Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Toepoke

The Last Man on the Moon

Recommended Posts

On 1/25/2017 at 3:11 PM, Huddersfield said:

Taking this as a face value question, you can see it spinning from the links given above, but as a whole; no. That's for several reasons but I think the main one is that a satellite couldn't hold (or more accurately be held in) an orbital position that far from Earth.

By seeing a bunch at once, do you mean from space? Again no (generally) because they are kept sizeable distances apart for obvious reasons.

I remember seeing the space shuttle following the ISS from my back garden a while ago which was beautiful...2 silent dots in the sky tracking each other, then vanishing when they went into the Earths shadow. From Earth, if you track a geostationary satellite, you can use long exposure in a dark environment such as these: 

http://home.clara.net/robertkeddie/Astro/geo.htm

There are over 2000 man-made satellites in orbit, plus any number of bits of space junk.

 

It's entirely possible to stick a satellite in a solar orbit and point it back to earth to demonstrate this, but the question is why would you do it? We know the earth is spinning because of all sorts of other measurements and effects - e.g. the Coriolis effect, which just wouldn't happen if we weren't spinning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, biffer said:

It's entirely possible to stick a satellite in a solar orbit and point it back to earth to demonstrate this, but the question is why would you do it? 

Proof... with nothing to hide.

5 hours ago, biffer said:

 We know the earth is spinning...

You 'believe' the earth is spinning....

5 hours ago, biffer said:

... because of all sorts of other measurements and effects - e.g. the Coriolis effect, which just wouldn't happen if we weren't spinning.

The Coriolis effect is just a theory (with only pseudoscience proclaiming it as 'fact').

What are your thoughts on an aether being responsible for 'movement'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

Proof... with nothing to hide.

You 'believe' the earth is spinning....

The Coriolis effect is just a theory (with only pseudoscience proclaiming it as 'fact').

What are your thoughts on an aether being responsible for 'movement'?

Aother load of pish purporting to be an enquiring mind. The bible claims the earth is stationary, so you're looking for any old pish theory to support the pish contained in the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's a difference between what we think we know and what actually is, then it should be explored.

"Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me."

George Orwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

If there's a difference between what we think we know and what actually is, then it should be explored.

"Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me."

George Orwell

 

I've been a student & fan of Orwell most of my adult life & I can almost hear him turning in his grave at that abuse of his writing. Your citation is typical of Orwell's style of writing; he was fond of playing with concepts of human understanding and the use of language to manipulate thought and political belief. You take that paragraph out of context; he goes on to demonstrate precisely why he believes the Earth IS 'round'(ish), and you utterly misunderstand the core of Orwell's belief system.

May I also draw your attention to another of his quotes:

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a criminal organization with 2 sets of books.

The (secret) first book contains the real numbers of their ill-gained profit.

The second book contains the doctored set of numbers that is submitted to the government for tax purposes.

Now, lets say that we went through school believing what we were taught from a doctored 'book'.

The education system (for example) teaches that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth.

I have no idea if that is true or not.

I can't verify that on my own, but what if it is disinformation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Now, lets say that we went through school believing what we were taught from a doctored 'book'.

 

 

We did

It's called the Bible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

I've been a student & fan of Orwell most of my adult life & I can almost hear him turning in his grave at that abuse of his writing.

There's no need to be melodramatic. It was my way of simply asking why the layperson all too often puts his faith in those claiming to have the answers. 

31 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

"Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me."

George Orwell

The last part is the reason for posting the quote, as I (for one) refuse to be brow-beated into accepting the theories of scientism as fact. Orwell was asking 'why' (and so was I).

12 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

May I also draw your attention to another of his quotes:

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is".

Ironically, you think you nailed it, but you blew it.

You are convinced I'm religious in the same way that you are convinced in the other 'truths' you accept.

You would be mistaken on both counts.

(I hate religion.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it every religion you hate or every religion apart from yours ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ally Bongo said:

Is it every religion you hate or every religion apart from yours ?

I don't have a religion, I have a faith.

Religion says 'do', but my faith says 'done'.

Religion is external 'works' while my faith is only an internal change to the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

We did

It's called the Bible

I went to a secular public school.

Did you go to a religious Roman Catholic school?

(Please explain 'We'.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

I went to a secular public school.

Did you go to a religious Roman Catholic school?

(Please explain 'We'.)

Me too

No

Whilst at primary many moons ago there was still such a thing as Church Sunday school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But not part of the formal education system that I was referring to.

So, which denomination was the Sunday school, and what translation (if any) was used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

But not part of the formal education system that I was referring to.

So, which denomination was the Sunday school, and what translation (if any) was used?

Church of Scotland

It was 40 years ago ......... King James English presumably with all the bad bits left out

Edited by Ally Bongo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

Could you have figured out those calculations by yourself?

(They are definitely above my head.)

How would you go about verifying those calculations?

Could you?

 

The calculations are basic trig. so unless you doubt that you can calculate the square on the hypotenuse from the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a triangle, then you're fine. The data points on which those calculations are based may have been a bit iffy (indeed they were, hence the inaccuracy), but the calculation itself is straightforward. That's the weird thing about Mathematics - it's an area of knowledge that contains self-evident truths, unlike the natural sciences, or faith-based beliefs.

I admire those who have faith in a metaphysical entity (let's call her God), in way I rather envy them (provided it's a faith that doesn't harm others etc etc etc), but metaphysical faith and science are separate discourses and can't be discussed effectively using the same tools. Science (at least since Popper though many pointed this out long before) is based on doubt. If it doesn't throw up testable, predictive hypotheses then it's not science. The distance to the sun has been tested many times and in many different ways since the transit of Venus was used to gather trig points. Faith in God doesn't work like that (though faith in a book does leave itself open to bibliographical study which does have connections to science). 'Scientific truth' is always contingent and has to be falsifiable; 'faith-based truth' doesn't work like that so there's not a lot of point arguing about it. However, when folk confuse the two, argue way ... you won't get anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

Church of Scotland

It was 40 years ago ......... King James English presumably with all the bad bits left out

(I'm not sure what that means.)

The King James was doctored? How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

(I'm not sure what that means.)

The King James was doctored? How?

You are either being obtuse or need to do a bit of research into the scriptures that were made into the bible and how the King James version differs

"For a complete picture of what the earliest Christians “knew” about Jesus, the books of the New Testament are not enough. One also needs to read the books that did not make it into Scripture, books written by and for Christians to convey what, in the authors’ opinions, were the true views of the Christian faith. Some of these books contain ideas and perspectives that Christians today may regard as strange, or even heretical. Other readers will find them historically valuable and even scintillating. However they are judged today, at one time they were considered by some of Jesus’ followers to be sacred Scripture".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

You are either being obtuse or need to do a bit of research into the scriptures that were made into the bible and how the King James version differs

"For a complete picture of what the earliest Christians “knew” about Jesus, the books of the New Testament are not enough. One also needs to read the books that did not make it into Scripture, books written by and for Christians to convey what, in the authors’ opinions, were the true views of the Christian faith. Some of these books contain ideas and perspectives that Christians today may regard as strange, or even heretical. Other readers will find them historically valuable and even scintillating. However they are judged today, at one time they were considered by some of Jesus’ followers to be sacred Scripture".

Have your got a link to where you referenced that from?  Would like to read more. (Apologies if you've linked before).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

The calculations are basic trig.

The calculations assume 3 spheres.

43 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Science (at least since Popper though many pointed this out long before) is based on doubt. 

If only.

Your scientism is based on assumed calculations that have been shoe-horned to fit the 'no one times nothing equals everything' propaganda.

47 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

If it doesn't throw up testable, predictive hypotheses then it's not science. 

Like evolution.

37 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Scientific truth' is always contingent and has to be falsifiable; 'faith-based truth' doesn't work like that so there's not a lot of point arguing about it. However, when folk confuse the two, argue way ... you won't get anywhere.

I know the difference.

You are purposely trying to muddy the waters by introducing a strawman. 

Firstly, faux science, pseudoscience, and scientism try to pass themselves off as scientific truth. They say things are facts when they are not.

Widely accepted by scientism does not a fact make.

if it were a fact (provable) then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

You are either being obtuse or need to do a bit of research into the scriptures that were made into the bible and how the King James version differs

Differs from what? 

Only canon made it into Scripture.

I don't understand your point, regardless.

So, if there were a few more books in the Bible then you would believe it?

(How are the rejected books important to you?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×