You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Can NASA pictures be considered real or they are just deceiving art?
Just look around Youtube for "flat earth debunked" or something, when looking at that information with an open mind you'll get in the right direction. You should probably start by looking at the angular size of the sun when filmed with solar filter and the fact that you can't see Polaris from the far below the equator.
Well, yeah, I've seen some of those and also those debunks debunked back :). It's really hard to go though all the claims. There are lots of half-truth and diversions. Something is wrong here - in both models. NASA could help but I'm pretty sure they are not telling us the all the facts they know.
UPDATE: I verified that part of Eric's argumentation is definitely not correct. So yeah, it's needed to test everything from all sides.
No, the heliocentric model is just fine for the most part. NASA lying doesn't immediately imply that earth has to be flat or that you have to assume it's geocentric for example. Most problems are with things like the big-bang (cosmic background radiation), dark energy/matter and black holes.
Hmm, I must say I have actually lot of basic problems with rotating Earth, mechanics of individual layers and transition between them - ground, clouds, atmosphere, space with all the motion. Everything is too smooth and there are no mechanical effects (accelerations) visible while traveling through these layers. It looks much more static and that makes flat-earth static Earth (or static Sphere) much more acceptable to me. When this is somehow explained one can start to think about these "higher" issues like dark matter, etc. Earth as a moving system doesn't make any sense to me and nothing like that is observed and no mechanical consequences (during space flights, etc.) are observed as well. There is no fixed binding that holds ground to atmosphere and still the atmosphere looks like completely following the ground. And then flights of planes in various directions without any adjustment or speed delta don't make any sense related to expected effects of rotation.
Have you seen the documentary "the principle" by Robert Sungenis? It's about geocentrism, if you haven't seen it will be very interesting to you. Scientists have refuted it in some way, but it can't harm watching since it has a lot of interviews from mainstream scientists in it.
I'm sticking with heliocentrism for now though, but who knows what the future holds ;)
Yeah, I've seen that document some time ago, it was interesting but I haven't fully grasped it. I need to see it again, thanks for reminding. Anyway I found this presentation of Dr. Robert Sungenis - everything is slowly explained and shown, history included. It's over 2 hours long, but worth looking. It also nicely shows how science twists when it hits philosophical barriers.
The same problem exists in both groups, the religious people are biased in their own way too.
You're right. There is always bias force unless you absolutely don't care what model you like more. But current astrophysical bias that "Copernicus must survive and also Einstein must survive" is way too obvious and it makes most of the scientists looking pretty pathetic in the end.