TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- I dont believe that the US
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

Faith is only unreasonable to those who dont have it

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Faith is only unreasonable to those who dont have it

I'm still writing my reply to Omega_M, but I'd like to hear your words on this

i think orbax is taking the piss lira

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M In my opinion belief is a natural instict embedded in the basic structure of human being just as rational thinking is. How can you say having belief is unfortunate?

The act of having a belief is, in itself, not unfortunate. The problem begins when this belief becomes irrational after being confronted against reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M time comes when in the face of uncertainity, everone puts "faith" into their respective belief. That means they are mixing positive emotions with beliefs to create "hope" for something favorable to happen. You need to put faith in your belief that you will succeed in your endeavor because you don't know a priori whether you are going to succeed or not.

Not necessarily.

That's what the whole point of avoiding the philosophical suicide: the possibility of living without a fixed belief, so you can question yourself freely whenever the reality puts you in doubt.

One of the first demands of a thinker is to be independent not just from the surroundings, but also from himself.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M I would say belief is that which drives everything. People create good and bad things because they place faith in their personal belief and strive to achieve whatever they want. That creates all -isms and all problems and also creates solutions to the problems. Now what causes you to believe in something is an entirely different matter.

The fact that we're here is what drives everything. Sometimes you might act for reasons not related (at all) to belief, such as boredom.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i think orbax is taking the piss lira

You sure? It's just that I remember him as being religious, so I gave him some credibility on that one

i need to think how to reply .haven't really thought on such topics to comment offhand ! I have a feeling my views are different from both of you (Lira and pkcRAISTLIN) But my thoughts are a bit scattered and i need to see how i can put forth my views with some form of justification

Interesting topic.

I think youre confusing faith - an ideology regarding that which cant be known with stupidity - still believing something when all evidence disproves it.

Saying they are the same thing is just as misinformed as those who hold stupidity and ignorance to be a religion

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I think youre confusing faith - an ideology regarding that which cant be known with stupidity - still believing something when all evidence disproves it.

you had better watch out how that definition applies to you

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter you had better watch out how that definition applies to you

You better watch out how my boots gonna be applied to your skull you fuckup

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax You better watch out how my boots gonna be applied to your skull you fuckup

If I were you I'd stop talking.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M In the first place, Earth need not be in the picture at all. It is out there. It just did not get captured in this shot. The sun's out there right ? Do you see it in the picuture ? So does that mean it's not there ?? The reason you don't see any stars: All pictures taken by the astronauts on the moon were shot during the daytime, in glaring sunlight. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon, sunlight is reflected here more intensely than on earth. Therefore, the astronaut's cameras had to be adjusted so that the objects photographed would not be totally over-exposed. The aperture was at a minimum, the exposure time extremely short. There was not enough time for the dim light of the stars to leave a trace on the film. Should anybody take a photo on earth in the black of night using the same camera settings as the astronauts, the results would be equal: no stars.

I'm still skeptical about this but your response seems understandable enough. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nah, i dont buy that. and Enlightenment thinkers would be turning over in their grave to hear you utter such words its simply easier to read a few lines on a nutcase website than it is to do your own thinking and research on the subject. belief is there to fill the void created by ignorance. for instance: see, it sounds like a legitimate question, doesnt it? but Omega_M's reply merely highlights the fact that pvdAngel doesnt know what the fuck theyre talking about. as if nobody would notice the lack of stars but this hotshot detective finally worked it out 40 years later. it just gets tired watching these spotty-faced highschool students parading their stupidity for all to see, just coz they found some weird website that they dont have the knowledge to critique in the first place. (not directed at anyone in particular before any of you babies start crying). rule #1- if youre gonna fly in the face of accepted history and science, have a fucking clue what youre on about. indeed, be a fucking expert on the subject. the amount of work and effort put into landing on the moon would have been ridiculous, yet these armchair QBs sit there and have it all debunked after 5 minutes on www.ihavenofuckingidea.com if these clowns were people of note during the Enlightenment we'd all still be ruled by monarchs and superstition.

OK, I might be a bit of a skeptic and I don't have much knowledge about it, that's why I came and asked. No harm done.

...and drop the patronizing and insulting attitude. It's old-hat.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter If I were you I'd stop talking.

Or what. YOU?

quote:

if this is indeed a 'genuine' photo from the moon landing, i'd love for a rational explanation to the problem presented by that little paragraph.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Or what. YOU?

does talking like that make you feel like a big man?

quote:

Originally posted by pvdAngel ...and drop the patronizing and insulting attitude. It's old-hat.

no.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no.

i've watched a couple of shows about the moon conspiracy and all that stuff... national geographic channel is where it's at


and when i heard all of the theories...i was like yeah how is there no stars...or that seems right...the shadows are wrong.


but they go through and show you exactly what is wrong with each of the conspiracy theories...they didn't just tell you why...the showed you why. it was really interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res if this is indeed a 'genuine' photo from the moon landing, i'd love for a rational explanation to the problem presented by that little paragraph.

Well let's see:
Two points were made.

1) A circular halo is not a true photographic result of pointing camera direcly into the sun.



It looks like the camera is not pointed directly into the sun. As you can see, I've drawn a white line which seems to indicate the camera is tilted with reference to the light. Possibly the camera is housed in some form of protective transparent casing, and the halo is actually caused at the surface of this casing. You can also see that the halo masks the upper part of the vehicle as well. This is another reason to believe that the halo is actually created at a surface between the vehicle and camera.

Ofcourse this is my interpretation. It could be wrong. But sounds more logical than the assumption that it's fake.


2) how is it possible for a camera pointing directly int the sun to have the silhouetted side of the subject LEM to be perfectly exposed ? the LEM should be as black as the shadow

This would be the case if sun was the only source and there was no other source of light in the background. But tht's not the case ! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

As you can see, the sun is off to the left in a picture. It is illuminating the left side of the lander, and the right is in shadow. However, the sunlight falling beyond the lander on the right is being reflected back toward the Sun. That light hits the surface and reflects to the left and up, directly onto the shadowed part of the lander. In other words, the lunar surface is so bright that it easily lights up the shadows of vertical surfaces.This effect is called heiligenschein

As an offside, I checked the photographer who's made these claims. The webiste notes that the guy has a "BA in journalism, interests in art and history and a solid career in advertising behind him" But no degree in Science and hence incapable of interpreting scientific phenomena which do not occur on earth and do not seem rational to people not trained in science.

As you can see, each and every photo can have a rational explaination. The problem stems from the fact that these photos need some scientific explainations since they look kinda odd. Most people are not trained in physics to interpret the photos correctly and come to a ready conclusion that they are fake

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter does talking like that make you feel like a big man?

No, but it makes you look like a woman.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax No, but it makes you look like a woman.

you really are a petty little excuse for a person aren't you.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M 2) how is it possible for a camera pointing directly int the sun to have the silhouetted side of the subject LEM to be perfectly exposed ? the LEM should be as black as the shadow This would be the case if sun was the only source and there was no other source of light in the background. But tht's not the case ! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side. As you can see, the sun is off to the left in a picture. It is illuminating the left side of the lander, and the right is in shadow. However, the sunlight falling beyond the lander on the right is being reflected back toward the Sun. That light hits the surface and reflects to the left and up, directly onto the shadowed part of the lander. In other words, the lunar surface is so bright that it easily lights up the shadows of vertical surfaces.This effect is called heiligenschein As an offside, I checked the photographer who's made these claims. The webiste notes that the guy has a "BA in journalism, interests in art and history and a solid career in advertising behind him" But no degree in Science and hence incapable of interpreting scientific phenomena which do not occur on earth and do not seem rational to people not trained in science. As you can see, each and every photo can have a rational explaination. The problem stems from the fact that these photos need some scientific explainations since they look kinda odd. Most people are not trained in physics to interpret the photos correctly and come to a ready conclusion that they are fake

this explanation is somewhat flawed. by this explanation every vertical or near vertical shadowed surface should also be illuminated. Since the reflected light isnt as bright as the the sunlight, the sunlight should overwhelm the reflecting light and if the LEM is not completely encased in shadow, it certtainly shouldnt stand out as if a spotlight was pointed at the the LEM, which is absurd because that would cause shadows in the other direction or atleast dim the shadows. and illuminate near vertical faces facing this direction.

And assuming the individual is completely uneducated because they dont have a degree in certain fields is crazy. A google search, a wiki search or a trip to a bookstore can educate people in the same ways a college course can, although obviously it would a bit harder to obtain a career with that means of education

I'd still like to know how they were able to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt without suffering from some sort of radiation poisoning either directly or without any long term effects. Certainly the walls of their rockets werent made of 6 feet of lead.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res

quote:

Since the reflected light isnt as bright as the the sunlight, the sunlight should overwhelm the reflecting light

Now that's a speculation isn't it ? it has been noted that moon dust is unusually bright. Therefore it is certainly plausable for the reflections to be bright as well. We can argue the ass off it. But a proper conclusion can only be reached after a complete chemical analysis of the soil and study of the optical principles involved.

Secondly, it has been mentioned that the camera settings were designed to reduce the risk of over exposure. Not to mention the fact that the cameras must have been equipped with filters to reduce solar glare. I cannot comment whether this photo is true or fake. But it certainly cannot be dismissed as fake.

quote:

And assuming the individual is completely uneducated because they dont have a degree in certain fields is crazy. A google search, a wiki search or a trip to a bookstore can educate people in the same ways a college course can, although obviously it would a bit harder to obtain a career with that means of education

A google search, Wiki or trip to bookstore will never substitute for the learning experience of a PhD. Can you substitute the learning experince of someone who;s spent 10 year studying his shit by simply reading books on the subject in your spare time ?? People who've made the lunar mission possible are highly skilled engineers. YOu can criticize their work ONLY if you are an expert in that field and knows what you are talking about.

quote:

I'd still like to know how they were able to travel through the Van Allen radiation belt without suffering from some sort of radiation poisoning either directly or without any long term effects. Certainly the walls of their rockets werent made of 6 feet of lead.

You are free to meet a NASA engineer and let him explain you how that was done. He is in a position to technically prove how that was done. But you should be in a position to understand the math. If you can't then you should simply accept what he's saying as true.

Extensive NASA data and literature is available to researchers world wide for free. If the Apollo mission was fake, an overwhelming majority of researchers would have proved it so.you wouldn't have had to wait for FOX to break the news. And we all know what happened when FOX started reporting election results from Florida. Bush won

Um people. Yes they did land on the moon & were met by aliens.

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=5469

Did any UK TA's happen to see the show mentioned in the link that aired monday night.?

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter you really are a petty little excuse for a person aren't you.

petty little excuse? as opposed to the really meaningful impactful excuses? Youre a redundant person who is redundant aren't you.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Youre a redundant person who is *redundant* aren't you.

isn't the use of second redundant actually redundant ?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.