Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: spaceplane just snapped a stunning view of Earth  (Read 10910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gladius_veritatis

  • Supporter
Re: spaceplane just snapped a stunning view of Earth
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2025, 05:37:54 PM »
Quote from: St Giles on February 27, 2025, 06:40:26 PM
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false/impossible.

Oui.
Logged

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: spaceplane just snapped a stunning view of Earth
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2025, 02:33:38 AM »
But I do understand it quite well. That's why I don't believe in gravity. It makes no sense, and contradicts other laws that *can* be observed and measured.

I won't be gaslit into believing my own common sense is actually a "confusion" or "lack of understanding".
To those I say, "go jump in the lake" and that's the polite version.

If you believe a big bang exploded and coalesced trillions of stars with gas clouds, forming innumerable planets with residual "orbiting" action around said stars (suns), then you are the crazy one. Not me. And yes, the Big Bang is married to the whole "outer space, trillions of stars and planets" cosmology.

My cousin, who I basically "grew up with" almost like a brother, and spent tons of time with as a teenager, tried to be clever and embrace "theistic evolution". Didn't work out too well for him. He apostatized in 2000. A bunch of things "got him" -- but the error of evolution certainly didn't help.
Logged

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: spaceplane just snapped a stunning view of Earth
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2025, 02:39:46 AM »
I could come up with a list of things I demand answers for, before I go back to globe earth (which I once believed, and still understand the position as well as *any of you*)

For starters, why does the Moon pull a huge body of water (the ocean) up, say, 1 foot, enough to create a "tide" -- but does absolutely nothing to a lake a few hundred miles from that ocean? Not so much as a ripple on the surface of THAT water. Why does the Moon exclusively have an influence on salt water bodies? Why is the Moon only in love with the ocean, absolutely nothing else?

And pulling hundreds of metric tons of water up 6 or 12 inches is a LOT of pulling power. Why aren't birds, butterflies, pop cans, or anything else affected by this pulling "gravity" force of the Moon? They certainly weigh FAR less than a cubic meter of water!

And, "Science" claims that the earth's gravity is strongest at the surface. If the moon has wrested control of X amount of water from the earth, so as to pull it closer to the Moon -- why does the Moon give up so easily while it's winning? Why wouldn't the "struggle" be repeated again and again, moving the water higher and higher towards the Moon? The higher it goes, the stronger the Moon's "gravity" and the weaker the earth's "gravity". According to them!

No one can explain that.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: spaceplane just snapped a stunning view of Earth
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2025, 12:29:09 PM »
To get me back to globe, someone would have to provide a solid explanation for how light consistently bends around ball earth.  Refraction is utter nonsense as an explanation for far too many and consistent observations, given that it's a random and erratic phenomenon.  To me the odds of this happening so often and with such clarity even hundreds of miles away is about the same as for a cell to evolve on its own from some chemical stew ... pretty much zero.  Try harder and come up with a theory based on ether flow, electromagnetism or something along those lines and you'll have my attention.  Until then :sleep:
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: spaceplane just snapped a stunning view of Earth
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2025, 02:05:29 PM »
Quote from: Matthew on May 11, 2025, 02:39:46 AM
I could come up with a list of things I demand answers for, before I go back to globe earth (which I once believed, and still understand the position as well as *any of you*)

For starters, why does the Moon pull a huge body of water (the ocean) up, say, 1 foot, enough to create a "tide" -- but does absolutely nothing to a lake a few hundred miles from that ocean? Not so much as a ripple on the surface of THAT water. Why does the Moon exclusively have an influence on salt water bodies? Why is the Moon only in love with the ocean, absolutely nothing else?

And pulling hundreds of metric tons of water up 6 or 12 inches is a LOT of pulling power. Why aren't birds, butterflies, pop cans, or anything else affected by this pulling "gravity" force of the Moon? They certainly weigh FAR less than a cubic meter of water!

And, "Science" claims that the earth's gravity is strongest at the surface. If the moon has wrested control of X amount of water from the earth, so as to pull it closer to the Moon -- why does the Moon give up so easily while it's winning? Why wouldn't the "struggle" be repeated again and again, moving the water higher and higher towards the Moon? The higher it goes, the stronger the Moon's "gravity" and the weaker the earth's "gravity". According to them!

No one can explain that.

Above Matthew you rightly describe Newton's gravity as nonsense. Here is part of a talk describing the fraud.

 And what about Newton's supposed discoveries? Upon closer scrutiny, it turns out that he had no discoveries. Take, for example, Newton's alleged law of universal gravitation, which states that the force of attraction of two point masses is equal to the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them, times a constant. This is Newton's so-called inverse square law. It has long been known that this was not really a new discovery, but rather derived by some tinkering from Kepler's Third Law. Kepler had established that the cube of a planet's distance from the Sun divided by the square of its year always equaled a constant. By supplementing this with Huygens's formula for centrifugal acceleration and making some substitutions, you can obtain the inverse square relationship. This issue is settled in the appendices to The Science of Christian Economy [by Lyndon LaRouche, Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1991]. But the partisans of Newton still claim that Newton explained gravity.
By opening the lid of the box, we find that Newton himself confesses, in an unpublished note, that his great achievement was cribbed from Kepler. Newton wrote:.

"I began to think of gravity extending to the orb of the Moon and (having found out how to estimate the force with which a globe revolving presses the surface of a sphere) from Kepler's rule of the periodical times of the Planets being in sesquialterate proportion of their distances from the center of their Orbs, I deduced that the forces which keep the Planets in their Orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve....'' (Westfall, 143).
Newton ``arrived at the inverse square relation by substituting Kepler's Third Law into Huygens's recently published formula for centrifugal force'' (Westfall, 402). Hooke and Sir Christopher Wren claimed to have done the same thing at about the same time.
Newton's love of alchemy and magic surfaces as the basis of his outlook, including in his supposed scientific writings. In his Opticks, he asks,

``Have not the small particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they act at a distance.... How those attractions may be performed, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be performed by Impulse, or some other means unknown to me.''
This is Newton's notion of gravity as action at a distance, which Leibniz rightly mocked as black magic. 

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »