Is Science the new Religion ?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 02:06:05 PM

I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.


Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:

http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences  towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.
 

Quote from: Dog on May 24, 2017, 02:26:06 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 02:06:05 PM

I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.

Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:

http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

Exactly what is the problem with that explaination?

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.

I'm got to tell you that "this aspect of your model" does work perfectly thank you. Your not understanding it changes nothing.

And, I am afraid that you can't blame Space Science for that!
The first to measure that tilt was Erastosthanes way back in around 200 BC!
You know that bloke that first measured the circumference of the earth quite accurately, Are you going to blame "space science" for that too.

If you think that this is not the explanation of the seasons, please give your explanation.
Just remember that on the usual flat earth model:

• The area of the Southern Hemisphere is three times the area of the Northern Hemisphere.
• The sun's intensity is about 7% higher in the Southern Hemisphere in January than in the Northern Hemisphere in July,

There are a lot more details, but we'll leave them till later.
I'll await your rep,y.

Quote from: Dog on May 24, 2017, 02:26:06 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 02:06:05 PM

I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.


Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:

http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences  towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.

Look up Stellar Parallax. Rather than wallowing in ignorance, try and educate yourself.

Quote from: Dog on May 24, 2017, 02:26:06 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 02:06:05 PM

I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.


Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:

http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences  towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.

I also like to get from you an explanation why you think it is impossible.

You made a claim where you base your whole believe on, now you have to show evidence for that claim otherwise you will have to admit that you base you view of the shape of the earth only on you believe not on evidence.

It sure seems like it but thats because we cant go against it. you have to be able to do the research the experiments, and get the grants. to do this you need schooling, money and support. we have to take their word for it just like people back in the day took the word of the priest before bibles were translated to the language of the commoner.

Just looking at the way people view Bill Nye is hilarious.The dude talks about stuff like thats his specific field of study   

...
Just looking at the way people view Bill Nye is hilarious.The dude talks about stuff like thats his specific field of study 

speeking of field of study, all of the Flat Earth Idea Believers than have to shut up, because they did not study astronomy.
most of them do not even have a little bit knowledge about basic physics.

if you will only accept what people say that studied that field of science, ask Tyson Degrasse Neil.
look up what he has to say about flat earth.

Nope. Some humans have the ability to draw a line somewhere. Others (perhaps yourself) have trouble drawing a distinction.

Looks like I found a raw point...

This was once 'alive' too



In fact, every fruit and vegetable you have eaten was once 'alive' until you picked it. Get over it.

Not sure how deep you're into biology, but I guess you are aware of nerves and such basic stuff. So don't make yourself look like a clown.

Are you seriously having guilt about being on top of the food chain? No one here advocates treating lesser animal lives like shit.

Isn't that exactely whats happening? Isnt killing something "treating it like shit"?
The 'on top of the food chain' argument is as dumb as you can get with argumentation...fuck everything and everyone, we're on top of the food chain so we can and should do as we want...right?
Just because you can doesn't mean you should or that it is allright.

You are alive today because every day, something has died to sustain you.

So what? How is that even an argument?

Where the actual f#&k do you draw the line?

I'm not vegan myself because of multiple reasons. But at least I'm not as delusional and ignorant to tell myself it would not be better if I was vegan...

I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat? Or how about the Inuit who slaughter whales because in places like Greenland, it is literally one of the only sources of food for the humans throughout the winter. I oppose the Japanese travelling all the way to the Antarctic to slaughter whales because it is not necessary, but for some people, their survival depends on it.

I find the animal industry needlessly barbaric myself and needs to change. Thankfully, shit like battery caged hens are being phased out here. I also think there is too much of a focus on animal consumption and so much beautiful rainforest has been lost to animal husbandry. The human race and indeed the planet would do much better to focus more on a vegetable heavy diet sure.

But to take a moral high ground that even the best treated animal that ends up slaughtered in a painless and stressless way is barbaric and treating it like shit is ludicrous, absurd and the height of hypocrisy demonstrating you are just a 'keyboard warrior'.

Also Veganism takes their philosophy to the extreme where any product coming from an animal is shunned. So the guy who has some backyard chickens that looks after them well and caters to their every desire but eats their unfertilised eggs (essentially chicken periods lol) is a cruel bastard. They do not even allow a symbiotic relationship with animals.

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences  towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.

Actually it works quite fine. If you think otherwise you're going to need to give some.... *gulp*.... evidence.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.

Lol "space science".

This thread started out with the post:

All we know is what we are shown.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?

Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.

A test I give is whether it is consistent with what I can observe and with what I know already.
Some things, like "two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away" might not be inconsistent, but I have no way of proving or disproving it.
My reaction here is to "file it away under interesting", but since it has no effect on my life, leave it at that.

Other things, and I include the shape of the earth, do have more effect on how I think of the world and interpret my surroundings.
When it comes to  the shape of the earth, it does affect how I  see things, so I ask myself whether the shape I believe fits with my own personal observations, without my having to make up outlandish explanations.

So far, my personal observations might not prove that the earth is a Globe with a distant sun, but they are quite consistent with that.
Now there is a tremendous lot more evidence that I cannot personally verify. Much of that evidence comes from astronomy.
Now I am not even an amateur astronomer, but there are thousands of amateur astronomers all over the earth and they write of their findings and those would simply be meaningless on a flat earth.

But there are some simple aspects of astronomy, such as the movement and appearance of the sun, moon and closer planets that we can easily observe. Now we might no make measurements of our own, but we can all see simple things like sunrise and sunset times and even directions. And even things like observing that at present the planet Jupiter shows very brightly around 9 pm.
This looks about right according to "Time and Date, Astronomy, night Australia, Brisbane".

In other words, what I observe fits the Globe model and does not fit any flat earth model.

So, I do not agree that "All we know is what we are shown." We can observe a lot ourselves, and see if is consistent with what we are told.
Though,  as I said before, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion" and it is up to you what you do there.
But, to ridicule anything that you cannot understand is childish behaviour.

I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?

So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
And no, I obviously don't support either of those points.

Or how about the Inuit who slaughter whales because in places like Greenland, it is literally one of the only sources of food for the humans throughout the winter. I oppose the Japanese travelling all the way to the Antarctic to slaughter whales because it is not necessary, but for some people, their survival depends on it.

Didn't know you're an inuit that relys on that meat. My bad then.

But to take a moral high ground that even the best treated animal that ends up slaughtered in a painless and stressless way is barbaric and treating it like shit is ludicrous, absurd and the height of hypocrisy demonstrating you are just a 'keyboard warrior'.

How is any slaugthering justified by what happened before it? How is that an argument?
Why/how am I a hypocrite "keyboard warrior"?

Also Veganism takes their philosophy to the extreme where any product coming from an animal is shunned. So the guy who has some backyard chickens that looks after them well and caters to their every desire but eats their unfertilised eggs (essentially chicken periods lol) is a cruel bastard. They do not even allow a symbiotic relationship with animals.

Egg-producing industry has way more issues, I don't think a vegan would have a problem with your described scenario.
Also it's bad to take "best case scenario" which occurs in probably <0.01% of all cases to defend everything else.

Quote from: Shifter on May 25, 2017, 02:25:50 PM

I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?

So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
And no, I obviously don't support either of those points.

So where do you stand on the issue then. On one hand you say the human race are essentially arseholes by the way we treat other animals, but then you have no problem then supporting the industry when it comes to feeding a growing newborn baby or your pet dog and cat. Maybe we just have to be arseholes to survive?

Quote from: Shifter on May 25, 2017, 02:25:50 PM

Or how about the Inuit who slaughter whales because in places like Greenland, it is literally one of the only sources of food for the humans throughout the winter. I oppose the Japanese travelling all the way to the Antarctic to slaughter whales because it is not necessary, but for some people, their survival depends on it.

Didn't know you're an inuit that relys on that meat. My bad then.

I'm not an Inuit but I wouldn't support vegans pushing their ideology onto a culture and people that would starve to death following their way. Not everybody on Earth is blessed with living in a 1st world country with plentiful farming land. I refuse to call people like them who are trying to survive an 'arsehole' for killing a wild animal for instance, however I would gladly call the Japanese whalers arseholes because they do not kill for survival.

Quote from: Shifter on May 25, 2017, 02:25:50 PM

But to take a moral high ground that even the best treated animal that ends up slaughtered in a painless and stressless way is barbaric and treating it like shit is ludicrous, absurd and the height of hypocrisy demonstrating you are just a 'keyboard warrior'.

How is any slaugthering justified by what happened before it? How is that an argument?
Why/how am I a hypocrite "keyboard warrior"?

Because on one hand, you eat meat/animal products, and on the other, push a twisted ideology that no matter how well an animal would be treated, there is no justification to kill it for food. If you want to push a left wing SJW narrative, at least follow the script.

Quote from: Shifter on May 25, 2017, 02:25:50 PM

Also Veganism takes their philosophy to the extreme where any product coming from an animal is shunned. So the guy who has some backyard chickens that looks after them well and caters to their every desire but eats their unfertilised eggs (essentially chicken periods lol) is a cruel bastard. They do not even allow a symbiotic relationship with animals.

Egg-producing industry has way more issues, I don't think a vegan would have a problem with your described scenario.
Also it's bad to take "best case scenario" which occurs in probably <0.01% of all cases to defend everything else.

Actually, veganism does have a huge problem with this and certainly wont eat it. They will not touch it. Groups like PETA would still say it is cruel.

It's because these '<0.01%' of cases that the industry is starting to change. People are demanding the industry change to better treat the animals in our care. Most people are not sadistic bastards that wish a painful and cruel life/end of life for animals. Most are ignorant to what goes on in the industry sure, and we can certainly do with eating far less meat than we do. But get over your guilt trip that we are on top of the food chain and eat animals as a means to survival. We have the capacity for empathy. If you have it, you are hardly an arsehole. Certainly the animal does not care if it had the chance to eat you whether you die slowly or not. Humans are omnivorous. Certainly we can survive on a plant only diet but if you wish the best of health, you need to have a balanced diet which includes animal products. You may have a high pedestal you can look down on us all and condemn us for it but it is what it is. We are on the top of the food chain. Don't cry about it.

If you had any credibility about the sentiments you have expressed in this thread you would denounce the eating and participation of anything to do with the animal food/clothing industry. You cant have it both ways. (unless you are 2 faced) 

Quote from: User324 on May 25, 2017, 11:02:37 PM

Quote from: Shifter on May 25, 2017, 02:25:50 PM

I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?

So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
And no, I obviously don't support either of those points.

So where do you stand on the issue then.

Get a pet-rabbit...
Anyway, you can't compare dogs/cats with humans, because dogs/cats are, unlike humans, carnivores and thus need meat whereas humans don't.
On the baby-issue: I do not think there is enough research on that matter and thus I find a vegan diet irresponsible.

I'm not an Inuit but I wouldn't support vegans pushing their ideology onto a culture and people that would starve to death following their way. Not everybody on Earth is blessed with living in a 1st world country with plentiful farming land. I refuse to call people like them who are trying to survive an 'arsehole' for killing a wild animal for instance, however I would gladly call the Japanese whalers arseholes because they do not kill for survival.

Thing is: Me and you, we do not need to eat meat for survival.
Also I do not think vegans would blame inuits for eating meat to survive, and if so, I'd think they're stupid idiots.

Because on one hand, you eat meat/animal products, and on the other, push a twisted ideology that no matter how well an animal would be treated, there is no justification to kill it for food. If you want to push a left wing SJW narrative, at least follow the script.

I don't eat meat but I'm not vegan either. I have multiple reasons not to be vegan, (at least one of them being egoistic) but I think vegans deserve respect and everyone that is not vegan, should at least be aware of what it means and causes to eat meat and animal products.

We have the capacity for empathy. If you have it, you are hardly an arsehole.

That's a bad argument. Just because you have empathy doesn't make you a good person in any way. If a rapist feels bad afterwards and has empathy for his victim he is still an asshole.

Actually, veganism does have a huge problem with this [eggs] and certainly wont eat it. They will not touch it. Groups like PETA would still say it is cruel.

As far as I know their problem with eggs is that male chickens get killed after birth because they are "useless", plus the henns have generally very low amount of space (even when they're biological eggs).

Humans are omnivorous. Certainly we can survive on a plant only diet but if you wish the best of health, you need to have a balanced diet which includes animal products.

I suggest you look into the science of whether we are, from an anotomy perspective, omnivores or herbivorers.
Also I suggest reading into vegan/meat/cancer/arteriosclerosis correlations etc.
I though would say that there are not enough (or hardly any at all) studies about long term effects of a vegan diet (which is one of the reasons I'm not vegan).

Humans are definitely not herbivores only. Way back in the day before civilisation how would we have survived?

And well cancer comes from over consumption of meats, especially processed meats full of sodium nitrate and meat that is overcooked and washed down with alcohol or soda. There is nothing unhealthy about incorporating a little meat or dairy like eggs and cheese etc in your diet. I am guessing that a lack of fibre is also bad when consuming meats...

We don't have a short intestinal tract like a lot of carnivores, so when you do have meat inside your gut, you don't want it hanging around decomposing longer than it needs.

Males are killed not only in chickens but in cows and pigs and I assume other species as well. Must be that male privilege we are bombarded with (well given the life of a battery hen etc perhaps it is a privilege).

If you see a piece of meat on the table and you acknowledge the sacrifice the animal(s) (involuntarily) made and you do not waste it, it is far less sadistic than a guy who may think 'sucked in' and toss half of it in the garbage bin.

A rapist 'feeling sorry' for his crime does not make the crime less offensive. (it may make his integration back into society, more safe for society). Now you want to compare eating animal food to hideous crimes and abuse of another human? Like it or not, humans place a higher value on humans than they do of lesser animals. (shame in some cases - when some punk tortures animals for fun it would be nice for him to have to bend over for the soap in jail)

Would you rather buy an animal product that came from a farmer who cared about the welfare of his animals throughout their life? Or buy one from someone who abused the shit out of them and made them suffer a horrible death needlessly.... The end outcome is the same (death), but which one is more palatable for you to support?

Society needs to change its standards and eating habits no question. Just that we can still eat meat and not be arseholes about it. Remember, there are now 7 billion people to feed. You cant expect they all turn vegan/vegetarian. Animals will still be bred and slaughtered for our survival.

This thread started out with the post:

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 18, 2017, 02:18:25 PM

All we know is what we are shown.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?

Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.

A test I give is whether it is consistent with what I can observe and with what I know already.
Some things, like "two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away" might not be inconsistent, but I have no way of proving or disproving it.
My reaction here is to "file it away under interesting", but since it has no effect on my life, leave it at that.

Other things, and I include the shape of the earth, do have more effect on how I think of the world and interpret my surroundings.
When it comes to  the shape of the earth, it does affect how I  see things, so I ask myself whether the shape I believe fits with my own personal observations, without my having to make up outlandish explanations.

So far, my personal observations might not prove that the earth is a Globe with a distant sun, but they are quite consistent with that.
Now there is a tremendous lot more evidence that I cannot personally verify. Much of that evidence comes from astronomy.
Now I am not even an amateur astronomer, but there are thousands of amateur astronomers all over the earth and they write of their findings and those would simply be meaningless on a flat earth.

But there are some simple aspects of astronomy, such as the movement and appearance of the sun, moon and closer planets that we can easily observe. Now we might no make measurements of our own, but we can all see simple things like sunrise and sunset times and even directions. And even things like observing that at present the planet Jupiter shows very brightly around 9 pm.
This looks about right according to "Time and Date, Astronomy, night Australia, Brisbane".

In other words, what I observe fits the Globe model and does not fit any flat earth model.

So, I do not agree that "All we know is what we are shown." We can observe a lot ourselves, and see if is consistent with what we are told.
Though,  as I said before, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion" and it is up to you what you do there.
But, to ridicule anything that you cannot understand is childish behaviour.

quote author=rabinoz link=topic=70710.msg1913407#msg1913407 date=1495763081]
This thread started out with the post:

All we know is what we are shown.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?

Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.

A test I give is whether it is consistent with what I can observe and with what I know already.
Some things, like "two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away" might not be inconsistent, but I have no way of proving or disproving it.
My reaction here is to "file it away under interesting", but since it has no effect on my life, leave it at that.

Other things, and I include the shape of the earth, do have more effect on how I think of the world and interpret my surroundings.
When it comes to  the shape of the earth, it does affect how I  see things, so I ask myself whether the shape I believe fits with my own personal observations, without my having to make up outlandish explanations.

So far, my personal observations might not prove that the earth is a Globe with a distant sun, but they are quite consistent with that.
Now there is a tremendous lot more evidence that I cannot personally verify. Much of that evidence comes from astronomy.
Now I am not even an amateur astronomer, but there are thousands of amateur astronomers all over the earth and they write of their findings and those would simply be meaningless on a flat earth.

But there are some simple aspects of astronomy, such as the movement and appearance of the sun, moon and closer planets that we can easily observe. Now we might no make measurements of our own, but we can all see simple things like sunrise and sunset times and even directions. And even things like observing that at present the planet Jupiter shows very brightly around 9 pm.
This looks about right according to "Time and Date, Astronomy, night Australia, Brisbane".

In other words, what I observe fits the Globe model and does not fit any flat earth model.

So, I do not agree that "All we know is what we are shown." We can observe a lot ourselves, and see if is consistent with what we are told.
Though,  as I said before, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion" and it is up to you what you do there.
But, to ridicule anything that you cannot understand is childish behaviour.
[/quote]






That's not a bad argument trouble is the globe model does not fit with what can be observed I have never seen any curvature.

There are many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon and we are told that it must be a superior mirage or refraction.

If the sun was 92 million miles away it wouldn't change size during the alleged rotatation of the earth.
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.
It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.

It is obvious I'm no astrologer but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.

So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.



Most sceptics are ordinary people who look at the alternative models in the little spare time they have so it is hardly surprising that they don't have all the answers on there favoured model as the heliocentric's do .

It all comes down to what you want to believe personally it wouldn't bother me if someone believed the earth was  square shaped which leads to the deeper and darker question of why are people so bothered what other people choose to believe which just gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.

The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.

Are you sure about this?

It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.

Are you sure about this?

It is obvious I'm no astrologer but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.

Are you sure about this?

So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.

I suggest you properly research the things you've claimed above. Then come back and reconsider this statement.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 26, 2017, 01:44:29 PM

The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.

Are you sure about this?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 26, 2017, 01:44:29 PM

It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.

Are you sure about this?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 26, 2017, 01:44:29 PM

It is obvious I'm no astrologer but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.

Are you sure about this?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 26, 2017, 01:44:29 PM

So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.

I suggest you properly research the things you've claimed above. Then come back and reconsider this statement.

No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.

I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider

And there we have it. Why post endless inane nonsense then?

"I'm certain that salmon are actually russian spies......... DON'T TRY TO EDUCATE ME I KNOW THE TRUTH."

Episode #1 of 5

[That's not a bad argument trouble is the globe model does not fit with what can be observed I have never seen any curvature.

Sorry, what you mean is "the globe model does not fit with what" Resistance.is.Futile and other flat earthers interpret from what "can be observed".

You say "I have never seen any curvature", but that means nothing - look further! Here's a couple of videos There are a number of others in that series that explain the details, I'll just link to those - they get a bit tedious:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pier 1 On The Way To The Causeway, Soundly and " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flat Earth Curved Water Found 2. Soundly
The rest will show if you look at those.
But there is not any curvature to be seen horizontally along the horizon, and that is exactly how it should be.

If you make a thread on "Show me the curvature." I can add plenty of other cases.

But flat earthers also use the argument.
The looks a very circular argument to me. Surely any evidence from any source should be examined and tested for consistency.

Episode #2 of 5

There are many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon and we are told that it must be a superior mirage or refraction.

Please show your "many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon" with distance and height of the camera.

And there are many pictures that show things hidden. Even that video above showed the power lines starting to dip below the horizon.

But, one reason that "There are many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon" is simply because it is a relatively rare and so hits the news. But buildings do disappear most of the time:That photo are 64.5 km away but I can find no indication of the height of the camera above the water - and it matters a lot.
So many flat earthers simply work out the "amount hidden" using the "8" per mile squared formula", but this makes no allowance for the viewer's heightL
For example for a distance of 64.5 km and a viewing height of
          zero the "amount hidden" would be 326 m with no refraction and 280 m with "standard refraction,
          5 m the "amount hidden" would be 251 m, with no refraction and 210 m with "standard refraction,
          10 m the "amount hidden" would be 222 m, with no refraction and 184 m with "standard refraction,

More in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions - FE to RE and RE to FE
And if you don't like buildings, you can see a 14,410 ft mountain partly hidden in
Just face it, things get hidden behind the curve of the earth, and not due to perspective and
also face it, refraction, looming and mirages are all real and there are plenty of extreme cases if you want to see them.
Here is a small mirage: Note how the superstructure and hull are reflected, making the ship appear to float. The true water level is at the line of the reflection.

And how do you like a  "flying boat"? 

Episode #3 of 5

If the sun was 92 million miles away it wouldn't change size during the alleged rotatation of the earth.
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.
It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.

No, you are completely incorrect there. When the sun is very bright and overhead, most of the apparent size is simply "glare". 
Have a look at this video to see the difference a proper filter makes:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Nikon P900 with Orion Solar Filter - seeing the true size of the Sun correctly. Wolfie6020.
Here a few photos of the sun, I did not take them, they were taken be an "avid flat-earther" and posted on YouTube.
And the statement "the sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" is his, not mine
The size of the sun does not get larger as it moves closer to us.

I have taken numerous photos and all show the moon at almost the same size. It must be realised that the apparent size of the moon does change significantly during the month as the moon's orbit is elliptical.

The following photos show the moon at quite different altitudes and different days:


The size of the moon does not get (noticeably) larger as it moves closer to us.

Episode #4 of 5

It is obvious I'm no astrologer astronomer (big difference) but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.

In the northern hemisphere, you will see the stars in the north all year around, though, except for Polaris, their positions change,
but stars nearer the equator (further south for you) do not appear all year around.

That is an easily proven fact and was recognised by the Babylonian astrologers when they labelled the constellations that form the Zodiac marhing the months (sort of!).

That sure was a short episode!

Episode #5 of 5

So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.

No, it is in fact your misunderstanding of the heliocentric model that doesn't fit your own observations.

Most sceptics are ordinary people who look at the alternative models in the little spare time they have so it is hardly surprising that they don't have all the answers on there favoured model as the heliocentric's do .

It all comes down to what you want to believe personally it wouldn't bother me if someone believed the earth was  square shaped which leads to the deeper and darker question of why are people so bothered what other people choose to believe which just gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.

Yes, "It all comes down to what you want to believe personally", but the earth is a certain shape and neither your nor my belief can change that.

But, there are probably millions in professions and doing jobs that would be quite different if the earth were flat.
Obvious examples are international airline route planners and pilots.
They must know the correct distances to calculate correct fuel loads,
and distances on the usual flat earth map are quite different from those on the Globe, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, where I am.

I made a post about those that must know the "true shape" of the earth:
Flat Earth General / Re: Why would the Government(s) lie about the shape of the earth? « Message by rabinoz on May 19, 2017, 09:39:20 AM ».

No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.

That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.
And I have been accused of being a liar and a deceiver for simply giving evidence that
         the earth is a Globe and has always been a Globe,
         that the Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth for a couple of millennia and
         no-one has come up with credible evidence that it is not a Globe.
And it is worse than that,
It seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Flat earthers cannot decide even on the basic continental layout of the earth, all they seem to agree on is:
So, does the continental layout of your flat earth look like any of these?Or maybe your flat earth looks like one of these?

And is "gravity" caused by:

• Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
• Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
• Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
• Simple density as many seem to claim,
• Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
• Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
• İntikam's "atmosphere push".
• And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down.

You say "Earth is flat. No amount of lies will change the mind of those who have realized the truth."
I venture to claim that you have not the faintest idea!

So until flat earthers can come up with some answers they should stop claiming that most people on earth are either lying or deceived.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 26, 2017, 02:20:53 PM

No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.

That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.

They claim to know "THE TRUTH" and claim that everybody else is lying to them.

And I have been accused of being a liar and a deceiver for simply giving evidence that
         the earth is a Globe and has always been a Globe,
         that the Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth for a couple of millennia and
         no-one has come up with credible evidence that it is not a Globe.
And it is worse than that,

you claim that the earth is not a Globe, yet, you do not have any credible alternate model.

It seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Flat earthers cannot decide even on the basic continental layout of the earth, all they seem to agree on is:

The earth is Flat!

So, does the continental layout of your flat earth look like any of these?

FE Ice Wall Map - North Pole centred AEP

FE Bipolar Map - (0°, 0°) centred AEP

1893 map by Orlando Ferguson. Credit: Don Homuth

Or maybe your flat earth looks like one of these?

Map Northern Hemiplane, DET

Map Southern Hemiplane

İntikam's, "New Map Suggest"

All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.

And is "gravity" caused by:

• Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
• Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
• Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
• Simple density as many seem to claim,
• Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
• Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
• İntikam's "atmosphere push".
• And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down.

You say "Earth is flat. No amount of lies will change the mind of those who have realized the truth."

Which of the almost unlimited possible flat-earths is "the truth."

I venture to claim that you have not the faintest idea!

So until flat earthers can come up with some answers they should stop claiming that most people on earth are either lying or deceived.

The point I'm making is why should we dismiss our own observations and take the word of someone else ?

One of your colleagues was implying my observations where incorrect when they are not anyone can check that for themselves.

The flght paths don't make sense on the heliocentric modelthey seem to go the long way round.
 We are then told that there is not the financial insentive  for direct flights which is possible but hard to believe.

When you look at the flight path software planes just dissappear in the southern hemisphere .
When we look at all the contradictions regarding the southern hemisphere it is obvious something is  "up" with their heliocentric model.

Just because your model doesn't reflect reality or observation anyone that notices this must have a fully working flat model ?

Why must someone that noticed your model doesn't work have to have a fully working flat model ?

Why are you and your colleague's bothered what shape other people think the earth is this attitude on a flat earth forum gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 26, 2017, 07:00:11 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on May 26, 2017, 02:20:53 PM

No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.

That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.

They claim to know "THE TRUTH" and claim that everybody else is lying to them.

And I have been accused of being a liar and a deceiver for simply giving evidence that
         the earth is a Globe and has always been a Globe,
         that the Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth for a couple of millennia and
         no-one has come up with credible evidence that it is not a Globe.
And it is worse than that,

you claim that the earth is not a Globe, yet, you do not have any credible alternate model.

It seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Flat earthers cannot decide even on the basic continental layout of the earth, all they seem to agree on is:

The earth is Flat!

So, does the continental layout of your flat earth look like any of these?

FE Ice Wall Map - North Pole centred AEP

FE Bipolar Map - (0°, 0°) centred AEP

1893 map by Orlando Ferguson. Credit: Don Homuth

Or maybe your flat earth looks like one of these?

Map Northern Hemiplane, DET

Map Southern Hemiplane

İntikam's, "New Map Suggest"

All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.

And is "gravity" caused by:

• Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
• Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
• Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
• Simple density as many seem to claim,
• Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
• Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
• İntikam's "atmosphere push".
• And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down.

You say "Earth is flat. No amount of lies will change the mind of those who have realized the truth."

Which of the almost unlimited possible flat-earths is "the truth."

I venture to claim that you have not the faintest idea!

So until flat earthers can come up with some answers they should stop claiming that most people on earth are either lying or deceived.

The point I'm making is why should we dismiss our own observations and take the word of someone else ?

One of your colleagues was implying my observations where incorrect when they are not anyone can check that for themselves.

The flght paths don't make sense on the heliocentric modelthey seem to go the long way round.
 We are then told that there is not the financial insentive  for direct flights which is possible but hard to believe.

When you look at the flight path software planes just dissappear in the southern hemisphere .
When we look at all the contradictions regarding the southern hemisphere it is obvious something is  "up" with their heliocentric model.

Just because your model doesn't reflect reality or observation anyone that notices this must have a fully working flat model ?

Why must someone that noticed your model doesn't work have to have a fully working flat model ?

Why are you and your colleague's bothered what shape other people think the earth is this attitude on a flat earth forum gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.

You refuse to learn astronomic to see how the solar system works and you can not explain how the Flat Earth Idea works.

The only thing you do is repeating that a helicentric system does not work without any explanation.

As long you can not show any evidence that supports your claims your posts are absolut useless.

 

There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.

There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion.

Thank you for sharing.

Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed)

Please do.

its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.

Please elaborate.

Humans are definitely not herbivores only. Way back in the day before civilisation how would we have survived?

As far as I know humans were eating meat only every once in a while and the diet was mostly plant based. Nowdays it's like a 180° turn; lots of meat and a bit of everything else (at least where I live, I don't know about 3rd world countries).

And well cancer comes from over consumption of meats, especially processed meats full of sodium nitrate and meat that is overcooked and washed down with alcohol or soda. There is nothing unhealthy about incorporating a little meat or dairy like eggs and cheese etc in your diet.

Have you studies to proof those claims?

If you see a piece of meat on the table and you acknowledge the sacrifice the animal(s) (involuntarily) made and you do not waste it, it is far less sadistic than a guy who may think 'sucked in' and toss half of it in the garbage bin.

That was my point. You don't have to be vegan/vegetarien, but at least be aware of what it causes (and treat food respectfully).

Like it or not, humans place a higher value on humans than they do of lesser animals.

Thanks, captain.

Would you rather buy an animal product that came from a farmer who cared about the welfare of his animals throughout their life? Or buy one from someone who abused the shit out of them and made them suffer a horrible death needlessly.... The end outcome is the same (death), but which one is more palatable for you to support?

Which is more palatable for you to support, a murderer that tortures his victim first, or one that takes his victim on a romantic dinner first?
No, seriously, of course it's better if the animals are at least treated "fair", but it still does not make it a good thing.
I personally think a lot of animal products (wool, milk, eggs,...) would not require animals to die or suffer a lot (which eating meat does by definition), but of course it would mean way higher prices.

Society needs to change its standards and eating habits no question. Just that we can still eat meat and not be arseholes about it. Remember, there are now 7 billion people to feed. You cant expect they all turn vegan/vegetarian. Animals will still be bred and slaughtered for our survival.

Obviously I don't expect that, but then again, if people ate at least fewer meat, there would also be more food available and lesser pollution (climate change).

As far as I know humans were eating meat only every once in a while and the diet was mostly plant based. Nowdays it's like a 180° turn; lots of meat and a bit of everything else (at least where I live, I don't know about 3rd world countries).

From an evolutionary perspective, Hominids turned from a largely herbivore and fructivor habit as typical for primates (including the Australopithecines) to a hunting behaviour, and this is largely seen as having triggered the evolution of the human brain, because our brain needs much energy.

If you look at different human societies food resources vary substantially. If you were an Inuit your diet was 100% meat. If you were in a hunter gatherer society generally your diet depended on what was available in your environment. The development of agriculture by and large shifted diet to plants instead of meat. If you were a peasant in 18th century Europe, when you were forbidden to hunt and only possessed a few cows and pigs, you ate bread and cheese all the week and had meat on the table only on special occasions.