the flat earth solar system

 Jrowescepti, you still haven't disproved Spectroscopy, a widely practiced science used in millions of labs every day.

Jrowescepti, you still haven't disproved Spectroscopy, a widely practiced science used in millions of labs every day.

are you literate?
aether. affects light. misleads. try to keep up. refusing to compensate for a massive factor (which increases exponentially as you get further from earth) is going to screw up your holy equations royally.
think before you speak. please.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 12:29:35 PM

the sun is more powerful because it is more direct. it never faces away from the earth, and has opportunity to heat the earth up. the moon has little chance to focus: in addition, the friction that causes the heat and light are going to vary between the two. the moon's rotation and instability mean the part taking the friction changes often.

aether explains the planets. it alters the path of light, don't trust the observations made with round earth assumptions.

So no math?  I can show you math that proves that the Moon is as reflective as most rocks, but you are just making assumptions.  Show me math that shows how the Aether that can reconcile with what we observe and then I will take you seriously, until then I will believe that the Earth is round because that has the most math supporting it.

you keep saying that, i see you can't provide. it's not true, deal with it.

it takes years and many people to make detailed scientific discoveries. i am one person with no instruments and governments actively suppressing flat earth science. if i went to a college and asked for some equipment to measure the properties of the aether covering the flat earth, how would they react?
does it make you feel clever, asking for the impossible?

think for yourself. science isn't about the truth, it's about perpetuating existing lies. i can't do what you ask, because no one will let me.

i have answered your question. stop acting like making impossible demands makes you somehow right. you are wrong. deal with it.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 27, 2015, 01:42:45 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 12:29:35 PM

the sun is more powerful because it is more direct. it never faces away from the earth, and has opportunity to heat the earth up. the moon has little chance to focus: in addition, the friction that causes the heat and light are going to vary between the two. the moon's rotation and instability mean the part taking the friction changes often.

aether explains the planets. it alters the path of light, don't trust the observations made with round earth assumptions.

So no math?  I can show you math that proves that the Moon is as reflective as most rocks, but you are just making assumptions.  Show me math that shows how the Aether that can reconcile with what we observe and then I will take you seriously, until then I will believe that the Earth is round because that has the most math supporting it.

you keep saying that, i see you can't provide. it's not true, deal with it.

it takes years and many people to make detailed scientific discoveries. i am one person with no instruments and governments actively suppressing flat earth science. if i went to a college and asked for some equipment to measure the properties of the aether covering the flat earth, how would they react?
does it make you feel clever, asking for the impossible?

think for yourself. science isn't about the truth, it's about perpetuating existing lies. i can't do what you ask, because no one will let me.

i have answered your question. stop acting like making impossible demands makes you somehow right. you are wrong. deal with it.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the government is suppressing flat Earth 'science?' You can do how ever many experiments you want to test your hypothesis. Ask for equipment and lie about what you're going to use it for if you feel like you really have to.

are you literate?

Everyone on this forum is more literate than you. pLUS wE knOW WhEn TO uSe CapitAL leTTERS.

if i went to a college and asked for some equipment to measure the properties of the aether covering the flat earth, how would they react?

Well, since you'd have to put it in writing and your writing is like that of a five year old, not very well I'd imagine.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 27, 2015, 12:20:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 11:42:59 AM

what world are you living on that brown rock visible in daylight is at all like a bright white thing shining at night? texture doesn't make it a rock, the sun is textured too.
sure, if i do a bunch of things to doctor the image it may look similar. similarities are to be expected, the sun and moon aren't gas, they're still solid: they're just metal, not rock (at least, not all the way around).

why are you acting like the fact round earth theory doesn't match what i'm saying is anything to comment on? planets are larger due to thinner aether, the more distant stars are not only through thicker aether, but are closer than round earth fantasy says.
don't make up your own theory, respond to mine.

I know that planets apearong to be so much bigger then stars doesn't conflict with your theory, the part that conflicts with your theory is the fact that aperent magnitude in a given angular area of planets is thousands of times smaller then that if stars.  A perfect example of this is the Sun and the Moon, because they both have about the same angular size.  The Sun is so bright that you can't look directly at it, it heats up the ground and lights up the sky to be bright enough to overpower the brightness of the stars.  The Moon has phases and even when it's full it is dimmer then the sun by a factor of 1,000,000.  The Sun and the Moon are as different as night and day (pun intended).

the sun is more powerful because it is more direct. it never faces away from the earth, and has opportunity to heat the earth up. the moon has little chance to focus: in addition, the friction that causes the heat and light are going to vary between the two. the moon's rotation and instability mean the part taking the friction changes often.

aether explains the planets. it alters the path of light, don't trust the observations made with round earth assumptions.

I was unaware the moon faces away from the earth at any given time, as we never see anything but the same side of the moon. I did notice the moon around 3 in the afternoon today, with only about half the face of the moon lit up.... funny the side that was lit up was facing the sun..... How are both visible in the same sky? and if the moon produces its own light bright enough to be visible in the afternoon, with the sun about 10-15 degrees above the tree line, in full view.... How come I was only able to see about 3/4 of the moon? Moon was about 11 oclock east west and the same offset north south. What was stranger.... is more of the moon slowly became more visible as time went on. It was almost as if the lit face of the moon from the sun became more and more visible as the moon "rose" and the sun "set". Nah, must have been that the side of the moon I couldn't see wasn't bright enough yet to overpower the sun's light, despite the fact that more of the moon became visible despite the same relative brightness outside. Silly me.

aether. affects light. misleads. try to keep up. refusing to compensate for a massive factor (which increases exponentially as you get further from earth) is going to screw up your holy equations royally.

So this magic aether just solves everything, doesn't it.

And you complain about there not being enough evidence for gravity.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 02:10:55 PM

aether. affects light. misleads. try to keep up. refusing to compensate for a massive factor (which increases exponentially as you get further from earth) is going to screw up your holy equations royally.

So this magic aether just solves everything, doesn't it.

And you complain about there not being enough evidence for gravity.

there is evidence for aether

Quote from: kman on February 27, 2015, 06:35:51 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 02:10:55 PM

aether. affects light. misleads. try to keep up. refusing to compensate for a massive factor (which increases exponentially as you get further from earth) is going to screw up your holy equations royally.

So this magic aether just solves everything, doesn't it.

And you complain about there not being enough evidence for gravity.

there is evidence for aether

And you don't list it. List it for us, or it's false.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 28, 2015, 09:43:19 AM

Quote from: kman on February 27, 2015, 06:35:51 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 02:10:55 PM

aether. affects light. misleads. try to keep up. refusing to compensate for a massive factor (which increases exponentially as you get further from earth) is going to screw up your holy equations royally.

So this magic aether just solves everything, doesn't it.

And you complain about there not being enough evidence for gravity.

there is evidence for aether

And you don't list it. List it for us, or it's false.

you don't understand science. i see that now.

something has to accelerate the earth, move the sun. the moon, the stars. it can't be gravity as the earth is flat (proven other means). it goes on, but i see you won't accept any evidence as you repeatedly engage in dishonest tactics. think for yourself, don't just parrot bs.

Quote from: Misero on February 28, 2015, 09:45:01 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 28, 2015, 09:43:19 AM

Quote from: kman on February 27, 2015, 06:35:51 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 02:10:55 PM

aether. affects light. misleads. try to keep up. refusing to compensate for a massive factor (which increases exponentially as you get further from earth) is going to screw up your holy equations royally.

So this magic aether just solves everything, doesn't it.

And you complain about there not being enough evidence for gravity.

there is evidence for aether

And you don't list it. List it for us, or it's false.

you don't understand science. i see that now.

something has to accelerate the earth, move the sun. the moon, the stars. it can't be gravity as the earth is flat (proven other means). it goes on, but i see you won't accept any evidence as you repeatedly engage in dishonest tactics. think for yourself, don't just parrot bs.

I give up. I give up on trying to convince you that science does not work however you want.
IGNORED

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 28, 2015, 09:43:19 AM

Quote from: kman on February 27, 2015, 06:35:51 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 02:10:55 PM

aether. affects light. misleads. try to keep up. refusing to compensate for a massive factor (which increases exponentially as you get further from earth) is going to screw up your holy equations royally.

So this magic aether just solves everything, doesn't it.

And you complain about there not being enough evidence for gravity.

there is evidence for aether

And you don't list it. List it for us, or it's false.

He probably doesn't list it because it's easy as hell to find online with a simple google search.

But since you are so incredibly lazy, I will do the work for you.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

There you go. This video explains a lot. The US Airforce actually repeated the Morley experiment and it was found that aether does exist. This experiment was hidden from the public until it came to light just recently. The original results of the experiment were incorrect due to a number of flawed processes widely used back in 1887. I find it incredibly hilarious that many of you cite an experiment from 1887 as proof of anything. That's like basing your understanding of fire off ancient neanderthal logic.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

There you go. This video explains a lot. The US Airforce actually repeated the Morley experiment and it was found that aether does exist. This experiment was hidden from the public until it came to light just recently. The original results of the experiment were incorrect due to a number of flawed processes widely used back in 1887. I find it incredibly hilarious that many of you cite an experiment from 1887 as proof of anything. That's like basing your understanding of fire off ancient neanderthal logic.

Funny that Nature vol 322 doesn't actually have anything about the experiment on it like the conspiracy loon on the video claims. Always amusing to watch you lot invent support for your ideas, so thanks for this.

The Nature archive: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6080/index.html

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 10:43:45 AM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

There you go. This video explains a lot. The US Airforce actually repeated the Morley experiment and it was found that aether does exist. This experiment was hidden from the public until it came to light just recently. The original results of the experiment were incorrect due to a number of flawed processes widely used back in 1887. I find it incredibly hilarious that many of you cite an experiment from 1887 as proof of anything. That's like basing your understanding of fire off ancient neanderthal logic.

Funny that Nature vol 322 doesn't actually have anything about the experiment on it like the conspiracy loon on the video claims. Always amusing to watch you lot invent support for your ideas, so thanks for this.

The Nature archive: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6080/index.html

Actually it is in there, under 'Special Relativity'. No mention of aether, just Morley.
And it's not an article: it's in correspondence. It's a letter one person sent in: ignoring the fact that the experiment itself has been repeated several times even in recent days, and found no such conclusion.

No mention of aether, just Morley.
And it's not an article: it's in correspondence. It's a letter one person sent in: ignoring the fact that the experiment itself has been repeated several times even in recent days, and found no such conclusion.

The correspondence implies otherwise.

Keep denying evidence all you want. It makes no difference to me.

The correspondence implies otherwise.

Keep denying evidence all you want. It makes no difference to me.

Then the correspondence is wrong. It's by a guy called Silvertooth, what would you expect?
Google the Morley experiment. Even on the wiki page there's a section called 'subsequent experiments', and another called 'recent experiments'.

I'd rather not get into a Vauxhall loop, so unless you have anything meaningful to add, I'm out.

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 02:36:13 PM

The correspondence implies otherwise.

Keep denying evidence all you want. It makes no difference to me.

Then the correspondence is wrong. It's by a guy called Silvertooth, what would you expect?
Google the Morley experiment. Even on the wiki page there's a section called 'subsequent experiments', and another called 'recent experiments'.

I'd rather not get into a Vauxhall loop, so unless you have anything meaningful to add, I'm out.

So "then the correspondence is wrong" is meaningful or constructive? You didn't even give a reason. 

C'mon, BiJane. You should see the connection by now. I'm not the one trying to loop you. You just suck at debating. You make baseless statements with no supporting evidence, like the one above. "You're wrong" is not constructive. If you think it is then you may want to rethink how you approach conversations and debates. Maybe take a debate class?

I'll give you some advice though: you're always going to get stuck in a loop if you keep this up. I've seen this happen several times when other users engage you in conversation. I won't link to all the examples right now, but there are many. Perhaps study them, see what you did wrong, then correct your behavior. Otherwise, no one is ever going to get a meaningful conversation out of you.

So if you can't add anything other than "you're wrong", then I'm out. I don't want to waste my time with your sub-par and juvenile rebuttals.

So "then the correspondence is wrong" is meaningful or constructive? You didn't even give a reason. 

Google the Morley experiment. Even on the wiki page there's a section called 'subsequent experiments', and another called 'recent experiments'.

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 02:47:56 PM

So "then the correspondence is wrong" is meaningful or constructive? You didn't even give a reason. 

Quote from: BiJane on February 28, 2015, 02:39:24 PM

Google the Morley experiment. Even on the wiki page there's a section called 'subsequent experiments', and another called 'recent experiments'.

I can read. I have read the page on that experiment several times. You know why I didn't address that? Because that's not your own opinion, and it doesn't address the correspondence directly. Do you honestly feel good about letting wikipedia do all your work for you? Is that how you exercise your intellectual superiority over everyone? Is this what you did in school? Copy paste a wikipedia article and present it as a paper you wrote yourself?

Unless you're wikipedia now, you still haven't given a reason as to why the correspondence that I linked to is wrong like you claim. If you can present an original thought, then maybe I'll consider it. Until then, learn to think for yourself.

I can read. I have read the page on that experiment several times. You know why I didn't address that? Because that's not your own opinion, and it doesn't address the correspondence directly. Do you honestly feel good about letting wikipedia do all your work for you? Is that how you exercise your intellectual superiority over everyone? Is this what you did in school? Copy paste a wikipedia article and present it as a paper you wrote yourself?

Unless you're wikipedia now, you still haven't given a reason as to why the correspondence that I linked to is wrong like you claim. If you can present an original thought, then maybe I'll consider it. Until then, learn to think for yourself.

I'd rather not get into a Vauxhall loop, so unless you have anything meaningful to add, I'm out.

Let me know once you've matured past the mentality of a 13 year old.

Let me know once you've matured past the mentality of a 13 year old.

Sadly, having a discussion about 'aether' with you does not demand it.

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 03:01:43 PM

Let me know once you've matured past the mentality of a 13 year old.

Sadly, having a discussion about 'aether' with you does not demand it.

It does when one cannot refute aether, and simply cites wikipedia or "you're wrong" as a legitamate rebuttal. It's ironic, because that is FE-caliber debating techniques.

Quote from: neimoka on February 28, 2015, 04:03:27 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 03:01:43 PM

Let me know once you've matured past the mentality of a 13 year old.

Sadly, having a discussion about 'aether' with you does not demand it.

It does when one cannot refute aether, and simply cites wikipedia or "you're wrong" as a legitamate rebuttal. It's ironic, because that is FE-caliber debating techniques.

You can't prove aether either. So whats the need of refuting it?

You can't prove aether either. So whats the need of refuting it?

I provided a piece of evidence that was immediately dismissed by BiJane. Her reasoning: "it's wrong".

Please tell me how that is a legitimate rebuttal. I doubt she even watched the video as she seems completely unable to refute any points made by the speaker. She made up her mind before watching the video and then is working backwards to support this. It would be one thing if she offered a real self-formulated rebuttal to the video, but that was not provided and therefore the video still stands as a legitimate piece of evidence.

If anyone can show me that the man in the video is wrong about what he uncovered, then I will be willing to listen. Citing experiments notated in a wikipedia article is equivalent to me going "read the FAQs". It's lazy and it's downright disingenuous.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 28, 2015, 04:08:57 PM

You can't prove aether either. So whats the need of refuting it?

Citing experiments notated in a wikipedia article is equivalent to me going "read the FAQs". It's lazy and it's downright disingenuous.

But... your signature. Are you lazy and disingenuous too?

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 04:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 28, 2015, 04:08:57 PM

You can't prove aether either. So whats the need of refuting it?

Citing experiments notated in a wikipedia article is equivalent to me going "read the FAQs". It's lazy and it's downright disingenuous.

But... your signature. Are you lazy and disingenuous too?

Sometimes, yes.

Quote from: neimoka on February 28, 2015, 04:03:27 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 03:01:43 PM

Let me know once you've matured past the mentality of a 13 year old.

Sadly, having a discussion about 'aether' with you does not demand it.

It does when one cannot refute aether, and simply cites wikipedia or "you're wrong" as a legitamate rebuttal. It's ironic, because that is FE-caliber debating techniques.

What does it take to refute something that has no evidence for it? Nothing. That's what it takes. Your video explicitly claimed that experimental confirmation of aether was published by the peer reviewed The Nature. This was obviously not the case, there was a letter in correspondence, speculating on the matter. Just like the man on the video was presenting no evidence whatsoever, merely speculating on the matter. So your evidence is where and your point was?

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 04:06:05 PM

Quote from: neimoka on February 28, 2015, 04:03:27 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 28, 2015, 03:01:43 PM

Let me know once you've matured past the mentality of a 13 year old.

Sadly, having a discussion about 'aether' with you does not demand it.

It does when one cannot refute aether, and simply cites wikipedia or "you're wrong" as a legitamate rebuttal. It's ironic, because that is FE-caliber debating techniques.

What does it take to refute something that has no evidence for it? Nothing. That's what it takes. Your video explicitly claimed that experimental confirmation of aether was published by the peer reviewed The Nature. This was obviously not the case, there was a letter in correspondence, speculating on the matter. Just like the man on the video was presenting no evidence whatsoever, merely speculating on the matter. So your evidence is where and your point was?

The same thing could be said about gravity. It is speculation. Speculation is the backbone of science.