The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: carsforkids

And like everything else he says... its been shown and even demonstrated many times...

He just ignores replies and remains oblivious to anything but his own delusions

Those who discuss the issues deserve a response, those who make personal attacks like yours, are just trash, a waste of time, but I've actually tried to explain what is wrong with each one, many times, and you refuse to understand it, or deny it, anyway, for whatever reason(s).

I've seen the Sun and moon above, at the same time, in daylight, so when I hear the amazing story about the Sun being 93 million miles away, and the moon is about 250,000 miles away, while I see that nobody can actually prove these claims are true, that's why I don't accept those claims, ask why they claimed them, if there is no proof of those claims, why they are wrong, etc.

To know the Sun cannot be reflecting sunlight towards the moon, during such scenarios, yet still believe it is true...that's sad, indeed. It makes no sense to believe something you know cannot be true...

Nobody thinks about why both Sun and moon appearing at the same time, side by side, which reveals the entire, whole Sun, is seen above, alongside the moon.

The Sun cannot reflect sunlight towards the moon, when the Sun is beside the moon at the same time, wherever the Sun is claimed to be, whether far, far away from Earth, or close to Earth, the moon faces Earth, only Earth, to shine light on Earth, from above the Earth, and there is nothing between the moon and Earth, point A to point B.

So where is the Sun here? It appears to be alongside the moon, above, at a distance. Not behind the moon, from our view, anyway. You may claim the Sun is very far away from Earth, while the moon is much closer to Earth, but it doesn't help your argument, anyway.

A beautiful sight - both moon and Sun above, in daylight skies.


Nobody seems to have wondered, or not much, at least, how sunlight could hit the moon, from behind the moon, no matter where, or how far, or what angle, or so on....

The moon is closer to Earth than the Sun is, the one claim they all accept as a fact, nobody disputes as a fact, each and every one of them agrees on - that the Sun is far, far away, and the moon is much much closer to Earth than the Sun is.

Light is not magical, and even if sunlight was hitting the moon, from those exact same distances you claim they are, it doesn't matter.

Nobody will ever demonstrate it, since it is impossible. Reality won't change that fact.


Don't fear truth.

a reply to: turbonium1

About 3% of the Sun's light is measured reflecting from the Moon, else it wouldn't be so dark at night. When the Moon is above your horizon at the same time as the Sun of course you will see it. The phases of the moon are predictable to incredible accuracy. With our current heliocentric models and lunar observations, along with orbital mechanics, science explains this one very well. If you have any doubt, get some basic knowledge of trigonometry, buy a telescope and do the math yourself.

"The orbital speed can be found using v = SQRT(G*M/R). The R value (radius of orbit) is the earth's radius plus the height above the earth." - Google

The following article could help you should you wish to study the counter argument. Again, with a phone, telescope, the right equations and a notepad, you could check it out for yourself. Many people have and they all come to the same conclusion.

The Physics Classroom

As seen in the equation v = SQRT(G * Mcentral / R), the mass of the central body (earth) and the radius of the orbit affect orbital speed. The orbital radius is in turn dependent upon the height of the satellite above the earth.

Use the information below and the relationship above to calculate the T2/R3 ratio for the planets about the Sun, the moon about the Earth.

The value of G is 6.673 x 10-11 N•m2/kg2

Sun
M = 2.0 x 1030 kg
Earth
M = 6.0 x 1024 kg

For each case, use the equation T2/ R3= 4*pi2 / (G*Mcentral).

a. Sun T2/ R3= 2.96*10-19

b. Earth T2/ R3= 9.86*10-14

(All answers in units of s2 / m3.)

One day i'll get my backyard observatory and 100% guarantee to check it for myself. I'll send you the results of the experiment.

As to the nature of this incredible place within the cosmos which we find ourselves. I think we haven't even scratched the surface of the true essence of reality.

a reply to: Grenade

electroencephalograms (EEGs) detect brain waves being emitted from a human. They found very particular frequencies associated with various frames of consciousness. The highest frequency wave, called 'gamma waves' (not to be confused with gamma rays), have been associated with all sorts of high states of consciousness such as love, altruism, peace, divine revelation and so on.

I would suppose that is a good indicator that these higher archetypal states of consciousness do have a deeper synchronization with reality.

wow - 50 pages - and still none of the cultists understand the basics of the drake equation - they just reject it for " reasons "

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
wow - 50 pages - and still none of the cultists understand the basics of the drake equation - they just reject it for " reasons "

No it was mentioned multiple times throughout.

The Drake equation assumes there was no intelligent force involved, and it assumes that the world came to be by random chance, and tries to make calculations of its generation based on that false assumption. Therefore the entire equation is based on a false assumption.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Nothing has been rejected. I merely point to a fallacy and the
misunderstanding is yours because of your very unscientific
closed mind.

a reply to: cooperton

I think he just likes drive byes so he doesn't have to get involved
in any real discussion.

originally posted by: Barcs
"Merry Christmas everybody!"

Happy Solstice, buddy.

It's amazing that during WWI both sides did an unofficial truce on Christmas day. Yet your hostile vigilance and bigotry against a group of people can't be overcome for one post.

a reply to: Grenade

No point engaging with a flat earther like Turbo
Who does not believe that gravity is real!

a reply to: oldcarpy

I hope you enjoy it.

All of those whisky distilleries in Islay. I know them only too well. All the Islay whiskys are lovely, if you haven't tried the Lagavulin 16 year old, you're missing out. It's around £50 a bottle but to me it tastes like the more expensive ones, that proper smoky taste, for the price i don't think you can beat it.

I only drink it on Christmas Day and New Years Eve, still have last years bottle to finish off.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, i have researched this subject.

I have a condition with my brain and how it processes light. Don't really want to go into detail but it started with what's called visual snow and through investigation and trying various mental experiments i am able to see beyond the veil to a certain extent.

It's almost like we are cross-eyed and suddenly you can focus, best done with your eyes closed and with meditation however you can truly see another world. In my particular case that's how it feels when you manage to see beyond the curtain, as if your mind is focusing. It's all very scary and i tend not to talk about it anymore.

I created a thread on my experience one night when i was really drunk (previously i would never talk about it for fear of ridicule) and found tons of people on here have the same experience although their symptoms and control over the phenomenon vary. It was good to know i was not alone and hadn't gone mad. Also at the time i was doing a lot of long distance running and thought i might have a medical condition but doctors couldn't find anything so i turned to ATS.

There was someone who was able to help me explain and control this stimulus however i would not be able to share the information publicly.

If any of this means anything to you, or you have similar experience when closing your eyes (snow vision) then you should contact me by PM.

a reply to: Grenade

I like smoky not too keen on peaty.
To be honest I like a good Irish.

Tried a few Islays when spent a week on ghiga (spelling may be off) island.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: turbonium1

About 3% of the Sun's light is measured reflecting from the Moon, else it wouldn't be so dark at night. When the Moon is above your horizon at the same time as the Sun of course you will see it. The phases of the moon are predictable to incredible accuracy. With our current heliocentric models and lunar observations, along with orbital mechanics, science explains this one very well. If you have any doubt, get some basic knowledge of trigonometry, buy a telescope and do the math yourself.

"The orbital speed can be found using v = SQRT(G*M/R). The R value (radius of orbit) is the earth's radius plus the height above the earth." - Google

The following article could help you should you wish to study the counter argument. Again, with a phone, telescope, the right equations and a notepad, you could check it out for yourself. Many people have and they all come to the same conclusion.

The Physics Classroom

As seen in the equation v = SQRT(G * Mcentral / R), the mass of the central body (earth) and the radius of the orbit affect orbital speed. The orbital radius is in turn dependent upon the height of the satellite above the earth.

Use the information below and the relationship above to calculate the T2/R3 ratio for the planets about the Sun, the moon about the Earth.

The value of G is 6.673 x 10-11 N•m2/kg2

Sun
M = 2.0 x 1030 kg
Earth
M = 6.0 x 1024 kg

For each case, use the equation T2/ R3= 4*pi2 / (G*Mcentral).

a. Sun T2/ R3= 2.96*10-19

b. Earth T2/ R3= 9.86*10-14

(All answers in units of s2 / m3.)

One day i'll get my backyard observatory and 100% guarantee to check it for myself. I'll send you the results of the experiment.

As to the nature of this incredible place within the cosmos which we find ourselves. I think we haven't even scratched the surface of the true essence of reality.

Why can't you, or anyone, physically demonstrate, or even model this? Equations are fine for confirming some idea, or theory, or phenomenon, AFTER they are demonstrated to exist.

If something is labelled as a 'science', the first thing I always consider is whether or not those 'sciences' hold to the scientific method, in all steps, because if not, it is not a true science, and very likely, it is nothing but a pseudoscience.

When we see something which is real, above us, then it can be demonstrated in the real world, to explain, in smaller scale, how it is seen this way, why it is seen that way, just like everything else can be - whether on the Earth, or below the surfaces of Earth, or in the deepest oceans of Earth, or if it is ABOVE the Earth.

When there are things we cannot explain, cannot repeat, cannot demonstrate, cannot prove, then we cannot speak about it, as if it WAS proven, or demonstrated, etc.

And 'space' is built on their enormous pile of equations, which are used to support theories, which were never proven in the first place.


This has nothing to do with any mathematical formulas, or equations, when the BASE of those formulas is garbage, assumptions, half-truths, to begin with.


When you cannot even demonstrate, in any way, how your claim would even be POSSIBLE, you should probably realize WHY it cannot be demonstrated. Are you hoping to find someone that can demonstrate it, despite the fact none have EVER been able to demonstrate it? Hoping that it's true, won't make it so.



This is a perfect example of how a false claim may hold up alone, or maybe 2 or 3 false claims combined, but eventually, there will always be something which exists, and the various falsehoods cannot hold up anymore.

A Sun that is 94 million miles from Earth, and a moon that is 250,000 miles from Earth, are complete falsehoods.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grenade

No point engaging with a flat earther like Turbo
Who does not believe that gravity is real!

Those who come to understand that gravity is a non-existent force, which has no proof, and never will.

The most basic proof a force exists, is that it offers RESISTANCE to an opposite force. Like a magnet, for example.

If gravity existed as claimed, and pulls all objects to Earth's surface, and holds all objects to Earth's surface, then gravity has to be a DIRECTIONAL force, same as a magnet is.

So to prove whether or not gravity exists, and pulls objects, and holds objects, to the Earth, an OPPOSITE force would be something that goes AGAINST the direction of said force, which means a force that goes AWAY from the Earth's surface, would be that opposing force. And the opposite force would face RESISTANCE, if there is a force pulling down on it.


Birds and insects would be those opposite forces, which fly up, and away from that force below them, pulling them down to Earth, and holding them on Earth. But of course, we all know birds and insects fly freely above Earth, and face NO RESISTANCE from a force below them, which is supposed to pull them down to Earth, and hold them there.

Birds and insects use their wings as a force to fly above Earth, in the air, and humans do not have wings, or anything else, to use as a force to fly above Earth. That's the reason we are always on the Earth's surface. We have mass, and density, which is far greater than the density of air, and the density of water, which is why we fall through air, and sink in water. But the Earth's surface has much more density, and mass, than we do, and that's why we are on top of it, and don't go through it.

When you know Earth is not a ball, you can understand why all of this works correctly. And why birds or insects are NOT opposing some sort of great 'pulling' force beneath them, because no force exists to resist them in the first place!

a reply to: turbonium1

Actually, i can confirm these equations and calculations predict the movements of bodies within our solar system very well.

You're saying there's no proof? What about when i can use these equations and a little bit of trigonometry to predict the moons phases accurately for the next 1000 years and beyond from any point on Earth?

Please show me an alternative explanation which describes our observations so accurately. Not backing it up with loose quotes from scripture, actually provide a testable hypothesis.

I agree there's no direct proof of Gravity being a force. You could argue dark matter is it's opposite force however again this is just hypothetical. There is however plenty of indirect evidence for its existence such as astronomical observations of the planets and stars. Also galaxies are moving away from each other, this can be shown by red-shift which is a solid indicator the universe is expanding. A lack of knowledge of physics does not prove the Earth is flat. The problem with flat earth is, well all the evidence to the contrary.

Gravity is currently best explained as the curvature of space/time. Not as a force as you insinuate.

What in your opinion holds the planets in predictable motion? Again these equations perfectly describe movements of objects within the solar system to a high degree of accuracy. Can your flat Earth model do this? If so, please post this evidence with experimental results.

Like today i can predict the sun will set in London at 15:52. How can i check, go outside, watch the sun fall over the horizon and check my watch.

The moon will rise at 56 degrees (NE) at 19:20. Currently we can see 87.8% of its face. It will be 373,964 km from the center of the Earth at that point.

a reply to: turbonium1

Basically i just provided you the calculations, i then used those calculations to predict to an exact degree of accuracy when to observe the results to see if they are verified by observation. The angle, time, phase and location. I can do it for any place on the planet and at any time in the future you like.

There's nothing more anyone can do if you can't accept these facts.

U

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grenade

No point engaging with a flat earther like Turbo
Who does not believe that gravity is real!

Those who come to understand that gravity is a non-existent force, which has no proof, and never will.

The most basic proof a force exists, is that it offers RESISTANCE to an opposite force. Like a magnet, for example.

If gravity existed as claimed, and pulls all objects to Earth's surface, and holds all objects to Earth's surface, then gravity has to be a DIRECTIONAL force, same as a magnet is.

So to prove whether or not gravity exists, and pulls objects, and holds objects, to the Earth, an OPPOSITE force would be something that goes AGAINST the direction of said force, which means a force that goes AWAY from the Earth's surface, would be that opposing force. And the opposite force would face RESISTANCE, if there is a force pulling down on it.


Birds and insects would be those opposite forces, which fly up, and away from that force below them, pulling them down to Earth, and holding them on Earth. But of course, we all know birds and insects fly freely above Earth, and face NO RESISTANCE from a force below them, which is supposed to pull them down to Earth, and hold them there.

Birds and insects use their wings as a force to fly above Earth, in the air, and humans do not have wings, or anything else, to use as a force to fly above Earth. That's the reason we are always on the Earth's surface. We have mass, and density, which is far greater than the density of air, and the density of water, which is why we fall through air, and sink in water. But the Earth's surface has much more density, and mass, than we do, and that's why we are on top of it, and don't go through it.

When you know Earth is not a ball, you can understand why all of this works correctly. And why birds or insects are NOT opposing some sort of great 'pulling' force beneath them, because no force exists to resist them in the first place!

Please jump off a tall building and tell me that gravity is not real.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, i have researched this subject.

I have a condition with my brain and how it processes light. Don't really want to go into detail but it started with what's called visual snow and through investigation and trying various mental experiments i am able to see beyond the veil to a certain extent.

It's almost like we are cross-eyed and suddenly you can focus, best done with your eyes closed and with meditation however you can truly see another world. In my particular case that's how it feels when you manage to see beyond the curtain, as if your mind is focusing. It's all very scary and i tend not to talk about it anymore.

I created a thread on my experience one night when i was really drunk (previously i would never talk about it for fear of ridicule) and found tons of people on here have the same experience although their symptoms and control over the phenomenon vary. It was good to know i was not alone and hadn't gone mad. Also at the time i was doing a lot of long distance running and thought i might have a medical condition but doctors couldn't find anything so i turned to ATS.

There was someone who was able to help me explain and control this stimulus however i would not be able to share the information publicly.

If any of this means anything to you, or you have similar experience when closing your eyes (snow vision) then you should contact me by PM.

That's interesting and sounds exciting. I don't particular get the snow vision, but I do see particular phenomenon that come out when I'm walking on the path so to speak. The new world partially shows itself every once in a while, but it dwindles away when I get distracted.

Can you describe the other world you saw or send me a link to the post you made about it?

a reply to: cooperton


I'm on holiday at the moment over Christmas period pal so I'll PM you when i get back to elaborate.

Hope you all have a great Christmas, even the atheists can enjoy our wee religious holiday.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Nothing has been rejected. I merely point to a fallacy and the
misunderstanding is yours because of your very unscientific
closed mind.

You didn't show a single fallacy with the equation, bud. Stop lying so much.