- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
Hi,
I have seen your observations in the sense that when I arrive in a place with few researchers, soon I have people hating me.
The fur flys, both men and women get upset with me from time to time, then All of Them apologize to me in one way or another, as time goes by.
In my last major battle at a corporation with an individual, I readied myself to years of taking this man's flak.
He was already totally upset with me.
Sitting at my desk one day, I overhear a conversation with the last guy on a science issue only, who took three days of constant table talks and drawings until he had his "Aha" moment, that I did not recover well from.
(He is a very large eastern Montana boy, and I had just shown him up in my opinion. That had long term disaster written all over it.)
As the conversation between Montana and my newest rival went on, Montana told him that no matter how outrageous anything sounds coming out of my mouth, research wise, that he is going to find out it is actually true.
In three days, I am called over to my newest rival's desk.
He says this: "When I do research, I find four or five sources that agree. When I do that I am 97-98% right. (If I recall those numbers, as they triggered a response.)(instantly my mind redid his numbers. There is no way that is true. I came up with a probable number on that technique. Then continued to listen on) You. You don't do that."
What he meant is, I keep looking and looking........
Philosophers, and stated research wise, those people who study the entire range of human thought, without proofs normally, have always asked us, how we know our life and things are not an illusion.
Still in research mode.
If God who is energy and the manipulator of energy also among the other things that He Is, changes something, then this all could be an imagined illusion from one point of view, as All energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely change forms, could very easily be taken back by God, to where that energy came from, and if and when He decides to, erase all that we were and saw. To us, what is real, would then be gone, and thus the equivalent of an illusion, would possibly be gone, possibly including all of us, our existences, on and in all realms, except in energy again, in some form.
Out of research mode.
Yet, I still had a few more years with that newbie on other issues, eventually it all ended very well, as research is research, and if done well and stated well, it is always true.
The next two issues, he caved on quicker, eventually settling on what is and was real.
Always. Always research is true if it is done properly and stated well.
Stating it well is important. Even Einstein stated Relativity well. He stated it as a theory, as far as I remember, thus if anything changes, the theory changes.
Thus, on purpose or not, it says that God exists in this sense: As things are now, this is correct.
If God decides to change any part of Creation, then things like The Speed of Light can change. Other things He might change.
Stating his work that way, allows for God to change things.
Research is Always correct, if stated well, and done well.
And of course, it is always possible, that the way Creation is Done is a result of the way God Is internally, thus nothing including the speed of light, will ever change.
LOVE,
Jack, this is a shot of my house with Google Earth. If there are no satellites, what took this picture?
Jack, this is a shot of my house with Google Earth. If there are no satellites, what took this picture?
Jacksbratt said:Ya, I know, How would satellites work on a flat earth... IDK. Especially the geosynchronous ones.
Did it deal with how satellite communication engineers have to place them around a sphere? How they lose line-of-sight in such a way as would never happen over a flat disk?Let's see.... what was my response to your comment about the problem with satellites....
JacksBratt, do you have any idea what modern cosmology claims? Because if not, why are you talking about it? And if so, how did you miss the most basic fundamentals of how the earth relates to the sun?
Has creationism so poisoned your mind that no authoritative source is reliable, but any old internet blog or ancient counter-culture book is good enough? What is going through your head right now? I really am curious; I legitimately don't get it.
Did it deal with how satellite communication engineers have to place them around a sphere? How they lose line-of-sight in such a way as would never happen over a flat disk?
...
(or are they part of the NASA conspiracy, even as private companies)?
At this point, I don't care. It's not about you supporting the flat earth movement or not. It's about you, your understanding of science, and your willingness to speak on issues you have no knowledge of. You've put forward arguments on numerous occasions on this thread that are not just wrong, but so wrong that it outright boggles the mind. Do you know what the current cosmological model is? Do you not understand what's so nonsensical about saying that 3 straight months of sunlight is impossible on the north pole with a round earth? Do you really not get why a model that portrays the sun and moon as spotlights above the earth fundamentally would fail to match what we observe?I told you, I do not think the earth is flat.
Was it not Eisenstein that said:
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”
Check out this site. The flat earth question is growing.
Let's see.... what was my response to your comment about the problem with satellites....
OK, fair enough. However, check this out and help me figure how this and other examples of seeing things that should not be visible due to the curve of the earth. Credit should be given to Rob Skiba for the information below.
So, my friend took this little math problem to a college level math professor. After the guy said such a thing should not be seen, Jef said, "But we've all seen it. I'm referring to the Anacapa Island arch." Doh! In a text message to me after talking with the math professor, Jef said, "Needless to say, the math guy was intrigued."
So am I.
Those are both hazy, low resolution images. I can't resolve where the horizon is well enough to actually put down a flat line. Lets look for a higher resolution image with a clearer horizon and see what we find. I'll pull a random one off of google images. If you want to pull a specific one, I'll run that too.I understand your attitude toward this topic. When I first heard it, I blew milk out my nose and almost fell off my chair. So, I decided to prove them to be as wrong as I thought they were, and still do by the way. However, when you look into all their arguments put together, they are good arguments. It's not as easy as I thought to brush them off as unintelligent or ill informed. They have done their homework. A picture like the ones below make me wonder too.
If the earth is a globe, it must be much bigger than 8 inches of curve per mile squared.
Those are both hazy, low resolution images. I can't resolve where the horizon is well enough to actually put down a flat line. Lets look for a higher resolution image with a clearer horizon and see what we find. I'll pull a random one off of google images. If you want to pull a specific one, I'll run that too.I understand your attitude toward this topic. When I first heard it, I blew milk out my nose and almost fell off my chair. So, I decided to prove them to be as wrong as I thought they were, and still do by the way. However, when you look into all their arguments put together, they are good arguments. It's not as easy as I thought to brush them off as unintelligent or ill informed. They have done their homework. A picture like the ones below make me wonder too.
If the earth is a globe, it must be much bigger than 8 inches of curve per mile squared.
However, I am questioning the globe earth model, due to my personal character trait to not believe everything I am told no matter how many letters after the name of the person spouting the information. Also because of my complete loss of trust in NASA and any military or government "scientific" information.
One thing I have found on these forums, if someone is certain about their view on something and they are confident with their supporting information, they do not have an aggressive response to someone who questions their view.
To have that person go on a high altitude balloon flight, and then tell everyone what he saw.
To have one of their own take a Mig 29 high altitude fight and report back.
I imagine if it was important enough, a Space Shuttle flight would end all this, one way or another.
"Because these people have spent their whole lives studying this, they cannot be trusted." And that's a really, really stupid idea.
Now, as a counter question, if the earth was flat, why would objects ever appear to be cut off by the horizon?
People who believe that the earth is flat deserve all the scorn, derision, and ridicule that's coming their way. And you deserve to be laughed out of the room if you think these arguments hold water
So the first thing any aspiring scientist should do before getting into astrophysics is re-do Newton's gravitational experiments. Then they should spend a few years repeating Kepler's observations of the solar system and confirming that they are, indeed, correct. Then they should check and cross-check the calculations in Einstein's work, and repeat all of Planck's important experiments to ensure that they're right. Then, they should ask for access to the Hubble Telescope (or better yet, build their own, because we can't trust other people's work, and who even knows if it's even really up there?), and waste its extremely valuable time recreating established experimental results to ensure that they are correct. I'm certain I've left out countless experiments that are less famous but similarly valuable in establishing what we know and how we know it.No, it's the basis of Science. Do not trust other peoples work. Retest all assumptions.
That's where you're stuck.
That's not the proper scientific response.
You can't ridicule new or old ideas and
properly address them at the same time.
Hills?
Most people see them now and again.
Are you 3 years old? Do you have the approximate mental capabilities of a 3-year-old? No? Then why should I treat you like a 3-year-old when you propose nonsensical ideas?Suppose the person is your 3 year old daughter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?