« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?

  • 147 Replies
  • 18250 Views
*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #60 on: November 12, 2014, 02:02:29 AM »
What are you babbling on about?
Logged
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.
*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #61 on: November 12, 2014, 02:08:30 AM »
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks.
I would challenge your assumption that most professors only care about their paychecks; they will care for their paychecks to the level you care for yours. Don't assume any moral superiority.

Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

On the contrary: evolution challenged the status quo, relativity challenged the status quo, quantum mechanics challenged the status quo. Barry marshall challenged the status quo in medicine and received a Nobel prize for it.

Science is frequently challenged by scientists, that is how it progresses.

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 11, 2014, 08:17:48 PM
His attitude towards science and scientists probably explains why Saros works as a part-time cleaner at Walmart.    ;D

I'll let you in to a little secret, the finest human being I have ever known finished his working life as a factory cleaner.
Logged
?

Goth

  • 220
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #62 on: November 12, 2014, 02:39:01 AM »
Quote from: mathsman on November 12, 2014, 02:08:30 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks.
I would challenge your assumption that most professors only care about their paychecks; they will care for their paychecks to the level you care for yours. Don't assume any moral superiority.

Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

On the contrary: evolution challenged the status quo, relativity challenged the status quo, quantum mechanics challenged the status quo. Barry marshall challenged the status quo in medicine and received a Nobel prize for it.

Science is frequently challenged by scientists, that is how it progresses.

Could it be' despite the clean technology of the past decade, we continue to extract and burn fossil fuels more than ever before
Logged
*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #63 on: November 12, 2014, 03:45:15 AM »
Quote from: Goth on November 12, 2014, 02:39:01 AM
Quote from: mathsman on November 12, 2014, 02:08:30 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks.
I would challenge your assumption that most professors only care about their paychecks; they will care for their paychecks to the level you care for yours. Don't assume any moral superiority.

Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

On the contrary: evolution challenged the status quo, relativity challenged the status quo, quantum mechanics challenged the status quo. Barry marshall challenged the status quo in medicine and received a Nobel prize for it.

Science is frequently challenged by scientists, that is how it progresses.

Could it be' despite the clean technology of the past decade, we continue to extract and burn fossil fuels more than ever before

What?
Logged
?

Goth

  • 220
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #64 on: November 12, 2014, 04:26:53 AM »
despite the clean technology of the past decade, we continue to extract and burn fossil fuels more than ever before

Boldness be my friend.
Logged
*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #65 on: November 12, 2014, 04:53:29 AM »
Quote from: Goth on November 12, 2014, 04:26:53 AM
despite the clean technology of the past decade, we continue to extract and burn fossil fuels more than ever before

Boldness be my friend.

How is this the fault of science? Energy policies are determined by politicians and economics.
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #66 on: November 12, 2014, 05:24:01 AM »
Quote from: mathsman on November 12, 2014, 04:53:29 AM
Quote from: Goth on November 12, 2014, 04:26:53 AM
despite the clean technology of the past decade, we continue to extract and burn fossil fuels more than ever before

Boldness be my friend.

How is this the fault of science? Energy policies are determined by politicians and economics.
And who do you think holds the strings that hold the scientists? Then who holds the strings that hold the politicians who are holding the scientists. It's puppeteers dangling those below them and those below them and so on. This is how it works.
The ones who control the money, control the world.
All those who are happy dangling from the strings will be paid of it. Those who cut them, will be left to rot.
Logged
*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #67 on: November 12, 2014, 05:31:49 AM »
I'm glad we agree that scientists aren't responsible for energy policy.
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #68 on: November 12, 2014, 05:47:42 AM »
Quote from: mathsman on November 12, 2014, 05:31:49 AM
I'm glad we agree that scientists aren't responsible for energy policy.
Indirectly they are, because they parrot what they are told to parrot about energy and a whole host of other stuff.

Imagine if you knew free energy was available and your work helped harness it. You are then told that the world has to believe we are reliant on so called fossil fuels, plus your free energy has to be cast off as a poisioness energy if in the wrong hands but you know it's free and clean with no poisons and are told to relay the wrong info to the public.
Basically you are involved in parroting the lies given to you to the every gullible public who place ther ultimate trust in the person in the lab coat 100% more than they do in the person named as a politician.
Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #69 on: November 12, 2014, 06:18:53 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2014, 05:47:42 AM
Quote from: mathsman on November 12, 2014, 05:31:49 AM
I'm glad we agree that scientists aren't responsible for energy policy.
Indirectly they are, because they parrot what they are told to parrot about energy and a whole host of other stuff.

Imagine if you knew free energy was available and your work helped harness it. You are then told that the world has to believe we are reliant on so called fossil fuels, plus your free energy has to be cast off as a poisioness energy if in the wrong hands but you know it's free and clean with no poisons and are told to relay the wrong info to the public.
Basically you are involved in parroting the lies given to you to the every gullible public who place ther ultimate trust in the person in the lab coat 100% more than they do in the person named as a politician.

There are way too many ifs and far too little substance in your comment to take it seriously.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #70 on: November 12, 2014, 06:21:39 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2014, 05:47:42 AM
Quote from: mathsman on November 12, 2014, 05:31:49 AM
I'm glad we agree that scientists aren't responsible for energy policy.
Indirectly they are, because they parrot what they are told to parrot about energy and a whole host of other stuff.

Imagine if you knew free energy was available and your work helped harness it. You are then told that the world has to believe we are reliant on so called fossil fuels, plus your free energy has to be cast off as a poisioness energy if in the wrong hands but you know it's free and clean with no poisons and are told to relay the wrong info to the public.
Basically you are involved in parroting the lies given to you to the every gullible public who place ther ultimate trust in the person in the lab coat 100% more than they do in the person named as a politician.

Is that the best you can come up with, a free energy fairy story? The fact is that governments overlook scientific advice when it suits them.

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/news/article-culture-clash-science-and-policy/


Here's an excerpt from the link above:

Mark Henderson (Director of Communications at the Wellcome Trust) began by pointing out that, among 650 MPs, there is only one PHD level research scientist, alongside a few engineers and two medical doctors. Looking more broadly, Henderson estimates that there were no more than seventy or eighty MPs who have a history of strong engagement with science. On a practical level, this means that government often manages and uses scientific evidence poorly when it is called upon in the policy making process. On a more intellectual level, this lack of appreciation of the scientific method also deprives government of a useful way of thinking about problems. Henderson also emphasised that science is not the only legitimate input to the policy process and will always require value judgments. The key is to be clear about the distinction between positive and normative information. In situations in which the available evidence leaves considerable uncertainty, politicians should see themselves as collectors of evidence, evaluating policy in order to build up the evidence base.


Governments have as much faith in science as you do. They will regularly ignore the evidence if it conflicts with their beliefs.
All of this is getting away from my earlier point that science challenges itself regularly. If it didn't the text books of today would be the same as the text books of a hundred years ago and they're not.
Logged
*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #71 on: November 12, 2014, 07:32:43 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2014, 05:47:42 AM
Imagine....
Let's stick to facts, rather than your fetid imagination.
Logged
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.
*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #72 on: November 13, 2014, 03:20:22 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2014, 05:47:42 AM
Indirectly they are, because they parrot what they are told to parrot about energy and a whole host of other stuff.

LOL..... our resident liar just can't help himself.  He seems to truly believe that out of 7 billion people on the planet, including 6 million scientists, that he's the only person to be immune to the "bullshit" he claims the government and NASA and the scientists are purportedly feeding us.

What's even more ironic is the fact that he himself blindly and repeatedly parrots the thoughts and words of every other conspiracy theorist on the interwebs.

I think we'll have to start calling him "Polly", and feeding crackers to him.    ;D
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #73 on: November 13, 2014, 03:31:26 AM »
Quote from: mathsman on November 12, 2014, 06:21:39 AM
Governments have as much faith in science as you do. They will regularly ignore the evidence if it conflicts with their beliefs.
All of this is getting away from my earlier point that science challenges itself regularly. If it didn't the text books of today would be the same as the text books of a hundred years ago and they're not.
It's nothing to do with Governments beliefs and all to do with pocket lining, or better still, the ultimate goal of turning your pockets inside out.
They cannot do that if they don't have a goal/plan to effectively make it work and you don't make it work by making life easier - energy wise for the consumer, in terms of cost, so a supposed reliance on fossil fuels, it is.
Anyway, this can be argued to death all day long so let's move away from it.


As for science. Of course it moves on and will always move on. It just depends on what's really moving on in reality against what's moving on in their fantasy workshop.
Logged
*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #74 on: November 13, 2014, 04:11:43 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 03:31:26 AM
As for science. Of course it moves on and will always move on.

I'm glad that's one thing we do agree on!

Why then do you rely almost totally on 150-year-old science, such as Samuel Rowbotham's pseudo-scientific writings?

Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #75 on: November 13, 2014, 04:20:34 AM »
Quote from: ausGeoff on November 13, 2014, 04:11:43 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 03:31:26 AM
As for science. Of course it moves on and will always move on.

I'm glad that's one thing we do agree on!

Why then do you rely almost totally on 150-year-old science, such as Samuel Rowbotham's pseudo-scientific writings?
Why do you rely on people like Eratosthenes?
Logged
?

theearthisrounddealwithit

  • 310
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #76 on: November 13, 2014, 04:30:51 AM »
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 02:32:48 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 11, 2014, 01:45:05 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 10, 2014, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: neimoka on November 10, 2014, 01:13:17 PM
and galapagos

You spent how long looking at this without seeing anything at all?

I shouldn't have believed you in the first place. You guys are liars. There is no continental outlines seen in the live feed from here: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/
You must have doctored the images or you're using another link which is of course fake. It looks fake, so it is fake. Occam's razor! What is easier to go to space or to fake it? It is not possible to go to space get over it !
You started well here, but now you  are losing the debate you are just reduced to scepti style rants calling everyone liars.   :'(

Well, of course, I would do that when the photos are not from the same source. When there is no proof the photos are from space. When you don't  have any reference to compare them with the real thing.

As for the Occam's razor, that is exactly the definition! The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Which hypothesis requires the fewer assumptions to be made? Flat Earth or Round Earth?

Let's see:
Flat Earth - you don't need to assume anything, it is what you see. The surface is generally flat. You don't need to make assumptions about its size in order to accept it as flat. You don't need to measure the distance to the Sun. The sun is a light ball above the surface. That is what you see. You don't need to assume its distance or anything as it is simply light!!! There is no indication it is a real solid body somewhere in space, to measure its mass, size, distance and so on. Same is valid for the Moon. If you really believe the Moon is 238857 miles, you are making a lot of assumptions. You're definitely not taking what you see at face value. Why exactly are you doing that? Because without making your crazy assumptions the Earth would be anything but round!

Round Earth- you have to assume it is round, even though it appears flat, you have to assume it spins around its axis with a speed of 1040 miles/hr. You also have to assume it orbits the Sun with 67108 miles/hr. You assume the Sun is 93205678 miles away. You assume the closest star is 4.24 light years away. You assume the sun is 109 bigger than the Earth's diameter. You assume the universe is practically infinite. Come on, should I continue? Where is the Occam's razor in that???

We do not assume we know. Ever heard of something called a telescope? Why do you need high magnification in order to see the sun if it is only 3000 miles away? One of the numerous questions asked FE-ers and all have failed to answer me.
Logged
?

theearthisrounddealwithit

  • 310
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #77 on: November 13, 2014, 04:32:49 AM »
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:30:53 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:27:27 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:18:27 AM
Fe requires the assumption that there's a global conspiracy involving pretty much every nation, university and researcher etc. In case you didn't notice, that's a rather big assumption. And it's not the only one.

This is after the fact. Before they accepted RE, that conspiracy didn't exist.
Why do you say that like there was actual evidence for such a conspiracy? You made more sense when you were just calling everyone a liar.

By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks. The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

You must be joking. The logistics and money needed to maintain said conspiracy is staggering.
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #78 on: November 13, 2014, 04:42:42 AM »
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 04:30:51 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 02:32:48 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 11, 2014, 01:45:05 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 10, 2014, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: neimoka on November 10, 2014, 01:13:17 PM
and galapagos

You spent how long looking at this without seeing anything at all?

I shouldn't have believed you in the first place. You guys are liars. There is no continental outlines seen in the live feed from here: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/
You must have doctored the images or you're using another link which is of course fake. It looks fake, so it is fake. Occam's razor! What is easier to go to space or to fake it? It is not possible to go to space get over it !
You started well here, but now you  are losing the debate you are just reduced to scepti style rants calling everyone liars.   :'(

Well, of course, I would do that when the photos are not from the same source. When there is no proof the photos are from space. When you don't  have any reference to compare them with the real thing.

As for the Occam's razor, that is exactly the definition! The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Which hypothesis requires the fewer assumptions to be made? Flat Earth or Round Earth?

Let's see:
Flat Earth - you don't need to assume anything, it is what you see. The surface is generally flat. You don't need to make assumptions about its size in order to accept it as flat. You don't need to measure the distance to the Sun. The sun is a light ball above the surface. That is what you see. You don't need to assume its distance or anything as it is simply light!!! There is no indication it is a real solid body somewhere in space, to measure its mass, size, distance and so on. Same is valid for the Moon. If you really believe the Moon is 238857 miles, you are making a lot of assumptions. You're definitely not taking what you see at face value. Why exactly are you doing that? Because without making your crazy assumptions the Earth would be anything but round!

Round Earth- you have to assume it is round, even though it appears flat, you have to assume it spins around its axis with a speed of 1040 miles/hr. You also have to assume it orbits the Sun with 67108 miles/hr. You assume the Sun is 93205678 miles away. You assume the closest star is 4.24 light years away. You assume the sun is 109 bigger than the Earth's diameter. You assume the universe is practically infinite. Come on, should I continue? Where is the Occam's razor in that???

We do not assume we know. Ever heard of something called a telescope? Why do you need high magnification in order to see the sun if it is only 3000 miles away? One of the numerous questions asked FE-ers and all have failed to answer me.
What high magnification are we talking about?
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #79 on: November 13, 2014, 04:43:46 AM »
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 04:32:49 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:30:53 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:27:27 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:18:27 AM
Fe requires the assumption that there's a global conspiracy involving pretty much every nation, university and researcher etc. In case you didn't notice, that's a rather big assumption. And it's not the only one.

This is after the fact. Before they accepted RE, that conspiracy didn't exist.
Why do you say that like there was actual evidence for such a conspiracy? You made more sense when you were just calling everyone a liar.

By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks. The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

You must be joking. The logistics and money needed to maintain said conspiracy is staggering.
If you don't think there's a conspiracy then how do you know about logistics and money needed to proclaim it would be staggering?
Logged
*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #80 on: November 13, 2014, 05:05:33 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:20:34 AM
Why then do you rely almost totally on 150-year-old science, such as Samuel Rowbotham's pseudo-scientific writings?
Quote
Why do you rely on people like Eratosthenes?

LOL..... I certainly do not rely on people like Eratosthenes.  I rely on contemporary scientists like Murray Gell-Mann, Roger Penrose, Allan Sandage, Charles Townes, Stephen Hawking et al.  You know... people who didn't die 2,000 years ago, or even 130 years ago.  Scientists that are still active in their fields.

Which currently living scientists support your ideas about science and the world we live in?  A couple?  100 maybe?  Or—more than likely—absolutely none?

Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #81 on: November 13, 2014, 05:10:31 AM »
Quote from: ausGeoff on November 13, 2014, 05:05:33 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:20:34 AM
Why then do you rely almost totally on 150-year-old science, such as Samuel Rowbotham's pseudo-scientific writings?
Quote
Why do you rely on people like Eratosthenes?

LOL..... I certainly do not rely on people like Eratosthenes.  I rely on contemporary scientists like Murray Gell-Mann, Roger Penrose, Allan Sandage, Charles Townes, Stephen Hawking et al.  You know... people who didn't die 2,000 years ago, or even 130 years ago.  Scientists that are still active in their fields.

Which currently living scientists support your ideas about science and the world we live in?  A couple?  100 maybe?  Or—more than likely—absolutely none?
Maybe this is for another topic, as it's derailing this one.
Logged
*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #82 on: November 13, 2014, 05:20:16 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 05:10:31 AM
Quote from: ausGeoff on November 13, 2014, 05:05:33 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:20:34 AM
Why then do you rely almost totally on 150-year-old science, such as Samuel Rowbotham's pseudo-scientific writings?
Quote
Why do you rely on people like Eratosthenes?

LOL..... I certainly do not rely on people like Eratosthenes.  I rely on contemporary scientists like Murray Gell-Mann, Roger Penrose, Allan Sandage, Charles Townes, Stephen Hawking et al.  You know... people who didn't die 2,000 years ago, or even 130 years ago.  Scientists that are still active in their fields.

Which currently living scientists support your ideas about science and the world we live in?  A couple?  100 maybe?  Or—more than likely—absolutely none?
Maybe this is for another topic, as it's derailing this one.

Another major cop-out by sceptimatic LOL.  (Since when did you concern yourself about derailing threads?  You're actually one of the worst culprits.)

So... the currently living scientists whose works you rely on, and who've also been involved with the development of the ISS and space travel in general are?
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #83 on: November 13, 2014, 05:22:22 AM »
Quote from: ausGeoff on November 13, 2014, 05:20:16 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 05:10:31 AM
Quote from: ausGeoff on November 13, 2014, 05:05:33 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:20:34 AM
Why then do you rely almost totally on 150-year-old science, such as Samuel Rowbotham's pseudo-scientific writings?
Quote
Why do you rely on people like Eratosthenes?

LOL..... I certainly do not rely on people like Eratosthenes.  I rely on contemporary scientists like Murray Gell-Mann, Roger Penrose, Allan Sandage, Charles Townes, Stephen Hawking et al.  You know... people who didn't die 2,000 years ago, or even 130 years ago.  Scientists that are still active in their fields.

Which currently living scientists support your ideas about science and the world we live in?  A couple?  100 maybe?  Or—more than likely—absolutely none?
Maybe this is for another topic, as it's derailing this one.

Another major cop-out by sceptimatic LOL.  (Since when did you concern yourself about derailing threads?  You're actually one of the worst culprits.)

So... the currently living scientists whose works you rely on, and who've also been involved with the development of the ISS and space travel in general are?
Make a topic if you want to discuss this.
Logged
?

theearthisrounddealwithit

  • 310
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #84 on: November 13, 2014, 05:24:24 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:43:46 AM
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 04:32:49 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:30:53 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:27:27 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:18:27 AM
Fe requires the assumption that there's a global conspiracy involving pretty much every nation, university and researcher etc. In case you didn't notice, that's a rather big assumption. And it's not the only one.

This is after the fact. Before they accepted RE, that conspiracy didn't exist.
Why do you say that like there was actual evidence for such a conspiracy? You made more sense when you were just calling everyone a liar.

By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks. The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

You must be joking. The logistics and money needed to maintain said conspiracy is staggering.
If you don't think there's a conspiracy then how do you know about logistics and money needed to proclaim it would be staggering?

Dozens of countries, more or less 75 space agencies and millions of people like scientists, engineers, photographers, aircraft pilots, movie directors and animation experts. Then you have your Hollywood studio rentals to stage all the hoaxes, their crews, props, equipment and catering. Finally you have the governments of the world to quiet, especially those with space programs.

You didn't think that all these people would cover up a flat Earth for free now do you?
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #85 on: November 13, 2014, 05:32:57 AM »
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 05:24:24 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:43:46 AM
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 04:32:49 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:30:53 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:27:27 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:18:27 AM
Fe requires the assumption that there's a global conspiracy involving pretty much every nation, university and researcher etc. In case you didn't notice, that's a rather big assumption. And it's not the only one.

This is after the fact. Before they accepted RE, that conspiracy didn't exist.
Why do you say that like there was actual evidence for such a conspiracy? You made more sense when you were just calling everyone a liar.

By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks. The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

You must be joking. The logistics and money needed to maintain said conspiracy is staggering.
If you don't think there's a conspiracy then how do you know about logistics and money needed to proclaim it would be staggering?

Dozens of countries, more or less 75 space agencies and millions of people like scientists, engineers, photographers, aircraft pilots, movie directors and animation experts. Then you have your Hollywood studio rentals to stage all the hoaxes, their crews, props, equipment and catering. Finally you have the governments of the world to quiet, especially those with space programs.

You didn't think that all these people would cover up a flat Earth for free now do you?
Who needs to cover up a flat Earth. It's not even on the radar with the general public, so why would they need to cover it up. They simply just go with what they've given us all these years about this spinning ball in a vacuum with a glowing, huge ball of fire sat in the centre that we spin around...with little man made craft skipping about here and there without a care.

Is it a bird? is it a plane? is it superman? who in the hell knows...we certainly don't, except if they tell you it's superman, then it's superman to the ever Doe eyed public.
Logged
?

theearthisrounddealwithit

  • 310
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #86 on: November 13, 2014, 05:36:58 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:42:42 AM
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 04:30:51 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 02:32:48 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 11, 2014, 01:45:05 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 10, 2014, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: neimoka on November 10, 2014, 01:13:17 PM
and galapagos

You spent how long looking at this without seeing anything at all?

I shouldn't have believed you in the first place. You guys are liars. There is no continental outlines seen in the live feed from here: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/
You must have doctored the images or you're using another link which is of course fake. It looks fake, so it is fake. Occam's razor! What is easier to go to space or to fake it? It is not possible to go to space get over it !
You started well here, but now you  are losing the debate you are just reduced to scepti style rants calling everyone liars.   :'(

Well, of course, I would do that when the photos are not from the same source. When there is no proof the photos are from space. When you don't  have any reference to compare them with the real thing.

As for the Occam's razor, that is exactly the definition! The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Which hypothesis requires the fewer assumptions to be made? Flat Earth or Round Earth?

Let's see:
Flat Earth - you don't need to assume anything, it is what you see. The surface is generally flat. You don't need to make assumptions about its size in order to accept it as flat. You don't need to measure the distance to the Sun. The sun is a light ball above the surface. That is what you see. You don't need to assume its distance or anything as it is simply light!!! There is no indication it is a real solid body somewhere in space, to measure its mass, size, distance and so on. Same is valid for the Moon. If you really believe the Moon is 238857 miles, you are making a lot of assumptions. You're definitely not taking what you see at face value. Why exactly are you doing that? Because without making your crazy assumptions the Earth would be anything but round!

Round Earth- you have to assume it is round, even though it appears flat, you have to assume it spins around its axis with a speed of 1040 miles/hr. You also have to assume it orbits the Sun with 67108 miles/hr. You assume the Sun is 93205678 miles away. You assume the closest star is 4.24 light years away. You assume the sun is 109 bigger than the Earth's diameter. You assume the universe is practically infinite. Come on, should I continue? Where is the Occam's razor in that???

We do not assume we know. Ever heard of something called a telescope? Why do you need high magnification in order to see the sun if it is only 3000 miles away? One of the numerous questions asked FE-ers and all have failed to answer me.
What high magnification are we talking about?

You can easily view the moon through binoculars. Put a filter on those same binoculars and look at the sun, you will not get the same size image. I thought the moon and the sun are supposed to be the same size? at least according to the FE wiki.
Logged
?

theearthisrounddealwithit

  • 310
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #87 on: November 13, 2014, 05:39:24 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 05:32:57 AM
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 05:24:24 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:43:46 AM
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 04:32:49 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:30:53 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:27:27 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:18:27 AM
Fe requires the assumption that there's a global conspiracy involving pretty much every nation, university and researcher etc. In case you didn't notice, that's a rather big assumption. And it's not the only one.

This is after the fact. Before they accepted RE, that conspiracy didn't exist.
Why do you say that like there was actual evidence for such a conspiracy? You made more sense when you were just calling everyone a liar.

By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks. The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

You must be joking. The logistics and money needed to maintain said conspiracy is staggering.
If you don't think there's a conspiracy then how do you know about logistics and money needed to proclaim it would be staggering?

Dozens of countries, more or less 75 space agencies and millions of people like scientists, engineers, photographers, aircraft pilots, movie directors and animation experts. Then you have your Hollywood studio rentals to stage all the hoaxes, their crews, props, equipment and catering. Finally you have the governments of the world to quiet, especially those with space programs.

You didn't think that all these people would cover up a flat Earth for free now do you?
Who needs to cover up a flat Earth. It's not even on the radar with the general public, so why would they need to cover it up. They simply just go with what they've given us all these years about this spinning ball in a vacuum with a glowing, huge ball of fire sat in the centre that we spin around...with little man made craft skipping about here and there without a care.

Is it a bird? is it a plane? is it superman? who in the hell knows...we certainly don't, except if they tell you it's superman, then it's superman to the ever Doe eyed public.

You're telling me that not ONE of those millions of people who know the truth of a Flat Earth would not spill the beans? Do you have any idea how absurd that is?
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28526
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #88 on: November 13, 2014, 05:42:25 AM »
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 05:36:58 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:42:42 AM
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 04:30:51 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 02:32:48 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 11, 2014, 01:45:05 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 10, 2014, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: neimoka on November 10, 2014, 01:13:17 PM
and galapagos

You spent how long looking at this without seeing anything at all?

I shouldn't have believed you in the first place. You guys are liars. There is no continental outlines seen in the live feed from here: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/
You must have doctored the images or you're using another link which is of course fake. It looks fake, so it is fake. Occam's razor! What is easier to go to space or to fake it? It is not possible to go to space get over it !
You started well here, but now you  are losing the debate you are just reduced to scepti style rants calling everyone liars.   :'(

Well, of course, I would do that when the photos are not from the same source. When there is no proof the photos are from space. When you don't  have any reference to compare them with the real thing.

As for the Occam's razor, that is exactly the definition! The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Which hypothesis requires the fewer assumptions to be made? Flat Earth or Round Earth?

Let's see:
Flat Earth - you don't need to assume anything, it is what you see. The surface is generally flat. You don't need to make assumptions about its size in order to accept it as flat. You don't need to measure the distance to the Sun. The sun is a light ball above the surface. That is what you see. You don't need to assume its distance or anything as it is simply light!!! There is no indication it is a real solid body somewhere in space, to measure its mass, size, distance and so on. Same is valid for the Moon. If you really believe the Moon is 238857 miles, you are making a lot of assumptions. You're definitely not taking what you see at face value. Why exactly are you doing that? Because without making your crazy assumptions the Earth would be anything but round!

Round Earth- you have to assume it is round, even though it appears flat, you have to assume it spins around its axis with a speed of 1040 miles/hr. You also have to assume it orbits the Sun with 67108 miles/hr. You assume the Sun is 93205678 miles away. You assume the closest star is 4.24 light years away. You assume the sun is 109 bigger than the Earth's diameter. You assume the universe is practically infinite. Come on, should I continue? Where is the Occam's razor in that???

We do not assume we know. Ever heard of something called a telescope? Why do you need high magnification in order to see the sun if it is only 3000 miles away? One of the numerous questions asked FE-ers and all have failed to answer me.
What high magnification are we talking about?

You can easily view the moon through binoculars. Put a filter on those same binoculars and look at the sun, you will not get the same size image. I thought the moon and the sun are supposed to be the same size? at least according to the FE wiki.
I thought we were supposedly seeing the suns image as it was 8 minutes ago?

Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Have you ever seen the sunset from the ISS?
« Reply #89 on: November 13, 2014, 05:52:32 AM »
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 05:39:24 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 05:32:57 AM
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 05:24:24 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2014, 04:43:46 AM
Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 13, 2014, 04:32:49 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:32:26 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:30:53 AM
Quote from: Saros on November 11, 2014, 03:27:27 AM
Quote from: neimoka on November 11, 2014, 03:18:27 AM
Fe requires the assumption that there's a global conspiracy involving pretty much every nation, university and researcher etc. In case you didn't notice, that's a rather big assumption. And it's not the only one.

This is after the fact. Before they accepted RE, that conspiracy didn't exist.
Why do you say that like there was actual evidence for such a conspiracy? You made more sense when you were just calling everyone a liar.

By the way, your point is irrelevant as most people including professors don't even care if it is flat or not. They only care about their paychecks. The so-called science is based on memorization of 'known' facts. You memorize the concepts, you get ahead in your career. You challenge the status quo, you get fired and you don't have a job. Pretty easy conspiracy to maintain.

You must be joking. The logistics and money needed to maintain said conspiracy is staggering.
If you don't think there's a conspiracy then how do you know about logistics and money needed to proclaim it would be staggering?

Dozens of countries, more or less 75 space agencies and millions of people like scientists, engineers, photographers, aircraft pilots, movie directors and animation experts. Then you have your Hollywood studio rentals to stage all the hoaxes, their crews, props, equipment and catering. Finally you have the governments of the world to quiet, especially those with space programs.

You didn't think that all these people would cover up a flat Earth for free now do you?
Who needs to cover up a flat Earth. It's not even on the radar with the general public, so why would they need to cover it up. They simply just go with what they've given us all these years about this spinning ball in a vacuum with a glowing, huge ball of fire sat in the centre that we spin around...with little man made craft skipping about here and there without a care.

Is it a bird? is it a plane? is it superman? who in the hell knows...we certainly don't, except if they tell you it's superman, then it's superman to the ever Doe eyed public.

You're telling me that not ONE of those millions of people who know the truth of a Flat Earth would not spill the beans? Do you have any idea how absurd that is?

Math Boyland is not a whistle blower?  Please, argue about the evidence, but don't just pretend that there is no evidence. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NASA WHISTLEBLOWER IMAGE HOAXSTER INTERVIEW part 2.mov
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »