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.
Neither. See my post above.
Yes, I believe experiments like the quantum double-slit and delayed choice eraser shows that thoughts and consciousness do create reality.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.
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.Yes, I believe experiments like the quantum double-slit and delayed choice eraser shows that thoughts and consciousness do create reality.
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 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
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.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.
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.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.
Seriously? Supernovae are really big and bright and Pluto is really small and not very bright...!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?
The paths only look fixed to you because you haven't looked at them very closely.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?
Most stars need 1000s of years for an amatuer observer to see a change in their relative position.Have you yourself lived thousands of years to personally witness these alleged changes?
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.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.
But the ISS is in low orbit!I've suspected that ... create a relatively small model and place in in low orbit to simulate a large station in high orbit.
Please show me results which show the lack of need for a conscious observer.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.
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.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.
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"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.
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.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.
What is a 'wildly spinning Earth'?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.
You're scraping the barrel.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"
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?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.
I wrote about this in my original post.What is a 'wildly spinning Earth'?
Nah, looks like you are. He clearly stated what he said, and it was not about a "long duration space flight".You're scraping the barrel.
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.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.
Like a stopped clock twice a day, you have chanced upon being right! Well nearly. They are called Lagrange points.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.
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!
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.
Seriously? Supernovae are really big and bright and Pluto is really small and not very bright...!