[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[Strangelove]

So now it's a 'perfect vacuum' and not just a 'vacuum'? How 'perfect' do you want it to be?

So perfect that there is nothing at all in it. Which is impossible because the container will be giving off photons constantly. So this vacuum argument is gettting rather...um.....vacuous ;) from your end.

It still remains the case that the contents of a hard-vacuum type vacuum type and a vacuum chamber in a lab most definitely do not contain anything like the imaginary aether that, no matter how hard it was searched for, could not be found. How closely do the contents of these vacuums correspond with this description again?

...it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets.

Lolz...that description could be anything. A fluid thats massless and without viscosity?? Lolz.....its just............................stuff.

 

[Strangelove]

By 'real scientific evidence', I guess you mean nothing that would contradict your assertion? I guess you don't like the Foucault pendulum?

By all means bring forth my good friend Monsieur Leon Foucault. I will be happy to address his funky pendulum in great detail.

Bizarre. How do you suppose that, when one of the Apollo missions was travelling to the Moon at nearly 40,000 kph and the astronauts floated free in the capsule or juggled with various pieces of kit, the kit didn't zip across the length of the spacecraft and they didn't get smeared into paste against the rear bulkhead?

It didnt happen. There was no moon mission. Well...not unless you count the one that occured on a sound set.

LOLZ! Believe it or not this is an actual NASA picture from their archives of the moon lander IN FLIGHT......TAKEN FROM THE MOON!! LOLZ!

Yeah Right! People were so gullible in the 60's eh? How 'bout 2010? :yes

 

[Strangelove]

Except that it corresponds with no version of the general thrust of scientific research and investigation.

Thats cos the general thrust of scientific research and investigation is......theoretical. Not real. Science falsely so called. That which we are expressely told in the Bible not to commit to our trust.

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Unless you have a different interp. of these verses?​

 

[lordkalvan]

By Jove! I think you got it. Its just....... "stuff" that acts as a medium for light. Rather than..........nothing.

I mean.....do you think that scientists 100 years ago went up into space and took a sample of it and analysed it before they did their experiments. No. They just new "it" was there becasue light travels in space.

Except that neither you nor they have determined that light 'needs' any such medium to move through, and certainly nothing like the luminiferous aether was hypothesized to be (as described briefly above) bears any relation to interplanetary and interstellar space as we can observe it. As light can, simply put, behave like both a wave and a particle, and as particles do not 'need' a medium through which to travel (which is why the less dense something is the faster particles travel through it), we would expect to see light move faster through a vacuum than through air (which is what we do observe) and so clearly they 'knew' wrong.

 

[lordkalvan]

So perfect that there is nothing at all in it. Which is impossible because the container will be giving off photons constantly. So this vacuum argument is gettting rather...um.....vacuous ;) from your end.

And your argument is getting more and more convoluted. Are you now suggesting that the luminiferous aether of old is nothing more than light itself?

Lolz...that description could be anything. A fluid thats massless and without viscosity?? Lolz.....its just............................stuff.

It's good that you can see to what absurd lengths the luminiferous aether proponents had to go to in order to do all the things it was supposed to do. Your argument seems to have devolved to saying that whatever is 'in' space can be conveniently labelled 'just like' aether and thus you can claim that the aether hypothesis is validated. I don't think so.

 

[lordkalvan]

By all means bring forth my good friend Monsieur Leon Foucault. I will be happy to address his funky pendulum in great detail.

You mean in the same 'great detail' as your 'particularly concise and very telling' rebuttal of the implications of stellar parallax? If you're so familiar with the case of Foucault's pendulum, perhaps you should just cut straight to the chase and tell us why the inferences drawn from the experiment are awry?

It didnt happen. There was no moon mission. Well...not unless you count the one that occured on a sound set.

Now why did I think you were going to say that? Did you know that I have fairies and pixies living in the woods near my house?

LOLZ! Believe it or not this is an actual NASA picture from their archives of the moon lander IN FLIGHT......TAKEN FROM THE MOON!! LOLZ!

Yeah Right! People were so gullible in the 60's eh? How 'bout 2010? :yes

I have no idea what you are talking about in respect of the photo of the LEM you posted. From what little I can see, the surface of the moon appears to be behind and below the module, which would suggest the photo was not taken from the Moon at all. Is this your point? Whatever, perhaps you would also like to give a run out to the 'missing crosshairs' and 'no stars in the photos' canards as well?

 

[lordkalvan]

Thats cos the general thrust of scientific research and investigation is......theoretical. Not real. Science falsely so called. That which we are expressely told in the Bible not to commit to our trust.

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Unless you have a different interp. of these verses?​

I am intrigued that you think science research is entirely theoretical and has no practical aspect at all. I guess researchers getting down and dirty in practical work associated with their speciality are just making stuff up to brag about in the SCRs.

As pointed out before, 'science' is not the translation used in all versions of the Bible. The Latin word from which it is derived means 'knowledge' and I would consider that this could be an equally valid translation, in which case the reference could be taken to be inveighing against rival sects, for example. However, assuming you are correct for the sake of argument, it then becomes a matter of purely subjective judgement (in lines with preferred biases) as to what constitutes 'false science'.

Whatever the case, however, this is quite irrelevant to evaluating the worth of particular hypotheses, experiments and evidence, unless you can show that Paul specifically refers to science falsely showing that Earth is not stationary or something similar. Of course, one would then have to consider his credentials for asserting such a thing with sufficient authority to be convincing.

 

[Strangelove]

Except that neither you nor they have determined that light 'needs' any such medium to move through, and certainly nothing like the luminiferous aether was hypothesized to be (as described briefly above) bears any relation to interplanetary and interstellar space as we can observe it.

We dont need to determine it. It's a given. There is something in space. We are all agreed on that are we not? Space is made out of something?

Now, seeing as the old fasioned phrase "luminiferous aether" is described by Albert Michelson (a leading light in is field, pardon the pun) as "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science".......then I would say it most certainly can bear a relation to what we now call interplanetary and interstellar space. Unless you'd like to list the clear differences between them?

 

[Strangelove]

And your argument is getting more and more convoluted. Are you now suggesting that the luminiferous aether of old is nothing more than light itself?

No I'm suggesting its the stuff that carries light.

Your argument seems to have devolved to saying that whatever is 'in' space can be conveniently labelled 'just like' aether and thus you can claim that the aether hypothesis is validated.

There you go.

 

[Strangelove]

You mean in the same 'great detail' as your 'particularly concise and very telling' rebuttal of the implications of stellar parallax?

No, stellar parallax is simply circular reasoning. Foucault's pendulum which displays the effects of the Coriolis effect, can be explained in a Geocentric universe as well as a Heliocentric one. The only difference being that in the Helio model we are asked to believe that what we see with the pendulum is an illusion, whereas in the Geo model what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG).

If you're so familiar with the case of Foucault's pendulum, perhaps you should just cut straight to the chase and tell us why the inferences drawn from the experiment are awry?

Dont you think it would make sense if you explained how it supports a spinning Earth first? For the reader?

Now why did I think you were going to say that? Did you know that I have fairies and pixies living in the woods near my house?

Oh goody! Are their names Neil, Buzz and Michael. Did they give you a freemasonic handshake?

I have no idea what you are talking about in respect of the photo of the LEM you posted. From what little I can see, the surface of the moon appears to be behind and below the module, which would suggest the photo was not taken from the Moon at all. Is this your point? Whatever, perhaps you would also like to give a run out to the 'missing crosshairs' and 'no stars in the photos' canards as well?

Well, not only was it not taken from the moon (which begs the question who took it and from where?!) also there are no propulsion flames visible and the thing looks like a pile of JUNK! Lolz! Kalvan? Does that thing honestly look real to you?

 

[Strangelove]

I am intrigued that you think science research is entirely theoretical and has no practical aspect at all. I guess researchers getting down and dirty in practical work associated with their speciality are just making stuff up to brag about in the SCRs.

Hey, down and dirty and practical I'm all for. But the general thrust, and where all the major bucks are going is theoretical science. Which is quackery./////// 2

As pointed out before, 'science' is not the translation used in all versions of the Bible. The Latin word from which it is derived means 'knowledge' and I would consider that this could be an equally valid translation, in which case the reference could be taken to be inveighing against rival sects, for example. However, assuming you are correct for the sake of argument, it then becomes a matter of purely subjective judgement (in lines with preferred biases) as to what constitutes 'false science'.

Whatever the case, however, this is quite irrelevant to evaluating the worth of particular hypotheses, experiments and evidence, unless you can show that Paul specifically refers to science falsely showing that Earth is not stationary or something similar. Of course, one would then have to consider his credentials for asserting such a thing with sufficient authority to be convincing.

Ya....so....."science" & "knowledge" mean the same thing, so no need to mess around with translations really.

So what would you consider to be false knowledge / science as per that verse in Timmy? It's a Biblical question.

Your extremely determined to dodge that question. And my helicopter question too.

If you get in a helicopter on the equator and fly directly up and hover there for 1 hour......why is it, when you land, you are not 1000 miles from where you started?

 

[Oats]

Hey, down and dirty and practical I'm all for. But the general thrust, and where all the major bucks are going is theoretical science. Which is quackery./////// 2



Ya....so....."science" & "knowledge" mean the same thing, so no need to mess around with translations really.

So what would you consider to be false knowledge / science as per that verse in Timmy? It's a Biblical question.

Your extremely determined to dodge that question. And my helicopter question too.

If you get in a helicopter on the equator and fly directly up and hover there for 1 hour......why is it, when you land, you are not 1000 miles from where you started?

I appreciate every thing you have said as of yet...you are a brilliant individual...

 

[Oats]

Hey, down and dirty and practical I'm all for. But the general thrust, and where all the major bucks are going is theoretical science. Which is quackery./////// 2



Ya....so....."science" & "knowledge" mean the same thing, so no need to mess around with translations really.

So what would you consider to be false knowledge / science as per that verse in Timmy? It's a Biblical question.

Your extremely determined to dodge that question. And my helicopter question too.

If you get in a helicopter on the equator and fly directly up and hover there for 1 hour......why is it, when you land, you are not 1000 miles from where you started?

That's what i mean..do you believe in flat earth?

 

[lordkalvan]

No, stellar parallax is simply circular reasoning.

So you have asserted before. However, you have (a) quite failed to demonstrate how this is so and (b) been unable to offer an alternative explanation for stellar parallax (and aberration, the Doppler effect and inferences from observations of other non-stellar solar system bodies) based on a non-moving Earth.

Foucault's pendulum which displays the effects of the Coriolis effect, can be explained in a Geocentric universe as well as a Heliocentric one.

Go ahead.

The only difference being that in the Helio model we are asked to believe that what we see with the pendulum is an illusion, whereas in the Geo model what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG).

Wow, so all those high school and university introductory physics lab classes where students get to see the pendulum moving slowly in the plane of its motion have all been examples of mass hypnosis?

Dont you think it would make sense if you explained how it supports a spinning Earth first? For the reader?

So you can exercise your critical skills by categorizing it as quackery?

Oh goody! Are their names Neil, Buzz and Michael. Did they give you a freemasonic handshake?

Maybe the Illuminati, the Knights Templar and Opus Dei were involved too. In fact, was there anyone who wasn't involved in carrying out the Apollo hoax?

Well, not only was it not taken from the moon (which begs the question who took it and from where?!)...

You have yet to show that it is referenced as being taken from the Moon. There are a number of similar photographs taken of the LEM that are quite clearly taken from the command module; here's one:

Source: commons.wikimedia.org

....also there are no propulsion flames visible and the thing looks like a pile of JUNK! Lolz! Kalvan? Does that thing honestly look real to you?

You've been watching too many low-budget sci fi movies and TV shows. In the first place, perhaps the engine wasn't firing when the photo was taken; the LEM would not be undergoing constant main-engine burn as part of the rendezvous procedure. In the second place, and more importantly, the fuel mixture used in the LEM was hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide which ignites instantly with a completely transparent 'flame'. This mixture is still used in some orbiting spacecraft and you won't see any flames there either.

The LEM did not have to fly in an atmosphere and could be made of almost anything robust enough to withstand the deceleration forces of landing and the acceleration forces of taking off. Lacking any requirement for streamling or other aerodynamic features, it could be any shape the designers wanted, with all manner of antennae and other kit attached to the exterior. Here's the Deep Impact spacecraft:

Source: claudelafleur.qc.ca

I guess that looks like a piece of junk to your incredulous gaze as well. I could post a dozen more.

 

[Pard]

I've kept myself rather quiet in this discussion for two reasons. First, science is not my strong area. Second, I think this is rather unfair.

Our brother Strangelove has a belief that the world is the center of everything and a faith to put this belief before any scientific claim, because he sees the Bible, God's Word, as proclaiming that the world sits still in the center of everything. Is there harm in this? No! Someone might try spin this into a problem saying something like, "Claims like this make people shake their heads at Christians." Who cares if that is the case? 6000 year old earth, global floods, and dinosaurs walking with men does anything but make them shake their heads at us? We are scorned by the world, and we should not fear being scorned, it is one of our crosses to bear.

I also see it as rather contradictory to pull out science to tell our brother here that the world spins around the sun and then point the finger at science when it tries to tell us the world is a bajillion years old. Science is a thing of man, and it is FULL of error. Our brother StrangeLove is basing his belief first in the Bible and if we want to point out the error of his way then lets focus on the Bible and not science.

Finally, am I the only one aware of the way others are playing with this? I was just reading a post where a divisive individual was trying to pull us from our brother Strangelove and he from us. This is not right and we should move to avoid this if at all possible. Strangelove is not unequal in the yoke with you, and I dare speak for him, but I doubt he finds us unequally yoked with him.

If you wish to continue this debate can we at least continue it in the apologetic section of this forum? Science should not come into play here because we all know how divisive science has been and still is, so we should simply remove this inconsistent strand from our debate entirely and focus on the only thing that really matters, which is, God's Word.

 

[lordkalvan]

Hey, down and dirty and practical I'm all for. But the general thrust, and where all the major bucks are going is theoretical science. Which is quackery.

As you think simple geometry is quackery as well, you won't be surprised that I don't rate your opinion on this very highly.

Ya....so....."science" & "knowledge" mean the same thing, so no need to mess around with translations really.

Eh, no they don't and no they didn't.

So what would you consider to be false knowledge / science as per that verse in Timmy? It's a Biblical question.

Anything that the theologian wishes to apply to it that sits comfortably with his/her own particular predelictions. I can so no relevance to your persisting with this line of questioning. Paul's opinion on what false knowledge might be is of virtually no importance at all.

Your extremely determined to dodge that question.

The question is irrelevant.

And my helicopter question too.

I answered your question. If you don't like the answer, too bad.

If you get in a helicopter on the equator and fly directly up and hover there for 1 hour......why is it, when you land, you are not 1000 miles from where you started?

Why would you expect to be? Get in an airliner travelling at 450 knots, walk down the aisle and jump in the air as you do. If you are airborne for half-a-second, the aircraft will have travelled about 125 yards. Why haven't you smacked into the rear bulkhead of the cabin? I am beginning to suspect you may be a poe.

 

[Strangelove]

I appreciate every thing you have said as of yet...you are a brilliant individual...

Thanks Oats. 'Preciate it.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm just checking into this thread every once in awhile - got no dog in this fight.

When I read about the "helicopter" question (in the previous post - I've not read the whole thread) - my thought was, "What about a space ship?" I hope nobody here is one of those who are convinced that the trip to the moon was faked, and if that's the case? Nevermind. Please don't respond.

But why pick a helicopter? How about (as long as 'thought experiments' are free) we spend the extra money and take a trip in an imaginary space craft? If your point is that the earth does not spin? We should stop the presses and let everybody know - especially the industries dependent on satellite technologies.

By the way, I do seem to recall that the first Global Positioning Systems (GPS) were developed by the US Dept. of Defense to provide satellite-based navigation system for the U.S. military. They ran into problems because of Special Relativity and General Relativity considerations. GPS need nano-second precision so the fact that the clocks on the satellites ran faster than identical clocks on the earth presented REAL problems.

That's probably something that could be Googled and researched. Two birds with one stone - the Helicopter story is refuted -AND- Einstein's Theories are supported in real life once again.

~Sparrow

 

[Strangelove]

That's what i mean..do you believe in flat earth?

Lolz...no Oats.....I'm not a flat Earther ((**giggle**))....

Real Science has shown Earth to be a sphere. If the Bible says "4 corners of the Earth" you can discern its talking about 4 points of the compass. No problems there.

Plus I'm satisfied that views of the Earth from deep space satellites (like the one I posted early in the thread) are real.

 

[Strangelove]

So you have asserted before. However, you have (a) quite failed to demonstrate how this is so and (b) been unable to offer an alternative explanation for stellar parallax (and aberration, the Doppler effect and inferences from observations of other non-stellar solar system bodies) based on a non-moving Earth.

Everyone else seems to be perfectly satisfied with my explanations. As for Doppler effect you havn't even shown how that indicates anything so nothing to see there.

Wow, so all those high school and university introductory physics lab classes where students get to see the pendulum moving slowly in the plane of its motion have all been examples of mass hypnosis?

Yup. It's called indoctrination.

So you can exercise your critical skills by categorizing it as quackery?

No I'll address Foucault with a scientific answer. Soon as you show how it is evidence for a spinning Earth.

Maybe the Illuminati, the Knights Templar and Opus Dei were involved too. In fact, was there anyone who wasn't involved in carrying out the Apollo hoax?

I'm impressed. You've been doing some reasearch Kalv.

You have yet to show that it is referenced as being taken from the Moon. There are a number of similar photographs taken of the LEM that are quite clearly taken from the command module; here's one:

Um....that photo isn't similar to the one I posted. Can you show me another that is? Thats level and close up to the module?

You've been watching too many low-budget sci fi movies and TV shows.

You've been watching too much Discovery channel.

Here's the Deep Impact spacecraft:

Source: claudelafleur.qc.ca

I guess that looks like a piece of junk to your incredulous gaze as well. I could post a dozen more.

No that looks pristine. Infact it looks like a computer generated graphic. Yeah! definately CGI. Look at the textures on the flat grey area under the sat. dish. And why dont the shadow lines line up with eachother?