14 Jun 2021 14:23:47 No Rian not at all. Conclusive evidence is something which can not be contested. Hense the word "conclusive".
My view is fixed? Considering there are many subjects which I have a differing view to leading scientists (Such as the age of Human Civilisation), I'd hardly say I have a fixed view.
I am very open to being proven wrong. But the keyword here is 'proven', and none of the replies posted on here to counter anything I say (regarding the flat earth) has no evidence backing it. It's just some random guy posting about things that are against the laws of physics.
You want to tell me the Earth is flat, when all of the science and mathematics point to a spherical Earth then I need extraordinary evidence. Not some random guy who claims to be a "scientist" but it turns out he's a "doctor" in alternative medicine. AKA woowoo rubbish that doesn't cure anyone.
Let me put it to you another way.
Say you needed life changing surgery, would you go to a Hospital or would you go to Bob down the pub who knows a bit about anatomy because he watches some medical dramas?
If your house starts to collapse at the foundations, would you go to a building contractor or would you go to Bob down the pub who's built a Brick BBQ in his back yard?
If your car has broken down, would you go to a mechanic or would you go to Bob down the pub, who talks about F1 Racing a lot?
Honestly, the trust that you put into these people who are nothing to do with the real subjects they go against, is beyond mind boggling. Why? These people are clearly idiots.
12 Jun 2021 23:14:43 Yes I have been in an Aeroplane Ed. I've flown to America, Gambia, Sweden, Denmark, Australia and once travel is opened up properly I will be doing a lot more travelling.
Rian I'm not always right, but when it comes to astrophysics I am usually right simply because it's a hobby of mine. I have my own telescopes, I've made many visits to observatories and plan to see more around the world as part of my travelling.
You want conclusive evidence? Look up at night, take note of the constellations that you see. Fly to somewhere that is in the opposite hemisphere to where you current reside and you will see a new set of constellations. This would not be possible on a flat Earth as you would see the exact same constellations no matter where you go.
02 Mar 2020 00:26:56 Rian, it is truly amazing that you can somehow, find imaginary holes in the 19 words that I typed, yet you are unable to find (or elect to ignore) the monumental holes with in some of the discussions on here? More specifically, flat Earth and the faked Moon landing.
Additionally, where did I say anything about "taking note of the curvature" in any of the 19 words that I typed? I said it didn't look any different to the passanger windows, in reference to a post claiming the passanger windows are fish eyed. Which it doesn't and they aren't. Just a bigger field of view.
As for your comment about the instruments and not being interested in them. I was interested and I asked many questions, but I also spent a good while looking out of the window too, as I was fascinated by how different everything looked from 5 miles up.
01 Mar 2020 18:56:01 Well, if reports are correct the object has an eliptical orbit, that ranges from 77,000km from Earth, to 1.7million km from Earth. It's also allegedly only 3.5 meters across, so how they even found it is beyond me.
As for the red, blue and green lines, I would imagine that is down to an exposure issue, as we're targeting an immensely small light source, from a massive distance away.
01 Mar 2020 18:46:41 Well it is outer space Ed. There are particles all over the place in space, these are usually what's left of the proto-planetary disc on a microscopic scale to a city sized asteroid scale. Everything else either coalesced into planets, asteroids, moons etc. Some also got trapped in gravity wells of planets and burned up. It's still happening today too, you ever seen a shooting star? Well that's a small space rock burning up as it enters the Earths atmosphere.
It's also worth mentioning, if this footage were recorded in 4k, we wouldn't be having this discussion because you would see the particles more clearly. Unfortunately the camera technology in 1996 wasn't that great.
04 Feb 2020 17:53:47 I have considered the possibility Rian. And regarding things like God there is no right or wrong answer, yet. And I am free of the programming.
I don't adhere to most things commercial or conformist. For example I rather enjoy Death Metal and wear baggy clothes. I don't watch TV, listen to the radio or read mainstream news papers. I also differ in opinion to the MS archaeology when it comes to ancient Egypt, I think there is very good evidence to suggest that they weren't built 5,000 years ago but refurbished during that time period and built much earlier. Here is a link to one of the bits of evidence for this, if you wish. wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis
SM. The Younger Dryas theory has only been mainstream for a year or two and was vehemently dismissed until the discovery of a 31 kilometer wide crater under Greenlands ice. Randall Carlson has been at the forefront of this theory and almost lost his career because of it. youtube.com/watch?v=R31SXuFeX0A I know it's Joe Rogan and he's not exactly popular on here, but Randall Carlson is very interesting to listen to.
What is it you believe the mainstream have to gain from saying these things? Just curious to know, not going to try and trash you reasoning or anything.
03 Feb 2020 19:48:37 1. So does that also mean Ruscosmos, European Space Agency, Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency, China Nations Space Agency and the Indian Space Research Organisation are all propaganda tools too? Because these agencies are regularly pumping out news stories that corroborate what NASA say, even though they do their own research and development.
2. On April 8th 2002, I watched the space shuttle Atlantis take off from the Kennedy Space center - was that fake?
3. And aside from being slightly annoying like a hyperactive child, what's wrong with Neil de Grasse Tyson? He's one of the top scientists of the 21st century, along with Sean Carroll, Brian Cox, Carl Sagan, etc.
03 Feb 2020 12:01:38 That's fine SM, we all have our bad days.
I won't deny there are cover ups a plenty in the world, but I personally just don't see the Moon landing being one of them. The major holes in the mainstream view of the Moon landing can all be explained. But a lot of the things that can't be explained, don't really hold enough weight to say "it was faked". That's just my personal view of course.
The VA belts are interesting, Mr. VA himself did indeed say that it would be impossible to sustain life in these belts, but that quote was actually cherry picked. The entire statement is referring to a 2 year manned mission in the VA belt, to which he said it's impossible. He has never said it's impossible to pass through them, just it's impossible to sustain life in the belts. He also publicly denounced the conspiracies about the VA belts killing the astronauts. Here is a link to an e-mail conversation with James van Allen himself, talking about the belts. forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
The thing with radiation it's all about the length of time spent within an irradiated area. A good example is Chernobyl, you can drive through Chernobyl in a car wearing shorts and t-shirt, without developing any issues due to radiation exposure.
Me personally, I'm looking for anything to show signs of Alien life. So things like HD 101065 (Przybylski's Star), which is a star that has plutonium with in it's spectrum, are fascinating to me. Same with KIC 8462852 (Tabby's star), which had strange dimming patterns and the mainstream media went into a frenzy, claiming it was a dyson sphere.
As much as I find some conspiracies entertaining, I just find the stuff I listed in the previous paragraph far more interesting.
03 Feb 2020 11:03:40 Rian, I'm just interested in the other side of the fence's views, why they believe in them and what would they do if they are wrong. There is nothing narrow minded about that, I'm not looking to try and prove people wrong. Maybe I'm wrong but I figured narrow minded views were ones which fail to acknowledge the concept of there being a different answer/ view/ theory etc?
SM.
1). No.
2). None.
3). Misinterpretations. I think there are a lot of stories from holy books that are very similar to one another, from different time periods and different parts of the world. I personally think that the majority of stories may well be true, but I think a lot can be explained by things like asteroid or comet impacts and extra-solar phenomenen.
For example, approximately 13,000 years ago a comet impacted Greenland. This caused mass flooding on several continents, caused the whole of north america to set fire and almost ended human life on the planet. It's estimated that we may have gone down to as little as 100,000 in population globally!
4). Of course.
5). I'm not going to lie, it would take quite a bit to convince me that God is real. Simply because of how Gods are depicted in the different cultures. So for this I would say I need to see God do something from one of the holy books, like part the sea or bring something that's been dead for 3 days back to life. There are things which would make me more open to the idea, seeing some genuine paranormal activity like a ghost that just randomly throws my quilt off my bed, would definitely make me think twice.
6). If God came to me and parted the sea before my eyes as an example of proof, my next step would be to ask what I need to do in life. Then whatever was said to me would be exactly what I'd do. I mean I'd have no choice really. But if it was proven that God isn't real and what I believe in also turned out to be false, then I'd just wait for evidence to point me in the right direction.
02 Feb 2020 17:48:57 Ed033 and anyone else who'd like to chime in, I was just wondering what is your stance on God and/ or religion. I have a series of questions relating to this if you wouldn't mind?
1). Do you believe in God?
2). In what sense do you believe in God? Are you monothiestic, polytheistic or something else?
3). Given that there are a number of different religious ideologies around the world, with a lot of them having multiple Gods, are they all real Gods, fake, or misinterpretations?
4). Are you open to the idea that you could be wrong about your views on God? Whether you believe or not.
5). If you are open to the idea of being wrong, what would it take to prove you wrong? For example if you don't believe in God, you may say something along the lines of "I want to see God personally". Or if you do believe in God it may be something like "finding life on another planet".
6). Assuming you were wrong in your beliefs, what would you turn to instead? This applies to both believers and non-believers.
02 Feb 2020 12:16:49 I prefer to call it educating myself rather than being spoon fed. I didn't learn this at school or college, I took the time to research it all myself because I'm an enormous nerd at heart. I use a combination of my own logic and the evidence that's put in front of me to decide whether I think it's true or not. I don't just blindly follow whatever NASA or which ever governing body is in charge says.
I don't know what you mean by "personal experience". I can only assume it's a rhetorical or sarcastic question, as clearly I'm not an astronaut and I'm not old enough to have witnessed the creation of the universe, obviously.
Also I know nothing of Polonium 218, I did quickly look up what you were referring too, but didn't find anything to answer your question. I will have a look a bit later and see if I can come up with anything that might explain it.
01 Feb 2020 18:07:01 I know nothing of lasers so I couldn't comment on that.
It's actually publicly available where the locations are. It's the landing sites for Apollo 11, 14 and 15. As well as Luna 17 and 21.
And the reason we can't do it from home, is because lasers that powerful are not available for commercial use. As I said earlier, I know nothing of lasers but I did find this reddit post from someone who worked on the APOLLO (observatory, not the rockets) project.
01 Feb 2020 17:45:32 These are all fair questions Ed. Some of them likely don't have definitive answers as of yet.
1). The water would likely vapourise on impact yes, however Earths gravity would stop the gas phase water from leaving our planet and it would end up being stored in the atmosphere. Over millions of years the planet would be showered with intense rains, eventually forming oceans. Water can also be stored in the mantle on a molecular level, so not all of the it would be vapourised on impact, but instead forced into and absorbed by the mantle.
2). Supernova. During a stars life time it's core is fusing atoms to create new atoms, the older the star the heavier the atoms being fused. In the beginning, the stars will fuse atoms to create light elements such as hydrogen and helium, toward the stars end, it will be creating heavy elements such as Iron and Gold. When the stars core has "filled up" so to speak, it succumbs to it's gravity and goes supernova. This releases all of the fused atoms out into space at 99% the speed of light and creates giant nebulae that span light years across. It's within these nebulae that everything is formed. Stars, asteroids, planets, comets and moons.
3). Lots, that's the only way to put it. The standard model suggests that during the "proto" phase of the solar system, every single planet that formed was finding it's correct orbital path in relation to other planets. During this time the Oort cloud and Kuiper Belt were disturbed by huge gravitational forces like Jupiter and Neptune, this caused large volumes of comets to come inward towards the Sun. Using the Moon as evidence (based on crator impacts), it's thought that we were hit with thousands of comets in a few million years.
4). The comets stopped bombarding us once the orbital paths of the gas giants were settled. The best way to explain this is to show you a simulation of a solar system formation. This video is from the California Academy of Sciences, and shows how we believe solar systems are formed. youtube.com/watch?v=yXq1i3HlumA
5). Can be explained via the solar system formation simulation above.
6). Inside a Stars core. See #2
7). I've not looked into the Theia hypothesis too much, but I did read that it was thought to be an ocean world. So that could mean it formed in a Hydrogen and Oxygen rich area of a solar system. As those are the two atoms needed to make water. However, that would just be using my own logic as I haven't looked into it.
8). Yes, some of it would. The Earth used to have rings around it, much like Saturn did, and we still do have a very, very faint ring around us. This was caused by the collision between Earth and Theia, with large amounts of rock, ice and mantle being ejected into space, then coalescing in our orbit due to gravity and forming the Moon. Which by the way has large deposits of water ice, as well as an iron core. Samples of Moon rock taken from the Moon showed that the composition of the Moon is almost identical to Earth, which means it must have been a part of Earth at some point.
9). Large amounts of it would have been vaporised. But it's an enormous body of water that's bound to a rocky planet estimated to be between Mars and Venus in size. Comets are an example of water making it through the atmosphere and they are much smaller in size.
10). Yes, Earth was more or less a molton ball of rock during its early stages, it took a billion or so years for it to cool down enough to form a crust over the mantle. Funnily enough, it's thought that the first moment life could appear on the planet, it did. Which bodes well for people who believe we're not alone in the universe.
11). Yes, but Theia was obliterated on impact and Earth is a bigger volume of mass, so has stronger gravity.
12). I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question properly, is this a follow on question to #11? If so, then it being obliterated would explain why it couldn't hold it's water.
01 Feb 2020 16:23:19 You can spin that kind of arguement any way you want. Here is a good example of doing it.
Who would you rather vote for to run the country? An alcoholic who is prone to domestic abuse, as well as smoking 60 a day. Or a vegan who loves animals and doesn't drink or smoke?
If you picked the 2nd one, well congrats you picked Hitler over Churchill. In these kind of things you have to list everything, you can't just cherry pick one good thing from the "woke" side and then list 10 bad things for the mainstream view. That's called confirmation bias.
hsf · 14 Jun 2021 13:41