• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Reopening the case against Galileo

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

In other words, you disagree and thus you have to make up new age "our thoughts create reality" technobabble to explain when our measurement of reality shows your ideas are wrong.

You seem to fail to realise that if what you say is true, then no one's view of reality may be correct - including yours. And if your idea of reality could be wrong, then I may very well be right, and the Earth does indeed orbit the sun.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
In other words, you disagree and thus you have to make up new age "our thoughts create reality" technobabble to explain when our measurement of reality shows your ideas are wrong.

You seem to fail to realise that if what you say is true, then no one's view of reality may be correct - including yours. And if your idea of reality could be wrong, then I may very well be right, and the Earth does indeed orbit the sun.
Yes, I believe experiments like the quantum double-slit and delayed choice eraser shows that thoughts and consciousness do create reality.

In my reality, the Earth does not orbit the sun. Perhaps it does in your reality.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, I believe experiments like the quantum double-slit and delayed choice eraser shows that thoughts and consciousness do create reality.
Then you're wrong. Those require an observer, but that observer could be a freakin' rock out in space. There's no need for any sort of conscious observer or thought. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum physics propagated by woosters like Deepak Chopra.
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
I hope these work. I'm at work and have no access to Youtube. I can get links that I hope work. If not, I apologize, however they should get you close so you can find them yourself.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhzjx8TsuQk

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N05dgTv3gLE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds
These are terrible. I thought they might have at least found something that was not easy to explain. But no. They found that one astronaut likes to spit out their toothpaste into a towel, and another swallows it instead. And this 'contradiction' is somehow a slip up in the grand hoax, and evidence that it is all fake? Could it not just tell us that some astronauts spit and others swallow?!

I watched bits of all 3 videos. They're nonsense. They do not highlight a single thing which could even be considered to be inconsistent with life in micro gravity. They're just made by some kids who should have concentrated more in high school physics class, and are putting nonsense on Youtube in the hope of a few clicks and ad money.

I'm disappointed. Conspiracy theorists used to work much harder than this!
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
However, in these cases, the astronaut is motionless for a period of time, then for no known reason, they move down or rotate. It does lead one to wonder. Then, combine that with the obvious hair do's.
They don't move unless a force acts on them to move them. There is no example of an astronaut moving or rotating without force being applied. Not one. Bear in mind that in micro gravity very little force is required.

As for the hair, without weight to pull it down onto the scalp, hair stands straight up. BTW this was one of the things that the movie Gravity got wrong, as Sandra Bullock's hair, even though it was short, should still have been standing off her scalp more than it was shown to do. That's what happens when you fake these things, as that movie did. You miss things and you make mistakes. No such mistakes exist on the ISS videos.

You are right. A plane cannot do this. Explanations are that there is an object orbiting, obviously as you can see it with the naked eye. However, this is vacant, no people, just camera's. The radiation is supposed to be so high that it would be fatal. Even veteran astronauts were asked about the Van Allen belt and you know what his answer was?
Get this, he said " it didn't affect us because we hadn't discovered it yet". Good answer....not.
Are you denying the existance of the magnetosphere? If so, you need to explain why you didn't die of cancer as a baby. Also, do you know what effect solar radiation has on unmanned spacecraft, and on their electronics? The absence of the magnetosphere would not just prevent us from leaving people in low Earth orbit, it would make it much more difficult for us to leave any satellites there for any length of time.

As an aside. Why can we take elaborate photos of far off galaxies and space occurrences of all types with amazing HD imaging, with the Hubble telescope, yet, Pluto photos look like they took them with my old Kodak non focus in black and white. Mean while it is way closer that the super nova's and such.

Should we not be able to see HD pics of it too?
Seriously? Supernovae are really big and bright and Pluto is really small and not very bright...!
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
No, they are rotating along the same fixed paths. They may appear to be in different positions along those paths during different seasons, but the paths appear to be the same. If we are rotating as wildly as described in my last post, then the paths themselves would be in different positions.

Have you yourself lived thousands of years to personally witness these alleged changes?
The paths only look fixed to you because you haven't looked at them very closely.

Rather than looking up and saying "Ooh it looks like it's in about the same place as last year", as you are doing, astronomers take a much more detailed approach. They understand the radial motion of nearby stars by measuring wavelength shifts in their spectra. You will probably dismiss this because you do not understand it. Well, tough. The universe is complicated. Either get to grips with the detail, or stop forming inaccurate guessed opinions.

Have you yourself lived thousands of years to personally witness these alleged changes?
Most stars need 1000s of years for an amatuer observer to see a change in their relative position.

But not all. The star with the greatest radial motion (it's relative position in the sky is changing more quickly than any other) is called Barnard's Star. It moves by 0.003 degrees every year. That's a tenth of a degree every 30 years. You could measure that with some fairly basic equipment. You don't need to have lived for millenia to see the radial motion of stars.
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
Did you see the video on the official NASA youtube channel where a NASA engineer stated that man still needed to figure out how to get past the Van Allen belts? Perhaps he forgot that man (allegedly) already went past them to the Moon 40 years ago.
He was obviously referring to long duration space flight. And perhaps the fact that the dangers are much better understood now than they were 40 years ago. Moon trips take days, Mars trips take years.
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
I've suspected that ... create a relatively small model and place in in low orbit to simulate a large station in high orbit.
But the ISS is in low orbit!

It's 250 milles up. It experiences orbital decay from constantly colliding with atmospheric gasses, and needs regular orbital maintenance (boosting its velocity) to counter this.

It could not be maintained in an orbit much lower than it is in for any length of time.

Have you ever seen the ISS? Have you seen how big and bright it is? You should, because it would stop you raising a point like this which is so easy to dismiss.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Then you're wrong. Those require an observer, but that observer could be a freakin' rock out in space. There's no need for any sort of conscious observer or thought. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum physics propagated by woosters like Deepak Chopra.
Please show me results which show the lack of need for a conscious observer.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
The paths only look fixed to you because you haven't looked at them very closely.

Rather than looking up and saying "Ooh it looks like it's in about the same place as last year", as you are doing, astronomers take a much more detailed approach. They understand the radial motion of nearby stars by measuring wavelength shifts in their spectra. You will probably dismiss this because you do not understand it. Well, tough. The universe is complicated. Either get to grips with the detail, or stop forming inaccurate guessed opinions.

Most stars need 1000s of years for an amatuer observer to see a change in their relative position.

But not all. The star with the greatest radial motion (it's relative position in the sky is changing more quickly than any other) is called Barnard's Star. It moves by 0.003 degrees every year. That's a tenth of a degree every 30 years. You could measure that with some fairly basic equipment. You don't need to have lived for millenia to see the radial motion of stars.
I understand the details and alleged interpretations just fine. All I am stating is that, according to the current prevailing model of a wildly spinning earth, the paths of the stars should vary far more than 0.003 degrees every year.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
He was obviously referring to long duration space flight. And perhaps the fact that the dangers are much better understood now than they were 40 years ago. Moon trips take days, Mars trips take years.
He said nothing about a "long duration space flight". He said "we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space"
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
But the ISS is in low orbit!

It's 250 milles up. It experiences orbital decay from constantly colliding with atmospheric gasses, and needs regular orbital maintenance (boosting its velocity) to counter this.

It could not be maintained in an orbit much lower than it is in for any length of time.

Have you ever seen the ISS? Have you seen how big and bright it is? You should, because it would stop you raising a point like this which is so easy to dismiss.
I'm saying that it is my belief that it is in a lower orbit than 250 miles. I cannot tell how big it is because I have no firsthand knowledge of its distance. Its brightness has no relevance to its size.
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
I understand the details and alleged interpretations just fine. All I am stating is that, according to the current prevailing model of a wildly spinning earth, the paths of the stars should vary far more than 0.003 degrees every year.
What is a 'wildly spinning Earth'?
He said nothing about a "long duration space flight". He said "we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space"
You're scraping the barrel.
I'm saying that it is my belief that it is in a lower orbit than 250 miles. I cannot tell how big it is because I have no firsthand knowledge of its distance. Its brightness has no relevance to its size.
Do you accept that the Earth has an atmosphere? Do you understand that things moving in an atmosphere slow down due to resistance? Do you accept that there is a minimum altitude at which a stable orbit can be maintained? What do you believe that minimum altitude is?

You know you can measure the altitude of the ISS yourself? From the ground. Often one visible pass is followed by another on the next orbit. Approx 90 mins later. Time the gap, and plug that into Newton's orbital equation, and it will give you the altitude (lower orbits have shorter orbital periods, higher have longer).

Unless Newton was in on the conspiracy? 4 centuries ago!

If this was a hoax, and the ISS was not at 400km, it would have been exposed long ago, because it's so easy to check.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
What is a 'wildly spinning Earth'?
I wrote about this in my original post.

You're scraping the barrel.
Nah, looks like you are. He clearly stated what he said, and it was not about a "long duration space flight".

Do you accept that the Earth has an atmosphere? Do you understand that things moving in an atmosphere slow down due to resistance? Do you accept that there is a minimum altitude at which a stable orbit can be maintained? What do you believe that minimum altitude is?

You know you can measure the altitude of the ISS yourself? From the ground. Often one visible pass is followed by another on the next orbit. Approx 90 mins later. Time the gap, and plug that into Newton's orbital equation, and it will give you the altitude (lower orbits have shorter orbital periods, higher have longer).

Unless Newton was in on the conspiracy? 4 centuries ago!

If this was a hoax, and the ISS was not at 400km, it would have been exposed long ago, because it's so easy to check.
The equations you reference are based on the idea that angular momentum must be maintained in order to successfully orbit a spherical earth. I do not believe in such an idea, or in a spherical earth.

Instead, I believe that there are various points between the Earth and the heavenly bodies where the attractive force between both are in equilibrium depending on the mass of the object in question, and things in "orbit" exist at their equilibrium point.
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
Instead, I believe that there are various points between the Earth and the heavenly bodies where the attractive force between both are in equilibrium depending on the mass of the object in question, and things in "orbit" exist at their equilibrium point.
Like a stopped clock twice a day, you have chanced upon being right! Well nearly. They are called Lagrange points.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Like a stopped clock twice a day, you have chanced upon being right! Well nearly. They are called Lagrange points.
The points refer to the same base concept I proposed but they're interpreted differently, so I don't call them that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
These are terrible. I thought they might have at least found something that was not easy to explain. But no. They found that one astronaut likes to spit out their toothpaste into a towel, and another swallows it instead. And this 'contradiction' is somehow a slip up in the grand hoax, and evidence that it is all fake? Could it not just tell us that some astronauts spit and others swallow?!

I watched bits of all 3 videos. They're nonsense. They do not highlight a single thing which could even be considered to be inconsistent with life in micro gravity. They're just made by some kids who should have concentrated more in high school physics class, and are putting nonsense on Youtube in the hope of a few clicks and ad money.

I'm disappointed. Conspiracy theorists used to work much harder than this!


So, if you had a good head of hair, which I used to have, and you were in a weightless state, would your hair stay together like a mat of stuck spaghetti? When she moves her head, the whole mop of hair moves right along with it.
In reality, her hair would still have mass, still have inertia. It would not fall down, stuck to her head as it would in gravity. However, it would flow like it would if it was not stuck together with hairspray.

Also, in one segment, she is perfectly still and floating as she would if she was in a weightless state. Then, without touching anything, she rotates 90 degrees. This could only happen, in a weightless state, if she had a force applied to her, or if the craft she is in rotated about her as a force acted on it. You can even see the look of concern on her face.

Other videos show equally questionable events.

IDK, it just looks fishy to me.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Are you denying the existance of the magnetosphere? If so, you need to explain why you didn't die of cancer as a baby. Also, do you know what effect solar radiation has on unmanned spacecraft, and on their electronics? The absence of the magnetosphere would not just prevent us from leaving people in low Earth orbit, it would make it much more difficult for us to leave any satellites there for any length of time.

I'm not denying anything. It's just that NASA is in a conundrum because:
1/ They cannot figure out how to deal with the Van Allen belt when they go to Mars as it will fry the astronauts.
2/ How do you explain to the public that it was not a problem when the little tin can of a space craft went to the moon with three men inside and they weren't harmed.

They didn't know about the Van Allen belt before the Apollo missions. Now they know, we know, everyone knows.
SO, how did Buzz and the boys not get fried, but the Mars people need protection that NASA cannot develop.

Oh, by the way, all the film in the camera's would have been exposed as well.


Seriously? Supernovae are really big and bright and Pluto is really small and not very bright...!

I totally understand. However, the pic of Pluto looks like it was taken in 1950 while the supernovae are HD. Pluto is in our backyard. Super novae are light years away.

Again, something that makes me go Hmmmmmm.
 
Upvote 0