Search
Latest topics
» The infamous DP continusby urchinatheart Yesterday at 3:01 pm
» Call to the DVLA
by urchinatheart Yesterday at 2:36 pm
» BEWARE OF TSB BANK
by daveiron Sun Mar 17, 2024 6:53 am
» SAR dispute
by RaspberryBlu Sat Mar 16, 2024 7:18 pm
» Help / Advice needed on ongoing neighbour harassment
by memegirl777 Sat Mar 16, 2024 5:51 pm
» United Kingdom? Really?
by assassin Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:17 pm
» DWP and HMRC alleged debts
by assassin Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:20 pm
» Serial Posty been awarded £10'000 for a fake bite
by memegirl777 Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:05 pm
» HSBC advice please.
by Trishiapp28 Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:36 am
» He is going to save us again
by flyingfish Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:00 pm
» Government fraud
by midnight Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:01 am
» THIS IS THE ONE ?
by daveiron Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:45 am
» how to remove a shareholder?
by scrwm Fri Mar 08, 2024 12:06 pm
» I DO NOT CONSENT [62%] - ReformUK got 5% of the electorate. Labour 17%
by badvoc Thu Mar 07, 2024 12:25 pm
» What can ai do about Santander
by Godfastro Thu Mar 07, 2024 11:47 am
» Useful videos Council Tax
by daveiron Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:05 pm
» broadcaster vs me
by scrwm Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:37 pm
» The new GOODF process works
by urchinatheart Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:45 am
» Worth a watch
by LionsShare Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:11 am
» Farmers IsThis What's Needed?
by LionsShare Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:46 pm
» Debt Bomb 11
by Biggiebest Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:05 pm
» accepted dca alleged debt
by Mrblue2015 Sun Mar 03, 2024 5:09 pm
» DVLA
by daveiron Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:20 pm
» Solicitors contacted me via e-mail asking for money.
by Kaddabriol Thu Feb 29, 2024 2:12 pm
» Claiming again
by LionsShare Thu Feb 29, 2024 11:07 am
» Useful Utility Vids
by LionsShare Wed Feb 28, 2024 1:59 pm
» what the bank of england runs the country?
by LionsShare Mon Feb 26, 2024 3:54 pm
» know who you are volume ??
by LionsShare Mon Feb 26, 2024 12:19 pm
» New Member
by daveiron Mon Feb 26, 2024 11:55 am
» Learning New Skills _Pt 2 Buying Tools
by assassin Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:35 am
» Learning New Skills _Pt 2 Buying Tools
by assassin Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:33 am
» Learning new Skills Part 1
by assassin Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:27 am
» General Equity?
by LionsShare Tue Feb 20, 2024 7:03 pm
» Visit by appointment notice
by Moonbabymum Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:37 pm
» Discussion on Info'd Vids
by LionsShare Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:52 am
» debts loans mortgages etc (tear off slips?)
by LionsShare Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:54 pm
» Quick one
by Lopsum Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:03 pm
» debt settlement payoff
by daveiron Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:58 pm
» Council tax and summons for arrest
by LionsShare Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:17 pm
» Council Tax (getting answers)
by LionsShare Fri Feb 09, 2024 12:57 pm
» council tax 1st of april
by daveiron Sun Feb 04, 2024 9:46 pm
» DSAR
by daveiron Sun Feb 04, 2024 9:28 pm
» Warning about a previous post
by Mrblue2015 Sat Feb 03, 2024 5:10 pm
» Please leave a comment on this site
by daveiron Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:01 pm
» Lithiun Battery Dangers
by badvoc Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:52 pm
» its a trap
by LionsShare Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:49 am
» Car In Trust
by LionsShare Tue Jan 30, 2024 3:05 pm
» Honest Nottingham Po-lice
by assassin Sat Jan 27, 2024 4:11 am
» Why you rebut a complaint
by assassin Sat Jan 27, 2024 4:05 am
» Village Winter
by assassin Sat Jan 27, 2024 4:03 am
» Sand Batteries
by assassin Tue Jan 23, 2024 5:45 pm
» Hoist Portfolio Holding Limited
by Indebttoo Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:03 pm
» Occupier
by assassin Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:27 pm
» Electric Vehicles
by assassin Sun Jan 21, 2024 4:54 pm
» *** URGENT *** PLEASE HELP
by daveiron Fri Jan 19, 2024 10:02 pm
Moon phases
Look up in the sky....
+6
Waffle
Phillpots
landlubber
Lopsum
toolapcblack
Awoken2
10 posters
Page 4 of 4
Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Look up in the sky....
This is why I try to resort to making my own observation and include the background research.
None of it makes sense when we take it all into consideration.
The govt lies, pharma lies, we have chemtrails everyday, wars, media in fact pretty much every agency responsible for the insane world we live in has contributed in some way. Why would the work of certain space agencies be trusted over our own minds, our own intelegance and our own observations, especially when the science they give us is so questionable and leaves all this confusion.
What really bothers me is we are left in places like this to discuss and bicker between ourselves about whats right and wrong, a belief and a fact, being unable to draw real conclusions or even address the real problem, they've done it all with no resistance what so ever, what a convenient design.
I'm going to stick to my own observations and experiments supplemented with research, I can't argue with myself
None of it makes sense when we take it all into consideration.
The govt lies, pharma lies, we have chemtrails everyday, wars, media in fact pretty much every agency responsible for the insane world we live in has contributed in some way. Why would the work of certain space agencies be trusted over our own minds, our own intelegance and our own observations, especially when the science they give us is so questionable and leaves all this confusion.
What really bothers me is we are left in places like this to discuss and bicker between ourselves about whats right and wrong, a belief and a fact, being unable to draw real conclusions or even address the real problem, they've done it all with no resistance what so ever, what a convenient design.
I'm going to stick to my own observations and experiments supplemented with research, I can't argue with myself
Waffle- dedicated
- Posts : 786
Join date : 2017-03-27
Re: Look up in the sky....
Waffle wrote:This is why I try to resort to making my own observation and include the background research.
None of it makes sense when we take it all into consideration.
The govt lies, pharma lies, we have chemtrails everyday, wars, media in fact pretty much every agency responsible for the insane world we live in has contributed in some way. Why would the work of certain space agencies be trusted over our own minds, our own intelegance and our own observations, especially when the science they give us is so questionable and leaves all this confusion.
What really bothers me is we are left in places like this to discuss and bicker between ourselves about whats right and wrong, a belief and a fact, being unable to draw real conclusions or even address the real problem, they've done it all with no resistance what so ever, what a convenient design.
I'm going to stick to my own observations and experiments supplemented with research, I can't argue with myself
Just throw "Profit" into the list.
max2000- Not so newb
- Posts : 66
Join date : 2017-06-07
Re: Look up in the sky....
so will you be tinkering away for the next decade fathoming out if refraction is the answer or not or will you humbly accept "that which is too much of a pain in the arse not too accept and makes no difference what the answer is in day to day life"?Awoken2 wrote:This thread is now officially deeper than whale poo
Re: Look up in the sky....
Hi all
Refraction can not be depended on to explain the phenomenon under discussion.
Don't get me wrong, refraction is good science - with the correct resources any of us could replicate the experiments, that's what makes it good science.
However when we talk about light entering our realm from 'space' we find ourselves depending on the word of the known liars that are NASA.
There are no experiments we can perform to prove or disprove the NASA hypothesis. Believing in NASA takes us out of science and into religion (scientism).
For this reason we can't depend on refraction as the explanation.
Cheers!
Refraction can not be depended on to explain the phenomenon under discussion.
Don't get me wrong, refraction is good science - with the correct resources any of us could replicate the experiments, that's what makes it good science.
However when we talk about light entering our realm from 'space' we find ourselves depending on the word of the known liars that are NASA.
There are no experiments we can perform to prove or disprove the NASA hypothesis. Believing in NASA takes us out of science and into religion (scientism).
For this reason we can't depend on refraction as the explanation.
Cheers!
Guest- Guest
Re: Look up in the sky....
Hey, refraction perfectly explains the OP question.
Like I typed in my first post, the shadow is in the right place.
It is not plausible to expect light to fully light up the shadow part of the moon as the suns light is being refracted by the atmosphere and is not penetrating right through the planet.
The refracted (which makes the sun appear in a place it is not) light is then directed towards the planet it is not the equivalent of a new sun.
If you take the first pic I posted and imagine the path of light of the actual sun and not the refracted sun.
Like I typed in my first post, the shadow is in the right place.
It is not plausible to expect light to fully light up the shadow part of the moon as the suns light is being refracted by the atmosphere and is not penetrating right through the planet.
The refracted (which makes the sun appear in a place it is not) light is then directed towards the planet it is not the equivalent of a new sun.
If you take the first pic I posted and imagine the path of light of the actual sun and not the refracted sun.
Little D- dedicated
- Posts : 641
Join date : 2017-05-10
Re: Look up in the sky....
Hi actinglikeabanker
i 'm not disputing the science alab, the science is good. What i'm saying is that because we know that NASA lie, lie, lie we don't know what is outside our atmosphere/dome, so we can't know how light operates or travels outside our system, or what happens when it reaches us, so we can only go by NASA's word. In other words we have to believe in NASA which takes us away from science (repeatable experiments) and into Scientism (faith in dogma).
Don't forget, there are different theories as to what light is. Theories, however appealing, suggest we don't know and are just guessing. Again if you put your faith in a theory without being willing to consider other theories than that is dogmatic faith aka religion.
In short we can test and prove refraction only within our realm. Anything outside our realm is conjecture which means one theory is as good as another as we are operating on assumption and that's not real science.
Cheers!
i 'm not disputing the science alab, the science is good. What i'm saying is that because we know that NASA lie, lie, lie we don't know what is outside our atmosphere/dome, so we can't know how light operates or travels outside our system, or what happens when it reaches us, so we can only go by NASA's word. In other words we have to believe in NASA which takes us away from science (repeatable experiments) and into Scientism (faith in dogma).
Don't forget, there are different theories as to what light is. Theories, however appealing, suggest we don't know and are just guessing. Again if you put your faith in a theory without being willing to consider other theories than that is dogmatic faith aka religion.
In short we can test and prove refraction only within our realm. Anything outside our realm is conjecture which means one theory is as good as another as we are operating on assumption and that's not real science.
Cheers!
Guest- Guest
Re: Look up in the sky....
we do ok not knowing what light is for sure. Particle theory looks like it has too many holes in it to be of much use for much longer . Its a coaxial wave not a particle(with no mass)
You do not need to know what it is to be able to make and measure, it acts consistently.Science does run on assumptions, until things stop working then new answers are needed. Till it breaks dont fix it. Refraction gives us the answer, if your not satisfied with that its up to you .
How are you going to do any tests in space anyway? Nassa or no Nassa? Here lies the futility of your argument. You will have to trust someone at some point as it is beyond us to do it ourselves.
nassa fixation , flatearth rule book no 1 , nassa cannot be allowed to have any validity.
You do know why dont you? its not roket science
You do not need to know what it is to be able to make and measure, it acts consistently.Science does run on assumptions, until things stop working then new answers are needed. Till it breaks dont fix it. Refraction gives us the answer, if your not satisfied with that its up to you .
How are you going to do any tests in space anyway? Nassa or no Nassa? Here lies the futility of your argument. You will have to trust someone at some point as it is beyond us to do it ourselves.
nassa fixation , flatearth rule book no 1 , nassa cannot be allowed to have any validity.
You do know why dont you? its not roket science
Re: Look up in the sky....
Hi Lopsum
So you're OK with 'trusting' others for answers? That's not science. And NOBODY has done experiments in space. Again, Scientism.
You can't put the effect down to refraction and say that it's science when you are making assumptions about what lies beyond our enclosed system. We don't know what's beyond our enclosure, NASA is lying about what they know.
We know how refraction works in our realm. We only ASSUME how it (light) works before/if it enters our enclosure.
Light isn't a wave or particle - it is both. Light does not 'travel' through a medium - it 'affects' the medium. Light is 'induced' in a medium when a certain frequency hits it. The light frequency only touches one molecule in the medium and every molecule is affected simultaneously. But it needs a medium or the phenomenon of light is not visible.
i'm talking science. i don't mind if i'm wrong if someone can prove me wrong without using assumption/Scientism . Anyone think they can do that? Help me out here.....
Cheers!
So you're OK with 'trusting' others for answers? That's not science. And NOBODY has done experiments in space. Again, Scientism.
You can't put the effect down to refraction and say that it's science when you are making assumptions about what lies beyond our enclosed system. We don't know what's beyond our enclosure, NASA is lying about what they know.
We know how refraction works in our realm. We only ASSUME how it (light) works before/if it enters our enclosure.
Light isn't a wave or particle - it is both. Light does not 'travel' through a medium - it 'affects' the medium. Light is 'induced' in a medium when a certain frequency hits it. The light frequency only touches one molecule in the medium and every molecule is affected simultaneously. But it needs a medium or the phenomenon of light is not visible.
i'm talking science. i don't mind if i'm wrong if someone can prove me wrong without using assumption/Scientism . Anyone think they can do that? Help me out here.....
Cheers!
Guest- Guest
Re: Look up in the sky....
Where is your evidence that refraction is not the reason that the moon doesnt look right? Does your evidence come from another source that you trust never to have lied ?
until you have this then there is no actual reason to suppose any differently.
until you have this then there is no actual reason to suppose any differently.
Re: Look up in the sky....
Hi Lopsum
i don't have any evidence but then i haven't offered an alternative theory. The point i'm making is that NEITHER of us have evidence that refraction can apply. OK, a short chronology :
1. Almost all people think earth is flat.
2.NASA shows the whole world photo's and film that shows earth to be globe floating in empty black space.
3. Almost all people think earth is globe.
4. Paradigm-shifting photo's and film shown to be faked.
5. A few people happen on the fakeness and start to ask questions, but:
All telemetry of missions - lost
All technical details (eg craft, lander, rover) - lost
All will to return to the moon - lost
6.It starts to gain momentum as a growing 'movement' and ..... here we are!
NASA lied. There's been a growing number of people who want to know why,, and what it is that they're hiding. They haven't told the truth about what's 'out there'. The psy-op is in taking the curious past that most pertinent question and into the distraction of arguing what shape it might be. The more variations the better.
So we don't know what's 'out there'. Everything is assumption and conjecture without the science. We don't even know if light exists outside of our enclosure, or what rules apply to it, so to apply the law of refraction from 'outside' (unknown) to 'inside' (known) is based on assumption.
Surely that's enough to suspect (if not suppose) differently?
Cheers!
i don't have any evidence but then i haven't offered an alternative theory. The point i'm making is that NEITHER of us have evidence that refraction can apply. OK, a short chronology :
1. Almost all people think earth is flat.
2.NASA shows the whole world photo's and film that shows earth to be globe floating in empty black space.
3. Almost all people think earth is globe.
4. Paradigm-shifting photo's and film shown to be faked.
5. A few people happen on the fakeness and start to ask questions, but:
All telemetry of missions - lost
All technical details (eg craft, lander, rover) - lost
All will to return to the moon - lost
6.It starts to gain momentum as a growing 'movement' and ..... here we are!
NASA lied. There's been a growing number of people who want to know why,, and what it is that they're hiding. They haven't told the truth about what's 'out there'. The psy-op is in taking the curious past that most pertinent question and into the distraction of arguing what shape it might be. The more variations the better.
So we don't know what's 'out there'. Everything is assumption and conjecture without the science. We don't even know if light exists outside of our enclosure, or what rules apply to it, so to apply the law of refraction from 'outside' (unknown) to 'inside' (known) is based on assumption.
Surely that's enough to suspect (if not suppose) differently?
Cheers!
Guest- Guest
Re: Look up in the sky....
iamani wrote:Hi Lopsum
i don't have any evidence but then i haven't offered an alternative theory. The point i'm making is that NEITHER of us have evidence that refraction can apply. OK, a short chronology :
1. Almost all people think earth is flat.
2.NASA shows the whole world photo's and film that shows earth to be globe floating in empty black space.
3. Almost all people think earth is globe.
4. Paradigm-shifting photo's and film shown to be faked.
5. A few people happen on the fakeness and start to ask questions, but:
All telemetry of missions - lost
All technical details (eg craft, lander, rover) - lost
All will to return to the moon - lost
6.It starts to gain momentum as a growing 'movement' and ..... here we are!
NASA lied. There's been a growing number of people who want to know why,, and what it is that they're hiding. They haven't told the truth about what's 'out there'. The psy-op is in taking the curious past that most pertinent question and into the distraction of arguing what shape it might be. The more variations the better.
So we don't know what's 'out there'. Everything is assumption and conjecture without the science. We don't even know if light exists outside of our enclosure, or what rules apply to it, so to apply the law of refraction from 'outside' (unknown) to 'inside' (known) is based on assumption.
Surely that's enough to suspect (if not suppose) differently?
Cheers!
The OP question was
So if the Sun is above us and the moon is above us then why is the moon not fully visible? We are observing them both from below so we are not obstructing any light from the sun to the moon.
You are being argumentative and bringing ad hominem's into the discussion to support your standing, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate the refractive behaviour of light, both in a vacuum or in our environment.
Little D- dedicated
- Posts : 641
Join date : 2017-05-10
Re: Look up in the sky....
Hi actinglikeabanker
i'm a little confused as to your comment.
a) It's a thread - i was responding to Lopsum's query in the comment prior to mine.
b) Ad hominem - isn't that when you attack the messenger's credibility rather than the message? i honestly don't remember doing that - doesn't sound like me.... can you show me where please so that i may apologise?
c);Not arguing alab - debating.
d) Given that NASA holds all the cards and is lying could you please provide just one real piece of non- NASA dependant evidence of what light does and how it acts outside of our enclosure?
Thanks for your interest.
Cheers!
i'm a little confused as to your comment.
a) It's a thread - i was responding to Lopsum's query in the comment prior to mine.
b) Ad hominem - isn't that when you attack the messenger's credibility rather than the message? i honestly don't remember doing that - doesn't sound like me.... can you show me where please so that i may apologise?
c);Not arguing alab - debating.
d) Given that NASA holds all the cards and is lying could you please provide just one real piece of non- NASA dependant evidence of what light does and how it acts outside of our enclosure?
Thanks for your interest.
Cheers!
Guest- Guest
Re: Look up in the sky....
heated and divisive with no resolution in the end but violence.
do you want a fight about it? oh look you got me so riled up!!
iamani trolling isnt acceptable , trying to rile up members and continue into pointless debate is trolling.
Re: Look up in the sky....
Stanley Kubrick was employed by NASA to fake the Moon landing Films.
Mr Kubrick is such a Perfectionist he went to the Moon to make the Films.
All the Junk and Footprints are still there.
Reasons we haven't been back is Expense and we now know there is pretty much nothing there.
Mr Kubrick is such a Perfectionist he went to the Moon to make the Films.
All the Junk and Footprints are still there.
Reasons we haven't been back is Expense and we now know there is pretty much nothing there.
max2000- Not so newb
- Posts : 66
Join date : 2017-06-07
Re: Look up in the sky....
the moon landing has compelling evidence that it did not happen though i for one have not concluded either way 100% . Both theorys rely on 2nd hand info as i have not researched the moon landing ,only seen the vids on youtube like the rest of us.It has not been proven either way.
The point is the moon landing has nothing to do with how the moon looks at some points in its cycle, so the whole nassa lie (flatearth rhetoric) does not give adequate necessity to throw away all of science ( trolls have a necessity in order to perpetuate the argument as we have seen in this thread!)
it works both ways some trolls start anti flatearth threads just to stir up some arguments like we see too. Not to say all concerned are trolls but it is usually the case that they all get involved precisely because it stirs up endless debate and its a way to seemingly divide a group(unless the group are wise to it!) .This is why this site is not a good place for flatearth debate , not because of the debate but how the debate is used and operates as a trigger. Nothing we agree on is affected by the shape of the earth so we see how pointless it is except as a mental exercise to reach your own conclusion and you dont need this site to do that for you .
The troll part of the debate falls down at this point Nassa are not the only sources of evidence and just because they may or may not have lied about the moon (a debate in itself) does not automatically give reason to refute other established facts (which have their own background in science and nothing to do with nassa). So if there is debate to be had it needs to be beyond this point and not backwards!
if we question everything we have to question the questions too or we fail and waste our time!
The point is the moon landing has nothing to do with how the moon looks at some points in its cycle, so the whole nassa lie (flatearth rhetoric) does not give adequate necessity to throw away all of science ( trolls have a necessity in order to perpetuate the argument as we have seen in this thread!)
it works both ways some trolls start anti flatearth threads just to stir up some arguments like we see too. Not to say all concerned are trolls but it is usually the case that they all get involved precisely because it stirs up endless debate and its a way to seemingly divide a group(unless the group are wise to it!) .This is why this site is not a good place for flatearth debate , not because of the debate but how the debate is used and operates as a trigger. Nothing we agree on is affected by the shape of the earth so we see how pointless it is except as a mental exercise to reach your own conclusion and you dont need this site to do that for you .
The troll part of the debate falls down at this point Nassa are not the only sources of evidence and just because they may or may not have lied about the moon (a debate in itself) does not automatically give reason to refute other established facts (which have their own background in science and nothing to do with nassa). So if there is debate to be had it needs to be beyond this point and not backwards!
if we question everything we have to question the questions too or we fail and waste our time!
Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|