different times and the stars that all appear to be different sizes have all appeared to move uniformly across the sky in one direction, while (lately) jupiter has moved differently from all of the stars, and the moon different than both of the other two examples?
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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #138 on: November 21, 2012, 05:46:19 AM »
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives.  You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night.  Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.

It is sad that they are so closed minded.  They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed.  They are like children, except that children can be taught.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #139 on: November 21, 2012, 05:50:54 AM »
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives.  You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night.  Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.

It is sad that they are so closed minded.  They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed.  They are like children, except that children can be taught.

Why you gotta troll the idiot into trolling us? eh? Eh?! EH?!?!?!
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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #140 on: November 21, 2012, 05:55:30 AM »
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives.  You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night.  Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.

It is sad that they are so closed minded.  They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed.  They are like children, except that children can be taught.

Why you gotta troll the idiot into trolling us? eh? Eh?! EH?!?!?!

Why do you just reject anything that is not mainstream?  You don't even try to entertain the idea that you might have been given false information.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #141 on: November 21, 2012, 05:58:55 AM »
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives.  You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night.  Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.

It is sad that they are so closed minded.  They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed.  They are like children, except that children can be taught.

Why you gotta troll the idiot into trolling us? eh? Eh?! EH?!?!?!

Why do you just reject anything that is not mainstream?  You don't even try to entertain the idea that you might have been given false information.

If it's false, then the observed effects would not exist.
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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #142 on: November 21, 2012, 06:02:42 AM »
sceptimatic, they have been brainwashed their entire lives.  You can't expect them to start thinking for themselves over night.  Eventually, they will run out of excuses and start listening to reason.
This is what happens when a mass of people are brainwashed. They are terrified of going against the grain or are so sure of their intelligence that they cannot conceive that they have been brainwashed and dine out on fictional equations made to fit what they have been taught.

It is sad that they are so closed minded.  They refuse all explanations and cling to the information that they have been spoon fed.  They are like children, except that children can be taught.

Why you gotta troll the idiot into trolling us? eh? Eh?! EH?!?!?!

Why do you just reject anything that is not mainstream?  You don't even try to entertain the idea that you might have been given false information.

If it's false, then the observed effects would not exist.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I do believe that you did not answer my question.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • +0/-0
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #143 on: November 21, 2012, 08:58:54 AM »
Why be a smart ass and disregard what leading experts tell others? Being the black sheep was cool when you are a teenager, at some point though you grow up.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #144 on: November 21, 2012, 09:27:47 AM »
Leading experts supposedly sent astronauts to the moon through a belt of radiation said to be from 1000 miles outside our atmosphere, stretching up to 25,000 miles, supposedly observed by James Van Allen.
It was stated by so called experts that the astronauts would need a lead shield 4 feet thick to protect them, yet N.A.S.A experts guessed that paper thin aluminium would do the trick and so it appears that it did.

First of all, who said that they would need a 4 foot lead shield?  Secondly, when you're traveling at 25,000 mph, it doesn't take very long to get through the Van Allen radiation belts.
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.

?

Flat Eric

  • 335
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #145 on: November 21, 2012, 10:17:59 AM »
you know nothing about rocketry too?

?

Flat Eric

  • 335
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #146 on: November 21, 2012, 10:20:19 AM »
then you don't know

?

Flat Eric

  • 335
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #147 on: November 21, 2012, 10:22:37 AM »
i am eagerly waiting for your "proofs"

?

Flat Eric

  • 335
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #148 on: November 21, 2012, 10:36:59 AM »
i suspect that if it involves balloons, then it would be pointless in vacuum (i didn't find the experiment in the 14 pages of the topic)

?

Flat Eric

  • 335
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #149 on: November 21, 2012, 10:42:29 AM »
which one?

can't you do a copy/paste?