Earth is round, final evidence

Jrowe, you are trying to call everyone else out on making assumptions/ Assertions, but that is all you seem capable of doing. The only things you seem to cite is observations, and even then those observations are only the things that result from the scource (lets use whirlpools) and not the actual scource itself.

Its like saying "the sun and moon are floating in the sky, so there must be whirlpools keeping them up there"

Your not actually observing the whirlpools themselves, but only the things that could be a result of it. And your evidence for them is just more "second hand" observations, which dont count as a scource.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 04:58:54 PM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 05, 2015, 04:51:17 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 04:11:46 PM

Quote from: mrparty on April 05, 2015, 03:54:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 11:30:20 AM

Quote from: mrparty on April 05, 2015, 11:17:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 11:07:18 AM

Quote from: mrparty on April 05, 2015, 10:15:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 09:25:17 AM

Quote from: mrparty on April 05, 2015, 08:24:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:10:01 AM

Quote from: mrparty on April 04, 2015, 04:37:55 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on April 04, 2015, 02:51:16 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 02:43:48 PM

Quote from: mrparty on April 04, 2015, 02:37:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 02:14:40 PM

Quote from: mrparty on April 04, 2015, 02:11:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 01:43:18 PM

Quote from: mrparty on April 04, 2015, 01:32:28 PM

You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.

Exactly. Usually we can tell if photos and videos are faked or not. In this case, the moon landing photos and videos can be seen as authentic, because there is nothing in them that would be from a faked video/photo. It also helps that they come from a trusted source like NASA.

'usually'. you've refuted yourself.
nasa are known to develop and used advaced technology, and the moon photos exist in a different environment, tells would be different. in addition, nasa is far from a reliable source: they had kennedy's promise spurring them on when it comes to the moon landing, and were given billions of dollars. if they turned and announced that actually space travel was impossible, they would be ruined.
they are not remotely reliable.

Do you realize that realistically faking those photos and videos would be harder than actually going to space and taking them? And besides, I'm having a hard time believing that alll those people that are in on this conspiracy and still are able to keep that secret.

do you have any more than assertion?
in addition, under flat earth theory, travel into space is essentially impossible. you would run into the problems of the aetheric whirlpools, which (to an observer on earth) would seem to trap the rocket. after being paid billions and given a challenge, nasa and all such agencies would not admit failure. this is all the more true now people believe it's possible.
not everyone does keep the secret, you just need to look up nasa whistleblowers, you just choose to laugh at the people who deny the moon landing. think about it, would you actually believe anyone who says the moon landing isn't possible?

Yes, I have evidence. We have sent people into space and retrieved photos and videos from them. These could not have been faked because we didn't have the technology at the time to fake it. There are satellites over the moon that can see the flags from the moon missions. I can see satellites go by from the surface of the earth. (I saw the ISS go by last night)

And how do the aetheric whirlpools affect the rocket? Would they just make it explode, or would they force it back down to earth?

nasa are well known for their technological innovations, it takes a lot to say we don't have the technology to fake such photos at the best of times, but all the more in that case. there are many things that can move through the sky, that are not satellites.

aetheric whirlpools, being aether in thicker densities, will push the rockets down with more force than the thinner aether at the level of the earth.

So about the aetheric whirlpools, they will force the rocket to crash, right?

And the technology NASA was building was rocket technology for the most part. Not camera and special effects technology. Special effects didnt really get good until recent years. Especially not to match the quality of the moon landings.

not necessarily crash, it's just impossible to get high.
nasa inveted many forms of technology, i suggest you do your research.

What evidence do you have for aetheric whirlpools, and at what altitude are they at?

And anyway, if all these rockets crashed or the crews were forced to either make an emergency landing or bail, people would know. Rocket launches were widely publicized events.

 Just curious, do you believe that spaceflight is absolutely impossible, or just that we do not have the technology to do it yet?

the evidence is observational: something must be responsible for the rotations of the sun and stars and moon, and logic says the cause of the whirlpools (aether meeting from where it was split at the sides of the earth) would cause several, with different densities of aether.
rocket launches were widely publicized: there were also many test runs, unmanned, which were obviously done with little fanfare, so they wouldn't mess up on their first launch.

i do not know how technology will evolve in the future, your question is unanswerable.

That is not observational evidence. It is you observing phenomena and asserting an explanation based on the properties of something that has not been proven to exist.

i conclude that there must be an explanation for that behavior. if you were familiar with the dual earth model, you would see that aether is proven to exist; it is simply space. this does not need the multitude of assumptions the still not yet fully explained gravity requires, aether takes only logical deductions from the definition of space.

Quote

i conclude that there must be an explanation for that behavior.

But there must be evidence for that explanation. There is none.

Quote

if you were familiar with the dual earth model, you would see that aether is proven to exist; it is simply space.

Space has not been observed to form whirlpools.

Quote

this does not need the multitude of assumptions the still not yet fully explained gravity requires,

Such as...?

Quote

aether takes only logical deductions from the definition of space.

But space does not form whirlpools.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 05, 2015, 05:30:33 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 04:58:54 PM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 05, 2015, 04:51:17 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 04:11:46 PM

Quote from: mrparty on April 05, 2015, 03:54:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 11:30:20 AM

Quote from: mrparty on April 05, 2015, 11:17:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 11:07:18 AM

Quote from: mrparty on April 05, 2015, 10:15:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 09:25:17 AM

Quote from: mrparty on April 05, 2015, 08:24:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:10:01 AM

Quote from: mrparty on April 04, 2015, 04:37:55 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on April 04, 2015, 02:51:16 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 02:43:48 PM

Quote from: mrparty on April 04, 2015, 02:37:26 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 02:14:40 PM

Quote from: mrparty on April 04, 2015, 02:11:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 01:43:18 PM

Quote from: mrparty on April 04, 2015, 01:32:28 PM

You cant crush someone thats too stubbon to change their way of thinking. For all we know, Jrowe will tell us that we need to read his (imaginary) post that explains the whole thing.

if you think the post is imaginary, that says a lot about your intellectual ability. the post i refer to is currently the 'last post' linked to in the information repository, and i always give the page and basic location to refer to.

the stubborn person here is logicalkiller, who i have blocked for refusing to engage in any form of intellectual discusson whatsoever. i suspect he's only coming here to troll and waste everyone's time, he's clearly no doctor of physics like he claims.
as he is blocked i have no desire to read his post, but he's either linking to a refuted argument or video, or blabbing on about something pointless. he apparently thinks he alone is so superior and intelligent that he can destroy a forum and movement that has existed for years in one post, and that he alone is the first person who has thought to make that argument.
pathetic, really.

While LogicalKiller does seem like a bit of a troll at times, he at least backs up his claims with grounded, scientific evidence.

as does every flat earther here. refusing to accept evidence doesn't stop it being there.

Yes, well I feel like round Earthers have much more conclusive evidence like photographs, videos, and studies and experiments that can be repeated by anyone.

photographs can be faked, as can videos, and both can be misleading. studies and experiments are often based either on presupposition, or have multiple explanations.

Actually we now know that photos from Moon COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FAKED.

Exactly. Usually we can tell if photos and videos are faked or not. In this case, the moon landing photos and videos can be seen as authentic, because there is nothing in them that would be from a faked video/photo. It also helps that they come from a trusted source like NASA.

'usually'. you've refuted yourself.
nasa are known to develop and used advaced technology, and the moon photos exist in a different environment, tells would be different. in addition, nasa is far from a reliable source: they had kennedy's promise spurring them on when it comes to the moon landing, and were given billions of dollars. if they turned and announced that actually space travel was impossible, they would be ruined.
they are not remotely reliable.

Do you realize that realistically faking those photos and videos would be harder than actually going to space and taking them? And besides, I'm having a hard time believing that alll those people that are in on this conspiracy and still are able to keep that secret.

do you have any more than assertion?
in addition, under flat earth theory, travel into space is essentially impossible. you would run into the problems of the aetheric whirlpools, which (to an observer on earth) would seem to trap the rocket. after being paid billions and given a challenge, nasa and all such agencies would not admit failure. this is all the more true now people believe it's possible.
not everyone does keep the secret, you just need to look up nasa whistleblowers, you just choose to laugh at the people who deny the moon landing. think about it, would you actually believe anyone who says the moon landing isn't possible?

Yes, I have evidence. We have sent people into space and retrieved photos and videos from them. These could not have been faked because we didn't have the technology at the time to fake it. There are satellites over the moon that can see the flags from the moon missions. I can see satellites go by from the surface of the earth. (I saw the ISS go by last night)

And how do the aetheric whirlpools affect the rocket? Would they just make it explode, or would they force it back down to earth?

nasa are well known for their technological innovations, it takes a lot to say we don't have the technology to fake such photos at the best of times, but all the more in that case. there are many things that can move through the sky, that are not satellites.

aetheric whirlpools, being aether in thicker densities, will push the rockets down with more force than the thinner aether at the level of the earth.

So about the aetheric whirlpools, they will force the rocket to crash, right?

And the technology NASA was building was rocket technology for the most part. Not camera and special effects technology. Special effects didnt really get good until recent years. Especially not to match the quality of the moon landings.

not necessarily crash, it's just impossible to get high.
nasa inveted many forms of technology, i suggest you do your research.

What evidence do you have for aetheric whirlpools, and at what altitude are they at?

And anyway, if all these rockets crashed or the crews were forced to either make an emergency landing or bail, people would know. Rocket launches were widely publicized events.

 Just curious, do you believe that spaceflight is absolutely impossible, or just that we do not have the technology to do it yet?

the evidence is observational: something must be responsible for the rotations of the sun and stars and moon, and logic says the cause of the whirlpools (aether meeting from where it was split at the sides of the earth) would cause several, with different densities of aether.
rocket launches were widely publicized: there were also many test runs, unmanned, which were obviously done with little fanfare, so they wouldn't mess up on their first launch.

i do not know how technology will evolve in the future, your question is unanswerable.

That is not observational evidence. It is you observing phenomena and asserting an explanation based on the properties of something that has not been proven to exist.

i conclude that there must be an explanation for that behavior. if you were familiar with the dual earth model, you would see that aether is proven to exist; it is simply space. this does not need the multitude of assumptions the still not yet fully explained gravity requires, aether takes only logical deductions from the definition of space.

Quote

i conclude that there must be an explanation for that behavior.

But there must be evidence for that explanation. There is none.

Quote

if you were familiar with the dual earth model, you would see that aether is proven to exist; it is simply space.

Space has not been observed to form whirlpools.

Quote

this does not need the multitude of assumptions the still not yet fully explained gravity requires,

Such as...?

Quote

aether takes only logical deductions from the definition of space.

But space does not form whirlpools.

Quote

the evidence for those conclusions is in how few assumptions they require.

It requires many assumptions about the properties of space that cannot be observed to occur anywhere.
Also, limited assumptions are not empirical evidence.

Quote

space has been observed to form whirlpools: look up.

No it has not. I'm looking up and i do not see space forming a whirlpool for no reason.

Quote

it is bad science to say that just because something doesn't happen elsewhere, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Actually, no it is not. If something cannot be observed to happen, then according to science it does not happen.

Quote

i've never seen abiogenesis occur, therefore life must not exist. that's what you're saying.

No, because abiogenesis can be replicated in a lab. http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html

Therefore, abiogenesis is observed.

Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence of common descent that all life came from a single-celled organism, and that proteins could form this single-celled organism, because the mechanisms (evolution, Miller-Urey experiment) for them are observable. There is no mechanism that allows space to have the properties you are saying that they have, nor have these properties ever been observed, so there is no evidence of their existence.

Quote

my conclusions are logical deductions based upon space, it is that simple.

But space is not observed to have these properties.

Quote

i suggest you research gravity. scientists talk about how mass somehow bends space, and that somehow causes the force known as gravity: neither of those assumptions is explained.

These force and mechanism are observed to happen. The properties of space in your theory are not.

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low, and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions. we have been over this. do you realy think repeating yourself over multiple threads is going to make you right?

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low, and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions. we have been over this. do you realy think repeating yourself over multiple threads is going to make you right?

Are you aware that pressure exerts a force which can be felt?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

I did a quick Google search and nowhere did I find mention of this "universal tendency". Even if it did exist, how can space move in concentration if it is not observed to have component parts?

Quote

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

It is not the statement that requires the fewest assumptions if it cannot be proven to exist.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 07:49:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

I did a quick Google search and nowhere did I find mention of this "universal tendency". Even if it did exist, how can space move in concentration if it is not observed to have component parts?

Quote

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

It is not the statement that requires the fewest assumptions if it cannot be proven to exist.

if you really think things don't move from high pressure to low, refresh yourself both in common sense and basic knowledge. there's not really anything else to say.

if you are asserting space doesn't exist, you really need to come up with persuasive evidence.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 07:49:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

I did a quick Google search and nowhere did I find mention of this "universal tendency". Even if it did exist, how can space move in concentration if it is not observed to have component parts?

Quote

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

It is not the statement that requires the fewest assumptions if it cannot be proven to exist.

if you really think things don't move from high pressure to low, refresh yourself both in common sense and basic knowledge. there's not really anything else to say.

if you are asserting space doesn't exist, you really need to come up with persuasive evidence.

Yea, I'm done here. You're either a troll or stupid. Most likely you're both, since you waste your time trolling this hard, scepti

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 12:18:44 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 07:49:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

I did a quick Google search and nowhere did I find mention of this "universal tendency". Even if it did exist, how can space move in concentration if it is not observed to have component parts?

Quote

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

It is not the statement that requires the fewest assumptions if it cannot be proven to exist.

if you really think things don't move from high pressure to low, refresh yourself both in common sense and basic knowledge. there's not really anything else to say.

if you are asserting space doesn't exist, you really need to come up with persuasive evidence.

Yea, I'm done here. You're either a troll or stupid. Most likely you're both, since you waste your time trolling this hard, scepti

last resort of a round earthers. when you realize your position is too weak to justify or explain, you resort to name-calling and buttress your ego with the hope that no one could possibly seriously question your fantasy.
i am not scepti. why are you round earthers so obsessed with saying that? i would not need to create a new account just to share more ideas. i would like my words to be attributed to me, no one else.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 12:35:38 PM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 12:18:44 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 07:49:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

I did a quick Google search and nowhere did I find mention of this "universal tendency". Even if it did exist, how can space move in concentration if it is not observed to have component parts?

Quote

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

It is not the statement that requires the fewest assumptions if it cannot be proven to exist.

if you really think things don't move from high pressure to low, refresh yourself both in common sense and basic knowledge. there's not really anything else to say.

if you are asserting space doesn't exist, you really need to come up with persuasive evidence.

Yea, I'm done here. You're either a troll or stupid. Most likely you're both, since you waste your time trolling this hard, scepti

last resort of a round earthers. when you realize your position is too weak to justify or explain, you resort to name-calling and buttress your ego with the hope that no one could possibly seriously question your fantasy.
i am not scepti. why are you round earthers so obsessed with saying that? i would not need to create a new account just to share more ideas. i would like my words to be attributed to me, no one else.

Keep rambling scepti

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 12:35:38 PM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 12:18:44 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 07:49:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

I did a quick Google search and nowhere did I find mention of this "universal tendency". Even if it did exist, how can space move in concentration if it is not observed to have component parts?

Quote

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

It is not the statement that requires the fewest assumptions if it cannot be proven to exist.

if you really think things don't move from high pressure to low, refresh yourself both in common sense and basic knowledge. there's not really anything else to say.

if you are asserting space doesn't exist, you really need to come up with persuasive evidence.

Yea, I'm done here. You're either a troll or stupid. Most likely you're both, since you waste your time trolling this hard, scepti

last resort of a round earthers. when you realize your position is too weak to justify or explain, you resort to name-calling and buttress your ego with the hope that no one could possibly seriously question your fantasy.
i am not scepti. why are you round earthers so obsessed with saying that? i would not need to create a new account just to share more ideas. i would like my words to be attributed to me, no one else.

Keep rambling scepti

keep living in ignorance, ausgeoff

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 12:35:38 PM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 12:18:44 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 07:49:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

I did a quick Google search and nowhere did I find mention of this "universal tendency". Even if it did exist, how can space move in concentration if it is not observed to have component parts?

Quote

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

It is not the statement that requires the fewest assumptions if it cannot be proven to exist.

if you really think things don't move from high pressure to low, refresh yourself both in common sense and basic knowledge. there's not really anything else to say.

if you are asserting space doesn't exist, you really need to come up with persuasive evidence.

Yea, I'm done here. You're either a troll or stupid. Most likely you're both, since you waste your time trolling this hard, scepti

last resort of a round earthers. when you realize your position is too weak to justify or explain, you resort to name-calling and buttress your ego with the hope that no one could possibly seriously question your fantasy.
i am not scepti. why are you round earthers so obsessed with saying that? i would not need to create a new account just to share more ideas. i would like my words to be attributed to me, no one else.

Keep rambling scepti

keep living in ignorance, ausgeoff

You even respond like scepti. Tell me, have you conducted the experiment I suggested? Have you been able to separate a piece of space time. How about this, since you have a psychic link with the aether, ask it to move in a high concentration in front of you, and record you teleportation. It won't be the least insane thing you've done.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 02:28:45 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 12:35:38 PM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 12:18:44 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 07:49:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 07, 2015, 02:49:38 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 03:20:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 08:30:01 AM

it requires logical deductions about the properties of space, which are common sense. for example, it takes longer to cross more space. it takes less time to cross less space. we also use the common fact that everything moves from high concentrations to low: look at balloons, and heaters.

But space has not been observed to "concentrate" in any form. Space is not the same as the things that exist within space. Space is not a system.

Quote

if you look up, you see celestial objects rotating. that is evidence for a whirlpool

,

But where is the whirlpool? How can you know, how can anyone know that it is this specific thing that causes rotation?. It's not evidence unless you can prove the thing you're supposing actually exists

Quote

"Even if abiogenesis couldn't be observed, it could be inferred by evidence... "
well done. you used your brain. try to make another connection. deduction is a valid way of reaching conclusions. the movement of space is observed daily, the simple fact is you reject any evidence whatsoever because you reject the model on principle. that is simply bad science.

No, I reject it because I can see the effect, but I cannot see the cause. Show me the cause!

what are you talking about? i am not remotely concerned with the matter that exists in space. the cause is the universal tendency to move from high concentations or high pressure to low,

I did a quick Google search and nowhere did I find mention of this "universal tendency". Even if it did exist, how can space move in concentration if it is not observed to have component parts?

Quote

and i know that it is a whirlpool because it is the statement that requires fewest assumptions.

It is not the statement that requires the fewest assumptions if it cannot be proven to exist.

if you really think things don't move from high pressure to low, refresh yourself both in common sense and basic knowledge. there's not really anything else to say.

if you are asserting space doesn't exist, you really need to come up with persuasive evidence.

Yea, I'm done here. You're either a troll or stupid. Most likely you're both, since you waste your time trolling this hard, scepti

last resort of a round earthers. when you realize your position is too weak to justify or explain, you resort to name-calling and buttress your ego with the hope that no one could possibly seriously question your fantasy.
i am not scepti. why are you round earthers so obsessed with saying that? i would not need to create a new account just to share more ideas. i would like my words to be attributed to me, no one else.

Keep rambling scepti

keep living in ignorance, ausgeoff

You even respond like scepti. Tell me, have you conducted the experiment I suggested? Have you been able to separate a piece of space time. How about this, since you have a psychic link with the aether, ask it to move in a high concentration in front of you, and record you teleportation. It won't be the least insane thing you've done.

i have answered that question already, ausgeoff. if you are not interested in having a serious discussion, stop wasting time. it's rather pathetic how you assume someone must be trolling just because the disagree with you.