Universal Laws of Heavenly Bodies

[Strangelove]

I already did they measuerd it with light waves man and they don't have to bounce off a mirror on a distant world or moon to be calculated.
Since we can verify the speed of light and we can and have with more calculations and methodology than I care to C/P
then we can correctly measure the distance from our planet by using the doppler effect

I said this earlier go to home depot and buy an infrared tape measure it uses the exact same principles as calculating distance to a nearby star or supernova by measuring the difference in the red shift.
Thereby we can accurately calculate the distance to any cellestial body by using this method.

Can you show us the experiments and data where 'they' measure the distance of stars or the sun with light waves?

Show us.

regarding redshift:


"Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure
from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes
was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is
required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble
believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature IF
the redshift correction was made assuming NO RECESSION [i.e., no expansion]. To the very end of his
writings he maintained this position, favoring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature"

- The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
'They' dont even know what causes redshift!
So, do you believe in the bigbang / expanding universe paradigm? and that the universe is approx 15 billion years old Musker?

 

[Strangelove]

If theory doesn't matter better throw out any book in the bible with metaphor in it because it takes BIBLICAL THEORY to understand the metaphor contained therein.

Thats got nothing to do with hypothetical science. Bad analogy.

Your argument is getting weaker

 

[Strangelove]

We thought the world was flat too in 1492 but someone finally came along and corrected the stupidity of those that came before them though they had quite an uphill battle with the church though whose ******* ignorance was the reason for the whole debate anyway

Who thought the world was flat? Christians? Or pagans like the greeks?

Then we get to Galileo and if he hadn't retracted his ideas he woulda had his head lopped off.

the document we have is his recantation. The burdon of proof is with you to prove it was forced.

We never knew what an antibiotic was before 1918 or viruses for that matter it was all demons and stuff that caused illness not viral infections and the like.

And yet humans are sicker than ever these days. Funny that eh?

To be so pigheaded about astrophysics and say that geocentricism is the way it is is the very same as saying the world was flat in the 15th century.

No it isnt, because neither the bible nor real science teaches a flat earth.

Both real science and the bible teach geocentrism.

Furthermore to say that the bible is absolutely authoritative on every subject is to put your faith in a book and mens interpretations of scripture not in God and the holyspirit, no amount of psycobabble can prove otherwise.

Excuse me what?

Does God lie to us on certain subjects?

I put my faith in God and His Holy Spirit leading me into all truth in ANY SUBJECT via the scriptures. How about you?

You pick and choose which subjects the bible speaks the truth on?

The scripture is there as a guideline and yes we can look to it for answers on many topics and yes I find it authoritative on many many topics.
But it is not the scripture perse that I argue about at all it's the interpretations of men put on the scripture because of set learning methodology that I find profoundly foolish in some instances.

Doesnt matter what interpretation you use. The bible never teaches helio model. It always teaches geo model.

Anyone today who believes in geocentricity is an utter fool.

You only expose the weakness in your position with cheap personal remarks.

I have observed other planets, the moon and other cellestial bodies in the heavens with MY OWN EYES THROUGH A TELESCOPE

And how do ANY of your observations disprove the geo model? It doesnt matter what you put at the centre of the system, all observations remain the same. Relative motion, do some homework.

nutjobs are trying to tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth when the Earth is a 1000 times smaller than the sun and it's iron core is at least 20 times the size of the earth, lets do the math then of gravitational force that is exerted on any body by another body due directly to the mass of the larger object exerting its own gravitational field.

Gravity. Here we go.

From the latin gravitas that simply means heavyness, here on earth. It describes how objects fall to earth. THATS IT.

Universal gravitation is another THEORY and gravity certainly doesnt describe orbits otherwise the apple would have dropped from the tree and orbited Newtons head.

You dont know the mass of the sun anyway.

Not good enough, what else have you got?

 

[Strangelove]

Pneuma, if someone were to demonstrate that all of the other planets in our solar system, or furthermore, that planets from other solar systems orbit the sun (or their respective stars), would that be sufficient evidence for you to embrace a heliocentric view? Further note that heliocentrists only claim that the sun is the center of our solar system, whereas geocentrists claim that the earth is the center of EVERYTHING.

I guess really what I'm asking is would you allow science to prove to you anything that isn't "plain to see"?

Who is denying that planets orbit the sun?

All the planets (wanderers) orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the Earth.

By the way, I'd love to see your evidence about OTHER solar systems. I'm pretty sure we've never seen a planet outside of our EARTH system.

 

[Muskokaman]

Thats got nothing to do with hypothetical science. Bad analogy.

Your argument is getting weaker

BS it's the same thing Doc. word play don't change a damn thimg either the analogy is perfect

 

[Muskokaman]

Who is denying that planets orbit the sun?

All the planets (wanderers) orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the Earth.

By the way, I'd love to see your evidence about OTHER solar systems. I'm pretty sure we've never seen a planet outside of our EARTH system.

You have changed your tune here Doc. Now the earth and the planets orbit the sun like I said.!
your arguement is getting weaker!

 

[Muskokaman]

Who is denying that planets orbit the sun?
That would be you refer to earlier posts where you said earth is stationary and Sun orbits
All the planets (wanderers) orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the Earth.
Don't change that channel Doc.
By the way, I'd love to see your evidence about OTHER solar systems. I'm pretty sure we've never seen a planet outside of our EARTH system.

Yep they photographed some in the last few years with hubbel deep space. They found them through observational wobble in the parent star

Don't change that dial We'll be right back after a brief message from our sponser.

 

[Strangelove]

You have changed your tune here Doc. Now the earth and the planets orbit the sun like I said.!
your arguement is getting weaker!

Why are you now resorting to blatant misrepresentations?

I clearly said the sun orbits the earth.

 

[Strangelove]

Yep they photographed some in the last few years with hubbel deep space. They found them through observational wobble in the parent star

Don't change that dial We'll be right back after a brief message from our sponser.

I never said the earth orbits the sun.

The PLANETS do. The Earth is not a planet, because it doesn't wander.

Try to keep up Musky.

Show me a picture of a planet in another solar system. Or do you just have a WOBBLE? And you believe that? C'mon man dont be deceived. When they show you wobbles of little green men on mars are you gonna believe NASA? A government agency? When they say the invasion is coming?

Use your smarts dude.

 

[Muskokaman]

Who thought the world was flat? Christians? Or pagans like the greeks?

Almost everyone before 1500

the document we have is his recantation. The burdon of proof is with you to prove it was forced.

Nope the burden is on you to use your head for more than a hat rack oh great detractor of the Catholics and EOC

And yet humans are sicker than ever these days. Funny that eh?
Are they? Or is it because of the population explosion and media that shows us these things?


No it isnt, because neither the bible nor real science teaches a flat earth.
Yes it is and they did teach that in the 15th century next!

Both real science and the bible teach geocentrism.
No they Don't that is only your interpretation


Excuse me what?

Does God lie to us on certain subjects?
Nope but men do with pen every day nothing new under the sun Doc.
I put my faith in God and His Holy Spirit leading me into all truth in ANY SUBJECT via the scriptures. How about you?
No you don't you believe those of like mind and purport there thinkings on it as evidence to back up your wacky claims
You pick and choose which subjects the bible speaks the truth on?
Nope I interpret them differently

Doesnt matter what interpretation you use. The bible never teaches helio model. It always teaches geo model.
Nope sorry it doesn't thats your interpretation again!

You only expose the weakness in your position with cheap personal remarks.
Nope it's your own foolish words that convict you not mine!


And how do ANY of your observations disprove the geo model? It doesnt matter what you put at the centre of the system, all observations remain the same. Relative motion, do some homework.

HUH? Back peddle faster doc.!

Gravity. Here we go.

From the latin gravitas that simply means heavyness, here on earth. It describes how objects fall to earth. THATS IT.
No silly it shows how objects of a larger mass control those or exert a force on those of a lesser mass
Universal gravitation is another THEORY and gravity certainly doesnt describe orbits otherwise the apple would have dropped from the tree and orbited Newtons head.
Newtons head was much smaller than the planet. Now if you had been sitting under that tree perhaps it would have beeen different
You dont know the mass of the sun anyway.
Yep we do by the amount of force it exerts to control it's own system we can closely estimate its mass
Not good enough, what else have you got?

Yes it is silly you will see

 

[Muskokaman]

Who is denying that planets orbit the sun?

All the planets (wanderers) orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the Earth.

By the way, I'd love to see your evidence about OTHER solar systems. I'm pretty sure we've never seen a planet outside of our EARTH system.

You are doc check post #22

 

[Muskokaman]

I never said the earth orbits the sun.

The PLANETS do. The Earth is not a planet, because it doesn't wander.

Try to keep up Musky.

Show me a picture of a planet in another solar system. Or do you just have a WOBBLE? And you believe that? C'mon man dont be deceived. When they show you wobbles of little green men on mars are you gonna believe NASA? A government agency? When they say the invasion is coming?

Use your smarts dude.

I do use my smarts you don't

The earth isn't a planet............ha hahahahahahahahahahaha OK Doc. take 2 advil your head is swelling

Keeping up with you is childs play LOL

Yeah I would believe NASA over the S**T your trying to spew!

 

[LightningClap0002]

I spent the vast majority of my life assenting to an array of facts from every quarter, including science and theology. It's not like I've spent a lifetime rejecting everything and never believed the postulations of science and other secular sources.

I am compelled at this stage of life to examine everything much more critically. I've moved away from orthodox positions of doctrine where necessary to pursue truth at any cost. I intend to do the same in areas of science, etc.

Science is, indeed, a philosophical pursuit at its core. There's certainly a difference in a variety of sciences. I have much more challenge for cosmology than, say, metallurgy. Astronomy is certainly a different discipline than biology.

Empirically quantifying and qualifying the cosmos well beyond tactile experience is much different than more constrained areas of observation and experimentation.

Hypothetical and theoretical sciences are much different than "smaller" disciplines.

If you'd adequately answer Strange's simple trig question, that would be a great start.

I haven't posed any argument that requires trigonometry, hypothetical or otherwise. It is not an area I am intimately familiar with, nor an area that I wish to pursue.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure that I understand your intention. It doesn't seem to answer the question of whether or not you would allow science to prove something to you that isn't "plain to see". It seems like you're saying "no"; in which case there seems to be no way to argue against geocentrisim. Just like there is no way to argue for germs if you don't accept the reliability of microscopes.

 

[Muskokaman]

I haven't posed any argument that requires trigonometry, hypothetical or otherwise. It is not an area I am intimately familiar with, nor an area that I wish to pursue.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure that I understand your intention. It doesn't seem to answer the question of whether or not you would allow science to prove something to you that isn't "plain to see". It seems like you're saying "no"; in which case there seems to be no way to argue against geocentrisim. Just like there is no way to argue for germs if you don't accept the reliability of microscopes.

Bingo Bud if they won't accept empiracal data then debate with them is a waste of your time!

 

[Muskokaman]

Here's a picture for you doc. and yes it's a real photo the planet is at what looks like a beam of light coming from the star

 

[Muskokaman]

Her's another one with 3 planets orbiting it can you see them Doc.

 

[Muskokaman]

I never said the earth orbits the sun.

The PLANETS do. The Earth is not a planet, because it doesn't wander.

Try to keep up Musky.

Show me a picture of a planet in another solar system. Or do you just have a WOBBLE? And you believe that? C'mon man dont be deceived. When they show you wobbles of little green men on mars are you gonna believe NASA? A government agency? When they say the invasion is coming?

Use your smarts dude.

Do you think the only goal of the talmudic regime is world domination?

Doc. they believe that they are gonna be able to implant their consciousnesses into mechanical bodies that never die and travel the cosmos forever.
Why do you think there was quite a push to go to the moon in the sixties?

It wasn't for cheese!

I am trying to find an ols file about what I am gabbing about but computer is being as stubborn as you soon as I find it I will c/p for your enjoyment and later ridicule I am sure. LOL

 

[JohnChingford2007]

Also regarding measuring nearer planets or moon. There are still assumptions that everything is consistent in the Galaxy and Universe and always moves in set/established ways. Things have and can happen to upset things and bring about inconsistencies. For example. I believe that at least one of the planets mnove in a direction which defies scientific understanding.

Check these videos out and let me know what you think:

CLICK HERE Our Solar System: Evidence for Creation, Part 1 of 9

I am wondering why no one has responded to this post of mine? Is it because none of you have watched those videos. Are afraid that evidence may disprove your THEORIES?

Here is the link to the first video again. CLICK HERE

By the way: the reason I have pasted the videos is to prove that NOTHING is as it appears. Nothing is consistent and the planets behave in unscientific ways. That is because GOD created them in the way that HE determined it. Science will NEVER be able to explain the supernatural. The videos indicate a Creator because the Universe does NOT behave as it shgould according to scientists.

The videos do ALSO make certain assumptions ie that man HAS landed on the moon (which apparently is impossible). Have you wondered why there has never been any man on the moon ever since the conspiracies started. Could it be that technologies of the last 30-40 years or so can expose things more. They haven't tried because they no they will be exposed.

Although the videos make the assumption that there are mirrors on the moon, I still wanted to show the videos.

I will give the reason. Paul said "I become all things to everybody, so that I may win some. To the Jew I am a Jew, to the.........." 1 Cor 9:19-22 So for the sake of those who maintain that man has landed on the moon and therefore insist the distance to moon can be measured, these videos (using the "same" evidence disprove other things with the adherents cling to). So EVEN if the distances can be measured, the "other" finding (if it is true) can disprove other "given" assumptions. If they are wrong and man has not landed on the moon, then you can no longer use any assumptions in measuring.


I have another question that has not yet been answered. The THEORY (not absolute fact) of the size of the sun? I can understand that IF the speed of light was 100% accurate, you could calculate the sun's size by multiplying what see see with our naked eye by the amount of time it takes for its light to touch Earth. However, has anyone or anything been able to land mirrors on the sun to test out how long it takes?

Therefore, assumptions are made everywhere. assumptions that orbit speeds are constant, speed of light has been correctly measured and is constant, imperfect man's collider experiments are 100% accurate/perfect. Assumptions that there are no demon inspired conspiracies to deceive us.

Bearing in mind that the sun is so hot that nothing can get remotely close without being destroyed, how can you measure its density? It is all assumptions based on the planets which orbit the sun. The distances are calculations based on assumptions (or theories).

I am actually astounded at the reasonings used on a "christian" site. Surely Christians are those whose eyes have been opened to the satanic conspiracies in this world - all designed to disprove our faith. "the whole world lies in the hands of the evil one" 1 John 5:19
"For our struggle is not against ]flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Eph 6:12

ie the global scheme of things is controlled by satan. Christians wake up and smell the pungent sulphur.

DO NOT believe everything you read by the so-called scientific experts. They are all part of that satanic conspiracy and are LYING through the back of their teeth. God's Truth is to be trusted far more than the words of man. Time and time again (as science findings catch up with truth) they PROVE the bible was true all along.

Another thing to consider: "do not be conformed to this World but be transformed by the RENEWING OF YOUR MINDS" Romans 12. Do not change God's Truth to make it fit with science, but change your thinking to fit in with Scripture because it IS the ultimate truth.

 

[JohnChingford2007]

published by?

Hi Zone.

Wow I have been away from the computer for about 24 hours and then have to read about 7 pages before i can respond to what has been said.

You asked "published by". I don't understand the question. I was referring to the NASB, NIV (1984 version), KJV and NKJV. You then ask "published by". What? the versions? Why would you ask that?

By the way, I like your contributions on this thread. Good to place another slant on it.

 

[zone]

Do you think the only goal of the talmudic regime is world domination?

Doc. they believe that they are gonna be able to implant their consciousnesses into mechanical bodies that never die and travel the cosmos forever.
Why do you think there was quite a push to go to the moon in the sixties?

It wasn't for cheese!

I am trying to find an ols file about what I am gabbing about but computer is being as stubborn as you soon as I find it I will c/p for your enjoyment and later ridicule I am sure. LOL

Banned in America: Proof of Fake Moonlanding
Banned in America: Proof of Fake Moonlanding - YouTube



Van Allen Radiation Belt
Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[14][15]

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[16] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[17]

The Apollo astronauts traveled through the Van Allen radiation belts on the way to the moon; however, exposure was minimized by following a trajectory along the edge of the belts that avoided the strongest areas of radiation.[18] The total radiation exposure to astronauts was estimated to be much less than the five (5) rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity