The History of Outer Space Programming

[Stravinsk]

You might be wondering why this is in "world religion". If you watch the video I think the reason for it's placement here will become clear - even if one doesn't personally accept the religious implications of the premise through whatever compromise one has made with it. To people who think like me on this subject - the premise is very much a religion. One that everyone in the first world is indoctrinated into.

This is a fairly short video giving the history of space travel/moon speculation since around 500 years ago. First in books, then gradually into other media. The underlying premise in all the works of fiction is the same - today or 500 years ago, and it is all that matters insofar as this particular indoctrination is concerned. Good graphics, storyline, human virtue and interactions are there to lure us in - into accepting (or in most cases reinforcing) the premise. The premise is never questioned, because for people living in the first world and who went to public school, it is and was taught as fact. Therefore the premise to the entertainment seeker is almost always a given and is never questioned. To question it is to fly on the fringes of insanity.


Enjoy:

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

At 5:30 in the video, where is this graphic from? (I know the caption references a book, but I'd like the source for the specific graphic the producers use, if you know)

 

[Stravinsk]

At 5:30 in the video, where is this graphic from? (I know the caption references a book, but I'd like the source for the specific graphic the producers use, if you know)

As I didn't make the video - I have no idea the source of the graphic obtained, whether that be a photo from a book, the internet or somewhere else.

I did a quick search on that French Author for the graphic and found this: http://socks-studio.com/2012/02/13/celestial-mechanics-by-oronce-fine-1549/

 

[Pedrito]

Does that mean that those old black and white movies that I love so much, with bug-eyed monsters from outer space, are not true?

What a let down.

 

[hedrick]

Is this intended to be satire? Perhaps a spoof on creationism claims?

 

[Pedrito]

Pedrito: “Does that mean that those old black and white movies that I love so much, with bug-eyed monsters from outer space, are not true?

What a let down.”


hedrick: “Is this intended to be satire? Perhaps a spoof on creationism claims?”


Pedrito: It originated from light humorousness. (Or lightheadedness. Take your pick.)

 

[Stravinsk]

Is this intended to be satire? Perhaps a spoof on creationism claims?

If you are referring to the content of the video - no, it is very serious.

In case you have been living in *Spinning Globe Media Bubble in the last 3 years or so, then you should be aware that Flat Earth believers are back - and kicking Globularist's butt all over the internet.

 

[psalms 91]

But still not changing the facts nor channging peoples minds

 

[Stravinsk]

But still not changing the facts nor channging peoples minds

If that were true, then videos like the one linked would be overwhelmed with down votes and almost nothing but negative comments. Flat earth videos have literally exploded on youtube since 2014. Try to find some prior to that year.

But I understand, psalms 91. Those things aren't "facts" to you. Just like you'll stubbornly say you believe in the bible but will deny all the verses that point to the earth being the immovable center of the universe, covered by a firmament, in which the luminaries of heaven reside - and who's purpose those luminaries serve is to identify signs,days,seasons as well as give light to the earth. And you'll keep repeating "I believe all that is in the bible" when not even being aware and honest enough to understand that you don't, really. You'll parrot that the moon "reflects the sun's light" and not give it's own - when clearly the bible teaches differently (Matthew 24:29, Isaiah 13:10). You'll say that Joshua was lying or mistaken when he claimed the sun and moon stopped (because it must be a lie if the earth is a spinning ball) - but in the next breath will declare that the story is 100 percent true. Joshua was just dumb or something, and the Holy Spirit was taking a vacation when those verses were written, because even the HS didn't know yet that the earth spins around the sun, not the other way around.

There are 2 threads on this board where you have not given us a hint of intelligent rebuttal to the various evidences of flat earth, psalms. All you seem to be able to do is wax and wane between claiming it's wrong but also saying "I totally believe the bible" while not even being cognizant enough to realize you're not being truthful when you declare that.

Btw - "changing" <-----is spelled like this, without the extra n.

 

[Pedrito]

Many apparently questionable statements (claims) emanate from the realm of astronomy. Here are a couple.

==============================================================================================

Claim: Galaxies which have had supernovae in them are moving away from us more rapidly than those that have not had supernovae in them.

That was stated in a program on astronomy broadcast on Australian cable TV a few days ago (program name not noted at the time).

Question (a). How does that compare with the oft-repeated statement (also made in the same program) that the rate of moving away from us (recession) is predictably related to distance from us?

Question (b). How do astronomers know which galaxies have had, and which have not had, supernovae in them throughout their (billions of years of) history? Might they not all have hosted supernovae at some point?

Claim: We’ll be able to see right back to the Big Bang.

That statement, expressed in various ways (normally in an excited manner), has been noted in a number of TV programs on astronomy. The explanation given is that as we are able to look farther into the cosmos, we will be observing events that happened farther back in time. And that is true. However, it is then concluded that therefore one day we may well be able to see right back to the Big Bang.

Question. How is that possible, when the light from the Big Bang must have travelled away from the point of origin at a faster rate than the generated matter?

No matter how far we are able to “look back in time”, we will be able to observe only that light (from whatever source) that has not passed us yet.

==============================================================================================

Such irrational thinking is necessarily classified as acceptable and inarguable within astronomical circles.

The resulting admixture of scientific observations (some would say, claimed) combined with unsupportable conclusions based on progressions of ideas disgressing from the original observations, leads to doctrines – doctrines that are clung to even when those “acceptable” beliefs cannot explain indisputable “anomalies” – anomalies such as those observed in the Crab Nebula (for instance) – the remains of a supernova observed in 1054AD.

Could the existence of those doctrines indicate that the astronomical community in some ways parallels a religious one?

Could the Flat-Earthers have some justification if they asked: If proclamations about the environment in which our planet exists appear questionable, how can people trust anything they are told about our planet and its environs?