Space telescopes.

  • 95 Replies
  • 9240 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41795
Re: Space telescopes.
« Reply #90 on: May 22, 2013, 12:21:02 PM »
Can you prove that I wasn't chosen as the person to know everything and I'm giving little snippets out as simply and as slowly as possible?
Everyone knows that Sandokahn is the chosen one, not you.
Can you prove this?
Read the FAQ: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.0.html#.UZ0abqLkvK0
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.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space telescopes.
« Reply #91 on: May 22, 2013, 08:02:44 PM »
EDIT: I just thought about it, and I have to imagine that to anyone who has no clue about physics, normal sentences like ours must sound exactly like the senseless FET statements like "the sun is black and possibly a hollow electromagnetic converter". No wonder there's a problem...

I think you're onto something there. For example,


transferring their momentum.

If you already kept him reading up until this point, well, you've lost him now. We spent a good dozen pages one time explaining inertia to him. He argued endlessly that inertia doesn't exist and that those indoctrinated scientists just make up words to sound smart.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space telescopes.
« Reply #92 on: May 22, 2013, 11:50:49 PM »
I thought hoppy was the chosen one?  ???

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Space telescopes.
« Reply #93 on: May 23, 2013, 12:24:21 AM »


I did come across this a couple of weeks again that posits an alternative to the conventional gravity model of planetary orbits:

http://morethangravity.com

This is quite a transparent equivocation. You just rename "gravity" as "solar wind" and suddenly you have a theory. Unfortunately it is not much of a theory because it does not explain the moons of the planets, the Cavendish Experiment, or just about anything other than planetary orbits.

Also, we know what solar wind is and we know that it cannot pull the planets into orbits. It is just not enough, has no "pulling" power and has a lot more electromagnetic influence than short range gravitational effect.

In short, this is an attempt to hijack the real scientific work that discovered solar wind to lend a scientific appearance to an unsustainable hypothesis.

I know.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Space telescopes.
« Reply #94 on: May 26, 2013, 09:35:32 AM »

EDIT: I just thought about it, and I have to imagine that to anyone who has no clue about physics, normal sentences like ours must sound exactly like the senseless FET statements like "the sun is black and possibly a hollow electromagnetic converter". No wonder there's a problem...
Exactly. These guys believe the words have power by themselves and that by saying "the solar wind does it" you have an actual explanation of something. Never mind that, as you said, the force is in the opposite direction as the one needed, has the wrong magnitude and its interaction with a planet is of the wrong kind. If you can answer the question of what keeps the Earth in an orbit with less than 10 monosyllable words you call that an explanation and do not bother yourself with the fact that it is the wrong explanation.

Re: Space telescopes.
« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2013, 01:19:47 PM »