Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

We Live Inside The Earth


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 RbM

RbM

    Thinking

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 05 August 2015 - 08:12 PM

...


Edited by RbM, 08 August 2015 - 09:47 PM.


#2 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4225 posts

Posted 06 August 2015 - 03:02 AM

Wow! And you are actually serious about this. I am impressed!! Really! I always thought that creationists where the most hardcore ones but they softcore compared to you.

 

So thanks for the enlightment (although it not being the one you intended).



#3 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 06 August 2015 - 11:45 AM

"yea, and thou shalt not pay any heed to mythological texts like the bible: for it is horse ****." ~ Me



#4 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 07 August 2015 - 08:44 AM

You have been lied to your whole life about everything...

Yes probably, not about everything though, that's silly. And that's no reason to accept what's written in a book thousands of years ago that's had multiple rewrites, is a completely one sided and incomplete account, is designed to control people, is just one of many flavours of religion and was written in a time when it was common to use metaphors to describe things.



#5 Pmb

Pmb

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 07 August 2015 - 11:30 PM

The problem with theories like yours is that you've provided us with absolutely no reason for us to accept it. None, nothing, nadda, zip! On the other hand there are many reasons to believe otherwise such as

 

1) It can't account for night and day. If the Sun is somewhere inside the Earth then everyplace on the surface is lit up all at once. Not to mention that the volume of Sun is enormous compared to the volume of the Earth. The Sun would burn the surface of the Earth to a crisp if there was a small Sun inside the Earth. However no Sun could be that small because the Sun is basically a nuclear bomb going off continuously and with so little mass it couldn't produce a gravitational field strong enough to keep it together.

 

2) It can't account for the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force is an inertial force. It's a velocity dependent force which is due to the Earth's rotation. If you know math and physics then I suggest that you learn about it on Wikipedia.  During WW-II battleship guns had to take this effect into account in order to hit their targets because the range of the guns was very far away, e.g. 32 km. Firing that far requires taking into account the Coriolis force.

 

3) Your theory can't account for the existence or nature of seasons. For example; due to the orientation of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of the eclipse, when it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere its winter in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

4) Contrary to your claim above, ships disappear below the horizon. Your claim about the horizon being at eye level is easily demonstrated to be false. One simply has to go to the beach of a large body of water and look at the horizon.

 

5) Your theory can't account for the variation of atmospheric pressure with height.

 

6) Your theory can't account for all of the effects of gravity that we experience.

 

7) Your theory contradicts everything we've learned from astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology.

 

Sorry chap. But you really didn't seem to put much thought into this. You never gave anybody any reason to accept anything you said. People can make claims all day long. Why believe you rather than them?



#6 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 08 August 2015 - 07:53 AM

Okay I’ll bite. I haven’t read you posts properly I’ll admit but this is one problem with the idea that’s extremely simple.

 

Ground speed and air speed are different. This is very important and mixing them up has caused planes to crash. A plane’s air speed is greater than its ground speed because it has to cover more ground in the air than it would on the ground to travel the same distance. If the Earth’s surface really was concave then a plane’s air speed would be less than its ground speed because it would have to cover less ground in the air than it would on the ground to travel the same distance.

 

I misspoke. I should have said based on event that happened (or didn’t) thousands of years ago.

 

Yes I do believe we went to the moon but I also believe the moon landing was faked for the simple reason that the whole world was watching and a lot could have gone wrong, and I really can’t imagine them taking that chance.



#7 Pmb

Pmb

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 08 August 2015 - 01:59 PM

RbM - You're quite wrong on all your accusations. What I've explained is well known and can be found proved in almost any textbook on the relevant physics. And your claims about it merely being what someone else told me shows that you have absolutely no understanding how science works or how any body of knowledge is developed. For example; there's nothing you've claimed here which you yourself did the work to discover it.

 

Everything I've said I can prove, including the FACT that the Sun is just one big hydrogen bomb going off (in a manner of speaking of course).

 

However the way you're talking is like a child and I don't try to explain physics to a child. E.g. l explained that the hollow earth theory cannot account for gravity and you response was very irrational and childish, i.e. that I don't know what gravity is and some nonsense that the aether is that's "pushing down" and not gravity that's "pulling down".

 

I'm tired of trying to help people who only have the ability to make claims and deny that all experiments and observations never occurred. I have better things to do with my time than try to help crackpots like yourself see the all the mistakes you make in each post. You're simply too arrogant and too ignorant to learn.



#8 RbM

RbM

    Thinking

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 08 August 2015 - 03:08 PM

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by RbM, 08 August 2015 - 09:52 PM.


#9 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 09 August 2015 - 06:43 AM

Everything I've said I can prove, including the FACT that the Sun is just one big hydrogen bomb going off (in a manner of speaking of course).

No you can't. Contrary to popular belief it's never been proved that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, only that some nuclear fusion is occurring and the evidence for this (the detection of neutrinos) is evidence that there's not enough fusion going on to power the sun. Claiming there's undetectable neutrinos doesn't count as evidence until it's found.

It's never even been shown that nuclear fusion is capable of sustaining itself, much less having enough left over energy to light a star.



#10 RbM

RbM

    Thinking

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 09 August 2015 - 11:38 AM

The sun is not a star...

 

God created the sun, moon AND the stars.  Three different things altogether. 

 

The stars are in the Celestial Sphere inside the Celestial Ocean, 4,000 miles above us.

 

This in fact can be illustrated in the laboratory by Sonoluminescence

 

 

This IS scientific "evidence".  It is...

 

 

Stars do not make sounds.

 

 
It is sound that makes the stars... 
 
The Choirs of Angels singing praises to God!

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7687286.stm   Look familiar?

 

 

 

Reminds me of the Star Track Movie when they couldn't recognize the sounds of whales...

 

 

If Captain Kirk and Spock could tune in this one - Maybe this is what they would hear...???

 

 

 

We live inside of a Dyson Sphere.

 

https://www.google.c...iw=1920&bih=955

 

 

What if an advanced civilization could collect all of the energy emitted by its star?

 

http://earthsky.org/...-a-dyson-sphere

 

 

What if a civilization and  its "Star" or really SUN were both inside a Sphere...?   What if...???

 

Thanks for your humble input,

 

RbM


Edited by RbM, 09 August 2015 - 07:56 PM.


#11 Pmb

Pmb

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 10 August 2015 - 10:40 PM

Leave it to A-wal to show his ignorance about the sun. So what else is new since he's ignorant about everything else.



#12 Pmb

Pmb

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 10 August 2015 - 11:16 PM

Actually the most ignorant thing A-wal said was in his use of the term "proof". His claim about the sun not being powered by nuclear fusion is serious ignorance on his part but the worst part of that statement is the use of the term "proof" since nowhere in physics is anything ever proved to be right or wrong. Any astrophysicist will tell you that the question of the source of energy from the sun being nuclear fusion in the core has long be answered and there is no real doubt about it. That A-wal doesn't know this is yet another clear demonstration of his lack of understanding of the methodology and philosophy of science. I mean it's always been clear that he's not a physicist, that he's just a "physicist wannabe/layman" but this is getting to be ridiculous now.

 

Alan Guth explains why science is not about proving anything at: www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV



#13 RbM

RbM

    Thinking

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 11 August 2015 - 01:00 AM

Leave it to Curious to show his ignorance about the Son. So what else is new since he's ignorant about everything else.

 

Actually the most ignorant thing Curious said was in his use of the term "proof". His claim about the Son not being powered by faith is serious ignorance on his part but the worst part of that statement is the use of the term "proof" since nowhere in religion is anything ever proved to be right or wrong. Any Religionist will tell you that the question of the source of energy from the Son being faith in the core has long be answered and there is no real doubt about it. That Curious doesn't know this is yet another clear demonstration of his lack of understanding of the methodology and philosophy of Religion. I mean it's always been clear that he's not a Catholic, that he's just a "Catholic wannabe/layman" but this is getting to be ridiculous now.



#14 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 11 August 2015 - 09:04 AM

Actually the most ignorant thing A-wal said was in his use of the term "proof".

And yet you claim the nuclear fusion model of sun as "FACT"?

 

His claim about the sun not being powered by nuclear fusion is serious ignorance on his part but the worst part of that statement is the use of the term "proof" since nowhere in physics is anything ever proved to be right or wrong.

Actually that's not true. In physics the process involves putting a model forward and testing its predictions. The idea is to try to disprove it. If that can't be done then it's a working model. It can't be proved right but any good model is capable of being proved wrong if the model is an inaccurate description.

 

If you want to get pedantic then I should have said that contrary to popular belief it's never been conclusively demonstrated that the nuclear fusion model of the sun is an accurate description.

 

I simply used unscientific terminology, but your statement that nothing in physics can be proved wrong shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works.

 

Any astrophysicist will tell you that the question of the source of energy from the sun being nuclear fusion in the core has long be answered and there is no real doubt about it.

That's not true either. I know of at least a few that openly admit that it isn't the case at all. If you think that it can be clearly shown that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, or in fact if it's even possible that nuclear fusion can in principle release enough energy to even sustain itself then please share it, because I know for a fact that has never been successfully achieved.

 

That A-wal doesn't know this is yet another clear demonstration of his lack of understanding of the methodology and philosophy of science. I mean it's always been clear that he's not a physicist, that he's just a "physicist wannabe/layman" but this is getting to be ridiculous now.

I have no interest in becoming a physicist thankyou. You on the other hand obviously do desperately want to become a physicist, so much so that you make out you already are despite having no clue about a lot of the basics. You claim that you're a relativity expert and know the top people in the field and yet come out with this hilarious statement:

 

"In general relativity gravity is not considered to be an inward curvature of space-time pulling objects together. Where did you get such an idea? It’s quite untrue."

That's the most fundamental principle of general relativity. It's the underlying concept of the whole idea. :)


Edited by A-wal, 11 August 2015 - 09:11 AM.


#15 RbM

RbM

    Thinking

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 11 August 2015 - 06:07 PM

https://www.lhup.edu...llow/morrow.htm



#16 Pmb

Pmb

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 04 September 2015 - 04:22 AM

The sun is not a star...

God created the sun, moon AND the stars.  Three different things altogether.

 

The Bible is not a physics textbook. It was written long before people knew that the sun was a star. However, if you feel the need to think of the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge (which it surely isn't) then all that says is that God created the star near the Earth first and called it "Sun" and then created all the other stars but didn't name them.

 

The stars are in the Celestial Sphere inside the Celestial Ocean, 4,000 miles above us.

That's quite wrong. If that were true then every place on Earth would have day light since the light from anyplace inside a sphere lands on the entire surface area inside the sphere. It also follows that the sun wouldn't rise and set below the horizon and it's easy to see that it does. If we were on the inside of a sphere then we'd see then entire inside surface. The land would rise above us in the distance and we'd see all of it. However that's not what we see. We can't see over the horizon. Not to mention that the geometry of the people on the inside of the sphere and the rays of light would be different than they really are. I'll create a diagram which proves that you're wrong. I'll post it later today, hopefully.

 

 

This in fact can be illustrated in the...

This IS scientific "evidence".  It is...

Nonsense, all of it. That means that all you did was post things but put no logical analysis behind it. Anybody that can imagine what it'd be like inside a sphere would know that its not where we live. If we did then there would be places on that inside surface (if not the whole surface) that due to the gravitational pull of the sun we'd all fall of the inside surface of the sphere and into the sun. Astronomy would be quite different than it is now. We wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbit around the earth and the moon wouldn't be able to orbit the earth. When astronauts take pictures of the Earth they wouldn't show the earth to be a sphere as they do.


Edited by Pmb, 04 September 2015 - 10:21 AM.


#17 RbM

RbM

    Thinking

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 04 September 2015 - 11:11 AM

The Bible is not a physics textbook. It was written long before people knew that the sun was a star. However, if you feel the need to think of the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge (which it surely isn't) then all that says is that God created the star near the Earth first and called it "Sun" and then created all the other stars but didn't name them.

 

 

The Bible does not say that God created the "star" near the Earth...   The sun is not referred to as a star anywhere is the Bible because it is not a star.  God created the sun moon AND the stars.  The stars are different from the sun and moon.

 

 

 

 

 

That's quite wrong. If that were true then every place on Earth would have day light since the light from anyplace inside a sphere lands on the entire surface area inside the sphere. It also follows that the sun wouldn't rise and set below the horizon and it's easy to see that it does. If we were on the inside of a sphere then we'd see then entire inside surface. The land would rise above us in the distance and we'd see all of it. However that's not what we see. We can't see over the horizon. Not to mention that the geometry of the people on the inside of the sphere and the rays of light would be different than they really are. I'll create a diagram which proves that you're wrong. I'll post it later today, hopefully.

 

 

Light bends.  It does.  That's why you can't see Africa from here - There's no light shinning on it.

 

 

 

Nonsense, all of it. That means that all you did was post things but put no logical analysis behind it. Anybody that can imagine what it'd be like inside a sphere would know that its not where we live. If we did then there would be places on that inside surface (if not the whole surface) that due to the gravitational pull of the sun we'd all fall of the inside surface of the sphere and into the sun. Astronomy would be quite different than it is now. We wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbit around the earth and the moon wouldn't be able to orbit the earth. When astronauts take pictures of the Earth they wouldn't show the earth to be a sphere as they do.

 

 

The Celestial Sphere is what rotates - Not Earth.  The planets are tiny.  The sun, moon and planets orbit around the Celestial Sphere where the stars are located...   The Earth cannot be moved.

 

There is a glass sky above you at about 1,000 km with a layer of ice attached to it.  There is only inner space, friend.  The ball earth and gigantic universe is Hermeticism.  Heliocentricism is a religion.   Sorry.

 

RbM 

 

 

 


Edited by RbM, 05 September 2015 - 09:18 AM.