Can you please explain how flat earth can be possible?

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope. Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth. Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

Hundreds and thousands of years, duh? It's not called a light year for no reason.

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope.

Yes, they made up loads of bullshit about it.
Guess what? They couldn't back up these fantasy stories in any rational way.

Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Except they have, repeatedly. You ignoring them and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear.

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

That depends on how far away they are.
If they are 10 light years away, it would take 10 years. If they are 100 light years away, it would take 100 light years, and so on. Although it gets more complicated for the very far away ones due to what distance you try to measure, their current distance, the distance they were when the light you are seeing was set off or something more complex due to the expansion of the universe.

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope. Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Really? Here is a real photograph, taken by a real person on an excellent real film camera!
That photo was taken with an film camera and is a single non-composite image.

Here is its "provenance":

The photograph was taken about 5 hours and 6 minutes after launch of the Apollo 17 mission, and about 1 hour 54 minutes after the spacecraft left its parking orbit around the Earth, to begin its trajectory to the Moon. The time of Apollo 17's launch, 12:33 a.m. EST, meant that Africa was in daylight during the early hours of the spacecraft's flight. With the December solstice approaching, Antarctica was also illuminated.

The 1972 Tamil Nadu cyclone can be seen in the top right of the image. This storm had brought flooding and high winds to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu on December 5, two days before the photograph was taken.

The photograph's official NASA designation is AS17-148-22727. NASA photograph AS17-148-22726, taken just before and nearly identical to 22727, is also used as a full-Earth image.

The photographer used a 70-millimeter Hasselblad camera with an 80-millimeter Zeiss lens. NASA credits the image to the entire Apollo 17 crew—Eugene Cernan, Ronald Evans and Jack Schmitt—all of whom took photographs during the mission with the on-board Hasselblad, although evidence examined after the mission suggests that Jack Schmitt was the photographer.

Though, I must admit it! That photo was not taken with a telescope, just a very good film camera and a moderate telephoto lens.
So sorry about that, but if you insist on one with a telescope, here's is one taken on a telescope with a 2.88 m focal length and a 20 cm aperture.

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

"That light" takes "hundreds and thousands of years" "to reach our sight"

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope. Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth. Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

Hundreds and thousands of years, duh? It's not called a light year for no reason.

You are telling me that you can see a forming star which is as far as thousands light years away? If that would be the case would me that your star formed about that amount of time long before and what you see it's a projection plus that star it may be in a different position assuming that it's travelling with some amazing speeds.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope.

Yes, they made up loads of bullshit about it.
Guess what? They couldn't back up these fantasy stories in any rational way.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Except they have, repeatedly. You ignoring them and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

That depends on how far away they are.
If they are 10 light years away, it would take 10 years. If they are 100 light years away, it would take 100 light years, and so on. Although it gets more complicated for the very far away ones due to what distance you try to measure, their current distance, the distance they were when the light you are seeing was set off or something more complex due to the expansion of the universe.

Google says:

''Most distant object in the universe spotted by Hubble Space Telescope, shattering record for the farthest known galaxy. Scientists have seen the furthest thing that humans have ever seen — and it shouldn't even be able to exist. A galaxy 13.4 billion light years away has been spotted by the Hubble Space Telescope.4 Mar 2016''

''This close-up view shows the galaxy MACS0647-JD, the farthest object yet known, as it appears through a gravitational lens imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxy is 13.3 billion light-years from Earth and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.15 Nov 2012''

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?
Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?


 

Quote from: Sentinel on July 09, 2017, 08:17:59 AM

So what prevents the atmoplane to vanish into space over the borders of a flat earth if it wasn't for a dome or something similar?
Or do you actually believe in infinite earth and therefor infinite atmosphere as well?

As one moves south into Antarctica and away from the path of the sun, the temperatures continue to drop.  Eventually, it is so cold that gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen become so cold that they liquify and precipate out of the sky.  At the "edge" of the Earth, there simply are no gases left to spill over the edge.

Provide zetetic proof of this. Your theory is conjecture, which is rejected by FE'ers.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2017, 03:20:13 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope.

Yes, they made up loads of bullshit about it.
Guess what? They couldn't back up these fantasy stories in any rational way.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Except they have, repeatedly. You ignoring them and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

That depends on how far away they are.
If they are 10 light years away, it would take 10 years. If they are 100 light years away, it would take 100 light years, and so on. Although it gets more complicated for the very far away ones due to what distance you try to measure, their current distance, the distance they were when the light you are seeing was set off or something more complex due to the expansion of the universe.

Google says:

''Most distant object in the universe spotted by Hubble Space Telescope, shattering record for the farthest known galaxy. Scientists have seen the furthest thing that humans have ever seen — and it shouldn't even be able to exist. A galaxy 13.4 billion light years away has been spotted by the Hubble Space Telescope.4 Mar 2016''

''This close-up view shows the galaxy MACS0647-JD, the farthest object yet known, as it appears through a gravitational lens imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxy is 13.3 billion light-years from Earth and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.15 Nov 2012''

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?
Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?

Things are discovered all the time that challenge current concepts of things that we know so little about, like the Big Bang.  This is the exciting part of science, when your ideas are challenged and you get more evidence to study which could force theories to change.  These challenges are what science is all about.  I make a claim based off of evidence, you scrutinize it while collecting your own evidence.  Others do the same, we all come to a consensus and then we get to testing the theory.  All this means is more discoveries are to be made.  It doesn't break currently held theories, just pushes them very hard toward the upper bounds of how long they think it takes galaxies to form.  It is actually possible under current theories, it pushes them a bit so we get excited and start looking into the possibilities that these new discoveries can challenge our theories and expand our knowledge about the workings of the universe.
But, I understand its hard to understand when you close yourself off to anything that doesn't agree with your paranoid delusions.  It's OK though, one day you may learn how to open your mind to new discoveries and concepts.  Perhaps you should study a bit, maybe you will get beyond that ignorance that blocks you.  Although you would need to at least try to accept things you do not currently understand and stop rejecting them immediately due to them being accepted by the majority. 
Again, if everyone is arguing against your position, perhaps you are being more stubborn and willfully blind instead of rebelliously creative.  You could just be wrong.   That isn't always the case, but in all those cases where the majority was wrong, the lone detractor proved with evidence, not emotions, their ideas.  It always comes down to emotion vs logic in these types of situations in scientific arguments, guess which one always wins out, then realize that isn't the position the FE argues from. 

As one moves south into Antarctica and away from the path of the sun, the temperatures continue to drop.  Eventually, it is so cold that gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen become so cold that they liquify and precipate out of the sky.  At the "edge" of the Earth, there simply are no gases left to spill over the edge.

When those gasses get liquified, their volume reduces, and when they precipate they freeze on or behind the front line of the ice wall.
They leave behind empty space, the rest of the air expands there, gets liquified, then frozen, and we lose about 5-10% of gaseous air per month.

If you disagree with the numbers, calculate the circumference of the earth disc, distance to the atmoplate at the top of atmoplane, and depth of the cold band.
It will give you the "processing volume". Then take into account the speed at which the non-liquified gasses expand into cold area.

Ok, if we lose just 5% per month (and not 10%), it means that every month we have just 95% left. It is 0.95 ^ 12 = 0.54. It means 54% air left each year.
In 10 years we have just 0,54 ^ 10 = 0,0021, which is 0.21% of air that we "inherited".
How much atmospheric pressure changed in last 10 years?
How much less air we suck in with every breath?

Air gasses freeze at much lower temperatures than water.
Front of the ice wall is frozen water.
Our frozen air is much farther away.
Those evil military won't let us go there with ice picks and bring back our air cubes.

You are telling me that you can see a forming star which is as far as thousands light years away? If that would be the case would me that your star formed about that amount of time long before and what you see it's a projection plus that star it may be in a different position assuming that it's travelling with some amazing speeds.

Yes, what is so hard to believe about that?
What you see is the light from the star as it was forming. By looking very far away you are effectively looking into the past.
Think of someone taking a picture and sending it in the post.
You seem to be objecting to something akin to that.

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?

When what was formed?
The big bang or the galaxy?
For the galaxy, they likely didn't actually determine when it was formed, and instead determined how long ago we are actually seeing (how long it took that light to reach us).

Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?

No, the singularity decayed.
As opposed to your massively complex god which just exists without cause.

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 02:15:44 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2017, 03:20:13 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope.

Yes, they made up loads of bullshit about it.
Guess what? They couldn't back up these fantasy stories in any rational way.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Except they have, repeatedly. You ignoring them and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

That depends on how far away they are.
If they are 10 light years away, it would take 10 years. If they are 100 light years away, it would take 100 light years, and so on. Although it gets more complicated for the very far away ones due to what distance you try to measure, their current distance, the distance they were when the light you are seeing was set off or something more complex due to the expansion of the universe.

Google says:

''Most distant object in the universe spotted by Hubble Space Telescope, shattering record for the farthest known galaxy. Scientists have seen the furthest thing that humans have ever seen — and it shouldn't even be able to exist. A galaxy 13.4 billion light years away has been spotted by the Hubble Space Telescope.4 Mar 2016''

''This close-up view shows the galaxy MACS0647-JD, the farthest object yet known, as it appears through a gravitational lens imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxy is 13.3 billion light-years from Earth and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.15 Nov 2012''

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?
Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?

Things are discovered all the time that challenge current concepts of things that we know so little about, like the Big Bang.  This is the exciting part of science, when your ideas are challenged and you get more evidence to study which could force theories to change.  These challenges are what science is all about.  I make a claim based off of evidence, you scrutinize it while collecting your own evidence.  Others do the same, we all come to a consensus and then we get to testing the theory.  All this means is more discoveries are to be made.  It doesn't break currently held theories, just pushes them very hard toward the upper bounds of how long they think it takes galaxies to form.  It is actually possible under current theories, it pushes them a bit so we get excited and start looking into the possibilities that these new discoveries can challenge our theories and expand our knowledge about the workings of the universe.
But, I understand its hard to understand when you close yourself off to anything that doesn't agree with your paranoid delusions.  It's OK though, one day you may learn how to open your mind to new discoveries and concepts.  Perhaps you should study a bit, maybe you will get beyond that ignorance that blocks you.  Although you would need to at least try to accept things you do not currently understand and stop rejecting them immediately due to them being accepted by the majority. 
Again, if everyone is arguing against your position, perhaps you are being more stubborn and willfully blind instead of rebelliously creative.  You could just be wrong.   That isn't always the case, but in all those cases where the majority was wrong, the lone detractor proved with evidence, not emotions, their ideas.  It always comes down to emotion vs logic in these types of situations in scientific arguments, guess which one always wins out, then realize that isn't the position the FE argues from.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!
So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?
 

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 12, 2017, 03:07:04 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 02:15:44 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2017, 03:20:13 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope.

Yes, they made up loads of bullshit about it.
Guess what? They couldn't back up these fantasy stories in any rational way.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Except they have, repeatedly. You ignoring them and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

That depends on how far away they are.
If they are 10 light years away, it would take 10 years. If they are 100 light years away, it would take 100 light years, and so on. Although it gets more complicated for the very far away ones due to what distance you try to measure, their current distance, the distance they were when the light you are seeing was set off or something more complex due to the expansion of the universe.

Google says:

''Most distant object in the universe spotted by Hubble Space Telescope, shattering record for the farthest known galaxy. Scientists have seen the furthest thing that humans have ever seen — and it shouldn't even be able to exist. A galaxy 13.4 billion light years away has been spotted by the Hubble Space Telescope.4 Mar 2016''

''This close-up view shows the galaxy MACS0647-JD, the farthest object yet known, as it appears through a gravitational lens imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxy is 13.3 billion light-years from Earth and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.15 Nov 2012''

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?
Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?

Things are discovered all the time that challenge current concepts of things that we know so little about, like the Big Bang.  This is the exciting part of science, when your ideas are challenged and you get more evidence to study which could force theories to change.  These challenges are what science is all about.  I make a claim based off of evidence, you scrutinize it while collecting your own evidence.  Others do the same, we all come to a consensus and then we get to testing the theory.  All this means is more discoveries are to be made.  It doesn't break currently held theories, just pushes them very hard toward the upper bounds of how long they think it takes galaxies to form.  It is actually possible under current theories, it pushes them a bit so we get excited and start looking into the possibilities that these new discoveries can challenge our theories and expand our knowledge about the workings of the universe.
But, I understand its hard to understand when you close yourself off to anything that doesn't agree with your paranoid delusions.  It's OK though, one day you may learn how to open your mind to new discoveries and concepts.  Perhaps you should study a bit, maybe you will get beyond that ignorance that blocks you.  Although you would need to at least try to accept things you do not currently understand and stop rejecting them immediately due to them being accepted by the majority. 
Again, if everyone is arguing against your position, perhaps you are being more stubborn and willfully blind instead of rebelliously creative.  You could just be wrong.   That isn't always the case, but in all those cases where the majority was wrong, the lone detractor proved with evidence, not emotions, their ideas.  It always comes down to emotion vs logic in these types of situations in scientific arguments, guess which one always wins out, then realize that isn't the position the FE argues from.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!
So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?

No, you have chosen to take up a cult religion.  It isn't questioning everything.  You just believe something different than most, but you refuse to consider that you chose wrong, therefore you will ignore anything that disagrees with you, you will go so far as to claim there is some conspiracy to hide the truth, to explain away anything you disagree with.

I am no astronaut, but I imagine they turn the spacecraft with thrusters, i.e. something to change potential energy (fuel, compressed gas, etc) into kinetic energy (explosion, release of gas etc.) in one direction.  "Force" in one direction has equal and opposite "force" in the opposite direction.  Probably compressed gas It works under water just fine to move you, it works in a vacuum chamber just fine to move you. 

The same principle for moving forward also.  So what is so hard about reading up on that?  Oh wait, all scientific data is tainted by the conspiracy.  I forgot, if you can claim it is part of the conspiracy or generated by the conspiracy, then you can ignore it offhand.
That really doesn't sound open minded at all. 
Intentionally blind closed minded conspiracy nutters always make me laugh,  They will come up with any excuse in the book to keep from actually considering that they are wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!

The issue isn't reading or questioning, the issue is thinking.

If you honestly thought things through you would realise your god solves nothing and there is no rational reason to believe in it and that all the evidence points to Earth being round.

Also, do you question everything? Even Earth being flat and God being real or do you just accept them?

So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?

I assume you mean real ones?
There are a variety of ways, the simplest is a thruster. This is either compressed gas which is released in a control manner or fuel which is burnt to create compressed gas which is immediately released.
By doing this in a controlled manner they can change their direction and speed.

Quote from: jroa on July 09, 2017, 08:30:50 AM

Quote from: Sentinel on July 09, 2017, 08:17:59 AM

So what prevents the atmoplane to vanish into space over the borders of a flat earth if it wasn't for a dome or something similar?
Or do you actually believe in infinite earth and therefor infinite atmosphere as well?

As one moves south into Antarctica and away from the path of the sun, the temperatures continue to drop.  Eventually, it is so cold that gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen become so cold that they liquify and precipate out of the sky.  At the "edge" of the Earth, there simply are no gases left to spill over the edge.

Provide zetetic proof of this. Your theory is conjecture, which is rejected by FE'ers.

Zetetically, there is no proof: only evidence. 

Hahahaha,  FE supporters using evidence.  Hahahahahaha. Good one.
 None know how to use it, only assert misconceptions. 

Quote from: jroa on July 09, 2017, 06:49:09 AM

Quote from: neutrino on July 09, 2017, 05:04:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 08, 2017, 06:07:22 PM

The sun may well be farther away than the stars at the horizon. 

Jroa, what about Sun and Moon actually obscuring stars?

What about them?  Please try to construct coherent questions in the future.

Isn't it obvious? My question is not coherent?
If Sun and Moon obscure stars, the stars should be "behind them", right?

WOAH WOAH!! Slow it down Pointdexter!

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 02:15:44 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2017, 03:20:13 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope.

Yes, they made up loads of bullshit about it.
Guess what? They couldn't back up these fantasy stories in any rational way.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Except they have, repeatedly. You ignoring them and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

That depends on how far away they are.
If they are 10 light years away, it would take 10 years. If they are 100 light years away, it would take 100 light years, and so on. Although it gets more complicated for the very far away ones due to what distance you try to measure, their current distance, the distance they were when the light you are seeing was set off or something more complex due to the expansion of the universe.

Google says:

''Most distant object in the universe spotted by Hubble Space Telescope, shattering record for the farthest known galaxy. Scientists have seen the furthest thing that humans have ever seen — and it shouldn't even be able to exist. A galaxy 13.4 billion light years away has been spotted by the Hubble Space Telescope.4 Mar 2016''

''This close-up view shows the galaxy MACS0647-JD, the farthest object yet known, as it appears through a gravitational lens imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxy is 13.3 billion light-years from Earth and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.15 Nov 2012''

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?
Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?

Things are discovered all the time that challenge current concepts of things that we know so little about, like the Big Bang.  This is the exciting part of science, when your ideas are challenged and you get more evidence to study which could force theories to change.  These challenges are what science is all about.  I make a claim based off of evidence, you scrutinize it while collecting your own evidence.  Others do the same, we all come to a consensus and then we get to testing the theory.  All this means is more discoveries are to be made.  It doesn't break currently held theories, just pushes them very hard toward the upper bounds of how long they think it takes galaxies to form.  It is actually possible under current theories, it pushes them a bit so we get excited and start looking into the possibilities that these new discoveries can challenge our theories and expand our knowledge about the workings of the universe.
But, I understand its hard to understand when you close yourself off to anything that doesn't agree with your paranoid delusions.  It's OK though, one day you may learn how to open your mind to new discoveries and concepts.  Perhaps you should study a bit, maybe you will get beyond that ignorance that blocks you.  Although you would need to at least try to accept things you do not currently understand and stop rejecting them immediately due to them being accepted by the majority. 
Again, if everyone is arguing against your position, perhaps you are being more stubborn and willfully blind instead of rebelliously creative.  You could just be wrong.   That isn't always the case, but in all those cases where the majority was wrong, the lone detractor proved with evidence, not emotions, their ideas.  It always comes down to emotion vs logic in these types of situations in scientific arguments, guess which one always wins out, then realize that isn't the position the FE argues from.

The science cannot prove that God doesn't exist! We will find the answers maybe when we die! Someone said: ''If God doesn't exist and I believe in him, I have nothing to lose, but if God exists and I don't believe in him, then I lose everything''.

Now, It's a certain fact that long ago it was a scientific debate about whether or not there is perpetuum mobile, yet the big bang theory it's based on this theory from my point of view. I said it's a fact because I've read about it from different sources, long before internet.

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 02:03:01 PM

You are telling me that you can see a forming star which is as far as thousands light years away? If that would be the case would me that your star formed about that amount of time long before and what you see it's a projection plus that star it may be in a different position assuming that it's travelling with some amazing speeds.

Yes, what is so hard to believe about that?
What you see is the light from the star as it was forming. By looking very far away you are effectively looking into the past.
Think of someone taking a picture and sending it in the post.
You seem to be objecting to something akin to that.

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 02:15:44 PM

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?

When what was formed?
The big bang or the galaxy?
For the galaxy, they likely didn't actually determine when it was formed, and instead determined how long ago we are actually seeing (how long it took that light to reach us).

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 02:15:44 PM

Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?

No, the singularity decayed.
As opposed to your massively complex god which just exists without cause.

Well, it's hard to believe because I imagine things like, in such huge distance I assume millions of stars, all of them shining, If we can see naked eye some stars, and those stars are big, much bigger than our sun, again I imagine them to be much brighter, and most likely in billions years their light should have met, I just wonder what happens with all that energy? And if the energy from the stars decreases, where does it go? Probably wondering between the stars?

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 12, 2017, 03:07:04 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 02:15:44 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2017, 03:20:13 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope.

Yes, they made up loads of bullshit about it.
Guess what? They couldn't back up these fantasy stories in any rational way.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Except they have, repeatedly. You ignoring them and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

That depends on how far away they are.
If they are 10 light years away, it would take 10 years. If they are 100 light years away, it would take 100 light years, and so on. Although it gets more complicated for the very far away ones due to what distance you try to measure, their current distance, the distance they were when the light you are seeing was set off or something more complex due to the expansion of the universe.

Google says:

''Most distant object in the universe spotted by Hubble Space Telescope, shattering record for the farthest known galaxy. Scientists have seen the furthest thing that humans have ever seen — and it shouldn't even be able to exist. A galaxy 13.4 billion light years away has been spotted by the Hubble Space Telescope.4 Mar 2016''

''This close-up view shows the galaxy MACS0647-JD, the farthest object yet known, as it appears through a gravitational lens imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxy is 13.3 billion light-years from Earth and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.15 Nov 2012''

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?
Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?

Things are discovered all the time that challenge current concepts of things that we know so little about, like the Big Bang.  This is the exciting part of science, when your ideas are challenged and you get more evidence to study which could force theories to change.  These challenges are what science is all about.  I make a claim based off of evidence, you scrutinize it while collecting your own evidence.  Others do the same, we all come to a consensus and then we get to testing the theory.  All this means is more discoveries are to be made.  It doesn't break currently held theories, just pushes them very hard toward the upper bounds of how long they think it takes galaxies to form.  It is actually possible under current theories, it pushes them a bit so we get excited and start looking into the possibilities that these new discoveries can challenge our theories and expand our knowledge about the workings of the universe.
But, I understand its hard to understand when you close yourself off to anything that doesn't agree with your paranoid delusions.  It's OK though, one day you may learn how to open your mind to new discoveries and concepts.  Perhaps you should study a bit, maybe you will get beyond that ignorance that blocks you.  Although you would need to at least try to accept things you do not currently understand and stop rejecting them immediately due to them being accepted by the majority. 
Again, if everyone is arguing against your position, perhaps you are being more stubborn and willfully blind instead of rebelliously creative.  You could just be wrong.   That isn't always the case, but in all those cases where the majority was wrong, the lone detractor proved with evidence, not emotions, their ideas.  It always comes down to emotion vs logic in these types of situations in scientific arguments, guess which one always wins out, then realize that isn't the position the FE argues from.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!
So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?

No, you have chosen to take up a cult religion.  It isn't questioning everything.  You just believe something different than most, but you refuse to consider that you chose wrong, therefore you will ignore anything that disagrees with you, you will go so far as to claim there is some conspiracy to hide the truth, to explain away anything you disagree with.

I am no astronaut, but I imagine they turn the spacecraft with thrusters, i.e. something to change potential energy (fuel, compressed gas, etc) into kinetic energy (explosion, release of gas etc.) in one direction.  "Force" in one direction has equal and opposite "force" in the opposite direction.  Probably compressed gas It works under water just fine to move you, it works in a vacuum chamber just fine to move you. 

The same principle for moving forward also.  So what is so hard about reading up on that?  Oh wait, all scientific data is tainted by the conspiracy.  I forgot, if you can claim it is part of the conspiracy or generated by the conspiracy, then you can ignore it offhand.
That really doesn't sound open minded at all. 
Intentionally blind closed minded conspiracy nutters always make me laugh,  They will come up with any excuse in the book to keep from actually considering that they are wrong.

My choice of believe it's by analyzing some historical facts combined with actual facts, as I said before people never give up power once they have it, it is the motor of the empires.

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!

The issue isn't reading or questioning, the issue is thinking.

If you honestly thought things through you would realise your god solves nothing and there is no rational reason to believe in it and that all the evidence points to Earth being round.

Also, do you question everything? Even Earth being flat and God being real or do you just accept them?

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?

I assume you mean real ones?
There are a variety of ways, the simplest is a thruster. This is either compressed gas which is released in a control manner or fuel which is burnt to create compressed gas which is immediately released.
By doing this in a controlled manner they can change their direction and speed.

I question everything as I said, I have no answers for so many questions, and for now I just use my imagination.

Ok, I try to understand how they work, but as I do I have other question:

The earth it's spinning around the sun and on its own axis, now for a satellite to travel around the earth one should take in consideration all the forces involved and the vectors. Now, when a satellite it's on the side of the earth it does move parallel with the earth, but to follow earth's curvature at one point it should be in front of the earth which means the earth have to push the satellite, if that is the case, then all the other acting forces are null because, if those forces aren't null then the gravity should change in intensity.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 13, 2017, 01:27:00 AM

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!

The issue isn't reading or questioning, the issue is thinking.

If you honestly thought things through you would realise your god solves nothing and there is no rational reason to believe in it and that all the evidence points to Earth being round.

Also, do you question everything? Even Earth being flat and God being real or do you just accept them?

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?

I assume you mean real ones?
There are a variety of ways, the simplest is a thruster. This is either compressed gas which is released in a control manner or fuel which is burnt to create compressed gas which is immediately released.
By doing this in a controlled manner they can change their direction and speed.

I question everything as I said, I have no answers for so many questions, and for now I just use my imagination.

Ok, I try to understand how they work, but as I do I have other question:

The earth it's spinning around the sun and on its own axis, now for a satellite to travel around the earth one should take in consideration all the forces involved and the vectors. Now, when a satellite it's on the side of the earth it does move parallel with the earth, but to follow earth's curvature at one point it should be in front of the earth which means the earth have to push the satellite, if that is the case, then all the other acting forces are null because, if those forces aren't null then the gravity should change in intensity.

Then why are you not honestly questioning the FE ideas?  Why aren't you questioning the conspiracy theory? Like how it could even work and what is a logical reason for its existence.  Why are you so quick to disregard any pictures from space?  Why aren't you spending time learning how the science works instead of bringing up things you do not understand and just saying, "that seems like it doesn't work", and then just dismissing it as not possible?
You do not question everything.  Far from it.  If you honestly wanted to know, you wouldn't continue with the style of question something then dismiss it solely from personal incredulity. 
When you demonstrate an actual open mind and get off your lazy ass and learn something, you will look back and see how stupid you sound right now.

Quote from: Aries on July 13, 2017, 02:02:48 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 13, 2017, 01:27:00 AM

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!

The issue isn't reading or questioning, the issue is thinking.

If you honestly thought things through you would realise your god solves nothing and there is no rational reason to believe in it and that all the evidence points to Earth being round.

Also, do you question everything? Even Earth being flat and God being real or do you just accept them?

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?

I assume you mean real ones?
There are a variety of ways, the simplest is a thruster. This is either compressed gas which is released in a control manner or fuel which is burnt to create compressed gas which is immediately released.
By doing this in a controlled manner they can change their direction and speed.

I question everything as I said, I have no answers for so many questions, and for now I just use my imagination.

Ok, I try to understand how they work, but as I do I have other question:

The earth it's spinning around the sun and on its own axis, now for a satellite to travel around the earth one should take in consideration all the forces involved and the vectors. Now, when a satellite it's on the side of the earth it does move parallel with the earth, but to follow earth's curvature at one point it should be in front of the earth which means the earth have to push the satellite, if that is the case, then all the other acting forces are null because, if those forces aren't null then the gravity should change in intensity.

Then why are you not honestly questioning the FE ideas?  Why aren't you questioning the conspiracy theory? Like how it could even work and what is a logical reason for its existence.  Why are you so quick to disregard any pictures from space?  Why aren't you spending time learning how the science works instead of bringing up things you do not understand and just saying, "that seems like it doesn't work", and then just dismissing it as not possible?
You do not question everything.  Far from it.  If you honestly wanted to know, you wouldn't continue with the style of question something then dismiss it solely from personal incredulity. 
When you demonstrate an actual open mind and get off your lazy ass and learn something, you will look back and see how stupid you sound right now.

I think I told you that I believed in science now when I watch videos or I read something I try to see the other's points of views.
What about Sagnac theory? I, know Einstein smashed any other theory.

'' The Karpen Pile is claimed to be a battery that has provided continuous energy for over 60 years, making it either a supremely effective method of storing energy or a hoax, furthermore some newspapers describe it as a perpetuum mobile, but most scientists disagree since such a device would violate the Second law of thermodynamics. The device is housed at the Dimitrie Leonida National Technical Museum, and by 2010 it had been working there continuously for 60 years.[6]'', from google, Karpen pile. Have you ever heard about it?

And if I am to tell you that there is an energy out there which can be used to generate free energy?!?

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 13, 2017, 02:41:39 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 13, 2017, 02:02:48 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 13, 2017, 01:27:00 AM

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!

The issue isn't reading or questioning, the issue is thinking.

If you honestly thought things through you would realise your god solves nothing and there is no rational reason to believe in it and that all the evidence points to Earth being round.

Also, do you question everything? Even Earth being flat and God being real or do you just accept them?

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?

I assume you mean real ones?
There are a variety of ways, the simplest is a thruster. This is either compressed gas which is released in a control manner or fuel which is burnt to create compressed gas which is immediately released.
By doing this in a controlled manner they can change their direction and speed.

I question everything as I said, I have no answers for so many questions, and for now I just use my imagination.

Ok, I try to understand how they work, but as I do I have other question:

The earth it's spinning around the sun and on its own axis, now for a satellite to travel around the earth one should take in consideration all the forces involved and the vectors. Now, when a satellite it's on the side of the earth it does move parallel with the earth, but to follow earth's curvature at one point it should be in front of the earth which means the earth have to push the satellite, if that is the case, then all the other acting forces are null because, if those forces aren't null then the gravity should change in intensity.

Then why are you not honestly questioning the FE ideas?  Why aren't you questioning the conspiracy theory? Like how it could even work and what is a logical reason for its existence.  Why are you so quick to disregard any pictures from space?  Why aren't you spending time learning how the science works instead of bringing up things you do not understand and just saying, "that seems like it doesn't work", and then just dismissing it as not possible?
You do not question everything.  Far from it.  If you honestly wanted to know, you wouldn't continue with the style of question something then dismiss it solely from personal incredulity. 
When you demonstrate an actual open mind and get off your lazy ass and learn something, you will look back and see how stupid you sound right now.

I think I told you that I believed in science now when I watch videos or I read something I try to see the other's points of views.
What about Sagnac theory? I, know Einstein smashed any other theory.

'' The Karpen Pile is claimed to be a battery that has provided continuous energy for over 60 years, making it either a supremely effective method of storing energy or a hoax, furthermore some newspapers describe it as a perpetuum mobile, but most scientists disagree since such a device would violate the Second law of thermodynamics. The device is housed at the Dimitrie Leonida National Technical Museum, and by 2010 it had been working there continuously for 60 years.[6]'', from google, Karpen pile. Have you ever heard about it?

And if I am to tell you that there is an energy out there which can be used to generate free energy?!?

See still asking questions randomly without taking the time to learn the stuff you questioned earlier.  You are just looking for that gotcha moment where you can finally look clever to the other trolls.

The science cannot prove that God doesn't exist!

Yes, because people intentionally define God to make it as hard as possible to disprove.

Who cares? Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean you should believe in it.

We will find the answers maybe when we die!

Yes, maybe. But again, there is no reason to think you will.

Someone said: ''If God doesn't exist and I believe in him, I have nothing to lose, but if God exists and I don't believe in him, then I lose everything''.

He was called Pascal, and in this regard, he was an idiot.
There are so many issues with this argument it isn't funny and it relies upon your god being an evil piece of shit which means there is no reason to think he would worship you and it requires you to be able to choose beliefs or fool God.

The simplified form (by Pascal just reworded):
If your evil piece of shit exists and it tortures people to not believing, then not believing results in eternal torment while belief results in eternally kissing his ass.
If it doesn't exist, then in the grand scheme of things you lose nothing.

The issue is lots of belief involves basically giving up your life or large sections of it. If a god doesn't exist, that is basically everything.
But the far more important issue, what if you are wrong and a different god exists?
What if Islam is true, then you get tormented as well.
What if a different god exists that will reward people for rational thought? Then you burn but I don't.
What about a just god that will punish you for worshipping an evil tyrant?
What if your god exists, but because it is an evil piece of shit it will torment you anyway?


Basically it can be boiled down to a few options:
1 - No god, you waste your life worshipping a lie making the world worse for everyone who comes after, losing a lot from yourself and taking a lot from others; or you discard this stupid religion and live your life and help others.
2 - An evil god exists that will torture you anyway. This is basically the same as above, but regardless after you die you get tortured.
3 - An evil god exists that will reward people for kissing his ass. Then it is the same as above, but if you pick the right god, then you get to escape the torture. But there are so many options.
4 - A jealous god exists that won't torture you just because you didn't worship him, but will torture you if you worship a different god. This gets more complex. With this there is the chance of reward if you worship that god, but picking a different one results in your torture and results in you giving up your life while there is no penalty for atheism.
5 - A just god exists, that will only torture you for being evil or worshipping an evil god. Again, no loss for atheism, just a loss for worshipping an evil god, which yours is. So in this case, you lose.

So when expanded, the more rational choice is to not pick any god. By picking a god you are giving up a large section of your life and are more likely to piss off any other possible god and are more likely to suffer. It would also requiring believing your god is evil as if it wasn't there would be no need to worship it.

I believe this was called Homer's wager (from the Simpsons).
"Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!"

Pascal's wager only works if there is only a possibility of a single god. That is not the case.


Before you even try claiming your god isn't evil, don't bother. If your god wasn't evil there would be no requirement to worship it. Only an evil tyrant would send people to hell for not worshipping him.
If your god was good, the wager would be something like this:
If God does not exist, then I give up parts of my life to follow religion, or I enjoy my life if I don't.
If God does exist then, I lose nothing by being a good person as this god will not punish me for it. So I should live my life without religion and just be a decent human being.

Now, It's a certain fact that long ago it was a scientific debate about whether or not there is perpetuum mobile, yet the big bang theory it's based on this theory from my point of view. I said it's a fact because I've read about it from different sources, long before internet.

No, the big bang is not based upon perpetual motion.

I just wonder what happens with all that energy? And if the energy from the stars decreases, where does it go? Probably wondering between the stars?

The same thing that happens to any energy like that.
Do you have a candle? If so that is a great demonstration.
Look at how bright it is when it is 10 cm away. Then see how bright it is when it is a few m away, then a few hundred.
That is how the light decays.

Basically for a spherically symmetric source (which stars are close enough to), there will be the same amount of energy flowing through any infinitely thin spherical shell.

As you get further away from the source, the shell gets larger and larger and thus the energy is spread thinner and thinner and thus it looks dimmer.

The earth it's spinning around the sun and on its own axis, now for a satellite to travel around the earth one should take in consideration all the forces involved and the vectors. Now, when a satellite it's on the side of the earth it does move parallel with the earth, but to follow earth's curvature at one point it should be in front of the earth which means the earth have to push the satellite, if that is the case, then all the other acting forces are null because, if those forces aren't null then the gravity should change in intensity.

Why would Earth have to push the satellite?
The satellite already has velocity. It is already moving along.
If Earth pushed it it would fly off into space.
Earth has to pull on it (via gravity) to keep it moving around Earth.

Compare the velocity of the satellite just before it goes in front of Earth, when it is in front and just after.
There are 2 components, the orbital velocity of Earth and the satellites orbital velocity relative to Earth.
The orbital velocity of Earth by definition will always align with Earth. But orbital velocity of the satellite relative to Earth wont always align with Earth's orbit.
When it is in front of Earth (I assume you mean in the path of Earth's orbit), it will be perpendicular, so it's orbit around Earth would just move it to the side.
Shortly before hand, it will be almost perpendicular, but slightly off, pointing slightly towards the direction of Earth's orbit.
Shortly after it will be almost perpendicular, but this time pointing slightly against the direction of Earth's orbit.

So just looking at the direction of Earth's orbit, you have the satellite going slightly faster than Earth, slowing down to match the speed of Earth and then slowing down to be slower than Earth.
So that is just deceleration, so Earth's should be pulling it back, not pushing it forwards.
Earth will pull it forwards when it is behind Earth.

What about Sagnac theory? I, know Einstein smashed any other theory.

I have never heard of Sagnac theory. I have heard of a Sagnac interferometer or the Sagnac effect. That is one of the things that can be used to show Einstein was right.
Prior to Einstein there were 2 main ideas of how light behaved.
One was the ballistic model which was akin to normal relativity, where if someone is travelling at a speed a, and they project light at speed b, it would move relative to an outside observer at speed a+b. This is what Michelson Morley's interferometer showed, that relative to the observer (which was also projecting the light), light travelled at the same speed.
The other was aether, where light travelled through this medium as a wave and thus its speed relative to this medium was constant (baring effects of other media like water).
This idea goes directly against Michelson Morley's interferometer. However Sagnac's interferometer supported this idea and showed that the ballistic model was wrong as light projected by a source which had to travel around a rotating ring propagated with a speed relative to the stationary surface, not the rotating ring.

These 2 experiments (along with others) showed that both models were wrong. Einsteins relativity with inertial reference frames matches both.

'' The Karpen Pile is claimed to be a battery that has provided continuous energy for over 60 years, making it either a supremely effective method of storing energy or a hoax, furthermore some newspapers describe it as a perpetuum mobile, but most scientists disagree since such a device would violate the Second law of thermodynamics. The device is housed at the Dimitrie Leonida National Technical Museum, and by 2010 it had been working there continuously for 60 years.[6]'', from google, Karpen pile. Have you ever heard about it?

A battery can provide power for a long time, depending upon the chemistry of it, its size and how much power is being drawn from it.
Alternatively it could be utilising the Seebeck effect and temperature gradients.

And if I am to tell you that there is an energy out there which can be used to generate free energy?!?

I would say that depends upon your definition of free.

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 12, 2017, 03:07:04 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 12, 2017, 02:15:44 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2017, 03:20:13 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

And if we don't believe in God then we should praise the science. Imagine how more that 2000 years ago people used to study the sky and tell us stories about it even without a telescope.

Yes, they made up loads of bullshit about it.
Guess what? They couldn't back up these fantasy stories in any rational way.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Others told us stories without a microscope, and now NASA with, telescopes and microscopes can't show us a real picture of the globe earth.

Except they have, repeatedly. You ignoring them and pretending they don't exist doesn't magically make them disappear.

Quote from: Aries on July 11, 2017, 01:32:53 PM

Now they see stars hundreds and thousands of light years away, some new stars forming. How long would take to that light to rich our sight?

That depends on how far away they are.
If they are 10 light years away, it would take 10 years. If they are 100 light years away, it would take 100 light years, and so on. Although it gets more complicated for the very far away ones due to what distance you try to measure, their current distance, the distance they were when the light you are seeing was set off or something more complex due to the expansion of the universe.

Google says:

''Most distant object in the universe spotted by Hubble Space Telescope, shattering record for the farthest known galaxy. Scientists have seen the furthest thing that humans have ever seen — and it shouldn't even be able to exist. A galaxy 13.4 billion light years away has been spotted by the Hubble Space Telescope.4 Mar 2016''

''This close-up view shows the galaxy MACS0647-JD, the farthest object yet known, as it appears through a gravitational lens imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. The galaxy is 13.3 billion light-years from Earth and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.15 Nov 2012''

And what magic math did they use to determine when was formed?
Bing Bang? Seriously? So the Big Nothing exploded to form the universe?

Things are discovered all the time that challenge current concepts of things that we know so little about, like the Big Bang.  This is the exciting part of science, when your ideas are challenged and you get more evidence to study which could force theories to change.  These challenges are what science is all about.  I make a claim based off of evidence, you scrutinize it while collecting your own evidence.  Others do the same, we all come to a consensus and then we get to testing the theory.  All this means is more discoveries are to be made.  It doesn't break currently held theories, just pushes them very hard toward the upper bounds of how long they think it takes galaxies to form.  It is actually possible under current theories, it pushes them a bit so we get excited and start looking into the possibilities that these new discoveries can challenge our theories and expand our knowledge about the workings of the universe.
But, I understand its hard to understand when you close yourself off to anything that doesn't agree with your paranoid delusions.  It's OK though, one day you may learn how to open your mind to new discoveries and concepts.  Perhaps you should study a bit, maybe you will get beyond that ignorance that blocks you.  Although you would need to at least try to accept things you do not currently understand and stop rejecting them immediately due to them being accepted by the majority. 
Again, if everyone is arguing against your position, perhaps you are being more stubborn and willfully blind instead of rebelliously creative.  You could just be wrong.   That isn't always the case, but in all those cases where the majority was wrong, the lone detractor proved with evidence, not emotions, their ideas.  It always comes down to emotion vs logic in these types of situations in scientific arguments, guess which one always wins out, then realize that isn't the position the FE argues from.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I read since I was 9-10 years old, and not just stories. I did have my questions at that time, but believed in science and theories. Now I question everything!
So how they pilot a spaceship? How they change direction, how they increase the speed?

No, you have chosen to take up a cult religion.  It isn't questioning everything.  You just believe something different than most, but you refuse to consider that you chose wrong, therefore you will ignore anything that disagrees with you, you will go so far as to claim there is some conspiracy to hide the truth, to explain away anything you disagree with.

I am no astronaut, but I imagine they turn the spacecraft with thrusters, i.e. something to change potential energy (fuel, compressed gas, etc) into kinetic energy (explosion, release of gas etc.) in one direction.  "Force" in one direction has equal and opposite "force" in the opposite direction.  Probably compressed gas It works under water just fine to move you, it works in a vacuum chamber just fine to move you. 

The same principle for moving forward also.  So what is so hard about reading up on that?  Oh wait, all scientific data is tainted by the conspiracy.  I forgot, if you can claim it is part of the conspiracy or generated by the conspiracy, then you can ignore it offhand.
That really doesn't sound open minded at all. 
Intentionally blind closed minded conspiracy nutters always make me laugh,  They will come up with any excuse in the book to keep from actually considering that they are wrong.

No, it looks like you are the one so anchored in relativity and gravity theory that you don't even dare to question them, but accept them as the absolute truth. Sagnac  tried to prove the existence of aether, and that is what I call a theory, now others have changed his theory into an effect, so Newton has a theory to prove something, while others have effects. What is even more interesting from my point of view is that trying to prove him wrong, the distance in this case was simply abolished, and all this while the very definition of a light year it is the distance the light will travel in one year. And if that is the case then you will have to disregard all those billion of light years distant object, because you have no way to measure it because of another theory, instant light travel, I don't remember the name of this one.

No, it looks like you are the one so anchored in relativity and gravity theory that you don't even dare to question them, but accept them as the absolute truth. Sagnac  tried to prove the existence of aether

And when did he allegedly do that?

As far as I can tell he just attempted to explain the Sagnac effect, which doesn't depend upon aether.

and that is what I call a theory

I don't.
An attempt to prove something is not a theory. A theory is a basis of how something acts. Aether would have been the theory if it could withstand scruitiny.

now others have changed his theory into an effect

His effect does not rely upon aether so was in no way proof of aether. It is merely a part of the theory of light/relativity.

What is even more interesting from my point of view is that trying to prove him wrong

Who was trying to prove him wrong?

Perhaps you can try explaining a bit more?

Are you referring to the ring interferometer which shows Earth is rotating, which is completely compatible with relativity and with a stationary aether, but not with an aether that is moving with Earth nor with basaltic models?

If so, no one is trying to prove him wrong. People accept the Sagnac effect and use it.

And if that is the case then you will have to disregard all those billion of light years distant object, because you have no way to measure it because of another theory, instant light travel, I don't remember the name of this one.

No, that isn't a theory either. That is a claim/hypothesis, one which is wrong.

The light years distance is simply a convenient measure. It isn't based upon how measuring how long it took light to get from there.
Instead it is based upon other things, for example, parallax and standard candles.

Quote from: Aries on July 14, 2017, 03:30:36 PM

No, it looks like you are the one so anchored in relativity and gravity theory that you don't even dare to question them, but accept them as the absolute truth. Sagnac  tried to prove the existence of aether

And when did he allegedly do that?

As far as I can tell he just attempted to explain the Sagnac effect, which doesn't depend upon aether.

Quote from: Aries on July 14, 2017, 03:30:36 PM

and that is what I call a theory

I don't.
An attempt to prove something is not a theory. A theory is a basis of how something acts. Aether would have been the theory if it could withstand scruitiny.

Quote from: Aries on July 14, 2017, 03:30:36 PM

now others have changed his theory into an effect

His effect does not rely upon aether so was in no way proof of aether. It is merely a part of the theory of light/relativity.

Quote from: Aries on July 14, 2017, 03:30:36 PM

What is even more interesting from my point of view is that trying to prove him wrong

Who was trying to prove him wrong?

Perhaps you can try explaining a bit more?

Are you referring to the ring interferometer which shows Earth is rotating, which is completely compatible with relativity and with a stationary aether, but not with an aether that is moving with Earth nor with basaltic models?

If so, no one is trying to prove him wrong. People accept the Sagnac effect and use it.

Quote from: Aries on July 14, 2017, 03:30:36 PM

And if that is the case then you will have to disregard all those billion of light years distant object, because you have no way to measure it because of another theory, instant light travel, I don't remember the name of this one.

No, that isn't a theory either. That is a claim/hypothesis, one which is wrong.

The light years distance is simply a convenient measure. It isn't based upon how measuring how long it took light to get from there.
Instead it is based upon other things, for example, parallax and standard candles.

And those stars I was talking about, you just gave me an example with the candle and that the light diminishes. Then decide, diminishes or totally disappears?

And those stars I was talking about, you just gave me an example with the candle and that the light diminishes. Then decide, diminishes or totally disappears?

Dude, pick a topic, stick to it.  You are not helping yourself with all this jumping around, waving your hands about because you do not understand. 
Just because you, personally, do not understand something doe not make it impossible.

Quote from: Aries on July 14, 2017, 04:14:21 PM

And those stars I was talking about, you just gave me an example with the candle and that the light diminishes. Then decide, diminishes or totally disappears?

Dude, pick a topic, stick to it.  You are not helping yourself with all this jumping around, waving your hands about because you do not understand. 
Just because you, personally, do not understand something doe not make it impossible.

I could say the same to you, if you don't understand it it doesn't mean it's not possible.

Lol, I'm trying to be like Socrates, Aristotle, Thales, Herodotus, etc, if they could be just about anything, why wouldn't I. Maybe that's the best way to understand something. In a debate you can't stick with just one topic because we will cause a spinning effect around the topic without real achievements, contrary, I think that everything it's related, even if to one it might seem that there is no relation with the topic.

No, it looks like you are the one so anchored in relativity and gravity theory that you don't even dare to question them, but accept them as the absolute truth. Sagnac  tried to prove the existence of aether

Yes, Sagnac tried to prove the existence of aether, but the Michelson and Morely experiment seemingly cast doubt on the existence of aether.

There are set of experiments whose results need to be looked at together. I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll include it here as well.

Consequences for Aether drag hypothesis
Because differing ideas of "aether drag" existed, the interpretation of all aether drag experiments can be done in the context of each version of the hypothesis.

• None or partial entrainment by any object with mass. This was discussed by scientists such as Augustin-Jean Fresnel and François Arago. It was refuted by the Michelson–Morley experiment.
  
  
• Complete entrainment within or in the vicinity of all masses. It was refuted by the Aberration of light, Sagnac effect, Oliver Lodge's experiments, and Hammar Experiment.
  
  
• Complete entrainment within or in the vicinity of only very large masses such as Earth. It was refuted by the Aberration of light, Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment.

Read up on it in: Hammar Experiment

These experiments taken together prove that there is no aether.

The original Michelson–Morley experiment was not sensitive enough to provide conclusive evidence, but combined with Hammar's Experiment and many more recent Michelson–Morley type experiments quite settles that part.
See Michelson and Morley, Subsequent experiments showing the variation in c less than 1.5 km/s
and Michelson and Morley, Recent experiments. showing the variation in c less than  2.5 cm/s.

And the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment proves the rotation of the earth.
So it is proven that there is no aether and that that the earth rotates on its axis.

What more could you want?

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 14, 2017, 04:29:53 PM

Quote from: Aries on July 14, 2017, 04:14:21 PM

And those stars I was talking about, you just gave me an example with the candle and that the light diminishes. Then decide, diminishes or totally disappears?

Dude, pick a topic, stick to it.  You are not helping yourself with all this jumping around, waving your hands about because you do not understand. 
Just because you, personally, do not understand something doe not make it impossible.

I could say the same to you, if you don't understand it it doesn't mean it's not possible.

Lol, I'm trying to be like Socrates, Aristotle, Thales, Herodotus, etc, if they could be just about anything, why wouldn't I. Maybe that's the best way to understand something. In a debate you can't stick with just one topic because we will cause a spinning effect around the topic without real achievements, contrary, I think that everything it's related, even if to one it might seem that there is no relation with the topic.

Are you high?
I am basically picturing this when I read your posts.



No you do not debate by jumping from topic to topic, you make points, defend your point, refute others points.  You do not switch topics the every time someone responds to a question, unless you are saying you accept the explanations/refutations.  I will take it as you are admitting that you are incorrect every time you do this from now on. 
 
Right now you are being dishonest, you know you are.  You are trying to muddy up things just to get words in.  As far as me not understanding, yeah, I do not understand willful ignorance, to me it is the very definition of stupidity.  Willfully ignoring things, being too lazy to research them, especially if you ask questions about them.  This trolling act is tiresome.