So, Science Explains The How, And Religion Explains The Why???

reply to post by AlexG141989


I am going to tell you a good joke



God and a scientist was having a conversation.

Then the scientist told God. Hay God!!! I can create life in my lab.

Then God smiled and said!! I really have to see this

Then the scientist went into his lab. And took out his buns and burners. And started to create life.

Then walla he creates life. And he presented the life to God.

Then God started to lough out loud.

The scientist Say's What!!! I created life. Don't you see it!

Then God say with a great big smile on his face. Yeah but you used my materials

Get it.


Science can only study,observe and make things out of what God already has provided us with.

Humans cant create anything out of nothing like God can.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by JPhish
that's rather broad

in the 4th century Aritotle made 3 key observations about the way the sun and stars interact as viewed from earth, which lead to the conclusion the earth is at least curved if not a complete sphere as he believed the observations showed

in the 2nd century Eratosthenes the used geometry and known distances to calculate the circumferance of the earth he calculated the earth was 40,000Km in circumferance

yes maths it works

could be forgeries

could be but they hold several orbit types oly possible if the earth was infact a sphere, so the satelites them selves support the images they take as none fakes

we experience, measure, and can predict how gravity will act in the "world" around us. But we don't understand it.

Newtons Laws of gravcity explain how it works, Einsteins general relativity explain why it works and advances Newtonian laws for increased accuracy

we understand it well enough to put satelites in orbit, send men to the moon, fire a probe into space have it sling shot around the sun earth twice and a hitch a ride with a couple of other planets to fire it out of the solar system and off into the great expanse

we understand it more then well enough to figure out it makes spoheres from matter with enough mass and how other bodies can distort that mass and pull it out of shape

even if the world was "flat", you wouldn't be able to see everything from atop a mountain do to the limitations of human eyesight and other terrestrial obstacles, particularly mountains being in the way. I went to vermont a week ago, i stood atop it's highest mountain. I couldn't see more than a few miles.

if your knowledge of the worlds area is extremly limited on a clear day you can see much of it, it wont work for us becasue we know there are many other countries and we can jump on planes and using mathmatics calculate the rough distance if we know the average velocity of the aircraft

we know the worlds much bigger then they did, or in the case of the greeks a little bigger then they had worked out

like i mentioned before, even if the earth was/is in fact "flat"; that story is still, literally, impossible.

not for a scientific illiterate with very little knowledge of the world around them e.g. desert shephards

Your "reasons" for why "we" know the earth is spherical, still fall quite short of anything that can be personally and readily tested.

here you go ready for this?

go to a place on the earth and when the sun is directly overhead, as in straight up give your friend a quick call who is stood further west of you position and have him measure the angle of sunlight he is recieving

now draw a circle (the earth) and plot the differance of angles back to the center of the earth, now les say the differance is 7.2 degrees

7.2 is 1/50th of a circles circumferance, 50*X(the distance between you and your friend) and now you have a rough calculation of the circumferance of the earth

now jump in a plane fly around the earth at a constant speed, and time it

velocity*time = distance traveled

and they will be very similar

the first equasion calculates the circumferance of a cross section of a sphere, the second calculates distance traveled in a given time period

if equation A says the earth is a sphere, and equation B says its an exact or very similar distance you now know beyond a shadow of a dought the earth is sphericle in shape

if it were a disk shape youd fly off the end of it and to fly around youd have to turn around a steep turn and roll the plane 180 degrees to continue looking down or the eath would need some magical field to transpot you from one edge to the other which has been disproven with our abilit to launch probes beyond this magical barrier



[edit on 31/1/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by spy66


God proving him self dam that really is funny

shame its just a reworked version of Carl Sagans apple pie making comment


heres one for ya

Ken Ham is walking down the street and see's a kid sat there with a box full of very young kittens and a sign reading 'Christian kittens for sale 10$"

Ken suprised by the sign had a little chuckle and went up to the kid and said wow thats great christain kittens i better get me one of those, paid the kid $10 and went home with his kitten happy as could be

couple of days later he is walking down the road again talking to Janet Folger and spots the kid in his front yards with the box of kittens and a sign and says 'hey Janets this i so cute go read that kids sign he is selling christian kittens $10 each i got me one'

she has a giggle about how cute that is and goes over for a closer look and quickly calls Ken over, when he gets there Janet is pointing at the sign lost for words, Ken reads it now it reads 'Athiest kittens $20 each'. Kens staggered by the change and he asks the kid 'hey i though these were christian kittens'

the kid smiles sweetly and says 'ohh yeah they were christian kittens when they were very young but now thier eyes are open'

Ken stunned jumps on the price change hoping for a littel vindication and asks why the price differance, the kids smile grows into a huge beaming grin and he replies ' well now they can see whats actually happening around them they are less likley to leave a mess everywhere they go'


now shall we cut it with the comedy club and get back to the topic?

[edit on 31/1/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Well if you can prove to me that we can create or observe something that is not already given to us. Science is all about what is. Meaning already created.
Meaning created by God.

I believe in science. Science can explain a lot of things. But not everything.

I dont deny God even thou i also believe in science.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

So for as this sphere earth and flat earth thing. We are discovering in quantum physics that things are so totally different that how we see it. The earth appears as it does because we only see three dimensions. Even space and what we see out there may be different that how it seems to us.

As for the how and the why. Science is like a man who stumbles around in the dark looking for things and understanding them, and there's nothing wrong with that. At times they can explain how things work. But science cannot touch what it cannot see or understand. The why is important and though religions try to say why, this is a question that is hard for everyone. Science should not be so easy to dismiss God outright. My answer to those who sometimes ask me why is this.. "Because". I don't have all the answers. I believe in God and that he made all we see around us that exists. And I also believe it is made within us to ask the two most important questions, the how, and the why. So science has a place in discovery and understanding.

reply to post by AlexG141989


-------------

My latest God video continueing on from WIG'N #14 answering the question do we have any power within ourselves?

Re: WIG'N #NO 14

/cbyald

----------------

Originally posted by spy66

Well if you can prove to me that we can create or observe something that is not already given to us. Science is all about what is. Meaning already created.
Meaning created by God.

well first youd have to prove beyond a shadow of a dought God didn in fact make everything before i can take that challenge

so go for it, and while you trying to do that i shall search for ways to prove we can create things

I believe in science. Science can explain a lot of things. But not everything.

the irony of this comment is staggering

you deny the big bang, deny evolution, play the 6 shades of evolutionb clowns like hovind makes up and then deny them too, show you have a lack of knowledge of basic physics and geomoetry in other posts ... but then support science? the same science that helps grow the food you eat and make the medicine that keeps you alive has also proven the big bang and shown evolution to have happened and be happening

so how do you support science? you support the bit that dont go againt your beliefs you mean? even if both the things you accept and deny are from the same science or i should say scientific method

I dont deny God even thou i also believe in science.

i understand or at least attempt to understand science (dam particle physics and quantum give me a head ache) so i can accept them not have to believe in them as they provide supporting evidence and i know if a better understanding comes along it will improve our understanding

god and religeon in general dont supply any evidence just poor arguments to support them selves, a lack of proof is not proof of lack yes, but a lack of proof displays a blatant lack of need to accept or believe anything it has to say

so ill stick with science and wait for someone in religeon to do some work and prove god




[edit on 31/1/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 31/1/09 by noobfun]

Before we presumably "learned" the earth was not the center of the universe. The earth was in fact, the center of the "universe". "The Earth along with the human race and the totality of human experience" was all we knew. It was the universe.

Now, i was using the old and now archaic definition of universe. However, when the modern definition "the totality of all matter and energy that exists in the vastness of space, whether known to human beings or not" is applied. Keeping the omphalos hypothesis in mind. You have absolutely no proof that the earth was not, by all definitions of "universe"; the center of the universe; before it allegedly ceased to be.

let me put this differently, instead of the universe, the idea that was pushed by religion was that everything orbited around the earth. The sun orbited around the earth, and all the planets orbited around the earth. We KNOW that this is not true, and never was.

I am going to tell you a good joke



God and a scientist was having a conversation.

Then the scientist told God. Hay God!!! I can create life in my lab.

Then God smiled and said!! I really have to see this

Then the scientist went into his lab. And took out his buns and burners. And started to create life.

Then walla he creates life. And he presented the life to God.

Then God started to lough out loud.

The scientist Say's What!!! I created life. Don't you see it!

Then God say with a great big smile on his face. Yeah but you used my materials

Get it.


Science can only study,observe and make things out of what God already has provided us with.

Humans cant create anything out of nothing like God can.

Haha, that joke was actually kind of funny, not in the way you intended though. Ok, man cannot create something without using material that God has already made??? Well, you still forgot to prove the part where God exists to be able to make anything... Didn't take that into account did ya???

reply to post by AlexG141989



With just knowledge you need proof to find facts. It's what separate believers from non believers. I probably can feel something you cant. And i cant prove my feelings or my inspiration. If you dont have it you have no grounds to understand any of this. You just have to keep on looking for your proof where ever you are looking for it.

I cant prove God to you. It is not my job to do so. Thats your jobb find out.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Science intentionally limits itself to measurable things and strictly require casuality, and thus can only answer how, as no meaning can ever come of that - only cause and effect.

Humans are capable of imagining things that go beyond those rules.

That is where religion comes into play.

God could have created all of us one second ago, with full memory, fossils in the ground, background radiation from the big bang, and a whole lot of other evidence - and no ammount of science would allow us to know the difference ....

science can never "defeat" religion as its premesis is a subset of religious ideas.

if science goes into a battle against religion it becomes religiuos, as any honest scientist would redily admit - it is no longer science but belief.

this discussion is irrelevant.

OP is right.

that was science

I cant prove God to you. It is not my job to do so. Thats your jobb find out.

this is just a copout...

Originally posted by spy66

I cant prove God to you. It is not my job to do so. Thats your jobb find out.

if your stating as solid fact God did create everything and then setting down challenges based on this supposed fact then YES it is your JOB to prove your statement is accurate or your challenege is both asanine and severley flawed

CDK007 made the enrite universe just now, just that very instant past when you started looking at this post

you may have seen this video or this post before ... but you didnt he made it so you think you did, i didnt even make this post he did he made it look like i did becasue i didnt exist until he made the universe just

its not my job to prove it or that any god you believe in is a joke made by cdk and he made you believe it was real for a laugh, becasue its your job to throw away such illy ideas and find the truth of Cdk



we cant create anything at all CDK just did and i mean everything, we just think we did

the universe is seconds old that 3.5-4,000 year old book you call the bible is really just econds old as well he made it look well read and a bit scruffy around the edges

if you dont have to prove it neiher do i and im right becaseu CDK says so o you must be wrong theres imply no choice

see how absurd your claim is? its exactly as absurd as mine and yet you struggle to see it

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by spy66

I cant prove God to you. It is not my job to do so. Thats your jobb find out.

if your stating as solid fact God did create everything and then setting down challenges based on this supposed fact then YES it is your JOB to prove your statement is accurate or your challenege is both asanine and severley flawed

No - only if he accepts your casuality limited world view

Stop using sciences limited rules on other peoples world view ...

Jst becuse you put your head in the sand doesn't mean the rest of us will ...
you were created a second ago ...

Originally posted by pilot70

No - only if he accepts your casuality limited world view

Stop using sciences limited rules on other peoples world view ...

Jst becuse you put your head in the sand doesn't mean the rest of us will ...
you were created a second ago ...

but trys to push thier causality limited world view(it can only be god 1/2 of science is wrong becasue god did it) and trys to sets challenges based upon it

if they want an honest answer to thier challenge they first have to validate it

other wise its just as absurd as me challenging you to climb to the top of n gogglflot mountain ... it absurd and asaanine unless such a mountain exist and i can prove it exists to make it a challenege worthy of accepting if you so decide to do so

stating somthing as fact and then failing to validate it is the same a the cdk made everything just now claim, i cant prove it so to claim its accurae and fact is absurd

am i burying my head in the sand asking for evidence and looking at the possability? or is denying the evidence in favor of an unproven unprovable notion and denying other posabilities the deepest hole in the sand to dunk your head into?

if i was only created a second ago my 1 second of thinking about the questions and tatements i make seem to be less in the sand then arguments made that ca be instantly flipped around and work just as well if not better then thier original intention

[edit on 31/1/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
in the 4th century Aritotle made 3 key observations about the way the sun and stars interact as viewed from earth, which lead to the conclusion the earth is at least curved if not a complete sphere as he believed the observations showed

but what is the main thing that made him believe the earth was curved??

“The altitude of Polaris changes as the observer travels north to south.” That is how I personally “know” that the earth is spherical or at least exhibits the proper behavior of a planet which is.

be but they hold several orbit types oly possible if the earth was infact a sphere, so the satelites them selves support the images they take as none fakes

Not true, I’ve drawn up models of satellites paths which would work if the earth was flat (if the earth was under different physical conditions than we’ve been taught)

Newtons Laws of gravcity explain how it works,

only terrestrially, once farther out in space, his laws are not completely reliable. Still . . . no one knows how it works, they only know how it acts upon matter/energy. There’s a difference.

Einsteins general relativity explain why it works and advances Newtonian laws for increased accuracy

Einstein’s GR is not immaculate. Scientists have broken the speed of light time and time again. Not to mention, taking into consideration the speed of gravitational “drag”, it is many times “faster” than the speed of light.

we understand it well enough to put satelites in orbit, send men to the moon, fire a probe into space have it sling shot around the sun earth twice and a hitch a ride with a couple of other planets to fire it out of the solar system and off into the great expanse

well enough, but we don’t understand it.

we understand it more then well enough to figure out it makes spoheres from matter with enough mass and how other bodies can distort that mass and pull it out of shape

that’s a theory

if your knowledge of the worlds area is extremly limited on a clear day you can see much of it, it wont work for us becasue we know there are many other countries and we can jump on planes and using mathmatics calculate the rough distance if we know the average velocity of the aircraft.

not following you here

not for a scientific illiterate with very little knowledge of the world around them e.g. desert shephards

Interesting because it is possible to see further when atop a mountain in the desert because of less geographical obstacles and lack of “precipitation”.

go to a place on the earth and when the sun is directly overhead, as in straight up give your friend a quick call who is stood further west of you position and have him measure the angle of sunlight he is recieving

now draw a circle (the earth) and plot the differance of angles back to the center of the earth, now les say the differance is 7.2 degrees

7.2 is 1/50th of a circles circumferance, 50*X(the distance between you and your friend) and now you have a rough calculation of the circumferance of the earth

ok, a circular, flat earth has a circumference, like a pizza. Doesn’t mean the earth is spherical or curved.

now jump in a plane fly around the earth at a constant speed, and time it

you can’t fly around something if it is flat and has a constant gravitational pull downward. You may however fly in circles above it.

velocity*time = distance traveled
and they will be very similar
the first equasion calculates the circumferance of a cross section of a sphere, the second calculates distance traveled in a given time period
if equation A says the earth is a sphere, and equation B says its an exact or very similar distance you now know beyond a shadow of a dought the earth is sphericle in shape

Those are contingent circumstances. The only person/experimental inferences you have sighted which you an use as proof as to the curvature of the earth are Aristotle’s observations.

if it were a disk shape youd fly off the end of it and to fly around youd have to turn around a steep turn and roll the plane 180 degrees to continue looking down or the eath would need some magical field to transpot you from one edge to the other which has been disproven with our abilit to launch probes beyond this magical barrier

incorrect, you’re assuming that magnetic north is not in the “center of the pizza” so to speak. I’ve never seen probes launched beyond anything, have you?

Originally posted by JPhish

Not true, I’ve drawn up models of satellites paths which would work if the earth was flat (if the earth was under different physical conditions than we’ve been taught)

so what your saying is if things were different things would be different

but they dont act different so ... its a hell of a leap to say they are isnt it?

so how did you get around using an orbit lower then geocentric following the equator without it having to flip to the underside or travel back around the outside of the circumferance to rejoin its equatoiral orbit without having to dart around across land? and without loosing terestrial visability for imaging satelites?

Einstein’s GR is not immaculate. Scientists have broken the speed of light time and time again. Not to mention, taking into consideration the speed of gravitational “drag”, it is many times “faster” than the speed of light.

yes they have both slowed and speeded up lights speed

but general relativity says light i constant in a vacume, none of those experiment altering the speed of light took place in a vacum situation did they?

so it still holds, yes there are areas in the universe they break down because of multipul bodie generating massive forces which set up a similar situation to the bigbangs singularity extremly dense and extremly small, any situation quantum and general relativity are required it goes a bit wrong

we dont live in those area of the universe do we?

well enough, but we don’t understand it.

we understand it enough to do what we need to do and enough to create scenarious we as yet cant do .. its enough for now and improving faster the our technology to manipulate and use that understanding can and is evolving

that’s a theory

a scientific theory yes

and if you know enough to plot satelite trajectories accuratley you should also understand the differance between a theroy and a scientific theory, which means understanding why that argumnent is childish simplistic and somthing someone with very little understanding of science would make

i.e. you should know better

not following you here

we know much more about our world then they did then so when we stand atop a tall mountain with clear views and good weather conditions we can see large tracts of land but we know so much more exists beyond our sight

Interesting because it is possible to see further when atop a mountain in the desert because of less geographical obstacles and lack of “precipitation”.

and when your world view consists of only a few hundred mile of wilderness with scattered towns and cities within it the ability to see much of that world while stood on a tall mountain in good conditions could lead to the conclusion the world is in fact a big disk

even knowing more of the world exists out side of sight the abiltiy to turn in a circle and see the world spreading out into a circular horizon it doent take a great leap of faith to expand that circle in your mind to fit the known world and consider it nothing but a big disk with terrain poking out of it

ok, a circular, flat earth has a circumference, like a pizza. Doesn’t mean the earth is spherical or curved.

but does a circle have both a north/south and east/west circumferance?

so do the same thing north south as you already did east west and now you have 2 similar circumferance measurments traveling along different axis's

it cant be a circle any more can it

you can’t fly around something if it is flat and has a constant gravitational pull downward. You may however fly in circles above it.

so our ability to fly around it proves? note i said fly along the equator so flying in circles would distort the land massivley in comparision to our ability to create maps at sea level following coasts

so flying in circles wont be what i happening

multipoint supporting evidence ..... kind of how science works isnt it

Those are contingent circumstances. The only person/experimental inferences you have sighted which you an use as proof as to the curvature of the earth are Aristotle’s observations.

aristiotles observances supported by equations verified by our ability to fly around the world, checked for accuracy by comparision of coastal maps drawn at sea level to what is visable at flight level

all conclude your not flying in circles but are traveling around a sphere, if the earth were flat at least one of those would conflict with the findings .. they dont

so while you try and pick at them one at a time seperatley could work, when they are combined as supporting evidence your ability to fails

its the same method creationists use to attack evolution they try to sperate them into seperate areas to try and pick apart at them becasue combined the imply cant get a foot in the door

hence why some ay micro evolution yes everything else no, some ay natural selection yes everything else now

they all deny macro evlution but fail to understand macro evolution is micro evolution just between species groups rather then within 1 species group, if it happens in species groups, it happens between species (becasue they are each having thier own micro evoluton

incorrect, you’re assuming that magnetic north is not in the “center of the pizza” so to speak. I’ve never seen probes launched beyond anything, have you?

which fails to take into account the sun wouldnt rise in the east everywhere on the planet becasue east becomes clockwise, it would need to be clockwise of everypoint on the earth at the same time making the sun not a ball of gas but a sheet that surrounds earth but then it always rise in the south eastern position as well as the south west of your position

but drop below the equator and the sun rises in the north east position

which wont work on a flat disk

so far youve said if things were differenet things would be different, but they arnt that different

your posing what ifs where the if doesnt happen

Originally posted by noobfun
so how did you get around using an orbit lower then geocentric following the equator without it having to flip to the underside or travel back around the outside of the circumferance to rejoin its equatoiral orbit without having to dart around across land? and without loosing terestrial visability for imaging satelites?

not a lower orbit, no flipping involved, flat circular earth, sun closer, earth moving faster through space.

but general relativity says light i constant in a vacume, none of those experiment altering the speed of light took place in a vacum situation did they?

I don’t believe so, if I recall, they used specific prisms and gases to create the anomalies.

we dont live in those area of the universe do we?

No, but we shouldn’t consider something a universal law if it is only a terrestrial law.

we understand it enough to do what we need to do and enough to create scenarious we as yet cant do .. its enough for now and improving faster the our technology to manipulate and use that understanding can and is evolving

The problem is. Gravity is like a wolf. Sure you can coerce it to do certain things, because by its nature it does them. That’s easy, what’s hard is taming the wolf so that you can use it for other purposes.

and if you know enough to plot satelite trajectories accuratley you should also understand the differance between a theroy and a scientific theory, which means understanding why that argumnent is childish simplistic and somthing someone with very little understanding of science would make

if we did not question the world around us, science would be static. It is the nature of science to explore all possibilities; even ones that might not be agreeable to our belief system.

i.e. you should know better

I don’t presume to know much

we know much more about our world then they did then so when we stand atop a tall mountain with clear views and good weather conditions we can see large tracts of land but we know so much more exists beyond our sight

oh ok I wasn’t following you before.

and when your world view consists of only a few hundred mile of wilderness with scattered towns and cities within it the ability to see much of that world while stood on a tall mountain in good conditions could lead to the conclusion the world is in fact a big disk

personally, it’s not a conclusion that I think I would have ever come to without some sort of coercing. Most things by nature are spherical. Aristotle also pointed this out.

even knowing more of the world exists out side of sight the abiltiy to turn in a circle and see the world spreading out into a circular horizon it doent take a great leap of faith to expand that circle in your mind to fit the known world and consider it nothing but a big disk with terrain poking out of it

true, but inferences from nature should help you deduce the overall nature of the earth and the universe. Celestial bodies are spherical like most things. Aristotle figured this out without satellites and NASA photographs.

but does a circle have both a north/south and east/west circumferance?
Yes almost the same, but the 2 circumferences are slightly different as we’ve been told.

so do the same thing north south as you already did east west and now you have 2 similar circumferance measurments traveling along different axis's

it cant be a circle any more can it

excuse me, it’s an, ellipse

so our ability to fly around it proves?

rhetorical question?

note i said fly along the equator

Yes, u can do that in my model, and it would appear that your moving in a strait line across the equator, and you would be able to do so.

so flying in circles would distort the land massivley in comparision to our ability to create maps at sea level following coasts

nope

so flying in circles wont be what i happening

Yes it would be. Look at the logo for the UN to get a better idea of what I’m talking about. I’d send you my model, but it’s not on my computer.

multipoint supporting evidence ..... kind of how science works isnt it

Like I said, the only thing I know of that can refute this flat earth model is the movement of the stars as an observer traverses the earh. Particularly polaris. Maybe not polaris anymore though, we have a new north star a I believe.

aristiotles observances supported by equations verified by our ability to fly around the world, checked for accuracy by comparision of coastal maps drawn at sea level to what is visable at flight level

all possible on a flat earth.

all conclude your not flying in circles but are traveling around a sphere, if the earth were flat at least one of those would conflict with the findings .. they dont

Not following you here.

so while you try and pick at them one at a time seperatley could work, when they are combined as supporting evidence your ability to fails

they really don’t

its the same method creationists use to attack evolution they try to sperate them into seperate areas to try and pick apart at them becasue combined the imply cant get a foot in the door

I’m not separating anything, you were the one that did that.

hence why some ay micro evolution yes everything else no, some ay natural selection yes everything else now

not following you here

they all deny macro evlution but fail to understand macro evolution is micro evolution just between species groups rather then within 1 species group, if it happens in species groups, it happens between species (becasue they are each having thier own micro evoluton

macro evolution is not micro evolution. However, you are goal shifting now.

which fails to take into account the sun wouldnt rise in the east everywhere on the planet becasue east becomes clockwise, it would need to be clockwise of everypoint on the earth at the same time making the sun not a ball of gas but a sheet that surrounds earth but then it always rise in the south eastern position as well as the south west of your position

no, not at all, in my model the sun is extremely close to the earth, it rises and sets the same as it does in our current model.

but drop below the equator and the sun rises in the north east position

No, you don’t know the specifics of my model, so I don’t see how you could claim this.

which wont work on a flat disk

yes it does.

so far youve said if things were differenet things would be different, but they arnt that different

what aren’t that different?? if the sun is closer than we’ve been told, that’s a big difference.

your posing what ifs where the if doesnt happen

You can’t prove that it isn’t happening right now, even with polaris taken into consideration, it only proves that the earth is curved, not a sphere.

Originally posted by JPhish

not a lower orbit, no flipping involved, flat circular earth, sun closer, earth moving faster through space.

still wouldnt work no matter how fast the earth travels a lower then geosyncrinous orbit will travel faster, following the equator its going to travel from one end to the other of our little circle, then flip or have to double back around the circumferance both lead to a loss of visual telemetry so the ateleites would only be useful 1/2 of the time

unless you turn the center of the disk as north but tht then causes all sorts of problems with ya knowthe sun comming up and going down

No, but we shouldn’t consider something a universal law if it is only a terrestrial law.

its not only a terrestrial law thoguh is it

i works with a fair degree of accuracy through out much of the universe, general relativity breaks down primarily around blackholes where everything fails not just general relativity

The problem is. Gravity is like a wolf. Sure you can coerce it to do certain things, because by its nature it does them. That’s easy, what’s hard is taming the wolf so that you can use it for other purposes.

why would we want to use gravity for anything or then doing what gravity does?

what a terrible argument

becasue we cant use gravity to make expresso ....

what else would we use gravity for anyway? excpet for doing a halflife2 gravity gun

grvities a weak force by comparrison so its use is limited for other things

if the M hypothesis is correct gravity gets to be a lot more interesting and has another posibble use as a bizzare seti style

if we did not question the world around us, science would be static. It is the nature of science to explore all possibilities; even ones that might not be agreeable to our belief system.

yes it is but that has nothing to do with the extremly weak 'its only a theory' argument when you obviously know enough about science and how it works to realise using that is absurd in the way you did use it

as if to write off a theory as just an idea someone had and thats a far as it went

question yes, explore yes, claim somthing is wrong while not bothering to find conflicting evidence NO, claim its only a theory so worthless NO

I don’t presume to know much

but you appear to know how science works which would indicate a knowledge of peer review leading to an understanding of a hypothesi becomes a proven hypotheis then moves on to become a thoery if all goes well

it not an easy process, it not somthing someone can do on thier own

which is why the its only a theory i perticularily offensive it writes of several peoples hard work thats been scrutinised by others in the field(who really wanted thier work to be right) then usually undergoes several discuissions at large scale science meetings which then if all goes well get accepted as a theory

to go through that, and thats just the stuff after first proving thier hypothesis right, and pretend it no more valid then the people who start off thier posts with 'i have a theory' here on ats

and when your world view consists of only a few hundred mile of wilderness with scattered towns and cities within it the ability to see much of that world while stood on a tall mountain in good conditions could lead to the conclusion the world is in fact a big disk

personally, it’s not a conclusion that I think I would have ever come to without some sort of coercing. Most things by nature are spherical. Aristotle also pointed this out.

even knowing more of the world exists out side of sight the abiltiy to turn in a circle and see the world spreading out into a circular horizon it doent take a great leap of faith to expand that circle in your mind to fit the known world and consider it nothing but a big disk with terrain poking out of it

true, but inferences from nature should help you deduce the overall nature of the earth and the universe. Celestial bodies are spherical like most things. Aristotle figured this out without satellites and NASA photographs.

Yes almost the same, but the 2 circumferences are slightly different as we’ve been told.

you didnt answer the question ...

can a circle have both a north/south and east/west circumferance at the same time?

excuse me, it’s an, ellipse

sorry what is? the flat earth is an ellipse rather then a circle?

still doesnt get around the north/south and east/wet circumferance problem

the flat earth now has to be at least 2 flat earth disecting each other through thier central point at 90 degree's

rhetorical question?

pretty much

Yes, u can do that in my model, and it would appear that your moving in a strait line across the equator, and you would be able to do so.

but that model fail terribly when you do the north/south repeat

also sirrius wouldnt behave the way it does, if you have to change vast chunk of our solar system and galaxy to make your model work chances are your model doesnt work

Yes it would be. Look at the logo for the UN to get a better idea of what I’m talking about. I’d send you my model, but it’s not on my computer.

the distorted comment was before i got to the central hub for north model

which falls apart with the rising of the sun, or repeating the east/west plane trip on the north/south axis

Like I said, the only thing I know of that can refute this flat earth model is the movement of the stars as an observer traverses the earh. Particularly polaris. Maybe not polaris anymore though, we have a new north star a I believe.

a simple sunrise rising in the east collapses the model as east west become clockwise/anti-clockwise

a flat earth like the map gets around the sunrise issue, the hub point model doesnt

all possible on a flat earth.

not really, it could have been possible until you throw in the north/south geometry and plane trip to confirm

equator in africa up to the north pole onwards to the south pole ..... then how do you get from there to africa again without doing the same as the satelites flip underneath and fly along back to the other end or travel around the circumferance until your at a point 180 degrees opposite where you hit the edge

you could never travel across the antartic youd hit the end of the planet or travel round in a circle forever

they really don’t

they really do two axis's of cricumferance and the plane trip to check them alone detory both the flat earth map view and flat earth hub point north model

the sun rise also does a fantastic job of this

not following you here

example of spliting somthing down into multipoints to attack them rather then the whole thing

macro evolution is not micro evolution. However, you are goal shifting now.

micro change with individuals a species or breeding population, macro change between species or breeding populations

if micro exists then so does macro, it the same process taking place in two species or breeding population at the same time, where a micro only focuses on whats happening in the one

not goal shifting, just showing how your tactics are similar

no, not at all, in my model the sun is extremely close to the earth, it rises and sets the same as it does in our current model.

doesnt matter how close the sun is for it to rise in the east and set in the west on a flat earth of anyshape with north bieng the central point its impossible for the sun to rise in the east everywhere

not without multipul small suns hovering directly over specific areas with some form of shielding to prevent more then one sun at any time bieng visable and even that still has massive problems

No, you don’t know the specifics of my model, so I don’t see how you could claim this.

its based on a disk, dont need the details as long as it based on a 2 dimensional shape it fails at sunrises

a cone kind of works, or a semi-sphere but a flat disk wont, not one with a hubpoint bieng north for some of them it rises in the south, some the east some the west and some the north

what aren’t that different?? if the sun is closer than we’ve been told, that’s a big difference.

but wont make a flat earth feasable

if the sun is closer then it is were a lot warmer and getting iradiated, that is unless you shrink the sun to a balance it out which mean it may as well have stayed where it was the decrease in mass leads to a decrease in intesity stopping it cooking earth but also lowering its ability to generate gravity

so youve brought the sun closer and altered its ability to generate gravity and heat

now how do you fix its paralax shift? changing the size wont make a differnance ...

You can’t prove that it isn’t happening right now, even with polaris taken into consideration, it only proves that the earth is curved, not a sphere.

not with the north/south and east/west geometry coupled with the confirmation plane trips

for it to have circumferances on both an x and y axis rules out the possability of a flat earth, it is 3 dimenional and continuos if you are able to travel all the way around on both axis's from a point on the equator

the sun screw it up, moving it closer or further away wont fix the problem, moving it closer or futher away then screws up its paralax shift so now you have to break algebra to make the sun closer but appear further away

what ever flat earth model the standard flat map layout or a north hubpoint everytime you fix one thing to make it possible you break at least another 1

without seeing the actual model its hard to com up with model specific faults butthe ones above are just generalied for ANY flat earth

[edit on 2/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
still wouldnt work no matter how fast the earth travels a lower then geosyncrinous orbit will travel faster, following the equator its going to travel from one end to the other of our little circle, then flip or have to double back around the circumferance both lead to a loss of visual telemetry so the ateleites would only be useful 1/2 of the time

it actually works exactly the same. I’m not talking about the earths rotation, I’m talking about the earth movement through space being faster; along with the satellites. Which means it’s the same.

unless you turn the center of the disk as north but tht then causes all sorts of problems with ya knowthe sun comming up and going down

I’ve already stated that magnetic north is the center of the flat elliptical earth. It doesn’t cause any problems with the sun coming up and down. The sun would revolve above the earth, not around it. Nor would the earth revolve around the sun.

its not only a terrestrial law thoguh is it

It is, if it only works on earth, which so far, is the case.

i works with a fair degree of accuracy through out much of the universe, general relativity breaks down primarily around blackholes where everything fails not just general relativity

fair degree is not absolute.

why would we want to use gravity for anything or then doing what gravity does?

what a terrible argument

becasue we cant use gravity to make expresso ....

what else would we use gravity for anyway? excpet for doing a halflife2 gravity gun

grvities a weak force by comparrison so its use is limited for other things

if the M hypothesis is correct gravity gets to be a lot more interesting and has another posibble use as a bizzare seti styl

at the moment we have no control over gravity, like a wild wolf. Once tamed, we can harness gravity; for anti gravitational purposes; just as an example.

yes it is but that has nothing to do with the extremly weak 'its only a theory' argument when you obviously know enough about science and how it works to realise using that is absurd in the way you did use it.

as if to write off a theory as just an idea someone had and thats a far as it went.

I never said anything of the sort. But what I did say is that, you and I did not perform the tests, and we did not collect the data which was judged by scientific peers. We were just told what they claimed to have done. Acknowledge it exists as a possible truth. But don’t believe everything you hear and see. That’s my only point.

question yes, explore yes, claim somthing is wrong while not bothering to find conflicting evidence NO, claim its only a theory so worthless NO

Um, you’re not seeing what I’ve actually done. . . I’m not thrown anything out the window for being a theory in this exercise; using the inferences that constructed the original model/theory, I have created a syntactic model that still relies on the inferences that one may observe from earth.

but you appear to know how science works which would indicate a knowledge of peer review leading to an understanding of a hypothesi becomes a proven hypotheis then moves on to become a thoery if all goes well

it not an easy process, it not somthing someone can do on thier own

I’m aware. I’m simply exploring alternate possibilities.

which is why the its only a theory i perticularily offensive it writes of several peoples hard work thats been scrutinised by others in the field(who really wanted thier work to be right) then usually undergoes several discuissions at large scale science meetings which then if all goes well get accepted as a theory

to go through that, and thats just the stuff after first proving thier hypothesis right, and pretend it no more valid then the people who start off thier posts with 'i have a theory' here on ats

Problem is, although sound; my theory/model is not serious. It’s an exercise. Most people without the aid of Google can not tell me why they believe the earth is an elliptical sphere. When I present this model, it is more than anything, a means for people to realize, not only what they believe, but why they believe it.

and when your world view consists of only a few hundred mile of wilderness with scattered towns and cities within it the ability to see much of that world while stood on a tall mountain in good conditions could lead to the conclusion the world is in fact a big disk

personally, it’s not a conclusion that I think I would have ever come to without some sort of coercing. Most things by nature are spherical. Aristotle also pointed this out.

even knowing more of the world exists out side of sight the abiltiy to turn in a circle and see the world spreading out into a circular horizon it doent take a great leap of faith to expand that circle in your mind to fit the known world and consider it nothing but a big disk with terrain poking out of it

true, but inferences from nature should help you deduce the overall nature of the earth and the universe. Celestial bodies are spherical like most things. Aristotle figured this out without satellites and NASA photographs.

you didnt answer the question ...

can a circle have both a north/south and east/west circumferance at the same time?

mathematically, no, but their can appear to be an east/west circumference even though there isn’t one. North/south, yes there is a “problem”. But not really, you’d still be able to start at the “Antarctica” head to magnetic north “the north pole” along that radii, cross it, head down the second radii opposite magnetic north and arrive back on the other side of Antarctica. After that a problem arises, once you head opposite “magnetic north” enough you’ll eventually reach the end of the elliptical circle. So the only problem is, that in my model, there is a “hole” in the center of Antarctica.

the flat earth is an ellipse rather then a circle?

yes

still doesnt get around the north/south and east/wet circumferance problem

there isn’t a problem with the east/west circumference, it works. Unless someone traveled to the “center of Antarctica, no one would be the wiser about the North/South circumfrance.

the flat earth now has to be at least 2 flat earth disecting each other through thier central point at 90 degree's

that might work, but not needed.

but that model fail terribly when you do the north/south repeat

You’re right, but only if you cross strait through Antarctica. Have you or anyone you’ve known ever done that?