Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[MrPeabody]

According to current cosmology, there is no center of the Universe. There is no favored spot or boundry and everything is expanding equally. A rough analogy is the surface of an expanding balloon. The big bang doesn't create a center either, because the big bang was an expansion of space, not an expansion within space. Nevertheless, our view of the Universe is limited by the speed of light and the finite time since the Big Bang. The observable part of the universe is probably very small compared to the whole universe. Since we can't see the whole universe, we can never actually verify this, because we are assuming the universe in homogeneous and isotropic. If this assumption holds, then the Universe does not have a center.

Isn't this just a different variant of the "Unknowable will of God" line?

No, it's topology. Not every topological space has a center. The surface of an expanding balloon doesn't have a center. In this case, the surface of the balloon is three dimensional space itself. The Big Bang does not create a center.

[droid]

We can verify it is expanding pretty easily.

How can we verify expansion, other than red shift, which is just an unverifiable interpretation?

You're right about science being kludgey in many aspects but that's the whole point, it's in continuous revision as to what are the most likely explanations for things. Again, better than assuming 'magic' and fairy tales. Of course it could all be a 'simulation' and some kind of joke but until proof comes along that's outside the scope of science.

The red shift theory is accepted as 'most likely' because whole spectral patterns for known elements shift, and the doppler effect is reproducible on earth.

If we accept the current view of expansion, we must accept the appearance of us being in the center of the universe. Do you believe we are literally in the center of the universe, and if not why does it seem so?

According to the theory the expansion is in four dimensions, and thus there is no 3D center of the universe.
Another poster mentioned the analogy of the balloon, which drops down everything one dimension. An ant in the 2D surface of the inflating balloon sees everything spread away equally in all directions, even though it is not in any 2D 'center'. And for the ant, the third dimension is only theoretical.

As to how something can come from nothing, I believe in God, I just don't believe in literal interpretation of the Bible.

+1

[Cornfed]

According to the theory the expansion is in four dimensions, and thus there is no 3D center of the universe.

How is this different from magic and fairytales? Tolkien’s Silmarillion makes more intuitive sense.

[droid]

According to the theory the expansion is in four dimensions, and thus there is no 3D center of the universe.

How is this different from magic and fairytales? Tolkien’s Silmarillion makes more intuitive sense.

The hypotheses are always open, as I explained, and there are continuous attempts to match them for consistency with other observations, or disprove them, all leading to actual knowledge. Whereas 'magic' is random and "settled" evading and distorting the actual (often conflicting) details.

That's why the crystal dome can hold quintillions of gallons of water above it without cracking, and even though water "can't stick to a curved surface". Heck even rockets can crash into it without leaving a mark. Also why vacuum has vacuum-pressure and two molecules of the exact same compound can have inherently different densities. And so on...

The red shift theory is accepted as 'most likely' because whole spectral patterns for known elements shift, and the doppler effect is reproducible on earth.

Can you guys confirm you understand the given concepts, and if you agree or disagree with them? people ask questions in this thread and ignore the answers given, then turn around and claim no answers are ever given.

[gsjackson]

According to the theory the expansion is in four dimensions, and thus there is no 3D center of the universe.

How is this different from magic and fairytales? Tolkien’s Silmarillion makes more intuitive sense.

The hypotheses are always open, as I explained, and there are continuous attempts to match them for consistency with other observations, or disprove them, all leading to actual knowledge. Whereas 'magic' is random and "settled" evading and distorting the actual (often conflicting) details.

That's why the crystal dome can hold quintillions of gallons of water above it without cracking, and even though water "can't stick to a curved surface". Heck even rockets can crash into it without leaving a mark, and so on..

The red shift theory is accepted as 'most likely' because whole spectral patterns for known elements shift, and the doppler effect is reproducible on earth.

Can you guys confirm you understand the given concepts, and if you agree or disagree with them? people ask questions in this thread and ignore the answers given, then turn around and claim no answers are ever given.

No, can't confirm. It's incomprehensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Why don't you take a stab at explaining its import in English that a layman of average intelligence can understand. Surely if it's something important to your belief system you can do this.

[droid]

If the necessary details are abstracted away then there will be hand waving claiming "it is not so" or "that can't happen".
So the 'layman' that finds this incomprehensible is kind of out of this.

Like I've said, carry some due diligence at least, if you went through dupe-bay's '200 proofs' surely you can spend some time on this. Wikipedia is good at taking you from link to link if you are willing to spend some time.
For us to spoon-feed readily available definitions -yet again and again- only to be ignored at the end is really not motivating.
Google Doppler effect, wave, frequency, wave-length, etc

[Cornfed]

The hypotheses are always open, as I explained, and there are continuous attempts to match them for consistency with other observations, or disprove them, all leading to actual knowledge.

In practice this is not generally true. In any case, real science is based on reproducible experiments and subject to falsifiability, and the current cosmology seems to be designed to evade these requirements.

Can you guys confirm you understand the given concepts, and if you agree or disagree with them? people ask questions in this thread and ignore the answers given, then turn around and claim no answers are ever given.

Not sure what you mean. I have a ~physics101 level understanding of mainstream cosmology. Actually, perhaps more a physics degree level understanding minus the math, given how education has gone to shit over the last 20 years.

[Cornfed]

No, can't confirm. It's incomprehensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Why don't you take a stab at explaining its import in English that a layman of average intelligence can understand. Surely if it's something important to your belief system you can do this.

You can analyse the white light coming out of a star. So much red light, so much blue etc. (Obviously an oversimplification). There are stars with very similar light patterns, but one is “red shifted”, which is to say it has a similar pattern but with slightly longer wavelengths across the entire spectrum. The current idea is that this is because the stars are basically identical (same size, type etc.) but the red-shifted star is moving away from us faster. This causes the Doppler Effect. Think of how a police siren moving towards you sounds higher and higher pitched (shortening sound wavelength) and then when the car passes you sounds lower and lower pitched (from your perspective, lengthening wavelengths). Not completely unreasonable, but you could come up with any number of other explanations.

[gsjackson]

If the necessary details are abstracted away then there will be hand waving claiming "it is not so" or "that can't happen".
So the 'layman' that finds this incomprehensible is kind of out of this.

Like I've said, carry some due diligence at least, if you went through dupe-bay's '200 proofs' surely you can spend some time on this. Wikipedia is good at taking you from link to link if you are willing to spend some time.
For us to spoon-feed readily available definitions -yet again and again- only to be ignored at the end is really not motivating.
Google Doppler effect, wave, wave-length, etc

Yeah, sure, you can but you won't. Sorry, but I've had too much experience with academic obfuscation to believe anything that can't be explained in comprehensible language, like Dubay's proofs. In any case, if redshift, Doppler, etc. are by way of explaining the big bang theory, i.e., speculation about how everything evolved out of nothing beginning with an explosion a gazillion years ago -- I have no interest at all in science fiction. The shape of the earth is a more tangible subject, and a relevant one indeed if it yields solid information that extraordinary lies have found their way into the common understanding.

[droid]

Yeah, sure, you can but you won't. Sorry, but I've had too much experience with academic obfuscation to believe anything that can't be explained in comprehensible language, like Dubay's proofs. In any case, if redshift, Doppler, etc. are by way of explaining the big bang theory, i.e., speculation about how everything evolved out of nothing beginning with an explosion a gazillion years ago -- I have no interest at all in science fiction. The shape of the earth is a more tangible subject, and a relevant one indeed if it yields solid information that extraordinary lies have found their way into the common understanding.

Well, you can Google the things I suggested, but you won't. What is easier, for me to retype what is already out there or for you to browse a bit?

I know what you're saying about academia obfuscation, I've seen it, but you are extrapolating the concept to anything you don't understand.
And indeed, that's the appeal of dupe-bays '200-proofs', easy to swallow "explanations" when people can't bother putting in some effort.

[droid]

I'm not exactly a fan of Henry Makow, but here he calls the FE fad a Psy-op. I'm tempted to open a thread on that aspect alone but it will probably go nowhere.

https://www.henrymakow.com/2016/02/Flat ... Psyop.html

I think I concurr on that. Protocol #5 comes to mind lol

IN ORDER TO PUT PUBLIC OPINION INTO OUR HANDS WE MUST BRING IT INTO A STATE OF BEWILDERMENT BY GIVING EXPRESSION FROM ALL SIDES TO SO MANY CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS AND FOR SUCH LENGTH OF TIME AS WILL SUFFICE TO MAKE THE "GOYIM" LOSE THEIR HEADS IN THE LABYRINTH AND COME TO SEE THAT THE BEST THING IS TO HAVE NO OPINION OF ANY KIND IN MATTERS POLITICAL, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret.

[HouseMD]

We can verify it is expanding pretty easily.

How can we verify expansion, other than red shift, which is just an unverifiable interpretation? If we accept the current view of expansion, we must accept the appearance of us being in the center of the universe. Do you believe we are literally in the center of the universe, and if not why does it seem so?

Imagine a perfectly clear balloon with 1,000 molecules of air in it that has been placed in a vacuum chamber. As yoi reduce the pressure of the chamber, all of the molecules will get further and further apart on average, but they all have individual velocities and thus without calculating the velocities of every object in the balloon it would be impossible to determine the "center" of the balloon. This is an imperfect example, but it's the best way I can dumb it down.

[Cornfed]

We can verify it is expanding pretty easily.

How can we verify expansion, other than red shift, which is just an unverifiable interpretation? If we accept the current view of expansion, we must accept the appearance of us being in the center of the universe. Do you believe we are literally in the center of the universe, and if not why does it seem so?

Imagine a perfectly clear balloon with 1,000 molecules of air in it that has been placed in a vacuum chamber. As yoi reduce the pressure of the chamber, all of the molecules will get further and further apart on average, but they all have individual velocities and thus without calculating the velocities of every object in the balloon it would be impossible to determine the "center" of the balloon. This is an imperfect example, but it's the best way I can dumb it down.

Drunk or serious?

[Adama]

Apparently to verify the nature of the universe and the big bang, a person has to dumb things down, and use visualization. This is what theory consists of. Einstein having some daydreams about the nature of light. Instead of just opening their eyes to believe what they can see, they trust in fancy explanations that defy reality and rely upon fantasy.

And they don't think God's Word is true. Instead, God only talks in parables and apparently not so many of His Words hold true meaning for these people. So just like the ancient Romans, they have a god for everything. God is the God they pay lip service to. But truly they believe in science as God. That way science will allow them to believe in other gods. So essentially they are free to do as they want without giving God the glory for His Creation.

[gsjackson]

Apparently to verify the nature of the universe and the big bang, a person has to dumb things down, and use visualization. This is what theory consists of. Einstein having some daydreams about the nature of light. Instead of just opening their eyes to believe what they can see, they trust in fancy explanations that defy reality and rely upon fantasy.

And they don't think God's Word is true. Instead, God only talks in parables and apparently not so many of His Words hold true meaning for these people. So just like the ancient Romans, they have a god for everything. God is the God they pay lip service to. But truly they believe in science as God. That way science will allow them to believe in other gods. So essentially they are free to do as they want without giving God the glory for His Creation.

I think you're giving them too much credit in saying they embrace science like a religion. It's more of a status symbol for them. They think they know more than most people about these theories, and that allows them to feel superior. Tocqueville noted about Americans in a letter to his father in France that they were always looking for some little degree of status that provides them a perch from which they can look down upon their neighbors. Nothing has changed in 175 years.

And part of the status conferred is the self-belief that they are intellectually bold by refuting traditional religious beliefs. There's an interesting letter from one of the early exponents of evolution in 19th century England that says something like regardless of how persuasive evolutionary theory is or isn't, the intellectuals will lap it up because it allows them to feel superior to the masses and their religion.

I don't think these guys really believe this shit. They don't even think about it on that level. It's part of the little status garment they put on each day, and by God nobody's going to rip a hole in it.

BTW, I just watched Neil deGrasse Tyson supposedly debate someone about whether the moon landing took place. He actually made one sort of substantive argument -- just enough fuel to go to the moon and back was put into these rockets. Not sure how he knows how much fuel was put into the rocket, so he's responding to people who are arguing that NASA lies about everything by telling them to accept something NASA has said. The rest of the 30-minute "debate" was just the gasbag's usual attitudinizing about how the culture could have produced people ignorant enough to disagree with him.