The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: Skyfox81

If there is no evidence that I exist do I cease to exist?

I don't understand how atheism can claim that belief in God is
so preposterous. When it can't come close to offering up a
a more sensible explanation for existence. Not even science can
perform anything more believable than a Creator. Which I don't
find that hard to believe. Sorry it makes more sense ALL things
considered inside and out. If I want to replace the horse and buggy
I have to come up with a car. If I want to replace the bow and arrow
I can do that with the firearm. So what replaces Creation? Not a gawd
damn thing that's more believable that's for sure.

Micro evolution ? Maybe

Macro evolution? No effing way

originally posted by: Box of Rain

The apparent wobble that is visible when taking a time lapse video is just that - an apparent wobble. This is caused by the differing angles from which we on Earth are viewing Saturn as Earth travels around the sun, and as Saturn (more slowly) travels around the sun.

That is to say, it's just a matter of changing perspective.

It's not in time-lapse, it was live footage, because other films were also taken, by others, and this confirms it is live footage.

This clearly shows it is live footage when Saturn spins so fast, throughout the entire time, while it also 'wobbles' occasionally, too.

They've always told us that Saturn is a planet, which rotates in space, much like our Earth rotates in space, except it rotates once every 10 1/2 hours, while Earth rotates once every 24 hours or so....


Everyone used to believe that was true, it was absolute fact, that Saturn was a planet, which rotated in space, just like our own planet, except it rotated once every 11 hours, while Earth rotated once every 24 hours, or nearly so!

When I clearly have seen footage of Saturn which shows Saturn spins like a top, not once every 10-11 hours, as they claim.

Why would they lie about Saturn, then? No idea?

a reply to: turbonium1

Please post this footage you speak of.

I also have watched many amateur videos of Saturn which contradict your observation.

a reply to: turbonium1

The mechanisms which control what we call Gravity are unknown however the effects of mass on each other and their relationships are well established, measured and calculable to a high degree of accuracy. At least at solar system levels.

I too am dubious about our current understanding and theory of Gravity however to claim it doesn't exist would require another reliable counter hypothesis. Your flat Earth model simply doesn't cut the mustard either from observational perspective or experimentation.

originally posted by: Barcs

Level is relative to the center of gravity.

A magical force within the Earth, where level means NOT level, because the magical force makes it so!


Level means level, it is not imaginary forces making level mean not level, or level to a humongous ball, just because you say that it does....


Nobody measures level as something NOT really level, that's utter nonsense!

Level is always level, it is nothing else, but level.


Measuring Earth as flat with airplane instruments is indisputable PROOF.

A magical non-existent force never even proven to EXIST, then magically makes level mean not level, because it wants level to mean level to the Earth's curved surface, even if nobody realizes it, when measuring for level!


In fact, we ACTUALLY DO measure for level, and it IS level. It is nothing else BUT level.

Your argument is that we do NOT measure level as level, that it only appears to be level, but is actually level to the curvature of Earth, because 'gravity' makes it so.

An argument of level not being level, from a non-existent force that makes level not level, is an absolutely amazing argument, indeed.


Fantasy argument.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: turbonium1

The mechanisms which control what we call Gravity are unknown however the effects of mass on each other and their relationships are well established, measured and calculable to a high degree of accuracy. At least at solar system levels.

I too am dubious about our current understanding and theory of Gravity however to claim it doesn't exist would require another reliable counter hypothesis. Your flat Earth model simply doesn't cut the mustard either from observational perspective or experimentation.

Gravity doesn't work, nor exist.

When do we see that objects of greater mass ever pulling in objects of lesser mass towards them, right here, on Earth?

Never. The whole argument for gravity is that objects of greater mass, have more gravitational force, than objects of lesser mass, with less gravitational force, are pulled towards objects with more mass, with more gravitational force.

A hopeless, stupid argument, is it not?

So they ignore all that, as if it didn't matter, which is totally absurd. It destroys their whole argument. So they ignore it, and play tricks instead.

The trick was making physical standards for mass falling through air, which has almost no mass, depend on a great force within Earth, pulling objects TO the Earth, instead of falling through a medium of nearly no mass, which is why objects FALL through air, there is no force 'pulling' them down to Earth.

They understood how objects in air cannot fall any faster than at a certain speed, at most. The air has a minimum mass, through which objects cannot fall any faster.

This has nothing to do with a force, which doesn't even exist, which cannot show objects on Earth pulling other objects towards them, as they would, if gravity existed.

They claim this is a 'formula' for 'gravity'. The maximum 'speed' offered by Earth's 'gravity'.

It is pure bs.


And of course, 'space' is great for 'proving' gravity, nobody ever sees it, no proof is needed for it, yet everyone buys their crap!

a reply to: turbonium1

Sigh... again;

"Gravity is the descriptive label we put on the natural phenomena we see in nature, of objects of mass or energy being attracted to each other.

You have the 'Law' of gravity and then you have Einstein's General 'Theory' of Relativity."

This is testable!! Demonstrable!!

Lets be reasonable here.

originally posted by: Skyfox81
a reply to: turbonium1

Sigh... again;

"Gravity is the descriptive label we put on the natural phenomena we see in nature, of objects of mass or energy being attracted to each other.

You have the 'Law' of gravity and then you have Einstein's General 'Theory' of Relativity."

This is testable!! Demonstrable!!

Lets be reasonable here.

You cannot sway religious fanatics! You are talking about a person who said we have no evidence of other galaxies! No matter what you say, people like this will not change their minds. Brainwashed by religon!

a reply to: Jay-morris

That’s an unfair generalisation.

Atheists are equally as arrogant with their beliefs.

Most of the scientists who developed these theories were also very religious.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

That’s an unfair generalisation.

Atheists are equally as arrogant with their beliefs.

Most of the scientists who developed these theories were also very religious.

Sorry, but when somrone denies there are other galaxies out there, then its not an unfair generalisation!

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

That’s an unfair generalisation.

Atheists are equally as arrogant with their beliefs.

Most of the scientists who developed these theories were also very religious.

Sorry, but when somrone denies there are other galaxies out there, then its not an unfair generalisation!

And stop lying in other threads saying ypu destroyed me in debates. Does not make you look good!

a reply to: Jay-morris

You lack the intellectual capacity to have a constructive debate with. I realised that when you failed to compromise or accept my apology.

In fact i find you the epitome of ignorance, at least turbo attempts to justify his beliefs. You just go around insulting people for having contradictory opinions to your own.

You generalised people who believe in religion and correlated them with flat earth believers.

Ironically in the past on this board you have shown belief in God and have prayed to him.

Just ignore my posts please, your childish behaviour impresses no-one.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

You lack the intellectual capacity to have a constructive debate with. I realised that when you failed to compromise or accept my apology.

In fact i find you the epitome of ignorance, at least turbo attempts to justify his beliefs. You just go around insulting people for having contradictory opinions to your own.

You generalised people who believe in religion and correlated them with flat earth believers.

Ironically in the past on this board you have shown belief in God and have prayed to him.

Just ignore my posts please, your childish behaviour impresses no-one.

There you go again with your superior intelligence! Bet you never get sick of hearing your own voice! I do not care what his beliefs is, if thdy are stupid, i sill not respect them, simple as that!

If he is stupid enough to say there is no evidence of other galaxies, then i will debate that! If you do not like that oh great one! Then dont bother replying to my messages i send to other people!

And stop lying about me also!

originally posted by: Jay-morris

Sorry, but when somrone denies there are other galaxies out there, then its not an unfair generalisation!

If he is stupid enough to say there is no evidence of other galaxies, then i will debate that!

Have you ever been to another galaxy to prove they are what you think they are? Or do you base it off belief?

a reply to: cooperton

I seen some convincing CGI, tonnes of equations and formulas contrived from their photon emissions, does that count?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jay-morris

Sorry, but when somrone denies there are other galaxies out there, then its not an unfair generalisation!

If he is stupid enough to say there is no evidence of other galaxies, then i will debate that!

Have you ever been to another galaxy to prove they are what you think they are? Or do you base it off belief?

Does America exist? I have never seen it, so how do i know its real?

So basically, you are saying that the thousands of astromanors around the world are all lying. That all tbe images of galaxies are fake! We can see our own galaxly with the naked eye without light pollution. Is that fake too?

And you base this on a fairy tale book written by primitive humans?

Seriously?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology aren’t the same thing. Ask yourself which of them considers phenomenological parameters.

Observing photons and their movements does not equate to attempting to explain their origins or constitution / composition.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology aren’t the same thing. Ask yourself which of them considers phenomenological parameters.

Observing photons and their movements does not equate to attempting to explain their origins or constitution / composition.

lol i never said that! What are you talking about! I am say we can observe physical galaxies, wbich we can! He is saying we there is no evidence that other galaxies exist, which is completly wrong, and you know it!

a reply to: Jay-morris

Actually we observe the photon emissions from other galaxies. As I’m sure you are aware photons are massless elementary particles and provide physical proof of nothing. Can I eat the food off my tv because they emit photons? Do photons automatically infer physical objects?

I’m not arguing that they aren’t real, I’m just showing that it’s impossible to verify something’s existence or composition when it is millions of light years away.

You forgot to star your own post earlier on this page btw.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Actually we observe the photon emissions from other galaxies. As I’m sure you are aware photons are massless elementary particles and provide physical proof of nothing. Can I eat the food off my tv because they emit photons? Do photons automatically infer physical objects?

I’m not arguing that they aren’t real, I’m just showing that it’s impossible to verify something’s existence or composition when it is millions of light years away.

You forgot to star your own post earlier on this page btw.

Hubble used ultraviolet and visible light (UVIS) and the other for near infrared (NIR). Both process images differently, but rezults are pretty much the same in fact that we can see these galaxies, without question. So i really do not know what your point is.

The fact is we know billions of galaxies are out there. Alot of them way older than ours.