Chinahand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Chinahand stuff "Yes it involves maths" ...and assumptions. but we've been over this i'm sure, during this 164 page epic. did you listen to the call to mr myslynski china? what do you make of it? thanks x Paul, I clearly can't explain this well enough - science you build a model, based on assumptions, then you go and take measurements and see if the actual results fit in with that model. IE if you assume the earth is a sphere, that light travels in a straight line in a vacuum and is diffracted by an amount measured by the refraction index as it moves through the varying density/pressure atmosphere - you then get a prediction of how a star, satellite, planet etc will appear to move through the sky, or a wind turbine disappear below a horizon. You could certainly make a whole series of other assumptions - that the bulk shape of the earth is flat etc etc. You then go and collect evidence and see if the assumptions you've made fit with reality. Can you predict the position of a ship from taking observations of the height of the sun at midday, can you predict where the ISS will pass though the sky. The assumptions of a flat earth produce predictions about how real things will look. And when we go and look - the real world doesn't look like those things. But with the standard assumptions of a globe etc you can produce very accurate predictions. Science wins because it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 @PGW - to avoid bloat quoting type what you want to say into the posting box at the bottom of the page and hit Post rather than hitting the Quote button next to a post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 @PGW - to avoid bloat quoting type what you want to say into the posting box at the bottom of the page and hit Post rather than hitting the Quote button next to a post. what i'd really like to do is be able to do is that fancy multi quote thing ? cheers china. please just listen to the hubble call to mike myslynski and see if you can explain his position for us? he really didn't seem to be that clued up about it all x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I started listening, but it just becomes totally obvious that the guy calling into NASA simply doesn't understand even the most basic things. The call starts and Mr Myslynski tries to explain that he works with an infrared telescope - this detects light of a longer wavelength than the light we can see. Hubble also has some ability, some sensors, to detect infrared light too - but the infrared wavelength's SOPHIA can see are further into the infra red than Hubble's sensors. This is not saying that SOPHIA can see further than Hubble - it is that SOPHIA can detect infrared radiation of a longer wave length than Hubble can. The Youtuber leaps into a statement that SOPHIA can see further than Hubble in terms of distance - while Mr Myslynski is trying to explain wavelength - 5 micron wavelength for Hubble 250-300 microns for SOPHIA. The lack of understanding is embarrassing and to hear him try to make some claim about distances from this is plain sad. I am not willing to waste my time on this - it is ignorance with an agenda trying to distort an expert who simply doesn't realize the person he is explaining things to is clueless and has an agenda. Sorry I'm out. I have better things to do with my time. Though I might try to explain some of Hubble's scientific worth, but then again is there really any point - you'll just dismiss it in your usual way, and Gerry will claim it is all fake. The true wonders that Hubble has been able to discover via the data it has collected and returned to earth are the testament to its existence. This data isn't beautifully rendered artwork for NASA's public outreach - it is hard science spectra, wavelength analysis and being able to detect signals that are so faint, or or such a wavelength that it cannot be detected under the Earth's atmosphere. Fake claims Gerry - but the reality is that it is science which has upended multiple scientific idea while building whole new ones from the knowledge it supplies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 i appreciate your thoughts china, shame you couldn't just listen to the two video calls to nasa. could i tempt you with a bit of " confessions of an antarctic plumber"? again, i'd appreciate your thoughts x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba brown Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Hi all... This has been a great read so far, Page 50. I was going to wait till I finished it but I just couldn't help myself, I guess there is only one place to start. CHINAHAND!!, So far I have watched you troll the heck out of Gerry and co, along with your little helpers, I'm just struggling to guess what you are? A governmental troll, a school teacher, or completely programmed. .(troll imo) so far I have not seen any experiments that proves the Heliocentric model, maybe I will find it as I get deeper into the thread. Why wont someone just put a real "PHOTO (not image) of the globe in its glory, or some raw video footage of it spinning and put this to bed. china. so far, all I can find is cartoons/CGI and it comes from every corner of the earth. all the images of the plane(t)s, solar systems, galaxy's, satellites either look like paintings/ paint spills or CGI junk, spacewalks with air bubbles ? and that ISS is just a pure comedy show. . P.s I am not a flat earther, I clearly don't know what the earth looks like. just like everyone else on this thread, unless someone has been to space?? I consider myself " I know its not a globe Earther". Simply because there is no physical evidence to support the balllll what so ever. Reality, maths and "natural science" tells me the earth is fixed and doesn't move, and the ocean surface is FLAT, unless someone has found the curve. .?? I look forward to hearing from one of you xx peace PROVE ALL THINGS xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 You've got the mental processing ability of a dyslexic cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 The picture NASA doesn't want you to see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba brown Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 7 hours ago, Tarne said: You've got the mental processing ability of a dyslexic cat. TARNE Excellent post. . thank you for you kind words. ;-) So is that your proof of the heliocentric model ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 minute ago, bubba brown said: So is that your proof of the heliocentric model ?? I thought this thread was about flat earth not about the planets revolving around the sun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, bubba brown said: TARNE Excellent post. . thank you for you kind words. ;-) So is that your proof of the heliocentric model ?? Decades of years of scientific consensus and evidence versus...what do you have exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Well-Manicured Man Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 minute ago, RIchard Britten said: Decades of years of scientific consensus ^ A pathetic example of the argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Just now, The Well-Manicured Man said: A pathetic example of the argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy. A classic example of nothing better to post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba brown Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 minute ago, mojomonkey said: I thought this thread was about flat earth not about the planets revolving around the sun? Show us a plane(t) revolving around the sun. No cartoons please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 Just now, bubba brown said: Show us a plane(t) revolving around the sun. No cartoons please Show me where all the water goes when it hits the edge of the disc...no cartoons please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.