Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by ICfreely »

I’m also puzzled by how water magically adheres to the surface of a sphere, surrounded by a near perfect ‘vacuum of space’ no less! This supposed Earthly phenomenon is admittedly not demonstrable here on good old Earth. The upper surface of a liquid solution in a narrow cylinder (i.e. test tube) can be convex or concave (menisci) due to cohesion/adhesion. However, in an aquarium, swimming pool or standing body water of any size, water always finds its level! Galileo and Newton’s ‘thought experiments’ and metaphysical conclusions are less than convincing.

According to Carnegie ‘It’s holotypes all the way down (to China)’ Science:


Nearly all cultures have a vision of the cosmos as a whole. The earliest cosmologies of the great civilizations in Egypt, India, Babylonia, and the Americas shared the idea that Earth is flat, and that there are layers above and below. Even today some people have difficulty accepting the idea that they live on a sphere suspended in space - a difficulty that is captured in the story of the scientist and old lady who argued that "It's turtles all the way down." Galileo, a professor at the University of Padua, played a central role in changing our vision of the cosmos when he published a little book called The Starry Messenger in 1610.
http://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1610


The artist formally known as ‘the father of modern science’ is best known for his tour de force performance in the head-spinning drama ‘The Galileo Affair.’ Written by legendary sci-fi producer Paolo Sarpi in 1616 and released in1633, the classic tale of a heroic scientist persecuted for speaking truth to power and suffering the unimaginable punishment of house arrest still captures the hearts & minds of audiences today.


The son of a court musician, Galileo grew up on the fringes of the Medici court, and was fascinated by the art of spectacle and display.
Politically astute, Galileo christened the previously unknown moons of Jupiter after the Medici, who in turn made Galileo the most famous scientist in the world.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/medici/renai ... lileo.html


A 1983 expose of the benevolent banking clan's house boy demonstrates all that glitters is seldom gold.


Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science by William Broad and Nicholas Wade
Ch. 2 Deceit in History

The feature that supposedly distinguishes science from other kinds of knowledge is its reliance on empirical evidence, on testing ideas against the facts in nature. But Ptolemy was not the only scientist to neglect an observer's duties; even Galileo, a founding father of modern empiricism, is suspected of reporting experiments that could not have been performed with the results he claims.

Galileo Galilei is perhaps best remembered as the patient investigator who dropped stones from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The story is probably apocryphal but it captures the quality that allegedly set Galileo apart from his medieval contemporaries was his inclination to search for answers in nature, not in the works of Aristotle. Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his defense of the Copernican theory and his trial is held up by today's scientific textbooks as a heroic object lesson in the battle of reason against superstition. Such textbooks naturally tend to stress Galileo's empiricism, in contrast to his opponents' dogmatism. "After Galileo," says one, "the ultimate proof of a theory would be the evidence of the real world."5 The textbook approvingly cites how Galileo painstakingly tested his theory of falling bodies by measuring the time it took for a brass ball to roll down a groove in a long board: in "experiments near a hundred times repeated," Galileo found that the times agreed with his law, with no differences "worth mentioning."

According to historian I. Bernard Cohen, however, Galileo's conclusion "only shows how firmly he had made up his mind beforehand, for the rough conditions of the experiment would never have yielded an exact law. Actually the discrepancies were so great that a contemporary worker, Pre Mersenne, could not reproduce the results described by Galileo, and even doubted that he had ever made the experiment."6 In all likelihood, Galileo was relying not merely on his experimental skill but on his exquisite talents as a propagandist.7

Galileo liked to perform "thought experiments," imagining an outcome rather than observing it. In his Dialogue on the Two Great Systems of the World, in which Galileo describes the motion of a ball dropped from the mast of a moving ship, the Aristotelian, Simplicio, asks whether Galileo made the experiment himself. "No," Galileo replied, "and I do not need it, as without any experience I can affirm that it is so, because it cannot be otherwise."

The textbooks' portrayal of Galileo as a meticulous experimentalist has been reinforced by scholars. According to one translation of his works, Galileo reportedly said: "There is in nature perhaps nothing older than motion, concerning which the books written by philosophers are neither few nor small. Nevertheless, I have discovered by experiment some properties of it which are worth knowing and which have not hitherto been observed or demonstrated."8 The words "by experiment" do not appear in the original Italian; they have been added by the translator, who evidently had strong feelings on how Galileo should have proceeded.

Unlike the textbook writers, some historians, such as Alexandre Koyre, have seen Galileo as an idealist rather than an experimental physicist; as a man who used argument and rhetoric to persuade others of the truth of his theories.9 With Galileo, the desire to make his ideas prevail apparently led him to report experiments that could not have been performed exactly as described. Thus an ambiguous attitude toward data was present from the very beginning of Western experimental science. On the one hand, experimental data was upheld as the ultimate arbiter of truth; on the other hand, fact was subordinated to theory when necessary and even, if it didn't fit, distorted. The Renaissance saw the flowering of Western experimental science, but in Galileo, the propensity to manipulate fact was the worm in the bud.

http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/Science/sc ... ncee08.htm


Carnegie Science continues:


By the time of Galileo's birth on February 15, 1564, it was well known that Earth is shaped like a sphere. The idea had been clearly articulated by Aristotle nearly two thousand years before in Ancient Greece. Eratosthenes, a librarian in Alexandria, had measured the diameter of the Earth fairly accurately around 240 BC, and Magellan's voyage around the world in 1543 AD established beyond a doubt that people live all around the spherical Earth.

However, since Newton's theory of gravity was two hundred years in the future, people needed to understand why, if people live all around the Earth, those on the bottom didn't fall off. The answer seemed obvious. As stated by Aristotle, the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything fell towards that center, except for the planets, which went in circles around the center. And there were seven of them - the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Galileo’s telescope was only an inch-and-a-half in diameter. Although he did not invent the telescope, and may not even have been the first to use it to observe the sky, Galileo’s interpretation of what he observed with his tiny telescope changed people’s view of the universe in two fundamental ways.

Galileo saw countless stars in the milky-white cloud in the night sky, and realized that the “dome of the fixed stars” is not a dome at all, but has depth.

Galileo observed Jupiter’s Moons, providing a powerful argument that Earth may not be the center of the Universe, but instead circle the Sun. Galileo also measured the phases of Venus. This unequivocally falsified the geocentric model of the universe.

http://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1610


A paid shill’s interpretation of the sky via an inch-and-a-half spyglass fundamentally changed our view of the universe. The power of persuasion is nothing short of amazing!



A SCIENTIFIC RECONSIDERATION OF GEOCENTRICITY - Jeffrey D. Nachimson

Secondly, Galileo’s argument concerning the moons of Jupiter is only a partial fact. While it is a fact that he discovered four moons (satellites) that indeed orbit Jupiter, basing this discovery as a sure proof for the authenticity of heliocentrism is an argument by analogy at best. The truth of the matter is that this argument only countered one argument purported by the Aristotelians that the earth could not be in motion around sun because it couldn’t drag the moon with it around the sun. Acknowledging that Galileo’s discovery of orbiting satellites around Jupiter that subsequently orbited the Sun only refutes that particular aspect of the Aristotelian theory. It most certainly was not proof for the motion of the earth. As stated before, it would only set up a proposition for an analogous hypothesis. Thirdly, Galileo’s discovery of Venus’ exhibition of phases similar to that of our own moon is not a proof for the motion of the earth. It was an error on the part of Galileo to assert that the Ptolemaic model could not give a sufficient explanation. The reason for this is that Galileo’s discovery could not hold any weight under criticism if one allows epicycles centered on the sun. The only way that Galileo’s discovery could be correct is if one insisted on earth-centered orbits. Finally, another observation that isn’t too commonly discussed in academic circles is a confession by Galileo in the latter part of his life. In a letter written to Rinuccini concerning Pieroni’s material about the yearly motion of certain stars, he stated:

"The falsity of the Copernican system must not on any account be doubted, especially by us Catholics, who have the irrefragable authority of the Holy Scriptures interpreted by the greatest masters in theology, whose agreement renders us certain of the stability of the earth and the mobility of the sun around it. The conjectures of Copernicus and his followers offered to the contrary are all removed by that most sound argument, taken from the omnipotence of God, He being able to do in many, or rather infinite ways, that which to our view and observation seems to be done in one particular way, we must not pretend to hamper God’s hand and tenaciously maintain that in which we may be mistaken. And just as I deem inadequate the Copernican observations and conjectures, so I judge equally, and more, fallacious and erroneous those of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and their followers, when, without going beyond the bounds of human reasoning, their inconclusiveness can be very easily discovered."

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no113/ ... ricity.pdf


“In the Middle Ages people believed that the earth was flat, for which they had at least the evidence of their senses: we believe it to be round, not because as many as one percent of us could give the physical reasons for so quaint a belief, but because modern science has convinced us that nothing that is obvious is true, and that everything that is magical, improbable, extraordinary, gigantic, microscopic, heartless or outrageous is ‘scientific.’” -George Bernard Shaw


With regards to the shape of the Earth wiki informs us:


The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.

Ancient Near East
The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post-biblical times.
In early Egyptian and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk…

Ancient Mediterranean
Both Homer and Hesiod described a flat disc cosmography…

Ancient India
Ancient Jain and Buddhist cosmology held that the Earth is a disc

Norse and Germanic
The ancient Norse and Germanic peoples believed in a flat earth…

Early Christian Church
During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view...

Ancient China
Chinese thought on the form of the earth remained almost unchanged from early times until the first contacts with modern science through the medium of Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century. While the heavens were variously described as being like an umbrella covering the earth (the Kai Tian theory), or like a sphere surrounding it (the Hun Tian theory), or as being without substance while the heavenly bodies float freely (the Hsüan yeh theory), the earth was at all times flat, although perhaps bulging up slightly.

Accordingly, the 13th-century scholar Li Ye, who argued that the movements of the round heaven would be hindered by a square Earth, did not advocate a spherical Earth, but rather that its edge should be rounded off so as to be circular.

As late as 1595, an early Jesuit missionary to China, Matteo Ricci, recorded that the Chinese say: "The earth is flat and square, and the sky is a round canopy; they did not succeed in conceiving the possibility of the antipodes." The universal belief in a flat Earth is confirmed by a contemporary Chinese encyclopedia from 1609 illustrating a flat Earth extending over the horizontal diametral plane of a spherical heaven.

In the 17th century, the idea of a spherical Earth spread in China due to the influence of the Jesuits, who held high positions as astronomers at the imperial court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


Despite their ‘archaic belief’ in a flat Earth, our ancient ancestors were able to accurately predict solar & lunar eclipses. Predicting said phenomena is possible regardless of the model (heliocentric, geocentric, geostatic, spherical, flat, concave, etc.), if any, one chooses to adopt simply because the accumulation of observations allows for pattern recognition.


Ancient China
By about 20 BC, surviving documents show that Chinese astrologers understood what caused eclipses, and by 8 BC some predictions of total solar eclipse were made using the 135-month recurrence period. By AD 206 Chinese astrologers could predict solar eclipses by analyzing the Moon's motion.

Babylon and Sumeria
Babylonian clay tablets that have survived since dawn of civilization in the Mesopotamian region record the earliest total solar eclipse seen in Ugarit on May 3, 1375 BC. Like the Chinese, Babylonian astrologers kept careful records about celestial happenings including the motions of Mercury, Venus, the Sun, and the Moon on tablets dating from 1700 to 1681 BC. Later records identified a total solar eclipse on July 31, 1063 BC, that "turned day into night," and the famous eclipse of June 15, 763 BC, recorded by Assyrian observers in Nineveh. Babylonian astronomers are credited with having discovered the 223-month period for lunar eclipses.

Ancient Egypt
The oldest example of a sundial is Egyptian from about 1500 BC.
Numerous temple and pyramid alignments and several papyrus codices suggest a sophisticated knowledge of trigonometry and algebra; no similar astronomy documents survive, or records of astrological observations. The Vienna papyrus which described lunar and solar eclipses and their portent was probably copied by a scribe in the late second century AD, and presents knowledge of astronomy that is regarded as Babylonian in nature.

http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/ ... ndars.html


I’m not advocating a flat Earth or any other model. I admittedly do not know the shape of the Earth. My only ‘agenda,’ so to speak, is to highlight the similarities and cozy relationship between mainstream science and organized religion.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

^ Very interesting stuff...

A few facts, perhaps already known to many readers:
1 - The Catholic Church, the favorite scapegoat to which all sorts of contradictory errors and evils get attributed, never taught the earth was flat. I don´t know where Shaw got the idea from, but he may have picked it up in Andrew Dickson White´s ludicrous "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" (1896).
2 - Galileo was disliked by his peers because he was an arrogant prick who demanded acceptance of his theories without providing the slightest bit of proof. He would publicly insult anyone who questioned his theories. In addition, he authored a number of extravagant non-astronomical theories which raised severe doubts about his competence as a scientist.
3 - Galileo was not disliked by the clergy or by the Pope (the future Urban VIII even wrote him a letter of congratulations) and was actually supported by a lifelong grant from the Church. Many churchmen were favorable to his theory of heliocentrism, as long as it wasn´t declared a fact without proof.
4 - Galileo got into trouble with the Church for two reasons: a) he demanded scripture be reinterpreted based on his theories, i.e. he interfered in a field where he had no business or authority; b) in 1632 he wrote his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" in which he put the pope´s opinions into the mouth of the dunce.

Galileo, this "brilliant scientist-martyr, victim of cruel superstition and obscurantism", is a hollow icon of scientism fabricated at a much later date. He was not persecuted for his views on heliocentrism as such (in 1612 they earned him no hostility), but for meddling with theology and ungentlemanly insulting his friend and supporter, the Pope.

Galileo was quite the hysterical and narcissistic type, if anything. But maybe that´s what makes him an ideal forerunner for the modern superstar scientist.
ICfreely wrote:I’m not advocating a flat Earth or any other model. I admittedly do not know the shape of the Earth.
I am inclined to think the earth is spherical, but I am open to arguments to the contrary.
smj
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:29 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by smj »

It was a good post IC.

I'm inclined to think that perhaps all the world's a stage that we, the mere players, have been taught to call a globe...

Image
anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Unread post by anonjedi2 »

Simon,

Here is Eric Dubay's explanation of why the stars appear to rotate in opposite directions above the flat earth. I'm not convinced of a flat earth by any means but I do find this interesting and would love to hear your thoughts.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVXa9jbSR7U
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

anonjedi2 wrote:Simon,
Here is Eric Dubay's explanation of why the stars appear to rotate in opposite directions above the flat earth. I'm not convinced of a flat earth by any means but I do find this interesting and would love to hear your thoughts.
Dear Anonjedi,

as already stated and as you probably know, my thoughts about this sudden Flat Earth craze, ( led / promoted by Conman-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama) - and going absolutely / & ridiculously viral all over the web) are none too rosy: as I see it, it has "NASA" written all over it, and that alleged "NASA defector" Matt Boylan clown was just the first of a growing gang of clowns (either NASA-contracted or just of the useful-idiot-type) promoting this obvious cointelpro distraction - for people to latch on to. And this, for two (only apparently contradictory) reasons / objectives:

1: - To deflect the attention of the growing crowd of "general truthseekers" from looking into - and further diffusing - the GRAND NASA HOAX and, instead, lead them into (what they may perceive as) the "higher ground of Flat Earth research".

2: . To have FLAT EARTHERS being perceived / identified (by the general public) as those 'nutcases / tinfoil hats' who say that NASA IS A GRAND HOAX. This is an old - very old - cointelpro ploy called 'discrediting by association'.

To be honest, I find it an absolutely 'brilliant' move on the part of the NASA psychologists psychopaths.

******************

As for the video you posted above (an apparent mish-mash of clips by assorted Flat Earthers), I totally agree with the point made regarding the preposterous claim (by modern astronomy) that our earth is speeding at breakneck / hypersonic speeds around space - and completing a 300-million km diameter circle around the sun every year. All this, without the Northern and Southern stars moving a tiny bit above our heads - ever.

However, the part regarding the Southern stars "NOT rotating around a central point" is 'news' to me. Here's what my favorite planetarium (NEAVE) shows - as viewed by an observer in New Zealand - all year long :

Image

An observer in Norway will see a similar, 360° "merry-go-round" all year long, yet this time with the bright Polaris (the "North Star") almost smack in the middle of it. The fact that there's no similarly bright star smack in the middle of the Southern "merry-go-round" is, quite frankly, not surprising - or indicative of anything at all. Why would there be one? Why would we have such a 'coincidental' star on the exact opposite side of Earth?

Now, you may ask, perhaps those online (digitally-conceived) planetariums are fraudulent? Good point. Well, please know that I am soon about to expose ONE TYPE of ("3-D") planetarium (such as the SCOPE) as being in utter contradiction with the universally accepted COPERNICAN solar system model. Stay tuned...

Thing is, I have now finally - after several years of steady studies - proved (to myself, at least - yet beyond reasonable doubt) that our earth does rotate around itself - and that the Sun + all known planets revolve around it. Right now, I am hard at work finishing the text and graphics presentation of my final "TYCHO/SSSS" - which is nothing more than a slightly revised / refined solar system as prefigured by the greatest (in my opinion) astronomer of all times: Tycho Brahe.
ShaneG
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by ShaneG »

NASA pictures of a round Earth from space are fake, everyone on this site is in agreement on this; therefore I have no idea why people think that the Earth is a giant ball - considering the fakery that we've been presented with by these jokers.

Convex, concave, or flat, I really don't know; but I'm less inclined to believe that it looks the way that NASA tells us - for obvious reasons.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

ShaneG wrote:NASA pictures of a round Earth from space are fake, everyone on this site is in agreement on this; therefore I have no idea why people think that the Earth is a giant ball - considering the fakery that we've been presented with by these jokers.

Convex, concave, or flat, I really don't know; but I'm less inclined to believe that it looks the way that NASA tells us - for obvious reasons.
Thank you. And I think that roundly sums it up.
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by nonhocapito »

hoi.polloi wrote:
ShaneG wrote:NASA pictures of a round Earth from space are fake, everyone on this site is in agreement on this; therefore I have no idea why people think that the Earth is a giant ball - considering the fakery that we've been presented with by these jokers.

Convex, concave, or flat, I really don't know; but I'm less inclined to believe that it looks the way that NASA tells us - for obvious reasons.
Thank you. And I think that roundly sums it up.
Sums up what? The only thing it sums up is that the research on 9/11 and media fakery is bound to die smashed on this flat earth of yours.

...why people think that the Earth is a giant ball...? let me think... Maybe because there are four seasons? Winds along the equator? A magnetic field? Because everything else in space appears to be round? Because otherwise where does the Sun go? and how can there be nights on earth? and how can there be timezones? and different stars in different hemispheres? And where would this flat earth sit? on another flat surface sitting on another flat surface? Or there is a turtle somewhere?
Or should I say, oh blasphemy, because of Eratosthenes and all the others after him? Loads of people who lived across the centuries and had more patience, method, intellectual honesty and curiosity than any of us?

But it's not even that: as I pointed out several times, I might even be intrigued by a speculative discussion on this topic: but it's the pointlessness of this whole enterprise, of wanting to prove this idea wrong on this forum, by replacing it with a bunch of flawed, unprovable ideas that are ultimately much more unsatisfactory, suffocating, limited visions of the cosmos!

Even Dante, who imagined a universe almost as suffocating as the one you guys imagine (but with a lot more meaning and poetry, at least), did not even bother with the idea of a flat earth. Nobody actually ever bothered with it except very ignorant people or people with an agenda...

And of course, it'll never come a day when anything of this sort is proved anywhere but in a scientific setting: but even so, it would not make the world one iota more meaningful or clear, and we all know this. There are better ways to prove NASA wrong ffs...!

Stopping us is bothersome, so here comes this sabotage: engulfing everything here with a fog of concave-flat earth discussion, managing to make it basically counter-productive to expose anything on this website: knowing it will be instantly made meaningless by sitting next to the umpteen imitation of the "the flat earth society"!
Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by Selene »

Very well put, nonhocapito, eloquently and true. Imo does flat earth spoil the other great content here and should be treated as UFOlogy.

How our solar system is arranged is a different topic and discussed by Simon Shacks Tycho Brahe SSTB-system. Which I am very interested in. Any model that satisfactorily explains all the present observations and can be predictive of new ones, by definition counts as valid. It seems the universe is so strange that either a heliocentric (Copernican-Kepler-Galilei-Newton), a geo-heliocentric (SSTB) and a geocentric (Ptolemaec/Aristotelean) system would explain all (?) NASA-free observations (?). That is strange and a nice separate discussion I think.

Flat Earthers did not explain any observation which is typical for a spherical Earth. Adding to the good points of nonhocapito, I want to mention world sailers? How do they go around the globe without falling off? Or your flight LAX-TOK is going through some magical barrier to end up at the other end of the flat Earth, or how?

Not to mention plate tectonics. The coastlines of Africa and South America were known from early 16th century, looooong before NASA and those clowns. If there's a Flat Earth, how can plate tectonics happen and if there's no plate tectonics, what are earthquakes then and how do you explain the neatly fitting coastlines of the two continents?

By the way; I thought the title of the topic said "The cold of space, and the Universe that isn't"

- how do we know if we cannot get up there and gather data (and have to lie to pretend we can)?
- how do you see space? I'd say that for any object in space, it's both very hot and very cold. Anything sun-lit is radiation heated immediately (to let's say +250 C), anything in the shade is stone stone cold (~ -250 C?) and gases do not exist; you are in the realm of plasmas at such low T & P
-> which makes space an impossible area to go, see the short Temperature review in the "Why Rockets Do Not Work In Vaccuum"-topic.

Selene
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by simonshack »

nonhocapito wrote:
(...)

And of course, it'll never come a day when anything of this sort is proved anywhere but in a scientific setting: but even so, it would not make the world one iota more meaningful or clear, and we all know this. There are better ways to prove NASA wrong ffs...!

Stopping us is bothersome, so here comes this sabotage: engulfing everything here with a fog of concave-flat earth discussion, managing to make it basically counter-productive to expose anything on this website: knowing it will be instantly made meaningless by sitting next to the umpteen imitation of the "the flat earth society"!

In any case, if stern measures are not taken it will get harder and harder, and close to impossible to "break out" or even keep a respectable forum alive.

I hear you, Nonho - and cannot agree more with your thoughts and concerns. And yes, there are certainly better ways to prove NASA wrong - (ffs!). As you know, I personally strongly suspect NASA's damage-control-propaganda-department to be behind this Flat Earther craze of late. To be sure, the whole hubbub was launched by one Matt Boylan, who claims to be a "NASA defector" or "whistleblower" of some sort. Has this fact gone unnoticed by anyone here on this forum? Is this an irrelevant / unimportant fact? Really?

Alright, so some will say: "Simon is in the midst of trying to prove Tycho Brahe's (basic) model right - therefore he just won't listen to other / alternative / radical cosmic theories." Well, yes - that is exactly so. And quite frankly, it strikes me as a rather surreal situation to think that, before even presenting my studies (which contain geometrical / mathematical as well as logical proof & evidence), I now almost feel the need to 'justify' my basic understanding of the cosmos - founded on empirical observations gathered to this day ever since the dawn of times.

So here's the stern (yet, I think, reasonable) measure I'm going to take - short of banning ALL radical cosmic theories altogether from this forum (which I will not do - I repeat - will not do.) :

- NO half-hearted / thinly argumented posts about this or that radical cosmic theory (including links to sites / videos promoting the same) will be tolerated on this forum - from now on and for the foreseeable future.

- ALL and ANY posts about radical cosmic theories must contain at least ONE, very compelling point disproving the 'established views of the cosmos'. As it is, I will soon provide a series of such points, disproving (with what I dare call 'the scientific method') the universally accepted Copernican model - once and for all. Let this effort of mine be, at least, an example of what I deem to be valid, thoughtful and well-documented cosmic research.

This is hoping that everyone will appreciate the necessity - in these troubled times of ours - to keep our feet firmly planted on Mother Earth. Thanks for your kind comprehension.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Wow, I think I disagree with nonhocapito in this case. We have nothing to fear. We are in the right for taking an "I don't know" stance. All we have done for the most part (except for the new onslaught of boring useless YouTube videos) is point out where NASA has some 'splainin' to do. There are more than a few major "bugs" in the round Earth, the spinning Earth, the geocentric and the heliocentric models.

What would we do now as poor citizens? Start a multi-thousands or -millions of dollars university?

I have been absolutely relieved to be able to mention the problems with the NASA model in every instance. Where else can we do this? Must we don white lab coats? Can't we just plan and design thought experiments? Why must we definitely replace stupid Earth models with a new model? Isn't it enough to know we don't know? To remain in mystery?

I miss the posts that scud made, which explore the over-arching contradictions in not just NASA theory but everyone's theory. And although Simon would like people to find use in his new theory or Tycho Brahe's great theory, I disagree that we should especially create a platform for those theories, which simultaneously bans discussion of their potential flaws and problems, except for the fact that this is ultimately really Simon's forum. I mean, does Simon fear people will not give enough space and respect to the proposed Tycho Brahe-SSSS? I and more than a few others will eagerly look forward to seeing more of Simon's good reasoning, which is always so spot-on in many respects.
flawed, unprovable ideas that are ultimately much more unsatisfactory, suffocating, limited visions of the cosmos!
I also really disagree with this unimaginative interpretation of things, and the following comment that condemns perfectly skeptical ideas with UFOlogy. Simon's model, to most people, is fucking far out. And many would call it the same names you have hurled at things you disagree with, and worse, even though it is simply the logical, and sound extension of very good and reasonable thought. I don't think they would be right to do so. I don't think we are right to get our knickers in a twist about it. We should just boldly calmly discuss what we want, and know that nonhocapito's and Simon's logical soundness is not the only brand in the universe. I don't need to defend mine. I can't claim new ideas, really. But why not others?

I have NOT ONCE encountered someone turned off by the forum's discussions of Earth sciences. Not one person. On the contrary, I have found many of my friends attracted to it for that reason. Perhaps it's different in Italy. I don't know. Most people I know are more interested in our discussions of science than they are in the bulk of the forum's points about media hoax events. And they are willing to consider media hoax events because of the refreshing difference in thoughts about larger "big picture" issues.

However, I agree that it might be considered in the realm of UFOlogy to discuss these things here, by some. Are those the people who you want to attract here? Knee-jerk rejectors? Would those people happily enjoy Simon's new theory while rejecting all others? What a disgusting idea to me. I don't want such sycophants here.

So while I actually find any hint of dogmatic influence on this forum almost unsatisfactory, almost suffocating and almost limiting, I would rather there be this open topic, waiting strictly for good solid posts (as Simon requests) than nothing at all.

As for the YouTube video and link post-and-runs, I am sick of them. I agree with that.

However, this is Simon's forum above all. And if he wants to limit scientific discussions to new well-developed theories rather than pointing out contradictions (other than with catching them in fakery), I won't disagree here. I will just start some other forum or blog or site thing to talk about it and just retain my moderator role here. So I will stand down on this.

I will only request one more time what I think would be proper for the forum, and that is sticking to evidence and science and pointing out contradictions in evidence only.

I am sad that Simon and nonhocapito and others may be deeming my simple (non debunked) demonstration of a non-spinning globe and horizontal horizon as somehow part of the "unpleasant" materials rather than reading it as the exciting prospect it is, but I guess if it makes two mods uncomfortable because it pokes little harmless dents in Simon's new, otherwise unapproachably grand and consistent project, we don't have to hear about the unexplained things any more. Pity that something so solid might act as though it won't stand up to the slightest new supporting mysteries, even though it would be very very simple to let those points exist while also presenting Simon's new model as the most plausible general theory.

To me, it is a lack of curiosity about the world which would make such a rule commonplace so quickly.

But Simon has worked very hard on this new model/project he is about to present, I guess. And if he wants "space" for it, I can't argue. I can just be a little sad. And move on. And it'll all be fine anyway.

However, my opinion is that Simon and nonhocapito are acting unnecessarily fearful of losing an audience they are imagining they want. Perhaps I am wrong and all that my suggestions would do is attract ne'er-do-wells. I just don't see it. We run a pretty strong forum with many fascinating and solid avenues of new research. Sorry, that's my rant, and I can be done now.
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by nonhocapito »

hoi.polloi wrote:What would we do now as poor citizens? Start a multi-thousands or -millions of dollars university?
I don't know what's the way around it but, I'm sorry, until I see mathematical expressions discussed by people who understand them, I'll know that all the "logic" in the world will not suffice to produce any reasonable/usable/demonstrable model of anything. This is not elitism on my part, but just the way this complex world of ours works. Or else, we could all sit around a surgeon who preps for open heart surgery and mock and "debunk" his decisions one by one, without ever taking one day of medical university.
hoi.polloi wrote:Isn't it enough to know we don't know? To remain in mystery?
This is not what you do. What you do is saying "because NASA lies, then the Earth cannot be round or be spinning", rushing to prove it with some hours of "research". This is not accepting the mystery but pretending to redefine the cosmo, a task that actually requires several lifetimes... Besides, if the purpose is to remain in mystery and just state that, who knows, "maybe these models are all wrong", then why so much energy goes into repeating this statement every which way? Isn't this taking our attention away from other more pressing matters?

And I am sorry to disappoint Simon, Selene or others but actually my position is the same in regards to any "solar system" model or scientific speculation Simon or Hoi or anyone might be engaged with on this forum.

In theory, it's great to discuss anything. In practice, the only real purpose achieved, outside of getting some compliments from other fellows equally unprepared as us, is to push media fakery further and further to the sides of this forum.
Personally, as I have stated several times, I think there is no other place to debunk science but science itself. But even without that, it is bad for the forum because it takes away the focus (and the prestige) from the research on the more contingent, political matters related to the nature of propaganda that are supposed to be reason why we gather here.
hoi.polloi wrote:I have NOT ONCE encountered someone turned off by the forum's discussions of Earth sciences. Not one person. On the contrary, I have found many of my friends attracted to it for that reason.
Can you mention any of these friends of yours who are browsing this forum and contributing to it? What are their nicknames? For starters, I would ask them what the hell are they doing on a forum on media fakery if what they want is to discuss science.
hoi.polloi wrote:I am sad that Simon and nonhocapito and others may be deeming my simple (non debunked) demonstration of a non-spinning globe and horizontal horizon as somehow part of the "unpleasant" materials rather than reading it as the exciting prospect it is, but I guess if it makes two mods uncomfortable because it pokes little harmless dents in Simon's new, otherwise unapproachably grand and consistent project, we don't have to hear about the unexplained things any more.
Sorry if this sounds harsh but the fact that nobody took the time to refute your demonstrations doesn't mean they stand.
Maybe it means that this forum isn't very popular with people with scientific knowledge; or it just means it would take a lot of time, it isn't worth it, and people don't bother; maybe it means the ideas here are so way off it is discouraging to even think of trying to convince anyone!
Most importantly this NOT being a scientific context, even if one had the perfect "debunking" approach there's a big chance people here would not accept it or listen to it because of an underlying prejudice that everything that goes in the direction of the "establishment" must be wrong anyway! Don't you think people feel that in a second? "I would know what to answer to this, but this is clearly the wrong audience". Don't you think this is most likely the mental process of any of your possible adversaries?
Besides if someone came up with a statement or expression or theory that debunks everything you guys said on a matter, would we even have enough knowledge to see it for what it is, appreciate it, distinguish it and separate it from other bullshit arguments?

So, you see, it is actually impossible to "debunk" any scientific "theory" you guys produce here. Which is why they make you feel so good when you come up with them... And this is why instead we would need maths and the ability to understand it, and without maths this is all just a big talk, where you guys pat each others on the back for discovering big scientific truths unbeknownst to the rest of the foolish humanity. (To be clear: I barely know divisions and would NOT understand the math required to discuss these topic to the level necessary to "debunk" them. Hence the answer to this is not coming up on the forum with a load of algorithms to prove that Einstein was a fraud, because most likely none of us would be able to tell if they make any sense).
Again, all of the above goes for Simon's "grand project" as well, or any similar thing discussed here.

Again, sorry if this sounds harsh. I probably don't fit in this forum any longer and I'll perfectly understand if you feel like I shouldn't "wear the stripes"... I hardly have any time to do this anyway. But this is how I feel.

In truth, I would only be relieved if I was to read the next research into some fake act of terrorism on a competent, well informed forum entirely focused on such issues, while a separate, more "speculative" or "philosophical" forum, on a different domain, discusses extra issues from science to ghosts to UFOs. That would work for me. I'd read both probably.

[the above written in a hurry on my way out to work -- sorry if it's a bit rushed]
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by simonshack »

nonhocapito wrote:
So, you see, it is actually impossible to "debunk" any scientific "theory" you guys produce here. Which is why they make you feel so good about them. And this is why we would need maths and the ability to understand it, and without maths this is all just a big talk, where you guys pat each others on the back for discovering big scientific truths unbeknownst to the rest of the foolish humanity. (To be clear: I barely know divisions and would NOT understand the math required to discuss these topic to the level necessary to "debunk" them).
Again, the above goes for Simon's "grand project" or any similar thing discussed here.
Dear Nonho,

This time I'll have to disagree a bit with you - but it's all good, we're not here to agree with everything - or much less to pat each others' backs. See, as I see it, this forum is all about pointing out / detecting or, in any case, researching to the best of our capacities the many, shall we say, 'distorted realities' we have been fed with throughout our lives. Of course, media fakery is the top / foremost concern here - and one that most directly affects our daily lives. As I often say, I'm actually 'grateful for the 9/11 mass deception' - since the utter fiasco that it was has opened up the little (and formerly all-too-confused) universe contained in my brain. If you think about it, the only 'universe' that truly matters to each one of us, is the one encapsuled in our cerebral hemispheres. Yet, we're told that only the brains moulded - and rewarded - by our 'best' universities are capable (and should be trusted) to construe, formulate and establish valid, scientific facts.

I don't believe you, or rather, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by stating that "you would NOT understand the math required to discuss these [astronomical] topics to the level necessary to debunk them". Yet, and to be perfectly honest, I remember thinking along these lines myself - as I timidly started my self-tuition in astronomy about three / four years ago. "What on Earth" - I remember asking myself - "are you hoping to achieve here, Simon?" Truth be told, I didn't hope to achieve anything else than satisfying my own curiosity - and just kept delving with increasing interest into the astronomical field, its literature, math, acquired observational data - and its seemingly endless & almost mind-numbing controversies and contradictions. At no point in this learning-journey of mine would I have, in my wildest dreams, imagined that I would have bumped into any damning, crystal-clear proof / evidence showing that the currently accepted Copernican solar system model is - mathematically and geometrically - outright impossible. Yet, this is precisely what has happened.

I know, some will say: "oh my, Simon has finally gone off his rockers!" - while others may say: "hey, stop rolling those drums - get down and publish your darn findings!" Well, as I trust you'll appreciate, Nonho, I am in the (time-consuming) process of double/triple/quadruple checking my maths and geometry - so as to duly comply with the scientific / academic standards required for any such 'ambitious' intellectual enterprise. However, one thing I can assure you of, is that the maths involved are well within the reach of a sharp high-school student. Besides, the universally acclaimed royal mathematician (namely, Johannes Kepler) - the man responsible for having 'ground in stone' the Copernican model with his three "laws of planetary motion" - has long been suspected or/and exposed for a long list of 'misdemeanors', such as data theft / fudging / falsification - and even of murder by poisoning (of his 'master' Tycho Brahe). In other words, this entire world (and its scientific community) is currently embracing the "established and untouchable" mathematical conclusions (as to the celestial mechanics & geometry of our cosmos) of a rogue miscreant.

In any event, I think my findings will speak for themselves and, even if I won't succeed in showing convincingly that the Tychonian model is the closest to the truth / reality of our cosmos, I'm confident that I can demonstrably prove that the Copernican/ Keplerian model is not only wrong - but quite simply impossible. This will at least give us a 'clean sheet' from which to start afresh our noble pursuit of understanding our 'solar stystem' - and do away with the distorted reality in which the 'Copernican revolution' has entrapped us all.
bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by bostonterrierowner »

nonhocapito wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:
ShaneG wrote:NASA pictures of a round Earth from space are fake, everyone on this site is in agreement on this; therefore I have no idea why people think that the Earth is a giant ball - considering the fakery that we've been presented with by these jokers.

Convex, concave, or flat, I really don't know; but I'm less inclined to believe that it looks the way that NASA tells us - for obvious reasons.
Thank you. And I think that roundly sums it up.
Sums up what? The only thing it sums up is that the research on 9/11 and media fakery is bound to die smashed on this flat earth of yours.

...why people think that the Earth is a giant ball...? let me think... Maybe because there are four seasons? Winds along the equator? A magnetic field? Because everything else in space appears to be round? Because otherwise where does the Sun go? and how can there be nights on earth? and how can there be timezones? and different stars in different hemispheres? And where would this flat earth sit? on another flat surface sitting on another flat surface? Or there is a turtle somewhere?
Or should I say, oh blasphemy, because of Eratosthenes and all the others after him? Loads of people who lived across the centuries and had more patience, method, intellectual honesty and curiosity than any of us?

But it's not even that: as I pointed out several times, I might even be intrigued by a speculative discussion on this topic: but it's the pointlessness of this whole enterprise, of wanting to prove this idea wrong on this forum, by replacing it with a bunch of flawed, unprovable ideas that are ultimately much more unsatisfactory, suffocating, limited visions of the cosmos!

Even Dante, who imagined a universe almost as suffocating as the one you guys imagine (but with a lot more meaning and poetry, at least), did not even bother with the idea of a flat earth. Nobody actually ever bothered with it except very ignorant people or people with an agenda...

And of course, it'll never come a day when anything of this sort is proved anywhere but in a scientific setting: but even so, it would not make the world one iota more meaningful or clear, and we all know this. There are better ways to prove NASA wrong ffs...!

Stopping us is bothersome, so here comes this sabotage: engulfing everything here with a fog of concave-flat earth discussion, managing to make it basically counter-productive to expose anything on this website: knowing it will be instantly made meaningless by sitting next to the umpteen imitation of the "the flat earth society"!
Earth being a ball would be the easiest thing to prove because all it takes is taking a fucking picture :) For some reason we have none. Anyways I have to strongly disagree with you when it comes to the way you react to "flat earth theory" . We don't have sacred cows topics here on CF , and unfortunatelly I can sense some dogmatism on your side in regards to this subject.

Debate, debunk, disprove but DO NOT try to kill it just because it fucks with your mental model too much.

p.s.

4 seasons, time zones, daylight/darkness do not prove that earth is spherical . What if sun is way smaller than we were told ? I am not flat earther I just don't like this attitude in handling this subject. This being told please do not take it personally!
Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Unread post by Selene »

simonshack wrote:Dear Nonho,

This time I'll have to disagree a bit with you - but it's all good, we're not here to agree with everything - or much less to pat each others' backs.
And here I agree for 101%. And deserved pats should be given, I'd say. B)
Yet, we're told that only the brains moulded - and rewarded - by our 'best' universities are capable (and should be trusted) to construe, formulate and establish true, scientific facts.
Simon, I am curious to hear what you define as "scientific fact"?

In my humble opinion, facts are facts, no matter the way you look at them. Looking at facts scientifically is an established well-working method of analysing facts, not establishing them. They are established by Gaia, Selene and all the others, producing our majestic skies, we're just observers and wonderers, as I see it.
Yet, and to be perfectly honest, I remember thinking along these lines myself - as I timidly started my self-tuition in astronomy about three / four years ago. "What on Earth" - I remember asking myself - "are you hoping to achieve here, Simon?" Truth be told, I didn't hope to achieve anything else than satisfying my own curiosity - and just kept delving with increasing interest into the astronomical field, its literature, math, acquired observational data - and its seemingly endless & almost mind-numbing controversies and contradictions.
Your studies are by me most admired and I am eager to see your work coming, Simon. Don't fear a slightly different angle from my side. But no worries, I am not defending any model; as I said, if your model explains all observations, the validity of the model is proven.

Reading more about these models, I am amazed that it is even possible that so many models can explain such in my eyes sensitive and complex things like celestial movements of which the results we can see clearly happening.

That ancient cultures according to popular history -which we know is corrupted, the question remains how far- were able to predict solar and lunar eclipses with any model they had and that we present day humans have to rely on NASapps, is pretty unsatisfying.
At no point in this learning-journey of mine would I have, in my wildest dreams, imagined that I would have bumped into any damning, crystal-clear proof / evidence showing that the currently accepted Copernican solar system model is - mathematically and geometrically - outright impossible. Yet, this is precisely what has happened.
If this is really the case, you have an Earth shaking, heavens switching, potentially dangerous discovery, Mr. Simon Nikola Tycho Shack...

Are you ready to be kept under shackled house arrest for the rest of your life in this modest, poor, miserable, inhumane, horrible, depressing prison? :huh:

Image

The Torre del Gallo (Cock Tower :huh: ) where Galileo Galilei allegedly spent his house arrest after publicizing his findings, close to Firenze
I know, some will say: "oh my, Simon has finally gone off his rockers!" - while others may say: "hey, stop rolling those drums - get down and publish your darn findings!" Well, as I trust you'll appreciate, Nonho, I am in the (time-consuming) process of double/triple/quadruple checking my maths and geometry - so as to duly comply with the scientific / academic standards required for any such 'ambitious' intellectual enterprise. However, one thing I can assure you of, is that the maths involved are perfectly within the reach of a sharp high-school student.
Simon, do you have astronomer friends or people to check your calculations and findings?
How is the attitude amongst the many many (amateur) astronomers against other models? There must be freethinking, NAScams-realising astronomers "out there", right? Especially if the(ir) observations also fit in different models?

Some peer review amongst people who -with all due respect for your self study- have more insight and knowledge in certain areas without being spoilt be pre-conceived "religulous" views would certainly help boost both your confidence and your credibility.

We can wait. Hardly, but, yes, we can*. B)

*any support of abused catchphrases used by used rockstarred pUSppets of any used skin colour is not intended...
Besides, the universally acclaimed royal mathematician (namely, Johannes Kepler) - the man responsible for having 'ground in stone' the Copernican model with his three "laws of planetary motion" - has long been suspected or/and exposed for a long list of misdemeanors, such as data theft / fudging / falsification - and even of murder by poisoning (of his 'master' Tycho Brahe). In other words, this entire world (and its scientific community) is currently embracing the "established and untouchable" mathematical conclusions (as to the nature & geometry of our cosmos) of a rogue miscreant.
It is not a very strong scientific argument however, and it would mean all astronomers in the world (including those who heatshield themselves wisely from the NAScheisse) would be part of a "Kepler-Copernican-Galileo-Newtonian" cult, religion, etc.

If Kepler was not so world shocking and the consequent findings (thanks to?) the Copernican model can easily be explained by earlier other models (Ptolemean, Tychonian, maya?, inca?, Indian, Chinese, Persian, Arabic, Egyptian, etc.), then wouldn't you expect many more protesting astronomers? Not because they would support "The Church", but neither because they'd support this new "Copernican cult"?

History is of course poor in those people (to us) as it's biased by the 9/11-plotting people. And prints are easily destroyed. It would still be interesting to see how many freethinking (or as much as possible) (historic) astronomers can be used as back-up for your findings. That would make your case also stronger.
In any event, I think my findings will speak for themselves and, even if I won't succeed in showing convincingly that the Tychonian model is the closest to the truth / reality of our cosmos, I'm confident that I can demonstrably prove that the Copernican/ Keplerian model is not only wrong - but quite simply impossible.
All based on high school physics that would mean all (except the ones stated above, guys and gals, speak up!) astronomers are complete fools (I consider them far beyond my capacities of grasping the maths, so no) or shocking shills (all of them, including the amateurs??), which I find an amazingly hard nut to crack, but Simon, feel free to try!
This will at least give us a 'clean sheet' from which to start afresh our noble pursuit of understanding our 'solar stystem' - and do away with the distorted reality in which the 'Copernican revolution' has entrapped us all.
What nonho mentioned in the sense that it is not "the NASA model" versus other models, is also what holds here a bit. Entrapped all those smart astronomers? I'd be amazed.

The discussion diverts a bit from what is at least in my opinion the most nasty point, and your recent research on the NASA-link between it and thus the fishyness and "UFOlogy" of it, is Flat Earth.

That is in my modest geological opinion a position which is unbearable and good luck with explaining allll the research of the Earth.

1 or 2 points about light houses you can see for 80 miles (or what do they talk about) really do not stand up against all the geological, geochemical, geophysical research on the planet which would become amazingly complex to explain...

I am sure many scientists are reading Cluesforum and liking the good research on the Media and Space Fakeries. Nothing as foolish as guilty by association, but does Cluesforum want to be a platform where the Established Research is intermixed with musings about the Earth?

To keep UFOlogy and Creationism out of the door is a good thing, to wonder about different celestial systems on the forum I think as well. IMO, Flat Earth belongs in the out of the door categories.

What about a division in the forum:

Established Research (or any other name, just suggesting)
9/11, Nuke Hoax, Space Hoaxes, Boston, Sandy Hoax, etc. etc. etc.

Freethinking Research about the Earth and other sciences
Celestial systems, Dino Hoax (hmm...), Gravity, Einstein & other gods, etc.

Now, a topic about the completely established Apollo Hoax and other NAScams has the same "status" as the idea of Flat Earth, which by your findings is NASA-promoted.... :wacko:

That would spoil the soup, which is so rich in tasty content

Selene
Post Reply