Cosmology Debate Thread ("Space Is Fake")

[scary_robot_music]

That most you see in the sky and heavens with the naked eye (or through a telescope) is totally different from they say it is.
There is obviously something there, but it is not what we are told.

Also, that human travel outside of low earth orbit is not actually possible, and footage which allegedly shows this is either faked or altered in some way to make it seem it is possible.

Finally that the evidence from the powers that be present for "outer space" is severely lacking, and is unconvincing.
Unfortunately 99% of humanity cannot got there to verify the evidence.

Notice I never said in any of my posts that I believe it's all fake....just that there are lots of questions that need to be discussed in a calm rational way.

I generally believe the normie narrative about space, but I'm open to hearing other ideas. Like questioning the moon landing, it's not something that bothers me.

For example, I was camping in the desert once and one of the people I was with brought along a powerful telescope. He pointed it at Jupiter. You could clearly see the planet, including the colored clouds in its atmosphere and two of the gallelean moons orbiting it.

What do you and the others who think "space is fake" think I was really looking at that night, if not the fifth planet from the sun, a gas giant that's 100s of millions of km away, and all the other things we learn about it in normie science classes at public school?

 

[Thefinalepic]

A bunch of word salad here. Speak clearly: what exactly is to be gained by concealing from the mass of the population that the world is flat? And assuming the world was flat, how would that actually change anything for how we live our lives day to day? How would it change the manner in which the forces of evil continually strive to exert their influence and obtain ever-more power?

I don't see how it would change anything. In other words, there is simply no point to maintaining a conspiracy that the world is flat. Contrast this with conspiracies around something like 9/11, in which there is a very obvious motive at play to maintain secrecy about the truth. So not only is there no evidence that the world is flat, there is utterly no reason that some shadowy cabal would have been suppressing this information for literally centuries, up through the modern era, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Human beings require motives to act. And there is no rational motive that explains a multi-generational conspiracy to conceal a flat earth.

The conspiracy is similar to that in which they tell us the age of the Earth is billions and billions of years old.

They want you to believe that you are completely insignificant, that God does not exist, and that you have no power in this life as a disconnected being from Him. Most people have fallen for that one hook, line, and sinker!

Mind you, I went down this rabbit hole a while back, but didn't come to any solid conclusion one way or the other. I am of the mind that Earth is more of a "torus", an energy field as is everything in the Universe. The geometry in which God has made the Universe is spectacular, something that truly only the mind of Him could make so simple yet elegant - and beautiful. Think of the domes in cathedrals yet everywhere we look.

Here's the thing though: Jesus Christ pulls you out of every rabbit hole. I can attest to that wholeheartedly. The shape of the Earth matters far less to me than the fact that while I am on it, I have the opportunity to walk with Him.

 

[Wutang]

The thread is starting to go on the direction of how it's actually the sun that revolves around the earth. This thread is not going exactly in the direction I was hoping for

 

[Ember]

 

[Wutang]

To be more charitable to the people opposing the round earth model, it seems like they have in mind more of a dome like model of the earth rather then just a flat pancake/living room rug model. That said, I don't get how their model does any better for accounts for things such as flights around the earth. As other people have mentioned in this thread when pilots fly or when missiles are fired or any other object is sent into the sky to travel long distances the calculations being done assume a curved surface.

I can't help but think the next step is to say airplanes or missiles are actually fake and ghey and that it's another example of moderns trying usurp God so let's travel back a few centuries. There was sea voyages that have gone around the Earth. Magellan already sailed around the Earth in the pre Enlightenment era back when Europe was still very much Christian and when the Jews were still being kept under lockdown so there wasn't the same atheist elites in charge as there is now. People back then didn't seem to think there was a conspiracy to attack God by saying it was possible to sail the earth as of it was a sphere. And remember people were more pious on those days and church authority still possess both spiritual and temporal power so if it was really threatening to the spiritual well being of the population to claim the earth was a sphere wouldn't there have been more of a fight against that idea?

 

[Caduceus]

Over 600 people from 46 different countries have been in space. Any one of us could've become an astronaut with the right talents and motivation. We have plenty of eyewitness testimony and photo/video evidence of space that has no signs of tampering.

What more evidence could convince the skeptics? Even if all the astronauts are in in the scam, you would have to either collaborate with or fool all the people involved in the space agencies training the astronauts, preparing the shuttles, planning the flight path, and so on. That's thousands of people we're talking about. It's virtually impossible to keep a secret with that many people involved.

No need to have such a grand conspiracy with thousands of people "in on it".
The shuttles, rockets, ground staff are all real....they just doesn't fly as far out as they say they do.

Normal passenger airplanes fly at about 30,000 feet, single pilot military jets can reach 70,000 feet, and once you pass 100,000 feet you start to float inside the shuttles anyway because gravity is reduced...a lot of the "outer space" footage can be filmed at that height (100,000 feet) without actually being in "space". The people on the ground won't know the difference, and no one can verify.

Also, as to the 600 astronauts, 97% of those have only gone as far as the international space station, which may in reality be much closer to earth than they claim...if it's real at all. They actually as saying now no piece of the ISS will ever be put into a museum when it's shut down in the next few years, but rather it will be destroyed making crash it to earth....so no one can ever verify anything.

The real number of astronauts who have actually supposedly gone into "outer space" further than the ISS is only 15 Americans, of which 12 allegedly landed on the moon and 3 allegedly went around it (Apollo 13). And they did it all between the short 4 years between 1969 and 1972.

No human has allegedly ever gone that far ever again.
In the 1960s and 70s they were claiming there would be moon colonies within 20 years....yet 50 years later we can't even replicate the simple journey to the moon they supposedly took, despite much more advanced technology.

 

[StanWildman]

Reeves' history of Christianity series on Youtube is great.

He is how I "discovered" Youtube, that there was serious content being posted beyond people doing home videos or recording themselves playing games (I was a late adopter). Probably have watched that entire series twice and some episodes more than that.

Obviously this is a hijacking of the thread but in this instance, one supposes, maybe that is not such a bad thing.

 

[Caduceus]

For example, I was camping in the desert once and one of the people I was with brought along a powerful telescope. He pointed it at Jupiter. You could clearly see the planet, including the colored clouds in its atmosphere and two of the gallelean moons orbiting it.

What do you and the others who think "space is fake" think I was really looking at that night, if not the fifth planet from the sun, a gas giant that's 100s of millions of km away, and all the other things we learn about it in normie science classes at public school?

They idea is that Jupiter (and all the other "planets") are not a physical places that you can "land" on, but rather are lights, or beacons, or gases that remain in a fixed location.

 

[Wutang]

They idea is that Jupiter (and all the other "planets") are not a physical places that you can "land" on, but rather are lights, or beacons, or gases that remain in a fixed location.

In the case of Jupiter, it's mainstream normie knowledge that it's a gas giant so it's not possible to really land on it given it's mostly gas. This isn't any sort of hidden knowledge that's been kept from the public by elites.

 

[Towgunner]

Not sure where the idea that space is fake came from, but, I think we don't have a good understanding of what space is - at least from a layman's perspective. For instance, objects in space are so far away from us that we measure them in lightyears or how far light travels in a year. Light is the evidence of the object and what we see in the night sky is just the light that once radiated (or reflected radiation) from an object (star or something like it). But that light is years old, many times thousands if not millions of years old.

For instance, a star that is 100 light years away means that what we observe of that star right here and now is what that star looked like 100 years ago. The whole night sky is like this, so how can be sure that what we see above us is a true representation of the real universe? Some of the local stars, Proxima Centauri can be trusted, I suppose, because its only 4 lightyears away. But, all the same, what we see today is what it was 4 years ago. For all we know it just exploded.

Also, it appears that these objects are moving and the universe is expanding. We calibrate some of our most sensitive navigation instruments to stars because they're that reliable, however, those same reliable reference points are moving. Again, the light that hits us today (and our various measuring devices) is light from that object from years ago. Since these objects move and the universe is expanding, the star is not in the same place as we observe it right now. This is especially true for objects 100s or 1000s of lightyears away. This sort of dampers the practicality of ever becoming an interstellar species like Star Trek.

So is space "fake", in many ways it is. What's fascinating is that the night sky we all look up to isn't at all what it looks like.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The conspiracy is similar to that in which they tell us the age of the Earth is billions and billions of years old.

What conspiracy? That the Earth is a sphere? The age of the Earth is secular and based on Darwinian presuppositions, among other things. I can't say the same for the shape of the world.

They want you to believe that you are completely insignificant, that God does not exist, and that you have no power in this life as a disconnected being from Him. Most people have fallen for that one hook, line, and sinker!

That is true but there is nothing about the spherical Earth that gives credence to that. If the nature of space is as they say it is, it doesn't necessarily follow that God doesn't exist.

 

[TruckDriver9]

Some of You guys should practice long range shooting, not only it's a great pastime activity and a valuable skill, but once You start putting rounds downrange at a few hundreds yards, You'll be able to detemine the validity of Your theories (flat or spherical Earth, gravity) based on Your own experiences.
Practice beats theory.

 

[Thomas More]

No need to have such a grand conspiracy with thousands of people "in on it".
The shuttles, rockets, ground staff are all real....they just doesn't fly as far out as they say they do.

Normal passenger airplanes fly at about 30,000 feet, single pilot military jets can reach 70,000 feet, and once you pass 100,000 feet you start to float inside the shuttles anyway because gravity is reduced...a lot of the "outer space" footage can be filmed at that height (100,000 feet) without actually being in "space". The people on the ground won't know the difference, and no one can verify.

Also, as to the 600 astronauts, 97% of those have only gone as far as the international space station, which may in reality be much closer to earth than they claim...if it's real at all. They actually as saying now no piece of the ISS will ever be put into a museum when it's shut down in the next few years, but rather it will be destroyed making crash it to earth....so no one can ever verify anything.

The real number of astronauts who have actually supposedly gone into "outer space" further than the ISS is only 15 Americans, of which 12 allegedly landed on the moon and 3 allegedly went around it (Apollo 13). And they did it all between the short 4 years between 1969 and 1972.

No human has allegedly ever gone that far ever again.
In the 1960s and 70s they were claiming there would be moon colonies within 20 years....yet 50 years later we can't even replicate the simple journey to the moon they supposedly took, despite much more advanced technology.

Gravity is not reduced very much by going up to 100K feet. Gravitation force is based on the size and density of the mass, in this case the Earth. 100K feet is a very small distance in comparison to the Earth's size, so the gravitational change at 100k feet is minute.

When they do those weightless flights, they do a big parabolic curve, to create an upwards centrifugal force that is balanced to just exactly counter the downward gravitational force. It's the same thing that happens in a roller coaster that does an upside down loop. The planes can only maintain the desired flight profile for about 30 seconds before they have to level out. Weight in a plane at 100K feet is perfectly normal when flying level.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I have already been suggesting that back on RVF, but wouldn't it make sense to create a Relativity Theory thread?
It's a more focused topic, arguably one of the key points of the "space is fake" debate and it's controversial enough to stimulate the minds of the fabulous gentlemen on this platform.
Personally, I am ambivalent about both space and the measurements of the Earth. I would say that Relativity Theory clearly seems like a hoax and based on what I grasp from reading Robert Sungenis and Ronald Hatch, I do buy into geocentrism. I also find it extremely suspicious, that Ron Hatch has basically been erased from the historical record, ostensibly because he said that Relativity Theory was actually more of a hindrance to the development of GPS than anything else.

Either way, it would be a more focused debate and, I think, more insightful. Discussions about the shape of the cosmos often devolve and go nowhere, and interestingly, Scipture and Church Fathers both warn us from getting bogged down in it.

I'll get one started now.

 

[Rainy]

I think a more interesting question is, what is at the edge of space. What is "space" expanding into. What was there before it expanded and was created. Is there other "space" around us we cannot observe with the human eye.

All stuff I have pondered since I was a kid. Teachers could never answer my questions so I hated school.

There's the belief God create the universe. There is trying to physically understand what that would look like and visualizing a model of that. But then I ask, what was there before the universe. What is outside the universe. Define the universe. Is "space" our observable universe? How many planes of existence are there? If you believe in heaven, is it within our universe/space? Or is it another universe/space? What's at the other end of a black hole? Why should I believe the answer. No one has ever gone thru one and wrote about it. Does thought and consciousness exist in its own space?

I would say the conversation itself it hard to conceptualize from a human perspective.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

I think a more interesting question is, what is at the edge of space. What is "space" expanding into. What was there before it expanded and was created. Is there other "space" around us we cannot observe with the human eye.

All stuff I have pondered since I was a kid. Teachers could never answer my questions so I hated school.

There's the belief God create the universe. There is trying to physically understand what that would look like and visualizing a model of that. But then I ask, what was there before the universe. What is outside the universe. Define the universe. Is "space" our observable universe? How many planes of existence are there? If you believe in heaven, is it within our universe/space? Or is it another universe/space? What's at the other end of a black hole? Why should I believe the answer. No one has ever gone thru one and wrote about it. Does thought and consciousness exist in its own space?

I would say the conversation itself it hard to conceptualize from a human perspective.

I personally lump this sort of metaphysical and esoteric persuits in with the Dinosaur/Evolution discussion and move on to topics that are more directly related to my day to day concerns:

As in: What does it matter if one model or the other of space is correct... homies still trying to feed muh kids and get rich in the rat race in the mean time.

 

[Wutang]

The conspiracy is similar to that in which they tell us the age of the Earth is billions and billions of years old.

They want you to believe that you are completely insignificant, that God does not exist, and that you have no power in this life as a disconnected being from Him. Most people have fallen for that one hook, line, and sinker!

Mind you, I went down this rabbit hole a while back, but didn't come to any solid conclusion one way or the other. I am of the mind that Earth is more of a "torus", an energy field as is everything in the Universe. The geometry in which God has made the Universe is spectacular, something that truly only the mind of Him could make so simple yet elegant - and beautiful. Think of the domes in cathedrals yet everywhere we look.

Here's the thing though: Jesus Christ pulls you out of every rabbit hole. I can attest to that wholeheartedly. The shape of the Earth matters far less to me than the fact that while I am on it, I have the opportunity to walk with Him.

How does the earth not being a sphere or any other shape make the average person feel insignificant or how does it lead to Atheism? I don't see how one leads to the other. With the age of the universe or whether space is vast or not, I can see how it could lead to people feeling insignificant and one of the things that could lead to sort of nilhilistic despair that comes with a secular world view. but I have no idea how the shape of the earth whatever it is would have the same effect on someone's psyche.

As scorpion said "I don't see how it would change anything. In other words, there is simply no point to maintaining a conspiracy that the world is flat. Contrast this with conspiracies around something like 9/11, in which there is a very obvious motive at play to maintain secrecy about the truth. " The only benefit the elites could garner from promoting flat earth that is another thing that scorpion mentioned earlier in this thread - it's useful for poisoning the well to stop people from looking into other non-mainstream theories that goes against the promoted narratives. If people associate flat earth with denying the Holocaust, with states using false flags to justify wars and other "conspiracy theories" about how the elites behave, then it just taints all those other theories by association and will cause people who might be otherwise curious in exploring these ideas to associate these theories with unstable people and return back to just accepting the normie narratives.

I've heard people say that the grand size and scope of the universe actually made them believe more in God since it serves as a grand display of His creative powers so I don't think the answer being given to the question being asked in this thread on what is the motivation for promoting the supposedly fake modern cosmology theories is really that strong either. For me it seems like these theories can be used to promote either pro or anti God viewpoints depending on how they are presented and interpreted.

 

[GuitarVH]

I have already been suggesting that back on RVF, but wouldn't it make sense to create a Relativity Theory thread?
It's a more focused topic, arguably one of the key points of the "space is fake" debate and it's controversial enough to stimulate the minds of the fabulous gentlemen on this platform.
Personally, I am ambivalent about both space and the measurements of the Earth. I would say that Relativity Theory clearly seems like a hoax and based on what I grasp from reading Robert Sungenis and Ronald Hatch, I do buy into geocentrism. I also find it extremely suspicious, that Ron Hatch has basically been erased from the historical record, ostensibly because he said that Relativity Theory was actually more of a hindrance to the development of GPS than anything else.

Either way, it would be a more focused debate and, I think, more insightful. Discussions about the shape of the cosmos often devolve and go nowhere, and interestingly, Scipture and Church Fathers both warn us from getting bogged down in it.

I'll get one started now.

The name of this thread is not accurate. No one on any side is arguing that point or believes it as stated.

A better name might be "Alternative Cosmology" or something along those lines.

 

[Caduceus]

The name of this thread is not accurate. No one on any side is arguing that point or believes it as stated.

A better name might be "Alternative Cosmology" or something along those lines.

I agree.
The thread title just stirs up negative emotions and triggered reactions.
Another (more neutral) thread title could also have been - "Is OUTER space a real thing ?"
.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The name of this thread is not accurate. No one on any side is arguing that point or believes it as stated.

A better name might be "Alternative Cosmology" or something along those lines.

Yeah you're right. I also, as you might have noticed, have not created the other thread about Relativity. It's been about 8 months since I last cared about the topic and there just might be some people on this forum autistic enough to freak out on me because of it and then I have to research it again in order to defend myself and I just don't have that extra energy right now.

Also, science is clearly for nerds. I, however, am a chad, and only interested in war and the female bust.