Is YouTube part of this conspiracy now too?
As are all the other countries in the world.
If Occam's razor were a real thing I think it would get extremely blunt on these Moon Hoax/flat Earth type arguments...
l have researched this subject and come to the conclusion that no we didn't.what do others think?.
Is YouTube part of this conspiracy now too?
As are all the other countries in the world.
If Occam's razor were a real thing I think it would get extremely blunt on these Moon Hoax/flat Earth type arguments...
lots of spacy questions lately so i'll add mine here.
theres a video of one of the guys on the international space station doing some experiments with a few portable cd players, using them as gyroscopes when turned on.
it was interesting to see.
"l believe these objects are a lot closer than we are being told" - Atomant
Why?
Why are we being lied to?
What is the point?
There are thousands of videos on YouTube of people debunking evolution. Their arguments are all repeats of one another and all fail even a cursory examination with reality. There are thousands of cartoons on YouTube; they aren't real either.
l have researched this subject and come to the conclusion that no we didn't.what do others think?.
Comments are disabled for that YT video above. It seems the Sun doesn't shine on that particular page either...
lots of spacy questions lately so i'll add mine here.
theres a video of one of the guys on the international space station doing some experiments with a few portable cd players, using them as gyroscopes when turned on.
it was interesting to see.
"does this mean that the ISS doesnt orbit the earth but rather the earth is spinning beneath it?" - R
No, the ISS has to orbit the Earth to counteract the Earth's gravity.
"sounds fair but the iss is supposed to be moving much faster than earth. or does it move just about 700mph in opposition to the earths rotation, causing a relative speed of about 1700 mph?" - R
Gravity is trying to pull the ISS to the surface of Earth. To counteract that effect without the need for continuously firing rocket engines the ISS has to travel perpendicular to the surface of Earth fast enough to maintain its height. So for every 1 metre that the ISS falls to ground it needs to have moved along far enough so that it is still the same height above the ground (the Earth's surface will fall away as the Earth is a globe).
"in that case, i would think the hypothetical gyro-box would wind up stuck to the walls and move around a bit as it resists the change in inertia/direction." - R
If you held that same gyro box on Earth about head height and then dropped it, what would happen? It would remain orientated in the same direction but it would drop to the ground, because of gravity. It would remain orientated all the way to the ground whereupon a collision would occur and those forces would overcome the power of the gyroscopes and it's orientation would alter.
In space, in the ISS, the box would fall like it does down here but there would never be a collision with the ground because of the lateral movement of the ISS (and the box inside, along with the gyroscopes). It just keeps on falling...
lots of spacy questions lately so i'll add mine here.
theres a video of one of the guys on the international space station doing some experiments with a few portable cd players, using them as gyroscopes when turned on.
it was interesting to see.
"The question is this: given the high speed and curved path of the ISS, what should we expect to see happen with an object that has active gyros in all 3 dimensions if we were to observe for 1 minute or more?" - Robo
The ISS is falling around the Earth. The gyros would also be falling therefore they should maintain their position inside the ISS... However, with 3 gyros active inside an imaginary box the box should orbit its axis once for every complete circuit of the Earth that the ISS completes because the gyros would keep their axle perpendicular to their spin... In other words, on one side of the Earth the top of the box would be pointing to the ceiling of the ISS then on the other side the top of the box would be facing the floor...
I believe that is correct based on my knowledge of how these things work... I may be wrong!
my brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
Also, it would be day at the same time all over the flat face of the Earth and there would be no opposing seasons either side of the equator.
You really do have to know literally nothing to believe the Earth is flat...
in the discussion about race i adopted a position i am not entirely comfortable with.
i think there is a sense in which it is useful to distinguish categories of description that can be fruitfully defended (apples and bananas) and those that cannot (caucasian or other racial descriptions for example).
but there is a more fundamental sense in which i believe that everything is socially constructed, every single line you can think of.
Pi is the mathematical expression of the relationship between certain ways to measure distance in a circle/sphere. The relationship cannot physically be any different therefore the mathematical expression cannot be any different whilst we use base 10. Even if we were to use another base the physical relationship remains the same.
It is what it is.
my brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
We can see the Earth is round from space; unless there is a huge conspiracy...
We can see the Sun light illuminating the surface of various things in the Solar System and see the Sun not illuminating the opposite side of these same things (we can also measure the energy going into something and then radiating outwards again to gauge where the energy is coming from; that's outside this discussion though!).
We don't have to do the experiments ourselves because we have a class of people to do that work for us - scientists. We trust what they say because there is not world wide conspiracy to mislead. Unless there is, of course...
I don't need to prove that the person I am talking to every morning is actually my wife and not a construct of____ (insert any random nonsense idea here). I accept that she is my wife because not to do so is stupid.
"...care to discuss the substance???" - CG
You should read your own resources first; that does seem to be a common ailment with creationists and the like, insofar that when they link to something other than creationist webshite nonsense their links actually say something other than they assert...
Case in point; from your link:
"It was pondering these developments that led Einstein to discover the special theory of relativity in 1905. The discovery was not momentary. The theory was the outcome of, in Einstein's own reckoning, seven and more years of work..."
The original paper actually highlights and enlarges the bold text I've added; how did you miss this in the original?
You, captaingrl, clearly (very clearly) have no understanding of how things work in science. You pretend that you do and try to buoy that notion up with words (theory) that you clearly (very clearly) do not understand. You then get ridiculed.
"none of you guys are addressing my question" - CG
We have. You just aren't aware that we have...
Be honest with yourself (unless you are trolling...) about your level of knowledge on this subject...