The Last Man on the Moon - Page 5 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Last Man on the Moon


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Seriously?

"As it turns out, Jesus was a mischievous young fellow and had a bit of a temper. Whenever someone irritates him — a rough playmate or a strict teacher — he uses his supernatural power to wither him on the spot."

(Viz?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours 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

And thats exactly the point. You know what actually is 100% without doubt and that's that the earth is stationary and you know that 100% without doubt because the bible tells you that. All the requests for evidence and proof of a rotating earth are entirely futile as they must be wrong and one of the wacko alternative theories must be right because the earth is stationary, the bible says it is.

I presume all  the satellite and the man on the moon questions are based on the same idea that the bible says it's impossible for satellites to orbit the earth and for man to put a man on the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

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?)

Rather than type it out - here is a 4 minutes abridged taster

 

Edited by Ally Bongo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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'?

The Coriolis effect is not just a theory, it's pretty straightforward to derive if you know the maths. It accounts for the fact that if you are in a rotating reference frame, an object does not move in an entirely straight line. 

If an aether was responsible for movement we would notice changes in the laws of motion depending on which direction we were moving relative to the aether, which we don't, so it's not there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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?

 

I've been through all of it from first principles. Anyone can do it if they're prepared to put the effort in, as the maths involved isn't actually anything beyond high school. But most people aren't prepared to do that and fall back on lazy metaphors instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

And thats exactly the point. You know what actually is 100% without doubt and that's that the earth is stationary and you know that 100% without doubt because the bible tells you that. All the requests for evidence and proof of a rotating earth are entirely futile as they must be wrong and one of the wacko alternative theories must be right because the earth is stationary, the bible says it is.

I presume all  the satellite and the man on the moon questions are based on the same idea that the bible says it's impossible for satellites to orbit the earth and for man to put a man on the moon.

I would recommend questioning everything, and thinking outside the box.

One has a better chance of knowing whether or not they are being deceived if they ask that question.

Are things as they seem?

Are the 'facts' being presented actually facts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

I would recommend questioning everything, and thinking outside the box.

One has a better chance of knowing whether or not they are being deceived if they ask that question.

Are things as they seem?

Are the 'facts' being presented actually facts?

 

Have you done this with your faith ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

I would recommend questioning everything, and thinking outside the box.

One has a better chance of knowing whether or not they are being deceived if they ask that question.

Are things as they seem?

Are the 'facts' being presented actually facts?

 

I don't give a flying fcuk to what you would recommend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Orraloon said:

What is your definition of "dark"?

Embracing ignorance... deception... lacking truth... happy with a 'don't want to know' attitude...

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

Apparently not when your location on Earth is rotated away from the sun.

I've only put a couple of hundred hours into this (compared to the thousands and thousands of hours put into JFK and 9/11). I still have lots of questions...

Apparently, we can book flights that fly over the North Pole, but we can't book flights that fly over 'a South Pole'.

Flights from one point below the Equator (for example, Johanesburg) in South Africa to another point below the Equator (for example, Santiago, Chile) in South America always fly through distant points North of the Equator.

Why is that?

Why no direct non-stop shortcuts?

Why not a straightforward 11 hour flight instead of an 18+ hour flight?

There is no 'South Pole' in the masonic United Nations flag.

UNFlag33.jpg

(Truth hidden in plain sight?)

 

 

Edited by Scotty CTA
Added a link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Embracing ignorance... deception... lacking truth... happy with a 'don't want to know' attitude...

I've only put a couple of hundred hours into this

 

 

Maybe spend a few minutes looking at Eratosthenes - it would save you a lot of time ...

On 04/02/2017 at 1:23 AM, Scotty CTA said:

Like evolution.

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.

 

Evolutionary biology is riddled with doubts and there are real problems, in my view, with speciation. Competing models are being produced all the time. No one who understands the subject would make valid claims of "scientific truth" even in the broadest, contingent sense (which is the only sense that's valid). Genetics as a mechanism for the inheritance of traits, however, has been tested again and again. Evolutionary biology is falsifiable, Creationism is not. Hence, Creationism is a pseudo-science; Evolutionary biology is not.

I've been accused of muddying waters on here before, in various contexts. I'm actually seeking clarity. The problem is, perhaps, that reality is 'muddy' and not the neat black-and-white dichotomy that some on here wish.

If recent events have highlighted anything it's that the word 'fact' has no defined meaning. Like many important terms, semantic slippage undermines attempts at using it to further an argument. If the word 'fact' is used in an undefined sense, then it lacks any valid point.

I mentioned earlier that I rather admire many who profess a faith. This is partly because an awareness of the metaphysical seems to me often to signify an open mind. Your stance, however, is one of closed-minded negation. Your position is that we are victims of a conspiracy to which the entire worldwide scientific community (and any school kid with a grasp of trigonometry) is party. This position is inherently absurd. Tennyson came up with this: "Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt, and cling to faith beyond the forms of faith." The former seems to me as important as the latter.

Edited by DonnyTJS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

Maybe spend a few minutes looking at Eratosthenes - it would save you a lot of time ...

Ach, sorry, that's me putting the cart before the horse there. Eratosthenes used basic geometry to give a very good estimate of the circumference of the Earth on the assumption that the Earth was a sphere. He, like his contemporaries, believed this through observing ships gradually disappearing over the horizon and the like.

Which reminds me of this Stephen Jay Gould article

The notion that the Earth is flat is relatively recent and I would assume, therefore, there's nothing unambiguously in favour of the idea in the Bible (given the Bible's use of metaphor).

As for geocentricity, I read somewhere that the Ptolemaic use of planetary epicycles, in sufficient number, to explain retrograde motion as observed from a stationary Earth is unfalsifiable - use enough of 'em in your geocentric model and it will work. The problem being that it's incredibly complex, unlike the simple beauty of Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Occam's Razor and all that.

 

Edited by DonnyTJS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

There is no 'South Pole' in the masonic United Nations flag.

UNFlag33.jpg

(Truth hidden in plain sight?)

 

 

OK let's say that the world is flat and that all pictures and video from space etc are faked. 

Why bother? Who gains anything from saying the world is a sphere? Why not just say the world is flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

So what does the sun do from November to February when it's permanent daylight in Antarctica?

 

A better question would be where does the sun go ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...