Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Gaza assault
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

 (Read 191052 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 20 21 2223 24 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #630 - August 20, 2015, 09:21 PM

    You will find the same answers as people are providing here. Also people will tell you that you still do not know what you are talking about. Go ahead and do so. It will not make your lack of arguments any better. Go ahead and tell them about your geocentric idea. I am sure you will be a riot. Although probably not in the way you think.

    Just to call your bluff link your new thread in whatever physics forum you post.


    I don't think so. I've already been through a discussion where we went through calculations and experiments done by other people. From it it was found that you can't actually prove that the earth orbits the sun. It's not a scientific fact. What we do have is a huge amount of evidence that supports the heliocentric model. But even with all that vast amount of evidence it's still possible for the earth to be stationary and the evidence to be still correct.

    I don't blame people thinking geocentrism is ridiculous. I used to think the same. But it's fascinating when you take the time to go through the various experiments done and understand how they were done and what was found and concluded.

    Here's a simple question which baffled a number of people like yourself who thought they knew a bit about science.

    Let's say you have a rocket placed over a fixed point, X, on the earth and fire it up so that it goes vertically up 100m and then just hovers over point X for 12 hours. Question is does the rocket remain over point X or has it moved due to the rotation of the earth? Once you have an answer then move the rocket 100,000m over X. Does the rocket stay over X?

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #631 - August 20, 2015, 09:45 PM

    Lets see you put forward your geocentric idea on the physics forum.

    Proof is in math and logic not science. Strawman since you can not differentiate between the three. This is due to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is a scientific fact if you follow the criteria of science and understand science is not about absolutes.

    You understanding of science is already flawed thus your conclusion is also flawed.

    Regarding your question. The rocket will maintain it's position since it does not create sufficient force to counter the inertia of the Earth's rotation. It is only countering gravity as there is no other directional movement. This is nothing more than Stationary Earth arguments which are refuted in grade school physics. This was refuted by Newton centuries ago. It is refuted every time an object leaves the confines of the Earth. The international space station refutes this by existing in orbit.

    So far all 3 parts of comment show that you do not have an education in the topics you are attempting to talk about.

    This question baffles no one with even an introductory education in grade 12 physics. It baffles the ignorant and uneducated. Hence why you think it is convincing. You fall under both categories.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #632 - August 20, 2015, 10:06 PM

    Lol.

    Sorry, but when you said that the rocket will remain in it's position what position did you mean? Over the point X or that after 12 hours it is now half way around the earth?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #633 - August 20, 2015, 10:28 PM

    Quote
    The rocket will maintain it's position since it does not create sufficient force to counter the inertia of the Earth's rotation


    Think about that really hard and tell us which one you think he meant.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #634 - August 20, 2015, 10:47 PM

    Lol.

    Thanks for pointing that out. I've already been through this hence it needs further clarification.

    Hint: When the rocket was on the earth was it already rotating with the earth?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #635 - August 20, 2015, 10:48 PM

    Do you believe in satellites?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #636 - August 20, 2015, 10:53 PM


    Please stay focused.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #637 - August 20, 2015, 10:54 PM

    It's a deliberate question. Just judging your ability to relate basic concepts to one another.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #638 - August 20, 2015, 11:02 PM

    I’d say that’s actually a pretty fair statement.

    Not necessarily. I realize that I’m an ignorant, limited, flawed, silly ol’ human being. I’m pretty good at understanding basic concepts, though. So things don’t have to make absolute sense to me for me to believe them. I just have to find them believable.

    So this part is actually completely untrue. You’ve actually got it all wrong here. I don’t expect to see god sticking his nose into everyday human life. I don’t expect him to cure AIDS for African babies or to stop high school girls from getting assaulted in dark alley ways or to defuse bombs left in open air Friday markets.

    Because if God did those things some of the time but not others, I’d have to question his integrity even further. If a doctor only treated people who praised him, or if a fireman only extinguished the fires of the homes of people who loved him, while they watched other people die because they did not grovel and beg enough, then I would have no respect for that doctor or that fireman. A God who sees evil but only intervenes when he has his ego stroked is not a god I would worship or love, even if it were real.

    But the problem is that this is what the Qur’an actually claims. The Qur’an claims that its God answers the call of those who beg him, while it also says that he does not care about the people who don’t. “Say, my lord does not care about you, save for your calling of him.”

    The Qur’an says that God heals the sick when he feels like it. It says that he strikes whomsoever he wills with lightning. It says that he gives some couples boys and other couples girls and makes some couples barren when he feels like it. It says that he guides whom he wills and leaves astray whom he wills. He holds birds in the sky. He sends the winds and the rains. He “sent down eight pairs of cattle.” He makes the ships sail in the sea. He raises the sun from the east and makes it set in the west. He turns night into day and day into night.

    So, we can look at these things two ways. Either, one, we can imagine an anthropomorphic God sitting up on high directing the wind with his hands and farting out lightning bolts from his arse. And every time the natural evidence shows us that this is not the case, we can make our god smaller and smaller until we are back 4 billion years ago talking about how dust particles could have come together without our god.

    Or, two, we can look at the world as it is: people get sick for natural reasons through genetic disorders, germs, and diseases. Lightning strikes at random through natural causes. Ships sail through the sea following natural laws. Birds fly according to natural, physical laws. Humans evolve through natural means. Stars ignite and planets form through natural means. God does not intervene. For now, at least, we’re on our own to figure things out.

    And given that we are indeed limited, flawed, silly ol’ human beings, then the last mystery we should ever claim to have fully comprehended would be the one that lies well beyond our means of observation. The most we could ever say is “I don’t know.” It’s the only honest answer. The moment anyone comes to us claiming to have all the answers and asking us to be gullible, asking us to have faith because they said so, asking us to believe because if we don’t they’ll torture us, asking us to do what they say while we are alive because if we do they will reward us – but only after our lives have ended, then our spidey senses should go off and we should run the other way.




    You have some misunderstandings about the Quran. I'm not going to through them here as it's not the right topic.

    I think your problem and questions are eventually going to come down to "Why?" People will be able to explain the science and the Quran and faith and it will be logical and make sense but you'll still be stuck on "Why?".

    Why were you brought into existence?
    Why do you feel pain and sadness?
    Why is their evil?
    Why is their happiness?
    Why do people do evil things?
    Why does God destroy and kill?
    Why does God let people suffer and usually those that do good?
    Why is there a heaven and hell?
    Why does God punish people for eternity when the crimes they did were for just a few years?

    I think the biggest one is the last one "Why does God punish people for eternity when the crimes they did were for just a few years?"

    Well I believe only God can help with things like that. Be positive and call on him. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #639 - August 20, 2015, 11:08 PM

    It's a deliberate question. Just judging your ability to relate basic concepts to one another.


    Yes I know about satellites and their different orbits. That depending on the altitude you can geo-stationary ones. We also have ones that go from pole to pole. That satellites are put into orbit using certain calculations which were done before satellites were put into orbit, that gps satellites have to be corrected to take into account Einsteins theory of relativity, etc, etc.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #640 - August 20, 2015, 11:11 PM

    Quote
    Be positive and call on him. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


    I literally have a bible in my living room given to me by someone, on the cover it has almost that exact phrase, except they put Jesus and not your god.

    Quote
    I think the biggest one is the last one "Why does God punish people for eternity when the crimes they did were for just a few years?"


    Nope. Because I don't believe that not worshipping God is a crime to begin with. A god who would burn people alive for not bowing to him is not a god I would want anything to do with. Ever.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #641 - August 20, 2015, 11:25 PM

    If that's the case then don't you think you have a good argument on the Day of Judgement? God says he is the most just and that no one will be treated unjustly on the Day of Judgement. If you genuinely didn't believe in God then can't you argue that God never made you believe? I'd say you have a good case.

    You seem to have already accepted a claim/statement as being true even though you realise that you are infallible and ave limited abilities. You forget that you were once a child who never thought about things like this. Your biggest concerns as a child was probably your toys and playing. We're all learning and evolving. Just be honest and try do good things. It's the least we can all do regardless of what we believe in.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #642 - August 20, 2015, 11:28 PM

    I

    Don't

    Believe

    In

    A

    Day

    Of

    Judgment.

    As such, I'm not worried about my argument on a Day of Judgment. I'm as unconcerned with it as you are with the prospect you might be reincarnated as a slug.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #643 - August 21, 2015, 02:44 AM

    Lets see you put forward your geocentric idea on the physics forum.

    Proof is in math and logic not science. Strawman since you can not differentiate between the three. This is due to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is a scientific fact if you follow the criteria of science and understand science is not about absolutes.

    You understanding of science is already flawed thus your conclusion is also flawed.

    Regarding your question. The rocket will maintain it's position since it does not create sufficient force to counter the inertia of the Earth's rotation. It is only countering gravity as there is no other directional movement. This is nothing more than Stationary Earth arguments which are refuted in grade school physics. This was refuted by Newton centuries ago. It is refuted every time an object leaves the confines of the Earth. The international space station refutes this by existing in orbit.

    So far all 3 parts of comment show that you do not have an education in the topics you are attempting to talk about.

    This question baffles no one with even an introductory education in grade 12 physics. It baffles the ignorant and uneducated. Hence why you think it is convincing. You fall under both categories.


    Pretty sure that by "physics forum" he means this site: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #644 - August 21, 2015, 06:12 AM

    Lol.

    Sorry, but when you said that the rocket will remain in it's position what position did you mean? Over the point X or that after 12 hours it is now half way around the earth?


    Still waiting for the answer to this bogart.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #645 - August 21, 2015, 07:12 AM

    Already gave you the answer. Read my post again and use a dictionary if you need one.

    Honest question Ted. Is English your first language? If not, how often do you use English?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #646 - August 21, 2015, 07:33 AM

    Lol. Well you're wrong.  Go back to school.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #647 - August 21, 2015, 07:59 AM


    Honest question Ted. Is English your first language? If not, how often do you use English?


    Speaking as the granddaughter of a man who could learn the fundamentals any language on the plane to the country where it was spoken (a skill he definitely used in his service to the US government, who in turn sent him to all but 3 of the nations that existed at the time of his death): I'm 99% sure the problem is not his English skills, unless he's utilizing a cleverbot clone or other AI of some description to write his posts; in which case the problem is the AI not interacting with the world and therefore being unable to fully understand the implications of what, to it, are abstract scientific concepts. The problem isn't that he can't understand the words; his sentence structure proves that. He knows the words and he knows where they go in a sentence, what functions they serve. The problem is that he chooses to believe the wrong definition. He is charmed like a dancing snake by soliloquy and is willfully blinded by his confirmation bias. That's why he stops reading after one sentence or two lines of text, whichever comes first. He doesn't want to be charmed by your soliloquy, he doesn't want to stop being blind. He has chosen to be stupefied and refuses to be enticed by facts out of the fairy tale world he has painted for himself, and wants you to fall through the looking glass and join him.

    What drove him to do that? Who knows. Maybe trauma, maybe the fear of the questions like "does life have meaning?" and "is there nothing after death?" Reality can be a scary place.








    So here's a security blanket, ted:



    Live under it, if that's what helps you cope with the world. If you want to come out and join the rest of us, we'll all be right here. But I won't try to take blankie away.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #648 - August 21, 2015, 07:59 AM

    Sorry but I am right. The inertia caused by the rotation of the Earth will keep the rocket in place as long as there is no directional forcing to counter this inertia. Seems like you never took a single physics class in your life. Read the NASA link.

    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae203.cfm
    http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20110218025229
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/why-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-along-with-the-earth
    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-effect-of-earths-roatation-on-flight.507925/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/is-it-feasible-to-hover-i_b_4034575.html
    http://theengineerspulse.blogspot.ca/2013/02/sir-can-i-just-hover-and-let-earth-turn.html
    http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3225
    http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ev.html
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #649 - August 21, 2015, 08:00 AM

    Ted is a poe. I do not think anyone can be this ignorant. Even Yeez's videos of religious leaders claims flatearth and geocentrism I dismiss as deceptive translations
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #650 - August 21, 2015, 12:23 PM

    But surely Ted you cannot really believe that a ginormous sun circles a puny little planet, if the earth is stationary then the sun would have to be moving pretty fast to complete its cycle wouldn't it.. ?   : )
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #651 - August 21, 2015, 12:29 PM

    In order for it to work, it Ted must believe that the sun's mass is significantly smaller than what it is.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #652 - August 21, 2015, 12:33 PM

    But surely Ted you cannot really believe that a ginormous sun circles a puny little planet, if the earth is stationary then the sun would have to be moving pretty fast to complete its cycle wouldn't it.. ?   : )


    Lol. So what if it did? Would be natural - nothing strange or unusual about it.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #653 - August 21, 2015, 12:34 PM

    In order for it to work, it Ted must believe that the sun's mass is significantly smaller than what it is.


    Why? Can be bigger or smaller. What difference would that make?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #654 - August 21, 2015, 12:36 PM

    Gravity says you're wrong.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #655 - August 21, 2015, 12:38 PM

    You don't really seem to understand the roll of mass/gravity in orbits...

    I can't do the work your high school should have done for you. I'm sorry you missed out, though.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #656 - August 21, 2015, 12:45 PM



    Well done bogart. Good to see you are making an effort to understand rather than make useless remarks like some here.

    Let's say the rocket went up 10,000m and there was no air/atmosphere on the earth. The rocket goes vertically up above position X on earth with no horizontal force being applied to keep it directly above position X. After 12 hours is the rocket still directly above position X?

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #657 - August 21, 2015, 12:51 PM

    You don't really seem to understand the roll of mass/gravity in orbits...

    I can't do the work your high school should have done for you. I'm sorry you missed out, though.


    Oh really and you do? You've barely scratched the surface. It's not what it all seems to be.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #658 - August 21, 2015, 01:01 PM

    Go ahead, Ted. Blow our minds with your extensive knowledge and groundbreaking discoveries. The scientific community is waiting with pens in hand to capture your wisdom. Text book writers across this great land are just dying with anticipation.

    Don’t toy with us any longer, Ted. Lay out your theory for us here in detail.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #659 - August 21, 2015, 01:18 PM

    Lol. So what if it did? Would be natural - nothing strange or unusual about it.


    I think It would be highly unlikely that the sun could orbit the earth in the space of 24 hours..   anyways...   lol
  • Previous page 1 ... 20 21 2223 24 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »