“Understanding of science” is not some incredible accomplishment. It is …

Comment on New forum by Saros.

“Understanding of science” is not some incredible accomplishment. It is simply a situation when you have memorized all the “scientific” facts and have started to believe them to be true. You should know that anyone can do that. It is much harder to investigate on your own and to try to understand the world without swallowing all the scientific dogma. We shouldn’t try to understand science but understand the world we live in.

Saros Also Commented

New forum
Here is an interesting article.

http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/why-the-sky-is-blue/

“However, if the folks from Wikipedia care to step outside on a clear night they should be able to see some stars and [with luck] they might see some stars just above the horizon. Now, if they look carefully they should observe the stars as small points of white light. Not red light. Not orange light. Not yellow light. The stars appear as white light because the Earth’s atmosphere is not magically scattering the blue [and even the green] light. Wikipedia is completely wrong again. The light from stars is not scattered by the Earth’s atmosphere when the stars are close to the horizon [or otherwise] and the same applies to our local star [the sun].”


New forum
Interesting idea, WH.

I tried to find some more information on light being invisible in space (vacuum). What is claimed and recognized is that the scattered light is invisible becausre the is not enought particles in vacuum, but the light sources and the lit objects are visible. Basically, you cannot see the light path, which is logical and obvious and not a surprise at all, but you can supposedly see the light source. I find this very suspicious. In my opinion, more distant light sources will not be visible at all in this scenario. The only way distant light sources could be observed is if we actually observe their reflections provided they get reflected off something in our vicinity. No way for a star millions of light years away to be visible as a light source in space if its light actually is not scattered off anything.


New forum
Hey Wild Heretic, this notion deserves a thorough study. It turns out the guy might be right after all…Even in this yahoo answers discussion they seem to point to the same conclusion: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718140332AA40WTl
You cannot see the light unless it is reflected off something. However, the question remains if you can see the source of light provided you’re looking directly into it and you’re in vacuum. Light is not reflected off anything, but does it reach your pupils?


Recent Comments by Saros

Concave Earth Theory
So, yeah, I can finally say that I don’t think the Flat Earth theory is a viable alternative. I wasn’t willing to to accept that, because when it comes to alternatives of the official model, they all pretty much sound unbelievable. However, having dealt with some people who believe in Flat Earth almost religiously, I realized that this is an even dangerous delusion, as they are paralysed in their logical thinking. It is like a mental trap. The flight paths do prove the Flat Earth is impossible or at least, if we’re not so extreme, their map is impossible. Unless they can come up with a meaningful map the whole thing is nonsense. I realized their behavior is similar to that of trolls. Denying everything when it doesn’t fit their theory. I really gave it the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t see how it can work even after all the time I spent to study it. Actually, I should have done it intensively at the very beginning, and it might have taken me only few hours, however, there is not much time to focus on stuff like this for hours on a row. I guess, that is why most people get confused too. If they are open-minded, they don’t want to discard stuff right away, and they consider them for a very long time, because they have other things to do in their lives. Anyway, it is clear that the map is impossible. It was clear even before, but I thought maybe there is a way to explain it. There isn’t. All maps are map projections, a hypothetical flat Earth cannot be mapped, so the Earth is not flat.


Space machines do not orbit the Earth
Check this out -> http://www2.tate.org.uk/space/webcam.htm
The satellite is orbiting at approx 400km from earth in a polar to polar orbit. The satellite orbits earth every 92.56 mins. It has been engineered to cover the globe in 15.56 orbits – 1 day.

Just wait till you see the live images 🙂
You can see the Earth as a tiny marble planet even though the satellite is supposedly only at 400 km altitude! How can they even dare claim such preposterous things? Not to mention that the ‘images’ appear totally bogus…


Disappearing stars
I am not sure if you have heard, but Alan Eustace, a senior Google vice president set a new record in the highest skydive jump thus beating Felix Baumgartner. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E93Rsf-XcCc
It would be interesting to ask him if he saw any stars.


Is the moon an optical illusion?
I think anyone by now should have realized that the ISS is a hoax, thus the live HD video feed is actually CGI. You can never see anything in that live video ever besides water and clouds. I seriously doubt people have actually been into space. Some people argue that space travel in vacuum is impossible, I kind of like to side with them. I can imagine that the future space tourists will be some millionaires who are into the conspiracy, or might even support it.


There is glass in the sky
Just worth noting that measuring the altitude is not exactly clear-cut, and perhaps a claimed altitude of 120 km is in fact 60 km. This miscalculation might not be intentional, but simply due to the imperfection of the measuring tools/methods. To sum it up, it is not easy to measure the exact altitude with precision.


Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.