14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Let's stick to parallax to begin with, my dear gamb00ler.

 

To me, this is a typical example of something I mentioned before in this thread, based on excerpts of Lincoln Barnett's book The Universe and Dr. Einstein, which details how modern science interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena, i.e. observational data is adapted to fit the desired models.

 

Stellar parallax, offered as proof of the heliocentric model as it purportedly exists, is questionable.

 

The heliocentric model posits that the Earth moves at 1,000 mph around its central axis, while circling the Sun at 67,000 mph, forming a subset which orbits in the Milky Way at 500,000 mph.

 

That’s a lot of simultaneous perpetual motion: 1,000 mph + 67,000 mph + 500,000 mph.

 

A motion never felt, seen or irrefutably proven, and which raises questions:

1. Why haven’t the constellations changed in thousands of years?
2. How does Polaris manage to always stay aligned above the North Pole?

stick to your lane.... or read about gravity, relative motion and seek guidance when reading science based material as your abilities to comprehend it seem limited

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Let's stick to parallax to begin with, my dear gamb00ler.

 

To me, this is a typical example of something I mentioned before in this thread, based on excerpts of Lincoln Barnett's book The Universe and Dr. Einstein, which details how modern science interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena, i.e. observational data is adapted to fit the desired models.

 

Stellar parallax, offered as proof of the heliocentric model as it purportedly exists, is questionable.

 

The heliocentric model posits that the Earth moves at 1,000 mph around its central axis, while circling the Sun at 67,000 mph, forming a subset which orbits in the Milky Way at 500,000 mph.

 

That’s a lot of simultaneous perpetual motion: 1,000 mph + 67,000 mph + 500,000 mph.

 

A motion never felt, seen or irrefutably proven, and which raises questions:

1. Why haven’t the constellations changed in thousands of years?
2. How does Polaris manage to always stay aligned above the North Pole?

come back after you have a good understanding of the word 'subtend'.  Otherwise the relevant conversation will be way over your head.

 

AI says:

The polar axis points very closely to Polaris, but is not exactly aligned with it. Polaris is currently only about 0.7 to 0.750  degrees away from the North Celestial Pole, the point in the sky directly above Earth's rotational axis. Due to this small offset, Polaris appears to move in a small circle throughout the night and is not a perfectly fixed point. 

 

Very close, but not perfect:

The Earth's rotational axis is tilted so that it points almost directly at Polaris. 

 

Constant small movement:

Because of the small offset, Polaris traces a small circle in the sky each night, with a diameter of about 1.5 degrees (roughly the width of one and a half full moons). 

 

Precession:

The Earth's axis is slowly wobbling over a 26,000-year cycle called precession. This means Polaris will not always be the North Star; in about 13,000 years, the star Vega will be the North Star. 

8 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

come back after you have a good understanding of the word 'subtend'.  Otherwise the relevant conversation will be way over your head.

 

AI says:

The polar axis points very closely to Polaris, but is not exactly aligned with it. Polaris is currently only about 0.7 to 0.750  degrees away from the North Celestial Pole, the point in the sky directly above Earth's rotational axis. Due to this small offset, Polaris appears to move in a small circle throughout the night and is not a perfectly fixed point. 

 

Very close, but not perfect:

The Earth's rotational axis is tilted so that it points almost directly at Polaris. 

 

Constant small movement:

Because of the small offset, Polaris traces a small circle in the sky each night, with a diameter of about 1.5 degrees (roughly the width of one and a half full moons). 

 

Precession:

The Earth's axis is slowly wobbling over a 26,000-year cycle called precession. This means Polaris will not always be the North Star; in about 13,000 years, the star Vega will be the North Star. 

 

Thank you for your insights.

I can hardly wait until @rattlesnake hears about gravitational lensing.

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

This is extremely convoluted from a purely objective, non-dogmatic viewpoint. We are supposedly hurtling through the galaxy at 500,000 mph while rotating at 1,000 mph and circling the Sun at 67,000 mph. This is a chaotic construct to say the least. Yet all one needs to do is observe the sky at night and the one evident, compelling feeling one experiences is pure and unadulterated stillness.

 

Furthermore, there are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were rotating. For example, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a spherical Earth, the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky… It does not make sense.

 

It does not make sense to you...   because you confuses perception with physics.

 

The speeds you quote aren’t chaotic; they’re steady and precisely measured. The Earth’s motion around the Sun and through the galaxy is predictable to the second - that’s how we can forecast eclipses decades in advance. “High speed” isn’t the same thing as “instability”.

 

As for Ursa Major, it’s visible as far south as about 30° S because of spherical geometry, not in spite of it. The stars near the north celestial pole simply appear lower on the northern horizon as you move south. Nobody is “looking through miles of Earth”; they’re looking across a curved surface at a lower sky angle. The fact that the Southern Cross disappears entirely from the northern hemisphere, meanwhile, is proof of curvature - on a flat Earth it should be visible to everyone.

 

And that “still” night sky? Long-exposure photos show the stars moving in perfect circles around Polaris. That’s the planet’s rotation, plain as day (or rather night).

 

In short, you’re mistaking stillness of experience for absence of motion, and misreading basic celestial geometry. Everything you observe actually confirms a rotating, orbiting, spherical Earth.

 

 

You are still confused by the distance it seems: Constellations, made up of stars are incredibly far away 'astonomically far' !!! -  typically tens to hundreds of light-years distant (that’s trillions of kilometres).

 

OK, so the Earth orbits the Sun at 67,000 mph (107,000 km/h) - but that’s absolutely nothing, its negligible compared to the distances involved.

 

To compare and quantify this: 

Earth’s orbital diameter is about 300 million km (the distance light travels in 17 minutes).

The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.24 light-years away - that’s 40 trillion km.
So our yearly movement around the Sun changes our viewing position by only 1/133,000th of that distance.

That minuscule change causes a tiny apparent shift in the positions of nearby stars, called stellar parallax. And we can measure it with high-precision instruments - the star positions shift by less than 1 arcsecond, which is about the apparent width of a human hair seen from 30 metres away. To the naked eye, it’s imperceptible, it is this that you are really struggling with.

In short: the constellations do move slightly due to our motion - but the movement is far too small for human eyes and all but the most sensitive of instruments to measure.

 

As far as the solar system’s motion through the galaxy is concerned: 

The Sun (and us with it) orbits the centre of the Milky Way at about 828,000 km/h (514,000 mph).
One full orbit takes roughly 225–250 million years - called a “galactic year”.

So in human timescales, we’ve barely budged relative to our galactic orbit. The stars around us are moving too, each with its own orbital speed, but since they’re so far away, even those enormous motions translate into tiny apparent drifts over centuries or millennia. Astronomers can measure these “proper motions”, but you won’t notice them in a lifetime.

 

As far as the Milky Way’s motion relative to other galaxies:

Zoom out again -  the Milky Way and our neighbour Andromeda are part of the Local Group, a small cluster of galaxies.

The Local Group itself moves toward the Virgo Cluster at roughly 1.3 million mph (2.1 million km/h).

On an even larger scale, the entire supercluster is flowing toward something called the Great Attractor, at around 2.2 million mph (3.6 million km/h).

Again, everything’s moving - but everything around us is moving together. There’s no fixed point in space; it’s all relative.

 

 

As far as your comment why the sky looks so stable...  Because the stars are so unimaginably far, and because most are moving roughly in parallel with us through the galaxy, their apparent positions hardly change over a human lifetime. The sky is like a distant wallpaper: we’re moving fast, but the wall is so far away that it seems stationary.

Over thousands of years, however, the constellations do change. Ancient star charts show noticeably different shapes - for instance, the “pole star” wasn’t always Polaris. Precession of Earth’s axis (a slow 26,000-year wobble) and stellar proper motion gradually rewrite the heavens.

 

Ultimately, you've asked a dumb question in a clever way, I've answered with science, but I struggle to write these responses due to the sheer absurdity of the questions asked - I didn't know people can struggle so much with such a basic concept of 'astronomical' distances reducing the perception of movement.

 

 

On 10/12/2025 at 5:50 AM, rumak said:

 

blah blah blah .     says the guy that followed the  "approved science"  and took a poisonous shot .   and made the horrible decision to let

them give it to his children. 

 

now that, to me,  represents an outright loonie .     many have taken it and later...if not sooner.... were injured .    You feelin' lucky ?    

I see you still love the ad hominem name calling .   Nutjobs tend to act like that .  repeat and repeat and repeat .   oh, yes, amplified by repitition.

 

btw:  the copied text above is from Smith..... not rattlesnake .

 

 

 

Well Rumak - when you're a nut job... there's little else left to discuss with you... there's a scientific term but I shouldn't really be confusing you with big words.

 

 

 

 

21 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I see... blinded by a different quack theory, you misinterpreted the statements by Barbour, Hawking and Ellis in support of it.    Got it!

 

18 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Not a quack theory but historical facts, which ChatGPTyou are welcome to refute.

Let's see some of those historical facts!  Maybe a typo instead of hysterical facts?

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Ultimately, you've asked a dumb question in a clever way, I've answered with science, but I struggle to write these responses due to the sheer absurdity of the questions asked - I didn't know people can struggle so much with such a basic concept of 'astronomical' distances reducing the perception of movement.

 

I don't struggle with the established model and explanations as you have nicely summarised them. I understand the rationale well and was myself an unreserved proponent of this paradigm for the first four decades of my existence.

 

The avenue I am pursuing in this thread is to balance this model (because this is what it is, a model) against the opposing one, dispassionately and pedagogically. I will strive to illustrate that science does in fact support the geocentric model and that the current zeitgeist could have been entirely different had our ideological bedrock not been subverted as it was in the 16th century.

45 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

 

Let's see some of those historical facts!  Maybe a typo instead of hysterical facts?

 

I have already touched upon it, but will gladly offer a summary in due time.

29 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The avenue I am pursuing in this thread is to balance this model (because this is what it is, a model) against the opposing one, dispassionately and pedagogically. I will strive to illustrate that science does in fact support the geocentric model and that the current zeitgeist could have been entirely different had our ideological bedrock not been subverted as it was in the 16th century.

 

But you are not balancing anything, no matter how hard you strive - you are simply presenting flawed and misunderstood information that has long since been proven outdated, incorrect, and superseded by better, more accurate observations.

 

The geocentric model fails the three fundamental criteria by which scientific models are judged:

- Predictive power: does it correctly forecast observations?

- Parsimony:  does it do so simply, without unnecessary complexity?

- Consistency with evidence: does it hold up against all available data, including new findings?

 

While it once aligned with basic naked-eye observations, it cannot accurately predict planetary positions, stellar parallax, or even satellite orbits without resorting to absurd mathematical patchwork - hundreds of epicycles upon epicycles. The heliocentric model, and later Newtonian and relativistic refinements, explain all of this with elegant simplicity and precision.

So yes, the “geocentric model” once existed - but it is an outdated, falsified relic. Comparing it to modern heliocentrism is like comparing flat-Earth maps to GPS data.

 

Furthermore, science does not support the geocentric model, and hasn’t for over four centuries. Every empirical test of motion - from Foucault’s pendulum to spaceflight telemetry - confirms that Earth both rotates and orbits the Sun.

 

A few clear examples:

- Parallax and redshift show stars at varying distances — impossible under a geocentric framework where all stars would sit on a single rotating shell.

- Relativity allows reference-frame symmetry, yes, but the measurable effects of centrifugal and Coriolis forces expose Earth’s rotation as real, not apparent.

- Global positioning systems (GPS) rely on relativistic corrections for Earth’s motion; they would be utterly inaccurate if Earth were stationary at the universe’s centre.

 

Unless one rejects basic physics, the claim that “science supports geocentrism” is demonstrably false.

 

 

As for the notion that “the 16th century subverted our ideological bedrock”....    that is not science, but revisionist romanticism. The Copernican revolution was no ideological coup; it was a correction born of observation. Galileo, Kepler, and Newton replaced a system of mystical circles and invented forces with one governed by testable, mathematical laws.

 

If ideology had driven the change, heliocentrism would have been abandoned the moment it clashed with scripture. Instead, it endured persecution precisely because its predictions matched reality. The “zeitgeist” did not shift through ideology - it shifted because evidence demanded it.

 

Thus, your attempt to “balance this model” against others is misguided. An intellectually honest approach would present why geocentrism once made sense (no observed parallax, visual simplicity) and then why it was ultimately abandoned (telescopic, mechanical, and later relativistic evidence).

 

Any fair and honest comparison leads inevitably to heliocentrism — because science is not a democracy of ideas; it is a meritocracy of evidence.

52 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

As for the notion that “the 16th century subverted our ideological bedrock”....    that is not science, but revisionist romanticism. The Copernican revolution was no ideological coup; it was a correction born of observation. Galileo, Kepler, and Newton replaced a system of mystical circles and invented forces with one governed by testable, mathematical laws.

 

If ideology had driven the change, heliocentrism would have been abandoned the moment it clashed with scripture. Instead, it endured persecution precisely because its predictions matched reality. The “zeitgeist” did not shift through ideology - it shifted because evidence demanded it.

 

This is the core issue and I will address it in due time.

@rattlesnake

An experience I will never forget.

 

For 50+ years my main transportation has been by motorcycle.

I was raised in an extremely flat agricultural area.  The highways were monotonously flat and straight with little traffic.  At the start of a day long ride along the highway, a train track began to run closely parallel to the roadway.  It happened to have a train on it that day.  The train was traveling the same direction and at almost the exact same speed as I was.  I turned my head to look at the train and after a second or two my perspective changed such that it appeared that I and the train were not moving but instead the intervening landscape was sliding by.

 

Humans are easily misled by appearances; sometimes for only a second; sometimes for far longer.

 

 

54 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

@rattlesnake

An experience I will never forget.

 

For 50+ years my main transportation has been by motorcycle.

I was raised in an extremely flat agricultural area.  The highways were monotonously flat and straight with little traffic.  At the start of a day long ride along the highway, a train track began to run closely parallel to the roadway.  It happened to have a train on it that day.  The train was traveling the same direction and at almost the exact same speed as I was.  I turned my head to look at the train and after a second or two my perspective changed such that it appeared that I and the train were not moving but instead the intervening landscape was sliding by.

 

Humans are easily misled by appearances; sometimes for only a second; sometimes for far longer.

 

 

 

I agree, however your example pertains to a fleeting phenomenon involving observable movement. The issue at hand here is consistent throughout millennia and involves observable stillness (but theoretical movement).

 

I 'came out' as a 'flat-earther' in 2021, after several years of consideration – every single person I have contended with on this issue over the past four years has given me the same type of convoluted explanation involving notions of 'magnitude so great it can't be fathomed'.

 

And this is the crux of the issue: accepting something which is neither observable nor empirically demonstrable in any shape or form for the average human, unlike your example above – which leads us to this dubious process you mentioned yourself, consisting in leaving the understanding and explanation of the heliocentric model in the hands of 'highly trained and equipped individuals' who can overcome the apparent impossibility of the paradigm they advocate through complex, abstract constructs which defy elementary logic (everything around me is perfectly still, yet I am spinning at 1,000 mph + rotating at 67,000 mph + hurtling at 500,000 mph).

 

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I agree, however your example pertains to a fleeting phenomenon involving observable movement. The issue at hand here is consistent throughout millennia and involves observable stillness (but theoretical movement).

 

Millennia is fleeting when concerning the timescale of the cosmos... 

 

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I 'came out' as a 'flat-earther' in 2021, after several years of consideration – every single person I have contended with on this issue over the past four years has given me the same type of convoluted explanation involving notions of 'magnitude so great it can't be fathomed'.

 

Can't be fathomed 'by you...      the scale is difficult to fathom for anyone... 

 

Take Solar Systems in Our Galaxy...  Our Milky Way galaxy is vast - a rotating disc roughly 100,000 light-years across, containing between 100 and 400 billion stars.
Modern exoplanet research (from missions such as Kepler and TESS) shows that most stars have planets. 

On average, each star has at least one planet, and many have entire systems of multiple planets.

That means the Milky Way likely contains 100–400 billion solar systems.

 

 

And Observable Universe??? (everything we can see, limited by the speed of light and cosmic expansion).. its mind-bogglingly large - unfathomably so...  about 93 billion light-years in diameter.

The Hubble Space Telescope once estimated about 100–200 billion galaxies.

More recent, deeper data from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) suggests there may be up to two trillion galaxies when accounting for the faintest, most distant ones.

 

Each galaxy, like our own, contains billions to trillions of stars - and thus, countless planetary systems.

If we take even a conservative estimate - say 200 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars - that’s roughly 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (2 × 10²²) stars in the observable universe.

 

And they revolve around the earth ???????? - really ???

 

But another point...  Our nearest large neighbour is the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) which is abou t~2.5 million light-years away and about 220,000 light-years across (a bit larger than the Milky Way), has about one trillion stars (roughly 2–3 times as many as in our galaxy)... AND...  It’s hurtling towards us at about 110 km/s (250,000 mph).
In around 4.5 billion years, it will merge with the Milky Way to form a giant elliptical galaxy which sometimes dubbed “Milkomeda”....

 

 

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

And this is the crux of the issue: accepting something which is neither observable nor empirically demonstrable in any shape or form for the average human, unlike your example above – which leads us to this dubious process you mentioned yourself, consisting in leaving the understanding and explanation of the heliocentric model in the hands of 'highly trained and equipped individuals' who can overcome the apparent impossibility of the paradigm they advocate through complex, abstract constructs which defy elementary logic (everything around me is perfectly still, yet I am spinning at 1,000 mph + rotating at 67,000 mph + hurtling at 500,000 mph).

 

So... you want comparison: 

 

Earth Compared to Grains of Sand...  If you imagine all the beaches and deserts on Earth, scientists estimate there are roughly 7.5 × 10¹⁸ grains of sand – that’s 7.5 quintillion, or 7,500,000,000,000,000,000 grains.

 

Compare that with the cosmos:

There are an estimated 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

Each galaxy contains 100–400 billion stars.

 

Multiply that out, and you get somewhere between 2 × 10²² and 1 × 10²⁴ stars - that’s 10,000 stars for every grain of sand on Earth.

 

So if every grain of sand on every beach represented a star, you’d still need thousands more Earths full of beaches to represent all the stars in the universe - and our earth is orbiting one of those 'grains of sand'... 

 

Or, as you believe - there's the equivalent of thousands of earths full of grains of sand in the universe orbiting the one grain of sand, that orbits the flat mass that we are on...  hmmm... 

 

 

Struggle with that scale of size and movement, then look smaller, subatomic particles, protons, neutrons, and electrons... not small enough, quarks then...  and it probably gets smaller too, we just haven't got there get....

 

 

Can't fathom it ?...  Of course you can't... most can't, but, the alternative Heliocentric model is disproven....  

 

Or did you mean that its just our solar system where you think the  Geocentric model holds true, and everything else observable in the universe and proven works a different way ?

 

In truth, no system is absolutely heliocentric (Sun-centred) or planet-centric (planet-centred). Every object orbits around the barycentre - the centre of mass of the system... and that mass of the system around something else...  

 

 

 

 

 

On 10/13/2025 at 5:06 PM, rattlesnake said:

The avenue I am pursuing in this thread is to balance this model (because this is what it is, a model) against the opposing one, dispassionately and pedagogically. I will strive to illustrate that science does in fact support the geocentric model and that the current zeitgeist could have been entirely different had our ideological bedrock not been subverted as it was in the 16th century.

LOL.... balance.... gravity provides the balance... not your hopes, dreams, feelings or opinions

 

I know most knowledgeable people just use a shortcut description of our solar system... but technically the sun is not the 'center' of it.  Just like every other celestial system involving orbits, the center of our solar system is actually the mathematical center of mass for the entire system.  That point is currently outside the body of the sun.  ALL planets plus the sun orbit this point.

 

https://youtu.be/Fre1WqHPq_M?si=PGGLrnV0j5cYOvgU

 

Still think the Earth is flat, after seeing the curvature from Space X Starship 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTTN3HWTczI 

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Still think the Earth is flat, after seeing the curvature from Staship X

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTTN3HWTczI 

 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Still think the Earth is flat, after seeing the curvature from Space X Starship 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTTN3HWTczI 

 

The problem with fisheye lenses is that they sometimes start playing up. Love the concave/convex sea in this one.

 

 

 

 

By the way, what's your take on the video below? I posted it before but nobody addressed it.

It is from CNN's official YouTube channel, this was broadcast live on CNN. The ship starts gliding down around the 4:00 mark, this is taken at 50,000 feet. According to Science, the curve is visible at 35,000 feet.

What do you reckon? Is there a secret flat-earther in their staff who found a way to tamper with the footage with Adobe Premiere in order to cunningly push their agenda?

 

 

 

 

Do the flat earth nutters also believe aliens live among us and that Covid was a scam?

 

I must admit aliens do live amongst us in the USA, I was one for a year in New Jersey while I worked there, I had to fill in an alien immigration card before arriving at the airport. 😃

 

 

15 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Do the flat earth nutters also believe aliens live among us and that Covid was a scam?

 

Yes.

On 10/13/2025 at 7:05 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Each galaxy, like our own, contains billions to trillions of stars - and thus, countless planetary systems.

If we take even a conservative estimate - say 200 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars - that’s roughly 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (2 × 10²²) stars in the observable universe.

 

And they revolve around the earth ???????? - really ???

 

On 10/13/2025 at 7:05 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Or, as you believe - there's the equivalent of thousands of earths full of grains of sand in the universe orbiting the one grain of sand, that orbits the flat mass that we are on...  hmmm... 

 

For the purpose of this conversation, the only bodies posited to circle the Earth are the Sun and the Moon.
 

 

On 10/13/2025 at 7:05 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Or did you mean that its just our solar system where you think the  Geocentric model holds true, and everything else observable in the universe and proven works a different way ?

 

It isn't 'proven', it is adapted and integrated to a model, a preestablished construct, a large part of which is abstract.

 

Which leads us to the notion of abstract vs. tangible, and by extension finite vs. infinite.

 

The universe is indeed unfathomable, because we are finite beings. What determines our very existence is finite in nature (birth > death) and therefore we are fundamentally incapable of comprehending the infinite, this notion that there is always something beyond.

 

As finite beings, we have made up all sorts of explanations, throughout time, to attempt to explain the infinite realm that lays beyond our immediate finite environment. Some of those explanations were clever, interesting, outlandish at times, but ultimately, the truth is that we don't have the beginning of a clue.

 

In a way, the heliosceptics are humble in the sense that they prescribe a philosophy limited to the confines of the observable, finite environment and its measurable, unchanging points of reference.

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It isn't 'proven', it is adapted and integrated to a model, a preestablished construct, a large part of which is abstract.

Word salad with no actual informational content that is constructed to suit your views.  Pre-established construct..... what a joke.  Humans over our time on Earth have constructed many idiotic beliefs to explain things about which they had zero knowledge.  Centuries of study have reduced almost every one of those pre-established beliefs to laughing matters.

 

You consider the heliocentric system as unproven because you don't 'believe' the proof.  You cannot refute the proofs other than by pointing to unproven opinions by other non-scientists and non-believers.  A load of last ditch efforts through constant denials doesn't benefit your position.

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

n a way, the heliosceptics are humble in the sense that they prescribe a philosophy limited to the confines of the observable, finite environment and its measurable, unchanging points of reference.

In reality they confine themselves to their own finite universe where actual knowledge is rare.  A weak attempt to bolster your ego which has been knocked around the science debate ring like a towel boy.

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The universe is indeed unfathomable, because we are finite beings. What determines our very existence is finite in nature (birth > death) and therefore we are fundamentally incapable of comprehending the infinite, this notion that there is always something beyond.

Wow... your post is chock full of greatest hits from the nonsense crowd.  Scientists hold the belief that humans will never know 'everything' a 1000 times stronger than you do.  Time for you to grow up and leave your childlike simplifications behind.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Word salad with no actual informational content that is constructed to suit your views.  Pre-established construct.....

 

Ask Grok to explain it to you.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Wow... your post is chock full of greatest hits from the nonsense crowd.  Scientists hold the belief that humans will never know 'everything' a 1000 times stronger than you do.  Time for you to grow up and leave your childlike simplifications behind.

 

 

There are multiple Holy Bible verses showing the scientists are flat out wrong and require remedial training.

 

Upon entering the promised land, flowing with milk and honey, Joshua received Divine assistance and the sun and moon stood still for a 24 hour period to aid in battle against the Amorites.

 

Joshua 10:12.  "Sun, stand thou still over Gibeon and thou moon, stand thou sill over Ajilon.

 

In the globe earth model this could not happen.  Joshua authored the book of Joshua and 3.5 million people eye witnessed it.  

enough said

1 minute ago, Mark Nothing said:

There are multiple Holy Bible verses showing the scientists are flat out wrong and require remedial training.

 

Upon entering the promised land, flowing with milk and honey, Joshua received Divine assistance and the sun and moon stood still for a 24 hour period to aid in battle against the Amorites.

 

Joshua 10:12.  "Sun, stand thou still over Gibeon and thou moon, stand thou sill over Ajilon.

 

In the globe earth model this could not happen.  Joshua authored the book of Joshua and 3.5 million people eye witnessed it.  

Oh dear what a load of old tosh and nonsense........and you REALLY believe it??

 

And it seems as though some of them plainly need to see someome about their strange and weird beliefs!

 

neither, we live in a simulation