Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was literally necessary in order to rescue the scientific world from being driven back to the “impossible” notion of a geocentric universe.
This person has a hypothesis that the Universe with all the mass in the galaxies revolves around the Earth as opposed to the Earth spinning on its axis with its limited mass. This is the best example of relativity I have seen in a while: the man is correct as well as the other theory that the Earth turns. First time I have heard this. Maybe both are turning or moving relative to each other. Space-time might have some answers to this perplexing question.
You forgot that relativity only applies to NOT accelerated systems. Since rotation is always affected with acceleration you can´t just switch viewpoints!
A simple thought experiment can shed light on this. The earth is so big that the surface moves horizontally. There is no constant directional change. So basically we and everything on earth moves sideways like a plane or train. You don't feel any movement because nothing is moving inside this system model. There is virtually ZERO centrifugal force. This explains why everything weighs the same as it would any other place on earth. This is why the earth can rotate without the sensation it does.
With aether present, geostationary satellites oppose both sides equally once everyone agrees that these sats orbit far beyond earth's atmosphere because for helios, they have to zip around the earth to catch up with the spinning earth below and if geostatic theory is correct, they have just as much work to do bucking the revolving aether as it revolves the earth.
So therefore geo sats debunk the existence of aether and prove outer space is a vacuum, which is a sweet accomplishment.
Ok dude..... too many people waste their lives trying to make a fact.. like how the Earth IS MOVING! Then there are people like yourself that are going to sit here and waste their time trying to prove that wrong... I don't see why you sit there and do that, but have fun...
the centrifical force really is twice bigger on the euqator but that is 0,34% of your weight maybe if I add the difference in the earth`s radius caused by it`s not perfect spherical shape it`ll turn out to be 0,9% don`t know don`t care... but I`ve just killed your theory in like 3 comments and I`m proud of me cause I actually visited the physics and astronomy classses :)
let`s say in Canada you`re like 60 degrees away from the equator wich makes you radius (not the earth`s radius where you are but the radius of the spinning) 6378000*cos(60) and your velocity 2*pi*6378000*cos(60)/24*3600 (not using the star day/night cycle because it`s a really small difference... then used in your equasion turns out to be 1 newton well looks like the centrifical force in Canada is twice as low as the centrifical on the Equator but yet 1 newton is 0,17% of my weight
you are so stupid that I can`t even begin to tell why :X velocity is not meajured in km/h but instead in m/s which by itself shows how screwed up is your equasion... then of course the earth`s radius is meajured in meters :X which wouldn`t be a problem at all if the velocity wasn`t squared... solving the correct equasion on my own did turn out to be TWO but two newtons now twice bigger or smtn like that... my weight would be 588 newtons on the equator 2/588 = 0,34 % less heavy...
'You are free to believe that science is all bullshit but what's the motive of a scientist to misdirect?'
Meaning you BELIEVE because it would be improbable in your eyes that scientists would be 'lying' or that they would all be involved in 'a conspiracy'.
This is not about being 'conspiratorial'. It's about basically all scientific disciplines being based on root ASSUMPTIONS that are subsequently taken for dogma.
'This guy wouldn't be fundametalist christian would he?'
Who cares? Why don't you deal with his arguments instead? Or perhaps it suffices for you to know that his discourse contradicts authoritative dogma?
It is interesting to note that the countless people who mindlessly laugh away anything that isn't validated by official theory always attempt to discredit the messenger and are typically simply not intellectually equipped to address the message itself.
You're a faithhead completely incapable of following a case or formulating an argument. You don't even know what you're talking about, you don't understand what this guy is saying or what I just said, you're just a PROGRAMMED MINDLESS REGURGITATOR, and your psychology is characteried by all the patterns and mechanisms of RELIGIOUS FAITHHEADED FUNDAMENTALISTS.
You can't do your own thinking. Consequently what you 'think' about anything or anyone is irrelevant. The End.
Well, just thought I'd add this: I saw your channel and you are clearly VERY focused on Jesus-freaks and faithheads. The reason they irritate you so much is because YOU have EXACTLY the same problem: you can't think for yourself. It's really classic...
@suddenlyitsobvious Yes, I'm focused on ridding the world of organized religion. You're not very smart are you? Never try and match wits with an Atheist. Bow to me.
Not very smart? Judging by your prose you can barely string a few short disconnected phrases together. Atheism btw isn't spelled with a capital A. Bow to you? Why don't you touch your toes and I'll drive you home, punk.
@suddenlyitsobvious You get your world view from a magic book from the late bronze age and you think the Earth is the center of the universe. Who's the idiot, douchebag?
Me getting my world view from a magic book? No I don't actually because I'm not religious and because I'm not a BELIEVER in AUTHORITY like you. I do my own thinking, as does the guy in the vid. The only one with a dysfunctional mind here appears to be you.
So, why don't you prove me wrong and share with the thread what contentions the guy in this vid is making that you disagree with, and why you disagree with them?
@suddenlyitsobvious The guy in the video gets all the science wrong. The Earth does indeed spin once a day but there is not enough centrifugal force to cause a weight difference at different positions on the globe due to our relative size and our dense atmosphere that contains us. By his definition, people (and unattached objects) would fly off the planet at the Equator. The only authority I have is to myself. Do you really believe the Earth doesn't spin?
Why don't you tell me how YOU know this? The spinning earth is necessary for heliocentrism and heliocentrism in the day it was popularized by Copernicus was in Copernicus own words simply 'A MORE ELEGANT OPTION'.
'there is not enough centrifugal force to cause a weight difference at different positions on the globe due to our relative size and our dense atmosphere that contains us'
...equation accepted by everyone defining that force, an equation shown in this vid?
What has the 'relative size' of the earth got to do with the issue that according to this standard equation the cf at the equator should have an entirely different value than at the poles?
Do you think the atmosphere spins with the earth? At what point then does some kind of centrifugal force even exerts its effect?
You see, the typical error you are making is that you obsessively categorize people as a ploy to discredit their discourse, without actually being able to address the substance of that discourse, which is of course what honest and intellectually sound people do...
Your name-calling is substandard and reflects on your profound insecurity and poorly developed conceptual skills...ANYTHING that doesn't square with authority is BAAAD.
Well, never mind, you're just another close-minded kid believing himself to me on 'the smart side', whereas christians are 'so dumb'.
Did it occur to you that your brand of atheism is itself just another highly promoted belief system and that you've simply uncritically ingested all kinds of information like a total fashion-victim?
Did you personally VERIFY all that information? Do you KNOW the Theory of Evolution is correct, do you KNOW the 'Big Bang' occurred etc etc?
You BELIEVE these things because you were TOLD these things. You have no means of verifying ANY of it.
Pointing at christian bigots really doesn't arrange your case. It's just a diversion and a PROJECTION, because again, the MINDFRAME is identical: JUST LIKE A CHRISTAN FUNDAMENTALIST you BELIEVE authoritative narratives that you don't check.
It's pretty obvious that the guy in this vid is actually using his intellect. He doesn't say that something's true because it says so in the Bible or in a physics textbook. He is actually REASONING, connecting and synthesizing information and developing a logical argument.
You see, THAT's the difference.
That some christians might equally hold a flat earth view is as a result completely irrelevant.
@suddenlyitsobvious He's using his intellect but he's still wrong. He really loses credibility when he references "the creator". So that I may determine your level of delusion, please answer my question: Do you believe the Earth is the center of the universe?
'Do you believe the Earth is the center of the universe?'
You're persisiting in obsessively categorizing people into some belief system. I have merely determined myself that the cosmogony we are being sold is bullshit and I could get into this from a number of angles, but you obviously don't have the interest or attention span to follow the argument, since you're exclusively interested in the sanity of those voicing it.
@suddenlyitsobvious The Earth doesn't spin fast enough to cause centrifugal force. Hold a ball in your hand and slowly turn it 360 degrees over 24 hours. Not much c-force right? You are free to believe that science is all bullshit but what's the motive of a scientist to misdirect? We went to the moon a few times with these scientific precepts. Oh wait... You probably think that was faked as well. (I can't believe I'm arguing with a guy who thinks the Earth doesn't spin...)
If you start digging critically into everything we read in textbooks about the universe, you'll soon find that it's all about MAKING THE MODEL WORK. Thus the constancy of the speed of light, the existence of dark matter and COUNTLESS OTHER supposed facts were NEVER empirically shown to be correct. They are necessary because otherwise the rest of the model collapses.
And of course there are people out there that know it's all bullshit. NASA controls all this science and NASA...
...is simply not a neutral scientific body. It is a militaro-industrial complex invoking 'national security' ALL THE TIME. And OF COURSE, you haven't figured out that the moonlanding was a complete hoax, because if you had, your worldview would have collapsed.
You have a LOT of homework to do son, and don't just go 'I don't believe in conspiracy bullshit and you're wearing your tinfoil hat too tight'.
Why don't you REALLY examine it for once? Just look at the material YOURSELF, you...
I guess I know about all moon hoax "proofs" out there, and most of them immediadetly made me laugh (a few took a little longer). My laughs were all based on logic, common sense and experienced observation - not BELIEF. I myself am a skilled photographer - so you might at least believe me that all the photo-based "proofs" are plain nonsense.
I you want me to, I can debunk one by one without any question left! Just start with the most "obvious"!
'I know about all moon hoax "proofs" out there, and most of them immediadetly made me laugh'
I'm familiar with the base-line of your 'argument', have always found it very substandard and understand the general lines of the psychological constellations that give rise to it.
Perhaps I'm surprising you but your laughter -that incidentally sounds slightly hollow- has failed to convince me...
You're obviously not exactly a Nobel prize...Well, you're still young and wet behind the ears. It's OK son...OF COURSE you want the moonlanding to be fact, I understand...
But really lad, do you call this sort of garbage thinking?
'I´s the average speed of particles in a defined part of space. But there are SO few particles in moons environment to get in touch with the film.. ctd Pt 3'
You're clutching at any straw offered you by the 'experts', regurgitating little facts...
Oh I really wouldn´t mind if the moonlanding was a hoax. Quite the opposite: I like big news! I was on fire when initially I saw Rumsfeld on this mockumentary you´re still taking serious and it quite upset me as pretty soon I realized that it was just a joke.
And then: Being from Austria I´m not an american patriot! I know quite a bit about the military–industrial complex and what the´re capable of ... but I´m able to descern between likeliness and nonsense.
"But really lad, do you call this sort of garbage thinking?"
My "gargabe" at least LOOKS like arguments, whereas your polemic sarcasm merely looks like your suffering from beginning tourette syndrome.
"clutching at any straw offered you by the 'experts". I´m expert enough to know that "temperature" was defined BEFORE the moon landing! And that I mentioned only one doesn´t mean that there´s just one straw - it´s merely a BARN of straws debunking the hoax guys
...and trivia that are COMPLETELY ABSURD. You'll clutch at ANYTHING to stay in line with consensual reality, anything to avoid that TERRIBLE, that daunting task of switching on your mind and see what's completely evident.
If that´s all so evident: when finally will you come over with some EVIDENCE??
If there a 100 putative hints for a hoax and you open-mindedly scrutinize one by one and the more you look/read on the more you SEE that these guys don´t have the slightest clue of geometry, cinetics, mechanics, radiology, photography... what would YOU think?
Maybe the moon-landing NEVER HAPPENED! No problem with me! But finding only idiots with silly arguments there surely won´t convince me!
"What is especially silly is that you took it upon yourself to simply imagine what my arguments should and would be."
I beg your pardon but: WHERE ARE YOUR arguments that it could discuss?? You still didn´t come over with ONE - albeit I encouraged you to do so for three times now!?
It´s common tactics of morons to deny arguments proven false ever having been THEIR arguments. You act the same - so let me guess...
So come on boy! just one tiny little argument! Yes, you can!!
I mean look at it from a larger perspective. WHAT did WE, WE learn?
We saw some guys jumping around in the dust. That's it. NOTHING amazing happened, nothing crucial was brought back...
And really, what are the chances that after going there in 1969, humans wouldn't go back? Too expensive? Well, I'd say a bailout is a lot more expensive...
Wouldn't it be useful to set up some equipment on the moon? Wouldn't millions of scientists...
Just check out the Apollo press conference for instance, with Aldrin, Collins and Armstrong.
Just look at Armstrong. It is SOOO obvious it's all a complete hoax and Armstrong is horrified at having to lie to the entire world.
Come on...Just look at the footage of the moonlanding, their ridiculous little space capsule. It's LUDICROUS but people BELIEVE because daddy authority tells you it's true.
@suddenlyitsobvious You have moved into conspiracy craziness now. All of your points have been refuted a long time ago. Did the USSR fake their space program too? You're killing me now. This is just too funny...
Why don't you do what I said. Check the vid about Kubrick's cinematographic involvement in the moonlanding that AGAIN, is confirmed by Kissinger and Rumsfeld in named video.
Also, check out the Apollo Press Conference and tell me your impressions.
There's not much use in repeating it's all so funny and delirious and conspiratorial. Do you have the guts to check these two things, or would that be a bit too intimidating for you?
Come on! Opération lune (orig. title) is well known for being a mockumentary. I stumbled upon it one night zapping channels and it immediately sucked me in. Could that really be true? Moonlanding a hoax? I not only listened but OBSERVED very carefully and it took me about 20 min. to realize that it was a joke! Even a moron would´ve gotten that during the last 5 minutes! It even won prices for being such smart satire (Grimme Preis in Germany e.g.). That´s official facts...
'I saw Rumsfeld on this mockumentary you´re still taking serious and it quite upset me as pretty soon I realized that it was just a joke.'
I'm still taking serious??
Earlier, you stated:
' Opération lune (orig. title) is well known for being a mockumentary. I stumbled upon it one night zapping channels and it immediately sucked me in. Could that really be true? Moonlanding a hoax?'
It would seem you've imagined everybody who has problems with the moonlanding...
1.) "Opération lune" is the mother and only source of whatever videos digesting the Rumsfeld/Kissinger interwiews in that context.- a context that doesn´t even exist by the way - the authors just made it look that way but infact Kissinger/Rumsfeld NEVER talk about a moon hoax. Please wiki on that film or be quiet! Or watch it once again with OPEN eyes!
2.) Do you really think that, if the hoax was true, Rumsfeld would dare and commit that? Are you crazy???
How stupid are you really? OF COURSE they didn´t see any stars! It was DAYTIME then! And no: I doesn´t take an atmo to hide stars from our eyes! Bare sun hitting moon´s surface is by far enough. It´s 10000 times brighter than starlight and thus causes the retina to close (+ other things).
On earth you won´t even see stars at night while sitting in a football arena cause the flood lights are too bright (being dim compared to sunlight!).
...science is ultimately BASICALLY determined by majoritarian consensus of those considered experts or authoritative.
These experts of course are in their positions precisely because of their biases through advanced programming, shortsightedness or downright evil minds .
It is not so easy 'proving' the moonlanding was a hoax, or even such an obvious issue as 9/11 being perpetrated by arabs with cutters being a lie, because the system generates an avalanche of data soon...
...becoming very technical, the materials snowball in what almost becomes an entirely new 'discipline', and anybody wanting to get on top of it all needs many years if not a lifetime to exhaustively delve through it all and conclusively prove something.
If today fi you want to get on top of the 9/11 issue, you could spent an entire lifetime studying all the countless
angles that have been generated.
Likewise, in order to scientifically address issues such as ...
(5) ... finance, the media and all facets of society are hierachically controlled for purposes of controlling the collective, NEVER for improving it. People getting on top in this system ARE EITHER SOLD OR IDIOTS, and truth is a commodity that is VERY scarce.
This is not something I believe, I know it through combining large amounts of data from all fields at once;
in other words, a larger perspective is required combining large amounts of info from all possible angles,
...perhaps be spent more advantageously resolving hunger in the world? No.
This tells you something about the media, and looking at it today, you can easily pick up on the propagandistic vibe of it all. Propaganda ALWAYS occults truth and occurs when authority is LYING to the members of society.
The SU was of course entirely funded by Wall Street bankers and the US government from the early twenty's on, (and it's most edifying to check who actually funded the...
...entire Revolution) and basically, if the US wanted to win a 'Space Race', or prevent a 'Cold War', it would have been very simple: NOT SETTING IT ALL UP, not sending billions of dollars and thousands of engineers to the SU to SET IT ALL UP.
See? We are touching here some issues from the larger picture. Issues most people in society don't have
the attention span to process: WHAT?!? The SU entirely set up by the US?
WHY were the Soviets (supposedly) the first in space with Sputnik? Because the SU was a totalitarian system, no free press. They rehearsed all the issues required to pull off the illusion successfully, all the relevant parameters were checked in the SU, OUTSIDE of public scrutiny.
Society's engineers learned from it and ONLY THEN thought of pulling it off in the US.
The 'Soviet threat' has been used successfully as a rationale over and over ...
Anybody who is willing to at least entertain the POSSIBILITY that the moonlanding could be a deception and starts looking into it merely browsing through youtube vids will quickly find confirmation that it is indeed a hoax.
What is boils down to is: do people have the guts to think for themselves and simply check things.
Just ONE example (not really a photographic but scientific one - just to make it tougher):
Temperatures on moon are from - 150 to + 100 °C.
Common film can´t stand these temps. Obvious hoax proof, no doubt!!
But really?? Did any of these hoax dummies really care/know about the definition of temperature?
I´s the average speed of particles in a defined part of space. But there are SO few particles in moons environment to get in touch with the film.. ctd Pt 3
...bases their views on some specific documentary you've seen, which is rather strange, considering you're the only one mentioning it...
There are countless ways to come to the conclusion that the moonlanding was a hoax, INCLUDING using one's own mind processing raw data, rather than BELIEVING any random documentary.
Opinion's aren't necessarily taken over from OTHERS, you know?
...touch with the film, that they don´t have enough power to heat up the film itself!
If you expose your hand to air of -20 °C for 5 minutes, it won´t cause any harm. But if you lay your hand on a steel post just as cold for 5 min., you´ll have to see a doctor! More particles (per room unit) DO MORE HARM!
A child with common sense knows that BY EXPERIENCE but not the moon hoaxers!
I could talk about radiation caused temp now too but only if you force me to...
Before you go on to make yourself a clown here or somewhere else: do yourself a favour and watch these scenes from those Youtube vids you are referring to and start to see the big picture:
'watch these scenes from those Youtube vids you are referring to and start to see the big picture:'
I didn't refer to any vid. You have very and I mean VERY serious issues. Reread the 'exchange': rarely does one see such a ridiculous and psychotic case of straw man arguing and apparently you are not even doing it on purpose. Psychotic, man. We're done.
Ok, so it wasn´t you who wrote in his reply to Sweence about 2 weeks ago:
“Did you know fi that Stanley Kubrick was heavily involved in setting up moonlanding footage? Again, please don't believe me, you can simply hear it from Kissinger's and Rumsfeld's lips at 'Shock ! Stanley Kubrick Filmed Fake Moon Footage !! - Proof ! ' “
And in your next post (also a reply to Sweence):
“Why don't you do what I said. Check the vid about Kubrick's cinematographic... ctd Part 2
...Kubrick had a REMARKABLE amount of contact with NASA around the time of the moonlanding.
I reiterate that this proves little but is certainly worth picking up on.
In order to KNOW the moonlanding was a hoax a larger understanding of how society is operated is required, as well as some basic human insight. Quite frankly, anybody watching the post Apollo conference should immediately pick up Armstrong is almost collapsing with guilt and stress.
...and over and it's always worked like a charm. Pointing out a threatening evil bully has always been a ploy of choice to push the masses' buttons.
Well, back to the conference.
Everything about it reeks. Just use your imagination, forget you've seen the conference, and try to imagine
the astronauts returning from the most amazing trip EVER. The entire world is watching them, as they count their INCREDIBLE ADVENTURE, beaming with a mixture of pride, excitement...
...and humility in the face of the immensity of the universe and the grandiosity of it all. Their consciousness is forever altered, their minds never the same, they've seen the earth from
afar and are overwhelmed with massive feelings of love for humanity, of belonging etc etc.
Or something along these lines...
Then watch the press conference again.
Isn't it obvious?
The 'best' part is perhaps Armstrong answering the question about stars, did they see any,...
"cinematographic involvement in the moonlanding that AGAIN, is confirmed by Kissinger and Rumsfeld in named video.”
So you didn´t refer to any video? No?
It´s time to finally realize that all the footage of this vid (and others I mentioned) featuring Rumsfeld as a "witness" is derived from the same mockumentary "Opération lune" (englisch title: "the dark side of the moon") which is, to stress it again, pure satire!
Not to you I didn't. I referred SOMEONE ELSE to one video with footage of Kissinger and rumsfeld discussing Kubrick's involvement.
You've since been attempting to debunk all kinds of video's that are completely off-topic, that I never mentioned and that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've brought up, and you've consistently done this in a fashion suggesting you were addressing MY DISCOURSE, which is weird to say the least.
Nice that we finally arrived at some common ground!
The problem with Youtube postings obviously is that you can attach your reply to a certain post (as I did attach my initial reply to your Kubrick-post adressed to Sweence) but in the end it doesnt show up as attached to a specific post - which causes confusion at times.
Just to sum it up: ALL these Kubrick/Rumsfeld/Haig videos that were in debate are THE SAME footage derived from "Opération lune" which is just a satire.
You should have explicitated from the start that named fragment was from a mockumentary you were referring to, so we could have moved on to some real arguments. Anyway, Kubrick's involvement with NASA does indeed not constitute proof for a hoax. Countless other issues do.
I found that footage very rapidly, too rapidly indeed, without checking what it even was, ONLY to make the point that Kubrick's connections with high-ranking officials and NASA around the time of the moonlanding was intense. It was admittedly silly of me to NOT consider that the system would go to such lengths as to FAKE Kissinger and Rumsfeld discussing their contacts with Kubrick.
However, the entire thing is largely irrelevant since it is established clearly that...
...and Buzz and Collins turning their heads as they feel he's starting to mess up. 'I don't recall...'
Then Collins, clearly the most proficient liar of the three quickly jumps in: 'I don't remember seeing any'
Think: WHAT did humanity gain from this supposed 'moonlanding', what did 'we' learn. And please don't go: 'they did all kinds of interesting experiments that were very helpful to improve 'our' understanding of some super-esoteric details pertaining ...
Pawel, Galileo and others between Kopernik an NASA seem to agree. Einstein ,Kaku,Witten, etc.Dont you think this undermines the work Mikilaj did on his deathbed in 1543? You make a few good points and theories, but you pist off alot of others. What do you think about asteriod will more likely land nearer to the poles than the equator cuz poles are stronger? Balances out the bulge?
Just to sum it up: your arguments concerning weight are all correct. You just chose another approach to the topic - which I misunderstood in the first place - i should read more carefully...
But you still owe us an explanation of your 24:50 moon orbit "mystery"!
Objects weigh less on mountains due to centrifugal force of a rotating earth. The earth is also slightly bulged at the equator, which also supports a spinning earth. Surface gravity increases with distance, not decreases as you're told in school. This is why things weigh the same at the poles as at the equator. It's a perfect balancing act between centrifugal force and gravitational differences between polar and equatorial regions. Gravity decreases with distance only after leaving the surface.
Former sounznice turning from Geo-Saulus to Helio-Paulus?;-). Nice to see!
There´s just one little misconception: Things DO weigh less at the equator! This is a long time proven fact (despite of Pawel´s ignorance). There are hundreds of official tables from and for every country on earth that exactly document by how far. Maximum difference is at about 0.5 percent.
Does that affect international trade? No! Because commercial ... (ctd.Pt 2)
@pelikan88 Weak. No misconception projectionist. You're just nitpicking. I never said EXACTLY the same. There's slight weight differences. But who cares, the fact that they weigh less means gravity wins over centrifugal force. Objects would weigh significantly MORE at the equator and mountain tops if the earth were stationary. That's the point.
...commercial balances are calibrated taking so called “local gravity” into account and this is strictly controlled by governmental institutions doing just that (in Austria they are called Eichamt – please don’t ask me for the US eqivalent!)
I´ve addressed this topic a dozen times arguing with Pawel in minute detail here (feel free to look it up!) but all I got from him were “hahahas”.. Months ago I challenged him for a 5000 USD ...(ctd Pt . 3)
... a 5000 USD bet on that (6 times until now!). Since that he´s silent as a mouse!! Not ONE word from him on that!
Please read Wikis on gravimetry, geodesy, standard gravity, gravity of earth
(quote from the latter: “In combination, the equatorial bulge and the effects of centrifugal force mean that sea-level gravitational acceleration increases from about 9.780 m•s−2 at the equator to about 9.832 m•s−2 at the poles, so an object ...(ctd.Pt 4)
....at the poles, so an object will weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than at the equator”).
And PLEASE: don’t confuse weight with mass as Pawel does! He still doen´t understand that there´s a fundamental difference between a balance using countermasses which measures MASS and a spring gauge which measures WEIGHT (only the latter needs to be calibrated to take local gravity into account). End.
@pelikan88 And PLEASE STOP PROJECTING That I confuse weight with mass. I hate debating with people constantly putting words in people's mouths. And that's all you've done so far!
Sorry! No offence intended! I just wanted to make sure!
But how about the 24:50 revolving period of the moon? Remenber? You used to claim this to be a killer argument against heliocentrism but never told us why! You even refused to answer on my simple expanation on that!
There are 2 kinds of heliocentrists, but there are 3 kinds of geocentrists. PART 3
Geo 3: Someone who willingly denies the facts (though the true story has started to dawn on him),
because admitting it would shatter his ego. It´s hard to bear such a steep fall from being smarter than all the rest out there to just being a moron and to suddenly find that all the laughs were justified.
But there is solace too: Being Geo 2 or 3 might still be better than being a Helio 1…
There are 2 kinds of heliocentrists, but there are 3 kinds of geocentrists. PART 2
Geo 1: Someone who never thought about the matter for himself. A guy who just parrots what he`s been told in Sunday school and by creationist media.
Geo 2: Someone who honestly struggles with critical and logically valid evaluation of geo vs. helio arguments but is mentally unable to draw the correct conclusions, thus ending up with geo.
There are 2 kinds of heliocentrists, but there are 3 kinds of geocentrists. PART 1
Helio 1: Someone who never thought about the matter for himself. A guy who just parrots what he`s been told in school and by common media.
Helio 2: Someone who has a profound understanding of what´s going on and is capable of critical and logically valid evaluation of geo vs. helio arguments, thus ending up with helio... ctd. in Pt.2
@ Pawel: Did you even bother to read Copernicus's book? Do you even know the breadth and depth of evidence you are trying to refute?
What's your explanation? Ptolemaic epicycles?
THEY DON'T WORK!
Silly, just childish and sad. Save yourself some humiliation and claim you were just joking because this would be a great display of satirical acting.
If the earth didn't rotate, then explain why people on mountaintops weigh LESS. They should weigh more due to the additional gravity of the mass of the mountain.
@PawelKolasa Why do people on mountaintops weigh less if the earth doesn't turn? Why are there 5AM meteor showers every day if the earth is motionless? Neither makes sense.
So, this is the same with atmosphere gas. It's pretty funny you don't list arguments of scientists who "speculate on atmosphere coupled with Earth's rotation".
They state there is some friction between atmosphere and the surface thanks to its viscosity, which is surely not at odds with fluids mechanics.
Interestingly, Earth's spin is required to understand some dynamical behaviour of atmopshere such as Coriolis effect.
Also, Earth's gravity on satellite is the reason why satellite doesn't have to be CONSTANTLY reajusted each time the Earth travel a portion of its orbit,
don't forget Earth's center also move around the Sun and the acceleration on sattelites from the Sun isn't strong enough to steal them.
Regarding atmosphere: the smoke cigarette you use in your analogy, even if it's less dense, doesn't escape the Earth, it stop ascending at some altitude.
Again a wrong idea: the atmosphere is considered to be 100 km high max. ,but even at this distance, the Earth pulls an acceleration of 9.5m/s² , which is near the one at the surface, and still weak compared to the centrifugal acceleration of Earth's movement around the Sun (0.0056m/s²):
Thus, even around the Sun, our atmosphere won't let us alone.
So challenging arrogantly your opponents without knowing what you're talking about is just pitiful.
First, whatever the problem is with commodities, we do have measured difference in gravity at the equator, moreover we found out the net gravitationnal force there doesn't point exactly to the center of the Earth, which predicted by the influence of centrifugal force.
What you about satellite is really stupid; an object around the Earth orbit the latter if its centrifugal force and the Earth's gravitationnal force have the same value; not because the sky somehow decided to move.
Let me explain again (in vain..): Imagine a roulette table moving inside a train. It will behave exactly as a roulette table "standing still" at a casino. Proof: roulette IS being played in some luxury trains. We got here centrifugal force working as well as gravitational pull (due to steepness of the bowl).
Science refers to the train as "inertial frame of reference", as long as it does NOT accelerate... ctd Pt.2
...and stays on a straight path. Earth is ALMOST an inertial frame as earth does not accelerate - well, it´s going round the sun but as you can easily calculate (according to Newton) the amount of centrif. force from THAT is almost zero.
Satellites don´t have to "chase" the earth to catch up and they don`t have to slow down to keep in track at the oppos. side. A roulette ball doesn´t either while moving with a train.
The universe is not expanding at the same speed in all directions, science and the proof of red shift... PROVES the further away galaxies and matter away from the perspective point.
3:10-3:20. I'm so sorry, but you are so unbelievably wrong i can't begin to fathom what you just said. The universe is expanding away from the Earth from our perspective. You can imagine an analogy of about 5 balls seperated on a stretchy string, if you look at one ball and stretch the string, the ball you're looking at stays still, but the other balls move away. But if you look at a different ball, that ball stays still and all the others move away, even the one you just looked at...
Thank you so much Pawell I believe you and I know you are right. I am using your video to deprogram myself from the false teaching of heliocentricity Also deprogrammed from false teaching of evolution. I will watch all your videos to re inform myself with observable Truth. Thank you again and God bless you as I know he will, this is so right for me now thanks for your gift. Rolls
Science actually has nothing to do with "finding truth".
To the contrary; it's the methodological investigation to discover what is verifiably false.
Science cannot actually verify anything as "True", but instead succeeds only in whether or not something can be demonstrably false.
Theories in science aren't claims to truth, but rather models by which predictions can withstand falsification. Good theories are those that (despite many attempts) have withstood falsification; bad ones, haven't.
nothing in space to rub against, and no acceleration really so atmosphere left behind why exactly ? If a parrot sits on a pirates shoulder and the pirate walks away, is the parrot left behind ? no!
I am not only the FIRST to expose Copernican Theory. I also started trend where MANY people come with their geocentric videos and some are very good. Recent one was by Ph.D.
world science database has many professors that, now veryfy my disproving of Einsteing.
Also Moon Hoax is out already. All bullshit will come out before Armageddon and that is SOON.
Enjoy your incoming HUMILIATION. Because I will RUB it IN...
You scare me how stupid you are. Your kind is in millions of retards, who call others stupid, but can't come up with any argument. That how stupid you are: not even a single argument.
Because you DRONES are HYPNOTIZED and RATIONAL thinking is not available to you.
why are people thumbing this down. it is obvious he is just joking.
ymkamara420 1 week ago
Is this video a joke?
csmcmillion 1 week ago
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was literally necessary in order to rescue the scientific world from being driven back to the “impossible” notion of a geocentric universe.
iorixs 1 week ago
the stupid is strong with this one
bailesie 3 weeks ago
Czyżby nauczyany w Toruniu przez niejakiego Rydzyka. Przestań ośmieszać naród.
NSGJanusz 1 month ago
This person has a hypothesis that the Universe with all the mass in the galaxies revolves around the Earth as opposed to the Earth spinning on its axis with its limited mass. This is the best example of relativity I have seen in a while: the man is correct as well as the other theory that the Earth turns. First time I have heard this. Maybe both are turning or moving relative to each other. Space-time might have some answers to this perplexing question.
nicksynnz 2 months ago
@nicksynnz
You forgot that relativity only applies to NOT accelerated systems. Since rotation is always affected with acceleration you can´t just switch viewpoints!
pelikan88 2 months ago
@pelikan88 I am sure if I am accelerating to near C relativity would apply hence time dilation.
nicksynnz 2 months ago
@nicksynnz Yes. But just another reason why you CAN´T deliberately switch viewpoints (as the concept of "relativity" misunderstood might suggest).
This guy just sucks...
pelikan88 2 months ago
I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain
TexasPropwash 2 months ago
funny or sad, satire or stupid, I can't tell. But he did inject god in his discussion, so apparently not satire.
crudbts1 2 months ago
"Science" has become "science so called".
Scientists hide facts because they like Judas betray the Truth for their 30 pieces of silver" and risk going to hell.
Sad that more than 400 people dislike this video - because they prefer to believe lies by the lying texbooks of "science so called".
reuelt01 3 months ago
A simple thought experiment can shed light on this. The earth is so big that the surface moves horizontally. There is no constant directional change. So basically we and everything on earth moves sideways like a plane or train. You don't feel any movement because nothing is moving inside this system model. There is virtually ZERO centrifugal force. This explains why everything weighs the same as it would any other place on earth. This is why the earth can rotate without the sensation it does.
gr8vibes2 3 months ago
Expert trolling 9/10!
Really really stupid and you actually seem to believe what you are saying.
mopsman 4 months ago
With aether present, geostationary satellites oppose both sides equally once everyone agrees that these sats orbit far beyond earth's atmosphere because for helios, they have to zip around the earth to catch up with the spinning earth below and if geostatic theory is correct, they have just as much work to do bucking the revolving aether as it revolves the earth.
So therefore geo sats debunk the existence of aether and prove outer space is a vacuum, which is a sweet accomplishment.
gr8vibes2 4 months ago
Ok dude..... too many people waste their lives trying to make a fact.. like how the Earth IS MOVING! Then there are people like yourself that are going to sit here and waste their time trying to prove that wrong... I don't see why you sit there and do that, but have fun...
Kayla00Marie 4 months ago
the centrifical force really is twice bigger on the euqator but that is 0,34% of your weight maybe if I add the difference in the earth`s radius caused by it`s not perfect spherical shape it`ll turn out to be 0,9% don`t know don`t care... but I`ve just killed your theory in like 3 comments and I`m proud of me cause I actually visited the physics and astronomy classses :)
MrCanimir 5 months ago
let`s say in Canada you`re like 60 degrees away from the equator wich makes you radius (not the earth`s radius where you are but the radius of the spinning) 6378000*cos(60) and your velocity 2*pi*6378000*cos(60)/24*3600 (not using the star day/night cycle because it`s a really small difference... then used in your equasion turns out to be 1 newton well looks like the centrifical force in Canada is twice as low as the centrifical on the Equator but yet 1 newton is 0,17% of my weight
MrCanimir 5 months ago
you are so stupid that I can`t even begin to tell why :X velocity is not meajured in km/h but instead in m/s which by itself shows how screwed up is your equasion... then of course the earth`s radius is meajured in meters :X which wouldn`t be a problem at all if the velocity wasn`t squared... solving the correct equasion on my own did turn out to be TWO but two newtons now twice bigger or smtn like that... my weight would be 588 newtons on the equator 2/588 = 0,34 % less heavy...
MrCanimir 5 months ago
This is still funny...yet sad.
Delusional Disorder for all to see.
LindaStevensBZ 6 months ago 10
lol, ultra fail
Diemedes 6 months ago 4
This guy is hopelessly retarded. But I've got to admit, his videos are really, really funny.
TechnicallyTechnical 6 months ago 2
O GAWD STUPIDITY ANEURYSM!!!
WonderfulDenmark 6 months ago 2
are u retarded? omg hes a troll right?
yoyokarlton 7 months ago 2
what are you reading from, i must know!
squizill 7 months ago
'Not fast enough'
1750 km/hour around the equator not fast. OK...
'You are free to believe that science is all bullshit but what's the motive of a scientist to misdirect?'
Meaning you BELIEVE because it would be improbable in your eyes that scientists would be 'lying' or that they would all be involved in 'a conspiracy'.
This is not about being 'conspiratorial'. It's about basically all scientific disciplines being based on root ASSUMPTIONS that are subsequently taken for dogma.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes? Well I'm still waiting....
Tick tock tick tock...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
Suddenlyitsobvious 12 points, Sweence 0 points. He he he.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
This guy wouldn't be fundametalist christian would he? How does he feel about the Stork theory?
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
'This guy wouldn't be fundametalist christian would he?'
Who cares? Why don't you deal with his arguments instead? Or perhaps it suffices for you to know that his discourse contradicts authoritative dogma?
It is interesting to note that the countless people who mindlessly laugh away anything that isn't validated by official theory always attempt to discredit the messenger and are typically simply not intellectually equipped to address the message itself.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious He's a religious nut case and you're a nut case. Why don't you just walk off your flat Earth, dummy.
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
You're a faithhead completely incapable of following a case or formulating an argument. You don't even know what you're talking about, you don't understand what this guy is saying or what I just said, you're just a PROGRAMMED MINDLESS REGURGITATOR, and your psychology is characteried by all the patterns and mechanisms of RELIGIOUS FAITHHEADED FUNDAMENTALISTS.
You can't do your own thinking. Consequently what you 'think' about anything or anyone is irrelevant. The End.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@Sweence
Well, just thought I'd add this: I saw your channel and you are clearly VERY focused on Jesus-freaks and faithheads. The reason they irritate you so much is because YOU have EXACTLY the same problem: you can't think for yourself. It's really classic...
Bye now.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Yes, I'm focused on ridding the world of organized religion. You're not very smart are you? Never try and match wits with an Atheist. Bow to me.
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
Not very smart? Judging by your prose you can barely string a few short disconnected phrases together. Atheism btw isn't spelled with a capital A. Bow to you? Why don't you touch your toes and I'll drive you home, punk.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious You get your world view from a magic book from the late bronze age and you think the Earth is the center of the universe. Who's the idiot, douchebag?
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
Me getting my world view from a magic book? No I don't actually because I'm not religious and because I'm not a BELIEVER in AUTHORITY like you. I do my own thinking, as does the guy in the vid. The only one with a dysfunctional mind here appears to be you.
So, why don't you prove me wrong and share with the thread what contentions the guy in this vid is making that you disagree with, and why you disagree with them?
Can you do that? Hmmm?
Tick tock tick tock...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious The guy in the video gets all the science wrong. The Earth does indeed spin once a day but there is not enough centrifugal force to cause a weight difference at different positions on the globe due to our relative size and our dense atmosphere that contains us. By his definition, people (and unattached objects) would fly off the planet at the Equator. The only authority I have is to myself. Do you really believe the Earth doesn't spin?
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
'The Earth does indeed spin once a day '
Why don't you tell me how YOU know this? The spinning earth is necessary for heliocentrism and heliocentrism in the day it was popularized by Copernicus was in Copernicus own words simply 'A MORE ELEGANT OPTION'.
'there is not enough centrifugal force to cause a weight difference at different positions on the globe due to our relative size and our dense atmosphere that contains us'
WHY is there not enough cf when there is an...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@Sweence
(2)
...equation accepted by everyone defining that force, an equation shown in this vid?
What has the 'relative size' of the earth got to do with the issue that according to this standard equation the cf at the equator should have an entirely different value than at the poles?
Do you think the atmosphere spins with the earth? At what point then does some kind of centrifugal force even exerts its effect?
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@Sweence
You see, the typical error you are making is that you obsessively categorize people as a ploy to discredit their discourse, without actually being able to address the substance of that discourse, which is of course what honest and intellectually sound people do...
Your name-calling is substandard and reflects on your profound insecurity and poorly developed conceptual skills...ANYTHING that doesn't square with authority is BAAAD.
What a programmed little sheep you are...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@Sweence
Well, never mind, you're just another close-minded kid believing himself to me on 'the smart side', whereas christians are 'so dumb'.
Did it occur to you that your brand of atheism is itself just another highly promoted belief system and that you've simply uncritically ingested all kinds of information like a total fashion-victim?
Did you personally VERIFY all that information? Do you KNOW the Theory of Evolution is correct, do you KNOW the 'Big Bang' occurred etc etc?
No you don't.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@Sweence
(2)
You BELIEVE these things because you were TOLD these things. You have no means of verifying ANY of it.
Pointing at christian bigots really doesn't arrange your case. It's just a diversion and a PROJECTION, because again, the MINDFRAME is identical: JUST LIKE A CHRISTAN FUNDAMENTALIST you BELIEVE authoritative narratives that you don't check.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@Sweence
It's pretty obvious that the guy in this vid is actually using his intellect. He doesn't say that something's true because it says so in the Bible or in a physics textbook. He is actually REASONING, connecting and synthesizing information and developing a logical argument.
You see, THAT's the difference.
That some christians might equally hold a flat earth view is as a result completely irrelevant.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious He's using his intellect but he's still wrong. He really loses credibility when he references "the creator". So that I may determine your level of delusion, please answer my question: Do you believe the Earth is the center of the universe?
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
'Do you believe the Earth is the center of the universe?'
You're persisiting in obsessively categorizing people into some belief system. I have merely determined myself that the cosmogony we are being sold is bullshit and I could get into this from a number of angles, but you obviously don't have the interest or attention span to follow the argument, since you're exclusively interested in the sanity of those voicing it.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious The Earth doesn't spin fast enough to cause centrifugal force. Hold a ball in your hand and slowly turn it 360 degrees over 24 hours. Not much c-force right? You are free to believe that science is all bullshit but what's the motive of a scientist to misdirect? We went to the moon a few times with these scientific precepts. Oh wait... You probably think that was faked as well. (I can't believe I'm arguing with a guy who thinks the Earth doesn't spin...)
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
(2)
If you start digging critically into everything we read in textbooks about the universe, you'll soon find that it's all about MAKING THE MODEL WORK. Thus the constancy of the speed of light, the existence of dark matter and COUNTLESS OTHER supposed facts were NEVER empirically shown to be correct. They are necessary because otherwise the rest of the model collapses.
And of course there are people out there that know it's all bullshit. NASA controls all this science and NASA...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
(3)
...is simply not a neutral scientific body. It is a militaro-industrial complex invoking 'national security' ALL THE TIME. And OF COURSE, you haven't figured out that the moonlanding was a complete hoax, because if you had, your worldview would have collapsed.
You have a LOT of homework to do son, and don't just go 'I don't believe in conspiracy bullshit and you're wearing your tinfoil hat too tight'.
Why don't you REALLY examine it for once? Just look at the material YOURSELF, you...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious MOON HOAX Pt 1
I guess I know about all moon hoax "proofs" out there, and most of them immediadetly made me laugh (a few took a little longer). My laughs were all based on logic, common sense and experienced observation - not BELIEF. I myself am a skilled photographer - so you might at least believe me that all the photo-based "proofs" are plain nonsense.
I you want me to, I can debunk one by one without any question left! Just start with the most "obvious"!
Ctd. in part 2
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
'I know about all moon hoax "proofs" out there, and most of them immediadetly made me laugh'
I'm familiar with the base-line of your 'argument', have always found it very substandard and understand the general lines of the psychological constellations that give rise to it.
Perhaps I'm surprising you but your laughter -that incidentally sounds slightly hollow- has failed to convince me...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
and this.. erm...slightly hollow reply shall convince ME?
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
You're obviously not exactly a Nobel prize...Well, you're still young and wet behind the ears. It's OK son...OF COURSE you want the moonlanding to be fact, I understand...
But really lad, do you call this sort of garbage thinking?
'I´s the average speed of particles in a defined part of space. But there are SO few particles in moons environment to get in touch with the film.. ctd Pt 3'
You're clutching at any straw offered you by the 'experts', regurgitating little facts...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
Oh I really wouldn´t mind if the moonlanding was a hoax. Quite the opposite: I like big news! I was on fire when initially I saw Rumsfeld on this mockumentary you´re still taking serious and it quite upset me as pretty soon I realized that it was just a joke.
And then: Being from Austria I´m not an american patriot! I know quite a bit about the military–industrial complex and what the´re capable of ... but I´m able to descern between likeliness and nonsense.
pelikan88 7 months ago
Auf dieses Video antworten...
"But really lad, do you call this sort of garbage thinking?"
My "gargabe" at least LOOKS like arguments, whereas your polemic sarcasm merely looks like your suffering from beginning tourette syndrome.
"clutching at any straw offered you by the 'experts". I´m expert enough to know that "temperature" was defined BEFORE the moon landing! And that I mentioned only one doesn´t mean that there´s just one straw - it´s merely a BARN of straws debunking the hoax guys
pelikan88 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pelikan88
'I´m expert enough to know that "temperature" was defined BEFORE the moon landing! '
I can only imagine that you're confusing me with some other guy you were talking to on some other thread. Or perhaps you've simply ran out of Zoloft.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(2)
...and trivia that are COMPLETELY ABSURD. You'll clutch at ANYTHING to stay in line with consensual reality, anything to avoid that TERRIBLE, that daunting task of switching on your mind and see what's completely evident.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
If that´s all so evident: when finally will you come over with some EVIDENCE??
If there a 100 putative hints for a hoax and you open-mindedly scrutinize one by one and the more you look/read on the more you SEE that these guys don´t have the slightest clue of geometry, cinetics, mechanics, radiology, photography... what would YOU think?
Maybe the moon-landing NEVER HAPPENED! No problem with me! But finding only idiots with silly arguments there surely won´t convince me!
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
What is especially silly is that you took it upon yourself to simply imagine what my arguments should and would be.
'the more you SEE that these guys don't have the slightest clue'
I have NO IDEA who you are talking about and what it's got to do with me.
Since you insist on talking to yourself or to some imaginary friend, I must leave you.
Bye.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
"What is especially silly is that you took it upon yourself to simply imagine what my arguments should and would be."
I beg your pardon but: WHERE ARE YOUR arguments that it could discuss?? You still didn´t come over with ONE - albeit I encouraged you to do so for three times now!?
It´s common tactics of morons to deny arguments proven false ever having been THEIR arguments. You act the same - so let me guess...
So come on boy! just one tiny little argument! Yes, you can!!
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(14)
...to physics or astronomy.
I mean look at it from a larger perspective. WHAT did WE, WE learn?
We saw some guys jumping around in the dust. That's it. NOTHING amazing happened, nothing crucial was brought back...
And really, what are the chances that after going there in 1969, humans wouldn't go back? Too expensive? Well, I'd say a bailout is a lot more expensive...
Wouldn't it be useful to set up some equipment on the moon? Wouldn't millions of scientists...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
(15)
...be trepidating with excitement to get direct readings from the moon about solar flares, stars, the earth or whatever from the moon's surface?
I guess not...
Of course, IF the system WOULD plan another trip to the moon, the public would expect some high quality
footage this time, rather than some black and white hazy scenes. See?
There are countless angles to know it's all a fraud but only if you have understood that you are being lied to 24/7 about EVERYTHING...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
Hi! You brought me something to digest!
Not that I hadn´t thought about things like that before - I just didn`t dig deep into it.
But you must excuse me: in Austria we have 11:00 pm right now and im going to meet some guys for some plain fun! I´ll think about your statements!
By the way: f*ck the 500 chars limit!
pelikan88 7 months ago
(4)
...don't have to BELIEVE anyone.
Just check out the Apollo press conference for instance, with Aldrin, Collins and Armstrong.
Just look at Armstrong. It is SOOO obvious it's all a complete hoax and Armstrong is horrified at having to lie to the entire world.
Come on...Just look at the footage of the moonlanding, their ridiculous little space capsule. It's LUDICROUS but people BELIEVE because daddy authority tells you it's true.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious You have moved into conspiracy craziness now. All of your points have been refuted a long time ago. Did the USSR fake their space program too? You're killing me now. This is just too funny...
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
Why don't you do what I said. Check the vid about Kubrick's cinematographic involvement in the moonlanding that AGAIN, is confirmed by Kissinger and Rumsfeld in named video.
Also, check out the Apollo Press Conference and tell me your impressions.
There's not much use in repeating it's all so funny and delirious and conspiratorial. Do you have the guts to check these two things, or would that be a bit too intimidating for you?
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
Come on! Opération lune (orig. title) is well known for being a mockumentary. I stumbled upon it one night zapping channels and it immediately sucked me in. Could that really be true? Moonlanding a hoax? I not only listened but OBSERVED very carefully and it took me about 20 min. to realize that it was a joke! Even a moron would´ve gotten that during the last 5 minutes! It even won prices for being such smart satire (Grimme Preis in Germany e.g.). That´s official facts...
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
'I saw Rumsfeld on this mockumentary you´re still taking serious and it quite upset me as pretty soon I realized that it was just a joke.'
I'm still taking serious??
Earlier, you stated:
' Opération lune (orig. title) is well known for being a mockumentary. I stumbled upon it one night zapping channels and it immediately sucked me in. Could that really be true? Moonlanding a hoax?'
It would seem you've imagined everybody who has problems with the moonlanding...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
1.) "Opération lune" is the mother and only source of whatever videos digesting the Rumsfeld/Kissinger interwiews in that context.- a context that doesn´t even exist by the way - the authors just made it look that way but infact Kissinger/Rumsfeld NEVER talk about a moon hoax. Please wiki on that film or be quiet! Or watch it once again with OPEN eyes!
2.) Do you really think that, if the hoax was true, Rumsfeld would dare and commit that? Are you crazy???
pelikan88 7 months ago
It's funny at that Apollo press conference, they actually go, after a short painful silence to a question from a journalist:
'Eeeh nooo, we didn't see any stars'.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
How stupid are you really? OF COURSE they didn´t see any stars! It was DAYTIME then! And no: I doesn´t take an atmo to hide stars from our eyes! Bare sun hitting moon´s surface is by far enough. It´s 10000 times brighter than starlight and thus causes the retina to close (+ other things).
On earth you won´t even see stars at night while sitting in a football arena cause the flood lights are too bright (being dim compared to sunlight!).
So why don´t YOU think for yourself??
pelikan88 7 months ago
So, it would be interesting if you took the time to watch that conference on youtube and give me your impressions about it.
I mean it's totally obvious it's all extremely tense and rehearsed and everything about it stinks.
People like you often think it's all about choosing to believe one thing, or choosing to believe another. It's not. It's about doing BASIC HOMEWORK.
Did you know fi that Stanley Kubrick was heavily involved in setting up moonlanding footage? Again, please don't...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Referring to the Apollo 11 press conference vid.
I´ve watched it on Youtube yesterday and indeed, there´s a strange "odor" to it.
It makes me think but it doesnt lead to anything waterproof. As someone said: you need extraordinary proof if you claim extraordinary things!
Maybe they were just tired? Likely they were - after all the agenda they went thru.
Maybe they were nervous too? 600 mio people or so watching them...
Are there any key scenes you could point to in the vid?
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
Well, thank you for your open-mindedness and you suddenly sound a lot more reasonable, so let's see if we can look into this some more.
You state:
'I´ve watched it on Youtube yesterday and indeed, there´s a strange "odor" to it.
It makes me think but it doesnt lead to anything waterproof. As someone said: you need extraordinary proof
if you claim extraordinary things! '
The problem here is that at the end of the line, what constitutes proof even in most matters of ...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(2)
...science is ultimately BASICALLY determined by majoritarian consensus of those considered experts or authoritative.
These experts of course are in their positions precisely because of their biases through advanced programming, shortsightedness or downright evil minds .
It is not so easy 'proving' the moonlanding was a hoax, or even such an obvious issue as 9/11 being perpetrated by arabs with cutters being a lie, because the system generates an avalanche of data soon...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(3)
...becoming very technical, the materials snowball in what almost becomes an entirely new 'discipline', and anybody wanting to get on top of it all needs many years if not a lifetime to exhaustively delve through it all and conclusively prove something.
If today fi you want to get on top of the 9/11 issue, you could spent an entire lifetime studying all the countless
angles that have been generated.
Likewise, in order to scientifically address issues such as ...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(4)
...exposure to radiation in space and the safe crossing of the 'Van Allen belts' advanced knowledge of physics is required which I do not possess.
Physics itself is a controlled discipline suffering numerous biases.
It is as a result easy to state that since I'm not an 'expert', my views are uninformed and based on nothing
but this is not entirely the case at all.
The issue here, is that I and countless other individuals have figured out how science, politics, ...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(5) ... finance, the media and all facets of society are hierachically controlled for purposes of controlling the collective, NEVER for improving it. People getting on top in this system ARE EITHER SOLD OR IDIOTS, and truth is a commodity that is VERY scarce.
This is not something I believe, I know it through combining large amounts of data from all fields at once;
in other words, a larger perspective is required combining large amounts of info from all possible angles,
...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(6)
...rather than merely an 'expert' view, always limited by set boundaries of a specific sub-area or discipline.
Experts, as it is said ,know more and more about less and less. Consequently their perspective is typically
fragmented.
We need to look at the ENTIRE periphery, the context, and we can make it as broad as you wish.
First of all, it's interesting to ponder on the fact that the entire moonlanding was contextualized, framed
in a truly propagandistic fashion ...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(7)
...of 'national pride', 'humanity's reaching for the stars' and soforth and
ESPECIALLY, the Soviet threat.
If today you look at how the Apollo mission was sold to the public from the start, you'll easily pick
up how it's simply a massive media campaign and interestingly, how there's NOT ONE dissonant note anywhere. ALL THE MEDIA ARE APPLAUDING.
Is there anybody wondering what the actual point of the moonlanding is, if the billions of taxpayers'
dollars could ...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(8)
...perhaps be spent more advantageously resolving hunger in the world? No.
This tells you something about the media, and looking at it today, you can easily pick up on the propagandistic vibe of it all. Propaganda ALWAYS occults truth and occurs when authority is LYING to the members of society.
The SU was of course entirely funded by Wall Street bankers and the US government from the early twenty's on, (and it's most edifying to check who actually funded the...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(9)
...entire Revolution) and basically, if the US wanted to win a 'Space Race', or prevent a 'Cold War', it would have been very simple: NOT SETTING IT ALL UP, not sending billions of dollars and thousands of engineers to the SU to SET IT ALL UP.
See? We are touching here some issues from the larger picture. Issues most people in society don't have
the attention span to process: WHAT?!? The SU entirely set up by the US?
Yes. Easy to check (Anthony Sutton's...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(10)
...work fi).
WHY were the Soviets (supposedly) the first in space with Sputnik? Because the SU was a totalitarian system, no free press. They rehearsed all the issues required to pull off the illusion successfully, all the relevant parameters were checked in the SU, OUTSIDE of public scrutiny.
Society's engineers learned from it and ONLY THEN thought of pulling it off in the US.
The 'Soviet threat' has been used successfully as a rationale over and over ...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
...believe me, you can simply hear it from Kissinger's and Rumsfeld's lips at
'Shock ! Stanley Kubrick Filmed Fake Moon Footage !! - Proof ! '
Anybody who is willing to at least entertain the POSSIBILITY that the moonlanding could be a deception and starts looking into it merely browsing through youtube vids will quickly find confirmation that it is indeed a hoax.
What is boils down to is: do people have the guts to think for themselves and simply check things.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious MOON HOAX Pt 2
Just ONE example (not really a photographic but scientific one - just to make it tougher):
Temperatures on moon are from - 150 to + 100 °C.
Common film can´t stand these temps. Obvious hoax proof, no doubt!!
But really?? Did any of these hoax dummies really care/know about the definition of temperature?
I´s the average speed of particles in a defined part of space. But there are SO few particles in moons environment to get in touch with the film.. ctd Pt 3
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(2)
...bases their views on some specific documentary you've seen, which is rather strange, considering you're the only one mentioning it...
There are countless ways to come to the conclusion that the moonlanding was a hoax, INCLUDING using one's own mind processing raw data, rather than BELIEVING any random documentary.
Opinion's aren't necessarily taken over from OTHERS, you know?
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious MOON HOAX Pt 3
...touch with the film, that they don´t have enough power to heat up the film itself!
If you expose your hand to air of -20 °C for 5 minutes, it won´t cause any harm. But if you lay your hand on a steel post just as cold for 5 min., you´ll have to see a doctor! More particles (per room unit) DO MORE HARM!
A child with common sense knows that BY EXPERIENCE but not the moon hoaxers!
I could talk about radiation caused temp now too but only if you force me to...
pelikan88 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
Before you go on to make yourself a clown here or somewhere else: do yourself a favour and watch these scenes from those Youtube vids you are referring to and start to see the big picture:
“Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 6” at 4:30
“Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 9” at 2:30
Enough for you?
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
'watch these scenes from those Youtube vids you are referring to and start to see the big picture:'
I didn't refer to any vid. You have very and I mean VERY serious issues. Reread the 'exchange': rarely does one see such a ridiculous and psychotic case of straw man arguing and apparently you are not even doing it on purpose. Psychotic, man. We're done.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious PART 1
Ok, so it wasn´t you who wrote in his reply to Sweence about 2 weeks ago:
“Did you know fi that Stanley Kubrick was heavily involved in setting up moonlanding footage? Again, please don't believe me, you can simply hear it from Kissinger's and Rumsfeld's lips at 'Shock ! Stanley Kubrick Filmed Fake Moon Footage !! - Proof ! ' “
And in your next post (also a reply to Sweence):
“Why don't you do what I said. Check the vid about Kubrick's cinematographic... ctd Part 2
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
...Kubrick had a REMARKABLE amount of contact with NASA around the time of the moonlanding.
I reiterate that this proves little but is certainly worth picking up on.
In order to KNOW the moonlanding was a hoax a larger understanding of how society is operated is required, as well as some basic human insight. Quite frankly, anybody watching the post Apollo conference should immediately pick up Armstrong is almost collapsing with guilt and stress.
The lie is obvious.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(11)
...and over and it's always worked like a charm. Pointing out a threatening evil bully has always been a ploy of choice to push the masses' buttons.
Well, back to the conference.
Everything about it reeks. Just use your imagination, forget you've seen the conference, and try to imagine
the astronauts returning from the most amazing trip EVER. The entire world is watching them, as they count their INCREDIBLE ADVENTURE, beaming with a mixture of pride, excitement...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(12)
...and humility in the face of the immensity of the universe and the grandiosity of it all. Their consciousness is forever altered, their minds never the same, they've seen the earth from
afar and are overwhelmed with massive feelings of love for humanity, of belonging etc etc.
Or something along these lines...
Then watch the press conference again.
Isn't it obvious?
The 'best' part is perhaps Armstrong answering the question about stars, did they see any,...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious PART 2
"cinematographic involvement in the moonlanding that AGAIN, is confirmed by Kissinger and Rumsfeld in named video.”
So you didn´t refer to any video? No?
It´s time to finally realize that all the footage of this vid (and others I mentioned) featuring Rumsfeld as a "witness" is derived from the same mockumentary "Opération lune" (englisch title: "the dark side of the moon") which is, to stress it again, pure satire!
Can´t remember your post?
Severe problems? ME??
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
'So you didn´t refer to any video? No?'
Not to you I didn't. I referred SOMEONE ELSE to one video with footage of Kissinger and rumsfeld discussing Kubrick's involvement.
You've since been attempting to debunk all kinds of video's that are completely off-topic, that I never mentioned and that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've brought up, and you've consistently done this in a fashion suggesting you were addressing MY DISCOURSE, which is weird to say the least.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
Nice that we finally arrived at some common ground!
The problem with Youtube postings obviously is that you can attach your reply to a certain post (as I did attach my initial reply to your Kubrick-post adressed to Sweence) but in the end it doesnt show up as attached to a specific post - which causes confusion at times.
Just to sum it up: ALL these Kubrick/Rumsfeld/Haig videos that were in debate are THE SAME footage derived from "Opération lune" which is just a satire.
pelikan88 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(16)
And I'll just add this to finish this post that got a bit longer than intended:
Just think of Armstrong's words 'A small step for man, a giant step for mankind' or better, LISTEN to the words on youtube.
Do you really think anybody actually stepping on the moon would utter such a corny phrase?
Does Armstrong sound excited, marvelling, confused, amazed, THRILLED?
He sounds like he's reading from a piece of paper, largely against his will...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
You should have explicitated from the start that named fragment was from a mockumentary you were referring to, so we could have moved on to some real arguments. Anyway, Kubrick's involvement with NASA does indeed not constitute proof for a hoax. Countless other issues do.
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@suddenlyitsobvious
I found that footage very rapidly, too rapidly indeed, without checking what it even was, ONLY to make the point that Kubrick's connections with high-ranking officials and NASA around the time of the moonlanding was intense. It was admittedly silly of me to NOT consider that the system would go to such lengths as to FAKE Kissinger and Rumsfeld discussing their contacts with Kubrick.
However, the entire thing is largely irrelevant since it is established clearly that...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
@pelikan88
(13)
...and Buzz and Collins turning their heads as they feel he's starting to mess up. 'I don't recall...'
Then Collins, clearly the most proficient liar of the three quickly jumps in: 'I don't remember seeing any'
Think: WHAT did humanity gain from this supposed 'moonlanding', what did 'we' learn. And please don't go: 'they did all kinds of interesting experiments that were very helpful to improve 'our' understanding of some super-esoteric details pertaining ...
suddenlyitsobvious 7 months ago
Pawel, Galileo and others between Kopernik an NASA seem to agree. Einstein ,Kaku,Witten, etc.Dont you think this undermines the work Mikilaj did on his deathbed in 1543? You make a few good points and theories, but you pist off alot of others. What do you think about asteriod will more likely land nearer to the poles than the equator cuz poles are stronger? Balances out the bulge?
newage4energy 8 months ago
@sownzgr8
Just to sum it up: your arguments concerning weight are all correct. You just chose another approach to the topic - which I misunderstood in the first place - i should read more carefully...
But you still owe us an explanation of your 24:50 moon orbit "mystery"!
pelikan88 8 months ago
Objects weigh less on mountains due to centrifugal force of a rotating earth. The earth is also slightly bulged at the equator, which also supports a spinning earth. Surface gravity increases with distance, not decreases as you're told in school. This is why things weigh the same at the poles as at the equator. It's a perfect balancing act between centrifugal force and gravitational differences between polar and equatorial regions. Gravity decreases with distance only after leaving the surface.
sownzgr8 8 months ago
CONT If geocentrism were true and the earth didn't rotate, there'd be no centrifugal force and objects
would weigh significantly more on mountain tops and especially at the equator than in low areas
and at the poles. Then you could imagine the price difference of gold at the poles than say
at Vancouver Canada. It would be much more expensive at the poles.
sownzgr8 8 months ago
@sownzgr8 Reply to "Objects weigh less..." Pt 1.
Former sounznice turning from Geo-Saulus to Helio-Paulus?;-). Nice to see!
There´s just one little misconception: Things DO weigh less at the equator! This is a long time proven fact (despite of Pawel´s ignorance). There are hundreds of official tables from and for every country on earth that exactly document by how far. Maximum difference is at about 0.5 percent.
Does that affect international trade? No! Because commercial ... (ctd.Pt 2)
pelikan88 8 months ago
@pelikan88 Weak. No misconception projectionist. You're just nitpicking. I never said EXACTLY the same. There's slight weight differences. But who cares, the fact that they weigh less means gravity wins over centrifugal force. Objects would weigh significantly MORE at the equator and mountain tops if the earth were stationary. That's the point.
sownzgr8 8 months ago
@sownzgr8 I mean cf wins over gravity.
sownzgr8 8 months ago
@sownzgr8 would you pleas let me talk to the end first? Part 4 (the last) is on it`s way!
pelikan88 8 months ago
@pelikan88 I just correct you on each point for quick reference.
sownzgr8 8 months ago
@sownzgr8
1.) If earth was stationary but the bulge was still there: things at the equator would weigh LESS.
2.) If earth would rotate but was a perfect sphere: things at the equator would weigh LESS.
Since earth IS rotating plus HAS a bulgde, these two phenomena sum up!
Just to make things clear...
pelikan88 8 months ago
Auf dieses Video antworten...
Yes youre right! I just wonder about your "sudden" change of view?
pelikan88 8 months ago
@sownzgr8 Reply to "Objects weigh less..." Pt 2.
...commercial balances are calibrated taking so called “local gravity” into account and this is strictly controlled by governmental institutions doing just that (in Austria they are called Eichamt – please don’t ask me for the US eqivalent!)
I´ve addressed this topic a dozen times arguing with Pawel in minute detail here (feel free to look it up!) but all I got from him were “hahahas”.. Months ago I challenged him for a 5000 USD ...(ctd Pt . 3)
pelikan88 8 months ago
@sownzgr8 Reply to "Objects weigh less..." Pt 3.
... a 5000 USD bet on that (6 times until now!). Since that he´s silent as a mouse!! Not ONE word from him on that!
Please read Wikis on gravimetry, geodesy, standard gravity, gravity of earth
(quote from the latter: “In combination, the equatorial bulge and the effects of centrifugal force mean that sea-level gravitational acceleration increases from about 9.780 m•s−2 at the equator to about 9.832 m•s−2 at the poles, so an object ...(ctd.Pt 4)
pelikan88 8 months ago
@pelikan88 No surprise. Pawel is wrong and won't admit it. I've proven him wrong several times and he's ducked them all.
sownzgr8 8 months ago
@sownzgr8 Reply to "Objects weigh less..." Pt 4.
....at the poles, so an object will weigh about 0.5% more at the poles than at the equator”).
And PLEASE: don’t confuse weight with mass as Pawel does! He still doen´t understand that there´s a fundamental difference between a balance using countermasses which measures MASS and a spring gauge which measures WEIGHT (only the latter needs to be calibrated to take local gravity into account). End.
pelikan88 8 months ago
@pelikan88 And PLEASE STOP PROJECTING That I confuse weight with mass. I hate debating with people constantly putting words in people's mouths. And that's all you've done so far!
sownzgr8 8 months ago
@sownzgr8
Sorry! No offence intended! I just wanted to make sure!
But how about the 24:50 revolving period of the moon? Remenber? You used to claim this to be a killer argument against heliocentrism but never told us why! You even refused to answer on my simple expanation on that!
pelikan88 8 months ago
There are 2 kinds of heliocentrists, but there are 3 kinds of geocentrists. PART 3
Geo 3: Someone who willingly denies the facts (though the true story has started to dawn on him),
because admitting it would shatter his ego. It´s hard to bear such a steep fall from being smarter than all the rest out there to just being a moron and to suddenly find that all the laughs were justified.
But there is solace too: Being Geo 2 or 3 might still be better than being a Helio 1…
pelikan88 8 months ago
There are 2 kinds of heliocentrists, but there are 3 kinds of geocentrists. PART 2
Geo 1: Someone who never thought about the matter for himself. A guy who just parrots what he`s been told in Sunday school and by creationist media.
Geo 2: Someone who honestly struggles with critical and logically valid evaluation of geo vs. helio arguments but is mentally unable to draw the correct conclusions, thus ending up with geo.
ctd. in Pt.3
pelikan88 8 months ago
There are 2 kinds of heliocentrists, but there are 3 kinds of geocentrists. PART 1
Helio 1: Someone who never thought about the matter for himself. A guy who just parrots what he`s been told in school and by common media.
Helio 2: Someone who has a profound understanding of what´s going on and is capable of critical and logically valid evaluation of geo vs. helio arguments, thus ending up with helio... ctd. in Pt.2
pelikan88 8 months ago
Shanedk pretty much proved you to be a complete retard. Try watching it you might learn something
hopefullyunhopeful 8 months ago
This is one of the best comedy videos on You-tube. You nearly got me. For a while I thought you were serious.
HonestMan395 8 months ago
@ Pawel: Did you even bother to read Copernicus's book? Do you even know the breadth and depth of evidence you are trying to refute?
What's your explanation? Ptolemaic epicycles?
THEY DON'T WORK!
Silly, just childish and sad. Save yourself some humiliation and claim you were just joking because this would be a great display of satirical acting.
mdiem 8 months ago
wow
brianhar100 9 months ago
If the earth didn't rotate, then explain why people on mountaintops weigh LESS. They should weigh more due to the additional gravity of the mass of the mountain.
sownzgr8 10 months ago
@sownzgr8
hahaha, good one.
PawelKolasa 9 months ago
@PawelKolasa Why do people on mountaintops weigh less if the earth doesn't turn? Why are there 5AM meteor showers every day if the earth is motionless? Neither makes sense.
sownzgr8 9 months ago
@PawelKolasa what's funny to you and why or are you ever serious?
sownzgr8 9 months ago
Mankind is doomed and this is why.
GlowWorm1962 10 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
worm. why don't you go outside and... glow >:)
PawelKolasa 9 months ago
So, this is the same with atmosphere gas. It's pretty funny you don't list arguments of scientists who "speculate on atmosphere coupled with Earth's rotation".
They state there is some friction between atmosphere and the surface thanks to its viscosity, which is surely not at odds with fluids mechanics.
Interestingly, Earth's spin is required to understand some dynamical behaviour of atmopshere such as Coriolis effect.
silveren777 10 months ago
Also, Earth's gravity on satellite is the reason why satellite doesn't have to be CONSTANTLY reajusted each time the Earth travel a portion of its orbit,
don't forget Earth's center also move around the Sun and the acceleration on sattelites from the Sun isn't strong enough to steal them.
Regarding atmosphere: the smoke cigarette you use in your analogy, even if it's less dense, doesn't escape the Earth, it stop ascending at some altitude.
silveren777 10 months ago
Again a wrong idea: the atmosphere is considered to be 100 km high max. ,but even at this distance, the Earth pulls an acceleration of 9.5m/s² , which is near the one at the surface, and still weak compared to the centrifugal acceleration of Earth's movement around the Sun (0.0056m/s²):
Thus, even around the Sun, our atmosphere won't let us alone.
So challenging arrogantly your opponents without knowing what you're talking about is just pitiful.
silveren777 10 months ago
Comment removed
silveren777 10 months ago
First, whatever the problem is with commodities, we do have measured difference in gravity at the equator, moreover we found out the net gravitationnal force there doesn't point exactly to the center of the Earth, which predicted by the influence of centrifugal force.
What you about satellite is really stupid; an object around the Earth orbit the latter if its centrifugal force and the Earth's gravitationnal force have the same value; not because the sky somehow decided to move.
silveren777 10 months ago
@silveren777
The balance of gravitational force and centrifugal force on satellites, are EXACTLY the proof that Earth is motionless.
If Earth was travelling around Sun, and solar system was going around something else, this balance would be .... out of balance!
PawelKolasa 9 months ago
@PawelKolasa
Not at all, since Earth's centrifugal force on sattelites due to its heliocentric and solar system motions are weaker than Earth's pull on sattelites.
Your very proof of geocentrism pitifully shatters.
silveren777 9 months ago
@PawelKolasa Reply to: "the balance of ..." Pt.1
Ok, so you still don`t get it...
Let me explain again (in vain..): Imagine a roulette table moving inside a train. It will behave exactly as a roulette table "standing still" at a casino. Proof: roulette IS being played in some luxury trains. We got here centrifugal force working as well as gravitational pull (due to steepness of the bowl).
Science refers to the train as "inertial frame of reference", as long as it does NOT accelerate... ctd Pt.2
pelikan88 9 months ago
@PawelKolasa Reply to: "the balance of ..." Pt.2
...and stays on a straight path. Earth is ALMOST an inertial frame as earth does not accelerate - well, it´s going round the sun but as you can easily calculate (according to Newton) the amount of centrif. force from THAT is almost zero.
Satellites don´t have to "chase" the earth to catch up and they don`t have to slow down to keep in track at the oppos. side. A roulette ball doesn´t either while moving with a train.
Will you please get that??
pelikan88 9 months ago
Wow. Everything you said was absolutely wrong. Quite an achievement.
cameron1004 11 months ago
The thing that makes me laugh about you is that you want to disprove physics using Newton's equations.
wosclub 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you fail at everything you do, pawel!
ChaosN 11 months ago
Wow. You know better than 400 years of science? Thats supreme arrogance.
mrgimp420 11 months ago
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ,i guess .
sausage4mash 11 months ago
The universe is not expanding at the same speed in all directions, science and the proof of red shift... PROVES the further away galaxies and matter away from the perspective point.
Justpooinabush 11 months ago
3:10-3:20. I'm so sorry, but you are so unbelievably wrong i can't begin to fathom what you just said. The universe is expanding away from the Earth from our perspective. You can imagine an analogy of about 5 balls seperated on a stretchy string, if you look at one ball and stretch the string, the ball you're looking at stays still, but the other balls move away. But if you look at a different ball, that ball stays still and all the others move away, even the one you just looked at...
Justpooinabush 11 months ago
Thank you so much Pawell I believe you and I know you are right. I am using your video to deprogram myself from the false teaching of heliocentricity Also deprogrammed from false teaching of evolution. I will watch all your videos to re inform myself with observable Truth. Thank you again and God bless you as I know he will, this is so right for me now thanks for your gift. Rolls
emmarolls 1 year ago
Comment removed
sownzgr8 1 year ago
Science actually has nothing to do with "finding truth".
To the contrary; it's the methodological investigation to discover what is verifiably false.
Science cannot actually verify anything as "True", but instead succeeds only in whether or not something can be demonstrably false.
Theories in science aren't claims to truth, but rather models by which predictions can withstand falsification. Good theories are those that (despite many attempts) have withstood falsification; bad ones, haven't.
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
So satellites aren't subject to gravety?
wybo2 1 year ago
If the Earth is not rotating how could you explain the Foucault Pendulum?
tjvarney 1 year ago
I think I lost about 100 IQ points by watching this video.
gdavies000 1 year ago 2
wut ? wut ? *facepalm* *headdesk* wut ?
sorry put my brain just exploded
er gravity , friction , laws of motion .
nothing in space to rub against, and no acceleration really so atmosphere left behind why exactly ? If a parrot sits on a pirates shoulder and the pirate walks away, is the parrot left behind ? no!
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
Ohhhhh, you're a christian. No wonder you don't know how to think.
simbeau 1 year ago
Pawel, how do you account for annual events such as meteor showers in the geo model?
sownzgr8 1 year ago
I am not only the FIRST to expose Copernican Theory. I also started trend where MANY people come with their geocentric videos and some are very good. Recent one was by Ph.D.
world science database has many professors that, now veryfy my disproving of Einsteing.
Also Moon Hoax is out already. All bullshit will come out before Armageddon and that is SOON.
Enjoy your incoming HUMILIATION. Because I will RUB it IN...
PawelKolasa 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa "Enjoy your incoming HUMILIATION. Because I will RUB it IN..." that's not a very christina attitude, is it ?
Acrimonator 11 months ago
Wow.. you REALLY scare me.. Very disturbing that there are people this stupid
Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter how smart the sheep are as long as they serve their purpose.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC
You scare me how stupid you are. Your kind is in millions of retards, who call others stupid, but can't come up with any argument. That how stupid you are: not even a single argument.
Because you DRONES are HYPNOTIZED and RATIONAL thinking is not available to you.
Just shut up and go play in your sandbox.
PawelKolasa 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa LOL, from some one who doens't know the difference between mass and weight and is totally ignorant about science, that's priceless...
Acrimonator 11 months ago