The Last Man on the Moon - Page 11 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Last Man on the Moon


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

Thought I'd copy Ally's posts to the non-religious thread...

 

 

I wonder what kind of influence the gravity of those objects being so close together will have? Could be a fairly turbulent solar system!

 

 

Gravity, come on, how many times have we got to go through this, stuff falls.FFS.

  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

Thought I'd copy Ally's posts to the non-religious thread...

 

 

I wonder what kind of influence the gravity of those objects being so close together will have? Could be a fairly turbulent solar system!

 

 

They'll be millions of miles away from each other surely? They just truncate distances for the purpose of illustration as a scale model would be ridiculous looking.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Buzz Killington lol

Aye here is some perspective

Planets

Fair enough looking that. I'd picked it up wrong earlier and thought all 7 planets were within the "Goldilocks zone" around a much smaller star than our own....

Posted
8 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Fair enough looking that. I'd picked it up wrong earlier and thought all 7 planets were within the "Goldilocks zone" around a much smaller star than our own....

Did you just see the 'Goldilocks' bit on the news too? ?

Posted

They're still very close together all things considered. I'm amazed it's a stable system, but the inner four planets I think have a resonance in their orbits due to the proximity. It's fascinating.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Mindimoo said:

Did you just see the 'Goldilocks' bit on the news too? ?

Ha! Yes, I knew the term but it was a timely reminder :) 

Posted
5 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Dunno. I never actually saw them. From the description they sounded quite nasty. 

That's too bad.

You were one of the main people I was directing the post at.

You were sarcastically making light of "those poor oppressed Christians" in regard to me bringing attention to the Christian genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Christians_by_ISIL and I responded by saying "here... make fun of this... "

WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTOS (RAW) - ISIS begins killing Christians in Mosul, CHILDREN BEHEADED

http://www.catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=56481

On 2/9/2017 at 5:29 PM, Mindimoo said:

Why did he not get a ban for those graphic images?

What's worse... Mocking genocide, or proving genocide to a mocker?

5 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Personally I took it as a bit of a win.

Live with your post. (God help you.)

Posted
7 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Thought I'd copy Ally's posts to the non-religious thread...

I appreciate that.

Best to pat each other on the back re: the latest satanic CGI deceptions over here.

(There's no such thing as 'light years' btw.)

5 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Fair enough looking that. I'd picked it up wrong earlier and thought all 7 planets were within the "Goldilocks zone" around a much smaller star than our own....

"It's a class 'M' planet, Captain."

320x240.jpg

Posted

Saying there's no such thing as light years is the same as saying there's no such thing as miles or inches. You may believe that nothing exists that far away, but it is still nothing more nor less than a measure of distance.

Posted
4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

(There's no such thing as 'light years' btw.)

 

What do you mean by that? Light travels at a particular speed (I've measured that myself) and a light year is the distance it'd travel in one year. 

Posted

Since Scotty bases his cosmology on Genesis chapter 1, I imagine that his position would be that the firmament is closer to earth than one light year. Hence it's a distance that can't be travelled. All evidence that counters this is fake.

The problem (well, one of the problems) with basing one's cosmology on Genesis, is that the book (along with a number of others in the Bible) is evidently a compilation of texts based on sources that came from different traditions. For example, at Genesis chapter 2 verse 4, we suddenly get a different name for God (a switch from Elohim to Yahweh), and this switch coincides with a different version of the creation of Adam and Eve. This would make no sense if we were dealing with the word of God; it makes perfect sense if we're dealing with a book that's a compilation of man-made texts.

Posted
52 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Since Scotty bases his cosmology on Genesis chapter 1, I imagine that his position would be that the firmament is closer to earth than one light year. Hence it's a distance that can't be travelled. All evidence that counters this is fake.

The problem (well, one of the problems) with basing one's cosmology on Genesis, is that the book (along with a number of others in the Bible) is evidently a compilation of texts based on sources that came from different traditions. For example, at Genesis chapter 2 verse 4, we suddenly get a different name for God (a switch from Elohim to Yahweh), and this switch coincides with a different version of the creation of Adam and Eve. This would make no sense if we were dealing with the word of God; it makes perfect sense if we're dealing with a book that's a compilation of man-made texts.

That doesn't mean that a light year doesn't exist. It means that there's nothing that exists that is that size. The concept of something larger can still exist, it's just a unit of measurement. It's like saying a metre doesn't exist.

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, biffer said:

That doesn't mean that a light year doesn't exist. It means that there's nothing that exists that is that size. The concept of something larger can still exist, it's just a unit of measurement. It's like saying a metre doesn't exist.

 

I accept that, I was just playing 'Predict the response' - although on past form it was perhaps more likely that you were going to get no response at all.

Since Scotty's default position on counter-evidence based on physics is that it's been faked, I just wonder if things might not be a little less predictable if we also interrogate the one source of knowledge that he believes can't be faked ... I'm still waiting for the explanation of how God inscribed the Earth as a circle on the waters in Isaiah (I think), yet this circle has four corners in Revelation.

 

 

Posted
33 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I accept that, I was just playing 'Predict the response' - although on past form it was perhaps more likely that you were going to get no response at all.

Since Scotty's default position on counter-evidence based on physics is that it's been faked, I just wonder if things might not be a little less predictable if we also interrogate the one source of knowledge that he believes can't be faked ... I'm still waiting for the explanation of how God inscribed the Earth as a circle on the waters in Isaiah (I think), yet this circle has four corners in Revelation.

 

 

Yeah I know you were doing that, it's easy to predict sometimes isn't it? I'd like an explanation of how we had holographic / CGI projection 100 years ago to fake all this.

Posted

Don't know if anyone's seen anything from the 'NASA Travel Agency' before, but they knock up fantasy travel posters like you used to get in the first half of the 20th Century for planets and exoplanets etc. They've already done one for Trappist-1

_94800971_mediaitem94800970.jpg

Posted
32 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

You do realise that someone will be along very soon to 'analyse' the imagery in those.

Hope so, that'll be fun.

Posted

Hmm so if moon landing were hoaxed as is space travel then please explain why NASA would claim responsibility for the many astronaut deaths? The Challenger disaster, the astronauts who died when their rocket burst into flames on launch pad in the sixties and others that died in test launches etc.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...