3 Days of Darkness in 2012

page: 18
79
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


The reason science will have changed, again in a thousand years, is because we don't currently know everything there is to know. Which is why my first statement stands...A scientific mechanism can not be outlined if this was a possibility, because Science is incomplete..
edit on 7-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



3 Days of Darkness in 2012


Well, it simply didn't happen did it?

No matter what off topic conversations and tangents in this thread...

It didn't happen.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


It did in a sense. It happens in an allegorical and metaphorical sense, every year. But that is irrelevant.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 



The reason science will have changed, again in a thousand years, is because we don't currently know everything there is to know. Which is why my first statement stands...A scientific mechanism can not be outlined if this was a possibility, because Science is incomplete..

That is false. The reason science will change has nothing to do with what is known. Science will change because better ways will be worked out on how to learn about the universe we live in.

There is a huge failure in understanding human knowledge where people claim that due to the existence of unknowns that we know little. Ridiculous. There will always be unknowns. The existence of unknowns makes no statement about the depth of knowledge in a given field of study.

Your first statement does not stand. Take a course in the history of science and learn a little about the change in thinking over the millennia.

You bring up the issue of a geocentric model. Can you tell me one thing that you as an individual could use to show that the system does not hold up?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Can you tell me one thing that you as an individual could use to show that the system does not hold up?


I could, but I don't care to. Quite frankly, you are a waste of my time. I'm not here to argue with you or anybody else. Merely adding my own points to the discussion. Arguing with other people over something inconsequential as religion or beliefs, prevents you from furthering your own. So I bid you good day sir. I don't agree with you; and I will respectfully decline your invitation to engage me in a "I can prove you wrong contest." I'm very aware of your agenda around here. So keep on fishing good sir!



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 



I could, but I don't care to.

That's because you can't. I can, but it is clear you have no actual understanding of the issue. That's okay. You can find out by asking.


I'm not here to argue with you or anybody else. Merely adding my own points to the discussion. Arguing with other people over something inconsequential as religion or beliefs, prevents you from furthering your own.

The reason for an open forum is to discuss ideas and to learn from others. Here you are proposing a position that is incorrect and you can learn by asking.


I'm very aware of your agenda around here.

My agenda is education, although I am often met with defiant close-mindedness more often than not.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Fish harder, broski. You don't phase me.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
TIME FOR THE BICKERING TO STOP!

Return to the topic and civil discussion or the thread will be closed and post bans may follow.

Mod Edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
It is possible for individuals to make observations that show that the Earth cannot be at the center of the system.

Even today we think of the Earth as at the center. We speak of sunrise and sunset. That is what appears to happen. We see moonrise and moonset. That too is what appears to happen. The notion of the Earth at the center of the system seems to be clear when we look at these larger objects in the sky. Even the stars appear to swirl around the Earth.

What tells us that the Earth is not at the center are the smaller objects in the sky. By smaller I mean their apparent size and not their actual size. Observations of Venus quickly tell us that the Earth cannot be the center of the universe. Observations of Jupiter tell us the same thing.

These are things that people can determine quickly, in the course of a night's observation.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Which came first; the chicken or the egg? The mind, or physical reality?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
In 1610 a remarkable device was constructed called the telescope. The person that used the telescope was Galileo. That was 402 years ago, shortly to be 403 years ago.

Galileo made 3 important observations that year that showed the Earth could not be at the center of the universe.
1. He observed the moons of Jupiter
2. He saw Venus had phases like the Moon
3. He tracked a comet across the night sky

These 3 things each told him that whatever the real situation of the cosmos, the Earth could not be at the center of the universe.

The first 2 observations are easy to make and can be done by anyone. What it took to obtain this evidence was a new technological device. The Greeks knew that there were severe problems with the Earth at the center of the universe. The paths of the planets were complex including retrograde motions. They knew there was a problem and tried to fix the problem with spheres within spheres. They knew that their changes were not fixing the problem. What they surmised, but did not demonstrate was that the Sun was at the center of the solar system.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
The Greeks were logical enough not to jump on another idea just because their current model was flawed. Why should the other idea be correct, just because another was wrong?

The 3 Days of Darkness claim was flawed from the start. None of the suggested ideas made sense. The reasons for even going down this path were vague and unmerited. The outcome was as expected: nothing happened.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Galileo...amazing human being. Knowledge is sublime.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
As in " Eastern Calendar "... 2012 year is NOT over yet.



Be wise like an owl!



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 

Considering that the universe was kicking around for BILLIONS of years before life arose on this planet (let alone intelligent life) I'd say the answer is pretty obvious.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SophiaEveLee
 



As in " Eastern Calendar "... 2012 year is NOT over yet.

Remember that the 2012 issue deals with a correlation between the long count and the Gregorian calendar, not other calendars. So the calendar you refer to has bearing on the issue.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. You weren't around to see it. This brings the double slit experiment to mind...Who is observing us, huh? Besides, who is to say that life is merely physical?

www.theregister.co.uk...

Oh, and your precious Science makes mistakes all the time. You aren't infallible.
edit on 10-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I prefer the real calendar of 13 months myself.. But you know those religious types hate 13, it's evil


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Month




A month is a unit of time, used with calendars, which was first used and invented in Mesopotamia, as a natural period related to the motion of the Moon; month and Moon are cognates.


Do you know what that word cognate, means?



In linguistics, cognates are words that have a common etymological origin.


Using a calendar of 13 months with 28 days, would bring out 13 full moons in a year. Many civilizations used calendars quite similar to this.
edit on 10-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


It did in a sense. It happens in an allegorical and metaphorical sense, every year. But that is irrelevant.


no, it didnt happen, you guys just cant admit you were wrong thats all.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SecludedGamer
 


You obviously don't know what allegory and metaphor means....It isn't literal....





top topics
 
79
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join