@Winston
Winston wrote: ↑July 30th, 2018, 8:31 pm
@Aron
Hold your horses. How can I reply to your posts right away? The universe puts new stuff on my plate everyday. I can't get to a lot of stuff, especially trivial stuff like this.
Normally i would agree with you but when you post in this thread again and specifically ignore me, instead making a generic post about a flat earth t shirt to everyone else, it makes it seem like you're ignoring me. Maybe you forgot about the thread and didn't want to respond to a long post, but either way I posted that last post mainly so later posters in this thread, whether they are you or someone else, do not just post Flat Earth comments without addressing anything i said and skip over the arguments.
We are going around in circles. I told you earlier, gravity is a theory, even if there is a formula for it. You cannot demonstrate in a lab that the mass of an object creates a force that pulls smaller objects to it. So they say gravity works only with large planetary bodies, not with rocks, boulders or mountains. I told you, it's a story and theory. You take it on faith. It's not provable or factual. It's just an explanation. And yeah they can add any ad hoc explanation to make it fit, even ad hoc that is made up out of thin air. Doesn't mean it's true. You don't get that do you?
I am not a physicist and it's not like I can demonstrate all the details of universal gravitation to you and its mechanics. But there are experiments you can make to provide evidence for gravity that are somewhat reasonable even with just a common sense analysis that doesn't look at the detailed science. Smaller objects do fall to the ground, which fits with the theory of gravity and it seems intuitive enough to me that this finally offers a consistent explanation both for how the planets move and how small objects move. Which used to seem like separate things that couldn't be explained with one unified theory.
Earlier on it would have been harder to directly prove gravity but now we have satellites out orbiting the earth that you can see with a telescope you buy yourself so it's pretty well demonstrated that non planetary objects do get affected by gravity. There are objects like the moons of planets which at certain sizes are always spheroids no matter what, this is pretty good evidence of gravity. If gravity wasn't pulling these objects together and smoothing them out, for all we know there could be spiky planets or a lot of planets that look like asteroids and are very rough and uneven with big bumps that go far beyond the surface. But there aren't any, gravity smooths them out because all the mass attracts the other mass. Anyone with a telescope they can buy themselves can see these planets, gravity seems like a reasonable explanation for their shape. And that's just one of a million ways in which gravity can be shown.
Do you also believe in dark matter and dark energy too? Or multiple universes? Just because physicists say they must exist? Again, that is all ad hoc.
I am not convinced in Parallel Universes. They're far more abstract and unproven than the theory of gravity. As for dark matter and dark energy, i have no idea. But gravity is a lot more intuitive and common sense than these ideas and you can see examples of gravity all over the place.
Do you believe in the big bang theory too? Just because it's official and in textbooks, even though there's no proof for it? Even though explosions create chaos, not order? What happens when an atomic bomb is dropped? Does that create life? lol
I'm actually not so sure about the big bang theory for one viable reason, there is no known mechanism for the massive expansion of space to slow down so significantly rather than continuing in its exponential burst of expansion. I don't know how the origin of the universe, if there was any, would have worked, but given the current rate of expansion it might make more sense for the universe to just have gradually expanded over time at a steady rate. But at least the people proposing it have some sort of idea how it might have happened and just try to base it on evidence. Better than those Creationists for sure. Who happen to be the main people behind the Flat Earth theory, very biased people who have an agenda to reject and suppress any contrary evidence that goes against their beliefs, like how the Church treated Galileo for disproving their Geocentrist dogma which was just a substitute for their obviously disproven Flat Earth dogma they used before that.
Macro evolution is just an extension of normal evolution. It's not like i've lived long enough to watch a species macro evolve but the fossil record evidence seems reasonable enough as a proof.
I told you already, the earth is moving only in the solar system model, not in reality. There's simply no proof at all that the earth is in any kind of motion. Show me objective proof.
As the earth moves there are changes in what stars are visible due to things like the sun getting in the way or the moon just getting in the way. If we had a colony on another planet that would be the most obvious evidence, as you could then just watch a recording of an observed earth moving in the distance, but we don't need to.
When you open a can of coke, do you notice how the can is immediately depressurized? That's because a vacuum adjacent to air and atmosphere is immediately filled. They cannot coexist adjacently.
I already said how the atmosphere gradually thins out as you go higher up, everyone knows this, mountains have less air. There's no sudden shift to vacuum. Also jet fighters require oxygen mask if they go high enough up because the atmosphere thins out. It won't all suddenly depressurize, gravity pulls it down.
How do you know space is a vacuum? Have you been there? How do you know there isn't a dome barrier or firmament? Why do all rockets fly sideways into space, never straight up? Not even one rocket can reach space flying straight up. Why? Isn't that odd?
Unfortunately i haven't been to space. But i can tell there isn't a dome barrier. Rockets do not fly sideways or straight up, they are sent upwards like this:
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/unive ... space.html
It's because they're supposed to get into orbit so a curved path would make sense. Otherwise you would overshoot orbit and have to maneuver back down into orbit and waste fuel.
For why there isn't a dome barrier, can you explain the engineering mechanics of such a big barrier, that has no structural supports? A big dome like that would collapse. And there's no good explanation of how it got there other than "Goddunit". Also, why is the dome invisible?
Have you heard of Operation Fish Bowl in the 1950's? Why do you think they call it "fish bowl" if there's no dome? Why would they explode missiles in the sky if there were no dome?
Never heard of it. Supposedly it's a nuclear test. They explode missles in the sky to test the nukes presumably. Blowing up a magical invisible floating dome with an invisible ocean above it waiting to drown humanity would be stupid anyways.
About the blue marble photo, NASA says all earth photos are photoshopped. Remember? They said that on TV. Haven't you seen the science programs?
That's a misquote some flat earthers you listened to made. The specific earth photos which are composed of a ton of satellite pics, are photoshopped, but the photoshop is just connecting a ton of photos of different sections of earth together into one big composite. They don't just make it all up.
The point is, why during 6 Apollo moon missions did they only snap ONE photo of earth? The one you see in textbooks that shows Africa on it. You didn't answer that.
They had the Earthrise photo too. That's two photos. As for why, who knows? You not having every question of yours about any Space related phenomenon does not make the earth flat and does not make physics stop existing.
About Antarctica. Well if you take a plane tour, you are not in control of where you go. The tour company is. As long as they comply with the government they are allowed to run those tours. They are very expensive too. Only a few can afford them.
Yeah but as i mentioned before you could still prove flat earth wrong if you took one of those tours at the right time. If you are above antartica and it is sunny when flat earth map says it should not be sunny in this location at this time due to the floating magical sun being on the other side of the grid it goes on, that's solid evidence against flat earth. Shouldn't Eric Dubay or other big flat earthers have enough money to do this?
What no one is asking is this: What's to stop a private plane owner from taking his plane in Australia or New Zealand or Chile and flying south to Antarctica? If he tried that, would he be met by jet fighters ordering him to turn around? No one is asking this question for some reason. People seem to be stupid.
No idea. I haven't looked up anything about what would happen there.
If gravity is so consistent then why doesn't it pull the Moon down into Earth? Why is it in a perfect consistent orbit?
Well, it may not eternally stay in the same orbit forever. But in human time span it wouldn't matter. For example scientists say the earth will eventually be pulled into the sun and burn up within billions of years or so, so orbits technically aren't necessarily eternal. But the details of why would be that as the Moon is pulled towards the earth, its rotational speed around the earth is enough to keep it from hitting. If it had a lot more mass this would probably change and the moon would crash into earth destroying all life. Fortunately for everyone that hasn't happened.
My point about religion is that academic science claims that they are not sure how life began but they are sure God didn't do it. So God is not an option or possible answer. How can they be sure God didn't do it? Why do they rule it out? Out of their bias of course.
I agree with you that many academics can be biased about many things. All academics as a rule reject anything paranormal regardless of the evidence. That said the mainstream Christian idea of God does not make sense. AKA, an omnipotent guy who can do anything with a snap of his fingers, and is all benevolent, but does not do anything about the world. You may have a different idea of God but generally scientists are not just going to invoke God when they do not have other explanations.
Do you claim science is objective and neutral? lol
The scientific establishment can have major biases like their financial interest. But the scientific method makes total sense and science as a whole should not be seen as bad just because some scientists are biased.
Why are you so pro-establishment?
I really wouldn't say I am...I generally have a lot of anti-government views as i said in another thread. I'm against compulsory education and think most of the modern education system is just a system of manipulation that destroys students intrinsic motivation. The modern system of work is basically wage slavery and the economy as a whole is based on maintaining cyclical consumption of random new goods rather than addressing human needs. The establishment tends to justify a lot of oppressive things. Even its routine denial of anything 'supernatural' actually ties in very much with how the establishment view rejects free will and sees humans as objects that need to be manipulated with punishments and rewards through incentive systems rather than independent beings with their own desires and needs. So in a lot of ways i agree with you about being anti establishment.
Who do you think created this universe then? You said you are no longer atheist right?
I don't think it was an act by an individual, or at least i've not seen evidence for that.
At some point consciousness arose, or it always existed in some form, but either way more conscious beings
and species arose in the universe one way or another. The christian God doesn't really seem like a viable explanation
for all this.
[/quote]The sun doesn't need to be far away to dip below the horizon, as long as the earth is a globe,
any object can move to the other side, regardless of how far away it is.[/quote]
Sorry what point did you respond to here? I don't remember. But since the earth is a globe you do need to move some distance
before you are no longer visible. The earth's curvature has to block line of sight between you and the thing you're looking at.
But if you put your head right next to the ground the curvature is going to get in the way more quickly because you're at a lower
angle. While if you are a satellite up orbiting the earth you see way much more.
Good point about the crepuscular sun rays. But do you have any proof that the suns rays are straight and parallel?
I don't own a space satellite or some other method of proof to instantly show you. There's probably proof i can look up
but i haven't done that yet.
Well Eric Dubay says that there are documented times when during an eclipse, you can see the sun and moon in the sky at the same time that the sun is being eclipsed by a black object.
He said it's a third object called a black sun.
But regardless, that doesn't prove the sun must be 93 million miles away.
He can say that if he wants I guess. Since there kind of has to be something in the way. But it's not like that makes the flat model make any more sense, if he wants to improve the flat model he should include the expected position of this Black Sun at any given point in time as the sun and moon move around the model and check for consistency with observed locations and times of eclipses. In other words he would make up an excuse to try to make it fit if he can.
Also the moon does not look 237,000 miles away either. It looks closer than that. Maybe it's a disc shaped object or a projection, not spherical?
The sun doesn't look that far away either but that doesn't mean it's close. Eyes are not telescopes. Do you really want to believe it's a floating disc...It's about as reasonable as a magically floating sphere that circles a track floating above the flat earth that floats in space or is motionless for some reason but really it doesn't make sense.
The two main leaders of the flat earth movement, Eric Dubay and Mark Sargent, are not Christians. So there are many non-Christians in the movement too.
Btw I'm not arguing for a flat earth. I'm just saying that academia and NASA cannot be trusted and have their agendas.
The top astronomers are quoted as saying that heliocentrism is a philosophy, not a scientific fact.
Science openly states that we are insignificant in the universe and there's no room for God. That is a philosophy, not fact or science.
Those two guys are still basing their movement off something originally made up as a Christian excuse. So it doesn't change that something that was made up as an excuse by Christians, somehow is supposed to be the exact truth. Which astronomers and where did you get the quote?
Scientists obviously do have some degree of belief in the materialist norm but that doesn't make science invalid. Similarily paranormal phenomenon can exist without that proving the 'Goddunit' idea many people have about history.
I don't have an official position on gun control. There's no inconsistency there. I don't like vaccines and I don't like guns either, so why would I support either one?
The point is vaccines are generally wrong not just due to the vaccine adjuvants introduced intentionally to make them destroy the immune system, but the fact that they are imposed by force against people's will. Gun control, which should just be renamed gun confiscation, is the same, it's imposed by force on people. The moral principle is anti freedom in both scenarios.
Why would I want every random stranger around, including every nutcase, to have a gun? What if he loses his temper or gets possessed by the dark side or demon or entity or goes mad, and starts shooting everyone? What if you get into a bar fight and the guy pulls a gun on you while drunk? Like in Wild West movies? Why is that a good thing? Why would I want that?
Do you really believe people just get randomly possessed like that? Also gun freedom advocates are not saying everyone should have their own AK 47 and full industrial complex war machine ready to go to take over the rest of the country if they feel like it, along with their own Recreational Nukes if they so wish. Generally people supporting gun rights are saying guns that are not fully automatic, AKA not able to kill loads of people in a few seconds in a room or crowd on a whim, should not be confiscated. Also no not literally any person should be allowed to get a gun, gun rights activists agree on this part too. Although the Democrats in the government want to deem people they do not like like those in the truth movement mentally unsound or use some other excuse that would let them be banned from gun use with new laws.
There are laws against drinking in a bar while carrying a gun concealed or open carry, this isn't the Wild West anymore. You can't even legally
drive drunk let alone have a gun while drunk, and i don't think most of these people in the truth movement think driving drunk should suddenly
be legal now.
Would you want to get on a plane where people are carrying guns and could blow out the window and kill everyone on board?
No, not really...Taking guns away temporarily on a plane isn't the same as confiscating them permanently. Also it's obvious why they are confiscated on planes it's the same as having an AK47 in a crowded room where you could easily kill everyone in a few seconds. Most people in the truth movement would not want to make fully automatic guns legal.
What if I support banning guns for both civilians and for policemen? Would that be inconsistent?
In Britain, the cops did not historically carry guns either. I don't know about now, but that's been the tradition. What if that was the case in America too?
Why are guns a religion in America? Even if I liked guns, I wouldn't want them to become a religion. That's stupid.
Yet everyone in the truther and patriot movement follow this gun religion like sheep and never question it. Including Mark Passio. I'm glad David Icke doesn't talk about it much.
See more in my gun control thread if you wanna discuss it there:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=27307
Banning guns for the civilians and also the police theoretically would prevent the police from abusing their power but you have to look at the details. Since in Europe and countries like Britain what that means is people are left open to criminal migrants who bring in guns due to EU policies. Talking about theoretical scenarios doesn't help address the real cases of gun control where it has definitely not worked. Also the police get to use guns in Europe, Britain is one of a few exceptions where most of the police do not have any guns.
I see nothing wrong with normal individual civilians having guns, you can't equate responsible gun ownership to the Wild West. It's a valid self defense tool. Although guns work as a deterrent for civilians to not be oppressed by 1 or 2 policemen they are not going to beat a SWAT team and they are not going to beat the military industrial machine for sure if the government declares martial law.
Overall this whole gun debate does not address some systemic issues though. Which i guess i should have addressed earlier in this thread. One is that the military industrial complex and its need to constantly have new wars to maintain cyclical consumption of goods and continue capitalism is a serious threat to any country and the whole planet in general, guns or no guns. I agree with you that there are problems in the gun culture. Americans become complacent in assuming things are not so bad if they have a gun when that is not really the case, and the government could definitely kill them all if the wrong things happen. Like if a lot of gun carrying drones are allowed to get mass produced that can then just kill any American the government wants to kill with little possible retalliation.
As for why people even need guns, it's because they have good reason to fear crime or oppression, but that's the situation we're in with society as it is. I do not believe that in an ideal society anyone would even carry guns, although they'd probably be allowed to. In a much more ideal society the underlying issues like crime and oppression would be obsolete because the society would be addressing people's needs in as open source and non-hierarchical of a way as possible, nobody would have much incentive to steal if their needs were met. That said we are not there yet, and the establishment overall is not moving in that direction and will not as long as capitalism continues as it is now.
