The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Dinosaur Neil on March 06, 2015, 11:40:43 AM
-
Vauxhall says:
I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.
However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?
-
Vauxhall says:
I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.
However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?
Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.
This might help you in the future. (http://www.k5learning.com/reading-comprehension-worksheets)
-
You missed the neutrino part.
-
You missed the neutrino part.
I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.
-
You missed the neutrino part.
I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.
Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.
-
Vauxhall says:
I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.
However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?
Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.
Well not really, Vaux. You need to include the conspiracy that they are hiding the fact that Anarctica isn't really there. A whirlpool will not explain southern circumpolar stars viewed from the southern hemisphere or the entire southern hemisphere celestial view for that matter. If it was a whirlpool and you center it over somewhere in the southern hemisphere then other places in the southern hemisphere would not be able to see the same thing. (Example South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would not have the same stars that look to be rotating around a point to their south. The aetheric wind could however be used as the placeholder for whatever is accelerating a flat disc to simulate gravitational effects. The flat model isn't superior to the round model. The amount of evidence vastly outfavors round over flat, with most of the flat evidence easily explained in the round model. It doesn't work the other way around, hence the conspiracy theory angle.
-
Vauxhall says:
I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.
However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?
Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.
Well not really, Vaux. You need to include the conspiracy that they are hiding the fact that Anarctica isn't really there. A whirlpool will not explain southern circumpolar stars viewed from the southern hemisphere or the entire southern hemisphere celestial view for that matter. If it was a whirlpool and you center it over somewhere in the southern hemisphere then other places in the southern hemisphere would not be able to see the same thing. (Example South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would not have the same stars that look to be rotating around a point to their south. The aetheric wind could however be used as the placeholder for whatever is accelerating a flat disc to simulate gravitational effects. The flat model isn't superior to the round model. The amount of evidence vastly outfavors round over flat, with most of the flat evidence easily explained in the round model. It doesn't work the other way around, hence the conspiracy theory angle.
There are multiple whirlpools. This is where the bit about reading comprehension comes in. My theory accounts for Antarctica, and makes no claims that it doesn't exist. It also does not rely on an easily discredited ice wall to work.
You missed the neutrino part.
I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.
Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.
I will have to seriously consider this before posting my response. It is very interesting, to say the least.
-
Vauxhall says:
I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.
However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?
Quality is better than quantity. We are less concerned with a theory that "explains" more than one that is true.
-
I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.
-
You missed the neutrino part.
I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.
Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.
There are neutrinos all around us. How would you know if any that are detected are the same as the ones fired?
-
I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.
Newton is like science's Jesus. People give him far too much credit, and there's some doubt about whether or not he even existed at all.
-
Vauxhall says:
I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.
However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?
Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.
Well not really, Vaux. You need to include the conspiracy that they are hiding the fact that Anarctica isn't really there. A whirlpool will not explain southern circumpolar stars viewed from the southern hemisphere or the entire southern hemisphere celestial view for that matter. If it was a whirlpool and you center it over somewhere in the southern hemisphere then other places in the southern hemisphere would not be able to see the same thing. (Example South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would not have the same stars that look to be rotating around a point to their south. The aetheric wind could however be used as the placeholder for whatever is accelerating a flat disc to simulate gravitational effects. The flat model isn't superior to the round model. The amount of evidence vastly outfavors round over flat, with most of the flat evidence easily explained in the round model. It doesn't work the other way around, hence the conspiracy theory angle.
There are multiple whirlpools. This is where the bit about reading comprehension comes in. My theory accounts for Antarctica, and makes no claims that it doesn't exist. It also does not rely on an easily discredited ice wall to work.
You missed the neutrino part.
I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.
Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.
I will have to seriously consider this before posting my response. It is very interesting, to say the least.
The aether "theory" (it's really more of an assumption) does not explain anything until it can make predictions, and that can't happen without math, and the only times I have seen "Aetger" and "math" in the same sentence is in my many unanswered posts asking for a flat earther to nathematicaly discribe the aether. RET on the other hand can predict the positions and phases of everything in the sky with insane accuracy.
Now can anyone provide a mathematical description of the aether?
-
Now can anyone provide a mathematical description of the aether?
Aether pushes the Earth upward at 9.8m/s^2. This is verifiable.
-
You missed the neutrino part.
I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.
Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.
There are neutrinos all around us. How would you know if any that are detected are the same as the ones fired?
Because if you fire neutrinos at a detector then it will detect more neutrinos then it otherwise would. How is that not obvious?
-
Now can anyone provide a mathematical description of the aether?
Aether pushes the Earth upward at 9.8m/s^2. This is verifiable.
But Gravity creates the illusion that the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s2. Thst is verifiable. Gravity also can predict gravitational strength differences on different parts of the Earth, that is verifyable too.
Now are you going to show me some aether math?
-
You missed the neutrino part.
I've never heard this argument before, so I'll need a further explanation.
Neutrinos can be fired from a spot on the planet through it. So point it at the ground. Then on the place that would be the exactly opposite side of the planet can detect those neutrinos with a detector. Unless they can bend in their path it would mean the planet is rather curved.
There are neutrinos all around us. How would you know if any that are detected are the same as the ones fired?
Because if you fire neutrinos at a detector then it will detect more neutrinos then it otherwise would. How is that not obvious?
That still would not mean that they were the same neutrinos that you fired. You would simply be making an assumption, like most of the other "proofs" that you people free throw around these forums. But, it is just a thought experiment anyway.
-
Gravity also can predict gravitational strength differences on different parts of the Earth, that is verifyable too.
Not really. Actually, this isn't true at all. Gravity cannot predict the gravitational strength of different planets without relying on dark matter (which has absolutely no evidence supporting its existence).
Please please please stop posting blatantly false information. You are not contributing.
-
Gravity also can predict gravitational strength differences on different parts of the Earth, that is verifyable too.
Not really. Actually, this isn't true at all. Gravity cannot predict the gravitational strength of different planets without relying on dark matter (which has absolutely no evidence supporting its existence).
Please please please stop posting blatantly false information. You are not contributing.
He said gravitational differences on Earth.
-
Vauxhall says:
I simply produced a better working theory for the Earth than the current round Earth model.
However, his model cannot explain the motions of the stars, nor can it explain why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground be detected in another part of the world. Nor does it explain how the sun sets. Yet still he claims his model is superior.
Discuss: which is superior - a model which explains everything we observe, or a model which can't?
Aetheric Wind theroy does explain the motion the stars. I'm sorry that you haven't been paying attention.
Well not really, Vaux. You need to include the conspiracy that they are hiding the fact that Anarctica isn't really there. A whirlpool will not explain southern circumpolar stars viewed from the southern hemisphere or the entire southern hemisphere celestial view for that matter. If it was a whirlpool and you center it over somewhere in the southern hemisphere then other places in the southern hemisphere would not be able to see the same thing. (Example South Africa, Argentina, and New Zealand would not have the same stars that look to be rotating around a point to their south. The aetheric wind could however be used as the placeholder for whatever is accelerating a flat disc to simulate gravitational effects. The flat model isn't superior to the round model. The amount of evidence vastly outfavors round over flat, with most of the flat evidence easily explained in the round model. It doesn't work the other way around, hence the conspiracy theory angle.
There are multiple whirlpools. This is where the bit about reading comprehension comes in. My theory accounts for Antarctica, and makes no claims that it doesn't exist. It also does not rely on an easily discredited ice wall to work.
Well multiple whirlpools can not explain why the same stars are visible to rotate around the same point. Unless the light from the stars bend perfectly to match all these whirlpools in the exact same configuration. The angular distance between these stars are also another issue with the whirlpool argument too. If you have multiple circles, or whirlpools if we need to name them that, rotating the correct way to match what we see in the Southern hemisphere then as they are rotating the outer stars of each will get closer and farther away from each other.
I have a question, is it a central whirlpool that makes the Northern hemisphere stars rotate also or is the disc spinning, I don't remember if that was clarified, probably was and I didn't read it. Just wondering, trying to visualize the model better.
-
He said gravitational differences on Earth.
Which we've already explained countless times.
Well multiple whirlpools can not explain why the same stars are visible to rotate around the same point. Unless the light from the stars bend perfectly to match all these whirlpools in the exact same configuration. The angular distance between these stars are also another issue with the whirlpool argument too. If you have multiple circles, or whirlpools if we need to name them that, rotating the correct way to match what we see in the Southern hemisphere then as they are rotating the outer stars of each will get closer and farther away from each other.
I have a question, is it a central whirlpool that makes the Northern hemisphere stars rotate also or is the disc spinning, I don't remember if that was clarified, probably was and I didn't read it. Just wondering, trying to visualize the model better.
It's great that you are so interested in this theory. I would suggest reading into "bendy light" theory, as it explains most of (all) the discrepancies with light, size/shape of stars, etc.
And no, the disc is not spinning. The aether pulls into itself after spilling from the bottom of the Earth disc (this is called Aetheric Spillage), which creates multiple whirlpools above the Earth. By definition, whirlpools are spinning phenomenon. This is what causes the movement of the stars.
-
I will go back to reading up on it a bit more, TY.
-
I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.
Newton is like science's Jesus. People give him far too much credit, and there's some doubt about whether or not he even existed at all.
Newton was a religious figure in his own right too. Have you seen the volumes of religious garbage credited to him?
-
I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.
Newton is like science's Jesus. People give him far too much credit, and there's some doubt about whether or not he even existed at all.
Newton was a religious figure in his own right too. Have you seen the volumes of religious garbage credited to him?
I haven't. I try to stay away from messiah-like figures.
Do you have any links I can check out for further reading?
-
There's some doubt that Newton existed?
No there isn't! He didn't live that long ago! Where did you get that little gem from? You're in the realm of the "air doesn't exist" now.
And yes Newton was religious. Nearly everyone was in 17th and 18th century England. What's your point?
-
No there isn't! He didn't live that long ago! Where did you get that little gem from? You're in the realm of the "air doesn't exist" now.
Err, not really. No one on this Earth has even met Newton, so the fact that you are so certain he existed is suspect.
Scholars cannot even agree on his birthday, some accounts say December 25 and some say January 4. He never married and had no known children, so we cannot trace his ancestry. He looks strikingly different in almost all of his portraits, implying that the artists didn't really know what he looked like. And there's a lot more than that too, but I don't feel like going too deep into this matter.
-
Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.
-
Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.
Discovering that things fall is not that big of an achievement. It's actually a pretty obvious thing.
-
It's great that you are so interested in this theory. I would suggest reading into "bendy light" theory, as it explains most of (all) the discrepancies with light, size/shape of stars, etc.
No, it doesn't. You flattists rely on just trotting out the name of your theories and hoping we'll believe it does explain something. Bendy light explains absolutely nothing and its predictions don't match reality. The laws of perspective alone are enough to put bendy light in the bin.
And no, the disc is not spinning. The aether pulls into itself after spilling from the bottom of the Earth disc (this is called Aetheric Spillage), which creates multiple whirlpools above the Earth. By definition, whirlpools are spinning phenomenon. This is what causes the movement of the stars.
Movements of the stars are incompatible with the above explanation because it is impossible for any two points in two different whirlpools to maintain a constant angular distance from each other if seen from a planar surface. You also cannot tessellate circles without gaps, and there are no gaps in the night sky.
I'm sorry but just claiming that some pig-stupid excuse explains something is not the same as it actually doing so. Making up pompous terms ("aetheric spillage - lol!) doesn't add authority to your trolling.
So if you want to continue to tout your theory, you'll now need to explain (a) the constant angular distance of stars (b) why are there no gaps between the whirlpools.
Your theory doesn't fit observation. The round/torus theory does.
I expect you'll just reply with some "I don't see why I should explain it again/ Not my fault if you don't understand it/ This has already been explained" type dodging, rather than address either of (a) or (b).
-
Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.
Discovering that things fall is not that big of an achievement. It's actually a pretty obvious thing.
Come on, you must know that Newton (or his replacement!) did a lot more than that. Calculus. The laws of thermodynamics. One man laid the foundations of modern maths and physics. If you had the intellect to fundamentally re-write such work, you wouldn't be spending your time on a post flat-earth forum, you'd be polishing your Noble prizes.
-
Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.
Discovering that things fall is not that big of an achievement. It's actually a pretty obvious thing.
Come on, you must know that Newton (or his replacement!) did a lot more than that. Calculus. The laws of thermodynamics. One man laid the foundations of modern maths and physics. If you had the intellect to fundamentally re-write such work, you wouldn't be spending your time on a post flat-earth forum, you'd be polishing your Noble prizes.
The arguement from ficitional authority is strong with this one.
-
Okay I'm not going to waste my time debating his existence, let's say he didn't exist then. Someone did the work claimed to be his, so they were the genius. It makes no difference. It's still a big claim to know better than such a giant.
Discovering that things fall is not that big of an achievement. It's actually a pretty obvious thing.
Come on, you must know that Newton (or his replacement!) did a lot more than that. Calculus. The laws of thermodynamics. One man laid the foundations of modern maths and physics. If you had the intellect to fundamentally re-write such work, you wouldn't be spending your time on a post flat-earth forum, you'd be polishing your Noble prizes.
The arguement from ficitional authority is strong with this one.
Yeah, have a pop at the dead guy rather than fix the holes in your sinking and BS-logged theory. :P
-
Besides answering all the questions posed to me in the previous thread...
This hilarious quote is from the Q&A. The "previous thread" he refers to is this one.
WHERE in this thread do you answer my question about the gaps? :P ;D 8)
-
Movements of the stars are incompatible with the above explanation because it is impossible for any two points in two different whirlpools to maintain a constant angular distance from each other if seen from a planar surface. You also cannot tessellate circles without gaps, and there are no gaps in the night sky.
I'm sorry but just claiming that some pig-stupid excuse explains something is not the same as it actually doing so. Making up pompous terms ("aetheric spillage - lol!) doesn't add authority to your trolling.
You however, are flinging crap.
Sorry to quote you, but you are the one clearly flinging crap here. That's why I haven't answered your questions. I don't respond well to insult when trying to discuss a serious matter. I would recommend that you try to be a bit more civil in the future. That way you might get the answers you want. You'd be surprised how far being nice gets you.
As far as your points, or "refutations" as you seem to think they are. They're not well formed. Gaps? There are clearly many gaps in the night sky, so I'm not sure what you're referencing. Jrowe's explanation given in the other thread (you know, the one about the same exact topic that you made >_>), is the best you're going to get. It actually explains angular distance.
-
I haven't answered your questions.
M M M MONSTER FAIL!!!
Which is it, turtleboy? You haven't answered them, or you did? You've said both now... :D
-
I haven't answered your questions.
M M M MONSTER FAIL!!!
Which is it, turtleboy? You haven't answered them, or you did? You've said both now... :D
I've typed it before, but I'll type it up again for you.
The rotation of the stars is caused by multiple aetheric whirlpools above the Earth. The stars are caught within these whirlpools. This explains the apparent difference in stars at the poles. This also explains what you call "angular distance", as the whirlpools are positioned above each other. Bendy light and atmoplanic lensing account for any other "discrepancies" with distance.
Please try to read the explanation above this time.
-
I haven't answered your questions.
M M M MONSTER FAIL!!!
Which is it, turtleboy? You haven't answered them, or you did? You've said both now... :D
I've typed it before, but I'll type it up again for you.
The rotation of the stars is caused by multiple aetheric whirlpools above the Earth. The stars are caught within these whirlpools. This explains the apparent difference in stars at the poles. This also explains what you call "angular distance", as the whirlpools are positioned above each other. Bendy light and atmoplanic lensing account for any other "discrepancies" with distance.
Please try to read the explanation above this time.
You obviously missed the bit where I said claiming something explains it doesn't mean that it does. Want a demonstration?OK - the huge invisible Wizard's Hat and the Torpedo Squirrel Effect explain how the earth can't possibly be flat. Counter that! Prove me wrong!
-
I haven't answered your questions.
M M M MONSTER FAIL!!!
Which is it, turtleboy? You haven't answered them, or you did? You've said both now... :D
I've typed it before, but I'll type it up again for you.
The rotation of the stars is caused by multiple aetheric whirlpools above the Earth. The stars are caught within these whirlpools. This explains the apparent difference in stars at the poles. This also explains what you call "angular distance", as the whirlpools are positioned above each other. Bendy light and atmoplanic lensing account for any other "discrepancies" with distance.
Please try to read the explanation above this time.
You obviously missed the bit where I said claiming something explains it doesn't mean that it does. Want a demonstration?OK - the huge invisible Wizard's Hat and the Torpedo Squirrel Effect explain how the earth can't possibly be flat. Counter that! Prove me wrong!
Classic strawman argument. Please come back when you have something of significance to contribute.
-
Okay where do you plan to publish this ground-breaking new model? I'd go straight for Nature if I were you, get a worldwide audience. I'm assuming that if you feel worthy to propose such a world-changing theory you have the credentials to publish, yes?
-
Okay where do you plan to publish this ground-breaking new model? I'd go straight for Nature if I were you, get a worldwide audience. I'm assuming that if you feel worthy to propose such a world-changing theory you have the credentials to publish, yes?
Why would I try to publish a theory that would be immediately discredited by the scientific community which mistakenly believes the Earth is round due to a massive conspiracy to hide the truth? Seems kinda like a fruitless effort to me.
-
I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.
Newton is like science's Jesus. People give him far too much credit, and there's some doubt about whether or not he even existed at all.
Newton was a religious figure in his own right too. Have you seen the volumes of religious garbage credited to him?
I haven't. I try to stay away from messiah-like figures.
Do you have any links I can check out for further reading?
Yes.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton)
If that doesn't help defame his character, nothing will.
-
I think "better" was an unfortunate phrase to use. It's an alternative model, certainly, but to describe it as better implies that you can do better than Newton several other greats. Newton single-handedly described the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and invented calculus with nothing more than a pen and paper. Nobody is "better" than that.
Newton is like science's Jesus. People give him far too much credit, and there's some doubt about whether or not he even existed at all.
Newton was a religious figure in his own right too. Have you seen the volumes of religious garbage credited to him?
I haven't. I try to stay away from messiah-like figures.
Do you have any links I can check out for further reading?
Yes.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton)
If that doesn't help defame his character, nothing will.
If believing the Bible is telling the truth and God will smite down the wicked means your views on the shape of the planet and the math behind it are null and void, then Flat Earth Theory was debunked ages ago.
-
I haven't answered your questions.
M M M MONSTER FAIL!!!
Which is it, turtleboy? You haven't answered them, or you did? You've said both now... :D
I've typed it before, but I'll type it up again for you.
The rotation of the stars is caused by multiple aetheric whirlpools above the Earth. The stars are caught within these whirlpools. This explains the apparent difference in stars at the poles. This also explains what you call "angular distance", as the whirlpools are positioned above each other. Bendy light and atmoplanic lensing account for any other "discrepancies" with distance.
Please try to read the explanation above this time.
You obviously missed the bit where I said claiming something explains it doesn't mean that it does. Want a demonstration?OK - the huge invisible Wizard's Hat and the Torpedo Squirrel Effect explain how the earth can't possibly be flat. Counter that! Prove me wrong!
Classic strawman argument. Please come back when you have something of significance to contribute.
Of course it's a strawman. So's aether. That's exactly my point, dummy.
But then I found this great quote from you:
Aether has no evidence supporting its existence.
At last! The light of reason shines through!
-
Of course it's a strawman. So's aether. That's exactly my point, dummy.
But then I found this great quote from you:
Aether has no evidence supporting its existence.
At last! The light of reason shines through!
Dark matter has no supporting evidence and you still cling to it like stink on a monkey.
And it's clear that you have no idea what a "Strawman argument" is, considering you constantly use them and refuse to acknowledge that you've made one, then you cite examples that are not strawmen in anyway whatsoever. It's especially surprising because you're on a device with internet access. Do you know how to google? Do you know how to use the address bar at the top of your web browser?
There is no excuse for you uneducated rants and ignorance. I mean, it's amusing for me but does it really make you feel good about yourself? I would imagine not.
-
Dark matter has no supporting evidence and you still cling to it like stink on a monkey.
And it's clear that you have no idea what a "Strawman argument" is, considering you constantly use them and refuse to acknowledge that you've made one, then you cite examples that are not strawmen in anyway whatsoever. It's especially surprising because you're on a device with internet access. Do you know how to google? Do you know how to use the address bar at the top of your web browser?
There is no excuse for you uneducated rants and ignorance. I mean, it's amusing for me but does it really make you feel good about yourself? I would imagine not.
Dark matter has plenty of supporting evidence, you just simply deny it all because you immediately assume that any and all evidence for it must be a lie because you have a strong bias.
-
Dark matter has no supporting evidence and you still cling to it like stink on a monkey.
And it's clear that you have no idea what a "Strawman argument" is, considering you constantly use them and refuse to acknowledge that you've made one, then you cite examples that are not strawmen in anyway whatsoever. It's especially surprising because you're on a device with internet access. Do you know how to google? Do you know how to use the address bar at the top of your web browser?
There is no excuse for you uneducated rants and ignorance. I mean, it's amusing for me but does it really make you feel good about yourself? I would imagine not.
Dark matter has plenty of supporting evidence, you just simply deny it all because you immediately assume that any and all evidence for it must be a lie because you have a strong bias.
Dark matter has no supporting evidence. Don't start this again with me, Mikey. You know how this will end. You have provided NO evidence for dark matter each time this discussion has cropped up. You have failed to produce conclusive evidence each time, this time will be no different.
-
Dark matter has no supporting evidence and you still cling to it like stink on a monkey.
And it's clear that you have no idea what a "Strawman argument" is, considering you constantly use them and refuse to acknowledge that you've made one, then you cite examples that are not strawmen in anyway whatsoever. It's especially surprising because you're on a device with internet access. Do you know how to google? Do you know how to use the address bar at the top of your web browser?
There is no excuse for you uneducated rants and ignorance. I mean, it's amusing for me but does it really make you feel good about yourself? I would imagine not.
Dark matter has plenty of supporting evidence, you just simply deny it all because you immediately assume that any and all evidence for it must be a lie because you have a strong bias.
Dark matter has no supporting evidence. Don't start this again with me, Mikey. You know how this will end. You have provided NO evidence for dark matter each time this discussion has cropped up. You have failed to produce conclusive evidence each time, this time will be no different.
All evidence for dark matter is from people you consider untrustworthy so I can't prove it to you but if you don't asune a conspiracy then there is plenty of proof for dark matter.
-
Dark matter has no supporting evidence and you still cling to it like stink on a monkey.
And it's clear that you have no idea what a "Strawman argument" is, considering you constantly use them and refuse to acknowledge that you've made one, then you cite examples that are not strawmen in anyway whatsoever. It's especially surprising because you're on a device with internet access. Do you know how to google? Do you know how to use the address bar at the top of your web browser?
There is no excuse for you uneducated rants and ignorance. I mean, it's amusing for me but does it really make you feel good about yourself? I would imagine not.
Dark matter has plenty of supporting evidence, you just simply deny it all because you immediately assume that any and all evidence for it must be a lie because you have a strong bias.
Dark matter has no supporting evidence. Don't start this again with me, Mikey. You know how this will end. You have provided NO evidence for dark matter each time this discussion has cropped up. You have failed to produce conclusive evidence each time, this time will be no different.
Let's not start the oh yes it has, oh no it hasn't again. Let's compare aether and dark matter.
Observational evidence for dark matter: rotation of galaxies appears not to match what would be predicted by our current knowledge of physics.
Possible explanations for this: (a) our theory of gravity is wrong and it is more variable than previously thought, (b) our understanding of galactic rotation by spectroscopic measurement is wrong, or (c) there is something contributing to the mass of the galaxy we have failed to take into account.
Regarding (a), this seems unlikely as the observation of other gravitational effects appears to be consistent with what we know - including effects predicted before they were ever observed in reality. Furthermore, the existence of gravity has been proven by experiments such as the Cavendish Experiment. Nevertheless, it is the main competing theory against dark matter. Regarding (b), this is something very easily tested in a variety of circumstances and is something so fundamental that if it were wrong a whole load of science would be very noticeably incorrect and many technologies from radar to GPS would not work. Reality has proven this to be watertight. So that leaves us with (c) which is dark matter. At the present time this seems the most likely candidate and it is not yet proven because we still don't understand what it really is or how to detect it other than by its gravitational influence.
Observational evidence for aether: none. It is only theorised to exist in order to provide an explanation for a variety of observations that do not fit with FET. It supposedly interacts with conventional matter such as aircraft by restricting how high they can fly, yet strangely seems to become more permeable the denser it becomes, as objects can pass through the upper atmosphere with less resistance. Its properties are self contradictory. Despite interfering with plane flight, it is claimed to be impossible to detect from earth. Claims are made that it refracts light although these claims are not backed up by any experiment or falsifiable observation and no scientist who has spent their career studying the properties of light has ever noticed it. Since refraction of light through a gaseous medium is dependent on the pressure of that medium, the claim of whirlpools within it causing stellar rotation makes no sense. Aether's main competitors in the pseudoscience arena are the Magic Spring, The Thunderbolt Of Zeus and A Wizard Did It, all of which explain the FET effects and have just as much observational evidence as aether.
So to summarise: every piece of evidence supporting dark matter has stood up to rigorous scrutiny. Aether has no evidence supporting it that stands up to scrutiny.
So now Vauxhall can stop claiming they're equivalent in the evidence stakes.
-
All evidence for dark matter is from people you consider untrustworthy so I can't prove it to you but if you don't asune a conspiracy then there is plenty of proof for dark matter.
Wrong again. There is no evidence for dark matter, just discrepencies with the theory of gravity. Dark matter is a hypothetical particle that corrects these issues.
How many fucking times do I have to tell you?
- Dark Matter has no supporting evidence
- Dark matter is an assumption
- Dark matter has never been detected
- No sane physicist will tell you that Dark matter absolutely exists
Please read those points and absorb them, because they are all true.
Observational evidence for dark matter: rotation of galaxies appears not to match what would be predicted by our current knowledge of physics.
Possible explanations for this: (a) our theory of gravity is wrong and it is more variable than previously thought, (b) our understanding of galactic rotation by spectroscopic measurement is wrong, or (c) there is something contributing to the mass of the galaxy we have failed to take into account.
And that's your assumption. Congratulations, Neil. You have just called an assumption "evidence". You are no longer a credible source for information, you cannot defend your own theory, and you don't understand what evidence means. You should quit the forums.
The fact that you even called this pathetic excuse for a post "observational evidence" has me falling out of my desk chair laughing hysterical. You're truly a piece of work.
-
All evidence for dark matter is from people you consider untrustworthy so I can't prove it to you but if you don't asune a conspiracy then there is plenty of proof for dark matter.
Wrong again. There is no evidence for dark matter, just discrepencies with the theory of gravity. Dark matter is a hypothetical particle that corrects these issues.
How many fucking times do I have to tell you?
- Dark Matter has no supporting evidence
- Dark matter is an assumption
- Dark matter has never been detected
- No sane physicist will tell you that Dark matter absolutely exists
Please read those points and absorb them, because they are all true.
Observational evidence for dark matter: rotation of galaxies appears not to match what would be predicted by our current knowledge of physics.
Possible explanations for this: (a) our theory of gravity is wrong and it is more variable than previously thought, (b) our understanding of galactic rotation by spectroscopic measurement is wrong, or (c) there is something contributing to the mass of the galaxy we have failed to take into account.
And that's your assumption. Congratulations, Neil. You have just called an assumption "evidence". You are no longer a credible source for information, you cannot defend your own theory, and you don't understand what evidence means. You should quit the forums.
The fact that you even called this pathetic excuse for a post "observational evidence" has me falling out of my desk chair laughing hysterical. You're truly a piece of work.
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/86/118686-004-4051CA25.jpg)
So you don't think this is observational evidence that an animal walked by here? Right... ::)
So you don't think seeing spinning coin on a table, but not having seen it begun to spin, is observational evidence that somebody spun the coin? OK...
So you don't think watching a driving car slow down is observational evidence that the driver is applying the brakes? If you say so...
And so I guess observing a galaxy rotating at a rate which should cause it to fly apart, and yet it hasn't, isn't evidence that something is holding it together? :P
-
All evidence for dark matter is from people you consider untrustworthy so I can't prove it to you but if you don't asune a conspiracy then there is plenty of proof for dark matter.
Wrong again. There is no evidence for dark matter, just discrepencies with the theory of gravity. Dark matter is a hypothetical particle that corrects these issues.
How many fucking times do I have to tell you?
- Dark Matter has no supporting evidence
- Dark matter is an assumption
- Dark matter has never been detected
- No sane physicist will tell you that Dark matter absolutely exists
Please read those points and absorb them, because they are all true.
Observational evidence for dark matter: rotation of galaxies appears not to match what would be predicted by our current knowledge of physics.
Possible explanations for this: (a) our theory of gravity is wrong and it is more variable than previously thought, (b) our understanding of galactic rotation by spectroscopic measurement is wrong, or (c) there is something contributing to the mass of the galaxy we have failed to take into account.
And that's your assumption. Congratulations, Neil. You have just called an assumption "evidence". You are no longer a credible source for information, you cannot defend your own theory, and you don't understand what evidence means. You should quit the forums.
The fact that you even called this pathetic excuse for a post "observational evidence" has me falling out of my desk chair laughing hysterical. You're truly a piece of work.
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/86/118686-004-4051CA25.jpg)
So you don't think this is observational evidence that an animal walked by here? Right... ::)
So you don't think seeing spinning coin on a table, but not having seen it begun to spin, is observational evidence that somebody spun the coin? OK...
So you don't think watching a driving car slow down is observational evidence that the driver is applying the brakes? If you say so...
And so I guess observing a galaxy rotating at a rate which should cause it to fly apart, and yet it hasn't, isn't evidence that something is holding it together? :P
Lol. Keep trying, Neil. Your strawman arguments and false comparisons are really helping your case. ;D
And regarding your last point, no. That's not evidence. There's no fucking evidence. You don't see anything. You can't measure dark matter. You can't detect it. It is an assumption. Sure, if it exists then it would patch up some holes in the theory of gravitation and the like, but since there is no evidence for it I can also come to this conclusion: the theory of gravity is incorrect. Why do I say this? Because it relies on a made up particle to work. Without dark matter the theory of gravitation does not hold water and falls apart. There is something else that you are not accounting for, but it's not dark matter.. at least not until you can detect it somehow.
Why are you being so obtuse? Do you truly not understand the point I am making here? Are you BiJane's alt?
-
All evidence for dark matter is from people you consider untrustworthy so I can't prove it to you but if you don't asune a conspiracy then there is plenty of proof for dark matter.
Wrong again. There is no evidence for dark matter, just discrepencies with the theory of gravity. Dark matter is a hypothetical particle that corrects these issues.
How many fucking times do I have to tell you?
- Dark Matter has no supporting evidence
- Dark matter is an assumption
- Dark matter has never been detected
- No sane physicist will tell you that Dark matter absolutely exists
Please read those points and absorb them, because they are all true.
Observational evidence for dark matter: rotation of galaxies appears not to match what would be predicted by our current knowledge of physics.
Possible explanations for this: (a) our theory of gravity is wrong and it is more variable than previously thought, (b) our understanding of galactic rotation by spectroscopic measurement is wrong, or (c) there is something contributing to the mass of the galaxy we have failed to take into account.
And that's your assumption. Congratulations, Neil. You have just called an assumption "evidence". You are no longer a credible source for information, you cannot defend your own theory, and you don't understand what evidence means. You should quit the forums.
The fact that you even called this pathetic excuse for a post "observational evidence" has me falling out of my desk chair laughing hysterical. You're truly a piece of work.
(http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/86/118686-004-4051CA25.jpg)
So you don't think this is observational evidence that an animal walked by here? Right... ::)
So you don't think seeing spinning coin on a table, but not having seen it begun to spin, is observational evidence that somebody spun the coin? OK...
So you don't think watching a driving car slow down is observational evidence that the driver is applying the brakes? If you say so...
And so I guess observing a galaxy rotating at a rate which should cause it to fly apart, and yet it hasn't, isn't evidence that something is holding it together? :P
Lol. Keep trying, Neil. Your strawman arguments and false comparisons are really helping your case. ;D
And regarding your last point, no. That's not evidence. There's no fucking evidence. You don't see anything. You can't measure dark matter. You can't detect it. It is an assumption. Sure, if it exists then it would patch up some holes in the theory of gravitation and the like, but since there is no evidence for it I can also come to this conclusion: the theory of gravity is incorrect. Why do I say this? Because it relies on a made up particle to work. Without dark matter the theory of gravitation does not hold water and falls apart. There is something else that you are not accounting for, but it's not dark matter.. at least not until you can detect it somehow.
Why are you being so obtuse? Do you truly not understand the point I am making here? Are you BiJane's alt?
I'm flattered by the comparison to BiJane. She's a smarter cookie than most on this board.
Now I'm getting sick of your cretinous ranting. It's difficult to argue with you because most of the crucial details (like the fact that ALL the examples in my post above are actually assumptions) fly past over your head, and I'm getting bored with having to dumb things down for you.
YOU are making the assumption that assumptions are always wrong. A phenomenon is observed: there are several possible explanations for it: they are all put to the test: one turns out to be the most likely. But every possible explanation is an assumption. But assumptions based on tried and tested laws of physics tend to be correct.
-
Once again, you're wrong. I never said assumptions are always wrong.
The only point I'm trying to make (which seems impossible for you to understand) is that assumptions are not evidence. Ever.
If you agree with this, great! If you don't, then I am truly concerned about your mental health.
I asked for evidence of dark matter. You busted in thinking "oh hey I can totally one up this guy with my assumptions" and proceeded to post assumptions and strawmen as evidence. Not only is this unprofessional and dishonest, it's completely moronic and makes you look like a fool.
Observational evidence for dark matter: rotation of galaxies appears not to match what would be predicted by our current knowledge of physics.
There's no observational evidence in this quote. Where is the observational evidence?
Do you know what caused the big bang? God would be the easiest assumption, so let's just consider that evidence and make it confirmed science. ::)
-
...and just like that, Vauxhall is blocked. Goodbye, worthless troll.
-
Threat neutralized.
-
LMAO, well that escalated quickly
-
Shall we return to the topic of the thread?
-
All evidence for dark matter is from people you consider untrustworthy so I can't prove it to you but if you don't asune a conspiracy then there is plenty of proof for dark matter.
Wrong again. There is no evidence for dark matter, just discrepencies with the theory of gravity. Dark matter is a hypothetical particle that corrects these issues.
How many fucking times do I have to tell you?
- Dark Matter has no supporting evidence
- Dark matter is an assumption
- Dark matter has never been detected
- No sane physicist will tell you that Dark matter absolutely exists
How many times do I have to explain this? Dark matter is not a theory, it's not an assumption, it's not a hypothetical particle, it's a word used to describe something we know nothing about. If unicorns were making galaxies spin like they do then they would be dark matter. The scientists are basically saying "we have no idea what's going on, but until we can figure out more we are going to call this 'dark matter'". Disproving dark matter is like disproving the word "the", dark matter is just a name that scientists gave to something that has nothing to do with what that something actually is or why it is making galaxies spin like they do.
-
All evidence for dark matter is from people you consider untrustworthy so I can't prove it to you but if you don't asune a conspiracy then there is plenty of proof for dark matter.
Wrong again. There is no evidence for dark matter, just discrepencies with the theory of gravity. Dark matter is a hypothetical particle that corrects these issues.
How many fucking times do I have to tell you?
- Dark Matter has no supporting evidence
- Dark matter is an assumption
- Dark matter has never been detected
- No sane physicist will tell you that Dark matter absolutely exists
How many times do I have to explain this? Dark matter is not a theory, it's not an assumption, it's not a hypothetical particle, it's a word used to describe something we know nothing about. If unicorns were making galaxies spin like they do then they would be dark matter. The scientists are basically saying "we have no idea what's going on, but until we can figure out more we are going to call this 'dark matter'". Disproving dark matter is like disproving the word "the", dark matter is just a name that scientists gave to something that has nothing to do with what that something actually is or why it is making galaxies spin like they do.
Give up, Geoff. If he can't understand it after reading my step by step explanation above, he's never going to understand it. I don't think he's actually intelligent enough and he's arguing out of his depth. If he can't understand how animal tracks in mud are as much evidence of an animal as anomalous galactic rotation is evidence of dark matter then you might as well not bother with him. Any impartial reader of this thread will see him for the moron he is, so don't worry. We know he's wrong and we have pushed him to the point where he's demonstrated his ignorance openly.
-
All evidence for dark matter is from people you consider untrustworthy so I can't prove it to you but if you don't asune a conspiracy then there is plenty of proof for dark matter.
Wrong again. There is no evidence for dark matter, just discrepencies with the theory of gravity. Dark matter is a hypothetical particle that corrects these issues.
How many fucking times do I have to tell you?
- Dark Matter has no supporting evidence
- Dark matter is an assumption
- Dark matter has never been detected
- No sane physicist will tell you that Dark matter absolutely exists
How many times do I have to explain this? Dark matter is not a theory, it's not an assumption, it's not a hypothetical particle, it's a word used to describe something we know nothing about.
Postulate is the word you are looking for.
Here's a tip: the FES obsessively bring Dark Matter/energy to divert the threads and to try and draw some equivalence with their Aether - which as we now know, is generated by people waving their arms about furiously.
Of course dark matter and the rest of the standard model are completely irrelevant for working out what shape the planet is - the fact that we have sunsets is enough for this.
Every time a round earther engages Vauxhall is a debate about dark matter, an angel loses its wings. Keep this in mind.