Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by jrr777, Nov 8, 2017.
Trolls will only play, they really have no interest in being honest.
No they don't and you only speak for yourself.
No one THINKS it is round it simply is round which you cannot refute.
Yes you are.
It is not a question of being wrong it is a question of willfully disobeying the god you believe in.
If you want to claim Polaris is 2,500,000,000,000,000 miles away you go right ahead. Nothing is going to be seen at that distance or measured. Such tremendous and outrageous claims, none in which can be proven. So your math starts with a claim.
No, Polaris is claimed to be 2,500,000,000,000,000 miles away. Nothing more than a claim.
Sorry, you don't get to move the goalposts. You presented that video as proof that the heliocentric model is erroneous and false. The burden of proof is on you based upon the tenants of the heliocentric system.
I have proved, using commonly accepted tenants of the heliocentric system, that the claims in that video are completely bogus (and indeed, they demonstrate my point of how Polaris proves the Earth is a sphere, not flat, which you still have not rebutted). Thus, that video itself in no way proves the heliocentric system is erroneous.
Your denial now is making a new claim, that the distance to Polaris, based on the heliocentric system, is not accurate. The only "proof" the video makes about the distance of Polaris is the fundamentally ignorant demonstration, as I pointed out in my post you cited, that the relative position of Polaris in the sky based upon your latitude on Earth in no way proves anything about the distance to Polaris.
I asked you in my post:Honestly, if you have even the slightest understanding of the heliocentric system, you should be able to instantly see the grossly ignorant error the video is making.But apparently you do not see it? Really? Or are you being dishonest with us?
Why did you dodge my question? Please address it.
The only thing the fact that the position of Polaris changes geometrically with latitude proves (which again, you have utterly failed to rebut) is that the Earth is a sphere.
If you deny that, please explain how the position of Polaris could change geometrically with latitude (which again, you have utterly failed to rebut) if the Earth were flat.
As to the distance of Polaris from the Earth, you've utterly failed to prove Polaris is not a couple quadrillion miles away. Your unsupported, baseless denials of fact are not proof of anything.
However, regardless of the actual distance, the fact that Polaris's relative position in the sky is a geometric function of your latitude is irrebuttal proof that the Earth is a Sphere. As I pointed out, if the Earth were flat, Polaris could be see from all over the Earth, it would not change its position geometrically with latitude, and it would not be obstructed in the Southern Hemisphere.
If you deny that, please explain why you cannot see Polaris from the entire Earth if the Earth wax flat. And then explain how you can see the Southern cross from the Southern Hemisphere but nor from more northern latitudes (above 30* N)
This is proved by observation and simple mathematics. And if nothing more, common sense.
I've never seen a FE explanation for why Polaris can't be seen in the southern hemisphere, also why the stars there circle in the opposite direction to the northern ones circling Polaris. Both are necessary on a spherical Earth, and have no FE explanation.
The entire model is nothing more than mathematical garb. And here you are, using mathematics as a means to defend such an absurd claim, that we live on a spinning ball. When in reality what you call observations, suggest otherwise. The same math fits a geo-centric "ball earth" as well. Where it's still a ball, but it's not moving. You know how many different equations one could come up with, if they spent their life doing so?
Copernicus said the sun was only 13 million miles away, and in stating that, he also said that it matters not. The distance to the sun has been changed 3 or more times, 3 for certain. It's called "razzle dazzle", and that is what is being done to anybody that would believe such an absurd claim, through "mathematics". Tell me, what mathematical equation proves your "eyesight"?
Everything has been advanced in technology. Phones, cars, planes, trains, everything but "space". Which has actually gone backwards. The greatest achievement in mankind's history was what 1969?
When the plane was invented, other people and companies starting making them, same with vehicles, phones, and everything else. But space, nothing, not only can we not go back to the moon (they never went in the first place), but they claim they don't have the technology anymore, that they destroyed that technology "and it's a painful process to bring it back".
All the new "space agencies" is a front. They are not privatized, they all share the same symbology, and are of one mind.
Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend on it, suffers. -Chapter 1 Philosophical Discoveries-
The real state of things escapes our observations; or, if it presents itself to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new efforts of a vein ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, and labor to make it tally with our favorite schemes. Thus by blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd composition of truth and error. These have not done near so much harm as that pride and ambition which has lead philosophers to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and finished system of nature; and in order to obtain this at once, to take the liberty to inventing certain principles and hypothesis from which they pretend to explain all her mysteries." -The Scottish Enlightenment-
"Theories are things of uncertain mode; they depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one, and sometimes with another."
The system of Copernicus was admitted by it's author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration.
"It is not necessary that hypothesis should be true, or even probable, it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypotheses of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypotheses, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood". -Copernicus-
The Newtonian and all other "views" and systems have the same general character as the "hypothesis of the terrestrial motion," framed by Copernicus.
"The foundations or premises are always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change. Until the practice of theorizing is universally relinquished, philosophy will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, antagonistic to the highest aspirations of humanity. Let there be a true and practical free-thought method, with sequences as the only test of truth and consistency, and the philosopher may become the Priest of Science and the real benefactor of his species." -Zetetic Astronomy-
Well sure, I've used simple mathematics to prove, once again, that your videos are bogus. And I've used simple mathematics and geometry to prove that we are on a sphere.
Are you conceding the Earth is a ball? And of course it is moving.
Lots. And none of them prove the Earth is flat.
That is a flat out falsehood based upon an out of context statement. The person was referring to the fact that we no longer have the Apollo systems any more. However, the person in that same interview says: But going to Mars should be on of the next series of steps that we will do. The first step should be going back to the moon, for a number of technical reasons and exploration reasons, and they after that Mars, maybe high orbit in the Venus atmosphere, maybe going to Europa ..." For you to assert he or anyone said we can not get back to the moon is simply a flat out falsehood.
Don't you even care about your commandments? Thou shall not bear false witness?
This is all interesting, but I've proved your videos are bogus. I've proved that with simple observations here on Earth, without relying on the thousands of photographs, we can prove that we are on a spinning sphere. You have (once again) utterly failed to to address, much less rebut, the proofs I have presented in detail.
Why have you completely dodge my proofs in my post? Why are you dodging answering the questions?
Honestly, if you have even the slightest understanding of the heliocentric system, you should be able to instantly see the grossly ignorant error the video is making.But apparently you do not see it? Really? Or are you being dishonest with us?
If you deny that the position of Polaris changes geometrically with latitude proves is that the Earth is a sphere, please explain how the position of Polaris could change geometrically with latitude (which again, you have utterly failed to rebut) if the Earth were flat.
Please explain why you cannot see Polaris from the entire Earth if the Earth wax flat. And then explain how you can see the Southern cross from the Southern Hemisphere but nor from more northern latitudes (above 30* N).
And I'll add another, an excellent observation Electron pointed out. If you are in the Northern Hemisphere, you see the stars rotating around Polaris, which is directly above the North Pole, in a counterclockwise rotation. However, if you are in the Southern Hemisphere, when you look up at night, you don't see Polaris. Instead you see the stars rotating around the Southern Cross, above the Southern pole in a Clockwise rotation.
How could stars possible rotate in different directions over the different poles if the Earth were flat?
Another observable proof that the Earth is not flat.
Now, I and others have accused you of simply being a troll. You've claimed that you are interested in learning the truth. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. If that is true, then address the arguments in my post, and explain how they are wrong and do not prove the Earth is indeed a sphere.
Don't dodge our questions and arguments with meaningless blather. That's why folks call you a troll.
This is your chance to prove you really are interested in the truth, as you've claimed you are.
Agreed, however mathematics does not prove our world, realm, universe, rather it proves mathematics. To answer your question in a manner pleasing to you, I must first adhere to the mathematics, in which I refuse to do, knowing math does not prove the world, realm, or universe in which our reality is. Copernicus himself said so. So your "astronomical priest," agrees with me on this one.
I know he is alive because I seen him just the other day at Walmarts. You seen him too?.
And another thing.....The earth is flat as a pancake.
They are claiming the next step is the moon for technical reasons, which is understandable given the assumption that the earth is a ball, and deep space travel is even possible. They can claim their gonna go to the moon, but they're not going anywhere. They also know a very keen eye will be set upon them, and is already. It's not going to be as easy to trick us as it was the first time, when they fulfilled the prophecy of the "strong delusion", that will deceive the entire "world". Which it has.
Here are your astronomical priests in which you adhere to. Do you have the ability to see a lie when it is upon you?
Is this the behavior that comes with believing earth is a ball?
Yes in fact every one can see that you are lying about the earth being flat
That is not a belief.
it is reality
That is your opinion of reality. And you base it off of something you have never seen.
No it is not opinion it is observation of reality and fact which you have not and cannot present any evidence to challenge.
And yes I hav seen it I have looked at the evidence and accepted it unlike you who simply lies about it
It's your story, tell it how you want.
No it is not mine nor a story it is simple fact which you willfully lie about
Separate names with a comma.