Dollar to devalue 30 - 50% within 12 Months, Fuel to Sky-Rocket

IveSeenTheLight

Did anyone here watch "The sky at night"?
It wasn't my cup of tea, but hats off to Sir Patrick Moore for the energy and enthusiasm he portrayed.

If everyone put as much energy and enthusiasm into the things they did, the world would be a far different place.

nearlynew

Cleaver wrote: »

Alright, but whatever it is is based on it's bascially just our 'line of sight', based on a load of stuff moving about, whether that's the Earth, Sun or other stars. We then designate names to constellations and then call it the 'Age of X' depending on the direction of our line of sight at any one time. It obviously doesn't mean anything. It's like me lining up my kettle, toaster, fridge and cooker, then moving around the room and when the kettle is lined up with the toaster declaring that "we're in the Age of the Toaster". Which we would be, but it doesn't really have any impact on anything.

I know, but even the old myths are testimony to human intellect and our ability to understand and predict our movements through the vastness of space.

It's one of the things that separates us from other animals.

Cleaver

nearlynew wrote: »

I know, but even the old myths are testimony to human intellect and our ability to understand and predict our movements through the vastness of space.

It's one of the things that separates us from other animals.

Oh, I completely agree. I am in complete awe of people who can work out this type of stuff, especially when you look at people like Galileo who some how worked out that the Earth was going round the Sun and this had something to do with tides in the 1600s. The 1600s!

Maybe we're both agreeing (for once). I'm just saying that being in an 'age of something' doesn't really mean anything in terms of what happens on Earth. I've just done some googling and there's a load of nutjobs out there who think that massive events will occur when celestial bodies line up, which is obviously a load of rubbish.

Do you not like a good twix? They had a limited edition double chocolate one for a while, Mrs C was well in to that.

JanCee

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Did anyone here watch "The sky at night"?
It wasn't my cup of tea, but hats off to Sir Patrick Moore for the energy and enthusiasm he portrayed.

If everyone put as much energy and enthusiasm into the things they did, the world would be a far different place.

Have you seen Prof Brian Cox presenting the Wonders of the Solar System on BBC2? One of the best factual TV programmes I have ever seen. By the way he dismisses all astrology as absolute b0ll0cks.

IveSeenTheLight

JanCee wrote: »

Have you seen Prof Brian Cox presenting the Wonders of the Solar System on BBC2? One of the best factual TV programmes I have ever seen. By the way he dismisses all astrology as absolute b0ll0cks.

Got to say I've not had the pleasure of watching it.
The wife did say it was pretty good though.

Cleaver

JanCee wrote: »

Have you seen Prof Brian Cox presenting the Wonders of the Solar System on BBC2? One of the best factual TV programmes I have ever seen. By the way he dismisses all astrology as absolute b0ll0cks.

Yeah, it was a rare TV show where we actually sat down each week, turned all the lights off and just quietly enjoyed it. Like what ISTL was saying about Patrick Moore, Dr Cox speaks with a passion and enthusiasm that you can't help but find infectious.

I imagine that they're all on iPlayer for anyone that missed it.

vivatifosi

JanCee wrote: »

Have you seen Prof Brian Cox presenting the Wonders of the Solar System on BBC2? One of the best factual TV programmes I have ever seen. By the way he dismisses all astrology as absolute b0ll0cks.

There's something slightly sexy about Brian Cox. Shame he's ex-boy band fodder.

tommy75

There should be more 'crazy' threads!

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start-here/davids-blog/521-disclosure-endgame?showall=1

Charterhouse

Deflation much more likely than inflation IMO.

nicko33

Cleaver wrote: »

look at people like Galileo who some how worked out that the Earth was going round the Sun and this had something to do with tides

He was wrong though. Kepler got it right.

The Sun does have an effect on the tides, but it's not because the Earth orbits the Sun.
The Moon has a greater effect, because the tides are due to the difference in gravitational pull from one side of the Earth to the other (and because gravity follows an inverse square law with distance; so the greater distance of the Sun means that although the gross gravitational pull of the Sun is greater, the difference of it from one side of the Earth to the other is less than that of the Moon).

wikipedia may be able to explain it more clearly

edit:
1600s, pah!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
In the 2nd century BC, the Babylonian astronomer, Seleucus of Seleucia, correctly described the phenomenon of tides in order to support his heliocentric theory.[32] He correctly theorized that tides were caused by the Moon, although he believed that the interaction was mediated by the pneuma. He noted that tides varied in time and strength in different parts of the world. According to Strabo (1.1.9), Seleucus was the first to link tides to the lunar attraction, and that the height of the tides depends on the Moon's position relative to the Sun.[33]