Is Science the new Religion ?

Thanks for the info Canada Bear I will go to Lynton and will see if I can witness this curvature you speak of.
I believe the quick formula for curvature is miles squared multiplied by eight then divided by twelve to bring back to feet  I will see if this works out for the distances involved.

Science does require Faith for example Einsteins theory of relativity has never been verified

This is incorrect.

as NOBODY has travelled at the speed of light but some people believe it because they have faith that Einsteins theory was correct and he was telling the truth and other scientists have done experiments that support Einsteins hypothesis which could be described as convinient as it would be in their financial interest to further exalt one of the science religions gods.

There is no requirement for someone to travel the speed of light to verify GR. It's been confirmed in a variety of ways over the past century.

@Alpha2 omega the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.

Even if that statement were true, so what? We've known through a variety of independent means that the earth is spherical long before the blue marble image existed.

How other than witnessing curvature can the earth be proven a globe ?

If you can see the curvature, what else do you need? Just for the sake of completeness, the positions and apparent motion of the stars, planets, sun, and moon are most easily explained using the spherical model of the earth. No other explanation comes close.

As from what I've seen so far most of it also works on the geocentric model.

The structure of the solar system and the shape of the earth are different topics.

I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space  thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.[citation needed]

For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
 this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.

Do you know how long that would be? Why would an astronaut have his mobile phone with him in space? Do you think phones are the only devices that record video? Do you think astronauts have nothing better to do on the outbound flight?

They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun

The Hubble takes pictures of planets just fine. They have better places to spend money, and you'd just dismiss everything as fake, anyway.

or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)

The Hubble isn't designed to take pictures of earth so the results would be useless, and its time is too valuable to "mess around" doing stuff that's of no use.

I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.

The easy (and correct) answer is that CGI doesn't have to be used. Just because you want to believe, for whatever reason, that images of the earth from space are faked doesn't mean they are faked.

Unfortunately, it will take a little effort and a modicum of rational thought for you to personally verify that the earth is a large sphere. The effort and brainpower are probably not beyond your ability, but might indeed exceed your attention span.

The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless 

The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so like I said my claim was not baseless.

It is also relevant and begs the question if Nasa have been in space why do the have to use CGI ?

I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space  thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.

Have you honestly tried to research this? There are many, many photos taken on space voyages. Over 14,000 in the Apollo archive here for instance.

For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
 this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.

Do astronauts take their mobile phones with them? Well I suppose they might..

That would be a long video though. The space shuttle used to take a couple of days to dock with the ISS. The Soyuz is quicker but still takes around 6 hours.

They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)

There are many satellites taking pictures of earth constantly. Some such as Himawari-8 or DSCOVR-EPIC take images of the whole earth.

I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.

You can stop struggling to understand why CGI has to be used because it's not true. See above.

I don't think what I said has been understood  I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.

How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?

If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true  just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.

Is science the new religion.?

Your logic is seriously flawed.
You know nothing regarding the workings of your computer that you yourself have determined. All you can ever know are the inputs and outputs, the processing will for ever remain unknown to you. You have to take on good authority how all the various components work, even down to the existance of the election itself.......have you ever seen one?

It's the same for black holes, their existance has been both predicted by calculations and observed indirectly. What's the difference? In both cases you have to accept what you are being led to believe is indeed the case.

The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless 

NASA announced how the 2002 blue marble photo was produced.
One photo that was announced as computer generated is no evidence that all photos from space are "CGI".
That is not more logical than saying that our cat was white, so all cats are white.

Not only that but the "2002 Blue Marble" is much more than just "an image of earth as seen from space".
It is really just one view made from a huge database of the whole globe.

What evidence have you that any other claimed genuine space photos are "CGI"?

On "the other site" I was answering the following post:

Hello,
I am new to this forum and society.  I am researching various things and I am curious to how "Flat Earth" believers handle the story and picture from Apollo 8 astronaut William Ander, called Earthrise?
Here is a link to a story where he even showed a reporter the negative for the picture:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/earthrise.html
Thank you,
QFT

This photos in that link were ridiculed in this post:

First of all, NASA's info or images posted have been discredited by FEs . . . . . . Anyway, I advised you questfortruth not to use NASA images or posting. It doesn't help.

For example, your Apollo 8 image of the earth that was taken by one of the astronauts Anders could not be confirmed to be authentic as it was posted by NASA in its website. And by ordinary observation, the earth just appears to be just the size of the moon as we viewed it from earth at his full moon condition, and the size of the moon is about 1/3 that of earth from a distance of something like 238,900 mi. It's a bit puzzling because the photo was taken at 240,000 miles away from earth while they orbitted the moon (they were really pretty near the moon surface at this orbit distance)... and yet they saw an earth image just the same size as that of the moon. Direct calculation and common sense dictate that it should have been 3 times the size of moon image as seen from earth. Further, I came across websites that calculate the size of an object's image given the object's size, distance of the object from the camera or observer with known focal length, etc. and the image size of earth from Apollo 8's report came out to be much smaller as expected... I did this just for curiosity's sake. No need to debunk, hehe... With that image size, the distance from the observer came out to be much more than 240,000 mi that seems to be an unrealistic result already.... well, seems not reliable enough...

---

Here is some of the information that I used to answer that totally uninformed post:

The Apollo photos were taken on film and the negatives are still "available".
The photo questioned above is this "Earthrise" photo taken by Willian Anders (the left one below): The information I have is that the camera used by William Landers was a modified Hasselblad 500 EL camera, using the  250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lens as described in:

Cameras and Accessories The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses. For certain photographs of the lunar surface, a 60-millimeter lens with a reseau was used. Use of this lens and reseau is apparent in the views that show crosslike fiducial marks. For analytical purposes, black-and-white emulsions were determined to provide a higher degree of resolution and image clarity than the color emulsions; therefore, much of the photography is black-and-white.

From: Lunar and Planetary Institute.

Yet, when looked at objectively that Earthrise photo has the earth just the size that would be expected on that camera and that distance.
More detail is in Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index. « Message by rabinoz on November 12, 2016, 06:24:18 PM »

The summary of that post was: The information I have is that the camera used was: The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.[/quote]

The film was 70 mm sprocket film with gate dimensions (from what I can drag up) of 55 mm x 55 mm. 
On the 1920 x 1920 pixel photo I have the earth image is 287 pixels wide, or 55 x (287/1920) = 8.22 mm wide.
If the 250 mm lens was used this makes the angular size of the earth 2 x atan((8.22/2)/250) = 1.88°

If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me.[/quote]

Just remember that the Apollo were taken on film and the negatives are preserved and agree with photos in the media, published at the time.

The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless 

Not really.  CGI generally refers to simulated images, not composites of real images.

It's more of a photoshopped composite image, like stitching together images to make a panorama.

The 1972 Apollo 17 Blue Marble, on the other hand, is an old school, film based photograph.  No CGI.  No composite.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 19, 2017, 01:26:00 PM

The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless 

Not really.  CGI generally refers to simulated images, not composites of real images.

It's more of a photoshopped composite image, like stitching together images to make a panorama.

The 1972 Apollo 17 Blue Marble, on the other hand, is an old school, film based photograph.  No CGI.  No composite.

Took the words out of my mouth.

"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

@Coffercrisp
An interesting point about only the "best" being chosen; could it be that the people who determine who the best are could be looking for intelligent but gullible easily manipulated people who will not go against an already established hypothesis.
For example Einstein over Tesla

Einstein had theorys that nobody could verify.

Tesla had inventions people are still using today but Einstein was generally presented in my  English education as being superior.

There are thousands of university graduates all over the globe and there are plenty of amateurs as well. You really believe that everyone is trying to fool you?

I don’t see the connection with that comment and the case of your English education.

As for Einstein, he is a theoretical physicist. He developed the explanation for the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel prize. This was an important part of quantum physics and it demonstrated that light behaves as particles. Back then, it was generally accepted that light is strictly a wave phenomenon. He wrote his paper on the photoelectric effect in 1905 which solidified quantum theory.
Some of the things that Einstein has theorized about was developed much later. For example, the laser.
The effects of gravity on time were also measured much later after his death. Gravitational lensing is again, another phenomenon detected much later, after his death.

I’m not saying that I consider Einstein superior to Nicolas Tesla, but Einstein was a thinker. He came up with things that other scientists tested much later. That kind of thing continues to this day because science has a predictive power.

"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

"Opium is the religion of the junkie"  -Crackhead Joe

"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

He actually wrote....(translation from German)
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is often misquoted.

Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.

Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.

Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.

However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.

Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.

Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.

Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.

However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.

I'm afraid little of what you state contains any facts whatsoever, s in your case no change required.

"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

"Science is the cocaine of RE"
Hannibaal 

Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.

Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.

Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.

However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.

I sort of agree. Science done well, no, not a religion. Actual science adhered to by people with an unscientific mindset, kind of like a religion. But then again the same is true of everything.

The theoretical stuff? I cringe whenever I hear a scientist start to speculate about worm holes or string theory. Too much of that and you can go full Deepak Chopra.

I'm afraid little of what you state contains any facts whatsoever, s in your case no change required.

Nice rebuttal....Guess the case is closed

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 20, 2017, 04:51:52 AM

I'm afraid little of what you state contains any facts whatsoever, s in your case no change required.

Nice rebuttal....Guess the case is closed

It wasn't meant as a rebuttal.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 20, 2017, 04:36:56 AM

Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.

Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.

Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.

However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.

I sort of agree. Science done well, no, not a religion. Actual science adhered to by people with an unscientific mindset, kind of like a religion. But then again the same is true of everything.

The theoretical stuff? I cringe whenever I hear a scientist start to speculate about worm holes or string theory. Too much of that and you can go full Deepak Chopra.

I don't see a problem with speculating or using your imagination or doing a few mathematical equations. Quite a few well-established theories started off that way. Quantum theory is one example and it touches about quite a few phenomena at the microscopic level. Special relativity is another and touches on the macro level.

Deepak Chopra's brain is a jello. He just strings together words from quantum physics and basically says that the soul exists or something. Richard Dawkins interviewed him. Deepak says a bunch of stuff. Richard tells him that it sounded like he just borrowed concepts from quantum physics, smashed the words together into a incoherent babbling.
Deepak gets offended and says that “the established science stole the words that he is using”.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion

You should probably learn what a religion is. Wild guesses, even in the scientific domain, does not constitute a religion.

I made that quote not crutonius...

I know exactly what religion is chump... I also know exactly what facts (as close as we can come) are.

You can do whatever you want with math or speculation, I care not..Just don't call it facts or science.

If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me.

You did not show the math.
I guess you are using pythagoras equation.

0.94185 ° (this is half your 1.88 °).
3975 miles is the radius of the Earth.

3975 miles / tan(0.94185 °) = 241,790 miles (Earth to the moon distance)

Or in metric:
6400 km is the radius of the Earth.
6400 km / tan(0.94185 °) = 389,297 km (Earth to the moon distance)

Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

No, science is not a religion, as there is no central deity to worship. It we take a definition of religion as a starting point.....

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

....we can see that there is no way this can be applied to science as there is no controlling power or god.......so that in turn makes your opening statement patently false.

In regard to the rest of your post, it's so incoherent and full of meaningless ramblings that it does not merit a response.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 03:58:45 AM

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.

Some people have said they have been abducted by aliens.

Some people have said they have seen God.

When people say things it doesn't mean they are true.

It is a personal choice do you believe them or not ?

Belief requires faith.

Did they ask the particles that almost travelled at the speed of light if they experienced relativity ?

No one has travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.

Did you know that I caught the biggest fish in the universe yesterday you don't have to take my word for it ;
I don't have any real pictures but I have some CGI and some calculations and my mates seen the hole it made in the net when it escaped.

Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

No, science is not a religion, as there is no central deity to worship. It we take a definition of religion as a starting point.....

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

....we can see that there is no way this can be applied to science as there is no controlling power or god.......so that in turn makes your opening statement patently false.

In regard to the rest of your post, it's so incoherent and full of meaningless ramblings that it does not merit a response.

religion
rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:   faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"

Another scientific fundamentalist in denial.

How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?

More like you have no coherent response.

Some people have said they have been abducted by aliens.

Some people have said they have seen God.

And some people are retards, so they say science is a religion.

When people say things it doesn't mean they are true.

This.

Quote from: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 04:50:45 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 03:58:45 AM

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.

Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

And some people are retards, so they say science is a religion.

Good one

Please get help for your own personal well being.

Semantics

The typical defense I have seen from people like this when they are cornered.


I repeat this

Science is only touted when convenient like many other things. However, if it doesn't align with a preconceived notion, agenda or group think it is rejected out right...Or some mathematical nonsensical rhetoric soup is used to attempt justification of an outcome. Even though the equations would never work in reality and completely bypasses the scientific method or even simple logic and observation itself.

I love unmolested true science, my livelihood and profession lives in it. I equally detest hypothetical, nonsensical science used by many sects, people with agenda, and group think.

True Science= Fantastic, helpful, gets fairly accurate "facts" etc..

Hypothetical "science"= Fun, but not facts or science in the correct form. Though unfortunately this is the issue, it is spouted as absolute fact and nincompoops parrot the same sentiment. See above quote...

The latter is a religion, belief, or whatever you want to call it...Anything but science or fact.

Sorry kids

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 05:42:59 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 04:50:45 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 03:58:45 AM

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.

Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.

I have travelled on public transport hundreds of times and the drivers where not drunk.

Nobody has travelled at the speed of light and nobody ever will.

To try an associate the two is a nonsense.