A pattern

I've been waltzing through the forums for a while and I've noticed a pattern that seems to be occurring.

Most forums are started by RE's and are then replied by FE's. This debate goes on for awhile until a FE Seems to try to 'nudge' The discussion in the wrong direction. With months of carefully monitoring the forums I have concluded that 50% of all FE's Main goal in posts are to change the subject. Also, 30% of posts end with a RE saying something and the post ending.

I also have noticed different behaviours of other users jroa Usually plays with words and then uses peoples confusion about what jroa says and uses that an excuse to say RE's are stupid. jroa sounds like he should wright a book that everyone talks about but doesn't understand a signle word He says in the book. I could quote a ton of stuff from jroa, but I'm sure you can find some just by looking at his posts. Then we have 2 'scientific' people that don't have a degree in science, or anything, but still post 3000 word posts or more, full of stuff they probably don't understand themselves.

I also have found that most FE'ers, 64% of the time use 'aether', a 'theory' that they made up, with no scientific help and probably no actual research to explain everything. If you would agree, most of their algorithms are unfinished or have erros, or have nothing to do with the topic.

From a scale of 1 to 10, I am 10^100% Sure that these patterns do occur, and I will be watching the comments and analysing them. Again, I am a RE'er. I would like to have a debate with everyone, so lets start this debate.

How is Antarctica flat?

Have a nice debate

It's not.

We did not make up Aether.  Einstein discovered it 100 years ago.

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

Einstein discovered it 100 years ago.

Quote from: Albert Einstein

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

Correction: Einstein disproved it 100 years ago. I's a pretty common mistake, don't worry.

Sorry, I shouldn't say disproved. That's sloppy language. Einstein made the aether obsolete 100 years ago.

Then we have 2 'scientific' people that don't have a degree in science, or anything,

Having degree has absolutely no bearing on intelligence. Most all inventions have been dreamed up by average people just tinkering around. Learn to work things out and prove things for yourself. Just take one thing and have at it for a few weeks. If another man can do it so can you.

Correction: Einstein disproved it 100 years ago. I's a pretty common mistake, don't worry.

Are you saying that General Relativity is wrong?

we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

Two sentences later he says "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Good effort, though.

What is wrong with that?  He said that it does not have the same properties that we are used to seeing.  In other words, it is different from anything else.  Big deal? 

Did you read the OP, your replys are quite ironic.

What is wrong with that?  He said that it does not have the same properties that we are used to seeing.  In other words, it is different from anything else.  Big deal?

And my theory is proven.

This has nothing to do with the OP.
Don't blame anyone else, you have you to blame.

Quote from: jroa on December 09, 2015, 10:16:34 PM

What is wrong with that?  He said that it does not have the same properties that we are used to seeing.  In other words, it is different from anything else.  Big deal?

And my theory is proven.

This has nothing to do with the OP.
Don't blame anyone else, you have you to blame.

I addressed disinformation that you specifically claimed in the OP.  You got called out, and now you are mad about it. 

FYI, Aether has never been detected.

FYI, Aether has never been detected.

Neither has Gravity, but you have no problem basing your beliefs on observations of its effects.  Double standard much? 

Quote from: wonkaswilly12 on December 10, 2015, 07:12:29 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 09, 2015, 10:16:34 PM

What is wrong with that?  He said that it does not have the same properties that we are used to seeing.  In other words, it is different from anything else.  Big deal?

And my theory is proven.

This has nothing to do with the OP.
Don't blame anyone else, you have you to blame.

I addressed disinformation that you specifically claimed in the OP.  You got called out, and now you are mad about it.

I don't think you understand this post, This post was explaining how FE'ers try to change the subject, and you can't deny that what you just said has nothing to do with antarctica, or aether, or gravity.

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 07:16:35 PM

Quote from: wonkaswilly12 on December 10, 2015, 07:12:29 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 09, 2015, 10:16:34 PM

What is wrong with that?  He said that it does not have the same properties that we are used to seeing.  In other words, it is different from anything else.  Big deal?

And my theory is proven.

This has nothing to do with the OP.
Don't blame anyone else, you have you to blame.

I addressed disinformation that you specifically claimed in the OP.  You got called out, and now you are mad about it.

I don't think you understand this post, This post was explaining how FE'ers try to change the subject, and you can't deny that what you just said has nothing to do with antarctica, or aether, or gravity.

Pretty much everything I have said in this thread had to do with Aether or explaining why I was discussing Aether.  Perhaps if you do not want to discuss something, you should not bring it up (and lie about it) in the OP? 

Quote from: sokarul on December 10, 2015, 07:21:05 PM

FYI, Aether has never been detected.

Neither has Gravity, but you have no problem basing your beliefs on observations of its effects.  Double standard much? 

No.
Why would you treat both as equals? Observations of the effects of aether don't exist. Experiments setup to detect aether never do. You cannot say the same thing about gravity.

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 07:23:03 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 10, 2015, 07:21:05 PM

FYI, Aether has never been detected.

Neither has Gravity, but you have no problem basing your beliefs on observations of its effects.  Double standard much? 

No.
Why would you treat both as equals? Observations of the effects of aether don't exist. Experiments setup to detect aether never do. You cannot say the same thing about gravity.

Just as many observations of the effects of Aether exist as there are of the effects of gravity. 

Quote from: sokarul on December 10, 2015, 08:03:42 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 07:23:03 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 10, 2015, 07:21:05 PM

FYI, Aether has never been detected.

Neither has Gravity, but you have no problem basing your beliefs on observations of its effects.  Double standard much? 

No.
Why would you treat both as equals? Observations of the effects of aether don't exist. Experiments setup to detect aether never do. You cannot say the same thing about gravity.

Just as many observations of the effects of Aether exist as there are of the effects of gravity.

Please name an observation that we see that can only be explained (or at least better explained) by Aether instead of a round earth. Just one, any more would be gravy.

Quote from: sokarul on December 10, 2015, 08:03:42 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 07:23:03 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 10, 2015, 07:21:05 PM

FYI, Aether has never been detected.

Neither has Gravity, but you have no problem basing your beliefs on observations of its effects.  Double standard much? 

No.
Why would you treat both as equals? Observations of the effects of aether don't exist. Experiments setup to detect aether never do. You cannot say the same thing about gravity.

Just as many observations of the effects of Aether exist as there are of the effects of gravity.

Holy crap I laughed so hard when I heard this.
I've never heard of aether until I looked at this forums for the first time, plus gravity is seen in action in almost everything. I can name tons of stuff that use gravity in it, and can name about 2 that use aether, so If you would like to add to my list, thats fine.

Diclaimer: These are both theory's I am not implying tha either one exists, I'm just saying I believe in gravity

Uses of aether: FE DE

Uses of gravity: Things falling
Black holes
Shape of the earth
Shape of any other thing in the universe that is planet sized
Why things in space float and things here don't
Water tides
Orbits
Getting tired just by standing up
And lots of other things I'm sure a quick google search will find 

Why things in space float and things here don't

That's a really sloppy way to say it. You should say objects closer to a massive body have a greater acceleration towards that body than objects farther away from the body.

Getting tired just by standing up

Again, that's a really sloppy way of putting it. A better way to put it would be that objects near a massive body have a constant acceleration towards the body (as long as they stay the same distance away) and that it takes work to increase an object's distance from a massive body.

Wait, OP asked how is Antarctica is flat, not about Aether. Though a would like my request fulfilled and then we can talk about Antarctica.

Quote from: wonkaswilly12 on December 10, 2015, 08:58:27 PM

Why things in space float and things here don't

That's a really sloppy way to say it. You should say objects closer to a massive body have a greater acceleration towards that body than objects farther away from the body.

Things are not claimed to float around the space station or shuttle because they are far from the Earth.  They are claimed to float because they are in free fall.

Wait, OP asked how is Antarctica is flat, not about Aether. Though a would like my request fulfilled and then we can talk about Antarctica.

The OP made deceitful claims about Aether.  I called him out on his lies. 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 09:22:18 PM

Wait, OP asked how is Antarctica is flat, not about Aether. Though a would like my request fulfilled and then we can talk about Antarctica.

The OP made deceitful claims about Aether.  I called him out on his lies.

So can you name a specific observation that we see that can only be explained (or better explained) by Aether instead of a round earth?

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 09:28:30 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 09:22:18 PM

Wait, OP asked how is Antarctica is flat, not about Aether. Though a would like my request fulfilled and then we can talk about Antarctica.

The OP made deceitful claims about Aether.  I called him out on his lies.

So can you name a specific observation that we see that can only be explained (or better explained) by Aether instead of a round earth?

General Relativity.  If you want more specific answers, then make your own thread about it so this thread is not derailed anymore. 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 09:34:48 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 09:28:30 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 09:22:18 PM

Wait, OP asked how is Antarctica is flat, not about Aether. Though a would like my request fulfilled and then we can talk about Antarctica.

The OP made deceitful claims about Aether.  I called him out on his lies.

So can you name a specific observation that we see that can only be explained (or better explained) by Aether instead of a round earth?

General Relativity.  If you want more specific answers, then make your own thread about it so this thread is not derailed anymore.

General relativity doesn't prove aether, and it infact disproves it, I'd love to see Something from general relativity that actually states that aether exists

Quote from: Poko on December 10, 2015, 09:10:21 PM

Quote from: wonkaswilly12 on December 10, 2015, 08:58:27 PM

Why things in space float and things here don't

That's a really sloppy way to say it. You should say objects closer to a massive body have a greater acceleration towards that body than objects farther away from the body.

Things are not claimed to float around the space station or shuttle because they are far from the Earth.  They are claimed to float because they are in free fall.

Right, which is why saying "things in space float" is incredibly imprecise.

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 09:39:35 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 09:34:48 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 09:28:30 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 09:22:18 PM

Wait, OP asked how is Antarctica is flat, not about Aether. Though a would like my request fulfilled and then we can talk about Antarctica.

The OP made deceitful claims about Aether.  I called him out on his lies.

So can you name a specific observation that we see that can only be explained (or better explained) by Aether instead of a round earth?

General Relativity.  If you want more specific answers, then make your own thread about it so this thread is not derailed anymore.

General relativity doesn't prove aether, and it infact disproves it, I'd love to see Something from general relativity that actually states that aether exists

I was not asked for proof.  I was asked for observations.  And try telling Einstein that General Relativity is not dependent on Aethor theory. 

Anyway, there is a new thread in the debate forum specifically for discussing this topic.

Quote from: wonkaswilly12 on December 10, 2015, 09:56:07 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 09:39:35 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 09:34:48 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 10, 2015, 09:28:30 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 10, 2015, 09:22:18 PM

Wait, OP asked how is Antarctica is flat, not about Aether. Though a would like my request fulfilled and then we can talk about Antarctica.

The OP made deceitful claims about Aether.  I called him out on his lies.

So can you name a specific observation that we see that can only be explained (or better explained) by Aether instead of a round earth?

General Relativity.  If you want more specific answers, then make your own thread about it so this thread is not derailed anymore.

General relativity doesn't prove aether, and it infact disproves it, I'd love to see Something from general relativity that actually states that aether exists

I was not asked for proof.  I was asked for observations.  And try telling Einstein that General Relativity is not dependent on Aethor theory. 

Anyway, there is a new thread in the debate forum specifically for discussing this topic.

Nice, try and turn us away from the thread. This still proves what i said in the OP