Cosmology Debate Thread ("Space Is Fake")
- Thread starter Andy Dufresne
- Start date
"Remember when a man's head showed up in space on television?"
That's a massive head, I wonder if it's got it's own "orbit". These special effects companies, no matter their money injected into their lies, at the end of the day are only human.
That's a massive head, I wonder if it's got it's own "orbit". These special effects companies, no matter their money injected into their lies, at the end of the day are only human.
@Johnnyvee
@Brewer
@Samseau
@paternos
I'm cross posting my reply about satellites from the Elon Musk thread here since it should have been here.
Part of the idea is that the understanding of the framework, the framework of the world, is off. Similar to how people who believe in Covid can absolutely do so within their rational framework. They are being rational, they just have the wrong frame. There doesn't need to be a grand conspiracy coverup. A paradigm change is what makes us reevaluate what is really going on, and we've undergone these sorts of things before. The assumption I work with now is that we haven't really made true "progress" with these paradigm changes. I do not know myself exactly how this connects to something like satellites but I believe there is a strong possibility we are mistaken about many things we think are matter of fact. Much only appears to be so on a practical level.
I'm a physicist by training and regularly use various systems of equations for my work. The equations are effective on a practical level for describing reality but when you contemplate it they are not reality themselves. They are like a shorthand language that attempts to describe things. They can be useful for manipulating our physical surroundings, but all work with assumptions built in. These assumptions are very fundamental assumptions and oftentimes (depending on the system) are not valid for other systems. Yet they can be often used to predict the same thing (or something very similar) to an opposing system.
When it comes to "development" in the world of physics, or any field, it is very difficult to move in the direction of new general ideas and almost always new research pushes at the other end: below "the general", at the boundaries and at the details. Already, separating physics away from other fields is a move away from the general. Matthew Pageau's book describes this very well. So we could be doing something with satellites, assuming it's working within what we've agreed to be reality, but it's not really reality.
@Brewer
@Samseau
@paternos
I'm cross posting my reply about satellites from the Elon Musk thread here since it should have been here.
Part of the idea is that the understanding of the framework, the framework of the world, is off. Similar to how people who believe in Covid can absolutely do so within their rational framework. They are being rational, they just have the wrong frame. There doesn't need to be a grand conspiracy coverup. A paradigm change is what makes us reevaluate what is really going on, and we've undergone these sorts of things before. The assumption I work with now is that we haven't really made true "progress" with these paradigm changes. I do not know myself exactly how this connects to something like satellites but I believe there is a strong possibility we are mistaken about many things we think are matter of fact. Much only appears to be so on a practical level.
I'm a physicist by training and regularly use various systems of equations for my work. The equations are effective on a practical level for describing reality but when you contemplate it they are not reality themselves. They are like a shorthand language that attempts to describe things. They can be useful for manipulating our physical surroundings, but all work with assumptions built in. These assumptions are very fundamental assumptions and oftentimes (depending on the system) are not valid for other systems. Yet they can be often used to predict the same thing (or something very similar) to an opposing system.
When it comes to "development" in the world of physics, or any field, it is very difficult to move in the direction of new general ideas and almost always new research pushes at the other end: below "the general", at the boundaries and at the details. Already, separating physics away from other fields is a move away from the general. Matthew Pageau's book describes this very well. So we could be doing something with satellites, assuming it's working within what we've agreed to be reality, but it's not really reality.
Last edited:
I had to stop listening when he starting repeating the lies about Wernher von Braun.
Thank you for your input. Speaking of equations and operating within a framework, what do you make of this?
"Mont Blanc from Snowdon - 1127km away"
(its the perspective and the distances of the two mountains within a single view that I am interested in, as this breaks the curvature formula)
The guy talks a lot about atmospheric conditions in the video but I wanted to get into the nitty-gritty of the math to see what our manmade science could explain for this phenomena.
Putting in the two coordinates from both mountains
- Mount Snowdon: 53.0685∘53.0685∘ latitude, −4.0763∘−4.0763∘ longitude
- Mont Blanc: 45.8326∘45.8326∘ latitude, 6.8656∘6.8656∘ longitude
and calculating the difference in latitude and longitude:
Δϕ=53.0685∘−45.8326∘
Δλ=−4.0763∘−6.8656∘
Then substituting these values into the haversine formula:
Curvature=2⋅arcsin(sin2(7.2359∘2)+cos(53.0685∘)⋅cos(45.8326∘)⋅sin2(2.7893∘2))Curvature=2⋅arcsin(sin2(27.2359∘)+cos(53.0685∘)⋅cos(45.8326∘)⋅sin2(22.7893∘))
Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(sin2(3.61795∘)+cos(53.0685∘)⋅cos(45.8326∘)⋅sin2(1.39465∘))Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(sin2(3.61795∘)+cos(53.0685∘)⋅cos(45.8326∘)⋅sin2(1.39465∘))
Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(0.03591+0.38341⋅0.20116)Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(0.03591+0.38341⋅0.20116)
Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(0.03591+0.07705)Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(0.03591+0.07705)
Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(0.11296)Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(0.11296)
Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(0.33626)Curvature≈2⋅arcsin(0.33626)
Curvature≈2⋅18.71∘Curvature≈2⋅18.71∘
Curvature≈37.42∘Curvature≈37.42∘
I also came up with 14.457 degrees, but if the model they give us is Earth being 24,901 miles in circumference, a distance of 1127km from one another should result in a significant obstruction of view.
Also even if there is no absolute obstruction, the portions of those mountains facing the viewer should be tilted upwards, while the portions of the backsides facing away from viewer should be tilted downwards, yes? They look pretty level to me. No tilt.
And from the camera view aiming directly at Mt. Blanc, there should be a clear and evident left to right curvature downwards, of equal proportion to the mythical straight ahead curvature.
Take one of those YUGE rubber exercise balls and paste a small model or lego building to it and take photos of the ball at different angles, a few paces away (out in space) and you'll get the idea.
This has been debunked, you are seeing a cloud up there, not mont blanc.
Check this:
If you still doubt, buy or lend a Nikon p900 yourself (not too expensive 2nd hand) and do the test .
Which episode was this, if you don't mind me asking? I might listen to it.
FlatEarther
Other Religion
Good thread. Earth of course is flat as our senses show us and as actually measured. Globers only counter argument involve refraction rationalization but actually zero evidence from globe beside fake government controlled space programs. The normies will be given hollywood movies and 3d animations while eternally promised soon to have Public space travel.
Last edited:
Caduceus
Heritage
Username checks out.
Last edited:
FlatEarther
Other Religion
Sure. Earth is an enclosed realm and the center of the universe with everything revolving around it as known by all of the ancients including the Torah. This is called the geocentric model of earth and well established by the real hidden science such as michelson-Morley experiment which failed to detect any motion of the earth. Look into what scientist call the 'axis of evil' also known as earth apparent special location in space and their vehemous opposition to such idea. Globers of course will bring up freemason magic tricks such as foucault pendulum and Einstein mental masturbations and dark matter. Rest assured it's all fake, there are no proofs for the globe beyond the brainwashing. They cannot even provide one real picture of earth from space, it is all cgi. Same with satellites. The footage from ISS and any other fake space station is all smoke and mirrors, we have hours of bloopers video trumping even peak Charlie Chaplin from each. Moon landing was fake as evident to anyone who isn't severely brainwashed. You will never go to space, neither will your children or their children simply because it is impossible. On von Braun (the nazi father of nasa) tombstone he quotes psalm 19:1 with a reference to the firmament, an interesting choice to say the least especially for someone who supposedly would know that we aren't but a spec of dust in a gigantic expanding universe.
There is much more of course. History is mostly a lie. We are living post many resets where archeological sites along with ancient technology have been extracted and hidden by the elite. There were probably many more advanced civilizations in the past as evidenced by the remnant structures which do not fit with any standard evolution and are still beyond our (known) construction methods. Christians in the movement believe we live in the post millenial kingdom.
Not at all controversial.