Printable View
What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though???. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?
NASA’s InSight Mars Lander set for historic touch down on the Red Planet
https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa...the-red-planet
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dspp7DBVYAAB7ex.jpg
We are fortunate live in this era of great scientific advances.
How did they measure the temperature of the thermosphere in the first place? Because the gas particles in the thermosphere are spread to far apart that not enough particles collide with the tip of a thermometer to make it show a hot temperature, because heat is actually kenetic energy and a thermometer works basically by measuring the energy being transferred to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by palmerq
The first law of thermal dynamics basically says heat is kenetic energy.
The second law of thermaldynamics basically says that in terms of heat, will move to a colder area, because something that's hot/ heat has a higher energy than the energy in something that's cold.
It would be great if people could actually learn something.
Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.
@Alpha @TitoFan just came across this thought it was fitting.
The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has said that a proposed Russian mission to the moon will be tasked with verifying that the American moon landings were real, though he appeared to be making a joke.
“We have set this objective to fly and verify whether they’ve been there or not,” said Dmitry Rogozin in a video posted Saturday on Twitter.
Rogozin was responding to a question about whether or not NASA actually landed on the moon nearly 50 years ago. He appeared to be joking, as he smirked and shrugged while answering. But conspiracies surrounding NASA’s moon missions are common in Russia.
The Soviet Union abandoned its lunar program in the mid-1970s after four experimental moon rockets exploded.
https://www.apnews.com/1966a07c5a63419fb825ed7a92cec8de
It's about hydrostatic equilibrium. Meaning that if a body has enough mass, it morphs into a spheroid shape. Like water droplets in if there was no air. Bodies that are big enough end up like that because of this effect (see the dwarf planets Ceres, Eiris, etc. They are all round, but smaller stuff just stays a potatoe forever, like mars' potatoe moons Phobos and Deimos).
Scroll down to check out Planetary geology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydros...m#Astrophysics
When the Michelson Morley experiment failed to prove the relative motion of the earth and ether, they needed something to continue there lie, enter Einstein's theory of reactivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by goti71
Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I'd be surprised if they had never said anything in that regard, even kidding. It was after all, a race to the moon, and for all intents and purposes the U.S. won the race. I know I'd be checking. ;D
Which begs the question I posed awhile back about why they wouldn't finish the race. Bugger all the money we've spent on this (not our money as well) we're giving up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I'd be surprised if they had never said anything in that regard, even kidding. It was after all, a race to the moon, and for all intents and purposes the U.S. won the race. I know I'd be checking. ;D
Had to look that one up. The experiment was based on the belief in a so-called "luminiferious ether", the substance supposedly needed to transmit light, just as sound needs air/solids/fluids to get across.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaWhen the Michelson Morley experiment failed to prove the relative motion of the earth and ether, they needed something to continue there lie, enter Einstein's theory of reactivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by goti71
The problem is that there is no such ether, and light itself is made of photons; it's the photons themselves that travel, without needing any supporting material. The starting point of the experiment was flawed anyway.
But in any case, what's your point?
That a nineteenth century experiment failed to prove the motion of the earth?
Ok. 19th century scientists would have failed to prove the exeitence of genes, germs, black holes, etc.
They were on the right track though by looking for things that can't be seen by the naked eye.
BTW, the theory of relativity has been confirmed by science.
And regarding the Morley experiment, see the second postulate of special relativity:
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
Hey man thanks for taking the time to look into it, most won't bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by goti71Had to look that one up. The experiment was based on the belief in a so-called "luminiferious ether", the substance supposedly needed to transmit light, just as sound needs air/solids/fluids to get across.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaWhen the Michelson Morley experiment failed to prove the relative motion of the earth and ether, they needed something to continue there lie, enter Einstein's theory of reactivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by goti71
The problem is that there is no such ether, and light itself is made of photons; it's the photons themselves that travel, without needing any supporting material. The starting point of the experiment was flawed anyway.
But in any case, what's your point?
That a nineteenth century experiment failed to prove the motion of the earth?
Ok. 19th century scientists would have failed to prove the exeitence of genes, germs, black holes, etc.
They were on the right track though by looking for things that can't be seen by the naked eye.
BTW, the theory of relativity has been confirmed by science.
And regarding the Morley experiment, see the second postulate of special relativity:
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
Einstein had to discard the ether for his theory to work. Relativity is still hotly contested in scientific circles today, even after all these years. Michelson, Millikan, Essen, Rutherford, Ives, Mach, and even Tesla believe relativity was false. History is written more by popularity than fact and unfortunately science occasionally follows suit. There is a reason these great men of science never accepted relativity. There exists very significant experimental evidence against it. Unfortunately, there are too few people willing to challenge the safety and security afforded them by belief systems. Like the story of the emperors new suit, everyone goes along, it took a child to say aloud he was naked. Lorentz (1 of Einsteins mentors) suggested to him that relativity reintroduced the ether. Einstein's paper published in 1920, suggests that Einstein saw spacetime itself as the 'new ether'. However this perspective was never popularized and the ether was slowly forgotten as a "metaphysical" artifact of a previous scientific era.
Einstein's view of spacetime as a continuous background fabric that connects everything in the universe could appropriately be defined as ether.
NASA’s Insight Mars Lander arrives on the Red Planet, ends successful journey
https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa...-on-red-planet
https://a57.foxnews.com/hp.foxnews.c....jpg?tl=1&ve=1
Touchdown triumph for Nasa's Mars probe
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46351114
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cp...sion_v2-nc.png
I watched this live, it took me a while to make sense of that first image but it's pretty amazing what they have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
In fairness it does look like a comic book illustration with early "pics" :scratchchin:. I have no doubt it happened though. Apparently Mars is round also.
Lol live steaming from all those miles away ;D
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lony-2040.html
Russia will establish a moon colony by 2040, the space agency announced
Getting a human-crewed landing to set up a lunar base is the top priority
News comes just after NASA revealed it plans to take America back to the moon using private firms
Moon colony? They're gonna need a bigger studio to pull that off.
Here's my take on this recent farce:
The first photo with the lens cap on, note all the dust/ dirt on the lens cover. Then check the photo NASA released about an hour later, no dirt/ dust present on anything in that picture. Maybe it gave itself a little clean first. Any footage of this?
Why aren't they using Go pro's? They are cheap, tiny, powerful and take 4k video. Go pro's are on everything now in 2018. Where's the 4k video of this supposed landing? Everything is CGI.
What are all those crisis actors doing? There's supposedly a 7 minute delay. If anything went wrong it would have already happened before they knew and could do anything to change it. It's all preprogrammed, it has to be. They are all looking at data, not live camera footage. All the tax payer money for these guys that have no control over anything.
All the data supposedly being sent back is all mathmatical, and can easily be simulated from a main frame computer, that runs a program. Everything they are looking at and doing, can all be done in a computer. It's that easy. Have we ever heard of this type of computer existing? Have a listen to what Dr James Gates says, that there is 'computer code written into the fabric of the cosmos'. No it's because space that you have been taught is really a mathematical computer program.
Why wouldn't they land near one of the other rovers, so they could film it?
No they need to land on a flat area so they can dig down 16 feet to measure the internal temperature of Mars. 16 feet to measure the internal temperature of a planet?
And a tone confirms we've landed on Mars?
It's all a total fabrication.
NASA's InSight Mars Lander reveals stunningly clear pictures of the Red Planet
https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa...the-red-planet
It's almost 2019, so apparently NASA has the ability to land a probe on Mars, but they don't have the ability to attach a series of HD camera's to the probe so that they can then film what it looks like to enter Mars' orbit and land on Mars. No, there is no video footage watch so ever, from any camera's attached to the probe.
Where's the actual evidence of NASA landing on Mars?
Mainstream media doing its usual brainwashing.
Dr Millis, of Anderson University in Indiana, compared sex in space to having intercourse while “skydiving” but added that it was “not impossible.”
He told The Sun Online: “The issues surrounding the act all revolve around the free-fall, micro-gravity, environment experienced by astronauts.
“Imagine engaging in sexual activity while skydiving - every push or thrust will propel you in opposite directions.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/786738...ation-arousal/
If we are talking about this, I think all space stuff is fact
Here’s why NASA is sending worms to space
The launch, taking place at NASA Kennedy Space Center on December 4, isn’t the only one we have to worry about. Our mission is dependent on a Soyuz rocket successfully carrying three crew members to the ISS the day before – the lift off has just been completed.
The cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko (Russia), and astronauts Anne McClain (US), and David Saint-Jacques (Canada) will help run the science experiments on the ISS once in space.
We are hoping the worms can help us uncover more about muscle loss in astronauts during spaceflight. Astronauts can lose up to 40 percent of their muscle mass during a long term mission, resulting in significant reductions in strength and physical capacity.
Indeed, a loss of strength of 40 percent is roughly equivalent to the change in strength that comes from aging from 40 to 80 years on Earth. The muscle loss phenomenon is therefore a significant obstacle for long term exploratory spaceflight, such as missions to Mars.
Exercise physiology research in the context of spaceflight was first conducted during the NASA Apollo and Skylab missions during the 1960 and 1970s. But despite over five decades of research in space, there are no countermeasures that can successfully prevent the negative effects of spaceflight.
Exercise does go some way to slow the rates of loss, however. To try and counteract muscle and bone loss, as well as detrimental effects on the heart and blood vessels, astronauts currently complete around two and a half hours of exercise each day.
Molecular approach
We will fly our worms to the ISS in specialized plastic bags with their food, where they will live in an incubator for six and a half days. They will then be frozen in the ISS’s freezer MELFI to prevent any further changes to the worms.
The worms will return to Earth in early 2019 where they will splash down into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Los Angeles. We will then collect them and begin a program of extensive analysis.
Specifically, we aim to discover the molecular mechanisms of why muscle wastes away in spaceflight. The microscopic worms that we are using to achieve this are called C. elegans and are around around 1mm in length.
These worms have body wall muscles that are very similar to human skeletal muscle(one of three major muscle types, typically attached to bones) in both structure and function.
Previous spaceflight experiments have shown that about 150 muscle genes are expressed less during spaceflight than they are on Earth.
This includes important clusters of genes involved in movement and muscle architecture, specifically the components of something called the “muscle attachment complex” – which determines how muscles are assembled and contract.
We will therefore investigate changes in this complex. Some of our samples will be treated with drugs that, on Earth, can modify the function of this complex and test if drugs can prevent muscle loss in space.
Spaceflight is considered a model of accelerated aging and our rate of aging is linked to “insulin signalling” – how insulin increases the uptake of glucose into fat and muscle cells. As we get older, the body gets less efficient at metabolizing glucose.
If we can understand how spaceflight affects this process, we could use targeted interventions such as drugs to slow or prevent muscle atrophy in spaceflight. To test this out, we will use mutant worms that have a high or low uptake of glucose into their muscle cells and determine how their muscles are affected by spaceflight.
We also have a sub-team of researchers that will investigate the changes in motor neurons during spaceflight and how this affects muscle. Another will look at changes in the health and stress of neurons and determine whether there’s a particular mechanism that can help maintain it.
Collectively, the research will lead to the most comprehensive study of muscle loss in space ever conducted. It is also the first ever UK-led experiment on board the ISS and paves the way for future missions that have recently been announced by the UK Space Agency for 2021 onwards.
So let’s hope the two upcoming space launches go well. SpaceX Falcon 9 CRS-16 is targeted for take off at 1.38pm EST (6.38pm GMT) and will be live streamed on the NASA TV channel.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techa...artanntp&pfr=1
Logical to be hurtling through space? ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.
So are these the ones from Greenland or Devon Island? Fake, fake, fake, fake.
No one ever got back to me about all the dirt on the lens cap but the very next photo they released, there was no dirt to be seen.
We should start a GoFundMe for NASA to get a bunch of GoPro's to attach everywhere 'next time', obviously 50 million a day only goes so far.
Pool table.. huh :scratchchin:. So you're saying there's a great chance Earth would be the only flat planet, or what we see through telescopes is indistinguishable as flat or round? Save for the Moon clear to the naked eye as round. I thought there were other planets clear to the eye as round also? Depending on location.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaLogical to be hurtling through space? ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.
Thanks for the humorous posts, Alpha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
I for one can tell you're not serious, you're just playing with us.
I'm just saying by you're reasoning the pool table example can be used. Just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliPool table.. huh :scratchchin:. So you're saying there's a great chance Earth would be the only flat planet, or what we see through telescopes is indistinguishable as flat or round? Save for the Moon clear to the naked eye as round. I thought there were other planets clear to the eye as round also? Depending on location.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaLogical to be hurtling through space? ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.
Sure planets look round, but solid? Take a look yourself if you get the chance. They look nothing like NASA's 'super' telescope images. Like I mentioned, the ancients referred to them as 'wandering stars'.
We only ever see 1 side of the moon from earth. Take away NASA's fake images and you can see the possibility of it being a disc.
I'm serious Freedom, and I mean know offense when I say this to you but you have already mentioned that you happily believe the bible, with no empirical evidence, so it's no surprise you believe this as well. Even when the evidence is shown clearly to you, you will continue to deny it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomThanks for the humorous posts, Alpha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
I for one can tell you're not serious, you're just playing with us.
There's a quote by someone saying something like 'it's harder to convince someone that they have been deceived, than it is to deceive them'.
You will freely agree that governments lie to us about everything, but are 100% sure they are telling you the truth about this. The propaganda they use to fool us is powerful.
I prefer to follow natural science rather than the formal science, that do not involve empirical procedures.
And I just want to point out 1 thing, look at how quick they got Steph Curry to change his tune, to now being all jokes.
That probably just means the corporation he plays for doesn’t want a guy who generates so much revenue for throwing a ball around to alienate some of their fan base and lose revenue by making himself look like a lunatic. When anonymous trolls do so it just provides a laugh. I’m sure there are plenty of people who might otherwise wear his jersey or shoes think “yea maybe not”.
So you agree he was controlled?Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Yea why have his own opinion? Follow what everyone else says, sheep.
I don’t watch basketball, but any athlete who plays for a franchise is controlled, of course. They work for that company and depend on viewers and merchandise sales to make everyone and themselves money. There is a line between having an opinion and saying ridiculous things, and people with a public image to maintain have to be much more careful of course. He might say “I feel women shouldn’t have rights and gay people should be killed”, but it would be career over, unless he was a Muslim I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo you agree he was controlled?Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Yea why have his own opinion? Follow what everyone else says, sheep.
If you want to compare having an opinion backed up by evidence, with those statements that's on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingI don’t watch basketball, but any athlete who plays for a franchise is controlled, of course. They work for that company and depend on viewers and merchandise sales to make everyone and themselves money. There is a line between having an opinion and saying ridiculous things, and people with a public image to maintain have to be much more careful of course. He might say “I feel women shouldn’t have rights and gay people should be killed”, but it would be career over, unless he was a Muslim I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo you agree he was controlled?Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Yea why have his own opinion? Follow what everyone else says, sheep.
Ignoring blatant evidence, for only a story from authority, some film and images. That seems ridiculous to me. It's a religion to you.
I mean no offense, but it's cult like.
You mean no offence by telling me I ignore blatant evidence that the earth is flat, and I’m cult like for going by what every scientist worth a damn for centuries has believed, and that they aren’t all coerced by some global conspiracy force.... I wasnt exactly about to be outraged:rolleyes: No offence either, but if you aren’t trolling, I feel sorry for you.
I believe in Jesus and His teachings. There is nothing in science that can prove He was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
But I don't believe in the Old Testament, especially not Genesis and the story of Jonah.
I do believe in evolution, but at the same time I believe in God, and yes that requires faith. Although I'm not sure of the true nature of God, I think the best explanation is panentheism.
I feel the same way for you. You're welcome to stay asleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
You talk of scientists, but fail to realize that formal science is an artificial language, man made, has standards and norms, suits the purpose of the intended measurement, mathematics is an example, and maths proves nothing, theorems describing effects are not "Proofs" of reality or causation.
Natural science is observable, testable, repeatable and scalable.
But I won't say another thing on the matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing in science can prove he was wrong"Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomI believe in Jesus and His teachings. There is nothing in science that can prove He was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
But I don't believe in the Old Testament, especially not Genesis and the story of Jonah.
I do believe in evolution, but at the same time I believe in God, and yes that requires faith. Although I'm not sure of the true nature of God, I think the best explanation is panentheism.
There are numerous contradictions in the bible, would that constitute as proof?
End of the day you say you "believe", so you don't claim it to be real? Or do you know it's real?
You don't have to answer if you feel uncomfortable discussing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaI feel the same way for you. You're welcome to stay asleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
You talk of scientists, but fail to realize that formal science is an artificial language, man made, has standards and norms, suits the purpose of the intended measurement, mathematics is an example, and maths proves nothing, theorems describing effects are not "Proofs" of reality or causation.
Natural science is observable, testable, repeatable and scalable.
But I won't say another thing on the matter.
For the love of fuck. Please,please don’t.