Infinite Energy!

So when can we go and get our Utopian society? But seriously, is the UA infinite energy? What is it's origins? (It's not Phlogiston, as there is no sample of it to be found, therefore it does not exist until proven so.) It must have some constant fuel, right? All these holes upon lack of evidence destroys the UA.

i have several theories, none of which are worth sharing with the likes of you. i do not have evidence for any particular one, they are only ideas.
the simplest would be that there is not infinite energy, the aether is slowing, just incredibly, incredibly slowly: as it is vast, maintains a vast amount of power, and little exists that seriously resists it. the earth is tiny compared to it.
another is that aether is a tachyonic substance, and does indeed run out of energy, but does so backwards in time (its end goal being to become one again, as it was in our past).
as i said, i do not have evidence. evidence is impossible to attain on these matters, even for round earthers. why do you ask questions that are known to be impossible? also, why do you expect flat earthers to have a perfectly outlined theory when the scientific community refuses to let us engage in serious experiment to verify what we say?
you are being foolish.

however, let me answer your question with a question: why, in the round earth model, does the universe keep accelerating outwards? please provide evidence for your answer.

just because not every part of a theory is fully known, especially by those people who have the truth hidden from them, does not make it false. if that were true, you have discredited your own fantasy. you are asking the exact same question even round earthers can't make up an answer to.

i have several theories, none of which are worth sharing with the likes of you. i do not have evidence for any particular one, they are only ideas.
the simplest would be that there is not infinite energy, the aether is slowing, just incredibly, incredibly slowly: as it is vast, maintains a vast amount of power, and little exists that seriously resists it. the earth is tiny compared to it.
another is that aether is a tachyonic substance, and does indeed run out of energy, but does so backwards in time (its end goal being to become one again, as it was in our past).
as i said, i do not have evidence. evidence is impossible to attain on these matters, even for round earthers. why do you ask questions that are known to be impossible? also, why do you expect flat earthers to have a perfectly outlined theory when the scientific community refuses to let us engage in serious experiment to verify what we say?
you are being foolish.

however, let me answer your question with a question: why, in the round earth model, does the universe keep accelerating outwards? please provide evidence for your answer.

just because not every part of a theory is fully known, especially by those people who have the truth hidden from them, does not make it false. if that were true, you have discredited your own fantasy. you are asking the exact same question even round earthers can't make up an answer to.

The scientific community is not preventing you to look up at the sky with a telescope and seeing the ISS. I've done it before. It was actually pretty cool. A lack of evidence falsifies any notion.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 28, 2015, 10:36:29 AM

i have several theories, none of which are worth sharing with the likes of you. i do not have evidence for any particular one, they are only ideas.
the simplest would be that there is not infinite energy, the aether is slowing, just incredibly, incredibly slowly: as it is vast, maintains a vast amount of power, and little exists that seriously resists it. the earth is tiny compared to it.
another is that aether is a tachyonic substance, and does indeed run out of energy, but does so backwards in time (its end goal being to become one again, as it was in our past).
as i said, i do not have evidence. evidence is impossible to attain on these matters, even for round earthers. why do you ask questions that are known to be impossible? also, why do you expect flat earthers to have a perfectly outlined theory when the scientific community refuses to let us engage in serious experiment to verify what we say?
you are being foolish.

however, let me answer your question with a question: why, in the round earth model, does the universe keep accelerating outwards? please provide evidence for your answer.

just because not every part of a theory is fully known, especially by those people who have the truth hidden from them, does not make it false. if that were true, you have discredited your own fantasy. you are asking the exact same question even round earthers can't make up an answer to.

The scientific community is not preventing you to look up at the sky with a telescope and seeing the ISS. I've done it before. It was actually pretty cool. A lack of evidence falsifies any notion.

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

Most of these clowns don't even own a telescope let alone know what they're looking at. They are full of bullshit and arguing for the sake of it.
I can't be arsed with them anymore. I'm just going to stick to seeing what real free thinkers have to say as well as putting my own stuff up for free thinkers to look into.

Quote from: Misero on February 28, 2015, 10:42:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 28, 2015, 10:36:29 AM

i have several theories, none of which are worth sharing with the likes of you. i do not have evidence for any particular one, they are only ideas.
the simplest would be that there is not infinite energy, the aether is slowing, just incredibly, incredibly slowly: as it is vast, maintains a vast amount of power, and little exists that seriously resists it. the earth is tiny compared to it.
another is that aether is a tachyonic substance, and does indeed run out of energy, but does so backwards in time (its end goal being to become one again, as it was in our past).
as i said, i do not have evidence. evidence is impossible to attain on these matters, even for round earthers. why do you ask questions that are known to be impossible? also, why do you expect flat earthers to have a perfectly outlined theory when the scientific community refuses to let us engage in serious experiment to verify what we say?
you are being foolish.

however, let me answer your question with a question: why, in the round earth model, does the universe keep accelerating outwards? please provide evidence for your answer.

just because not every part of a theory is fully known, especially by those people who have the truth hidden from them, does not make it false. if that were true, you have discredited your own fantasy. you are asking the exact same question even round earthers can't make up an answer to.

The scientific community is not preventing you to look up at the sky with a telescope and seeing the ISS. I've done it before. It was actually pretty cool. A lack of evidence falsifies any notion.

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

Most of these clowns don't even own a telescope let alone know what they're looking at. They are full of bullshit and arguing for the sake of it.
I can't be arsed with them anymore. I'm just going to stick to seeing what real free thinkers have to say as well as putting my own stuff up for free thinkers to look into.

OK, good. None of us wanted you here anyway. I can at least keep my signature.
I own an Orion telescope, I can get you a picture of it if you want. And it's not one of those flimsy tube telescope that are about 3 cm in diameter, I think it's around 8 cm in diameter. The moon looks pretty good up close. Obviously I'm not using it around this time, as it's negative 12 degrees at the right time for astronomy, but when things warm up, I'll be sure to conduct mikeman's experiment again. Repeated results from two completely unconnected people who live miles away from each other is pretty hard to fake.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

Quote from: Misero on February 28, 2015, 10:42:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 28, 2015, 10:36:29 AM

i have several theories, none of which are worth sharing with the likes of you. i do not have evidence for any particular one, they are only ideas.
the simplest would be that there is not infinite energy, the aether is slowing, just incredibly, incredibly slowly: as it is vast, maintains a vast amount of power, and little exists that seriously resists it. the earth is tiny compared to it.
another is that aether is a tachyonic substance, and does indeed run out of energy, but does so backwards in time (its end goal being to become one again, as it was in our past).
as i said, i do not have evidence. evidence is impossible to attain on these matters, even for round earthers. why do you ask questions that are known to be impossible? also, why do you expect flat earthers to have a perfectly outlined theory when the scientific community refuses to let us engage in serious experiment to verify what we say?
you are being foolish.

however, let me answer your question with a question: why, in the round earth model, does the universe keep accelerating outwards? please provide evidence for your answer.

just because not every part of a theory is fully known, especially by those people who have the truth hidden from them, does not make it false. if that were true, you have discredited your own fantasy. you are asking the exact same question even round earthers can't make up an answer to.

The scientific community is not preventing you to look up at the sky with a telescope and seeing the ISS. I've done it before. It was actually pretty cool. A lack of evidence falsifies any notion.

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

You need to stop using the word "theories". These are untested notions at best.

You need to stop using the word "theories". These are untested notions at best.

try to stay on topic.
you made a bs claim about infinite energy, ignoring the fact your round earther fantasies still don't explain why the universe is accelerating in any more detail than "but uh"
admit it. you were wrong.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

And how do these things refuel? They must have a fuel source.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:03:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

And how do these things refuel? They must have a fuel source.

still sore about how your original post has been utterly destroyed?

fuel is taken up. pretty simple. it's easier with balloons, they just need to be reached. see the fantasy space shuttles. a white balloon brings supplies.

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 09:31:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:03:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

And how do these things refuel? They must have a fuel source.

still sore about how your original post has been utterly destroyed?

fuel is taken up. pretty simple. it's easier with balloons, they just need to be reached. see the fantasy space shuttles. a white balloon brings supplies.

Also, since gases do not cover the earth, how do the balloons work?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:33:06 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 09:31:21 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:03:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

And how do these things refuel? They must have a fuel source.

still sore about how your original post has been utterly destroyed?

fuel is taken up. pretty simple. it's easier with balloons, they just need to be reached. see the fantasy space shuttles. a white balloon brings supplies.

Also, since gases do not cover the earth, how do the balloons work?

they ascend until they reach a level of aether too dense to travel through. viscosity might be a better term for aether, but denseness is easier to imagine.
they rise because aether wants to combine until it is all the one, same density again (like it was at the start of the universe) and all matter is a product of aether. helium and hydrogen, the lightest molecules, are the closest to aether, and still possess some of its traits, so are attracted upwards to the denser currents.

Most of these clowns don't even own a telescope let alone know what they're looking at. They are full of bullshit and arguing for the sake of it.
I can't be arsed with them anymore. I'm just going to stick to seeing what real free thinkers have to say as well as putting my own stuff up for free thinkers to look into.

I own a telescope, Dephelis owns a telescope, and I know of quite a few more round eartgers on this forum who own and regularly use a telescope.  Name one flat earther that owns a telescope, I bet you can't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2015, 06:03:08 AM

Most of these clowns don't even own a telescope let alone know what they're looking at. They are full of bullshit and arguing for the sake of it.
I can't be arsed with them anymore. I'm just going to stick to seeing what real free thinkers have to say as well as putting my own stuff up for free thinkers to look into.

I own a telescope, Dephelis owns a telescope, and I know of quite a few more round eartgers on this forum who own and regularly use a telescope.  Name one flat earther that owns a telescope, I bet you can't.

And you can get a half-decent telescope capable of seeing the moon well and the moons of Venus, for around $30-$50. Not that hard to get one.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 01, 2015, 09:39:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2015, 06:03:08 AM

Most of these clowns don't even own a telescope let alone know what they're looking at. They are full of bullshit and arguing for the sake of it.
I can't be arsed with them anymore. I'm just going to stick to seeing what real free thinkers have to say as well as putting my own stuff up for free thinkers to look into.

I own a telescope, Dephelis owns a telescope, and I know of quite a few more round eartgers on this forum who own and regularly use a telescope.  Name one flat earther that owns a telescope, I bet you can't.

And you can get a half-decent telescope capable of seeing the moon well and the moons of Venus, for around $30-$50. Not that hard to get one.

I think you mean Jupiter. Venus is sadly bereft of moons.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

In these remarks you sound even more like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. How do you accelerate a balloon? How fast can it move? How do you predict the progress of a balloon over long distances?

We can say that gravity does work because we can study its effects. We can study and understand how gravity affects matter even if we don't know why. Where's the problem?

Can you feel warmth from the Sun even if you don't know why it produces the heat, or would you insist that isn't really warmth because you don't know what's causing it?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:03:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

In these remarks you sound even more like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. How do you accelerate a balloon? How fast can it move? How do you predict the progress of a balloon over long distances?

We can say that gravity does work because we can study its effects. We can study and understand how gravity affects matter even if we don't know why. Where's the problem?

Can you feel warmth from the Sun even if you don't know why it produces the heat, or would you insist that isn't really warmth because you don't know what's causing it?

it's not that hard to guide a balloon, or accelerate it. it doesn't need to exclusively be a balloon. i'm not going to run over every possible blueprint. you seem to think yourself intelligent, so try thinkig for yourself, for once.

so, by your logic, it is acceptable for me to say the aether exists because i can study its effects. thank you.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 12:19:14 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:03:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

In these remarks you sound even more like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. How do you accelerate a balloon? How fast can it move? How do you predict the progress of a balloon over long distances?

We can say that gravity does work because we can study its effects. We can study and understand how gravity affects matter even if we don't know why. Where's the problem?

Can you feel warmth from the Sun even if you don't know why it produces the heat, or would you insist that isn't really warmth because you don't know what's causing it?

it's not that hard to guide a balloon, or accelerate it. it doesn't need to exclusively be a balloon. i'm not going to run over every possible blueprint. you seem to think yourself intelligent, so try thinkig for yourself, for once.

so, by your logic, it is acceptable for me to say the aether exists because i can study its effects. thank you.

Aether doesn't have any predictable, replicatable effects.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 12:23:08 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 12:19:14 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:03:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

In these remarks you sound even more like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. How do you accelerate a balloon? How fast can it move? How do you predict the progress of a balloon over long distances?

We can say that gravity does work because we can study its effects. We can study and understand how gravity affects matter even if we don't know why. Where's the problem?

Can you feel warmth from the Sun even if you don't know why it produces the heat, or would you insist that isn't really warmth because you don't know what's causing it?

it's not that hard to guide a balloon, or accelerate it. it doesn't need to exclusively be a balloon. i'm not going to run over every possible blueprint. you seem to think yourself intelligent, so try thinkig for yourself, for once.

so, by your logic, it is acceptable for me to say the aether exists because i can study its effects. thank you.

Aether doesn't have any predictable, replicatable effects.

'air' resistance? the force accelerating the earth and keeping us on its surface?
just because you reject aether doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

Quote from: kman on March 01, 2015, 12:40:47 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 12:23:08 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 12:19:14 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 09:03:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 08:18:48 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:10:36 AM

Quote from: Misero on March 01, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:00:05 AM

wow, something in the sky, that must mean the earth is round and gravity is real. honestly, think.

What is that obviously man-made object lying just outside the atmosphere? It sure looks like those "CGI" photos of the ISS! Gravity must be real, as it is moving around the earth with no obvious propulsion. It must be in orbit, then, proving gravity exists. The ISS is curving ever so slightly downwards, which appears amplified than it would be from on the surface due to it's height.

you know that pretending it's outside the atmosphere doesn't mean it is, right?
there are many possibilities. it could be a helicopter, a styled plane: humans are capable of flight. i favor the idea that it is a balloon, and the iss we see is the design of the top, a fiction made to give gullible people like you something to gesture at and refuse to think for yourself. balloons, with supply trips up, can go indefinitely.
the universe is being accelerated upwards by aether, this is the effect you refer to. it is not gravity. what makes mass so magic that is just sucks things closer? the scientific theory is some bs about bending space time and matter going down the bends, and that is total nonsense unless gravity already exists. there is no coherency to the fiction of gravity.

i notice also that you have given up on the topic of this thread. are you evading, or do you admit you were wrong?

You know that pretending the ISS is a balloon doesn't mean it is, right?

In your remarks you sound like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. The simple fact that the ISS is visible for hundreds of miles on either side of its predicted ground track, and always at the predicted angles, is evidence of its altitude, which is hundreds of km higher than the part of the atmosphere reachable by aircraft and balloons. How far away are objects flying (or floating) in the atmosphere visible? How fast (or slow, in the case of balloons) do they appear to move?

No one yet knows why mass attracts mass (or, if you prefer, why mass causes spacetime to be distorted, which is simply another way to look at the same effect). The fact that mass does attract mass and the properties of the resulting force, however, are well demonstrated, well understood, and coherently explained. After all, you don't need to know why the Sun emits so much energy to recognize that it does, and with some experiments, measure how much. On the other hand, no one knows anything of the nature of your postulated aether, and experiments to detect it have consistently failed. I'll take the well characterized force, even if not completely understood, to the one that's backed only by arm waving. Your beliefs mean nothing unless you can back them up with meaningful data.

balloons float and move, and can be accelerated. it isn't hard to predict progress. your post is pointless.

so it's acceptable for round earthers to say "we don't know anything about by this actually works, we're just going to say it does," and not acceptable for me to say "we don't know the details of this because no one honest has been given the means to work it out, but we know it does because something has to be behind what we observe."
acceleration is far better understood than gravity. until you can be honest, try not to speak up.

In these remarks you sound even more like someone who has never seen the ISS move across the sky, never seen a balloon in flight, or both. How do you accelerate a balloon? How fast can it move? How do you predict the progress of a balloon over long distances?

We can say that gravity does work because we can study its effects. We can study and understand how gravity affects matter even if we don't know why. Where's the problem?

Can you feel warmth from the Sun even if you don't know why it produces the heat, or would you insist that isn't really warmth because you don't know what's causing it?

it's not that hard to guide a balloon, or accelerate it. it doesn't need to exclusively be a balloon. i'm not going to run over every possible blueprint. you seem to think yourself intelligent, so try thinkig for yourself, for once.

so, by your logic, it is acceptable for me to say the aether exists because i can study its effects. thank you.

Aether doesn't have any predictable, replicatable effects.

'air' resistance? the force accelerating the earth and keeping us on its surface?
just because i reject gravity doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

fixed

'air' resistance? the force accelerating the earth and keeping us on its surface?
just because you reject aether doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

So it's air now, not aether? That should make studying it easier; at least air has been detected. The downside is it's going to lose a lot of the more interesting properties a proper aether would need in order to do things like accelerate the world to approach the speed of light.

Why does the acceleration we attribute to gravity, but you attribute to aether air acceleration of the entire earth from below, vary from place to place on earth? How would aether air cause that? Why hasn't the Earth been torn apart due to those even slight variations applied over long periods, like weeks?

Dive in. Do experiments on your aether or air, or whatever you decide it is next. See if you can actually measure something about it and not just hypothesize and pontificate.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 12:51:20 PM

'air' resistance? the force accelerating the earth and keeping us on its surface?
just because you reject aether doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

So it's air now, not aether? That should make studying it easier; at least air has been detected. The downside is it's going to lose a lot of the more interesting properties a proper aether would need in order to do things like accelerate the world to approach the speed of light.

Why does the acceleration we attribute to gravity, but you attribute to aether air acceleration of the entire earth from below, vary from place to place on earth? How would aether air cause that? Why hasn't the Earth been torn apart due to those even slight variations applied over long periods, like weeks?

Dive in. Do experiments on your aether or air, or whatever you decide it is next. See if you can actually measure something about it and not just hypothesize and pontificate.

the density of aether closest to the earth is very different to the aether detected higher up. i said this. please try to read. it is part of aether, it does not have the properties of the whole. we know aether affects physical entities (it accelerates the earth), that is about all we can say.

higher up, further densities of aether meet in a whirlpool. one such whirlpool explains the movements of the sun and moon. a thinner whirlpool meets mountain tops, this disrupts attempts to read the acceleration. the aether has an almost brownian effect, imparting a slight upwards force as it rushes inward (aether wishes to reunite with itself, to fill in to become one again, hence the slight upward tilt toward the higher densities).

i have experimented, and i've given some examples, hence my conclusion air is a fantasy. i outline this in detail in my thread 'why we cannot trust scientists'.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 01:17:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 12:51:20 PM

'air' resistance? the force accelerating the earth and keeping us on its surface?
just because you reject aether doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

So it's air now, not aether? That should make studying it easier; at least air has been detected. The downside is it's going to lose a lot of the more interesting properties a proper aether would need in order to do things like accelerate the world to approach the speed of light.

Why does the acceleration we attribute to gravity, but you attribute to aether air acceleration of the entire earth from below, vary from place to place on earth? How would aether air cause that? Why hasn't the Earth been torn apart due to those even slight variations applied over long periods, like weeks?

Dive in. Do experiments on your aether or air, or whatever you decide it is next. See if you can actually measure something about it and not just hypothesize and pontificate.

the density of aether closest to the earth is very different to the aether detected higher up. i said this. please try to read. it is part of aether, it does not have the properties of the whole. we know aether affects physical entities (it accelerates the earth), that is about all we can say.

higher up, further densities of aether meet in a whirlpool. one such whirlpool explains the movements of the sun and moon. a thinner whirlpool meets mountain tops, this disrupts attempts to read the acceleration. the aether has an almost brownian effect, imparting a slight upwards force as it rushes inward (aether wishes to reunite with itself, to fill in to become one again, hence the slight upward tilt toward the higher densities).

i have experimented, and i've given some examples, hence my conclusion air is a fantasy. i outline this in detail in my thread 'why we cannot trust scientists'.

How dense is the aether you've detected higher up? How did you make that determination?

So you "know" that aether affects matter, you just don't know why or in what way? How is that better than gravity? At least with gravity we have measured the "in what way" part very thoroughly and can use it to make very precise predictions that prove to be accurate.

What is the density change between the "higher up" aether and the "even higher up" aether where the whirlpools form? How did you measure that change in density? How does the "thinner whirlpool" at the mountaintops "disrupt" measurement of downward acceleration? Have you been to mountaintops to make these measurements? Is the aether at the mountaintops rushing downward or upward to "reunite"? Where is it going or coming from in either case? How do you know?

So, what we call "air" is actually a particular density of aether? When does it cease being aether-like aether and become air-like aether? How do you know this?

You claim you've reported experiments, but all I've seen in your posts is speculation. Did I miss something (that's entirely possible)?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 01:27:02 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 01:17:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 12:51:20 PM

'air' resistance? the force accelerating the earth and keeping us on its surface?
just because you reject aether doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

So it's air now, not aether? That should make studying it easier; at least air has been detected. The downside is it's going to lose a lot of the more interesting properties a proper aether would need in order to do things like accelerate the world to approach the speed of light.

Why does the acceleration we attribute to gravity, but you attribute to aether air acceleration of the entire earth from below, vary from place to place on earth? How would aether air cause that? Why hasn't the Earth been torn apart due to those even slight variations applied over long periods, like weeks?

Dive in. Do experiments on your aether or air, or whatever you decide it is next. See if you can actually measure something about it and not just hypothesize and pontificate.

the density of aether closest to the earth is very different to the aether detected higher up. i said this. please try to read. it is part of aether, it does not have the properties of the whole. we know aether affects physical entities (it accelerates the earth), that is about all we can say.

higher up, further densities of aether meet in a whirlpool. one such whirlpool explains the movements of the sun and moon. a thinner whirlpool meets mountain tops, this disrupts attempts to read the acceleration. the aether has an almost brownian effect, imparting a slight upwards force as it rushes inward (aether wishes to reunite with itself, to fill in to become one again, hence the slight upward tilt toward the higher densities).

i have experimented, and i've given some examples, hence my conclusion air is a fantasy. i outline this in detail in my thread 'why we cannot trust scientists'.

How dense is the aether you've detected higher up? How did you make that determination?

So you "know" that aether affects matter, you just don't know why or in what way? How is that better than gravity? At least with gravity we have measured the "in what way" part very thoroughly and can use it to make very precise predictions that prove to be accurate.

What is the density change between the "higher up" aether and the "even higher up" aether where the whirlpools form? How did you measure that change in density? How does the "thinner whirlpool" at the mountaintops "disrupt" measurement of downward acceleration? Have you been to mountaintops to make these measurements? Is the aether at the mountaintops rushing downward or upward to "reunite"? Where is it going or coming from in either case? How do you know?

So, what we call "air" is actually a particular density of aether? When does it cease being aether-like aether and become air-like aether? How do you know this?

You claim you've reported experiments, but all I've seen in your posts is speculation. Did I miss something (that's entirely possible)?

are you literate?
let me try again.

I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR MONEY TO CONDUCT THE SAME KIND OF EXPERIMENTS ROUND EARTHERS LIE ABOUT I AM NOT GOING TO CLIMB EVERY FUCKING MOUNTAIN IN THE WORLD WHEN THIS IS COMMON SENSE IF YOU WOULD ONLY JUST THINK YOU CANNOT HAVE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FLAT EARTH SCIENCE OVER YOU
WE OBSERVE THE CONSEQUENCES AND MAKE DEDUCTIONS IT IS THAT SIMPLE

air does not exist, aether is what causes the friction. it has the same properties, just to a much lesser degree, which is what we'd expect.
i am not being closed minded like you and assuming that what i say must be right. gravity does not exist, so we make observations. we then make conclusions. your insistence that you must be right and aether can't be to blame is complete bullshit.
i'm tired of you. look at my previous posts, i'm sick of repeating myself.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 02:25:10 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 01:27:02 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 01, 2015, 01:17:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 12:51:20 PM

'air' resistance? the force accelerating the earth and keeping us on its surface?
just because you reject aether doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

So it's air now, not aether? That should make studying it easier; at least air has been detected. The downside is it's going to lose a lot of the more interesting properties a proper aether would need in order to do things like accelerate the world to approach the speed of light.

Why does the acceleration we attribute to gravity, but you attribute to aether air acceleration of the entire earth from below, vary from place to place on earth? How would aether air cause that? Why hasn't the Earth been torn apart due to those even slight variations applied over long periods, like weeks?

Dive in. Do experiments on your aether or air, or whatever you decide it is next. See if you can actually measure something about it and not just hypothesize and pontificate.

the density of aether closest to the earth is very different to the aether detected higher up. i said this. please try to read. it is part of aether, it does not have the properties of the whole. we know aether affects physical entities (it accelerates the earth), that is about all we can say.

higher up, further densities of aether meet in a whirlpool. one such whirlpool explains the movements of the sun and moon. a thinner whirlpool meets mountain tops, this disrupts attempts to read the acceleration. the aether has an almost brownian effect, imparting a slight upwards force as it rushes inward (aether wishes to reunite with itself, to fill in to become one again, hence the slight upward tilt toward the higher densities).

i have experimented, and i've given some examples, hence my conclusion air is a fantasy. i outline this in detail in my thread 'why we cannot trust scientists'.

How dense is the aether you've detected higher up? How did you make that determination?

So you "know" that aether affects matter, you just don't know why or in what way? How is that better than gravity? At least with gravity we have measured the "in what way" part very thoroughly and can use it to make very precise predictions that prove to be accurate.

What is the density change between the "higher up" aether and the "even higher up" aether where the whirlpools form? How did you measure that change in density? How does the "thinner whirlpool" at the mountaintops "disrupt" measurement of downward acceleration? Have you been to mountaintops to make these measurements? Is the aether at the mountaintops rushing downward or upward to "reunite"? Where is it going or coming from in either case? How do you know?

So, what we call "air" is actually a particular density of aether? When does it cease being aether-like aether and become air-like aether? How do you know this?

You claim you've reported experiments, but all I've seen in your posts is speculation. Did I miss something (that's entirely possible)?

are you literate?
let me try again.

I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR MONEY TO CONDUCT THE SAME KIND OF EXPERIMENTS ROUND EARTHERS LIE ABOUT I AM NOT GOING TO CLIMB EVERY FUCKING MOUNTAIN IN THE WORLD WHEN THIS IS COMMON SENSE IF YOU WOULD ONLY JUST THINK YOU CANNOT HAVE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FLAT EARTH SCIENCE OVER YOU
WE OBSERVE THE CONSEQUENCES AND MAKE DEDUCTIONS IT IS THAT SIMPLE

air does not exist, aether is what causes the friction. it has the same properties, just to a much lesser degree, which is what we'd expect.
i am not being closed minded like you and assuming that what i say must be right. gravity does not exist, so we make observations. we then make conclusions. your insistence that you must be right and aether can't be to blame is complete bullshit.
i'm tired of you. look at my previous posts, i'm sick of repeating myself.

You have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again because you are wrong. You ignore claims that go against you fully and after you've had your time to think, you post a vague answer that woul be easy to take back if we call you out.

are you literate?
let me try again.

I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR MONEY TO CONDUCT THE SAME KIND OF EXPERIMENTS ROUND EARTHERS LIE ABOUT I AM NOT GOING TO CLIMB EVERY FUCKING MOUNTAIN IN THE WORLD WHEN THIS IS COMMON SENSE IF YOU WOULD ONLY JUST THINK YOU CANNOT HAVE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FLAT EARTH SCIENCE OVER YOU
WE OBSERVE THE CONSEQUENCES AND MAKE DEDUCTIONS IT IS THAT SIMPLE

air does not exist, aether is what causes the friction. it has the same properties, just to a much lesser degree, which is what we'd expect.
i am not being closed minded like you and assuming that what i say must be right. gravity does not exist, so we make observations. we then make conclusions. your insistence that you must be right and aether can't be to blame is complete bullshit.
i'm tired of you. look at my previous posts, i'm sick of repeating myself.

Calm down, dude.

No need to climb every mountain, but you yourself said you'd done experiments and concluded that aether was swooping down (or was it up) at higher elevations and this was "disrupting" gravity measurements. If you weren't doing these experiments, why did you say you were?

Here's what you said:

the density of aether closest to the earth is very different to the aether detected higher up. i said this. please try to read. it is part of aether, it does not have the properties of the whole. we know aether affects physical entities (it accelerates the earth), that is about all we can say.

higher up, further densities of aether meet in a whirlpool. one such whirlpool explains the movements of the sun and moon. a thinner whirlpool meets mountain tops, this disrupts attempts to read the acceleration. the aether has an almost brownian effect, imparting a slight upwards force as it rushes inward (aether wishes to reunite with itself, to fill in to become one again, hence the slight upward tilt toward the higher densities).

i have experimented, and i've given some examples, hence my conclusion air is a fantasy. i outline this in detail in my thread 'why we cannot trust scientists'.

So what are we to think you mean? You're talking about how you've done experiments about how aether behaves on mountaintops, but now shout that you can't do experiments on every mountain in the world. OK. I don't think anyone expects you to conduct experiments on every mountain, but have you done any experiment on any mountaintop? It may not be necessary to even climb any mountains at all If you've done it by remote sensing. If that's the case, please describe the experiment. I gather you haven't really done any mountaintop measurements, so what experiments have you actually done - even if they don't involve mountains? All I've seen is blather.

You keep claiming you've done experiments. Describe them. Where's the data? Links will be fine if they answer these questions.